So there was no let up over the weekend with library news and rumors. Let me update as we head toward Tuesday’s City Council meeting.
Library privatization not so bad in Ventura County
The Signal article today on the Calabassas and Moorpark libraries that seceded from the Ventura County Library system is interesting and well-timed. It basically says that those two communities had and continue to have good experiences with LSSI, the private library contractor that’s under consideration for our town. Then again, if you ask a city administrator if he likes a program he planned and implemented, what do you think he will say?
Also interesting is a caption in the paper today: “The Santa Clarita City Council is expected tonight to approve seceding from the Los Angeles County Library System and entering into a contract with a private library management firm to run the city’s three libraries.” The Signal evidently thinks this is a done deal- do you?
Ventura City Manager blogs on future of libraries
A smart and timely post from Ventura City Manager Rick Cole, who says that VECO Library cutbacks forced one library in Ventura to close and Camarillo is thinking of ditching the County’s library because it subsidizes the rest of the County’s system with more than a half million dollars each year. Sound familiar?
He then writes about how libraries have and are continuing to change in America. Good read.
An alternate theory on the genesis of the library takeover
I have an intriguing theory to share with you on why the City has appeared so hasty in its desire to takeover the library system (remember they are planning to do this by July 1, 2011). The official line is that the City just wants to provide us better service, to expand hours, reduce costs and give us local control over our libraries.
Like most things in Santa Clarita, this theory revolves around Newhall, the bedrock of the SCV, the SCV’s soul if you will. In planning for the brand-spanking new Newhall Library, which is designed to anchor Old Town Newhall redevelopment and be a centerpiece of the City’s efforts there, the City of Santa Clarita has learned or inferred that the COLA Library system can not or will not properly resource the new 20,000+ sq. ft. library.
Think about that for a second. According to a reliable source, COLA spends $1 million a year to resource and run Newhall’s tiny library, currently on 8th Street. Projections for the cost of running the new, much larger library are around $3.5 million a year (indeed the City’s LSSI proposal snippet shows that number for FY 2011-2012), and, the theory goes, the County can’t properly resource and staff such a large facility in an era of budget cuts, reduced library hours and $20 billion state deficits.
The City is justifiably nervous about opening a brand new library in 2012 that will be under-resourced and therefore under-utilized by its residents due to COLA’s problems that are entirely out of its control. Ergo, the city decides that the solution is to takeover all three libraries, hire a private company that’s more cost effective than public employees and all their (from the City’s point of view) baggage.
When I first heard this theory, I felt that, if true, it represented a spectacular failure on the part of the City in that they simply haven’t communicated this reality adequately. They’ve been selling this as a service enhancement when they should have been telling us that if we don’t takeover our libraries, the new Newhall library will sit vacant and under-utilized for many hours of the day due to COLA’s problems.
And no one wants that. We have many expectations for the new Newhall library. It is designed as an integral part of Old Town Newhall redevelopment, the City hopes it will draw foot traffic to the area that will then step over onto Main Street, which will be great for the businesses there.
I have no proof for this theory, but it has hit my email inbox several times this weekend and, it makes sense. If it’s true, would it change your mind on the library takeover matter? It would change mine; I want the new Newhall library (and all of Old Town) to be a raging success for the City.
Alternatively, could this entire thing be a kabuki theater production designed to bluff the County into adequately funding the new Newhall library? Our City staff is pretty sharp; are they that sharp?
Protests Planned for Tuesday night
Lynne Plambeck has email blasted her list, telling her sympathizers to show up at Tuesday’s Council meeting with protest signs. She’s taking the traditional Democratic line that privatization of government services is, well, not desirable, a line that I admit, I’m sympathetic to. Take it away Lynne!
As you are all probably well aware, free public libraries have been around in the US since the 1800s and have long been considered one of the great American democratic institutions.
1. a private corporation’s profit motive will not ensure that the public interest is served. Certain materials may not be made available because they would cut into the profit margin, the content of library material may be controlled to align with the view points of the corporation.2. Trained and degreed librarians are likely to be cut, since this is a way of reducing costs.3. Library contracts will become one more political football. What promises will be made to Council members to obtain a contract? What controls will be placed on content?4. We will not have access to the huge volume of County library materials without an added fee.5. We are all paying property taxes to support our library. Do you want your taxes used by a private corporation?
