General
Items Assets and Liabilities
Assets
Liabilities
Revenue and
Expenditures Revenue
Expenditures Employees
Independent and
Proprietary Departments List of Attachments
FootnotesPosted 7-1-99 12:04. Indexes and footnotes were added. No attachments were provided.
General
Items Assets and Liabilities
Assets
Liabilities
Revenue and
Expenditures Revenue
Expenditures Employees
Independent and
Proprietary Departments List of Attachments
Footnotes
June 30, 1999
Larry J. Calemine, Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission
County of Los Angeles 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: Proposed Special Reorganization of the San Fernando Valley
Dear Mr. Calemine:
In your letter to us dated June 7, 1999, you stated that the Special Reorganization Subcommittee of the Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") requested the City of Los Angeles ("City") to submit written comments regarding an information request by Valley Study Foundation, Inc. regarding a proposed special reorganization. Valley Study Foundation, Inc. (the applicant for the proposed special reorganization) had requested that LAFCO "obtain, analyze, and review" certain specified information relating to such special reorganization (1). This letter sets forth the comments requested from the City. The City fully intends to cooperate with LAFCO during this study. These comments and the attached materials are an important early step in this regard.
In this response the City does not address the merits of the larger question of secession (i.e., the proposed special reorganization) as proposed by the applicant or as might otherwise be conceived. Nor do we address the concept of equitable allocation of assets and liabilities propounded by the applicant. These larger issues will be addressed in due course. First, LAFCO must gather the facts. Although the document submitted by the applicant contains some discussion of the applicant's secessionist objectives and how the LAFCO study process should work, the heart of the document is a request ("Request") that LAFCO "obtain, analyze and review" the "data and information" specified by the applicant. It is to this Request and to this Request alone that these comments are directed. The City reserves the right to address at a later point the questions now deferred.
Below is a description of particular information requested followed by the City's response. Before proceeding to that material, however, certain preliminary observations are in order.
The Request comprehends voluminous quantities of information. Some of the requested information is readily available and is provided with this response. Considerable information is also available (e.g., the City budget) on the City's website (2) Some other information, we believe, can be obtained by the City for LAFCO in relatively short order. Still other information, however, would itself entail commission of a study. As an example, request no. 4 asks for information about "equipment and personal property."(3) The City does not maintain a central inventory of all such property, although we have an inventory of items we consider material. If such is required, to the extent inventories do not now exist, they would have to be taken by every City department. The gathering of comprehensive information, such as in the example just given, would in many instances entail considerable time and expense. Accordingly, we strongly urge LAFCO and applicant to first review the information that is readily available to determine what additional information is necessary. We hope that all involved with this process will work cooperatively and thoughtfully to minimize unnecessary costs.
We further note in this connection that the recent proposal by the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century to establish a revolving loan fund to fund 80% of the Special Reorganization study is limited to the "cost of the independent and objective comprehensive fiscal analysis (CFA) and the analysis of this data."(4) Significant additional costs will be associated with the study, including creation of new data, preparation of new analyses, and the possible need for an environmental impact report. To the extent that such additional costs would be incurred by the City, it should be noted that the City presently has no funding for them. Such costs should be regarded as a state mandate. The City looks forward to further dialogue with LAFCO concerning these potential costs.
The City reserves the right to supplement and amend these comments as the process continues.Return to index
A. Applicant asks that LAFCO request from the City of Los Angeles copies of all existing schedules and lists (i.e., existing schedules or lists of files, compilations and databases) for those items included on this need for data collection.
The City will provide information as it is identified.
B. Applicant requests that information be provided in paper copy, in electronic format and film, to the extent each is reasonably available.
The City will provide the information in its existing format(s) (paper, electronic and/or film). Conversion of information to other formats will be evaluated for cost, feasibility, and time and handled on a case-by-case basis.
