Legislation that would provide 120,000 residents of East Los Angeles with tangible data as to whether their unincorporated community can survive financially as a city has jumped over several hurdles in Sacramento, including passage by two powerful state Senate committees.
Assembly Bill 2986 has advanced from the state Assembly, through the state Senate Local Government Committee and on Aug. 15 was approved by the state Senate Appropriations Committee, increasing the chances of it becoming law. A floor vote in the state Senate is pending.
If approved by the state legislature and signed by the governor, AB 2986, dubbed the East Los Angeles Feasibility Study Act, will help determine if East L.A. could become a special district or a city.
The bill has raised the issue of cityhood for East Los Angeles again, which was attempted in 1931, 1933, 1961, 1963, 1975, and 2012, reported the author of the bill, Assembly member Wendy Carrillo, a Democrat who represents the area.
“The nearly 120,000 residents in East Los Angeles have sought a stronger civic voice for decades and they are deserving of a local voice in government that will support improving tax revenues,” said Carrillo in a statement on Tuesday, Aug. 20.
Taking the most populated unincorporated area in the county away from the governmental authority of the L.A. County Board of Supervisors is opposed by the board.
The historic community, which is about 7.4 square miles and 96% Latino, is east of L.A.’s Boyle Heights, south of L.A.’s El Sereno district, north of the city of Commerce and west of the cities of Monterey Park and Montebello. It has no city council or locally elected body.
After recent amendments from Carrillo, the bill’s language requires Los Angeles County to submit a report to the legislature showing how local, federal and state revenues have paid for the cost of services during the last 10 years.
In addition, the report must show a breakdown of existing revenue sources and project into the future how these revenues would be used if East L.A. were an incorporated city.
In short, the report must provide “analysis and feasibility of East Los Angeles’ fiscal viability as a city or special district,” the bill states. The report must be completed by March 1, 2025.
East Los Angeles, the largest unincorporated area in Los Angeles County, is home to iconic restaurants, lowriders, the birth of the Chicano movement against structural racism, and boxer Oscar de la Hoya.
Many supporters see the bill as twofold: An exercise in transparency pointed at the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, and a catalyst for a potential cityhood drive in the world famous Mexican-American community.
“It is a financial feasibility study,” said Genesis Coronado, an East L.A. resident who is advocating for the bill as a way to get more clarity on county revenues and expenditures in her community.
“The bill has shed light on the lack of transparency and accountability on the county’s part,” Coronado said. “The county does not provide us with annual reports and we want to make sure the state pressure (on the county) continues to be on.
“It could continue the conversation,” she added. “We would then go to our community and say, ‘Here are the numbers, what do you guys think? What do you want?’ It is a long process but it is a fight that will continue beyond this bill.”
Supervisor Hilda Solis, who represents the First District including unincorporated East L.A. opposes the bill on many fronts.
Solis has said the study would cost $14 million, to be paid by the state should the assembly bill pass. She said the supervisors have already agreed to a fiscal analysis of revenues and spending in East L.A., thus the bill is a waste of time and state funds.
“AB 2986 is costly and unnecessary, carrying a $14 million price tag for what the county of Los Angeles is already doing at my direction,” Solis said in a statement. The California state Department of Finance and the Local Agency Formation Commission of L.A. County oppose the bill.
Solis says the proposed assembly bill circumvents a local, state-mandated process of applying for cityhood — and that the bill gives residents false expectations.
But supporters say the bill will force L.A. County to provide fiscal information that could help residents have a say in how county dollars should be spent.
“We want to know where our tax dollars are going in East L.A.,” said Sergio Vera, vice principal at Rowan Avenue Elementary School in East L.A. who supports the bill. “Why is the county against a fiscal study? What are they hiding?”
Supporters say it’s obvious that Carrillo’s bill doesn’t start or force a cityhood process. “To become a city is another thing, a very long haul,” Vera said.
An unincorporated community must gather 25% of the registered voters in the area on a petition for cityhood. Then, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) — a public agency with countywide jurisdiction — performs a financial analysis into whether East L.A. would be a financially stable city.
If the answer from LAFCO is yes, the plan for cityhood would be put before voters. It would need a simple majority for passage.
The LAFCO analysis would determine if revenues would cover the cost of services for 10 years of the L.A. County Fire Department, L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, public works, and more, said Paul Novak, executive officer of LAFCO on Tuesday, Aug. 20.
In 2012, the community submitted a petition to pursue cityhood. A LAFCO report concluded that a city of East Los Angeles would be in the hole for $19 million in the first year, and possibly more each year thereafter. LAFCO denied the petition and the issue did not reach the ballot.
At the time, LAFCO said that to make up the deficit, the new city would have to impose a 12% tax on utilities.
Becoming a city is extremely difficult under current state standards, Novak at LAFCO said. “We don’t want to come out of the starting gate with a city upside-down,” he said. The last two communities to incorporate as municipalities in L.A. County were Malibu and Calabasas, both in 1991, he said.
The Carrillo bill doesn’t create a city, but it does suggest that a municipal advisory committee or a town council could be formed. For example, unincorporated Altadena has a town council that advises the supervisor of L.A. County’s Fifth District, Kathryn Barger, on issues brought up by residents, and on the need for services and programs.
Kristy Hernandez, president of the Maravilla Community Advisory Committee in East L.A., said she and others volunteer their time to listen to community concerns and to keep residents informed during monthly meetings, but they have no power. Unlike cities, unincorporated communities have no city council to hear resident concerns or to pass city ordinances.
The Maravilla board supports the Carrillo bill as does the East Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Hernandez said.
She said the report required in the bill would answer a long-time request. “We have asked for years (for financial data) and the last time we received it was in 2011. We feel community members should know how much we generate in taxes and how much of that comes back to the community.”
Hernandez said she’s willing to find out if a municipal advisory council, or a town council, or even a special district, makes sense as a first step.
Vera, the elementary school vice president, a resident, and a member of the Maravilla group, said he has not received adequate responses from Solis on issues involving parking and a median project that Vera said has not been completed after many years.
Hernandez said people come to her group and ask about public safety, vandalism, and crime because they don’t know where to go for answers. She hopes the bill, should it pass, will bring the community more ways for their voices to be heard.
“This is just the beginning of a longer effort here. It is a stepping stone. Rome was not built in one day,” she said.
[related_articles location=”left” show_article_date=”false” article_type=”automatic-primary-tag