Advertisement

Mayor Agrees to Discuss Split of L.A. Assets for a Valley City

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITER

Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn agreed Friday to negotiate a split of city parks, libraries, police stations and other assets for a ballot proposal on San Fernando Valley secession.

But Hahn also suggested Los Angeles might insist that a new Valley city pay for any transferred assets.

“The rest of the city helped provide all that infrastructure in the Valley when the Valley had very little tax revenue to support the infrastructure,” Hahn said. “We need to keep all of that in mind when dividing assets and liabilities.”

Advertisement

Hahn made his remarks during the first day of talks between City Hall and Valley secessionists on the terms of the ballot proposal.

A plan to divide the city’s vast holdings is one of the toughest challenges facing the commission that is weighing whether to put secession on the November 2002 ballot.

It’s also a politically charged topic for secessionists, because the latest draft of the commission’s plan for Valley cityhood found that nothing but streets needed to be transferred. Among the assets sought by secessionists are traffic signals, street signs, police patrol cars, ambulances, fire houses, garbage trucks and office buildings. The secessionists also want a share of the city’s work force.

Hahn’s presence at the bargaining table Friday reflected the remarkable growth of the secession movement from a minor sideshow to center stage at City Hall.

Hahn, who favors placing secession on the ballot, reiterated that his top priority is to keep the city from breaking apart.

“I’m going to work tirelessly to make sure it stays together,” he said in opening remarks at the negotiations at City Hall.

Advertisement

The first round was conducted like a summit between leaders of hostile nations gathered at a V-shaped table, each with a backup team. In this case, the leaders were Hahn and Jeff Brain, the president of the Valley VOTE secession group.

Facing them from a separate table were arbiters from the Local Agency Formation Commission. The commission hopes to include in the proposed ballot measure any terms agreed upon by Valley VOTE and City Hall.

“We would like to have you solve as many of these problems as possible so that we don’t have to,” LAFCO Chairman Henri Pellissier told the rival teams of negotiators.

LAFCO Executive Officer Larry J. Calemine urged the two sides to stick to broad concepts for a separation pact rather than “yelling and screaming at each other over specific numbers.”

“Let’s keep it professional,” he said. “Let’s keep it cordial.”

Calemine offered a list of suggested topics. Among the most sensitive was the amount of “alimony” that a Valley city would have to pay Los Angeles as compensation for lost tax revenue. LAFCO has suggested $61 million a year, but Los Angeles wants more.

Also on the agenda: how much of the Valley’s $1 billion in annual tax revenue would Los Angeles continue to collect on the new city’s behalf? LAFCO has recommended about half, but secessionists want a Valley city to exert total control of its money.

Advertisement

The first session, which lasted just under an hour, set up a framework for four three-hour meetings during the next month. Otherwise, the only initial agreement was to negotiate an asset split.

“We thought that was a very good start,” Brain said.

But Brain, who moved in 1999 to Glendale, was not pleased with Hahn’s suggestion that Los Angeles would want compensation for police stations and other assets. “We built quite a few of those police stations,” Brain said.

The mayor acknowledged as much, saying, “The Valley obviously has been paying tax revenue for things on this side of the hill as well, so the issues are complicated and will take some time to work out in the negotiations.”

Also at the bargaining table were leaders of the harbor area secession effort. LAFCO consultants have found that a harbor city--unlike the proposed Valley city--would not generate enough tax revenue to sustain itself. Unless LAFCO reverses that finding, it would be barred by state law from putting harbor secession before voters.

Advertisement