Introduction

Purpose

The objective of this staff report is to provide the Commission with summary and analysis of potential terms and conditions on which they may condition approval of the proposal for special reorganization of the Harbor area of the City of Los Angeles—a detachment of the Harbor area territory from the City of Los Angeles and incorporation of that area as an independent city (“Harbor Special Reorganization”).

Context

This staff report is based on studies, negotiations and proposals that have been conducted this far in the process. This input includes the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis, (“CFA”), supplemental reports prepared by LAFCO’s consultant, comments at public hearings, the “terms and conditions” round of negotiations between the City of Los Angeles and the Harbor Special Reorganization applicant (the “Applicant”) held during the last quarter of 2001, and the parties’ written proposals.

This report will be followed by further staff reports on LAFCO’s terms and conditions. A subsequent report will be prepared following the “revenue neutrality” round of negotiations between the City of Los Angeles and the Applicant in March 2002. The Executive Officer’s report will be issued in April 2002 following completion of revenue neutrality negotiations, Subcommittee on Findings, Terms and Conditions (the “Subcommittee”) hearings, the Environmental Impact Report and the Controller’s review of the CFA.

Caveats

This report includes analysis and recommendations on terms and conditions for the Commission and its Subcommittee to consider as they craft the final terms under which special reorganization will be submitted to the electorate.

This report is not a substitute for the guidance, deliberations and recommendations forthcoming from the Subcommittee. Likewise, this report is not a substitute for the decisions yet to be made by the Commission on whether the proposed Harbor Special Reorganization should be approved and how, if approved, the proposed Harbor Special Reorganization should occur.

Background

Procedural Requirements

The special reorganization process for the proposed Harbor Special Reorganization is set forth in the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (the “Cortese-Knox Act”).[1] While certain provisions of the Cortese-Knox Act are specific to special reorganization, most of the provisions that relate to incorporations are also applicable because a special reorganization includes an incorporation.[2]

Significant Voter Interest

In order to initiate proceedings for a special reorganization, an applicant is required to obtain the signatures of 25 percent of the registered voters in the territory seeking special reorganization. The Applicant filed its petitions in June 1999. In July 1999, LAFCO certified the petitions to be sufficient after the Los Angeles County Registrar/Recorder verified the requisite number of valid signatures of registered voters residing in the Harbor area.

Fiscal Viability

The Commission cannot approve a proposal for special reorganization unless it finds that the proposed city is financially viable, i.e. expected to receive revenues sufficient to provide public services and facilities and a reasonable reserve during the three fiscal years following incorporation.[3] The Executive Officer is charged with causing the preparation of a comprehensive fiscal analysis, which reviews and documents each of the following:

(a) The costs to the proposed city of providing public services and facilities during the three fiscal years following incorporation;

(b) The revenues of the proposed city during the three fiscal years following incorporation;

(c) The effects on the costs and revenues of any affected local agency during the three fiscal years of incorporation; and

(d) Any other information and analysis needed to make the findings required by Section 56375.1.[4]

The Executive Officer submitted the Harbor Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (“CFA”) to the Commission on January 9, 2002. The CFA concluded that the proposed city’s revenues would exceed its expenditures, and that the proposed city would have a modest reserve in its early years.[5] The City of Los Angeles requested that the State Controller review the CFA.[6] The CFA, the supplemental report, and the Controller’s report will be a part of the report and recommendations on the proposal that the Executive Officer will present to the Commission.[7] The Commission will consider all of these documents when it makes its final determination on the proposal.

Mitigation of Negative Fiscal Effects (“Revenue Neutrality”)

Government Code section 56845 prohibits the Commission from approving a proposal that includes an incorporation unless it finds that the following are substantially equal:

(a) revenues currently received by the agency transferring the affected territory which would accrue to the local agency receiving the affected territory; and

(b) expenditures currently made by the local agency transferring the affected territory for those services which will be assumed by the local agency receiving the affected territory.

If these amounts are not substantially equal, the Commission may only approve a proposal if it finds that: (1) the county and all other subject agencies agree, or (2) the negative fiscal effect of the incorporation is adequately mitigated by tax sharing agreements, or other terms and conditions imposed by the Commission.[8]

The revenue neutrality requirement was intended to protect counties from the revenue drain caused by incorporation, given that counties are required to provide and fund certain county-wide services even after an incorporation occurs. If a negative fiscal effect is anticipated, the incorporating territory must mitigate the negative fiscal effect, usually through a fixed payment over time. Although intended to protect counties, this provision is equally applicable to a proposed special reorganization (because it includes an incorporation). Further, this provision protects the City of Los Angeles, as the transferring agency, from the negative fiscal effect of the special reorganization.

The CFA contains an analysis of the “revenue neutrality” test set forth above, and concludes that the Harbor Special Reorganization would not meet the revenue neutrality test because the Harbor currently generates less in revenue than the City of Los Angeles currently expends in providing the services that would transfer to the proposed Harbor city. As such, current revenues and current expenditures are not substantially equal. However, since the City of Los Angeles currently expends more in providing services to the Harbor than it receives in revenue from the Harbor, a special reorganization of the Harbor area would not cause a negative fiscal effect on the City of Los Angeles. Instead, the City would receive a fiscal benefit, and therefore, no mitigation for the City should be required.

Legal counsel has previously advised the Commission that the Harbor would not be entitled to a reverse mitigation payment from the City of Los Angeles.[9] While Government Code sections 56844 and 56845 provide the Commission with discretion to impose terms and conditions and to mitigate negative fiscal effects, the Commission’s discretion must be exercised in light of the legislative intent of the Cortese-Knox Act and in the furtherance of its stated policy considerations. The Cortese-Knox Act emphasizes the formation of local agencies that are fiscally self-sufficient and sustainable and requires that the Commission take into consideration the limited financial resources of a community and weigh that against the community’s service needs. If the Harbor needed to rely on a continuing subsidy from the City of Los Angeles, its fiscal viability would be subject to serious doubt.

Mitigation of Negative Environmental Effects

The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (“CEQA”)[10] requires that significant environmental impacts be taken into consideration by the Commission prior to the Commission’s discretionary approval of any proposal for a change in local government organization or reorganization. The Commission has retained a consultant to prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the proposed Harbor Special Reorganization. The draft EIR will be circulated in March 2002 and the final EIR should be released in May 2002.

In most incorporations, the LAFCO has filed a “negative declaration” indicating that no significant environmental effects are anticipated. However, failure to conduct an environmental impact study was the subject of litigation in the San Ysidro detachment proposal in San Diego County and the Citrus Heights incorporation in Sacramento County.[11] Legal counsel has advised the Commission that basing its decision on consideration of an EIR, as opposed to a negative declaration, should be more defensible if the Commission’s CEQA findings are challenged legally.

The Commission is not compelled to deny a proposal due to negative environmental effects, but may condition its approval on terms and conditions mitigating environmental impacts.

Terms and Conditions

The Commission must prepare a resolution making determinations—a document indicating whether or not the Commission approves the proposal and listing the terms and conditions for approval.

In making its decision, the Commission is charged with taking into consideration such factors as:

· the likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years,

· the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area,

· the probable effect of the proposed incorporation… and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent areas, and

· the effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions, on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests, and on the local governmental structure of the county.[12]

The legislature has given the Commission broad discretion regarding the terms and conditions that may be included in the resolution. The discretionary terms and conditions may include provisions regarding continuation of service delivery, the establishment of an effective date for the special reorganization, allocation of City assets and outstanding debts, and public employee rights and benefits, among other issues.

A resolution making determinations typically includes the following components:

· reasons for the reorganization,

· boundaries of the territory involved,

· a distinctive short-term designation to the affected territory and a description of the territory,

· property tax revenue amount to be exchanged by the affected local agencies,

· provisional appropriations limit of the proposed city, and

· directions for the conducting authority to initiate protest and election proceedings.

After the Commission adopts its resolution, there is a 30-day period during which parties may request reconsideration of the Commission’s decision or propose amendments to the resolution.[13] If any such requests are received, the Commission must consider the request and may choose to wholly, partially or conditionally approve or disapprove the request, which may require amendment of the resolution. Once the resolution is finalized, the terms and conditions may not be changed.

Conducting Authority Proceedings

The conducting authority designated by the Commission conducts protest proceedings, and if required, calls for an election on the question of special reorganization. The conducting authority in most California incorporations is the Board of Supervisors[14]; however, in the case of the proposed Harbor Special Reorganization, the Commission has the option of designating either the County or the City Council of the City of Los Angeles as the conducting authority.[15] The Commission has designated the Board of Supervisors as the conducting authority.

The conducting authority holds a protest hearing at which time the conducting authority will accept written protests against the proposed special reorganization. Special reorganization proceedings must be terminated if the conducting authority receives written protests from a majority of the registered voters residing in the Harbor Special Reorganization area.[16] In the absence of a majority protest, the conducting authority is required to call an election on the question of special reorganization.[17] The conducting authority must adopt a resolution calling for the election by August 9, 2002 in order for the proposal to be considered in the November 2002 general election.[18]

Voter Approval

The conducting authority is required to call the election for special reorganization in the territory ordered to be detached form the city and the entire territory of the city from which the detachment is ordered to occur.[19] Therefore, a majority of the registered voters residing in both the City of Los Angeles and the proposed Harbor Special Reorganization area must approve the proposal for special reorganization. The voters will be asked a single ballot question as to whether or not they approve special reorganization of the Harbor area of the City of Los Angeles. The voter’s booklet will include an impartial ballot analysis prepared by LAFCO.[20]

In addition to voting on the question of special reorganization, voters residing in the Harbor will also be asked to select five city council candidates. The city council candidates will be selected at large.

The election is expected to take place on November 5, 2002.

Special Reorganization History

Only two cities have been split off from existing cities in California’s history. In 1890, the City of Coronado was formed from San Diego, and in 1920, Montebello split from Monterey Park. Both cases predate the creation of local agency formation commissions, as well as legal requirements for fiscal and environmental studies.

Coronado seceded from the City of San Diego a few years after the first beach resort was built on the peninsula, and after a battle over boundaries was waged in both the legislature and the courts. The San Diego City Council opposed the detachment, but was compelled by the California Supreme Court to let the voters decide. A few months later, Coronado's detachment and incorporation were approved at a special election by a majority of the voters, both in Coronado and citywide.

The detachment of Montebello from Monterey Park was amicable. Monterey Park had incorporated only four years prior to the break-up “as a defensive measure to prevent neighboring Alhambra, Pasadena, and South Pasadena from converting the area into a sewer farm”.[21] Shortly after the sewer farm project was stopped, the Monterey Park City Council approved Montebello residents’ detachment proposal.[22]

From 1977 until 1997, a city council could require the termination of any proceeding involving the detachment of territory from its jurisdiction. Legislation adopted in 1997 (AB 62) exempted special reorganizations from this provision, and the legislature instituted the requirement of voter approval in both the area of special reorganization and the city as a whole.[23] Further, the law requires protection of municipal employee compensation, benefits and job security.

The Harbor Area Proposal

Not long after the state legislature’s 1997 reforms, the Applicant filed its application with LAFCO for special reorganization of the Harbor area of the City of Los Angeles. The area proposed for special reorganization is the portion of the Harbor area south of Lomita Boulevard. Most of this area voted to consolidate with the City of Los Angeles in 1909 after the City promised harbor improvements, a new highway, and stable terminal rents. At that time, the cities of San Pedro and Wilmington lacked the resources needed to develop the harbor. Between 1919 and 1928, seven small areas neighboring the original City of San Pedro were annexed to the City.

The Harbor is relatively large compared with other recently incorporated California cities. Four percent of City of Los Angeles residents live in the Harbor.[24] Seven percent of the current City of Los Angeles territory lies in the Harbor.

The reasons cited for Harbor independence are unresponsiveness and inadequacy of current services provided by the City of Los Angeles. The Applicant believes that Harbor independence would provide:

· Greater local control over local neighborhoods and decisions affecting their quality of life,

· Improved basic [municipal] services,

· Lower taxes and fees,

· Safe and clean neighborhoods,

· Short, medium, and long term planning based on the public's priorities,

· A business environment that encourages new businesses, seeks to retain existing businesses, and seeks to create new quality jobs,

· Equal opportunity and fair representation for all residents,

· Equity in the distribution of services and representation, and,

· Government that is accessible, accountable, and responsive.

Fiscal Findings

LAFCO’s consultant, Public Financial Management, Inc., has prepared a comprehensive fiscal analysis of the proposed reorganization.[25] The comprehensive fiscal analysis (“CFA”) is required to analyze two issues: whether or not the proposed city would be fiscally viable through the first three fiscal years of incorporation, and the approximate dollar amount of negative fiscal effects on local agencies.

The CFA found that a new Harbor city’s revenues would be significantly less than the City of Los Angeles current expenditures for services in the Harbor area. To arrive at this finding, the comprehensive fiscal analysis imposed the existing cost and revenue structure of the City of Los Angeles on the proposed city.

Harbor Revenues

As a general law city, the proposed Harbor city cannot levy a documentary transfer tax in excess of the tax authorized by Revenue and Taxation Code section 11911. State law does not limit the City of Los Angeles’ levying authority for a tax on the sale of property due to its status as a charter city.[26] The City currently charges $4.50 per $1000 in property value transferred. Revenue and Taxation Code section 11911 authorizes counties to impose a tax of $1.10 per $1000 in value of property on deeds transferring property. Section 11911 permits cities within counties that have imposed such a tax to capture half of that amount from the county. Property owners in the City of Los Angeles pay both the City-imposed tax of $4.50 per $1000 and the County-imposed tax of $1.10 per $1000 (a city not in compliance with section 11911 cannot take any portion of the county’s documentary transfer tax revenue). As a general law city, a new Harbor city would only be able to collect one-half of the County-imposed tax or $0.55 per $1000. This means that the City of Los Angeles would lose approximately $3.5 million in documentary transfer tax revenue if the Harbor detaches, and the Harbor city would only be able to collect $400,000 in documentary transfer tax, based on its statutory entitlement to one-half of the County-imposed tax.

Revenue Neutrality Finding

The CFA determined that current revenues accruing to the Harbor would be $34.2 million less than current expenditures that would be assumed by the Harbor.[27] After factoring in the effects of adjusting the debt allocations and accounting for documentary transfer tax reductions, the current revenues accruing to the Harbor would be less than current expenditures that would be assumed by the Harbor by $37.1 million. Although the Harbor Special Reorganization is not revenue neutral, the Harbor city would not owe the City of Los Angeles any fiscal mitigation payment, nor would the City of Los Angeles owe the Harbor any fiscal mitigation payment.[28]

The Harbor special reorganization would not result in a negative fiscal effect on the City of Los Angeles. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission find that the Harbor Special Reorganization would not be revenue neutral, but that no mitigation payment would be required.

While the Harbor city would not be able to collect the same documentary transfer tax as the City of Los Angeles, it is authorized to adopt an ordinance pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 11911 that would entitle it to one-half of the County’s documentary transfer tax. If the new city were to adopt such an ordinance it would have a negative fiscal effect on the County of Los Angeles of $400,000. However, given that the County is required by statute to share these revenues with any city within its boundaries that imposes a documentary transfer tax pursuant to section 11911, staff recommends against requiring the Harbor city to compensate the County for this loss. Because the City of Los Angeles’ documentary transfer tax was greater than that allowed pursuant to section 11911, the County has not had to share one-half of its tax with the City, and therefore, has received the benefit of collecting and retaining the full tax for a number of years. Should the County request that it be compensated for this loss this matter may be reconsidered.