So if you plan to attend Tuesday’s Council meeting, expect to see some protesters out front with signs supporting traditional, unionized, government labor & services.
Myers weighs in
Tim Myers, columnist and SCVTalk contributor, says the City just doesn’t understand how SCVers like himself use the library:
I humbly assert that Hernandez and other proponents of a city takeover do not really understand how those of us who actually use the library rely on the entire county system. They instead visualize library usage that seems more akin to the 1950s, with parents taking their children to brick and mortar facilities to check out volumes of “The Cat in the Hat.” I really don’t think they understand the actual usage model now, and do not currently use or plan to use the library in any meaningful way.
This brings back a point I made way back in July. The claims that the City puts more money into COLA than it gets out are unpersuasive to me. Why? Because we city residents have true access to the entirety of COLA’s 7 million item collection. So, in other words, if we’re sending $400k+ south every year, I still feel it’s not bad because we can, ultimately, access those resources. It’s not like we’re sending excess money to the County to build roads in some other city; we’re sending excess money to the County to continue its library operation, which ultimately benefits us due to the intra-library loan system, which Myers harps on in his piece. Call this socialism if you must, but it’s socialism that works.
NotaFerryFan Confused
The conservative anti-city video blogger can’t see past his hate for the city and decides he’s against the takeover and privatization of the library, even though the County is a much bigger bureaucracy. Oh well. At least he includes a shot of SCVTalk’s headquarters.
PS: No Daily Brief today.
Loading ...
I utilize the library quite a bit, but not to go inside and browse the stacks. I sign on to the library’s internet site, pick out my books (from whatever branch), order them to the branch up here, and then I get an email when my books are there. I simply go in and pick them up.
Most of the books I want are in different libraries, not in the SCV; not having access to those resources would pretty much make the libraries here of extremely limited use to me. (I think this is how the county library works within limited resources; by not stocking every book in every library but having a well-tuned system of moving items around to the places that they are needed.)
I have a City of LA library card, as well as a county library card (residents of the county are eligible). I find that the City collection is much more extensive, and if you need to do research on anything, the L. A. City library downtown is an incredible resource. The closest city library branch is in Sylmar, not necessarily convenient but not crazy far away either.
If the city takes over the libraries and that means I don’t have access to the full collection of all the county libraries, I imagine I will be making that trip to Sylmar much more.
(By the way, if you utilize the library but haven’t checked out the online services, you really should. You can order books, manage holds, renew online, and best thing, you get emails 3 days before your books are due so you know you need to either renew or return. It’s a fabulous service, offered both by the county and the city libarary!)
When NotaFerryFan and I agree on something we have reached some kind of a nexus! Can the end of the Mayan calendar be far behind?
Here’s a link to a detailed story on LSSI which one of the library supporters tried to read, in key parts, to the City Council, not that they would have listened. The detailed information is quite surprising:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA456252.html
Is this a done deal? Yes.
Why? The money.
As noted on santaclaritalibrary.com:
“City operation of the libraries through a public/private partnership contract would result in $2.5 million being available to finance: 1) startup costs of $7.5 million including purchase of the Valencia Library from the County Library; and, 2) to construct the new library in Old Town Newhall Library or to construct a new library to replace the existing Valencia library.”
That’s money that would have to come from other city funding sources. Yes, this library tax dollars can only be used for library services. But that does not mean that the city does not get the money for other things. If non-library funding can be offset by this new money, that’s more money for other redevelopment projects. This is a money grab, plain and simple.
Staffing the Newhall library is part of the equation if you look at the financial projections, but they don’t show anything near a $2.5M increase in funding for the Newhall branch (the increase is less than $700K).