C. Applicant requests that Information collected in accordance with this Need for Data collection be allocated and/or coded on the basis of those items or services within the affected territory (San Fernando Valley portion of the City of Los Angeles), the remainder of the City of Los Angeles within the City boundaries and those serving or located outside the City limits. Furthermore, information is to be coded to distinguish those items or services which are local, regional (service crosses over the proposed new boundary) or Central (provides central service to all of Los Angeles). ? In those cases where it is contended that the items/services cannot be allocated or coded, the reason it cannot be allocated should be provided and one or more theoretical approaches to such allocation that would yield a reasonable estimated allocation between the requested designations should be provided.
The City intends to provide as much information as possible that is coded/divided along the geographic lines indicated. While some departmental services are provided on a regional basis, City services are not currently coded on a geographical basis that matches the study area. In those instances, coding/dividing information geographically will entail additional time and expense and may not always be feasible. The City will work with LAFCO to develop an acceptable methodology to calculate costs on a geographical basis.
In the interest of minimizing costs, LAFCO should consider how the potential for additional petitions for secession from other parts of the City might impact the data collecting process.Return to index
Applicant's intention is to request that City's Assets and Liabilities be equitably divided between the San Fernando Valley and the remainder of Los Angeles should a special reorganization be deemed feasible and revenue neutral by the LAFCO Study process.
The City reserves the right to comment on any proposed division of assets. The City will, when it is appropriate to do so, establish a position that takes into account the best interests of all Angelenos, whether they live in the Valley or elsewhere, and that fully accords with the law.Return to index
Applicant?s intention is to request that local assets including but not limited to buildings, land, libraries, parks, facilities, infrastructure improvements, furniture, equipment, and vehicles within the San Fernando Valley remain with the Valley and become the property of the newly proposed city. Local assets located in the rest of Los Angeles shall remain with Los Angeles. To the extent the value of local assets located in the Valley is less than the percentage of local Assets the Valley is entitled to, then as part of the Special Organization, an adjustment credit, if any, should be provided for the differential in value as part of the terms and conditions set down by LAFCO. The distribution of Regional and Central Assets will require additional consideration by the Applicant once they have been identified. As such the applicants request the following information on the City's assets:
The City reserves the right to establish a position on the extent to which location should affect an asset's ultimate ownership or control following a special reorganization.
1. A complete list of all Real Property, land and improvements held, owned or controlled by the City including: description and location; approximate current market values, if available; improvement expenditures; current use or occupancy, if available; date of acquisition; and accounting of indebtedness reasonably allocable to or which is an encumbrance on such property. If current market values are not available, the City, LAFCO and the Applicant should agree upon the methods to be used to approximate such market value, before proceeding with any such valuation.
The City will provide all existing, readily available ownership information on real property, land and improvements, owned or controlled by the City. Accompanying this response are examples of the types of documentation currently available. Existing information may require some reformulation so as to be presented in a usable format. The dates of acquisition, amount of improvement expenditures to property, and the accounting of indebtedness will require additional staff work to determine, because the City's various property listings have not typically included that type of information. The Request is unclear as to whether legal descriptions of real property are required. To the extent that the City has such descriptions readily available in its files, it will provide them if requested. Otherwise, LAFCO or the County should bear the cost of obtaining legal descriptions from the County Recorder.
The City does not have current market values for City properties, excepting those few parcels which have been/are being appraised prior to being sold. The City does not believe that market valuation of many City properties will accurately reflect the property's true value. Much of the true value of governmental property is its utility for governmental purposes. A park, for example, serves the needs of people in the community and beyond for that particular use. The "market" for such property would be for an alternative use, such as a subdivision. These are "apples and oranges" comparisons, at least if there is a desire to retain the governmental use. Similar valuation problems beset valuation of streets, sewers, and public buildings. A sewer dedication may have no "market value," but nonetheless be of great value to the wastewater system. A further complication: how does one compare one municipal facility with another? What are the comparative values to the City or the community of a municipal swimming pool and a city street?
