SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
October 11, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

We are right to be angry

“Measure twice, cut once.” – old Wilsonian adage passed down from father to son

Why are people so angry about the City’s takeover of our library system?

Well, above all else, I think people feel that the process was too swift, totally lacking in transparency. Few people were against the idea of a takeover & outsourcing of the library; we just wanted more time to debate it. We wanted the City to conduct real outreach -like the kind its trying to do now with its public library committee- before a decision was made not after.

It’s not an unreasonable expectation. Consider how long we as a community debated the expansion of the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital. The Council and Planning Commission debated the matter for years. I remember watching Council meetings late into the night as Council members went back and forth listening to residents & neighbors, hospital employees, hospital leadership, and others.

And that matter -whether to let Mayo expand- only affected a small portion of Valencia along McBean Parkway & Orchard Village Road.

If civic debate is your thing, nothing was more discussed and debated in recent years in the SCV than so-called ‘cut-through’ streets in various SCV neighborhoods. Residents of Benz Road pressured the Council for years to deny or retard drivers seeking a shortcut from Copperhill road to Bouquet. When the Council did just that by installing K-Rails blocking the street, motorists erupted in anger and expressed it before the Council. The Council backed down and ultimately settled on speed-humps to discourage motorists.

Again, this was a debate that only affected a small neighborhood in the SCV, and it took a year or two to resolve.

And after a year or so of discussion about annexation of Tesoro del Valle, the City appears ready to move. Yes, they are caving into the will of two developers over the will of Tesoro residents, but the point is that there has been a public process.

Now compare all those scenarios to what we saw this summer. By mid July and seemingly out-of-nowhere, Laurie Ender was talking up the idea of taking over our libraries. The Signal, ever eager and apparently tone-deaf, embraced the idea in an editorial shortly thereafter. The City issued its RFP in early August, and days later they had a single response from LSSI. Just ten days after that, the multi-million dollar deal was sealed- the Council voted 4-1 to not only seize the three libraries but to outsource their operation to a private company. They did this against massive opposition -letters to the editor, Facebook groups, blogs, and several hundred Council meeting protesters- during a single meeting on August 24.

In the space of 45 days, we had gone from concept to planning to execution of a plan that affects everyone in the SCV from people who occasionally stop by the library to home schooling moms who depend on it every day.

And here’s the rub: it’s proving to be a poorly thought-out plan to begin with. The City apparently never considered that the County might cease renovation of the Canyon Country library. They thought that County would just continue pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into a library that they will soon have nothing to do with. Our City Council expressed shock -shock!- at this development.

Well now we see the fruits of this hasty decision: not only has the community erupted with much more than the usual city critics expressing outrage, but the City now has a clever lawsuit and a determined lawyer on its hands. If the County’s recent letter to the City is to be believed, the County will stop collecting that crucial $1.4 million SCV-only library tax,  making the City’s fiscal estimates inaccurate, casting doubt on whether this whole effort is even worth it. And to top it all off, we’ve already lost one third of our libraries because the Canyon Country library is effectively closed for the foreseeable future.

Way to go City.

We are right to be angry

Comments (69)