It is worth noting that in fiscal year 2008-2009, the county spent $2.6M on staff. The city’s proposal is to spend $2.8M on staff in “Year 2″ (which I interpret as fiscal year 2012-2013). That’s with the extra staff for Newhall. There is simply no way we are going to get the same quality of staffing after adding staff, adding hours, and not adding funds for salaries. The city’s proposal is going to pay people less. This is going to be achieved by hiring less qualified people (or convincing the people there now to work for less pay). Which do you think it is?
Notaferryfan’s not the only one’s who confused. After watching that video, I’m completely baffled!
The largest sum mentioned on the City’s truly awful, amateurish library site is $25M. They describe how, with new money available after the City takeover, “Facility construction could include building of the new library in Old Town Newhall which would permit the Redevelopment Agency to redirect the $25 million currently budgeted for the new library toward other redevelopment activities in Old Town Newhall.” I think the ability to have more money and more control over redevelopment is a primary motivating factor, and the library takeover is a means to that end.
I think Jeff is right about the tie-in with the newhall Library. Is it any surprise that the politicized Newhall Redevelopment process has once again snookered taxpayers into a boondoggle in the ski chalet, I mean, Newhall Library project? Another bloated budget. Another backroom deal to make the numbers work. Just for laughs, it would be interesting to see what the originally-primised budget was for redevelopment, and what it has ballooned into. The GOBN has taken the worthy endeaver of redevelopment and turned it into a political cash sink. Business as usual.
Y’all should read todays Signal editorial “What is the county’s library plan?” This adds credence to Jeff’s speculation.
http://www.the-signal.com/section/32/article/32615/
Excerpt:
“The city of Santa Clarita is spending $31 million of your money – property-tax revenue generated in Newhall — to buy land ($6 million) and construct a great big, wonderful new library ($25 million) in Newhall.
It will be roughly equal in size to the Valencia library, and will cost at least as much to operate – $3.5 million per year, versus $1 million for the little old Newhall library, which everyone including the county agrees needs replacing.
The 800-pound gorilla of a question is this: Will the county properly fund the library and fill it with books, staff and services; or will it be a big, empty, expensive shell around the current level of service in Newhall?
If the latter, what a waste.
We asked the county librarian that very question not three weeks ago in a Signal editorial board meeting. We asked to see her plan to operate three libraries in Santa Clarita, with full, expanded service in Newhall. She had no such plan.
So we asked her: In rough terms, what are you thinking? Will you cut staff and service in Canyon Country and Valencia, shift things around and maintain the current citywide level of service? Or will you take the $2.5 million of library tax revenue generated in the unincorporated SCV to fully fund all three SCV libraries?
She said she didn’t know, and she blamed the city for the fact that she didn’t know, because the city hadn’t discussed it with her.
Really? Is it the city’s responsibility to ask the county how the county is going to run its own library system?
The county has known for at least two years that a new and more demanding Newhall library was coming. The county knew how big the library would be, how much it would cost to operate and what the public would expect in the way of services.
After all, the city and county jointly asked people what they wanted in focus group meetings two years ago, when everybody – including the county – was happy that the city was building it.
Two years later, how can the county have no plan?”
The Signal also wrote “We have seen the city’s plan, which includes funding and operating the Newhall Library without cutting any services at Canyon Country or Valencia”.
Well if that is true, I wish they would show it to the rest of us. Why, because providing identical, or better, services is not what was presented last week by staff at the CCAC meeting. Even tonight’s Council Meeting, Agenda item, Staff Report talks about similar, not identical, services.
Current County services are well documented, the City’s proposal is not.
I think what the County Librarian was saying, in the most politically correct way possible so as to not aggravate her bosses the Board of Supervisors, that she cannot plan for the new Newhall Library until the Supes and their financial wizards tell her how much money they are going to give her for that library.
Maybe they’ve told her “Nothing extra” and she’s just too politically correct to say so.
Assuming it’s true (and it certainly sounds plausible) I’d rather see a huge empty library in Newhall that continues to offer the level of materials and services the library offers now than a huge Newhall library with 50 copies of Twilight that is unable to obtain materials not available on the shelves (such as obscure audio books, something we borrow often). Ideally would I love to see the ‘visionary’ library come to fruition? Of course! But not if it means losing access to the counties collection, and not if it means moving foward with zero regard for the needs of the unincorporated residents of our valley.
