We are sending you this E-mail as you have requested to be notified concerning ValleyVote

If your friends want to be added to our E-mail list to be notified about meetings and issues please send an E-mail with ValleyVote as the subject. We have added links to data referred to in the stories. Interesting items have been highlighted and a few comments added in green. If you want to have your name removed from the list just reply with remove as subject

See | The LAFCO hearings | Valley VOTE press conference | Reminder to attend and speak at the hearings | Advisor Defends His Proposal for Valley Secession

The LAFCO hearings are 10-11, at 6:30 pm Valley College map in Monarch Hall Click for Agenda

http://www.sf-valley.org/images/ValleyMap.gif

http://www.sf-valley.org/images/vcmap.jpg

http://lalafco.co.la.ca.us/Agendas/2001/101101ASR.htm

And 10-13, at 9:30 am at CSUN Shoshone Hall Click for agenda

http://lalafco.co.la.ca.us/Agendas/2001/101301ASR.htm

We will have maps to CSUN on our website later today

These will be the only hearings in the Valley until the final plan is heard, then only one meeting will be in the valley on 2-27-02.

ValleyVote will be holding a press conference in front of Monarch Hall at 6:15 pm sharp.

Please remember tonight to speak from your heart about why you support Valley Cityhood. Speak on behalf of the associations you represent. You should indicate how big your organization is.. This will demonstrate the broad support an independent Valley City has.

Additionally, when speaking to the media, point out that over 200,000 valley residents signed our petition that produced the study. Most are just waiting to vote yes in the November election. If this short noticed hearing turnout is low it is because this is only a draft and it’s not necessary for the public to attend. They will attend when the final CFA is before the hearings, and the most importantly will vote in the election.

When speaking to the media, you must indicate you and your groups positive support for a New Valley City. Clearly, the LA Times is particularly looking to emphasize the negative side as demonstrated by this morning’s article. Regardless of all the positive comments, they chose to use only negative comments about the report. I know all of you will do a wonderful job tonight. Let’s make the Valley proud.

An Important Reminder to attend and speak at the hearings

After years of being shortchanged and neglected by city hall decision makers, valley residents have another chance to make a stand for what is right and to support valley independence. Be a part of history, and please, on behalf of a brighter valley future, attend one or both of these hearings.

We Need You To Attend And Make Your Voice Heard At These Hearings.

We Have Learned That City Union Leaders Are Trying To Fill The Auditorium With The Opposition To Prevent Valley Residents Who Support Valley Cityhood From being heard.

The union has already opposed creating a New Valley City and may very well attempt to block placing it on the ballot for a vote.

Valley VOTE is confident that with the support of Valley residents a satisfactory Cityhood plan can be adopted and put on the November 2002 ballot.

LAFCO released their Draft CFA on Friday. The draft CFA had a number of correctable problems that Valley VOTE will be working to change for the final version

The LAFCO report also had very positive aspects... for the second time LAFCO has confirmed that the Valley is fiscally viable as an independent city, forming a Valley City will be revenue neutral on the rest of Los Angeles, meaning it will not take revenue from the rest of Los Angeles:

1. The Valley residents of the remaining LA City will have NO NEW TAXES.

2. The New Valley City will receive the same level or better services.

3. Valley residents will continue to receive water and power from DWP at the same rates paid by residents of Los Angeles.

4. Even after paying an alimony payment to LA City the Valley will have an annual budget surplus.

5. The New Valley City will have local control with one councilperson per 100,000 residents verses the current one councilperson per 260,000 residents.

6. The New Valley City council will be elected by the people who live in the San Fernando Valley.

The needed changes make attending the LAFCO public hearings even more important. Valley residents and business people are urged to attend these hearings and show their support for making the Valley an independent City.

Some of the issues we are concerned about include the following:

1. The New Valley City must receive a fair distribution of all the assets that Los Angeles owns or controls. At the same time it accepts that we will pay that same share of all the debts that have financed these assets.

2. The Valley must be politically and structurally independent from the City of Los Angeles.

3. As an independent city, the new Valley City must have control over its own finances and operations.

4 The transition process should provide for a clear, orderly, and smooth transition of city services under control of the elected government of the New Valley City.

5. Appropriate protections for city employees. The LA workers who have serviced the valley must be fully protected. The New Valley City will hire these workers, pay them exactly what their contract requires, and provide them each and every benefit that their contract entitles them to.

Feel free to add your own demands and comments.