Importantly, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board ("GASB") recently adopted a new rule (GASB rule 34), which will require the City to carry officially the value of its property on its books by July 1, 2001. As things now stand, if the proposed special reorganization took place, both Los Angeles and the new city would be required to comply with the new rule. At a minimum, the new methodology will have to be considered in any special reorganization. While the actual GASB rule has not yet been published as of this writing, we understand that it will require capitalization and depreciation of assets and may allow an option for accounting of assets based on "preservation value." Whether it, alone or in combination with other methodologies, would provide the fairest approach for asset valuation remains to be determined. The City reserves the right to establish a position on this and other valuation issues and naturally will work with LAFCO on resolving these complex questions.
2. Information on infrastructure improvements, including local, regional and central infrastructure held, owned, operated or controlled by the City as deemed necessary by LAFCO to fairly allocate such improvements. Infrastructure would be items fixed in place, neither movable or adaptable to other uses, which are a component of a system in place. As used herein, "Local Infrastructure" shall mean equipment and/or facilities that provide services wholly to either the Valley or the remainder of Los Angeles including by way of example, streets and sidewalks. "Regional Infrastructure" shall mean equipment and/or facilities that provide services that cross over the proposed new boundary including by way of example water treatment plants, waste facilities or asphalt plants. "Central Infrastructure" shall mean equipment and/or facilities that provide services to all parts of the City including by way of example central headquarters or systems such as fire or police dispatching systems, LA DOT ADSAC, storm run off, central repair facilities. With regard to items such as streets, sewer lines, and other infrastructure improvements of a similar nature, applicant requests LAFCO to determine the percentage located within the affected territory compared to the total of the City.
The City will provide all existing, readily available information on its infrastructure, but two issues of clarification present themselves. First, the distinction between "Regional" and "Central" infrastructure requires further refinement. The City would suggest going with only "Local" and "Central" classifications. Second, so that we may be more efficient in providing the desired information, the City further requests that LAFCO clearly delineate the type of information required for its evaluation on differing types of infrastructure. What data items are requested for streets, repair facilities, computer systems, traffic signs, etc.?
3. Information on the vehicles and rolling stock held, owned, operated or controlled by the City, including but not limited to trucks, cars, aircraft, watercraft, and motorcycles, as deemed necessary by LAFCO to fairly allocate such items. Applicant intends to request that the affected territory receive its proportionate share of such items, including the distribution by the age and condition of such item or equal value.
The City will provide existing, available information on its vehicles and rolling stock. To be most efficient, the City requests that the type of information requested be clearly delineated as well as the proposed method of valuation. The City believes that the valuation should account for depreciation expense and be consistent with valuation of the assets under any existing bond covenants and current GASB guidelines. LAFCO will need to assess the impact of any existing bond covenants applicable to such assets in connection with the allocation of such assets. For example, transfer of ownership may not be permitted or may require applicant to assume the related debt.
4. Information on equipment and personal property held, owned, operated or controlled by the City, as LAFCO deems necessary to equitably allocate such items, including but not limited to computers, ladders, tools and furniture, including the current value of such equipment and personal property.
The City will provide existing, available information on its equipment and personal property. To be most efficient, the City requests that the type of information requested be clearly delineated as well as the proposed method of valuation. The City believes that the valuation should account for depreciation expense and be consistent with valuation of the assets under any existing bond covenants and current GASB guidelines. In addition, the City believes that it would be more efficient to set a dollar value threshold or other criteria establishing a level of significance on this part of the request. It is not worthwhile to first identify and then value every stapler, hammer, or screwdriver.
5. Information on all intangible property owned or maintained by the City, including but not limited to databases, maps, records, GIS files, intellectual Property and administrative methodologies as deemed necessary by LAFCO to fairly allocate such items or provide duplicate copies thereof to the affected territory.