Walker:
This will be a true test of the City Council members. The public participation tonight will be overwhelmingly AGAINST the takeover for a variety of reasons so I am waiting for one of Laurie Ender’s patented speeches that tens of thousands of people who aren’t here complaining are on the opposite side which is why they MUST approve it. Too bad they can’t be honest and state that this is a grab of money to fund the Newhall Library construction which they probably are a little short on.
Is it just me or did that story today in the Signal read like a press release from the City?
I quite agree. And Frank will have to give his stock speech about how he could have predicted all 20 people who show up to speak out against the takeover. It’s so annoying to know that they all have their minds made up and aren’t so much thinking about the opposition’s points as they are thinking about how to save face when they vote against the general public.
Perhaps I’ll pull a Sterling King and start yelling at tonight’s meeting.
I’m beginning to feel sympathy for Sterling King. There will probably be 50 people there denouncing the takeover and they will be ignored.
IHeart, is it a felony to moon the City Council dias?
Tim:
Don’t 70% of the articles in the Signal look like they were written by the City or LASD (your commentaries aside).
I don’t know about that but I know that my commentaries could never fall to an accusation of plagiarism or talking points since they are BARELY coherent.
@Walker, well see there is the problem. You would rather see…
I would rather see local control of our libraries with more flexibility to design the programs we decide we want to enjoy. To have the option of spending OUR money to purchase more computers for library sites and perhaps offer citywide free Wi-Fi or other internet service. To institute a citizen oversight committee to monitor service levels and conduct regular audits of funds collected vs. funds expended as we have for Hart District. In addition, the ability to request and get anything else WE decide as a community we want to see in OUR libraries.
Therefore, you see the Council cannot appear to please BOTH of us no matter what they decide.
Did anybody notice the quote from Calabasas administrator Robin Parker in the Signal’s “Tale of two libraries?”
“We’re just a city that likes to have things in-house,” Parker said. “Decisions can be made quicker. … With contract staff, I can’t direct them, basically. I had to go through a senior administrator with LSSI, who’s not here full-time. We just wanted more local control.”
So, let me get this straight: our city council wants to contract with LSSI to obtain “local control.” Calabasas terminated their contract LSSI because they wanted local control.
Do we go with the pipe dreams of our city council or the actual experience of Calabasas?
@ Mike² I also read, “We’re just a city that likes to have things in-house,” Parker said. “Decisions can be made quicker. … With contract staff, I can’t direct them, basically. I had to go through a senior administrator with LSSI, who’s not here full-time. We just wanted more local control.”
I quickly realized we do not have much control over budgets, decisions, etc made by COLA or the current library system operating here. County Librarian Ms. Todd is not located here either.
I reasoned that Calabasas, being a much smaller City than Santa Clarita is, based on their operating budget probably decided they could afford to staff a smaller library system than what we have here.
I also understand that we would write the contract terms with LSSI. They can agree or not to OUR terms. We still have the option of in house library services if they or another comparable entity does not agree to the terms of a contract we draft.
I don’t know that there is any option other than LSSI (nobody else responded to the RFP) if the city council moves forward with this. That puts LSSI in a very strong bargaining position.
I honestly don’t see in-sourcing as viable (doesn’t provide enough money for the money grab).
@ Mike² we are in a stronger bargaining position.
Times are tough and businesses need paying clients to stay in business.
We already have library services and can stay put, hire LLSI, or our own City Library Staff. A client the size of the City of Santa Clarita is a dream. We have the money, an ongoing funding source, and are looking to hire a company that will meet OUR needs.
Therefore, I contend WE are in the driver’s seat!
I would be more inclined to agree with you if I didn’t believe that the city council is hell bent on divorcing from the county no matter what. Yes, if the city were prepared to walk away from the bargaining table and stay with the county, we would have some power. But every statement I have heard and what iI have seen written up for the agenda convinces me that the die has been cast and there will be a vote to separate tonight (regardless what the public wants). Having that vote before negotiations makes this LSSI’s game (’cause the city won’t go crawling back to the county).