  1. Tim MyersOctober 11, 2010 at 9:32 am
    The only thing I can figure out that has driven normally level headed people to such a rush to judgment is some looming financial catastrophe associated with Newhall Redevelopment that they are attempting to plug with the diversion of the “overage” to the construction of the Newhall Library. Not a good sign that the City has rejected all the construction bids for the library.
  2. cashOctober 11, 2010 at 9:46 am
    It means the city planners underestimated the cost to construct. I guess they must think that in these bad economic times the bids would all be low-ball bids. I will make a prediction that rebidding will result in a lower bid, but the winning contractor will make up money left on the table with “extras”. Staff will look good and we will never know that we got screwed.
  3. Bill ReynoldsOctober 11, 2010 at 1:58 pm
    Well all I have to say is that these rude comments and divisive daily reports will alienate you two (Timmy & Master Blogger Jeffrey) from The Signal and City Hall, thus greatly minimizing future “Influential 51″ opportunities. I think you guys should get on board before it’s too late…
  4. Daddy Joe GOctober 11, 2010 at 3:06 pm
    Or stomp the suckers into the ground.
  5. Tim MyersOctober 11, 2010 at 3:08 pm
    Oh NO!!!!! What were we thinking!!!!!
  6. Bill ReynoldsOctober 11, 2010 at 8:49 pm
    You weren’t…
  7. jimOctober 16, 2010 at 8:37 pm
    Just got my property tax bill indicating county library fee. will this end if the city takes over or will we still pay the county??
  8. Teresa ToddOctober 11, 2010 at 9:33 am
    I am personally saddened that the children on the east side of town do not have access to the Canyon Country library now that school is back in session. The library resources and staff were invaluable during all those Presidents’ reports and school projects. We were satisfied patrons at the old CC building, ecstatic when the Jo Ann Darcy building opened, and now SOL until this all gets straightened out. Careful what you wish for? That old building stuffed full o’ books is looking pretty good right now.
  9. Daddy Joe GOctober 11, 2010 at 9:36 am
    1 additional point. The city has not yet awarded a contract to build the new Newhall library. There is no way the new library in Newhall can be ready in 7 months. So the city will need to buy the old library, which they do not want and which started this whole thing, or we will only have 1 library.
  10. TimBen BoydstonOctober 11, 2010 at 10:11 am
    The City Council (except Bob Kellar) under the direction of Mr. Pulskamp and Mr. Ferry have stopped listening to the citizens. Those of us who have spent years working to make the City a better place, who have spent so much time trying to preserve our neighborhoods, who are trying to live out the dream of a local government that is responsive to it’s citizen’s input, are ridiculed, called terrorists and have our very jobs threatened. Welcome to our world Jeff.
  11. SCVFanOctober 11, 2010 at 10:33 am
    Isn’t it just horrible when people call you names TimBen? Ugggh. Simply horrible.
  12. Tim MyersOctober 11, 2010 at 10:46 am
    SCVFan: TimBen, David Gauny, and Kevin Korenthal have all had their livelihoods threatened to some extent by their local political views, and where I come from one better be ready to take a poke in the nose when they do that.
  13. cashOctober 11, 2010 at 12:54 pm
    I see David Gauny is selling real estate out of the Kellar-Davis office. Bob Kellar is a stand up guy.
  14. Tim MyersOctober 11, 2010 at 1:14 pm
    Word on the street is that some elements tried to get a soft boycott going on that endeavor.
  15. cashOctober 11, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    Why, because Mr. Kellar is a man of his word? A guy that says what he means and means what he says.
  16. SCVFanOctober 11, 2010 at 2:45 pm
    Mr. Myers, I understand and was being quite sarcastic since TBB is quite the name-caller himself. When reading his comment I SWEAR I heard the smallest violin in the background tiny speakers.
  17. cashOctober 11, 2010 at 9:39 am
    And that matter -whether to let Mayo expand- only affected a small portion of Valencia along McBean Parkway & Orchard Village Road. Not true.
  18. gregory molineriOctober 11, 2010 at 10:10 am
    One wonders where Saugus Splasher is these days. After arguing so vehemently on behalf of the city on this issue (and every other), it seems the festering verbal vomit from City Hall has finally overwhelmed her in her day job there. Not much time to blog when Mayor Douche is threatening livelihoods and endorsing friends on City letterhead, or when council and staff are finally being held accountable before wide audiences. I guess there’s just not much that can be defended these days.
  19. Street KnowledgeOctober 11, 2010 at 10:30 am
    I don’t think he was a she, but yeah I wonder too.
  20. Berta González-HarperOctober 12, 2010 at 9:17 am
    @Gregory Molineri there are plenty of other “contributors” to this blog who have also disappeared. I am sure they are/were SEUI folks.
  21. Library User MichaelOctober 12, 2010 at 11:15 am