The City will have to create a listing of its intangible property, a task that will entail considerable time and expense. Due to the nature of this property, we believe that the City will have to work with LAFCO to identify what specific items should be included in this listing and to establish valuation methodologies. With respect to intangible property, these assets will need to be reviewed item by item. Experts will need to be consulted as to the correct mechanism for evaluating these assets.
6. Information on all portfolios and other investments including but not limited to pension and reserve fund investments.
The City will provide existing information on its investment policies and practices. Many of the investments change on a daily basis. Therefore, the information provided would be time specific. Copies of current pension plans will also be provided.
7. Information on all leases (real and personal property) in which the City is a party, whether as landlord or tenant, including: net present value of the Lease; location of the Leased item or property; use of the leased item or property; rental adjustment information and other cost related information; and date of lease initiation and termination.
The City will provide existing, available information on its leases, including copies of the leases if desired. A sample lease summary is attached. Please let us know if additional information is required.Return to index
Applicant's intention is to request that City Liabilities be equitably divided between the San Fernando Valley and the remainder of Los Angeles. Each resulting city should assume their equitable responsibility for existing debts and liabilities. Liabilities are to include funded and unfunded indebtedness. Special consideration should be given to those obligations such as bonds that funded a specific asset or improvement that will be solely allocated to the Valley or the remaining portion of Los Angeles. An adjustment in the liability allocation may also need to be considered as a means of offsetting the disparity, if any, in the allocation of assets and improvements between the San Fernando Valley and the remaining portion of Los Angeles. As such, Applicant requests the following information on liabilities be requested by LAFCO:
The City reserves the right to establish a position on any proposed allocation of liabilities.
8. Information on bonded indebtedness, as LAFCO deems necessary to fairly allocate the bonded indebtedness, including: date of Bond Issue; terms of Bond indebtedness; the uses of the Bond proceeds; and remaining bond indebtedness.
The City will provide the requested information on bonded indebtedness. LAFCO will also need to consider the impact of debt covenants on any proposed reorganization, as well as the impact of any proposed reorganization on the City's bond ratings and future borrowing costs.
9. Information on all contingent liabilities and pending lawsuits, and the reserve fund, if any, maintained to fund such liabilities and suits, as LAFCO deems necessary to fairly allocate such liabilities.
The City will provide existing, available information on all known contingent liabilities (e.g., lawsuits, pending lawsuits, workers' compensation claims) that can be quantified.(5) Information that will expose the City (including the Valley) to additional liability and that is protected by law from public disclosure (e.g., the attorney-client privilege) will be withheld or otherwise be handled in a manner that protects the City. Pending liabilities can change dramatically over time. Threatened lawsuits may or may not materialize. The City reserves the right to identify contingent liabilities as they become known throughout the reorganization process.
Any proposed reorganization will need to provide for a mechanism for allocating responsibility for contingent liabilities, both known and unknown, incurred prior to the reorganization that become due after the reorganization.
10. Information on all other potential obligations not otherwise scheduled.
The City will attempt to identify and provide existing information on other potential obligations. It would be more efficient if LAFCO established a level of significance (dollar value or operational impact) threshold for this category. We will also provide information on long-term contracts that could have an impact beyond the applicable year of the study.Return to index
Applicant's intention is to meet the requirement of Revenue Neutrality as set forth by California Government Code Sections while achieving an equitable distribution of the City's revenue and expenditures between the San Fernando Valley and the remainder of Los Angeles. Applicant is not seeking a special reorganization as a means of avoiding financial responsibility and understands the principle and need for revenue neutrality so that the existing residents of the City of Los Angeles who will remain with Los Angeles are not financially harmed or deprived as a result of a Special Reorganization. Through the LAFCO Study Process, applicant will work with LAFCO to achieve Revenue Neutrality so that Los Angeles is not financially harmed. As such Applicant requests the following with regard to City Revenues and expenditures:
The City too recognizes that "revenue neutrality" is directed by the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985.Return to index
11. Information on all sources of revenue for the applicable year as determined by LAFCO, allocated by restricted and unrestricted revenues generated, including but not limited too [sic]:
[various revenue sources listed].