Fiscal Viability Finding

The loss in revenue to the proposed Harbor city caused by its inability to impose the same documentary transfer tax rate as the City of Los Angeles will have to be considered by the Commission in making its finding of fiscal viability. Staff recommends that there should be a satisfactory demonstration of the proposed new city’s ability to either achieve cost savings and/or generate additional revenue to mitigate this loss in revenue before a finding of fiscal viability may be made.

Transition Period

The Cortese-Knox Act provides for a period of time, typically called the “transition period,” when a county is required to continue to provide services to a newly incorporated city.[29] The purpose of the transition period is to provide continuity of services to the new territory while the new city is establishing itself. In this case, the transition period is the period of time when the new city would rely on the City of Los Angeles for services under terms specified by the LAFCO resolution.

The Cortese-Knox Act provides for a transition period extending from the effective date to the end of the fiscal year in which incorporation occurs, or longer by agreement of the parties.[30] Elsewhere the Act extends flexibility to the Commission in setting terms and conditions providing for the continuation of services and payment for those services for a longer period of time, so long as the Commission’s decision to do so is supported by substantial evidence in the record.[31]

Effective Date

The Commission must establish an effective date for the proposed city. The effective date must occur within nine months of the election approving the special reorganization.[32]

Effective dates used in other California incorporations are listed in the accompanying table. Past practice indicates that effective dates for incorporations approved in November elections are typically set for the following January 1 or February 1, but have been set as early as December 1 and as late as July 1.[33]

Commission Alternatives

Although there are a number of alternatives that the Commission may consider, staff recommends the following three alternatives for consideration:

1) December 16, 2002: the effective date proposed by the Applicant,

2) January 1, 2003: an effective date that would eliminate mid-month accounting problems, and

3) July 1, 2003: an effective date that would coincide with the start of the fiscal year.

There are three major considerations in the establishment of the effective date: revenue and cash flow issues, accounting costs, and transition period length.

The Applicant specifically proposed a December 16, 2002 effective date. The Applicant indicated that the reason for this effective date proposal is that the new city seeks to meet state deadlines for sales tax, property tax and subventions to ensure that these revenues flow to the new city for its entire first calendar year. The Applicant’s goals are to minimize the time period between the new city’s approval and its official start. In negotiation sessions, the Applicant expressed concern about policy decisions affecting the Harbor that could be made by City of Los Angeles officials during the period between an election and the effective date.

The City of Los Angeles has expressed indifference between a December 16 and July 1 effective date. The City would benefit from a December 16 effective date if it reduces the length of the transition period. The City has also indicated that a July 1 effective date is appealing from an accounting and cash flow standpoint, and would provide a longer time period for negotiation of service contracts.

Accounting Costs

As the City’s fiscal year ends on June 30 of each year, the December 16 and January 1 alternatives would fall in the middle of the fiscal year. The City of Los Angeles has indicated in the negotiation sessions that a mid-fiscal year effective date would require the City to produce two year-end financial statements during the 2002-03 fiscal year. Further, the City has indicated that the new Harbor city should absorb the costs of producing the mid-fiscal year financial statements. The City has not provided LAFCO with an estimate for the likely costs associated with producing audited financial statements for a mid-fiscal year effective date, so it is difficult to evaluate the importance of this issue.

Revenue and Cash Flow

Due to various lags between the assessment and collection of taxes, there are certain Harbor revenue streams that may continue to be remitted to the City of Los Angeles after incorporation. The post-incorporation Harbor revenue streams remitted to the City of Los Angeles vary for the different effective dates.

Any revenues generated in the Harbor during the transition period and retained by the City of Los Angeles must be credited toward the transition period service costs pursuant to Government Code section 57384(b). However, revenues that are generated in the territory prior to the effective date would not necessarily be credited toward the transition period service costs.

With a mid-fiscal year effective date, there are two major revenue sources—the property tax and the business license tax—that present allocation complexities. The statute does not define precisely what is meant by the timing of the revenue generation.

In the case of the property tax, which is the largest revenue single revenue stream, the County Auditor/Controller will remit the Harbor portion of the April 2003 property tax payment to the City of Los Angeles. At issue is the portion of property tax revenues generated in the Harbor—about $10.4 million—that would have been used to cover Harbor service delivery costs in the second half of the year if special reorganization had not occurred. Under the current City boundaries, the City uses a portion of the receipts to finance service costs in the earlier portion of the fiscal year, and another portion to pay for service delivery costs in the later portion of the year.[34] Clearly, this portion of the property tax should be credited toward the City’s costs of providing services to the Harbor during the transition period. With a mid-fiscal year effective date, the Commission should add terms and conditions requiring the City of Los Angeles to credit the April 2003 property tax payment to transition period costs.

With a July 1 effective date, this property tax cash flow issue would not require any special terms and conditions because the Harbor would receive all property tax revenue generated after July 1 so long as the LAFCO Executive Officer files a statement of boundary change with the Board of Equalization by December 1, 2002.[35]

The business license tax is another major revenue stream with allocation complexities that may be considered in establishing the effective date. At issue in the case of the Harbor is a $7.4 million revenue stream. The business tax is unique in that it is paid for the privilege of conducting business in the City during the calendar year, with most payments received in the month of March. The tax is essentially fronted by businesses for the privilege of conducting business in the City during the calendar year. However, for budget purposes, the City of Los Angeles allocates the revenue to the fiscal year underway at the time of collection.

With a January 1 effective date, it is unclear as to which party would receive all the business license revenues for the fiscal year underway. A City of Los Angeles consultant has argued that the City of Los Angeles would receive all fiscal year 2002-03 business tax revenues if the new city incorporates on January 1.[36] With a December 16 effective date the consultant contends that the Harbor would receive virtually all the fiscal year 2002-03 business tax revenues attributable to the Harbor, including those that should fund services delivered prior to incorporation. With a July 1 effective date, the consultant contends that City of Los Angeles would receive all the revenues attributable to the Harbor for the privilege of conducting business in the Harbor during the 2003 calendar year.

To the extent practicable, these revenues should be allocated between the parties, depending on the effective date, through terms and conditions imposed by the Commission. If the revenue is apportioned based on the fiscal year, with a December 16 and a January 1 effective date, one-half of the business tax revenues for 2002-03 should be allocated to the new city. With an effective date of July 1, none of the 2002-03 business tax revenues would be allocated to the new Harbor city.

Precedent

Citrus Heights incorporated in the middle of the fiscal year on January 1, 1997. The new city was unaware of the Board of Equalization deadlines for the property tax as well as the first quarter sales tax, and missed both deadlines. As a result, the county collected the new city’s fiscal year 1997-98 property tax and first quarter sales tax. The new city defaulted on its mitigation payment, the county sued, and the parties eventually reached a settlement agreement that credited these revenues toward Citrus Heights’ transition service costs.

Sacramento County credited Elk Grove with sales taxes that were assessed before incorporation and collected after incorporation.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Commission adopt a January 1, 2003 effective date. Staff does not recommend a December 16 effective date as it would present accounting complexities and would allocate Christmas-related sales tax receipts to the Harbor instead of the City of Los Angeles. Staff does not recommend a July 1 effective date to allay the Applicant’s concerns about policy decisions made by the City of Los Angeles between the election and the effective date.

Staff recommends that the Commission accommodate the January 1 effective date by ensuring that one-half of the fiscal year 2002-03 property and business license tax receipts generated in the Harbor are allocated to each party.

Transition Period Length

The City of Los Angeles has proposed that the transition period cover the remainder of the fiscal year underway on the effective date. The City negotiators expressed concern over a lengthy period of service obligation without contracts or reimbursement guarantees. Further, the City is concerned that the transition period will be fraught with conflict, due to the lack of contractual agreement about the scope of services to be provided.

The Applicant has proposed that the new city would become independent of all City of Los Angeles services other than public safety within the first twelve months, and would become independent of City of Los Angeles public safety services within the first eighteen months.[37] In a related proposal, the Applicant has indicated that it would like the new city to be able to discontinue most services during the transition period three months after giving notice to the City of Los Angeles, with a six-month notice period for police and fire service.

Contract Service Incentives

The new city has financial incentives to begin providing some services directly and to contract with other local agencies if their service costs are lower than City of Los Angeles service costs. The new city cannot afford to reimburse the City of Los Angeles for the full panoply of current services and overhead. By hiring its own employees, the Harbor would have greater flexibility in reassigning staff to higher priority functions and of restructuring or downsizing staff through attrition.

Precedent

In past incorporations, the counties have provided all services to the new city during the transition period, and negotiated contracts for continued service provision afterwards. The actual transition process typically takes longer than the formal transition period. The new city will typically hire consulting firms to provide legal and accounting services during the start-up period, and staff up slowly to ensure that revenues can consistently cover the new commitments.

At a minimum, new cities typically take over planning, environmental affairs and park maintenance services. The larger the new city, the more likely it is to take over direct service provision in more areas. In the case of Santa Clarita—the largest incorporation to date in California—the new city has gradually taken over providing all services (except public safety) since its 1987 incorporation. The proposed Harbor area is comparable in size to Santa Clarita. Historically, the transition period has been considered a period during which the old jurisdiction provides all services for the new city. Only in the case of Rancho Santa Margarita has there been a staggered transition period, in that case the parties added an extra year to the transition period for law enforcement services.

Analysis

The City’s proposal for a transition period extending through the remainder of the fiscal year does not seem to provide enough time for the Harbor to assess its options and for the parties to negotiate service contracts. With a December 16 effective date, the City’s proposal would provide 6 ½ months for the Harbor to conduct cost studies, establish a transition strategy and timeline, and negotiate service contracts. With a July 1 effective date, the City’s proposal would provide 12 months of transition services, in addition to an eight-month period prior to incorporation. The Applicant’s proposal, on the other hand, does not unnecessarily prolong the transition period, but does provide more flexibility to the parties in negotiating the transfer of service and/or the establishment of service contracts.

Staff Recommendations

Staff recommends that the transition period end with the City of Los Angeles fiscal year. Staff recommends, therefore, that the transition period should conclude on June 30, 2004. If the Commission sets January 1, 2003 as the effective date, this transition period length provides the parties with approximately 19 months to negotiate service contracts, and limits the time in which the City of Los Angeles is required to provide services without a contract to eighteen months.

Transition Period Service Discontinuation Notice

The purpose of the transition period is to assure that public services are delivered while the new city is establishing itself. The statute provides that the new city council may terminate transition period service at its sole option at any time during the transition period. Although the statute does not provide a notification period, the Commission has the discretion to require a reasonable notification period in order to protect the City of Los Angeles from fiscal harm.

Both parties have proposed an escape clause allowing unilateral termination of the transition period. The City of Los Angeles has simply proposed that the county be required to provide service if the City cannot or does not provide transition service, but has provided no notification period warning the new city or the county. The Applicant has proposed that the new city’s council may terminate the transition period service arrangement with three months’ notice for regular services and six months’ notice for public safety services.

Since it is possible that the parties will negotiate and enter into permanent service contracts for some services during the transition period, staff recommends that the Commission require that the transition period for a particular service terminate upon the effective date of a contract for the provision of that service. This term will avoid the possibility of any conflict between application of the terms and conditions for the transition period and the obligations of the parties pursuant to contract, and will encourage the parties to enter into more permanent contractual relationships as soon as possible.

Staff Recommendation

Staff does not see any merit to a City of Los Angeles ability to escape service obligations during the transition period, particularly in the case of public safety service. The City of Los Angeles should be required to provide services until the expiration of the transition period.

Staff recommends that LAFCO allow the new city to cancel transition period services with six months notice. During the notification period, the new city should be required to continue to pay for transition period services.

Staff recommends, however, that the transition period for a particular service automatically be terminated on the effective date of a service contract between the parties.

Service Levels

The Cortese-Knox Act provides that, during the transition period, “all services furnished to the area prior to incorporation” continue to be furnished.[38] In five of the last seven California incorporations, the LAFCO resolution has required that the county maintain pre-incorporation service levels during the transition period.

The Applicant has proposed that the City of Los Angeles maintain pre-incorporation service levels, and that this requirement be enforced through a non-binding arbitration procedure that may result in a reduction in the new city’s payment for transition services if the City fails to maintain service levels.

The City of Los Angeles has proposed that it retain the right to adjust service levels in the event of revenue shortfalls, emergency, or natural disaster.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that LAFCO honor the spirit of both proposals. The LAFCO resolution should include a provision requiring the City of Los Angeles to maintain current service levels in the new city except as may be required for management of emergencies or revenue shortfalls. The provision should authorize the City of Los Angeles to reduce service levels in a proportional manner in the event that the Harbor’s actual transition period service payments fall short of baseline costs.

Service Control

The Applicant has proposed that it be accorded management responsibilities over City of Los Angeles employees servicing the Harbor area during the transition period. The Applicant has proposed that it lease (“second”) certain City of Los Angeles employees during the transition period, and that the new City Manager direct the leased employees’ activities.

Staff recommends against imposing any employee leasing (or “seconding”) arrangements on the parties in the LAFCO resolution. Such an arrangement may be the subject of negotiations between the parties for any services to be provided by contract, but it would not be an appropriate arrangement during the transition period, where the City of Los Angeles is required to continue to provide services without the benefit of contract protections. Such an arrangement also raises numerous employee-related issues that would be better addressed by the parties and employee representatives.

Transition Service Scope

The transition service scope is a definition of the types of services that the new city anticipates needing during the transition period. The Applicant has proposed that it be allowed to define the service scope. Specifically, the Applicant has proposed to provide its own budgeting, financial and legal services upon the effective date. Further the Applicant has indicated that it would not require any services to be provided by the Mayor, City Council, Departments of Aging, Cultural Affairs, Disability, Environmental Affairs, Emergency Preparedness, Commission on the Status of Women, Commission for Children, Youth & Their Families, and Sanitation.[39] In addition, the Applicant does not require all functions within other departments of the City, and has specifically mentioned not requiring the management and supervisory staff but only personnel directly providing service. Further, the Harbor does not intend to use the services of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment.

The Cortese-Knox Act provides that the jurisdiction providing services during the transition period may request reimbursement for the “total direct and indirect expenses…of providing services.”[40] In order to reduce conflicts that may arise between the parties over service provision and payment for services, the Commission might consider terms and conditions that clarify the services to be provided to the new city and the costs to be reimbursed by the new city.

In the case of counties, state law prohibits counties from billing contract cities for countywide services and for general county overhead costs that the county would incur regardless of whether it provides contract service to cities.[41] These excluded costs relate to the functions of the Board of Supervisors and the department executives. The preceding requirement, also known as the Gonsalves rule, does not apply to cities providing contract service and is not directly applicable. However, the notion of excluding governance expenses of the City of Los Angeles and other general services that the City would continue to provide for itself may be appropriate for exclusion from transition period reimbursement.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Commission define the services to be provided by the City during the transition period. Specifically, the scope of transition period services should be defined to exclude the functions of certain City departments—Aging, Neighborhood Empowerment, Cultural Affairs, Disability, Environmental Affairs, Emergency Preparedness, Commission on the Status of Women, and Commission for Children, Youth & Their Families. The scope of transition period service may be further defined to exclude non-essential functions of City departments if such functions are specifically identified by the Applicant for the Commission’s consideration.

Staff recommends that LAFCO introduce meaningful components of the Gonzalves rule in its resolution. Specifically, this would mean that the new city would not be required to pay for the costs associated with City of Los Angeles elected officials and department heads, along with their chiefs of staff and executive secretaries. The cost of excluding these functions from transition period service costs is approximately $571,000 annually.[42]

Payment Calculation

The new city is required to reimburse the old jurisdiction for the cost of transition period services at “net cost.” The statute directs LAFCO to compute the net cost, which must include direct and indirect costs that were funded by general revenues of the old jurisdiction during the prior fiscal year. Any revenues generated in the territory during the transition period that are retained by the old jurisdiction must be deducted from the net cost.

