Panel Studying Valley Split Abruptly Scales Back Plan

The commission studying San Fernando Valley secession abandoned its plan for a wholesale split Friday and proposed a new city that would depend on Los Angeles to police its streets, fight its fires and provide every other municipal service.

Faced with a vast array of obstacles to breaking apart the city government, the panel recommended instead that a Valley city remain tightly bound to Los Angeles through a service contract.

The Valley would pay Los Angeles $1 billion a year--just shy of the new city’s entire treasury. A mayor and council would govern the Valley city with a staff of just 19 people.

The arrangement would be locked in for one year, and the commission assumes it would last for three. After that, it’s anyone’s guess how the Valley would disentangle itself from Los Angeles, if at all. Every detail would be up for negotiation between the two cities.

Eventually, the Valley could take over some city services or contract with outside agencies--hiring, say, the county Sheriff’s Department as its police force.

The abrupt shift in the plan surprised both City Hall and secession advocates. The report by the Local Agency Formation Commission also redefined the debate on an issue that could go before voters next year.

Opponents called the report a blow to the Valley independence movement, saying it undermines the rationale for secession.

Valley separatists conceded that the plan would offer less autonomy than they want. But they said it would still be a first step toward local control over services and less disruptive than dividing the whole city government.

Under the new proposal, the outlines of a service contract would be worked out in negotiations this month between City Hall and the Valley VOTE secession group. But for voters, many of the biggest questions about Valley cityhood would remain unanswered until after the referendum.

What services would the Valley city take over from Los Angeles? When? How much would it cost?

How could Valley residents be sure that Los Angeles would not keep its most skilled employees on the south side of the Hollywood Hills?

The proposed “contract city” is modeled on Calabasas, Malibu, Santa Clarita and other California communities that have incorporated to gain tighter local control over government. They contract with counties for basic services.

But a Valley city of 1.4 million people--more populous than Dallas or Detroit--would dwarf every other contract city.

LAFCO Chairman Henri Pellissier said the panel had no choice but to abandon its earlier plan, released in March, to carve up Los Angeles agencies and assets as a judge would in a divorce. The complications, he said, were immense.

“We’d be here for 20 years trying to figure it out,” he said.

Despite the new approach, political leaders still expect LAFCO to put secession on the November 2002 ballot; the report reaffirmed that a Valley city would produce more than enough tax revenue to sustain itself for at least three years.

LAFCO is all but certain to revise the plan yet again before deciding whether to call a referendum.

“The sooner this issue is put before the voter, the better the people are going to be,” said county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a LAFCO commissioner.

Mayor James K. Hahn said the report “really calls into question the whole idea of having an independent new city.”

“From the very beginning, it seemed what was being proposed was the Valley would have less representation--and less authority over the services being provided to them--than they do now,” he said.

Valley VOTE Chairman Richard Close said secessionists would “continue to press for a division of all assets and liabilities.

“But the most important thing to us is to let the voters decide whether to set up their own Valley city,” he said.

Under LAFCO’s plan, Los Angeles would keep every traffic light, sewer pipe, library, park and police station in the Valley.

The Valley city would gain just one asset: its streets.

LAFCO’s revised plan was in a 196-page report by Public Financial Management Inc., a consulting firm. It was a reversal from the approach taken in the initial plan: a complex division of the city’s 34,000 employees, its fire stations, library books and thousands of other assets--just as Valley VOTE had requested.

In the initial blueprint, LAFCO had found that only the water, power, sewer, computer, pension and 911 emergency dispatch systems would be impossible to split, and the Valley could contract with Los Angeles for those services.

But the city responded in June with a slew of concerns. The Fire Department warned that emergency service “could be severely hampered” in earthquakes and wildfires. The Police Department said the breakup would hamper its SWAT team and its narcotics, organized-crime and anti-terrorist units.

“You can’t just chop the pie in pieces and say you’re capable of doing the exact same things you were capable of doing before,” said Ellen Sandt, who coordinates City Hall’s response to secession. “There’s a ton of practical issues to be worked out.”

