Prepared by Public Financial Management, Inc. Converted to HTLM for PDF by ValleyVote Click here for the original slow loading PDF A Word file (doc) is also available.
1. Purpose and Findings of the Study
2. Valley Area Proposal for Special Reorganization.
Organizational Structure.
Services to be Provided.
Allocation of Asset.
Other Considerations.
3. Transfer of Service, Costs, Revenues, and Assets
4. Fiscal Impact on City of Los Angeles
5. Financial Viability of New City
2. Valley Area Proposal for Special Reorganization
The Valley applicant submitted a vision statement to LAFCO in May 2000. Among some of the most significant components, the vision statement proposes that upon incorporation the new Valley City "shall be responsible for maintaining and operating its own departments and municipal services" and shall receive a proportional share of all assets, revenues, and debt "regardless of which area of the city they are located…" For the City’s independent and proprietary departments, it is proposed by the applicant that the new Valley City would contract for service during the first three years of incorporation and would concurrently negotiate the terms of a joint powers arrangement with the City. In the event an agreement could not be made, the applicant proposes that the new city should be allocated a proportional share of assets of the departments.
The applicant has proposed that the Valley City would operate as a general law city with a city council comprised of one councilperson per 100,000 residents. A mayor would be elected by the public and serve as executive officer. The organization of city staff would be similar to that of the City of Los Angeles. The applicant has also proposed that the Valley City would observe existing laws and ordinances of the City of Los Angeles. This has been interpreted to mean that the new city would, where appropriate, adhere to the terms of the existing City Charter, Administrative Code, and Municipal Code.
The Valley applicant has generally proposed that it is entitled to a proportionate share of all City services. The Valley applicant has proposed that all existing departmental personnel, equipment, and facilities, plus a pro rata allocation of "central services" which would be administered locally, would be allocated to the Valley at the same level it is currently provided by the City. It also appears that the applicant has proposed that, if it is determined the level of service provided in the Valley is not proportionate, the level of municipal services be adjusted between the Valley and City based on population, geographic area, or another appropriate method.
The applicant proposes that all City assets currently within the geographical boundary of the new Valley City would be transferred to the new city without payment. These assets include utility lines, streets, sidewalks, libraries, and fire stations. The Valley City would also receive a proportional interest in all assets of the City, including "centralized assets" and assets located outside of the boundaries of the Valley City. The value of the Valley’s proportional share of all City assets would be compared to the value of assets transferred to the Valley (those within the boundary of the Valley). The applicant proposes that any difference in the values would be reconciled through a payment by either the Valley or City of Los Angeles, and that the Valley City would receive a pro rata allocation of all cash, supplies, vehicles, and other like assets.
In addition to the specific proposals made by the Valley applicant, other broad considerations were requested. The applicant has proposed that any division of city services be made "with minimal impact upon city services, operations, departments, employees and residents." Furthermore, it has been proposed that the elected mayor and city council of the Valley City would decide upon any proposition that would affect the residents of the Valley.
Consideration of the tenets included in the Valley vision statement has been made in the development of the initial fiscal analysis, except to the extent not practicable, and to the extent the applicant’s proposal is not consistent with or conflicts with the Cortese-Knox Act.