Opening a new front in the war over municipal divorce, city officials Friday contended in a report that secession would risk serious financial damage to both a new San Fernando Valley city and the rest of Los Angeles.
The city's first formal study of secession was a setback for Valley cityhood proponents, who want the issue on the November 2002 ballot.
The 925-page analysis also raised significant legal issues about the authority of any Valley city to collect tax revenues and share in water and power service at existing rates.
"Certain issues appear to be sufficiently problematic as to jeopardize the viability of the plan as written," concluded City Atty. and Mayor-elect James Hahn in the report.
The report asked the Local Agency Formation Commission to completely redo its earlier study, which concluded a Valley city would be economically robust and would produce a tax surplus almost immediately.
"There are questions that need to be resolved. The viability of Valley cityhood is being questioned," said Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, who heads a council panel overseeing secession.
Mayor Richard Riordan said the city's report provides a more accurate view of the pitfalls of secession than the LAFCO study.
"It would have significant negative impacts," said mayoral spokesman Peter Hidalgo. "The mayor continues to oppose secession."
The city response was called a "declaration of war" by Richard Close, chairman of the secession group Valley VOTE, who said it would take five years to answer all of the questions and complete the various analyses demanded by the city.
"It's clear from this report that the city is trying to find any way to keep the issue off the ballot next year," Close said. "This report is not an impartial evaluation. This is an attempt to sidetrack the matter."
Close said LAFCO has discretion to consider the city's response, but also has the duty to render its own findings as it drafts a final fiscal study that will be the basis of its decision on whether a Valley city is viable without harm to the remainder of Los Angeles.
Among the key elements of the city report:
* LAFCO's initial financial study and a plan submitted by Valley VOTE used a fundamentally flawed method of dividing assets.
* The LAFCO study and secession proposal failed to provide adequate fiscal protection for the new city and remainder of Los Angeles, underestimated costs for the new city and contained many errors of fact.
