Revised Budget Buoys Harbor City Viability

Secessionists determined to cleave the harbor area from Los Angeles submitted a revised budget plan Thursday that shows the proposed city would be financially healthy, a key requirement for placing harbor independence on the ballot.

The new budget comes as the harbor secession drive nears a moment of truth. Next week, the state commission charged with reviewing secession will issue its final report on a harbor city’s viability. Earlier reports found that such a city, with a population of 141,000, would have to slash costs to stay afloat.

But with help from fellow secessionists in the San Fernando Valley and Hollywood, harbor independence backers on Thursday unveiled a $101-million annual budget that depicts a thrifty municipal government with a modest surplus.

The blueprint has a harbor city saving money by contracting with Los Angeles County, rather than the city of Los Angeles, for police and fire protection, libraries and animal control. Hiring the county Sheriff’s Department instead of the Los Angeles Police Department would save $15 million a year alone, according to the secessionists’ estimates. More savings would come from using private companies for sanitation and park maintenance.

“I think we can make it onto the ballot based on these figures,” said Andy Rafkin, head of the secession group Harbor Study Foundation. “I’m still very optimistic.”

But Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, a secession opponent who represents the harbor area, said the plan cuts vital services. “I don’t think this is the golden city that people are expecting,” she said. “It would hurt everything from our property values to our public safety.”

Hahn said the plan would lump a number of departments, including emergency preparedness and disability services, into the city manager’s office. “The departments we have right now would be reduced to one person’s desk,” she said.

The harbor area’s fate could have serious implications for the secession efforts in the Valley and Hollywood. To win, each secession measure must capture a majority of votes, both within the breakaway region and citywide.

If all three cityhood bids hit the November ballot, the theory goes, each stands a better chance of winning citywide approval.

“The more secession movements they can get onto the ballot at once, the more people will vote yes,” said Harvey Englander, a campaign strategist who has worked in Los Angeles for 34 years. “It also creates difficulties for the people fighting secession, because now they’ve got to fight on three fronts.”

Last month, the director of the Local Agency Formation Commission gave Valley secession his virtual blessing, deeming it financially feasible. Now the nine-member LAFCO board, the panel empowered by state law to set secession elections, is slated to decide May 22 whether to place Valley cityhood on the Nov. 5 ballot. Decisions on whether Hollywood and harbor secession should go on the ballot will follow.

LAFCO Director Larry Calemine has yet to present his recommendations on Hollywood, but earlier reports have indicated that the area could survive financially as a city.

The harbor area’s prospects for financial independence have long appeared shaky, however. In March, LAFCO found that Los Angeles spends about $37 million more on harbor communities than the area generates in tax revenue.

State Controller Kathleen Connell reviewed those findings and concluded that the harbor area wouldn’t be able to make ends meet. Then, in another blow to cityhood, the state Lands Commission last month voted against including the Port of Los Angeles in the proposed city, denying it millions in revenue.

But Calemine has indicated that harbor secessionists might not be out of the game.

Losing the port could have an upside, he said. That’s because the new city wouldn’t have to spend any money policing, fighting fires or providing other services at the port.

Still, Calemine said he was not sure his final analysis--expected to be released Wednesday--would result in favorable findings for a harbor city.

Harbor secessionists maintain that LAFCO unfairly judged their initial proposal. The commission superimposed big-city budget data over the region instead of envisioning a mid-sized town with a bureaucracy to match, they say.

It remains unclear whether LAFCO will support the new plan.

“I’ve heard some commissioners say that any city could be viable, because there are some small cities that do survive, even with very little revenue,” said Craig Hoshijima, a consultant who helped LAFCO analyze harbor cityhood.