    Or maybe just attorneys, trying to stir up trouble and line their own pockets. You have demonized attorneys and union members to support you “position”, but I really wonder who you are doing this for. People are worried about the quality of their future library service and simply want the best,—why are you so desperate to assign other motives to which even Benjamin Franklin would see as proper and benign behavior? What’s is/was the rush?
  22. Berta González-HarperOctober 12, 2010 at 11:32 am
    @ Library User Michael I will allow you ONE free pass at casting aspersions since you are fairly new. I have demonized no one. I have pointed out that some people have an agenda. I have disagreed even with friends on this issue based upon my own independent research and opinion. My involvement stems from my desire to see the best possible outcome for myself and all the other residents/library patrons. I do not work for the City, County, or any union. I do not subscribe to the everything is some nefarious City plot ideology. I ask questions of the appropriate parties on both sides of this issue and listen to their answers carefully. I represent my individual opinion and viewpoint, no one else’s. I hope that answers your “questions”.
  23. CCOctober 11, 2010 at 11:12 am
    It just dawned on me that the reason the City wants to take over the Liabraries is to put Frank Ferry & Laurie Ender’s name on them.
  24. Lori RivasOctober 11, 2010 at 7:27 pm
    Ugh….say it isn’t so!!! Could you even enter such a place with a straight face?
  25. Daddy Joe GOctober 11, 2010 at 11:49 am
    The keystone council may have very good legal and/or economic reasons for taking over the libraries within the city. I don’t know. I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant. And I don’t care. My only interest in libraries is books and other library materials. The idea that the city, with it’s at most 3 libraries can match the county of Los Angeles or the city of Los Angeles is as absurd as calling Barnes & Noble a bookstore or Jack-In-The-Box a French bistro. Now that the city is committed to taking over the libraries I don’t much care what they do with them. The city of Santa Clarita does not exist under a bubble. I have flown to Memphis for BBQ and Chicago for pizza. I can certainly drive to Castaic or Sylmar to visit a real public library.
  26. Berta González-HarperOctober 11, 2010 at 11:59 am
    @Jeff a few points to consider: You and others continue to use the term “Library seizure/takeover”. That term is meant to be inflammatory and is incorrect. We already “own” Canyon Country and will “own” the new Newhall branch of the three library buildings in question to begin with so we cannot seize or takeover that which we already own. There is currently a legal and binding contract, which specifies how we can “separate” from the COLA library system. If we CHOOSE we have the option to buy at fair market value whatever materials and facilities we do not already own. In my opinion the appropriate term to use is the City of Santa Clarita has “elected to create a Municipal Library System” and provide local management of our municipal libraries. We will contract with an outside vendor for daily operations functions much as we do with Sherriff, Fire, and other services but we will OWN the facilities and materials within. The City of Santa Clarita has wisely decided to create our own Municipal Library System by outsourcing the day-to-day operations to a professional library management company while maintaining local control of facilities, materials, staffing levels, etc. This control will be maintained and enforced through a contract, which will have service level requirements, benchmarks that must be reached, etc. If for whatever reason LSSI does not meet the contract terms, I am sure there will be penalties up to and including a termination clause in the contract. If it became necessary to terminate the contract with LSSI, the City retains the option of hiring qualified librarians as city staff to run our Municipal Libraries. LSSI replied to an RFP and won the contract because they specialize in this field. Not only do they manage many municipal and county libraries but they also manage the Smithsonian and several other large and prestigious collections. As to the Canyon Country work stoppage issue: I spoke again last week with both Tony Bell and Lori Glasgow. They both assured me that the Canyon Country Library build out will be completed. When I protested the current work stoppage, in violation of the contract terms, which is preventing residents from having use of that which they paid for and is also preventing our homeless population from having a public facility to enter during inclement weather, Tony said that the money to finish the library comes from exclusively unincorporated area developer fees. A statement I challenged. There are currently several areas in process for incorporation. There are also several recent annexations/incorporations such as Stonecrest, California Canyons, Thompson Ranch, and Robinson Ranch 1, which were all previous donors of unincorporated development fees to the County. Additionally Fair Oaks Ranch, areas of Plum Canyon, Robinson Ranch 2, Spring Canyon, Tick Canyon, Vista Canyon, unincorporated portions of Sand Canyon are all in some stage of annexation discussion or process. But my biggest issue is whether part of the City or not all of