2 Supervisors Deal Setback to Santa Clarita Cityhood Vote

Prospects for a Santa Clarita Valley cityhood measure on the Nov. 3 ballot were dealt a setback Thursday when two supervisors opposed the date on the grounds that a favorable vote would cost Los Angeles County $3 million in sales-tax revenue.

After a public hearing on the matter, Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who supports the November election, postponed a vote until Tuesday, hoping to gain the support of two of his colleagues who were absent during the proceedings. The votes of three supervisors are needed to set the election.

Supervisors Pete Schabarum and Deane Dana said they do not favor the November date because, if the measure is approved by voters, the new city will be allowed to incorporate in December, costing the county sales-tax revenue through the end of the fiscal year in July. Instead, they said, they support an election in either April or June of next year.

Absent from Thursday’s meeting were Supervisors Ed Edelman, who was out of the country, and Kenneth Hahn, who is ill. County officials said they expect Edelman to be back in time for Tuesday’s meeting, but that it is not known if Hahn will be well enough to attend. Hahn, who suffered a stroke Jan. 11, has been in his office recently, officials said, but has not announced plans to return to work full time. He has not attended a Board of Supervisors’ meeting since his illness.

“I guess it comes down to trying to get Hahn and Edelman on our side and, then, hoping that Hahn is able to be at the meeting,” said Connie Worden, a spokeswoman for the Santa Clarita City Formation Committee.

Worden and other cityhood backers said they are disappointed but not surprised at the outcome of Thursday’s public hearing before supervisors.

“We’re probably looking at an April or June election date,” said Art Donnelly, adding that he fears the cityhood movement will lose momentum with a later election. Worden and Donnelly are co-vice chairmen of the cityhood committee.

Schabarum accused cityhood backers of reneging on an agreement to repay the county for sales taxes it would lose between the proposed December incorporation date and July 1, 1988, the beginning of the county’s next fiscal year.

Antonovich pointed out that, although the cityhood committee agreed to the repayment of the taxes in order to obtain support for a November election date, the Los Angeles Local Agency Formation Commission refused to allow that stipulation.

Cityhood backers “sat moot” at LAFCO’s June 23 hearing on the matter, Schabarum said.

“I didn’t see one of them trying to be recognized to speak about the agreement,” he said.

Will Pay for Services

LAFCO granted a second request by supervisors by stipulating that the city, if approved by voters in November, pay back costs for services the county is required by law to provide the newly incorporated area between the date of incorporation and the end of the fiscal year. The costs will amount to an estimated $2.7 million if the city is incorporated Dec. 1.

Antonovich pointed out that LAFCO made its decision after the public hearing on the cityhood issue had been closed. To hold the cityhood committee accountable for what LAFCO, an independent agency, did, is “unfair and irresponsible,” he said.

Schabarum replied that he believes LAFCO performed in “a despicable matter” in the Santa Clarita cityhood matter.

Dana agreed with Schabarum, saying he doesn’t think he could ever vote for a November election date because of the $3-million sales-tax loss.

Sought Self-Rule Before

During the public hearing, mandated by state law, Worden told supervisors that residents of the Santa Clarita Valley have long tried to be self-governing.

Twice before, 11 and 12 years ago, they voted 57% and 62% in favor of self-rule, when the area tried to form a separate county, she said.

She said the formation committee originally requested incorporation of a 95-square-mile city that would “retain the basic integrity of the Santa Clarita Valley,” only to have LAFCO reduce the proposed city to about 40 square miles.

The committee believes that the inclusion of undeveloped land left out of the city would have allowed for “better, more comprehensive planning and a more cohesive city.”

Donnelly said the cityhood committee is troubled by the omission of developed neighborhoods such as Castaic and outlying parts of Canyon Country from the city. After incorporation, he said, cityhood proponents will urge “expeditious annexations” of those areas.

Donnelly urged supervisors to allow the area to “move from an unincorporated county backwater status to being a significant policy-making body.”

Nobody spoke in opposition to the incorporation.

The proposed city, which will have an estimated 100,000 residents, includes most of the communities of Saugus, Newhall and Valencia, and part of Canyon Country.