City Calls LAFCO Study on Harbor Secession Flawed

Key elements of a plan for the harbor area to break away from Los Angeles--including a guarantee to maintain water and power rates--are not feasible or legal, according to a city report to be released today.

In a formal response to a study evaluating the viability of cityhood for Wilmington and San Pedro, Los Angeles officials said the review by the Local Agency Formation Commission underestimated the harm it would do to what would remain of Los Angeles.

“Their method of apportioning staff to Los Angeles is not reasonable,” said Ellen Sandt, a senior analyst for the city and the report’s author.

The LAFCO study found the harbor area would not generate enough revenue to maintain the current level of city services, but secessionists have submitted additional data indicating they can close the budget gap.

The harbor-area secession plan, involving only 4% of Los Angeles’ population, would have fewer serious effects on the city than would the much larger San Fernando Valley cityhood proposal, Sandt said.

But, the city report also contains many of the same objections raised by the city last month about Valley cityhood and lays the groundwork for a campaign by some city officials to get voters to reject the plan for the new cities. The issue could be placed on the November 2002 ballot.

Backers of harbor-area cityhood denounced the report’s findings, charging that they are an attempt to thwart the will of residents there.

“They are more concerned with maintaining the status quo and keeping their empire alive than doing what is good for the public,” said Andrew Mardesich, executive director of the Harbor Study Foundation.

City officials also took issue with the proposal that LAFCO direct a reorganized Department of Water and Power to charge the harbor-area city the same rates as it does the rest of Los Angeles.

“We don’t think LAFCO has authority to set those kinds of rates,” Sandt said, adding that the city attorney’s office also does not believe LAFCO has power to force the reorganization of the DWP.

Harbor secessionists have also proposed that the new city take over the electric generating station in their area.

“We don’t think that’s an option,” Sandt said. “The way the power grid is built, separating out this one plant would be incredibly expensive.”

“That’s engineering nonsense. You can make the separation,” Mardesich responded.

The city’s response will be sent to LAFCO for consideration as the commission finalizes its own study on the financial viability of harbor-area cityhood, said Sandor Winger, a deputy director of LAFCO.

Mardesich noted that some of the city’s assertions are contradicted by LAFCO’s consultants and attorneys, so he is still confident the final study will find cityhood can work and should be put on the ballot. “The city is viable,” he said. “We know we can operate more effectively and efficiently than Los Angeles.”

A LAFCO financial study, issued in April, concluded that a harbor-area city would face a $31-million annual budget deficit because the taxes and other revenue generated in the area fall short of Los Angeles’ current cost of serving the area.

Harbor-area secessionists on June 9 proposed ways to balance the books for the planned new municipality of 161,000 people, including allowing for the county Sheriff’s Department to take over policing if the Los Angeles Police Department cannot match the county’s offer of service for less cost.

The city report questions if the harbor area would get the same level of service under a contract with the sheriff, officials said.