The net cost approach as defined in Government Code sections 57384(b) and 56842(c)(2) does not include service costs and overhead that the City of Los Angeles finances from federal grants, user fees and special purpose funds. Government Code section 57302, however, authorizes the Commission to develop alternative conditions that deviate from general statutory requirements such as this net cost provision.

Precedent

In most cases, the LAFCO requires the new city to reimburse the old jurisdiction for the net cost of providing transition services. In the case of Goleta and Rancho Santa Margarita, the respective counties waived all or some of the cost of transition services.

Proposals

The City of Los Angeles has proposed that the new city reimburse all costs of continued service, including, without limitation, direct costs (e.g. labor costs), overhead, capital costs, related liability claims, administration costs, and costs not fully reimbursed through fees and charges.

The Applicant has proposed that the service scope and payment exclude costs associated with services not needed by the new city. Further, the Applicant’s proposal has assumed that the new city would not bear certain indirect and overhead costs associated with City services.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Commission exclude from the transition period payment a portion of overhead costs relating to the elected officials and department heads, as well as their chiefs of staff and executive secretaries. Staff acknowledges that a portion of the costs of the City’s executive management will be expended in considering, planning and managing service delivery to the new city. However, staff cites three reasons for reducing or eliminating the Harbor’s share of City of Los Angeles executive management:

1) The activities of the City of Los Angeles executive management will not necessarily be focused on the interests of the new city.

2) The new city will need to provide its own executive management services during the transition period, and will be limited in its ability to develop a strategic and reasonable transition plan without financial resources to hire appropriate managerial staff and consultants. Exempting the Harbor for its share of City of Los Angeles executive management costs would promote sound planning of service delivery on the part of the new city.

3) The legislature has indicated that it does not consider it reasonable for large jurisdictions to charge contract cities for executive management services. The Gonzalves statute is intended to protect the interests of contract cities faced with a single service provider. Although the actual statute does not apply to the City of Los Angeles, the forces of competition between the City and County of Los Angeles would naturally preclude the City from levying similar charges to any contract cities. During its transition period, however, the Harbor city would be dependent upon the City of Los Angeles and would be limited in its ability to rely on the alternative service provider.

Regarding a proposed $1 million startup advance proposed by the Applicant, staff find the proposal to be unrealistic. While staff acknowledges that the Harbor faces startup costs prior to its expected receipt of revenues, staff does not consider the City of Los Angeles to be the appropriate lender. Private lending institutions would be the most likely sources of start-up funds for the new city. The new city may rely on revenue anticipation notes or bridge loans to accommodate cash flow deficiencies.

Transition Service Reimbursement

The City of Los Angeles and the Applicant have agreed in principle to a timely reimbursement schedule on a monthly basis for transition period services. Further, both parties have agreed in principle to the reimbursement mechanism occurring in the form of a share of revenues guaranteed to the City of Los Angeles.

While the parties agree in principle, there remain differences of opinion regarding certain cash flow elements of the reimbursement schedule and a third party fiscal agent. Staff cautions that certain disagreements may not have surfaced yet because the parties have not discussed major cash flow issues such as the treatment of fiscal year 2002-03 property tax revenues. Staff notes that the parties have not discussed the effects of the accrual accounting approach on the timing of revenue receipt, service costs and reimbursement payments.

LAFCO faces challenges in guaranteeing revenues to the City of Los Angeles for purposes of covering transition costs. The LAFCO resolution can, and typically does, require that the new city adopt any revenue neutrality or tax-sharing agreements agreed to by the applicants and the transferring jurisdiction. Should the new city council not adopt the agreements, an interested party may sue to enforce the terms and conditions or attempt to invalidate the special reorganization for failure to comply with the terms and conditions.

Precedent

The Cortese-Knox Act provides for a reimbursement period of up to five years.[43] With the county’s consent, the reimbursement period for transition services may be extended. In the case of Citrus Heights, the new city council defaulted on transition service reimbursement, the county sued and the parties eventually settled for a lesser amount. In subsequent incorporations, the parties have been cautious about securing both the transition service payment and the mitigation payment on revenue streams that would otherwise flow to the new city. In recent incorporations, LAFCOs have required that a portion of the new city’s property tax and/or sales tax revenue streams be dedicated to repayment of transition costs.

Government Code section 57384 requires that the county credit to the payment of transition costs any revenues that it retains that were generated in the incorporated territory during the transition period. This typically only extends to the end of the fiscal year, wherein because of the Board of Equalization filing requirements, the new city cannot collect its portion of the property tax. For the subsequent fiscal year, it is relatively simple to use the property tax as a payment guarantee with relevant terms in the LAFCO resolution and a written agreement between the parties to transfer the taxes. The county’s Auditor-Controller would administer the property tax revenue diversion.

The sales tax revenue for the first quarter after incorporation will flow to the old jurisdiction if the effective date is on or after the first day of the calendar quarter. In the case of Elk Grove and Citrus Heights, the county credited this revenue toward transition period service. In the case of Aliso Viejo, the sales tax increment, in other words the post-incorporation growth in revenues, was dedicated to repayment of transition period service costs.

There exists a barrier in securing sales tax revenue streams after the first quarter. Although Fresno and Alameda counties do have sales tax sharing agreements in place that divert a portion of their cities’ share of sales tax to the counties, these agreements were approved by the respective legislative bodies with a two-thirds vote, as required by the State Constitution.[44] Sacramento County has not attempted to secure post-incorporation payment through sales tax due to fears that a sales tax sharing agreement would not be approved by a super-majority of a new city council.

Financial Analysis

Given the scope of services to be provided by the City of Los Angeles during the transition period, most of the new city’s revenue streams may need to be diverted to the City of Los Angeles to provide financial guarantees for transition period services.

About 44% of the Harbor share of general fund revenue will be under the control of the City of Los Angeles during the transition period. The remainder is collected and remitted by other agencies or private businesses.

There are four major revenue sources that could potentially be used to guarantee the preponderance of the transition costs: property tax, sales tax, telephone utility users tax, and motor vehicle license fees. If these revenue sources were to be guaranteed during the transition period, about 87% of Harbor general fund revenues could be directed to the City of Los Angeles.

The Auditor-Controller will divert the property tax revenues to the City of Los Angeles if the parties agree to this in the revenue neutrality agreement, and the new city adopts the agreement following incorporation.

The sales tax is more complex, given the constitutional requirement of two-thirds approval by the respective city councils. However, the Commission can make the special reorganization conditional upon the city council’s adoption of a tax sharing agreement with the City of Los Angeles.

In the case of the telephone utility users tax, LAFCO could require that the new city council approve a diversion of the telephone utility users tax to a third party fiscal agent during the transition period.

There is statutory authority that permits cities to secure the repayment of bonds with the motor vehicle license fees.[45] Although the legislation would not permit a diversion of these funds directly to the City of Los Angeles, they could be used by the city to secure funding through bonds that could then be used to reimburse the City of Los Angeles for transition costs. There is also a provision that permits the use of vehicle license fees to secure certificates of participation for leasing and lease-purchasing of property. This mechanism could be used to free other funds for the payment of transition costs.[46]

Cash Flow Considerations

A significant consideration in structuring the transition period reimbursement relates to revenues from Harbor residents and businesses that would be received and could be retained by the City of Los Angeles after Harbor incorporation.

The most significant cash flow issues relate to appropriate crediting of fiscal year 2002-03 property tax and business tax revenues. The property tax revenues will flow to the City of Los Angeles in December 2002 and April 2003. If the proposed special reorganization did not occur, the City would likely use these funds to finance Harbor services. While the Auditor/Controller will remit these funds to the City of Los Angeles, it would be appropriate for the Commission to require that the City of Los Angeles credit, consistent with Government Code section 57384, one-half of the fiscal year 2002-03 property tax receipts toward the Harbor city’s transition period service costs in the event the Commission adopts a January 1, 2003 effective date.

Similarly, the business license tax presents a potential cash flow problem. Most Harbor business license taxes will be paid in March 2003 for the privilege of doing business in the Harbor during the 2003 calendar year.[47] As with the property taxes, the Commission should require that the City of Los Angeles credit one-half of the fiscal year 2002-03 business license tax receipts generated in the Harbor toward the Harbor city’s transition period service costs in the event the Commission adopts a January 1, 2003 effective date.

The CFA assumed that the Harbor would be credited for the portion of revenues that would otherwise finance Harbor services, and that the Harbor would repay its share of tax and revenue anticipation notes issued earlier in the fiscal year.

Fiscal Agent

The Applicant has proposed that the County Auditor-Controller serve as fiscal agent, with the responsibility of collecting and allocating the four major tax revenues discussed in the previous section in addition to several revenues currently collected directly by the City of Los Angeles. Although both parties prefer that the Auditor-Controller serve as fiscal agent, a private sector bank could serve in this capacity as well.

The fiscal agent’s work volume is expected to be substantial during the transition period, and related costs are expected to be significant. A fiscal agent would require instruction on the priority order of accounts payable in the event of insufficient funds, the handling of revenues that are not apportioned on an accrual basis (e.g. property tax), the new city’s start-up cost allowance, and the payment of interest. The Harbor city would have to approve a contract with, and compensate, the fiscal agent. If the Auditor-Controller does not serve as fiscal agent, the Commission should require that the Harbor city retain a fiscal agent that is acceptable to the City of Los Angeles.

Staff Recommendations

In lieu of agreement between the parties, staff recommends that LAFCO reduce the Harbor’s transition period payment obligations to the City of Los Angeles to compensate for the cash flow considerations discussed above. Staff recommends that the Commission require that revenues generated in the Harbor be remitted to the third party fiscal agent, and that the third party fiscal agent be responsible for allocating the revenues appropriately to the City of Los Angeles and the new city. Further, staff recommends that the third party fiscal agent be compensated by the new city for the costs of collecting and remitting revenues, and that the agent be acceptable to both parties.

Staff advises the Commission that the new city council would have to adopt any tax sharing agreements made by the Applicant. LAFCO may condition approval on terms requiring the new city to adopt said agreements. If the new city should fail to adopt the agreements, the City of Los Angeles could sue to enforce the terms and conditions or attempt to invalidate the special reorganization on the grounds that the terms and conditions were not met.

Employees

Government Code section 56844.2 requires that collective bargaining agreements continue to be honored by the City of Los Angeles and a new Harbor city for the balance of the term, and that existing retirement benefits be maintained. Consistent with these restrictions, the Commission may impose conditions involving the employment, transfer, or discharge of employees, civil service rights, seniority rights, retirement rights, and other employee benefits and rights.[48]

Employee Transfer

City of Los Angeles employees should be accorded free will in deciding whether or not they would like to consider and be considered for employment at the new city. City employees will likely make these decisions based on a number of factors, including the commute, current job satisfaction, the competitiveness of the compensation offers, and the perception of promotional opportunities.

Staff recommends that employee transfers be conducted in a voluntary fashion. Both the City of Los Angeles and the Applicant have agreed that mandatory employee transfers should not be imposed.

Collective Bargaining Agreements

Government Code section 56844.2(b) requires that the Harbor city honor both the collective bargaining agreement and collective bargaining rights of any transferred employee. Government Code section 56844.2 (c) requires that the Harbor city honor any collective bargaining agreements in place on the effective date for the balance of the agreement term and until a subsequent agreement has been established. This effectively prohibits the Harbor city from unilaterally changing the terms of existing collective bargaining agreements. The City of Los Angeles typically negotiates three-year employee agreements that govern salary, overtime pay, employee benefits, grievance procedures and other employment conditions.

The civilian employees are covered by twenty-four separate memoranda of understanding (“MOUs”), which are scheduled to expire on June 30, 2004. Coincidentally, the civilian contracts expire on the same day as the transition period ending date adopted by the Subcommittee for recommendation to the Commission. When the transition period ends, the City of Los Angeles will no longer be obligated to provide services to the Harbor city. Judging from past practice, the City of Los Angeles is unlikely to finalize new MOUs with its employee unions until well after the MOU expiration date. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that most civilian employees who transfer to the Harbor city would be covered by their existing City of Los Angeles MOU until a new collective bargaining agreement is negotiated with the Harbor city.

The police officers and firefighters are covered by four separate MOUs, which are scheduled to expire on June 30, 2003. Given the complexity of establishing independent police and fire departments, it is reasonable to expect that the Harbor city would most likely rely on the City of Los Angeles for contract police and fire service for several years after incorporation. Thus, City of Los Angeles collective bargaining agreements will govern at least until such time as separate Harbor city police and fire departments are created.

Staff considers the statutory employee protections to be adequate, and recommends against incorporating language in the resolution that would prevent transferred employees from voluntarily accepting promotions or reclassifications from the new city. Transferring employees should be able to apply for positions at the Harbor city that involve promotions or other suitable changes in job responsibilities. The new city will have to provide comparable compensation and benefits in order to recruit City of Los Angeles workers. The new city should have the flexibility to adopt its own unique organizational structure and job classification scheme, and not have the City of Los Angeles structure imposed on it.

Civil Service System

The City of Los Angeles civil service system is codified in the City’s Charter, civil service rules and policies, and other laws. The civil service system promotes professional management practices and protects employees from being replaced at the whim of elected officials or managers. Employees value the honesty and communication required in the evaluation process, along with the rewards for lengthier service.

Each civil service system is unique with numerous precedents and specific requirements relating to work performance and job qualification standards. Civil service systems may also differ in the degree to which they reward work experience as opposed to productivity and skill, and in the degree to which they tolerate unproductive and unsuitable workers.

The City of Los Angeles has proposed that the Harbor city be required to adopt all the civil service charter provisions, administrative rules and policies in existence at the City of Los Angeles. Staff recommends against rigid imposition of the City of Los Angeles civil service system on the new city. Staff notes that employees will be reluctant to accept work for public agencies without a civil service system or some other merit-based system, and that the laws of labor supply and demand will necessitate that the Harbor create its own civil service or merit-based system. The Harbor should have the flexibility, however, to develop its own system and not have a system imposed upon it by the Commission.

Retirement Benefits

Government Code section 56844.2 requires that existing retiree benefits be maintained in the case of special reorganization.

The City of Los Angeles maintains two pension funds that are relevant for special reorganization. In both cases, the City Charter, understandably, only provides for participation in these plans by employees of the City of Los Angeles.[49] During the transition period following special reorganization, the City employees serving the Harbor would remain in the City’s pension funds. If the City were to amend its charter, City employees who transfer to the Harbor after the transition period could continue to be covered under the existing pension funds.[50] Otherwise, the Harbor city would provide pension benefits through a separate fund, most likely through California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).

The Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System (LACERS) provides pension benefits to 13,000 retired civilian employees and administers the payments received on behalf of 26,000 active civilian workers.[51] LACERS is fully funded, meaning that it would be able to pay out benefits to existing retirees as well as deferred retirement benefits for active employees who transfer to the Harbor city. LACERS has a reciprocity agreement with CalPERS that allows employees to apply years of service at the City of Los Angeles toward pension eligibility with other public sector employers in California. Under this reciprocity agreement, the retirement benefits of current City of Los Angeles employees who choose to transfer over to the new city would be maintained.[52]

The City of Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension System presents two complications in the event of special reorganization—funding status and lack of reciprocity. The system provides pension benefits to 11,700 retirees, and administers the payments received on behalf of 12,300 active fire fighters and police officers.[53] Although the pension plan may be fully funded, one-third of the health plan liability is not funded and requires ongoing subsidy.[54] The health plan subsidy in fiscal year 2000-01 amounted to $26 million.