these areas still use the Canyon Country Library facility and it needs to be completed and available sooner rather than later. The County is saving our money paid while we cannot use our library. We can argue about how much is being saved Tony, but it does not cost the same to operate a bookmobile as a fully staffed library plant. Finish OUR library! Next item the lawsuit: WE (the City of Santa Clarita) can continue to receive the Special Library Assessment fee per California Constitution Article 13C and LSSI has the right to use confidential information provided by library patrons according to California Government Code sections 6250-6270, look especially at 6267 as Phil Ellis mentioned. With all due respect, this case as filed by COLA librarian Ms. Braddock, SEUI employees Michael Wilkerson and/or Favel Jens, and attorney Ricketts are simply wasting taxpayer dollars to defend against their court filings.
  27. Daddy Joe GOctober 11, 2010 at 12:47 pm
    Thanks Berta, I’d forgotten that the city already owns to Canyon Contry and Newhall libraries. Oh wait! Neither of the libaries exist!
  28. Library User MichaelOctober 11, 2010 at 1:32 pm
    A “Library” is not just buildings at certain locations. There is more at issue here than that. If you have a library card, go online to http://www.colapublib.org/ and search a topic of your interest. (There are additionally two other online sources where you can download articles to your computer in audio or pdf format…) Then see how many articles are available at a local branch, and how many you now have available through the County System. If you don’t have a card,…what can I say, then you just don’t get it. Do you really trust that the City will work this all out later, and that the numbers will work out as fantasized? Libraries are too important to be lackadaisical with our vigilance. Let’s figure it out first… What is the rush?
  29. Need for Involved CitizenryOctober 11, 2010 at 12:12 pm
    Thank God we have the ever vigilant Berta ready upon a moments notice to rescue the City!
  30. Berta González-HarperOctober 11, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    @NFIC are you upset because I did not rely on you to provide my opinion for me?
  31. Need for Involved CitizenryOctober 11, 2010 at 1:52 pm
    Berta: I love to see your opinions. It always gives me a pretty good idea of what the official City position is!
  32. Berta González-HarperOctober 11, 2010 at 2:56 pm
    @NFIC or you could try using facts, logic, sound reasoning, unbiased independent research and arrive at the same conclusions…oh never mind!
  33. Daddy Joe GOctober 11, 2010 at 3:56 pm
    Calling McLean helps too.
  34. Need for Involved CitizenryOctober 11, 2010 at 6:59 pm
    Just like the research you did on the viability of mag-lev!
  35. cashOctober 11, 2010 at 12:15 pm
    There is currently a legal and binding contract, which specifies how we can “separate” from the COLA library system. An issue that seems to have been originally overlooked by an overzealous Council and City staff. Now we have a mess that has brought the new library funding into question.
  36. Coastal SageOctober 11, 2010 at 12:18 pm
    People have been speculating that the City will borrow, by way of Certificates of Participation, enough money to (1) have the Redevelopment Agency repay the City’s $20 Million loan which included the purchase of the land for the new Newhall Library, (2) build the Newhall Library ($12 Mil), (3) buy the Valencia Library with enlarged parking lot (Price ?), (4) pay to complete the renovations of the Canyon Country Library (Price ?) and (5) buy the books and FF&E in the Valencia, Canyon Country and Old Newhall Libraries (Price ?). In order to borrow that much money, the City will have to prove to the underwriter/first lender that it has the cash flow to make annual interest payments on the total debt, plus pay down 1/30th or 1/40th of the principal of the “loan” each year. The math mavens on this board can guesstimate the annual debt service payment on the Certificates of Participation described above. Does the City have enough General Fund cash flow, now, to make those library related debt service payments? The reason I ask is because of interesting text (quoted below) in Education Code Section 19116(b), which governs the use by the City of the “cut” of regular real estate tax revenues which the City will receive each year, as a result of taking over the management of the libraries. “…and the withdrawing city or library district, an amount of property tax revenue equal to the property tax revenues allocated to the county free library pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 96) of Chapter 6 of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code in the fiscal year prior to the base year and that were derived from property situated within the boundaries of the withdrawing entity shall be allocated to and used to maintain library services by the withdrawing entity in the base year and, adjusted forward, in each fiscal year thereafter at the same time allocations are made pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 96) of Chapter 6 of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.” The key phrase in Section 19116(b) is “shall be allocated to and used to