A copy of the draft CFA is available at the Valley VOTE website at

http://www.ValleyVote.org/lafco/cfaindex.htm

For questions or more information call (818) 501-5862 or email us at ValleyVote@aol.com

We thought you would find this story from the 10-11-01 LA Times interesting. Click here for the full original

Advisor Defends His Proposal for Valley Secession

By MICHAEL FINNEGAN, TIMES STAFF WRITER

The plan would avert disruption of city services and protect thousands of municipal employees from layoffs if the Valley were to break away from Los Angeles, said Keith D. Curry, who led the team that drafted the proposal.

The Valley independence plan released Friday sparked an uproar among secessionists, because it would require the new city to contract with Los Angeles for police and fire protection, trash collection and all other municipal services. They called it "a recipe for disaster," "the lazy way out" and worse. [No source for these negative quotes] It calls for a mayor and city council to govern the new Valley city with just 19 employees. The city would pay Los Angeles $1 billion a year--just short of its entire treasury. After a year, it could hire other contractors or provide its own services, but any separation from Los Angeles would be subject to negotiation with City Hall downtown. [The author of the report states the new Valley Council has control not LA City]

"Some might say the Valley is not a true separate entity," Curry told the Local Agency Formation Commission, which is considering whether to put secession before voters. "But this is precisely the same model used universally in California for new cities. Lakewood has contracted with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department for nearly 50 years. Does anyone believe they're not a real city?

"The new city would control a billion-dollar checkbook for the purpose of service, thus giving it tremendous leverage and control over its own destiny," he added. "The new city would control land-use decisions within its boundaries, a key issue of local control." Most important, he said, the Valley city "would have its own elected leadership."

Curry is a managing director of Public Financial Management, a Philadelphia consulting firm hired by LAFCO to study secession and craft a plan that could be put on the November 2002 ballot. After public hearings that begin tonight, LAFCO could revise the plan. Separatists are pushing for a Valley city with more control over its finances and operations, along with a fair share of the city's assets.

"It's a sad excuse for a report, in our opinion, but we're going to work with it," said William Powers, a board member of the Valley VOTE secession group.

City officials have voiced their own concerns. Councilman Dennis Zine called the plan "ridiculous," "bizarre" and "absurd," saying it was too vague to put on the ballot.

To calm the debate, Curry laid out the legal constraints on the creation of a Valley city: It must be fiscally viable, it must not harm the rest of Los Angeles, and city employees must not be laid off before the expiration of their union contracts. Otherwise, he said, the ballot proposal would be vulnerable to court challenge.

The consulting firm was forced to abandon its earlier plan for a wholesale split of the city work force and all of its agencies after Los Angeles City Hall raised thousands of objections, he said. He questioned the city's motives, suggesting City Hall was trying to undermine secession by making it seem too expensive and disruptive to city services.

At the same time, the consultants did not want to "second-guess the city's own managers," Curry said. Among the consulting firm's top concerns: the possibility that thousands of Los Angeles employees would refuse to take new jobs with the Valley city, leaving LAFCO to transfer them against their will.

"How would we choose among the employees?" Curry asked. Under the new plan, any decisions on employee transfers would be left to the elected officials of Los Angeles and the Valley city.

Curry also responded to secessionists' anger over the absence of parks and other assets for the Valley city in the new plan. He told the commission, "We welcome your policy direction on how to address the issue of fixed assets and any related compensation issues" in the final ballot proposal.

For now, City Hall and Valley VOTE plan to negotiate over the next several weeks on key aspects of the ballot measure, including proposed "alimony" payments from the Valley city to Los Angeles. LAFCO Executive Officer Larry J. Calemine said a moderator might be needed to avoid "a screaming match."

Mayor James K. Hahn and the City Council have called for the negotiations to take place in public. But LAFCO commissioners plan to start the talks with a private meeting with Hahn on Oct. 19 to set up a framework for negotiations.
"It's probably going to be more effective if it's not open to the public," LAFCO Chairman Henri Pellissier said.

But City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, the mayor's sister, called on her brother and LAFCO to hold the meeting in public. "These meetings need to be out in the open," she said. Zine also called for opening the meeting to the public. And John M. Walker of Valley VOTE told the LAFCO board it would be wrong to bar an audience.

[All sides want his meetings to be held in public]

"The public has a right to know what's going on with its government," Walker said. "This is basically the heart of it. We're looking at birthing new cities. Everything that occurs should be under the scrutiny of the eyes of the public. I don't care what it is."

A spokeswoman for the mayor, Julie Wong, said he would open the meeting at least to news media if LAFCO agrees. Pellissier said the decision was up to Calemine, who could not be reached.

Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved