82.1 F
San Fernando
Thursday, Mar 28, 2024

LAFCO’s Calemine to World: “No More Meetings”

LAFCO’s Calemine to World: ‘No More Meetings’ Politics by Jacqueline Fox For those who’ve never attended a meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission, the state agency that has been crafting terms and conditions and is likely to recommend a ballot initiative on Valley secession, you’ve spared yourselves some agony. For the most part, LAFCO meetings are relatively benign, often two-hour-long marathons crammed full of minutiae. You might sit in on a hearing on whether to amend the County Sanitation District’s sphere of influence, or hear arguments on whether Bell Gardens should trash the Belevedere Garbage Disposal District. And, of course, there have been long and sometimes weighty discussions about previous discussions on the proposed terms and conditions for a Valley split, followed by a series of three-minute speeches from a small cadre of council gadflies and Valley VOTE’s usual suspects during public comment periods. But for the most part, LAFCO meetings have been snoozers, even if over the last year they have largely centered on the historic issue of whether to carve up Los Angeles. The meeting of April 24, however, was a doosie, and anyone who missed it (and by the number of vacant seats inside Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Hearing Room 381B, there were plenty) skipped an opportunity to catch government at its finest. But, if you were there and paying attention, there were strong indications that the panel’s pro-secessionists largely outweigh and can out-yell those who oppose breaking up Los Angeles, even if they hide behind a veneer of “impartiality.” There were also indications that, like those proposing a breakup, LAFCO members have just about reached the end of their rope and are ready to get it over with once and for all. It was an important meeting because “Team LAFCO,” as the panel’s executive officer, Larry Calemine, referred to them repeatedly, received their leader’s final report on secession, nearly wrapping up a process that began six years ago. Tempers flared, promises were broken, reports were rejected, proposals for new reports were canned, and at one point it appeared as if a couple of panel members just might leap from their leather chairs and strangle their colleague Yvonne Brathwaite-Burke if she asked one more “what if” question. In short, the meeting felt like a grand jury inquisition, with some LAFCO members serving as the prosecution, others the defense, and L.A. Assist. City Attorney Fred Merkin on the witness stand. Merkin took the hot seat to answer questions about whether city officials had or hadn’t agreed not to charge new Valley city residents more for their water and power, should secession be approved, during negotiating sessions with LAFCO and members of Valley VOTE over the last six months. LAFCO and Valley VOTE have said the city agreed to keep rates the same in exchange for having the new Valley city contract for the services instead of breaking up the utility. Merkin was careful to avoid saying the city did or didn’t agree to anything, but instead insisted over and over that the city was being forced to “acquiesce” and give up its rights under the law. Which was not what some LAFCO members or Calemine wanted to hear. And the more they tried to get Merkin to come clean, the testier and livelier the debate got. Calemine threatened to split up DWP if the city didn’t give “Team LAFCO” its written position on the issue by May 15, when the panel is expected to approve recommendations for a ballot initiative on secession. “If I don’t have that (the letter), I’m going to change my recommendation to this commission that the new Valley city get its proportionate share of all the assets and liabilities of Water and Power,” Calemine snapped. “Just agree to the damn conditions,” he said later. “Yes or no?” fired LAFCO member and County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky when Merkin again refused to answer the question to his satisfaction. “This is not about rights, it’s about rates,” he said. Deputy Mayor Felipe Fuentes later took to the podium to speak on behalf of his boss, Mayor James Hahn, who has vowed to fight secession. Fuentes said Hahn was still concerned about “stranded costs,” what it would cost the city to complete a divorce from the Valley. But the stranded costs issue is one LAFCO counsel had already declared all but dead in the water. Still, Fuentes pressed on, saying the city planned to submit a report to LAFCO detailing its concerns regarding the issue. “We believe the effects (of a breakup) on Los Angeles haven’t been looked at completely,” Fuentes said. Fuentes’ comment might as well have been a bullet. The last thing LAFCO wants is another report, particularly one from the city just as it begins to weigh the details of its own study, one that has already cost upwards of $2 million and taken nearly three years to complete. “What are his concerns with the report that all of us have had for five days to read?” Yaroslavsky asked. “What is it that would satisfy you?” he asked later, followed by, “So the $2 million we’ve spent on consultants aren’t sufficient? If you think you have $300 million in stranded costs, which I think are bogus, then start dealing with them.” LAFCO Chairman Henri Pellissier later took his own shot at Fuentes, saying, “This shouldn’t have come as a surprise to you. Here we come down to (a final decision on a ballot initiative) and we are going to get a whole list from you people?” Later Yaroslavsky asked Merkin to look into the issue of how sitting council members’ districts in the Valley and those that straddle the Valley and Los Angeles would be affected by a split. “If you can do that in three weeks, I’ll buy you lunch. I’ve never seen the city issue a report in that short of time.” Finally, Jeff Brain, president of Valley VOTE, got his chance to weigh in, largely echoing points made earlier by Calemine and others. But he, too, tested the resolve of the panel, particularly Calemine, when he said Valley VOTE intended to submit “a case for” and call for a meeting to discuss making Jan. 1, 2003 the date of incorporation for a new city, not July 1, which Calemine recommended in his report. “No more meetings,” snapped Calemine. “Just submit alternative language in writing for re-wording. I’ll set up a matrix on alternative language in this report on each and every paragraph.” Jacqueline Fox is politics reporter for the San Fernando Valley Business Journal. She can be reached at [email protected].

Featured Articles

Related Articles