CITY WILL FIGHT PEOPLE'S VOTE ON SECESSION.

Byline: Harrison Sheppard Staff Writer

With a decision expected next week to put San Fernando Valley secession to voters, Los Angeles officials lashed out Tuesday and said the plan should be kept off the ballot because a breakup would harm Los Angeles.

Although Mayor James Hahn and other officials previously have said voters have the right to decide on secession, the Mayor's Office and City Council said Tuesday they could not accept the existing proposal.

By a 13-0 vote, the council adopted an official position urging the Local Agency Formation Commission to keep the current proposal off the ballot.

``Our fundamental issue is that (LAFCO's draft plan) has some serious flaws,'' said City Administrative Officer Bill Fujioka.

``There are serious financial flaws with the conclusions in the report that we feel will result in serious financial harm not only to the remaining city, if adopted, but also to the proposed city.''

LAFCO is expected to vote May 22 to place the issue on the Nov. 5 ballot. For the Valley to secede from the city, a majority of Valley voters would have to approve, as well as a majority of voters citywide.

The mayor and city officials also demanded that the city be compensated for police stations, libraries and other assets that would be turned over to the new city - despite previously negotiating the transfer at no cost to the Valley.

The city officials said the free transfer depended on the city being ``made whole'' or financially protected, and they don't believe the proposal meets that standard.

Previously, the city attorney and the county counsel have issued legal opinions saying LAFCO can require compensation for the transfer of assets, but secessionists obtained an opinion from the state legislative counsel that finds the transfer could be made for free.

LAFCO's plan is based on the state opinion.

Over several months of talks, city officials had negotiated the free transfer of assets, as long as the city was made whole.

But on Tuesday, they urged LAFCO to change the proposal so it increases the ``alimony'' the new Valley city would pay Los Angeles.

``Throughout this whole process, the city has taken the position that we would transfer the assets without cost if the city was made whole, relative to liabilities,'' said Chief Legislative Analyst Ron Deaton. ``That is not the case. It is not close to the case.

``They have not lived up to their part of the bargain.''

City officials are expected to testify before the commission today.

Secession supporters said the city's analysis is wrong, and accused supporters of using scare tactics and of laying the groundwork for a lawsuit.

``We suspected that they would renege on their promise to agree to transfer the Valley assets to the Valley - and their reasoning is bogus,'' said Richard Close, chairman of Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment. ``This is all a big game to L.A. city to determine how much they can bilk the Valley out of.''

Close also said the Valley has already agreed to a form of compensation by giving up its claim to part-ownership of regional assets outside the Valley, such as City Hall, Parker Center and the main library.

A spokesman for Hahn declined to say whether the city is prepared to file legal action against LAFCO, but denied that the mayor is reneging on previous pledges to support secession going on the November ballot.

``The mayor hasn't backed off at all,'' said Deputy Mayor Matt Middlebrook. ``The mayor wants this on the ballot. The mayor assumes LAFCO will follow the law.''

The city released a consultant's report saying that the ``alimony'' the new Valley city would have to pay Los Angeles should be increased by at least $98 million, in addition to the $55 million LAFCO already has proposed. The report was based on analyzing ``stranded costs'' or centralized services the city argues it cannot reduce even after secession.

But the report on stranded costs looked at just eight of 35 city departments, so the figure is expected to increase when the study is completed in a few weeks. The figure, however, also represents a smaller amount than the city's own earlier estimate of stranded costs of about $285 million.

Some LAFCO officials have previously ridiculed the city's claims of stranded costs, although the commission has not voted on that issue. Previously, Commissioner Zev Yaroslavsky, a county supervisor and former Los Angeles councilman, likened the concept to a ``fictional novel'' and said it was a question of ``bureaucrats protecting their turf.''

LAFCO Executive Officer Larry Calemine has previously acknowledged that there could be some stranded costs but said that, at the very least, the city's figures were exaggerated. Calemine had not received the new city reports Tuesday, and declined comment.

Also on Tuesday, the City Council urged LAFCO to keep the Hollywood sign in Los Angeles.

The council by a 12-0 vote approved a motion by Councilman Tom LaBonge to take the position that the sign should be excluded from the new Hollywood city because Griffith Park should remain under the jurisdiction of a single city.