@ Mike² They way I understand it is, even IF they decide to separate tonight, a 6 month notice to withdraw is given to COLA and can be rescinded anytime during that period if negotiations sour with LLSI or whomever.
I was going to go and speak against it tonight but I didn’t want you-know-who to think I received an email about it. Then I was going to speak for it because we can certainly use the extra capital. Maybe I’ll run for President.
Navigator:
Submit two speaker cards and go up and get in an argument with yourself, like you have a split personality.
Tim Myers says:
August 24, 2010 at 12:03 pm
“…..IHeart, is it a felony to moon the City Council dias?”
ummmmm Tim? Could you please leave your undies in place for this momentous occasion? Thanks in advance.
Amen…
I offer no conclusions as to who would better operate the Santa Clarita libraries, the County or LSSI. I suspect Jeff’s supposition is correct that the County’s budget woes mean that it will not be able to add the operating costs for a huge library in Newhall, given the numbers in the City staff report which I’ve read.
My concern for the taxpayers in the City of Santa Clarita is that you get the benefit of your tax dollars.
Santa Clarita was created post Proposition 13, which means that the City gets ZERO real estate taxes, because of the structure of Proposition 13. That means that if the Santa Clarita libraries secede, whatever portion of the County’s real estate tax revenues which are spent on the Santa Clarita libraries will simply disappear into the County’s general fund, as a matter of law. The County has no obligation to the City to “hand them over”.
As to the separate 1997 Library Special Tax, it was the County of Los Angeles which put the special tax measure on the ballot, not the City of Santa Clarita. I have seen the Board of Supervisors Resolution to put the matter to a vote, as required by Proposition 218. The City had no part in what was put on the ballot. There’s nothing in the Board of Supervisors Resolution which talks about the County handing off the library special tax revenue to any city, let alone the County being OBLIGATED to agree to the City of Santa Clarita receiving it directly from the County tax collector.
I have also seen a pdf of the actual Ballot which the voters punched. It authorizes the County of Los Angeles to collect a library tax. The Ballot says absolutely nothing about the City of Santa Clarita.
The “Sample Ballot” with Ballot Arguments we are used to seeing also specifically talks about the County being the party who will levy and receive the money collected under the Library Special Tax. Again, there’s nothing in the Ballot Arguments which talk about the County handing off the Library Special Tax revenue to the City, let alone the County being OBLIGATED to agree to Santa Clarita receiving it.
My bottom line is that based upon the 3 documents California courts commonly use to make judgments and appellate opinions on tax cases, the City of Santa Clarita is not entitled to the Library Special Tax revenue.
In contrast, the City Staff Report vaguely says “The City Attorney has researched this issue and determined that, contrary to the comments of the County Librarian, upon withdrawal from the County Library the City can levy and collect the special library tax approved by the voters of the City of Santa Clarita.”
If the City Council will not make Burke Williams & Sorensen’s full written analysis of why they think the City is entitled to the this special library tax revenue AVAILABLE NOW FOR PUBLIC REVIEW, I smell a rat, in the form of City staff misrepresenting what the City Attorney law firm has actually written in its legal analysis. Santa Claritans’ comment to the City Council should be “Make your lawyers prove it to us right now, before you vote”.
I note that the City will have to reveal its City Attorney’s legal theories if and when the County Board of Supervisors decide to “stiff” the City of Santa Clarita and not hand over the full library tax revenues…so to me the City Council should order the City Attorney to show the public his legal theory right now.
It’s important to remind the City Attorney that according to the California League of Cities’ program materials for city attorney continuing education, his clients are not the 5 politicians sitting on the Council. His clients are not the City staff. Instead his client is the City as a municipal corporation, and you the taxpayers and residents as its defacto shareholders.