The Fire and Police Pension System does not have reciprocity agreements in place with other public safety pension funds or CalPERS. Because the officers are not vested in the pension plan until they have served 10 to 20 years, about 40 percent of the officers are not vested.[55] If they should leave City employment before becoming vested, some sworn personnel are entitled to only one-quarter of the payroll contributions made on their behalf along with related interest earnings others are not entitled to any refund. For the 5,100 non-vested police and firefighters, the City’s lack of reciprocity limits their incentives to transfer to other jurisdictions, and allows the City to recoup its training investment in the police and firefighters.

In the event that the new city contracts with another service provider for police and fire service, any officers who are not vested would face the prospect of losing their past pension contributions. In the event that the new city creates its own police and fire departments, the less experienced officers would face the prospect of losing their past pension contributions if they transferred to the agency serving the Harbor and would be most likely to be laid off by the City if they did not transfer.[56] The City of Los Angeles could maintain the non-vested officers’ retirement benefits amending the charter to either: (a) allow employees who transfer to other agencies serving the Harbor to continue to participate in the City’s Fire and Police Pension System;[57] or (b) permit reciprocity with CalPERS.

Surplus Employees

Eventually the new city may either provide services directly or contract with another service provider rather than purchase services from the City of Los Angeles. If this transfer of service occurs, the Harbor city or its service provider will likely recruit City of Los Angeles workers and other available workers to fill its staff positions. If the Harbor or its service provider offers competitive salaries, benefits and working conditions, it should succeed in attracting a diverse mix of City of Los Angeles workers.

However, in the event that the City of Los Angeles is left with a surplus workforce, it would be faced with the choice of: (1) allowing surplus workers to diminish through natural attrition; (2) achieving other cost-savings or revenue enhancements that would finance the retention of the surplus workforce; or (3) laying off surplus workers through the City’s seniority-based layoff system.

Both parties could potentially contribute to the creation of a surplus City of Los Angeles workforce. It is not in the interest of the taxpayers of either jurisdiction to be burdened with the costs of unneeded or unsuitable workers. For these reasons, staff recommends that any arrangement between the parties relating to the compensation of a surplus workforce be temporary in nature, involve careful definition of the surplus workforce, and involve both parties sharing the cost burden for surplus workers.

Assets

With regard to assets of the City of Los Angeles, the Applicant has consistently asserted its position that the people of the City of Los Angeles are "shareholders" in all of the City's assets, and entitled to a per capita, proportionate interest in all of the City's assets, facilities, etc. Generally speaking, the Applicant seeks a transfer of all assets located within the Harbor Special Reorganization area, as well as a proportional interest or joint ownership of centralized assets. The Applicant contends that the Commission has the discretion to transfer assets of the City of Los Angeles to the new city with or without compensation.

The City of Los Angeles contends that there are constitutional constraints to the transfer of property held by a municipal corporation in its proprietary capacity. The City has asserted that municipal corporations hold property in their proprietary capacity in the same manner and with the same rights as private persons holding property, and based thereon, the California Constitution prohibits the State from taking such property without just compensation or the consent of the City. The City further asserts that the constitutional protections afforded the City's property is strengthened by the City's status as a charter city.

In negotiations, the City of Los Angeles has offered to transfer local assets to the Harbor city as an overall resolution of special reorganization issues, including transition period service costs, and debts and liabilities. The parties, however, have not yet negotiated any written agreements.

With respect to assets, the Commission has received differing legal opinions regarding the Commission’s authority to transfer assets. The legal opinion of the County of Los Angeles Office of the County Counsel (“County Counsel”), the Commission’s legal advisor, concluded that the Commission could only transfer proprietary assets of the City of Los Angeles subject to the payment of compensation or consent of the City, but could transfer assets held subject to a public trust without compensation. The legal opinion of the California Legislative Counsel (“Legislative Counsel”) concluded that the Commission has the discretion to allocate assets either with or without compensation. To the extent that these opinions conflict with respect to the manner in which the Commission may handle the transfer of assets, staff has provided dual recommendations for the Commission’s consideration. Where there is no conflict in the legal opinions or where, because of other considerations, staff recommends a particular course of action, only one recommendation will be provided.

Legal Opinions

The County Counsel’s legal opinion concluded that the Commission was not authorized to transfer proprietary property of the City of Los Angeles to a Harbor city without compensation or the consent of the existing city. The County Counsel concluded, however, that assets held pursuant to a public trust, such as pueblo lands, roads, highways, donated parks and donated libraries, may be transferred without compensation.

The Legislative Counsel’s legal opinion concluded that the Commission has the discretion to order a transfer of assets from the City of Los Angeles to a proposed new city as a condition of approving a special reorganization, with or without compensation. The Legislative Counsel believes that it was the intent of the Legislature to leave the decision as to whether or not to require compensation to the Commission, and did not identify any constitutional restrictions on the Commission’s authority to transfer assets without compensation.

Precedents

California LAFCO agencies have approached the transfer of assets in various ways. In looking at precedent cases, it is important to be mindful of whether or not there were any county-owned assets for providing purely local municipal services located in the incorporating areas, as well as the likelihood that the new jurisdiction would be directly providing those services for which those county-owned assets had been used.

In all cases that we are aware of, local streets and highways have transferred from the county to the newly incorporated city on the effective date pursuant to the Streets & Highways Code section 989, and Government Code section 57385.[58] Although the streets automatically transfer, the Code does not explicitly state whether streetlights, traffic signals and the storm water and wastewater infrastructure beneath the streets should be transferred. In recent incorporations, Orange County has explicitly added that streetlights, local storm drain facilities and related easements transfer to the new city.

The Los Angeles County LAFCO did not transfer any county assets or liabilities to Calabasas, Malibu or Santa Clarita when these cities incorporated. In the case of Malibu, the incorporation proponents requested transfer of the County’s civic center building in Malibu; however, the Commission did not transfer this building. The City of Malibu has acquired use of portions of the building through a lease arrangement with the County.

The practices in other counties have varied. Sacramento LAFCO has not included any asset transfers (with or without compensation) in the resolutions for Citrus Heights or Elk Grove. In these areas, the county assets in the territories prior to incorporation primarily involved sheriff and fire stations. The new cities have continued to rely on the county for contract sheriff and fire services. San Bernardino LAFCO has transferred only the assets of dissolved county service areas to new cities.

Riverside County LAFCO placed all public facilities, land and fees into a trust fund, with the proviso that the parties negotiate a settlement of the assets following incorporation.

Parks and local storm water drainage facilities have been transferred from the county to the new cities in several incorporations. Sonoma, Santa Barbara and Orange County LAFCOs have transferred local parks and local storm water drainage facilities from the county to the new cities. In the case of Goleta, the asset transfer included in a written agreement between the county and the proponents, usually the transfer of such assets has been included only in the LAFCO resolution.

We are not aware of any incorporations where a transfer of county-owned assets was imposed by a LAFCO, and the county objected to the transfer.

Trust Account Funds & Liquid Assets

Trust account funds, which are funds held by the City of Los Angeles in trust for location-specific uses, include development impact fees, development agreement funds, project-appropriated Capital Improvement Expenditure Program (“CIEP”) funds, and Quimby fees (parkland dedication in lieu fees). Liquid assets include fund balances in the City’s general fund and 50-plus special purpose funds.

Both the City of Los Angeles and the Harbor city have proposed that impact fees that are set aside for use in a dedicated area located within the proposed Harbor Special Reorganization area be transferred to the new city. In terms of precedent, the Santa Barbara and Sacramento County LAFCOs have also transferred impact fees to new cities.

The Harbor proposal is more expansive than the City’s proposal relating to impact fees and special fees. The Harbor proposal explicitly includes CIEP funds for street maintenance, street lighting, wastewater, storm water and transportation projects; these funds are generated by gas tax, wastewater fees, Proposition C funds and transfers from the City’s general fund. In addition, the Harbor proposal includes Quimby fees—fees paid by developers for park improvements in lieu of dedicating land for park space.

In addition to trust funds, the Applicant has proposed that it receive a per capita share of liquid assets such as the City of Los Angeles reserve fund, general fund balance, and special funds balances.

The City of Los Angeles has proposed the following term and condition:

The City shall transfer to the new city impact fees and other special fees collected prior to the incorporation that are obligated to be used solely in the territory of the new city for construction of specific facilities or improvements, or the delivery of specific services, not yet constructed or delivered. The new city shall be required to expend those moneys for the original purposes for which the fees were collected, and shall be bound by all legal obligations with respect to use of the money that would otherwise bind the City, including but not limited to, time limits, if any, in which to expend the money, or obligations to refund unexpended fees. The transfer of fees shall not toll any time limits in which to expend the moneys. The new city shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from any actions alleging improper use of these moneys.

The Applicant has proposed the following term and condition:

Cash and Other Liquid Assets. All such assets currently identified, or identified during the Transition Period, shall be transferred including (but not limited to):

(a) Trust Account Funds - The City of Los Angeles will provide accounting for the purposes of distributing funds set aside for use in the territory included in the City, including but not limited to development impact fees, development agreement funds, project-appropriated CI[E]P funding, Quimby fees (parkland dedication in lieu fees), and all other trust funds collected in the territory included in the City expressly for projects or improvements therein.

(b) Other Liquid Assets - All other liquid assets shall be divided and transferred proportionate to population.

Staff Recommendations

Staff recommends that the Commission pursue either of the following two recommendations, depending on whether the Commission members agree with the County Counsel or Legislative Counsel legal opinion. These recommendations would be in lieu of agreement between the parties.

Pursuant to the County Counsel opinion, trust account fund balances for projects specific to the Harbor Special Reorganization area could transfer without compensation because they are held in trust. Subject to the payment of compensation (which could be non-monetary) or consent of the City of Los Angeles, general and special fund balances could also transfer. Based thereon, staff recommends that the Commission require the transfer of trust account fund balances, but that no general or special fund balances transfer unless the City of Los Angeles agrees to a transfer.

Under the California Legislative Counsel opinion, it would be within the discretion of the Commission to transfer trust account fund and general and special fund balances with or without compensation. Based thereon, staff recommends that the Commission require the transfer of trust account fund balances for projects specific to the Harbor Special Reorganization area, and any unexpended general fund balances (including reserves) and special fund balances, except as set forth below. These funds would transfer on the effective date to the third party fiscal agent in proportion to the Harbor’s past general fund contributions. The allocation factor would be the CFA estimate of the proportion of general fund revenues allocated to the Harbor (3.47 percent), which is less than the Harbor population share (3.98 percent). Staff does not recommend that the following special fund balances transfer, unless there is an agreement of the parties to transfer, because it is anticipated that the City of Los Angeles will retain control of the facilities that these funds support:

· Water Revenue Fund

· Power Revenue Fund

· Sewer Construction & Maintenance Fund

· Convention Center Revenue Fund

· Zoo Enterprise Trust Fund

· Special Police Communications/911 System Tax Fund

· City Employees Retirement Fund

· Fire and Police Pension Fund

· El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historical Monument Revenue Fund

· Staples Arena Special Fund, and

· Bond Redemption & Interest Funds.

Local Service-Related Assets

Both the City of Los Angeles and the Applicant have agreed in principal that local assets related to municipal service provision that are located in the Harbor could transfer to the new city as an overall resolution of special reorganization issues, including transition period service costs, and debts and liabilities. The parties, however, have not yet negotiated any written agreements. Their positions differ in that the City of Los Angeles has proposed that the assets transfer only after the transition period and after the Harbor has met several conditions, whereas the Applicant proposes that the property transfer to the Harbor on or soon after the effective date. The Applicant has explicitly proposed that such assets include municipal office buildings, databases, software, furnishings, fixtures, equipment and rolling stock.

The City of Los Angeles has proposed the following term and condition:

Local assets (e.g., parks, libraries) owned by the City that are located in the new city and as listed in appendix _ [not yet provided] shall be transferred to the new city without compensation when all of the following have occurred: (a) the transition period has ended, (b) the asset is not being used by the City in the rendering of services under a service contract with the new city, (c) the new city is not in default on any of its obligations under this resolution, and (d) the City is satisfied that mechanisms are in place that guaranty that the new city will be able to meet all of its obligations to the City, including but not limited to, the mitigation payment, debt service and liability payments, service costs, and transition costs. All assets, property, rights of way, easements, and other property interests related to operation of the water system, power system, wastewater system, and communications or other centralized systems are not to be regarded as local assets for this purpose.

The Applicant proposed the following terms and conditions:

All right, title, interest and responsibility of the City of Los Angeles, including the underlying fee title where owned by the City of Los Angeles or owned by City of Los Angeles-governed districts of all Police, Fire, Animal Services, Park, and Library buildings and facilities, including all furnishings, fixtures, rolling stock and other equipment contained therein or otherwise associated with the services provided by that facility located within the Harbor city boundaries shall vest in the new City.

Other municipal buildings and facilities, including all furnishings, fixtures, rolling stock and other equipment contained therein or otherwise associated with the services provided by that facility located within the City boundaries shall vest in the City.

Staff Recommendations

Pursuant to the County Counsel’s opinion, proprietary assets of the City of Los Angeles could be transferred with the City’s consent or the payment of compensation to the City. To the extent that local service-related assets are held pursuant to a public trust, those assets could be transferred without compensation. Based thereon, staff recommends that the Commission require local service-related assets that are held pursuant to a public trust be transferred on the effective date or upon their identification by the parties. Staff recommends that other local service-related assets only be transferred upon the payment of compensation or on terms agreed to by the parties.

Pursuant to the Legislative Counsel’s opinion, the Commission has the discretion to transfer local service-related assets with or without compensation. Based thereon, staff recommends that the Commission require the transfer of title to all service-related local assets to be itemized in Attachment A on the effective date. Staff recommends that during the transition period, the City of Los Angeles be entitled to use service-related assets, at no cost, for the provision of services to the Harbor city.

Leases

Certain facilities used by the City of Los Angeles are leased from another owner. The City leases temporary office space and certain other facilities. For example, most of the council members’ district offices are leased from private parties. Some facilities are leased from the City’s enterprise departments, the state of California, and other public sector agencies.

The City of Los Angeles has proposed the following term and condition:

Subject to the consent of the lessor or terms of the lease, the City, at its option, may terminate any existing leases that the City no longer needs for the provision of services in the area detached from the City, or assign the lease to the new city, which shall accept the lease.

The Applicant has not proposed any conditions relating to leases.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends against requiring the Harbor city to accept lease assignments. To the extent that there are stranded costs associated with existing City leases as a result of the special reorganization, those costs should be addressed as stranded costs.

Streets and Highways

In annexations and incorporations of previously unincorporated territory, the streets and highways transfer to the new jurisdiction.[59] Cities hold street and highway rights of way dedicated for public use as a public trust. As a public trust, theses rights of way are typically transferred to whatever local entity has jurisdiction over the territory in which they are located.

LAFCOs typically transfer the streets and highways without defining which street-related assets would transfer. In the Rancho Santa Margarita incorporation, the Orange County LAFCO transferred public roads, bridges, adjacent slopes, streetlights, traffic signals and any appurtenant slopes, sidewalks, trails, landscaped areas, medians and other adjacent property.

In addition to the street infrastructure, the rights of way contain wastewater, water, power and communications pipes, cables, and lines. The new city will have the power to confer utility franchises for utility improvements within the rights of way. Local government agencies typically negotiate franchise agreements with utility providers that allow a utility company to use the rights of way in exchange for franchise fees.

Beneath the streets lie both local sewer pipes and the major sewer pipes conveying sewage to treatment plants. The local sewer pipes constitute the wastewater collection system, and are typically owned by the city in which they are located. The two regional wastewater systems—the City of Los Angeles and County Sanitation District—process almost all of the Los Angeles area wastewater. The regional systems own and maintain the larger sewer pipes, also known as trunk lines and outfalls, inside and outside the cities. The cities own the local sewers--the collection system of sewer pipes that connect into the trunk lines—and are responsible for maintaining local sewers, issuing sewer permits, and billing sewer customers. If the City of Los Angeles were to retain the local wastewater collection system in the Harbor, it would be a unique arrangement. However, the City has requested that it retain ownership of these local assets. The wastewater system and other public utility systems operated by the City of Los Angeles will be addressed in the Enterprises section of this Report.

Additional City of Los Angeles communications assets may also lie beneath the streets in the Harbor. Such assets may include fiber optic cabling for computer networking. At this time, staff lacks adequate information on “communications or other centralized systems” that the City of Los Angeles proposes to retain.

The City of Los Angeles has proposed the following term and condition:

Upon incorporation the new city shall receive real property interests in roads and highways owned by the City within the incorporated area, except the City [of Los Angeles] shall retain title to all assets, property, rights of way, easements, and other property interests (including, but not limited to, those that may be on, under, or adjacent to those roads and highways) related to operation of the water system, power system, wastewater system, and communications or other centralized systems.

The Applicant has proposed the following term and condition:

Upon the effective date all right, title, interest and responsibility of the City of Los Angeles, including the underlying fee title where owned by the City of Los Angeles or owned by City of Los Angeles-governed districts of any and all public roads, adjacent slopes, medians, sidewalks, trails, bikeways, landscaped areas, open space, street lights, signals, and bridges located within the new City boundaries shall vest in the new City.

Staff Recommendations

Staff recommends that the Commission impose the following term and condition:

Upon the effective date of incorporation, all right, title, interest and responsibility for any and all public roads, adjacent slopes, medians, sidewalks, trails, bikeways, landscaped areas, open space, street lights, signals, and bridges located within the boundaries of the special reorganization area shall vest in the new city, except that the City of Los Angeles shall retain title to all assets, property, rights of way, easements, and other property interests (including, but not limited to, those that may be on, under, or adjacent to those roads and highways) related to operation of the water system, power system, wastewater system, and communications or other centralized systems.

The wastewater system will be addressed in the Enterprises section of this Report and the communications and other centralized systems within the right of way will be addressed when and if further information regarding these assets is provided to staff.

Storm Water Facilities

The Orange County LAFCO has transferred local storm drain facilities to new cities. In the Rancho Santa Margarita resolution, drainage devices, storm drain channels, and appurtenant facilities, site drainage and all storm drain facilities were transferred to the new city.

The City of Los Angeles has proposed the following term and condition:

Storm drains owned in fee by the City and storm drain easements owned by the City that are located in the incorporated area shall be transferred to the new city. The new city shall obtain its own MS4 permit or other necessary permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board in order to discharge into the waters of the United States.

The Applicant has proposed the following general terms and conditions that would encompass storm water facilities:

All easements associated with any and all transferred property and facilities shall be transferred.

All other property owned by the City of Los Angeles, excluding assets specifically addressed elsewhere, located within the Harbor city boundaries shall vest in the Harbor city.

Staff Recommendation

Staff proposes that the Commission transfer all storm drain facilities and easements to the new city, as proposed by the City of Los Angeles.

Assets of San Pedro and Wilmington

The Applicant has proposed that all property, grants and rights owned by the municipalities of San Pedro and Wilmington at the time of their annexation to the City of Los Angeles be transferred to the new city. The Applicant has indicated uncertainty as to which assets these may be, and would like to retain discovery and acquisition rights to any such assets.

Staff recommends that any such assets be treated in the same manner as the Commission treats local service-related assets.

Miscellaneous Assets

In negotiation sessions, both the City of Los Angeles and the Applicant agreed that easements should transfer along with related property.

The Applicant has also proposed that:

Other assets related to all facilities and services transferred, including assets held by the City such as furnishings, fixtures, equipment, data bases, software, records of various types which will be necessary for the continued provision of service located within the new City boundaries shall vest in the new City, subject to existing license and other contractual limitations.

Certain assets were not explicitly addressed, such as City passenger buses and sanitation equipment used to service the Harbor area. The Harbor has proposed a catch-all provision that would transfer miscellaneous assets of this sort:

All other property owned by the City of Los Angeles, excluding assets specifically addressed elsewhere, located within the Harbor city boundaries shall vest in the Harbor city.

Staff Recommendations

Pursuant to the County Counsel’s opinion, proprietary assets of the City of Los Angeles could be transferred with the City’s consent or the payment of compensation to the City. To the extent that assets are held pursuant to a public trust, those assets could be transferred without compensation. Based thereon, staff recommends that, to the extent the parties are in agreement on the transfer of property-related easements, those easements should transfer. Staff recommends that the Commission require other miscellaneous assets located within the Harbor Special Reorganization area that are held pursuant to a public trust transferred on the effective date or upon their identification by the parties. Staff recommends that other miscellaneous assets located within the Harbor Special Reorganization area only be transferred upon the payment of compensation or on terms agreed to by the parties.

Pursuant to the Legislative Counsel’s opinion, the Commission has the discretion to transfer assets with or without compensation. Staff recommends that the Commission transfer easements on the basis of functional association with other transferred assets, and that the Commission adopt a provision transferring, without compensation, all other assets owned by the City of Los Angeles and located within the Harbor Special Reorganization area, but not transferred or excluded from transfer elsewhere in the resolution.

Enterprises

City of Los Angeles enterprises include the Department of Water and Power (“DWP”), the airport system (Los Angeles World Airports), and the Port of Los Angeles (the “Port”), in addition to the City’s wastewater treatment infrastructure. Certain enterprises are located entirely outside of the proposed new city, such as the Port. Other enterprises are located partially within the proposed city, such as the Van Nuys Airport, water reservoirs and an aqueduct.

In general, the City of Los Angeles has proposed that it retain the assets under the control of the Departments of Airports, Harbor, and Water and Power, along with ownership and control of the wastewater system. The Applicant has proposed that the Commission transfer a proportional undivided interest in the Department of Water and Power as well as the wastewater system.

Airports and Port of Los Angeles

Both the City of Los Angeles and the Applicant agree that ownership and control over the Port and airports will remain with the City of Los Angeles.

Utilities

The City of Los Angeles municipal utilities include water service, power service, and wastewater disposal and treatment service. The DWP provides both water and power service, while the City’s Department of Public Works provides wastewater services.

The City of Los Angeles has proposed that it retain ownership and control over the water, power and wastewater systems. The Applicant has proposed that it receive an undivided proportional interest in these systems as well as the sewage treatment and Department of Water and Power assets located within the new city. Further, the Applicant has proposed that any water rights held by the municipalities of San Pedro and Wilmington at the time of their annexation to the City of Los Angeles also be transferred to the new city. In the event that the Commission does not transfer utility assets to the new city, the Applicant has proposed that the City of Los Angeles be obligated to provide utility services to Harbor residents at the same rates that the City charges its own residents.

The Commission lacks the authority to impose a joint powers authority arrangement for joint ownership of the utilities because a joint powers authority must be formed by at least two existing public entities, and the proposed city has not yet been formed. Joint ownership might also be achieved by forming a utility district encompassing the territory of the City of Los Angeles, as it now exists, including any cities to be formed pursuant to special reorganization. Depending on the type of district proposed, formation must be initiated by the public entities involved or it must be initiated by petition. For instance, pursuant to the Municipal Utility District Act, formation proceedings must be initiated by resolution of the public agencies involved or by petition signed by ten percent of the registered voters.[60] The Applicant cannot comply with the first means of initiation because the proposed new city has not been formed and the City of Los Angeles has not agreed to the formation of such a district. Neither has the Applicant complied with the second means of initiation, because it has not submitted a petition signed by ten percent of the registered voters. Other types of districts would likely have similar initiation requirements.

It also appears that the Commission may not have the authority to transfer utility assets because the City has constitutional and statutory rights to own and operate public utilities, and any transfer of such assets may be subject instead to the requirements of the Public Utilities Code.[61] This would also include the wastewater collection system discussed under the Streets and Highways section of this Report.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that no public utility assets transfer to the new Harbor city. Staff recommends that these integrated systems remain under single ownership and that the Commission, instead, fashion terms and conditions that will ensure that Harbor customers continue to be provided the same level of service at the same rates as City of Los Angeles customers.

Utility Service

As the owner of these public utility systems, the City of Los Angeles would be obligated to continue to provide public utility services to the Harbor in the event of special reorganization. The City of Los Angeles has proposed that utility customers in the new city be required to remain customers of the City of Los Angeles until the existing utility debt has been repaid. The City of Los Angeles currently has long-term debt that is scheduled to reach maturity in 2042 for water service[62] and 2028 for wastewater service.[63] The long-term debt for power service is scheduled to reach maturity in 2032[64] after the termination of existing take-or-pay obligations.[65]

As part of the transfer of streets and highways, the rights of way in the Harbor Special Reorganization area would be transferred to the new city. With control of the rights of way, the new city may grant a franchise to utility providers to use those rights of way for the purpose of providing utility service.

Local governments typically grant utility franchises for fixed terms of 15 to 60 years. The local government agency typically negotiates a franchise agreement whereby a utility company is authorized to use its rights of way in exchange for franchise fees. The County of Los Angeles has 20 separate water franchise agreements for its unincorporated areas, most of which are 25-year non-exclusive agreements. In the case of power, Sempra (Southern California Edison) has non-exclusive franchise agreements with the County of Los Angeles and the City of Long Beach for 50 and 60-year terms respectively. Within the County of Los Angeles, an exclusive franchise agreement may only be granted subsequent to a competitive bid process.

Staff Recommendations

Staff recommends that the Commission require that the City of Los Angeles continue to provide water and power public utility service to customers located in the new city. Further, staff recommends that the Commission require that the new city protect the rights of DWP bond-holders by adopting agreements for water and power with the City of Los Angeles for terms that end no sooner than the latest maturity date of bonded indebtedness for debt issued prior to the effective date.

Staff recommends that the Commission require that the City of Los Angeles continue to provide wastewater collection and treatment service to customers located in the new city. Further, staff recommends that the Commission require that the new city protect the rights of wastewater system bond-holders by adopting an agreement for wastewater services with the City of Los Angeles for a term that ends no sooner than the latest maturity date of bonded indebtedness for debt issued prior to the effective date.

Utility Rates

The City of Los Angeles has indicated that it could charge customers in the Harbor city a premium for water usage that reflects the differential between the cost of water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District and the cost of Los Angeles Aqueduct water.[66] The County Counsel has advised, however, that Commission has the authority to impose terms and conditions regarding rates.[67]

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Commission require the City of Los Angeles to provide the same level of service as is provided to each particular type of customer within the City of Los Angeles to customers of the corresponding type within the new Harbor city, and to charge the same utility rates as are charged to each particular type of customer within the City of Los Angeles to customers of the corresponding type in the new Harbor city, with no rate differential based upon the location of the customer within one city or the other, such that while the City of Los Angeles may adjust rates and differentiate between different types of customers based on usage or cost of service, the rates charged to a particular type of customer in the remaining City will always be the same as the rate charged to the corresponding type of customer in the new Harbor city, and to the extent that there are additional costs associated with the provision of utility services to a particular type of customer in either area, those additional costs shall be borne uniformly across the two cities by that type of customer, without any differentials based upon the location of the customer within one city or the other.

Liabilities

Government Code section 56844(c) authorizes the Commission to set terms and conditions related to the imposition, exemption, transfer, division or apportionment, as among affected agencies, of liability for payment of all or any principal, interest, and any other amounts which shall become due on account of all or any part of any outstanding or then authorized but thereafter issued bonds, including revenue bonds, or other contracts or obligations of any city, county, district or improvement district.

Government Code section 56121 provides that no change of organization or reorganization, or any term or condition thereof “shall impair the rights of any bondholder or other creditor of any county, city or district.” It also provides that any bondholder or creditor may enforce his or her rights in the same manner and to the same extent as if the change of organization, reorganization or term or condition had not been made. Thus, the Commission should not impose terms and conditions relating the apportionment of liabilities that adversely impact the rights of bondholders or creditors; however, the Commission should also be aware of the fact that pursuant to Government Code section 56121, the rights of bondholders and creditors are protected should the special reorganization or a term and condition of the special reorganization ultimately have an unforeseen adverse impact on their rights.

The City of Los Angeles has proposed in general that the Harbor city pay off its portion of the City debt within twelve months of incorporation:

The new city shall in good faith endeavor to defease (pay off) its portion of the City's debt within twelve months of the effective date of incorporation.

Unless and until the new city defeases its portion of the City's debt, the new city shall assume the obligation for its portion of the City's debt and bear a corresponding share of the City's debt service obligation as follows:

The Applicant has proposed:

The cost of existing liabilities of the City of Los Angeles (those existing as of June 30, 2000) associated with citywide serving assets such as the Main Library have been included in the Municipal Service Cost Estimates included in the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis.

Liabilities in this category are those related specifically to the municipal service-supporting assets including leases or liens, bonded debt, or other linked expenses such as insurance payments. These related liabilities shall be allocated to the new City and shall be secured, in one manner or another, as a condition of asset transfer.

General Obligation Bonds

General obligation (GO) bonds are voter-approved loans from bondholders for the acquisition and improvement of real property, and are repaid through increased property taxes. The City of Los Angeles has $766 million (as of February 2002) in outstanding debt in the form of general obligation bonds, the proceeds of which have been used to fund library, zoo, fire, helicopter and animal shelter facilities. The existing debt should be repaid with interest in 2022.

The general obligation bonds are secured by tax liens on property in the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles determines the GO property tax rate, the County collects the taxes from the property owners, and the City of Los Angeles pays debt service to the bondholders.

Given that property owners throughout the City of Los Angeles approved the GO bonds by a two-thirds vote, the property owners in the Harbor and remaining City of Los Angeles should continue to be liable for the payment of ad valorem GO property taxes.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Commission require the new city to pass an ordinance by August 1 of each year adopting the GO property tax rate established by the City of Los Angeles for repayment of GO debt outstanding on the effective date. Staff recommends that the Commission require the new city to authorize the Los Angeles County Tax Collector to remit to the City of Los Angeles all Harbor property owners’ payments for GO debt outstanding on the effective date. The City of Los Angeles should continue to be responsible for repaying the bondholders.

Assessment Bonds and Special Tax Bonds

The City of Los Angeles has $212 million in outstanding special tax bonds. This debt primarily consists of voter-approved bonds for a police emergency communications system. In addition, the City has issued about $13 million in Proposition K parcel tax bonds for parks, recreation facilities, and childcare centers in a citywide assessment district. Further, there are two Mello-Roos bonds approved by voters in small assessment districts within the City, with $8 million in outstanding debt approved by a Pershing Square Park district and $11 million in outstanding debt approved by Cascades Business Park district in Sylmar.

So long as the Harbor parcels that are currently encumbered would remain encumbered until the bonds are paid in full, there should not be a negative impact on bondholders or the remainder of the City of Los Angeles.[68]

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Commission require the parcels that are currently encumbered with such assessments to remain encumbered until the bonds are paid in full, including parcels within the Harbor Special Reorganization area that are currently encumbered. Property owners in the new city would not bear liability for outstanding Pershing Square Park Project or Cascades Business Park debt. Property owners in the new city would continue to bear liability for assessments related to the police emergency communications system and Proposition K.

Judgment Obligation Bonds

The City of Los Angeles currently has $75 million in outstanding debt financed by judgment obligation (JO) bonds. The debt has been issued to pay business tax refunds and other claims resulting from past legal claims against the City of Los Angeles. Most of this debt is related to business tax refunds to financial institutions, and will be fully defeased within a few months after the effective date. However, a portion of the debt will not reach maturity until the year 2011.