maintain library services by the withdrawing entity in the base year and, adjusted forward, in each fiscal year thereafter…” “used to MAINTAIN library SERVICES” In plain English, the word MAINTAIN means keep at the same level of quality. In plain English, the word SERVICES means personnel and library services. In plain English, the phrase “used to MAINTAIN library SERVICES” does not mean (a) paying for redevelopment activities, including buying land and demolishing buildings, (b) paying for the construction of a library building, or (c) paying for the purchase of a library building. As a result, the plain English definitions of the words in the phrase “used to MAINTAIN library SERVICES” do not include an ability on the part of the City to make payments of debt service on Certificates of Participation (COPs) used for the purposes of (1) having the Redevelopment Agency repay the City’s $20 Million loan, (2) building the Newhall Library ($12 Mil), or (3) buying the Valencia Library with enlarged parking lot (Price ?). In a well known Santa Clarita Valley appellate case, the Second District Court of Appeal said “The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature in order to effectuate the purpose of the law. . . . In doing so, we first look to the words of the statute and try to give effect to the usual, ordinary import of the language, at the same time not rendering any language mere surplusage. The words must be construed in context and in light of the nature and obvious purpose of the statute where they appear. . . . The statute ‘ “must be given a reasonable and common sense interpretation consistent with the apparent purpose and intention of the Legislature, practical rather than technical in nature, and which, when applied, will result in wise policy rather than mischief or absurdity. . . .” Bottom line, the regular real estate tax revenues from City territory attributable to libraries CANNOT be used to buy or build libraries or to make debt service payments on Certificate of Participation transactions, nor can those revenues be pledged (mortgaged) to the holders of the Certificates of Participation to insure they will receive their semi-annual payments if the City is not able to make those payments out of General Fund revenues. So we dare the City to answer the basic questions: Where are you going to get the cash to build the Newhall Library and to buy the Valencia Library? If the City borrows the money to make those real estate purchases, where is the City going to get the money to make the debt service payments on those loans/COPs? If the City thinks it is going to use regular real estate tax revenues from City territory attributable to libraries, defying the express words of Education Code Section 19116(b), there is likely to be a second or third round of litigation coming the City’s way.
  37. Daddy Joe GOctober 11, 2010 at 12:51 pm
    I didn’t understand any of that, but it sounds bad.
  38. cashOctober 11, 2010 at 12:30 pm
    Trouble in River City! Something has got to give. How about the freebies to local business? That’ll never happen! We can’t have it all, yet many do not know when to say we have enough. Hell, we even have parks for our dogs, buses that drive around town empty, bike lanes with no riders, open space that you can only see by airplane, etc. etc, etc.
  39. Daddy Joe GOctober 11, 2010 at 3:09 pm
    So, now we know that cash does not own a dog, ride a bicycle, or use the bus. Neither do I. I wonder if there is anyone besides cash and me living in SCV?
  40. cashOctober 11, 2010 at 6:12 pm
    Never said there was not a dog at my house. I just don’t agree that the hard working taxpayers of Santa Clarita should pay for a place for dogs to socialize. If the users want to pay a fee for such a place, great. We are talking dogs here, and we love our dog, however, people in other countries eat them.
  41. NickelDimeOctober 11, 2010 at 7:06 pm
    Cash, go sit with Bill in the grumpy old man seats.
  42. Bill ReynoldsOctober 12, 2010 at 6:37 am
    Or… Cash could sit with 5 Cents in pollyannaville’s kiddie seats.
  43. cashOctober 12, 2010 at 6:59 am
    Perhaps you need to grow up.
  44. KellyOctober 11, 2010 at 2:17 pm
    Thanks, Jeff and This process was rushed and lacked community input, regardless if you think having City run libraries is a good idea or not. Great point about the years long meetings over other projects’ community impact, but not this. Also, how did this get to be a priority above traffic, jobs, schools, safety, and quality of life? That is one of many issues that makes me question the veracity and judgement of our council. Also, Ms.Ender has a glaring absence of a grasp of basic statistics which means if you have 200 speakers against the library “transfer” and 3 in favor, this means that the majority of our population is Against this and a teeny tiny portion is in Favor, (including our politically active commenter and fellow dog lover, Berta.)Ms.Ender has made a gross error in assuming the non attendees were in Favor of this, she would certainly benefit from checking out (and reading!!) a Social Statistics book from our local Cola library. Cash, I use the open space, the dog parks, see bikers everywhere, and ride public transit. I hope you take advantage of these amenities too.