Santa Clarita has a long sad history of having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees because of City staff recklessness, City staff screw ups and unlawful decision making by City Council members with out-of-control egos. If Jeff is right, that this whole fast-and-dirtly withdrawal from the County Library System is to cover up the fact that the City is spending $26 Million on a library building the County cannot afford to open, then you as voters and taxpayers have the right to evaluate the risk of having to keep paying this Library Special Tax to the County every year, even though the City libraries are not legally entitled to a dime of it. To me, it would be a whole lot smarter for the City Council to politely and quietly negotiate a break away contract with the County, rather than leaving this Special Library Tax question open for litigation by the union for the County library employees.
If the Council votes tonight to break away, before they have negotiated a contract with the County for a peaceful, annual hand over of these Library Special Tax Revenues, they are just plain stupid, because without that contract, the County has all of the leverage, both as to the money and as to the library assets owned by the County.
When those of you are at the Council meeting tonight, you’ll have a chance to see the actual Library Special Tax ballot, Supervisors resolution to put the Special Library Tax on the ballot and Sample Ballot language and arguments, which have come from the County Clerk’s office.
@J, I am no attorney but it seems to me there are arrangements made all of the time to transfer tax monies and fees from one government agency to another. When an area incorporates, such transfers are routinely arranged and executed. I would assume there is some proviso for transfer of any tax where there is a direct nexus such as with library fees. However, I agree that it is a legitimate question to ask and have answered at the Council meeting tonight.
Berta, one thing laymen always do is assume, and that’s why things end up in litigation, because laymen’s assumptions, including those of city employees who are not lawyers, are usually wrong.
You have to read the actual legal documents relating to the power of the Board of Supervisors to levy and collect the library tax, which in this case is the Board of Supervisors Resolution which went on the ballot in 1997 and was approved by more than 2/3rds of the affected voters.
Section 2 of the Resolution levying the library tax says at the top of its Page 3 “The Board of Supervisors shall not levy, or shall cease to levy, the special tax within the area of any incorporated city which withdraws from the service area of the County of Los Angeles Public Library, beginning with the first fiscal year after such withdrawal takes effect.”
That text allows the County to collect and hang on to the Library Special Tax money it collects for a specific time period after the City has withdrawn from the County Library System. It does not require the money to be handed over to the City. Then, after the specified time frame expires, the Board of Supervisor’s power to levy the tax is taken away by the wording of the ballot measure.
That tax Resolution ballot measure the voters approved says absolutely nothing about the Board of Supervisors having the power to assign their taxing power to anyone, such as any of the cities named in the ballot measure, including Santa Clarita, if the cities withdraw from the County Library System.
Based upon the normal manner in which ballot measures related to taxes are construed by the California courts, the courts are going to say that on the face of what the County voters approved, there is no authority to assign the taxing power, especially when the City has withdrawn from the County library system.
Moreover, under standard rules for construction of the wording of ballot measures, the courts are going to say that Resolution and vote did not give the City the power to levy and collect the library tax at all.
If the City Attorney thinks he has found a statute or case law which is more powerful than the express language in this particular library tax ballot measure that the County voters approved, then he needs to disclose it publicly, because those OPPOSED TO the withdrawal from the County Library System, such as the public employees union, are likely to bring an action to prevent the City from collecting the tax described in that Board of Supervisors’ Resolution and approved by the County voters in 1997. The only way to stop such a lawsuit is for the City Attorney to convince the opponents now, using more than vague platitudes regurgitated by the City staff.
Under Propositions 13 and 218, to lawfully collect ANY library tax, the City will have to put a special library tax measure on the ballot, and 2/3rds of the relevant electorate will have to approve it, before the City can collect it.
The current County library tax is a “parcel tax”. This is the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association’s description of the procedures a city must follow to enact its own parcel tax:
“With limited exceptions, Proposition 13 prohibited local governments from increasing property tax rates in excess of 1% of the “full cash value” of a parcel. As a result, local governments cannot increase property tax rates to pay for operating expenses such as the salaries of personnel.
Within a few years after the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, some local governments began imposing a new species of property tax that was not based on the assessed value of a parcel. The tax amount imposed per parcel was generally the same and was imposed without regard to parcel value. Structuring a tax in this manner enabled local governments to get around the property tax rate prohibitions of Proposition 13 and impose additional property taxes for operating expenses. These taxes have become known as parcel taxes.