The City of Los Angeles has proposed that:

For these forms of indebtedness, the new city's share of existing debt shall be proportional to its contribution to the City's general fund revenues for fiscal year 1998-99. Payment of 1/12th of the annual debt service is to be paid monthly.

The Harbor’s share of general fund revenues is 3.47 percent.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Commission require the new city to make monthly debt service payments to the City of Los Angeles for the debt on the basis proposed by the City unless and until the new city pays the City of Los Angeles for its share of the outstanding debt.

General Fund Lease Obligations and Certificates of Participation

The City of Los Angeles has approximately $1.1 billion in outstanding debt in the form of lease bonds or certificates of participation (COPs). These bonds have been used to purchase real property and equipment anticipated to have a useful life of six years or more. In addition to real estate, the bonds have financed a central library cataloguing system, heavy-duty equipment, fire trucks, helicopters and major computer systems. The bonds are secured on the assets that have been financed in this manner, or in some cases related assets. The “lease payments” for these assets include debt service, and are paid out of the City of Los Angeles general fund.

The Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis estimated that 3.3 percent of this debt would be borne by the new city. The CFA approach is as follows:

In order to comply with state constitutional debt limit provisions (Art. XVI, Section 18), the apportionment of obligations represented by COPs generally should be based on where the leased property is located. This should not raise impairment problems so long as the market value and credit ratings of the COPs are not adversely affected by such apportionment…. To ensure that the rights of bondholders are not negatively impacted as a result of a special reorganization…it is assumed the Harbor city would make payment for a portion of the City’s outstanding lease obligations according to the proportion of assets financed, which would continue to provide service to the Harbor city upon a special reorganization.

The City is prohibited from assigning its lease obligations by the terms of the lease bonds and COPs, but the City may sublease the financed assets. The City of Los Angeles must be able to demonstrate that it has beneficial use of the property. The City of Los Angeles has concluded that “this will likely require any MICLA obligation concerning property to be transferred to a seceding entity to be defeased.” The City of Los Angeles has proposed that:

The Harbor’s general fund revenue share is 3.47 percent.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Commission require the new city to make monthly debt service payments to the City of Los Angeles for the lease revenue debt that is secured by the general fund on the basis proposed by the City unless and until the new city pays the City of Los Angeles for its share of the outstanding debt. Staff recommends that, if the debt-financed equipment cannot be transferred to the new city, the Commission require the City of Los Angeles to provide the new city with access to, and use of, an equitable share of this debt-financed equipment during its useful life.

Sanitation Equipment Charge Revenue Bonds

Sanitation equipment charge revenue bonds have been used to purchase garbage containers and trucks throughout the City of Los Angeles. As of February 2002, the City had $173 million in outstanding sanitation equipment debt. These bonds are secured on revenues from the sanitation equipment charge. The City of Los Angeles has proposed that the new city issue bonds within the first 12 months after the effective date to pay off the Harbor share of outstanding debt.

The City of Los Angeles estimated that 4 percent of current sanitation equipment charges are generated in the Harbor, and has proposed that the new Harbor city bear 4 percent of the outstanding debt. This allocation was estimated by the City of Los Angeles and has not been reviewed by LAFCO staff.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Commission require the new city to make monthly debt service payments to the City of Los Angeles for its portion of the sanitation equipment charge revenue bonds debt on the basis proposed by the City unless and until the new city pays the City of Los Angeles for its share of the outstanding debt.

Parking Revenue Bonds

The City of Los Angeles has $80 million in outstanding debt in the form of parking revenue bonds. These bonds are secured on revenues from parking meters and City-owned parking lots, of which about 1.2 percent is generated in the Harbor. This allocation was estimated by the City of Los Angeles and has not been reviewed by LAFCO staff. The City’s bond covenant requires that parking revenues net of operating costs equal at least 125 percent of annual debt service. The City of Los Angeles may not be able to transfer any parking lots and off-street parking meters to the new city unless the City will be in compliance with this rate covenant after the transfer.

The City of Los Angeles has proposed that:

For this form of indebtedness, the new city's share of existing debt shall be proportional to its contribution to the City's Special Parking Revenue Fund for fiscal year 1998-99 [1.2%]. Payment of 1/12th of the annual debt service is to be paid monthly.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Commission require the new city to make monthly debt service payments to the City of Los Angeles for its portion of the parking revenue bonds debt on the basis proposed by the City unless and until the new city pays the City of Los Angeles for its share of the outstanding debt.

Non-Debt Liabilities

Non-debt liabilities include workers’ compensation liability resulting from litigation against the City, and arguably salary-related liability.

Workers Compensation

The City of Los Angeles is self-insured for purposes of workers’ compensation, and pays out approximately $100 million annually for doctors’ bills, temporary and permanent disability income support payments, and vocational training costs. Ninety seven percent of the payments are for currently inactive employees, with only 3 percent of payments for active employees.

The City of Los Angeles has proposed that the Harbor pay on a monthly basis the City of Los Angeles for a proportionate share of workers’ compensation costs. The City has proposed that the allocation factor be the new city’s share of general fund revenues that, according to the most recent estimate, would be 3.47 percent.[69]

The City of Los Angeles has proposed that the Harbor’s obligation includes claims that were filed prior to the effective date of incorporation as well as claims filed subsequently for injuries that “at least some of which” occurred prior to the effective date.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Harbor be required to pay on a monthly basis a share of the City of Los Angeles workers’ compensation attributable to workplace injuries that occurred prior to the effective date, as well as all claims filed prior to the effective date, where the Harbor’s share of these costs is equivalent to the percentage the Harbor contributed to the City of Los Angeles general fund in the most recent fiscal year.

Salary-related Liability

The City of Los Angeles has raised the issue of liability relating to accrued vacation, overtime and sick leave of City of Los Angeles employees. In particular, the City is concerned that when employees transfer to the new city, they will en masse seek payouts for the accrued leave.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends against imposing a term and condition on this issue.

Liability Claims

Liability claims are filed against the City for numerous reasons, including personal injury, property damage, discrimination complaints, employee actions, inverse condemnations, and employee actions. The City pays liability claims from its general fund, through judgment obligation bonds, and from special funds such as the Sewer Construction and Maintenance Fund.

The City of Los Angeles has proposed that the Harbor city be liable for a share of these liability claims based on the percent of general fund revenues attributable to the Harbor (approximately 3.47 percent).

The City of Los Angeles has proposed that the Harbor city’s obligation include claims that were filed prior to the effective date of incorporation as well as claims filed subsequently for injuries that “at least some of which” occurred prior to the effective date.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Harbor city be required to pay on a monthly basis a share of the City of Los Angeles liability claims attributable to injuries that occurred prior to the effective date, as well as all claims filed prior to the effective date, where the Harbor’s share of these costs is equivalent to the percentage the Harbor contributed to the City of Los Angeles general fund in the most recent fiscal year.

Audit Rights

The Commission should require that the new city have audit rights with respect to transition costs, revenue collected by the City of Los Angeles in the Harbor during fiscal year 2002-2003 and during the remainder of the transition period, and the City’s fiscal management of all outstanding debt service and other liabilities for which the new city shall be proportionately liable as provided for in the terms and conditions, including but not limited to workers’ compensation claims and legal liability claims. The City of Los Angeles should be required to maintain all records related to these matters for a period of at least three years from the end of the transition period or the date of retirement of a debt or payment of a liability claim. The new city’s right to audit should terminate two years after the end of the transition period with respect to transition costs and revenues, and two years after the date of the retirement of a debt or payment of a liability claim. The new city shall bear all expenses related to any audits. Staff recommends that the Commission fix all percentages to be used for allocation of any revenue, outstanding debt and liabilities to alleviate the need for audit rights with respect to the percentages. Any objections to the percentage allocations should be raised with the Commission before it makes its final determinations.

Miscellaneous Provisions

Redevelopment Areas

The City of Los Angeles has proposed that any transfer of the administration of any redevelopment area located in the detached territory be in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code sections 33214-33217. In addition, the Applicant has proposed that the City of Los Angeles shall not expand the boundaries of any redevelopment project area within the Harbor nor shall it establish any new redevelopment project area during the transition period without official consent of the Harbor city council.

Staff recommends that the Commission adopt both of these proposed conditions.

Proposition K Assessment District

In 1996, the voters citywide approved Proposition K—a $25 million annual assessment for parks and related improvements. Proposition K funds can only be used for improving, constructing, and maintaining City parks, recreation facilities, childcare centers, and acquiring land for open space purposes. Land acquired for open space purposes must be owned by the City. Eighty-two percent of the assessment funds are reserved for capitol improvement projects, 15 percent for maintenance of completed acquisitions and improvements and 3 percent for incidental costs.

The assessment district is a citywide district, formally organized as a landscaping and street lighting district. The legal authority for the Proposition K assessments is the California Streets and Highways Code, Section 22500, et seq., otherwise known as the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The Act requires that an annual engineer’s report estimate the net amount assessable and apportion that amount among the parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each parcel from the improvements. The engineer’s report allocates benefit points to all parcels within the citywide district.

Assessments are levied annually by the City and collected by the County along with general property taxes. The rate and method of apportionment is based on the size and use of each parcel. The benefits associated with the park improvements vary depending on the land use category for a particular parcel.

Proposition K funding is designated for both specified projects and competitive grant projects. Under Proposition K, $298.85 million of the total amount generated over 30 years is allocated to 183 specified projects. Should any project become infeasible for any reason or there are project savings, the City Council is authorized to reprogram the applicable funds during the annual assessment proceedings to other projects. A dozen of the specified projects are located in the Harbor, including improvements at the Point Fermin lighthouse and at Peck Park. Proposition K also allocates $143.65 million of the total amount generated over 30 years to competitive grants for public agencies, City departments and nonprofit organizations.

The City of Los Angeles issued a $14.4 million assessment bond in 2000 for ten of the Proposition K projects, one of which was the Point Fermin improvements and irrigation upgrade. The debt is scheduled to be paid off in fiscal year 2026-27.

The City of Los Angeles has proposed that the territory of the new city be excluded from the boundaries of Landscaping and Street Lighting District number 96-1 (Proposition K), except that property owners in the new city shall continue to be liable for a pro rata share of outstanding bonds secured by Proposition K funds. Further, the City proposes that the property assessments shall be levied by the City of Los Angeles based upon the benefit received, and remitted by the County directly to the City.

The Applicant has proposed that assessment districts that are partially within the Harbor city be detached and the portion within the Harbor city shall become the responsibility of the Harbor city.

Government Code section 56844(u) provides the Commission with authority to transfer authority and responsibility among any cities, counties, or districts for the administration of special tax and assessment districts, including the determination of annual tax rates within authorized limits, the management of funds, the issuance of authorized bonds, the supervision of construction, etc. Section 56844(e) provides authority for the formation of a new improvement district, and section 56844(t) provides authority for the extension and continuation of any previously authorized tax or assessment. Section 56125 provides that the Commission need not comply with the principal act when the formation of a new improvement district is pursuant to a reorganization. Based upon these provisions staff recommends that the Commission adopt the Applicant’s proposal to detach the Proposition K assessment district, authorize the continuation of the assessment with a proportionate limit on the total amount assessed, and form a separate district in the Harbor consistent with the responsibilities, powers and limitations of the current district. The Harbor Proposition K district would continue to be liable for a pro rata share of the outstanding bonds of the former district, and should be obligated to carry out those specified projects in the Harbor, unless the new City Council determines that they are infeasible, consistent with Proposition K. Since this is a previously authorized assessment that has been and is being collected in the Harbor, and no increase in the assessment limitation is contemplated, the requirements of Proposition 218 should not be triggered.

Other Assessment Districts

Both parties have agreed that control of assessment districts other than Landscaping and Street Lighting District number 96-1 (Proposition K) located wholly within the Harbor city be transferred to the Harbor city council after the effective date of incorporation.

The Harbor has proposed that assessment districts that are partially within the Harbor city be detached and the portion within the Harbor city shall become the responsibility of the Harbor city. The City of Los Angeles has indicated that it does not believe any such assessment districts exist.

Staff recommends that the Commission require the transfer of districts located in the Harbor to the new Harbor city.

Cost of Elections and Redistricting

Pursuant to Government Code section 57150(e), the City of Los Angeles and the Harbor are obligated to share the costs of election on the question of special reorganization and selection of Harbor city council members in proportion to the assessed value in the respective territories, if the Harbor Special Reorganization is approved. If the voters reject special reorganization, the County of Los Angeles is obligated to bear these costs.

Staff recommends that the City of Los Angeles, the Harbor and any other cities formed pursuant to these special reorganization proceedings be obligated to pay in proportionate shares the costs of redistricting the City of Los Angeles.

Standard Provisions

There are a number of relatively standard provisions that must be included in the final resolution. These are generally straightforward, and do not materially affect the upcoming fiscal mitigation negotiations between the parties. Staff recommends that the Commission place lower priority on these provisions at this time.

Elected Representatives

The Applicant has proposed the following conditions:

As required by state statute, the new city will begin as a General Law city. The new City shall be governed by a City Council composed of five elected council members. The 3 initial council members receiving the highest number of votes will serve four-year terms; the 2 initial council members receiving the lowest number of votes shall serve two-year terms.

The Applicant has requested, and the Cortese-Knox Act provides for, the holding of city council elections at the same time as the election on the question of special reorganization.[70]

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends the following condition:

The legislative body of the Harbor city shall consist of five city council members, elected in accordance with Government Code section 57377. The first election of city council members shall be held concurrently with the election on the question of special reorganization.

Appointive Positions

In California incorporations, it is standard practice for the LAFCO resolution to list certain officials of the new city as being appointive rather than elected positions. Such a provision appears necessary in the case of the City Clerk and Treasurer, as the law requires these positions to be filled by elected officials.[71] Other LAFCO resolutions frequently list the City Manager and City Attorney positions as appointive rather than elective.

It is not necessary to list all appointive positions at the new city, as many of these positions are required by statute to be appointive rather than elective. For example, in a general law city, the statute authorizes the city council to appoint a city attorney, a chief of police, a superintendent of streets or other subordinate officers.[72]

Ordinance Adoption

The default provisions of the Cortese-Knox Act require that a newly incorporated city comprised of territory formerly unincorporated adopt all previously applicable county ordinances of the City of Los Angeles for the first 120 days of the new city’s existence or until the city council adopts its own ordinances.[73] The code requires that enforcement of these laws be provided by the new city, but may be provided by the county during the transition period if enforcement services are provided by the county during that period.[74]

In some past incorporation cases, the LAFCO resolution has specifically required the new city to adhere to the existing general plan and zoning ordinances of the county until the new city has adopted its own general plan.

Since the proposed Harbor Special Reorganization area is not unincorporated territory, adoption of the county’s ordinances would not make sense. The Applicant and the City agree that that Commission should require the new city to adopt the relevant ordinances of the City of Los Angeles for this time period. In addition to the existing ordinances, the City of Los Angeles has asked that development permits and related environmental mitigation measures be adopted by the new city. Staff recommends that the City’s proposal on this matter be included in the resolution.

Tax Authorization

It is standard practice in California incorporations for the LAFCO resolution to authorize the new city to continue levying the same taxes and fees. The Commission has the discretion to impose such a term and condition, however, the statute granting that authority pre-dates Proposition 218.[75]

In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218, which requires local governments to obtain voter approval (majority or two-thirds) for all general and special taxes. In addition, Proposition 218 places stricter requirements on the approval and use of assessments and fees.