The City will provide all existing, available information on revenue that is requested once the "applicable year" is identified by LAFCO. California Government Code section 56833.1 requires a "comprehensive fiscal analysis" That provision states in part that "[d]ata used for the analysis shall be from the most recent fiscal year for which data are available, provided that the data are not more than one fiscal year old." It therefore appears that LAFCO should designate Fiscal Year 1998-99 as the "applicable year." The City's fiscal year runs July 1 through June 30. The City Controller indicates that the 1998-99 books should be closed by late July or early August 1999 for the Council-controlled departments; however, audited financial data would be available between October and December 1999. Financial information for 1998-99 for the proprietary departments (Airports, Harbor and Water and Power) should also be available between October and December 1999, depending upon the department. The City believes that one-time revenues and/or grants and other revenues that will expire prior to the expected date of completion of the special reorganization should be given separate consideration from ongoing revenues. A copy of the City's Adopted Budgets and Revenue Outlook for the applicable year will be submitted. General Fund revenue sources are unrestricted. Other funds have restrictions, although some are more flexible than others.
The City reserves the right to question whether in particular circumstances the "applicable year" is the appropriate measure of certain revenues for the assessment of revenue neutrality due to the nature of one-time revenues.
12. Information on Municipal revenues generated by Initiatives and Propositions, Special Taxes and Bonds, including, but not limited to:
Proposition A, Transit Funds (1980)
Proposition C, Transit Funds (1990)
All annual revenues, whether from initiatives, propositions, special taxes, or bonds, are included in the budget documents and revenue books cited in response to request no. 11.
13. Information on Grants, subsidies, Lawsuit revenues, and other sources of revenue that are received from the County, State and Federal Governments, and private sector grants or funds.
Annual revenues from grants, subsidies, lawsuits and other sources of revenue that are received from the County, State and Federal Governments, and private sector grants or funds are included in the budget documents and revenue books cited in response to request no. 11.
14. All Revenues, to the extent possible should be distinguished between those generated within the San Fernando Valley, those generated within the remainder of Los Angeles and those received or generated from outside the City of Los Angeles.
The City will have to examine each computer system that tracks the various revenues collected by the City to determine if and how the revenues can be broken out by the San Fernando Valley, the remainder of Los Angeles, and outside the City. Each type of revenue must be evaluated independently. For example, a major developer may be located in the Valley, but be building a project downtown. In that case, the business tax (based on gross revenues to the business) may be ascribed to a different geographical area than the building permit fees (attributable to the situs of the project). We will need to determine what capabilities our various computer systems have for sorting the information in different ways. We will also have to determine if our tax and permit system (which tracks business taxes) has fees for major companies with many branch locations listed by corporate headquarters or by each geographical location.
Other types of revenues may not be in data bases controlled by the City. For example, sales tax and vehicle license fees are collected by the State; telephone utility taxes are collected by the telephone companies. We will need to work with LAFCO to determine how best to collect this type of data. Return to index
15. Information on all expenditures of the City, for the applicable year, as determined by LAFCO, including, but not limited to, Direct Service Departments, including [listing departments], Central services, Including [listing departments], [c]osts of maintaining and rebuilding infrastructure, [c]osts of servicing and repaying current debts, and [l]ease payments for real and personal property.
The City will provide all existing requested information on expenditures once the "applicable year" is identified by LAFCO. Significant one-time expenditures should be given separate consideration from ongoing expenditures. The City reserves the right to question whether in particular circumstances the "applicable year" is the appropriate measure of certain expenses for the assessment of revenue neutrality due to the nature of one-time expenses. Expenditures for direct service departments, central services, maintaining and rebuilding the infrastructure, servicing and repaying current debts, and lease payments for real and personal property are included in the budget documents and revenue books cited in response to request no. 11.