LAFCO acknowledged in its report that despite strong legal protections for the city work force if the Valley secedes, more research is needed on a tangle of labor laws, civil service rules and union contracts.

“Are they going to lay all of us off? Nobody has an answer,” said Capt. Ken Buzzell, president of the city firefighters union. “Nobody’s shown me anything that tells me this would be a good thing.”

Los Angeles City Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, a LAFCO commissioner who opposes secession, said the proposal would allow a secession vote to take place with no “honest analysis” of the consequences.

“It seems to say that 19 employees can handle a new city of 1.5 million people,” she said. “No assets or employees would be transferred. The city would continue to serve the Valley. I’m not sure what kind of independence is really gained by the Valley.”

Councilman Hal Bernson of Granada Hills, a former secession supporter who now says he is neutral, said contracting might be a good idea. But given the unanswered questions and the plan’s complexity, he said he has doubts about the proposal’s ballot prospects.

“My guess is it’s going to be so . . . confusing it may be difficult for the voters to understand it, and that may be a problem for the Valley secessionists,” Bernson said.

It was LAFCO Executive Officer Larry J. Calemine who decided to dump the previous plan, but he did not mention it at public meetings of the nine commissioners who employ him, board members said.

Calemine’s central role in shaping the course of the plan drew attention to the special access enjoyed by the Porter Ranch Development Co. to behind-the-scenes decisions on secession.

Calemine, whose LAFCO salary is $100,000 a year, is also on the payroll of Porter Ranch, the Valley’s largest developer. He is project manager for the construction of thousands of homes on the slopes of the Santa Susanas on the Valley’s northern rim. Porter Ranch has spent millions of dollars lobbying City Hall for approvals on the project and plans to build several thousand more houses.

Under LAFCO’s revised plan, such approvals would come from the Valley city. Its City Council would “make key policy decisions related to land use policies and specific development projects within the boundaries of the Valley city,” the report said.

Richard Mahan, a spokesman for both Porter Ranch and LAFCO, said the developer had no position on secession. “They have no reason to,” he said. “The Porter Ranch project is pretty much a done deal.”

Calemine, a former Valley secession advocate, could not be reached for comment. He is preparing a final report on Valley cityhood for the LAFCO board.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Public Hearings

The Local Agency Formation Commission for Los Angeles County has scheduled six public hearings on its studies of proposals for San Fernando Valley and harbor-area secession from Los Angeles.

* Thursday, 6:30 p.m., L.A. Valley College, Monarch Hall, 5800 Fulton Ave., Valley Glen.

* Oct. 13, 9 a.m., Cal State Northridge, Shoshone Hall, Satellite Union, 9851 Zelzah Ave., Northridge.

* Oct. 20, 9 a.m., Peck Park Auditorium, 560 N. Western Ave., San Pedro.

* Oct. 24, 9 a.m., L.A. County Hall of Administration, Supervisors Hearing Room, 500 W. Temple St., Los Angeles.

* Oct. 27, 9 a.m., L.A. Department of Water and Power, Auditorium, 111 N. Hope St., Level A, Los Angeles.

* Nov. 14, 9 a.m., L.A. County Hall of Administration, Supervisors Hearing Room, 500 W. Temple St., Los Angeles.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Valley City’s Projected Budget

Fiscal years 2003-04 through 2005-06, in millions of dollars

*--*

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Total Revenue $1,066 $1,066 $1,066

Expenditures

Valley city government $3 3 $3 Contract payments to L.A. $992 $992 $992 “Alimony” to L.A.* $61 $61 $61 Other payments to L.A. $3 $2 $2 Total expenditures $1,059 $1,058 $1,058

*--*

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Valley surplus $7 $15** $23**

*--*

* Payments would be required to compensate Los Angeles for the loss of its Valley tax base.

** Full surplus is assumed to roll over to the following year.

Source: Local Agency Formation Commission for Los Angeles County

*

Times staff writers Sue Fox, Matea Gold and Caitlin Liu contributed to this report.