Most parcel taxes generally impose the same fixed amount per parcel (e.g., $250 per parcel) while some parcel taxes are based on other factors such as the size of a parcel or the size of the improvements on a parcel. Some parcel tax measures include provisions for annual increases in the parcel tax amount such as for inflation. Parcel taxes are usually imposed for a shorter period of time than property tax increases to repay local bonds which can last for decades.
Unlike with local bonds, parcel tax proceeds can be spent on operating expenses such as the salaries of personnel. Parcel tax proceeds are typically used to fund local government services and programs. Various local government agencies are authorized under the law to impose a parcel tax, including cities, counties, special districts, and school districts.
Parcel taxes are subject to two-thirds voter approval pursuant to taxpayer protection initiatives approved by California voters over the years. Proposition 39, which passed in 2000 and lowered the voter approval requirement for local education bonds from a two-thirds vote to a 55% vote, does not apply to parcel taxes.
Parcel taxes are legally distinct from similar types of levies on property such as special assessments which are based on a special benefit conferred on the parcel being assessed. There is generally no requirement that a parcel tax be based on any benefit received by either the property owner or the parcel being taxed. Thus, property owners must pay a parcel tax even if they will not directly benefit from any of the programs or services that a parcel tax would fund.
Parcel taxes appear on the property tax bill that property owners receive each year. They are usually itemized on the long list of fixed charges that appear on the property tax bill.”
See further detail on Parcel Taxes at: http://www.hjta.org/tools/how-defeat-local-parcel-taxes
The issue of parcel taxes (flat taxes regardless of parcel size) versus special assessments varying by parcel size or other attributes (such as for the Santa Clarita Valley Open Space District) are a very touchy issue for cities the size of Santa Clarita to deal with as a result of the California Supreme Court’s decision in SILICON VALLEY TAXPAYERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY, Defendant and Respondent. Case S136468, reported at 44 Cal. 4th 431; 187 P.3d 37; 79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 312 (2008).
In that case, the California Supreme Court described the history of Propositions 13 and 218 and the four different types of property related taxes and assessments cities, counties and special districts were allowed to impose after both Propositions 13 and 218 were enacted by the voters:
” ‘To prevent local governments from subverting its limitations, Proposition 13 also prohibited counties, cities, and special districts from enacting any special tax without a two-thirds vote of the electorate. (Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 4; Rider v. County of San Diego (1991) 1 Cal.4th 1, 6–7 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 490, 820 P.2d 1000].)…In November 1996, the electorate adopted Proposition 218, which added articles XIII C and XIII D to the California Constitution. Proposition 218 allows only four types of local property taxes: (1) an ad valorem property tax; (2) a special tax; (3) an assessment; and (4) a fee or charge. (Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 3, subd. (a)(1)–(4); see also [id.], § 2, subd. (a).) It buttresses Proposition 13′s limitations on ad valorem property taxes and special taxes by placing analogous restrictions on assessments, fees, and charges.’ (Howard Jarvis [Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Riverside (1999)] 73 Cal.App.4th 679, 681–682 [86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 592].)” (Apartment Assn., supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 836–837.)”
To adopt its own “library tax”, the City has to obtain 2/3rds voter approval with a “parcel tax” as described above, which is a flat tax regardless of parcel size, because a tax weighted based upon the size of a piece of real estate, or weighted based on what it contains, has to meet the additional standards for “assessments” set forth in the Supreme Court’s Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association case, which invalidated an open space assessment district similar to that covering the Santa Clarita Valley. The Supreme Court said: “Proposition 218 restricts government’s ability to impose assessments in several important ways. First, it tightens the definition of the two key findings necessary to support an assessment: special benefit and proportionality. An assessment can be imposed only for a “special benefit” conferred on a particular property. (Art. XIII D, §§ 2, subd. (b), 4, subd. (a).) A special benefit is “a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large.” (Art. XIII D, § 2, subd. (i).) The definition specifically provides that “[g]eneral enhancement of property value does not constitute ‘special benefit.’ ” (Ibid.) Further, an assessment on any given parcel must be in proportion to the special benefit conferred on that parcel: “No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel.” (Art. XIII D, § 4, subd. (a).) “The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property-related service being provided.” (Ibid.) Because only special benefits are assessable, and public improvements often provide both general benefits to the community and special benefits to a particular property, the assessing agency must first “separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel” and impose the assessment only for the special benefits. (Art. XIII D, § 4, subd. (a).) Second, as described above, Proposition 218 established strict procedural requirements for the imposition of a lawful assessment. (Ante, at p. 438.)”