16. Information on Current fees for and actual costs of transporting and treating wastewater.
The City will provide information on current fees for wastewater. Actual costs of transporting and treating wastewater are identified in the City budget documents cited in the response to no. 11. The Sewer Construction and Maintenance Fund shows overall wastewater-related fund expenditures. Direct wastewater costs and related costs are shown in the budget documents cited in response to request no. 11.
17. All expenditures, to the extent possible should be distinguished between those expended for services to the San Fernando Valley, those expended for services to the remainder of Los Angeles and those expended for services to areas, if any, outside the City of Los Angeles.
The City will have to examine each computer system that tracks the various expenditures of the City to determine if and how the expenditures can be broken out by the San Fernando Valley, the remainder of Los Angeles, and outside the City. Each type of expenditure must be evaluated independently and under an acceptable methodology established by working with LAFCO. Expenditures outside the City will include items such as the Department of Water and Power's (DWP) responsibilities in Northern California, which are related to the Water System; DWP ownership in generating stations in various locations; DWP ownership of transmission lines which span several states; sewer services provided to certain cities; etc. Return to index
Applicant's intention is that the existing work force of City Employees will be retained and allocated between the newly proposed San Fernando Valley's City departments and services and the existing City of Los Angeles departments and services so that there is a smooth transition for all City employees. Applicant's intention is that the newly proposed City would honor and assume its equitable responsibility for the existing retirees, and the pensions and other accumulated benefits of those workers who come to work for the newly proposed City. Furthermore, applicant's intention is to honor the employee and union contracts as of the date the Special Reorganization application was made to LAFCO. As such, applicant request the following information:
There will be serious employee relations issues that must be considered during the Special Reorganization study. The City bargains with its employees through specified employee bargaining organizations (unions, associations, guilds, etc.) in accordance with State statutes, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, California Government Code Section 3500 et seq. There are several issues that will need to be resolved, such as: How does the meet and confer process impact the special reorganization? Will employees have a choice as to where they want to work or will they be forced to work for another city? How will seniority issues be resolved? (Calculation of seniority status for the City's approximately 40,000 employees will be an expensive and time-consuming project.) Will the new city's charter contain the same Civil Service protections as the Los Angeles Charter?
18. Departmental and Geographic distribution of employees and their associated salaries and benefits, between the San Fernando Valley, the remainder of Los Angeles and Central Services.
City departments do not have geographical service areas that match the proposed new city boundaries, so it will be very challenging to divide up employees on this basis. For example, the Police Department has 18 service areas in the City, whereas the Recreation and Parks Department has three service areas. Furthermore, many departmental budgets are not calculated based on geographical areas; but rather, by functional programs. The Library Department, for instance, is budgeted based on public services, "behind-the-scenes" services (such as purchasing and cataloging books), and general administration and support services. While we can identify which libraries are in the Special Reorganization Study area, it may create significant new work for the City to calculate the cost of these libraries and their share of behind-the-scenes and administrative services. This same situation applies to all City departments.
Working with LAFCO, we will also have to consider the most appropriate and meaningful methodologies of how the San Fernando Valley costs should be calculated. For example, should police costs be apportioned by territory, the number of calls from a given neighborhood, or the number of officers currently assigned to a station? Should library costs be based on the Valley's pro-rata share of circulation, the number of librarians, or the territory each library services? What about the Central Library, located in downtown Los Angeles, which is the largest library west of the Mississippi River and is used by patrons from all over the City because of its specialized collections?
19. The most recent actuarial evaluations for each City pension fund.
Copies of the most recent actuarial evaluations for each City pension fund are attached.
20. Information on each pension fund as LAFCO deems necessary, including which pension funds are fully funded, number of individuals already collecting and their expected future benefits, those employees still working and when they will be entitled to collect pension funds, and the current sources of funding for the pension funds.