  45. cashOctober 11, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    The point was that we are very blessed but never happy. We always demand more even when we can’t afford it. Open space, the dog parks and bike lanes are nice to have but not necessary or important. Public transit in the SCV is a costly drain on taxpayers dollars, to subsidize but a few. I’ll drive thank you.
  46. NickelDimeOctober 11, 2010 at 7:09 pm
    I take it you’d like to abolish carpool lanes, libraries, handicap parking, MediCal, National Parks, state unemployment insurance and many other things that subsidize “but a few.”
  47. cashOctober 12, 2010 at 7:05 am
    You would be wrong. Dog parks, bike lanes empty buses, and open space that you can onlyy see by air, yes. These and any other nice to have items we can no long afford. I would throw in car pool lanes just to make you happy. For you to suggest medical is equal to a dog park is a bit silly don’t you think?
  48. NickelDimeOctober 12, 2010 at 8:36 am
    Cash if you don’t want to subsidize nice common areas, you might consider living in Stevenson Ranch.
  49. Alan FerdmanOctober 11, 2010 at 3:22 pm
    It is truly unfortunate that City of Santa Clarita management and the majority of our City Council (except Bob Kellar) have chosen to push through privatization of our libraries when they do not have the public’s support. As more and more information becomes known, the story becomes even more unbelievable. First is the assertion that the City of Santa Clarita was generating revenues in excess of what was being spent in the City of Santa Clarita. Yet the City’s calculation did not include the $2.1 million the County was spending on remodeling the Canyon Country Library. When you add in that project, the City’s first assertion was proven false. Next, is the assertion that when our Libraries are taken over by the City, “services would be enhanced”. But when City representatives were asked; Will the city commit to providing, at a minimum, the same level of services, at no increase in cost, to all library users from both within the city and unincorporated county? The answer was; the City needs to determine what services the community wants. But, if services to be provided are unknown, how is it possible to state that “services will be enhanced”? Finally, why is the City planning the largest, most costly, Library in an area with the smallest user and revenue base. A $32 million Taj Mahal which includes meeting rooms with amenities such as a fire place. Truly unrealistic for the area and unrealistic in meeting community needs. We should continue to make our voices heard. Hopefully, our comments will not fall on deaf ears and cause the City to reconsider it’s options, mend some broken fences and come up with a more realistic plan.
  50. cashOctober 11, 2010 at 3:32 pm
    Amen!!!
  51. Daddy Joe GOctober 11, 2010 at 3:59 pm
    I’m not surprised the city did what it did. I am surprised (and so are they) that anybody noticed. They just did what they always do. Usually, nobody cares.
  52. Tim MyersOctober 11, 2010 at 4:37 pm
    Alan: The appropriate level of service will be whatever the quisling Library Advisory Committee decides it should be; and those talking points have already been provided by LSSI.
  53. Alan FerdmanOctober 11, 2010 at 4:53 pm
    Tim. You are partially right. That is why we need to have as many people as possible apply to be on the committee and make sure that it is established as a City Committee conducted per the Brown act. Then we need to attend the meetings to observe and comment. If the committee’s recommendations do not meet the needs of our Library users we should expect this same community upheaval to repeat itself. Then you can write about it as a 2012 election issue.
  54. Berta González-HarperOctober 12, 2010 at 10:10 am
    @Al your information is incorrect. First off, no one is privatizing the library system. Our libraries will become the property of the City of Santa Clarita, a municipal government agency, and not a private entity. You continue to have a problem understanding that there are different pots of money that can only be spent for specific things. A recent example is your opposition to new street signs because you felt that money should be spent on something else when that pot of money can only be spent for that very purpose. You continue to make claims regarding library funding but never mention that there are multiple separate pots of money involved. These monies are dedicated exclusively for particular expenditures and are collected and owned by different entities. The County of Los Angeles collects and spends developer fees assessed and paid by developers building residences on land in unincorporated areas. The City receives developer fees from developers who build residential developments within City limits. The City of Santa Clarita owns the Canyon Country library building since City funds paid to build it. The contractual agreement with the County is that County developer funds will pay for the build out which is mostly interior remodel work, not the City. The City does not include the approximate 2.4 million dollars for the build out of Canyon Country Library because it is not their money to collect or their expense to pay. It