The Legislative Counsel has issued two opinions that conclude that the provisions of Proposition 218 would prevail over the provisions of the Cortese-Knox Act with regard to the proposed imposition of a tax, assessment or fee as a condition of annexation. In the opinion of the Legislative Counsel, the imposition of a City’s local taxes, assessments, fees, and charges to a territory approved for annexation must first be approved by a vote of those in the annexed territory because the tax, assessment or fee had not been previously imposed in that territory.[76] Proposition 218 requires that the voters must approve any increases in general taxes by a majority vote and special taxes by a two-thirds vote.[77] To impose a benefit assessment, a public agency must prepare an engineer’s report which demonstrates the special benefits derived by the properties proposed to be assessed and conduct a protest hearing in which the votes of property-owners are weighted in accordance with the proportional financial obligation of the affected properties.[78] Most fees and charges must also survive a protest hearing and be approved by either a majority of the property owners affected or a two-thirds vote of the electorate.[79]

Subsequently, the Attorney General released a formal opinion which concluded that "if LAFCO conditions approval of a change of organization or reorganization upon a requirement that the subject agency levy or fix and collect a previously established and collected tax, assessment or fee on parcels being annexed to the agency, the voter approval requirements of Proposition 218 do not apply."[80] The opinion reasoned that the protest procedures in the Cortese-Knox Act provide for voter approval, and Proposition 218 was not intended to apply to LAFCO actions.

Seven California incorporations have been processed since the passage of Proposition 218, all of which have conditioned approval on the imposition of previously established and collected taxes, fees and assessments without requiring further compliance with Proposition 218. None has been challenged on the legal grounds of violation of Proposition 218. These incorporations have included authorization in the LAFCO resolution of both general and special taxes. The annexations discussed in the Legislative Counsel and Attorney General opinions differ from the incorporations, however, because annexations involve the imposition of these taxes, fees and assessment in territory where they were not previously imposed and the property owners and/or voters had not previously approved their imposition. In the case of incorporations or the proposed Harbor Special Reorganization, the taxes, fees and assessments have already been approved by and imposed upon the subject territory. Thus, it could be argued that they are not new or taxes, fees or assessments, and not subject to Proposition 218.

Development Agreements

Most California incorporation resolutions include a provision requiring the new city to abide by existing development agreements in the territory. This is a statutory requirement for incorporations of previously unincorporated territory,[81] but there is no similar statutory requirement for special reorganization. Nonetheless, such a provision protects the public, and real estate and business owners in areas subject to development agreements.

The City of Los Angeles has proposed that the LAFCO resolution include a provision requiring the new city to abide by existing development agreements:

The new city shall succeed to the benefits and be bound by the obligations and duties of the City with respect to the Development Agreements listed below, and the City shall be relieved of any obligation under those Agreements, except that the City shall be considered a third party beneficiary and may, at its option, enforce the obligations of the Agreements.

With respect to development agreements, Orange County LAFCO has named the county as a third party beneficiary with a reservation enforcement rights, however, the development agreement obligations in question were for regional infrastructure benefiting more than just the incorporating city. In the case of special reorganization, such a provision may undermine the authority of the new city in its land use decision-making. For instance, it could hamper the new city’s ability to negotiate modifications to development agreements that the City of Los Angeles may not consider to be in its interests. If the new city were to breach a development agreement, the developers could take the matter to court; there is no need for the City of Los Angeles to reserve development enforcement rights in the new city. Staff recommends that Commission require the new city to honor all existing development agreements, and vest all enforcement rights in the new city.

Provisional Appropriations Limit

The Commission must establish a provisional appropriations limit for the new city. This limit is temporary, and will only affect the new city during its first two years. The new city is required by statute to submit to its voters a permanent appropriations limit in the first municipal election following the first full fiscal year of operation.[82]

The Commission may consider expected revenues, population growth and cost of living growth forecasts in setting the provisional appropriations limit, according to Government Code section 56842.6.

The Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis estimated that the Harbor area received $123.9 million in general and special purpose fund revenues in the fiscal year 2000-01. The objective is to set a provisional appropriations limit that should accommodate the new city through the 2004-05 fiscal year.

The California Department of Finance has projected annual population growth in Los Angeles County at a 0.9% rate between 2000 and 2005.[83] The Department’s economists have forecast a 9.5% increase in the Los Angeles cost of living (CPI-U) between fiscal year 2000-01 and 2004-05. Taken in combination, the forecasts imply that the Commission should set the Harbor provisional appropriations limit at a minimum of $140.7 million. This minimum amount is expected to accommodate growth expected to occur before the new city would have the opportunity to establish a permanent appropriations limit.

Given that the appropriations limit may change as a result of boundary changes or updates to the state forecasts, staff will provide a final analysis of this issue in a subsequent report.

Name of the New City

The Applicant has proposed that the voters be offered several options from which to choose the new city’s name.

Government Code section 57101(d) provides that voters may “express their preference” on the name for the new city “if the petition so requests”.

This approach has been used in other California incorporations. Most recently, Truckee and Laguna Woods voters were offered two options for the city name on the ballot. Lake Forest voters were offered three options.

Staff Recommendations

1) Staff recommends that the Commission’s resolution include the following condition:

Pursuant to Government Code Section 57101(d), the voters’ preference for a name for the new city shall be included on the ballot and the name shall be chosen from the following three (3) choices: [Name 1], [Name 2], or [Name 3].

2) Staff recommends that the Applicant provide the Commission with city name alternatives by April 15, 2002.

Geographic Boundaries

The Commission is charged with the task of reviewing the proposed geographic boundaries to ensure that the boundaries are definitive and certain.

For the most part, the proposed boundaries of the Harbor Special Reorganization area are logical and appropriate. The incorporation of the Harbor area, however, will leave the Harbor Gateway, which connects the Harbor area to the rest of the City, with the City of Los Angeles. This area, which consists of a long narrow strip of territory, may be inefficient to serve by either the City of Los Angeles or a new Harbor city.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 56108, authority is reserved to the State Land Commission to determine whether or not sovereign tide or submerged lands may be included or excluded from territory to be incorporated or annexed into a city. At the State Lands Commission meeting of November 27, 2000, the Lands Commission took under consideration the boundaries of, and request to incorporate sovereign tide and submerged lands in, the Applicant’s proposal for the Harbor Special Reorganization, and took the following action:

Approved the offshore boundaries proposed by the Applicant that include the sovereign tide and submerged lands granted in trust to the City of Los Angeles (the “tidelands”);
Deferred the Lands Commission’s approval and consent, pursuant to Government Code section 56108(a), to the inclusion of the tidelands in the proposed Harbor city;
Found that the City of Los Angeles’ title as trustee of the tidelands would not be altered by the proposed inclusion of the tidelands within the boundaries of the proposed Harbor city; and
Conditioned the Lands Commission’s approval of the offshore boundaries upon completion of the LAFCO process, subsequent action of the Lands Commission pursuant to Government Code section 56108(a), and ultimately, approval of the Harbor Special Reorganization by the voters in the proposed Harbor Special Reorganization area and the entire City of Los Angeles as provided for in the Government Code.[84]

The CFA for the Harbor Special Reorganization was prepared based upon the following assumptions: (1) the tidelands are included within the boundaries of the proposed Harbor city; and (2) the trusteeship of the tidelands remains vested in the City of Los Angeles, as it would not be transferred to the proposed Harbor city. Staff has asserted to the State Lands Commission that the State Lands Commission’s deferral of its approval and consent to inclusion of the tidelands in the proposed Harbor city is not consistent with Government Code section 56108, which provides that:

(d) Within 45 days after filing of the boundary description and map with the State Lands Commission, the State Lands Commission shall make a determination of the proper offshore or submerged lands boundaries. That determination shall be final and conclusive. If the State Lands Commission does not make the determination within that time, the proposed offshore or submerged lands boundaries shall be deemed approved.

(e) The State Lands Commission shall report its determination to the executive officer and to each affected city, affected county, affected district, or person, if any, that has filed the boundary description and map. Thereafter, filings and action may be taken pursuant to this part.[85]

The State Lands Commission has asserted that it is acting within its authority and will make a final decision in April 2002, prior to the scheduled time for the Commission’s final determinations with respect to the Harbor Special Reorganization proposal.[86]

Should the State Lands Commission modify the boundary of the Harbor Special Reorganization area to exclude the tidelands, and it is determined that it has the legal authority to do so, there may be fiscal impacts on the proposed Harbor Special Reorganization that may require further analysis.

Sphere of Influence

The Commission has the option of defining the new city’s sphere of influence in the LAFCO resolution, or deferring the decision until the new city incorporates. If LAFCO chooses to defer this decision, it must determine the sphere of influence within the first year following incorporation of the new city.[87]

The City of Los Angeles sphere of influence does not currently extend beyond the city limits.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Commission defer consideration of the sphere of influence until after a successful incorporation.

Summary

This staff report provides summary and analysis of potential terms and conditions on which the Commission may condition approval of the proposal for special reorganization of the Harbor area of the City of Los Angeles. The report includes a number of recommendations for consideration by the Subcommittee and the Commission.

Findings

Before a finding of fiscal viability is made, staff concludes that there should be a satisfactory demonstration of the proposed new city’s ability to either achieve cost savings and/or generate additional revenue to mitigate the loss in revenue resulting from the proposed new city’s inability to impose the same documentary transfer tax rate as the City of Los Angeles.

Staff recommends that the Commission find that the proposed Harbor Special Reorganization is not revenue neutral.

Staff recommends that the Commission find that the proposed Harbor Special Reorganization would not have a negative fiscal effect on the City of Los Angeles that should be mitigated. Staff does not recommend that the Commission find that the proposed Harbor Special Reorganization would have a negative fiscal effect on the County of Los Angeles. The Commission should only reconsider this issue if the County requests mitigation.

Staff Recommendations

The Commission should adopt terms agreeable to both the City of Los Angeles and the Applicant. In lieu of such agreement, staff recommends the following:

· The effective date of special reorganization should be January 1, 2003.

· During the transition period, the City of Los Angeles should be obligated to provide services to the new city in such a manner as to maintain pre-incorporation service levels. The City of Los Angeles should be allowed to reduce service levels in the Harbor during the transition period only as may be required for management of emergencies or revenue shortfalls in the new city.

· The transition period should conclude on June 30, 2004, except that the transition period for a particular service should terminate on the effective date of a service contract between the parties for the provision of that service.

· The new city should be able to request cancellation of transition period services provided by the City of Los Angeles upon six month’s notice.

· If the new city cancels a transition period service with less than six months notice, the new city should continue to be obligated to pay for transition period costs for that service throughout the six month period.

· The new city should be required to reimburse the City of Los Angeles for the cost of transition period services at “net cost.” The net cost should exclude overhead costs that the City of Los Angeles would incur regardless of whether it services the new city. Prohibited overhead costs should include the salaries and employee benefits associated with elected officials and department heads, as well as their chiefs of staff and personal secretarial staff.

· The scope of transition period services should be defined to exclude the functions of certain City departments—Aging, Neighborhood Empowerment, Cultural Affairs, Disability, Environmental Affairs, Emergency Preparedness, Commission on the Status of Women, and Commission for Children, Youth & Their Families. The scope of transition period service may be further defined to exclude non-essential functions of City departments if such functions are specifically identified by the Applicant for the Commission’s consideration.

· Staff recommends against imposing any employee leasing (or “seconding”) arrangements on the parties in the LAFCO resolution.

· The City of Los Angeles should extend revenue credit toward the transition period service costs for any revenues that are generated in the Harbor after the effective date of incorporation, but still collected and retained by the City during the transition period.

· Staff recommends that the Commission accommodate the recommended January 1 effective date by requiring that one-half of the fiscal year 2002-03 property and business license tax receipts generated in the Harbor are allocated to each party.

· Both the new city and the City of Los Angeles should remit all revenues collected by or on behalf of the new city to a third party fiscal agent throughout the transition period. The new city should remit all property tax revenues collected on behalf of the new city to a third party fiscal agent until all bonded indebtedness existing as of the effective date is retired or the parties agree otherwise. The new city should reimburse the third party fiscal agent for the costs of collecting and remitting tax revenues. The third party fiscal agent should be acceptable to both the new city and the City of Los Angeles.

· The third party fiscal agent should serve as the custodian of Harbor funds during the transition period, and make payments to the City of Los Angeles on a monthly basis for transition period service costs and liabilities, and for outstanding debt until retired.

· The Commission should adopt standard provisions relating to city name, council member terms of office, ordinance adoption, tax authorization, appointive positions, sphere of influence, a provisional appropriations limit and development agreements.

· With respect to employee transfers, both the City of Los Angeles and the new city are required to comply with the provisions of Government Code section 56844.2, and therefore, staff recommends against imposing any terms and conditions regarding employee transfers.

· The Commission should not impose a term and condition requiring the new city to adopt the City of Los Angeles civil service system.

· Any transfer of the administration of any redevelopment area located in the detached territory should be in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, sections 33214-33217. The City of Los Angeles should not expand the boundaries of any redevelopment project area within the Harbor nor should it establish any new redevelopment project area during the transition period without official consent of the Harbor city council.

· That portion of Landscaping and Street Lighting District number 96-1 (Proposition K) within the Harbor should be detached from the District and formed into a new Harbor district, authorized to continue collection of the assessment, with a proportionate limit on the total amount assessed. The Harbor district should be governed by the new city council consistent with the responsibilities, powers and limitations of District 96-1. The Harbor district would continue to be liable for a pro rata share of the outstanding bonds of District 96-1, and will be obligated to carry out those specified projects located in the Harbor unless the new city council determines that they are infeasible.

· Assessment districts located within the Harbor city should be transferred to the Harbor city council on the effective date of incorporation. To the extent that such assessment districts are partially within the Harbor city the Harbor portion should be detached and the portion within the Harbor city shall become the responsibility of the Harbor city.

· The costs of election on the question of special reorganization should be allocated pursuant to Government Code section 57150(e).

· The City of Los Angeles, the Harbor and any other cities formed pursuant to these special reorganization proceedings should be obligated to pay in proportionate shares the costs of redistricting the City of Los Angeles.

Set forth below is a summary of the staff recommendations for assets, enterprises and liabilities. In certain instances staff sets forth alternative recommendations based upon the legal opinions of the County Counsel (CC) and Legislative Counsel (LC), as indicated.

· Trust Account Funds and Liquid Assets:

o (CC) The Commission should require the transfer of trust account fund balances for projects specific to the Harbor Special Reorganization area, but no general or special fund balances should transfer unless the City of Los Angeles agrees to a transfer; or

o (LC) The Commission should require the transfer of trust account fund balances for projects specific to the Harbor Special Reorganization area, and 3.47 percent (proportion of Harbor general fund revenue) of any unexpended general fund balances (including reserves) and special fund balances, except for:

· Water Revenue Fund

· Power Revenue Fund

· Sewer Construction & Maintenance Fund

· Convention Center Revenue Fund

· Zoo Enterprise Trust Fund

· Special Police Communications/911 System Tax Fund

· City Employees Retirement Fund

· Fire and Police Pension Fund

· El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historical Monument Revenue Fund

· Staples Arena Special Fund, and

· Bond Redemption & Interest Funds.

· Local Service-Related Assets:

o (CC) The Commission should require local service-related assets that are held pursuant to a public trust transferred on the effective date or upon their identification by the parties; other local service-related assets should only transfer upon the payment of compensation or on terms agreed to by the parties; or

o (LC) The Commission should require the transfer of title to all service-related local assets (itemized in Attachment A) on the effective date; during the transition period, the City of Los Angeles should be entitled to use service-related assets, at no cost, for the provision of services to the new city.

