L.A. City Council Urges Review of Secession Studies

In a new challenge to secession proposals, the Los Angeles City Council agreed Friday to ask the state controller to review another agency’s financial studies that concluded the San Fernando Valley and harbor areas could be fiscally viable as separate cities.

The action came on the same day that a new poll by KABC-TV Channel 7 and SurveyUSA found that 59% of adult residents in the Valley support secession, while 43% of residents citywide supported creation of a Valley city.

By comparison, the last poll done by the Los Angeles Times in March 2001 found that 51% of Valley residents support secession, down from 60% in a Times poll in March 1999.

“This poll is more favorable toward a Valley city than even I imagined,” said Richard Close, chairman of the secession group Valley VOTE. “Despite a constant barrage by the mayor and his deputies against Valley cityhood, this poll validates that the public wants to set up a separate Valley city.”

Mayor James K. Hahn discounted the poll’s significance, saying it comes before a planned campaign pointing out the drawbacks of secession.

“Overall, I think it is a bad idea for the city, but up until now the debate has been pretty one-sided,” Hahn said. “I’m going out now and telling people why we should keep the city together.”

The campaign for public opinion is occurring on a parallel track to city challenges against secession.

City Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski said that asking the state controller to examine financial studies by the Local Agency Formation Commission made sense to determine if they are accurate in concluding that breakaway areas would be fiscally viable cities.

“All we are doing is saying, ‘Have a third-party review,’ ” said Miscikowski, who heads a council committee overseeing the secession process. “It’s really questioning the fiscal viability: Is it valid? Is it sound? Were there errors in the [study] findings?”

The council voted to approve a request for review under protest, asserting that LAFCO’s financial study for Valley cityhood is, in the words of one city attorney, a “dead document” because Valley secessionists have subsequently proposed a dramatically different plan for a new city.

Close accused city officials of trying to derail cityhood proposals by waiting until the end of a 30-day period to request a review and then submitting an 18-page document challenging the studies.

“This is another last-minute attempt by the city to prevent Valley cityhood from going on the November ballot,” Close said. “The city and the mayor have no credibility on this issue with the public, which sees this as a charade and mischief.”

The council voted unanimously to authorize Hahn, or another city official if the mayor declines, to request that the controller review comprehensive fiscal analyses done by LAFCO to help determine if the cityhood proposals should be placed on the November ballot.

Hahn supports the concept of a state review, but wants to spend the weekend examining the request drafted by the city attorney to make sure it is on point and will not cause delays that would prevent the issue from going on the ballot this year, said Tim McOsker, the mayor’s chief of staff.

“What we heard the city attorney say today is that it is necessary in this process for the city to seek a review,” McOsker said, adding that Hahn “wants to makes sure, if the city makes this request, that we can continue to stay on schedule to get this before the voters in November.”

If the secession proposals are judged viable by LAFCO but do not make the November ballot, state law requires that they to be put before voters in 2005, when Hahn will be up for reelection.

A decision on the review will be made by Hahn by the deadline Monday, McOsker said.

State law gives Controller Kathleen Connell 45 days to complete the review, which she said is possible if the issues are not too numerous or complicated.

Because a 45-day review by the controller is built into the schedule for making the Nov. 5 ballot deadline, LAFCO Executive Director Larry Calemine said he does not expect the request to pose a problem.

Miscikowski said the controller’s review could cause delays, however, if the state recommends substantial changes in the LAFCO financial studies.

The city proposes to ask the controller to look at 19 suspected errors or omissions in the LAFCO studies, including assertions that:

* Projected reserve levels are too low, according to city officials, and are likely to result in a decrease of services or an increase in taxes.

* The financial studies do not adequately analyze the effects on the remainder of Los Angeles once the Valley stops contracting for services in three years.

* The studies fail to provide sufficient detail to prove that service levels will be maintained in the new city.

* Proposed alimony payments from the Valley to Los Angeles are underestimated because there are centralized costs Los Angeles would still have to pay after losing Valley revenue.

The City Council agreed to pay $50,000 in deposits to the controller toward the cost of the Valley and harbor reviews, but the examinations may end up costing the city $300,000 or more, officials said.

The survey released Friday by KABC-TV found that 69% of Valley residents felt they were getting less than their fair share of city services and revenues, while 36% of residents citywide felt the Valley was getting less than its fair share of services. Citywide, 51% felt public safety has improved in Los Angeles.