The bottom line is that after the City withdraws from the County Library District, it cannot collect any “parcel tax” to fund the libraries’ operations unless it puts such a tax on the ballot and 2/3rds of the voters approve it. The City Council will have to “sell” that tax as a mere replacement of the County’s parcel tax to fund libraries, without any use of public funds to promote the voters approving the tax. (See the discussion in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. article cited above.)
I have no reason to believe Santa Clarita’s voters would not approve such a librarl parcel tax, but the risk of voter disapproval is one which the City Council takes in withdrawing from the Library District before the City’s voters have approved such a parcel tax.
It would appear that the first meeting back after hiatus is going to be a rather lengthy ordeal. If the Council has any smarts they will cut the speeches down to 1 or 2 minutes for a given number of speakers and continue the item to the next meeting to finish the comments. I know, it’ll never happen whether they could get away with it or not. It seems that Darren has done a lot of homework on this issue but so have many posters here. A lot to consider.
They’re going to be there all freakin night. LSSI presented for a full 30 minutes which included a sales pitch followed by testimonials from librarians currently working w/LSSI. Ms Todd spoke for about 10 minutes. We left at 8:30 and they had only been through a handful of public comments.
My God. Tim Myers, you were absolutely prophetic in predicting Laurie Ender’s “I talked to the real people who don’t go to City Council meetings…” speech to justify changing the libraries. What a joke.
What was the final vote IHeart? The usual 4-1 that we will come to know and love for the next 500 years?
What else are you going to say when there are 3 speakers for and 48 against!
It’s still going on–Bob Kellar doesn’t want to vote tonight, Ferry has been silent (he looks bored), and the others seem ready to lend it their support.
IHeart:
I was in and out twice and it looks like Ferry has completely checked out of the process. I now believe it would have been a mercy killing if David Gauny has somehow snagged another 33 votes!
My daughter thought he was sleeping
and we left at 8:30. I imagine he got even ‘sleepier’ as the night went on LOL.
On this we can totally agree.
Except for Diana Boone the nominations for P&R and Planning Commissions totally took me by surprise (although I don’t know why!).
Watching the library debate on Channel 20. It appears Marsha McClean really struggles to understand the issues.
You’re 2 for 2, Tim. It passed 4-1.
The vote just finished. All Council members except Kellar voted to withdraw from County Library System and contract with LSSI.
The County Librarian said in her testimony that the County Counsel’s opinion/decision was that the County tax collector could not would not send the existing library tax money to the City when collected with real estate taxes.
Lynne Plambeck read the existing library tax’s ballot Resolution saying that the County stops collecting the current library tax from City property owners effective the next fiscal year after to the vote to secede is taken. TimBen Boydston encouraged the new City Attorney to file a declaratory relief lawsuit against the County if the new City Attorney really thinks he is “right” that the City can force the County tax collector to keep collecting the tax and hand it over to the City.
Most enlightening, Councilwoman Marsha McLean stated she is a member of the County’s library committee and that the County is preparing to put a county-wide library tax on the ballot, seemingly excluding no one.
So, when the dust settles Santa Claritans may end up paying two library taxes: One to the City and one to the County, assuming the voters approve.
Bell-a Clarita.
Forgot to mention that at the end of the meeting, Asst. City Manager Hernandez admitted that the only way the City is going to be able to receive the existing library tax, and put it to use for Santa Clarita’s libraries, is to either (1) get a Court Judgment that the County must collect it and hand it over to the City or (2) Go to the City voters and ask them to approve a City library tax.