· Leases: Staff recommends against requiring the Harbor city to accept lease assignments.

· Streets and Highways: The Commission should require that, upon the effective date of incorporation, all right, title, interest and responsibility for any and all public roads, adjacent slopes, medians, sidewalks, trails, bikeways, landscaped areas, open space, street lights, signals, and bridges located within the boundaries of the special reorganization area shall vest in the new city, except that the City of Los Angeles shall retain title to all assets, property, rights of way, easements, and other property interests (including, but not limited to, those that may be on, under, or adjacent to those roads and highways) related to operation of the water system, power system, wastewater system, and communications or other centralized systems.

· Storm Water Facilities: The Commission should require the transfer of all storm drain facilities and easements to the new city.

· Miscellaneous Assets:

o The Commission should require the transfer of property-related easements; and

o (CC) The Commission should require that other miscellaneous assets located within the Harbor Special Reorganization area that are held pursuant to a public trust be transferred on the effective date or upon their identification by the parties; other miscellaneous assets located within the Harbor Special Reorganization area should only be transferred upon the payment of compensation or on terms agreed to by the parties; or

o (LC) The Commission should require the transfer, without compensation, of all other assets owned by the City of Los Angeles and located within the Harbor Special Reorganization area, but not transferred or excluded from transfer elsewhere in the resolution.

· Utilities: Staff recommends that no public utility assets transfer to the new Harbor city. Staff recommends that these integrated systems remain under single ownership.

· Water and Power Utility Services: The Commission should require that the City of Los Angeles continue to provide water and power public utility service to customers located in the new city, and that the new city be required to enter into agreements for water and power with the City of Los Angeles for terms that end no sooner than the latest maturity date of bonded indebtedness for debt issued prior to the effective date.

· Wastewater Services: The Commission should require that the City of Los Angeles continue to provide wastewater collection and treatment service to customers located in the new city, and that the new city enter into an agreement for wastewater services with the City of Los Angeles for a term that ends no sooner than the latest maturity date of bonded indebtedness for debt issued prior to the effective date.

· Utility Services and Rates: The Commission should require that the City of Los Angeles provide the same level of service as is provided to each particular type of customer within the City of Los Angeles to customers of the corresponding type within the new Harbor city, and to charge the same utility rates as are charged to each particular type of customer within the City of Los Angeles to customers of the corresponding type in the new Harbor city, with no rate differential based upon the location of the customer within one city or the other, such that while the City of Los Angeles may adjust rates and differentiate between different types of customers based on usage or cost of service, the rates charged to a particular type of customer in the remaining City will always be the same as the rate charged to the corresponding type of customer in the new Harbor city, and to the extent that there are additional costs associated with the provision of utility services to a particular type of customer in either area, those additional costs shall be borne uniformly across the two cities by that type of customer, without any differentials based upon the location of the customer within one city or the other.

· General Obligation Bonds: The Commission should require the new city to pass an ordinance each year adopting the GO property tax rate established by the City of Los Angeles for repayment of GO debt outstanding on the effective date, and require that the new city authorize the Los Angeles County Tax Collector to remit to the City of Los Angeles all Harbor property owners’ payments for GO debt outstanding on the effective date.

· Assessment and Special Tax Bonds: The Commission should require that the parcels that are currently encumbered with such assessments remain encumbered until the bonds are paid in full.

· Judgment Obligation Bonds: The Commission should require that the new city make monthly debt service payments to the City of Los Angeles for the debt based upon a 3.47 percent share of the annual debt service, unless and until the new city pays the City of Los Angeles for its share of the outstanding debt.

· General Fund Lease Obligations and Certificates of Participation: The Commission should require that the new city make monthly debt service payments to the City of Los Angeles for the debt that is secured or backed by the general fund, based upon a 3.47 percent share of the annual debt service, unless and until the new city pays the City of Los Angeles for its share of the outstanding debt, and if the debt-financed equipment cannot be transferred to the new city, the Commission should require that the City of Los Angeles provide the new city with access to, and use of, an equitable share of this debt-financed equipment during its useful life. Staff recommends that the new city not bear responsibility for debt paid by special funds, in particular, the portion of debt paid by Convention Center revenues, the Staples Arena developer or the Pershing Square special taxes.

· Sanitation Equipment Charge Revenue Bonds: The Commission should require that the new city make monthly debt service payments to the City of Los Angeles for the debt based upon a 4 percent share of the annual debt service, unless and until the new city pays the City of Los Angeles for its share of the outstanding debt.

· Parking Revenue Bonds: The Commission should require that the new city make monthly debt service payments to the City of Los Angeles for the debt based upon a 1.2 percent share of the annual debt service, unless and until the new city pays the City of Los Angeles for its share of the outstanding debt.

· Workers’ Compensation: The Commission should require that the new city pay on a monthly basis a share of the City of Los Angeles workers’ compensation attributable to workplace injuries that occurred prior to the effective date, as well as all claims filed prior to the effective date, where the Harbor’s share of these costs is equivalent to the percentage the Harbor contributed to the City of Los Angeles general fund in the most recent fiscal year.

· Liability Claims: The Commission should require that the new city pay on a monthly basis a share of the City of Los Angeles liability claims attributable to injuries that occurred prior to the effective date, as well as all claims filed prior to the effective date, where the Harbor’s share of these costs is equivalent to the percentage the Harbor contributed to the City of Los Angeles general fund in the most recent fiscal year.

· Debt Audit Rights: The Commission should require that the new city have audit rights with respect to the City of Los Angeles’ fiscal management of all outstanding debt service and other liabilities for which the new city shall be proportionately liable as provided for in the terms and conditions, including but not limited to workers’ compensation claims and legal liability claims. The City of Los Angeles should be required to maintain all records related to the outstanding debt service and other liabilities for a period of at least three years from the date of retirement of a debt or payment of a liability claim. The new city’s right to audit should terminate two years after the date of retirement of a debt or payment of a liability claim. The new city should bear all expenses related to any audits.

· Revenue and Transition Costs Audit Rights: The Commission should require that the new city have audit rights with respect to transition period service costs and any revenue collected by the City of Los Angeles within the Harbor during the fiscal year 2002-2003 and during the remainder of the transition period. The City of Los Angeles should be required to maintain all revenue records for a period of at least three years from the date when the transition period ends. The new city’s right to audit should terminate two years after the last day of the transition period. The new city should bear all expenses related to any audits.

Appendices

City-Owned Municipal Facilities in the Harbor Area

Harbor Animal Shelter 735 Battery St.

Warner Grand Theater 478 W. 6^th St.

Croatian Cultural Center 643 S. Pacific Ave.

Performing Arts (Fire Station #53) 438 N. Mesa St.

Fire Station #101 1414 W. 25^th St.

Fire Station #112 550 S. Sampson Way

Fire Station #38 124 E. I St.

Fire Station #48 1601 N. Grand Ave.

Fire Station #85 1331 W. 253^rd St.

Fire Station #49/Fire Boat #4 400 Yacht St.

Wilmington Branch Library 1300 N. Avalon Bl.

San Pedro Regional Library 931 S. Gaffey St.

Wilmington Service Center 309 W. Opp St.

Harbor Police Station 2175 John S. Gibson Jr. Bl

Parking Lot 683 445 5^th Street

Parking Lot 684 460 7^th Street

Off Street Parking 833 Avalon Blvd

Pacific Region Annex 435 N. Neptune Ave.

Off Street Parking 928 Marine Ave.

Off Street Parking 474 West 8^th Street

Off Street Parking 462 West 9^th Street

Parking Lot 699 528 11^th Street

San Pedro Municipal Building 638 S. Beacon St.

Harbor Repair Facility/Gaffey Street Yard 1400 N. Gaffey St.

City-Owned Park-Based and Select Other Facilities in the Harbor Area

Alma Park 21^st and Meyler

Anderson Sr. Citizen Center 828 S. Mesa Street

Angels Gate Park 3601 Gaffey Street

Bandini Canyon Park O’farrell and Bandini

Banning Residence Museum 401 E “M” Street

Banning Recreation Center 1331 Eubank Street

Banning Outdoor Pool 1415 N. Avalon Blvd.

Bogdanovich Recreation Center 1920 Cumbre Drive

Cabrillo Beach 3720 Steven White Dr.

Cabrillo Aquarium 3720 Stephen White Dr.

Daniel’s Field 845 W. 12^th St.

Drum Barracks Civil War Museum 1052 Banning Blvd.

East Wilmington Vest Pock. Park 1300 “O” St.

Gaffey Pool 3351 Gaffey St.

Gibson (John S. Jr.) Park Harbor Blvd., between 5^th and 6^th

Harbor City Recreation Center 24901 Frampton Ave.

Harbor Highlands Park 825 Capitol Dr.

Harbor View Memorial West 24^th Street at Grand Ave.

Harbor Lake (S) 25820 Vermont Ave.

Leland Recreation Center 863 S. Herbert Ave.

Lookout Point Park Gafey St. and 36^th St.

Los Angeles Maritime Museum Berth 84, Foot of 6^th St.

Peck Park Community Center 560 N. Western Ave.

Point Fermin Park 807 Paseo Del mar

Rancho San Pedro Recreation Center 275 W. 1^st St.

Rancho San Pedro Housing Development 275 W. 1^st St.

Rena Park 510 Leland Ave.

San Pedro Plaza Park 700 S. Beacon St.

White Point Park Paseo del Mar and Western Ave.

Wilmington Recreation Center 325 Neptune Ave.

Wilmington Veterans Park M St. to Sanford Along Drumm

Terms Proposed by the City of Los Angeles and the Applicant

THIS PAGE IS A PLACEHOLDER

REMOVE THIS PAGE IN PRODUCTION

[1] Former California Government Code section 56000, et seq. The Cortese-Knox Act was amended by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (the “Hertzberg Act”), which became effective January 1, 2001. Since the Harbor Special Reorganization proposal was pending prior to the Hertzberg Act effective date, pursuant to the provisions of the Hertzberg Act it is being processed under the prior law, and all references herein are to the former Government Code sections of the Cortese-Knox Act.

[5] Certain findings contained in the CFA have been modified in the supplemental report.

[6] Government Code section 56833.3 restricts the review period to 45 days. The Controller’s report must be completed no later than March 28, 2002.

[9] County of Los Angeles Office of the County Counsel, Imposition of Mitigation Payment Favoring a Proposed New City, May 25, 2001.

[10] California Public Resources Code section 22000, et seq.

[11] Younger v. Local Agency Formation Commission of San Diego County, 81Cal.App.3d 464, 146 Cal.Rptr. 400(1978); Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County v. Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission, 6 Cal.App.4^th 475, 286 Cal.Rptr. 171(1991)(not citable, superceded by grant of review).

[14] Under the Hertzberg Act, the Commission now acts as the conducting authority. This legislation, however, was not yet effective when the Harbor special reorganization petition was first filed.

[16] Government Code sections 57077 and 57078.

[21] Leonard Pitt and Dale Pitt. Los Angeles A to Z: An Encyclopedia of the City and County. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997.

[22] Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century. Financing The Fiscal Study For San Fernando Harbor Secession. Sacramento: Commission on Local Governance for the 21^st Century, June 11, 1999.

[23] Government Code sections 57079 and 57103.1.

[24] Population based on County of Los Angeles, Urban Research Division estimates from 2000 Census data.

[25] Public Financial Management, Inc. Harbor Proposal for Special Reorganization Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis, January 9, 2002.

[26] Fielder v. City of Los Angeles, 14 Cal.App.4^th 137 (1993).

[27] Government Code section 56845 prohibits the Commission from approving a proposal that includes an incorporation unless it finds that the following are substantially equal:

(a) revenues currently received by the agency transferring the affected territory which would accrue to the local agency receiving the affected territory; and

(b) expenditures currently made by the local agency transferring the affected territory for those services which will be assumed by the local agency receiving the affected territory.

[28] County of Los Angeles Office of the County Counsel, Imposition of Mitigation Payment Favoring a Proposed New City, May 25, 2001.

[33] Incorporation precedents include all incorporations since 1990 with both an election date and effective date listed in the LAFCO resolution.

[34] The City finances expenditures in the earlier portion of the fiscal year by borrowing. The City borrows from its special funds and from bondholders through tax and revenue anticipation notes. The City is required to reimburse both the special funds and the bondholders with revenues received during the same fiscal year. For budgetary purposes, the bond proceeds finance the City’s pension fund contributions. The CFA assumed that the Harbor would share in repaying the short-term debt.

[36] R.J. Rudden Associates. Report to the City of Los Angeles Office of the City Administrative Officer Regarding Cash Flow Evaluation of the Harbor Area Secession Proposal, November 20, 2001.

[37] Harbor Study Foundation, Special Reorganization of the Harbor Area Transition Plan & Budget, December 5, 2001.

[39] Harbor Study Foundation, Inc. Special Reorganization of the Harbor Area, Harbor Incorporation Analysis, October 8, 2001.

[42] Public Financial Management, Inc. Harbor Proposal for Special Reorganization Supplemental Report, February 15, 2002.

[47] Annual business license fees compose the vast majority of revenues, and are received in February and March of the calendar year.

[50] City Charter amendments require voter approval. Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 3.

[51] Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2000. December 12, 2000. Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System, Audited Financial Statements, June 30, 2001.

[52] California Public Employees’ Retirement System, When You Change Retirement Systems. Office of Public Affairs Publication PERS-PUB-16, January 2001.

[53] City of Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension System. Financial Statements and Supplemental Schedules, June 30, 2001 and 2000.

[54] City of Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension System. Financial Statements and Supplemental Schedules, June 30, 2000 and 1999.

[55] Police and firefighters hired before 1998 must complete at least ten years of service prior to becoming vested, while those hired in 1998 or later must complete at least twenty years of service prior to becoming vested. Los Angeles City Charter, Art. XI, §§ 1504, 1604.

[56] The City of Los Angeles has seniority based layoff procedures. Los Angeles City Charter, Art. X, § 1015 and Civil Service rule 8.

[57] City Charter amendments require voter approval. Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 3.

[59] Streets & Highways Code section 989, Government Code sections 57329, 57385.

[60] Public Utilities Code sections 11581, 11641.

[61] California Constitution, Article XI, section 9(a), Public Utilities Code section 10052, et seq.

[62] Water Services, Department of Water and Power, City of Los Angeles. Report and Financial Statements, June 30, 2001.

[63] Official Statement, Los Angeles Wastewater System Revenue Bonds, Refunding Series 1999-A, January 26, 1999.

[64] Energy Services, Department of Water and Power, City of Los Angeles. Report and Financial Statements, June 30, 2001.

[65] City of Los Angeles, Office of Administrative and Research Services. City Response to LAFCO Regarding Harbor Secession Proposal and Initial Fiscal Analysis, June 13, 2001.

[67] County of Los Angeles, Office of the County Counsel. Commission Authority to Set Terms and Conditions Regarding Public Utilities, February 7, 2002.

[68] Public Financial Management. Harbor Proposal for Special Reorganization Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis, January 9, 2002.

[69] Public Financial Management, Harbor Proposal for Special Reorganization Supplemental Report, February 19, 2002.

[74] Government Code sections 57376(a), 57384.

[76] Legislative Counsel Opinion Nos. 11267 (May 15, 1997), 25418 (March 17, 1998).

[83] State of California, Department of Finance, Interim County Population Projections. Sacramento, California, June 2001.

[84] Summary of Meeting of the California State Lands Commission, November 27, 2000.

[85] January 18, 2002 letter from Larry J. Calemine, LAFCO Executive Officer to Curtis L. Fossum of the State Lands Commission.

[86] February 22, 2002 letter from Curtis L. Fossum of the State Lands Commission to Larry J. Calemine, LAFCO Executive Officer.