The City will submit the information requested for the City Employees Retirement Fund (civilian employees), the Fire and Police Pension Fund (sworn employees), and the Department of Water and Power Pension Fund for the applicable year. We do not believe it is appropriate to identify individual employees by name (or social security number) and when such employee will be entitled to collect pension funds. The actuarial study incorporates that information in its analysis. It may be possible to discuss, in more general terms, the total numbers of employees eligible to collect pension funds as of certain years, total salary amounts, etc. We anticipate that we will need to have further discussions with LAFCO on questions such as the methodology for dividing pension responsibilities for employees who have already retired.Return to index
INDEPENDENT AND PROPRIETARY DEPARTMENTS
Data involving independent and proprietary departments will be requested in the event that LAFCO is unable or unwilling to enact the proposed provisions substantially in accordance with the following:
Applicant requests that the disposition of independent and proprietary departments, including, but not limited to: Department of Airports, Harbor Department, Department of Water and Power, City Employees Retirement Plan, Department of Pensions, which shall be deferred until after the ballot on Special Reorganization.
If the Special Reorganization plan is adopted, the resulting municipalities shall have a period of up to three years during which to negotiate in good faith and agree to the disposition of the departments or to otherwise enter into Joint Powers Agreements for the management of such agencies.
During the three-year negotiation period, all such departments shall continue to function and shall provide equality of services and rates to the resultant municipalities in a fair, equitable and consistent fashion. Failing equitable agreement or the adoption of such Joint Powers Agreements, the Departments or functions, the disposition of which was deferred, shall be divided among the municipalities based upon a formula established in advance by the LAFCO.
In all cases, the City Employees Retirement Plan and Department of Pensions shall continue to serve all current functions for current employees and beneficiaries. ? In the absence of a provision substantially as set forth above, or otherwise agreeable to all parties, Applicants [sic] reserve the right to request data on assets, liabilities, expenses and revenues of the above-referenced proprietary and independent departments of the City of Los Angeles.
The City does not agree that consideration of the independent and proprietary departments and pension funds can be deferred until after an election on Special Reorganization. The fate of these departments must be addressed in conjunction with the overall study of reorganization. Much of City government is connected one way or another with these departments. The infrastructure includes pipes, aqueduct and transmission lines, facilities such as filtration plants, generating stations and airports, etc. Considerable debt is attached to them. The intangible property of the City includes extremely valuable water rights. Currently employees from other city departments have the right to compete for jobs in the proprietary departments and vice versa. Each such department has its own revenue and expenditure profile. Because of their importance from a fiscal and operational perspective, these departments profoundly affect the very question of the proposed special reorganization. The City is prepared to provide information on these departments so that they can be part of the study.
The City is committed to working closely and cooperatively with LAFCO as it undertakes an objective, thorough study of the application before it.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard J. Riordan John Ferraro
Mayor Council President
Dated: June 30, 1999Return to index
Attachments
1. Sample of existing real property inventory lists
2. Samples of existing equipment lists
3. Sample of existing lease lists
4. 1998-99 Adopted Budget
5. 1998-99 Detail of Department Programs with Financial Summaries
6. 1999-00 Proposed Budget (Adopted one not yet in print. Will be sent later.)
7. 1999-00 Detail of Department Programs with Financial Summaries
8. 1999-00 Revenue Outlook
9. 1997-98 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
10. Pension fund actuarial study (for sworn employees)
11. City Employees Retirement System actuarial study (for civilian employees)
12. Water and Power Retirement System actuarial study (for DWP employees)
Sample Memorandum of Understanding Return to index
1 Applicant's Initial Identification
of
Needs for Data Collection: Memorandum 001 Memorandum 001") at 5:6-7.
2 www.cityofla.org[.]
3 Memorandum 001 at 8:6-10.
4 Financing
the Fiscal Study for San Fernando Valley Secession at 27 (Commission on Local
Governance for the 21st Century, June 11, 1999).
5 Some litigation exposure defies quantification. As examples,
injunctions, consent decrees and extraordinary writs effectuate court orders that may not
require the payment of money.