is that simple. The County will complete the build out, hopefully soon, and return to operating our branch library until June 30, 2011. The City has not detailed future services because they have not heard what services the residents want yet. I believe costs have been estimated based upon the level of current services. The plan is to provide enhanced services, more hours, materials available, etc based on the current service level provided by COLA. It is the same issue as a contractor who cannot give you a firm bid/estimate for room addition construction until you are clear on what you want built and where. The contractor can tell you what your current square footage is however. Agreements regarding use of our municipal libraries by residents outside the City and any potential costs involved should not be finalized until all separation agreements have been signed. That just makes sense Al. If the County is fair and agreement is reached on shared costs of non-city residents, non-city residents fair well. If the County tries to stick it to the City, costs have to be recouped somehow. You cannot realistically determine the property settlement/divorce agreement until you are clear on what assets you prefer to keep yourself and the terms your partner is offering. Multiple issues need to be finalized between the separating partners, the City of Santa Clarita and County of Los Angeles, before promises that can be kept are made. Most, if not all, is already spelled out in the contracts in effect in anticipation a separation might occur at some point. The County has encountered this situation before you know. Your comments regarding the new Newhall Library sound very selfish and petty. Why should Newhall residents not rate a first class library? It is a Taj Mahal because it has a cozy fireplace? Your house has one and mine has two fireplaces, so what! Especially since, it is the centerpiece for the Old Towne Newhall Redevelopment project. The irony is that the Valencia Library will be the oldest library after the new Newhall branch is built. I am happy that there will be another nice library for all residents to enjoy. I am sure Newhall residents will not object when economic times are better and we in Canyon Country ask for and get our new Community and Senior Centers too. Newhall did not object when we got our new library and they remained in their tiny one for ten more years. You make it sound like we in Canyon Country are shortchanged because of Newhall when in fact it is most likely the other way around. You do not speak for me Al. Our friends and neighbors in Newhall deserve a nice library.
  55. Alan FerdmanOctober 12, 2010 at 12:39 pm
    Berta My information is absolutely correct and the issue is not that complex. The question remains, the difference between the amount of money we send to the County to operate the Library System vs. how much they spend in the City of Santa Clarita for Library services. As it turns out, the County spends more money in the City of Santa Clarita than what we collect for that purpose. Of course, Newhall residents deserve adequate Library Services. But, what is now in question is the size and cost of the current Newhall Library Plan vs. the number of constituents in the service area. Both of those issues are reasonable questions to address.
  56. Berta González-HarperOctober 12, 2010 at 3:43 pm
    @ Alan Ferdman, according to you, the City “donates” less money than what is spent on library services for Santa Clarita residents thereby adding to the County budget shortfall. The County is in dire financial straits, the City has a balanced budget. If the County were in fact spending more money on City library services than we contribute, and if they were to impede our separation from the COLA Library System and allow us to continue draining that system, the County would be guilty of breach of their fiduciary duty to all of the other donor cities. Why would they want us to stay with the COLA Library System if we were costing them extra money? It is far more likely they would want to divest themselves of the added expense given the opportunity if we were not pulling our own weight. Regarding the Newhall Library, the service area of the new Newhall Library is both Newhall and the southern half of Valencia. Based on our population, we should have at least 89,000 square feet of library space (1/2 square foot per capita, based on a population of 178,000). With the “new” Newhall Library, we will still be short of that goal by 19,000 square feet. With local control of our dollars we are in a better position to determine how best to address that issue. I say again, your information is incorrect.
  57. Alan FerdmanOctober 12, 2010 at 5:37 pm
    Berta Operation of the Santa Clarita Libraries have been subsidized by the country each year until FY 2007-08 when the surplus was $260,163 and FY 08-09 with a surplus of $231,728. Even without counting the amount of subsidy for the years prior and just using the 2010 costs of $2.460,000 for the Canyon Country Expansion and $131,000 for Valencia Renovations, it is easy to do the math and see that the Country subsidy is still almost $2 million. (Source of data, LA County Santa Clarita Cost Report Sum and SC_COCityMtg_Public Doc). Also stated is the revenue streams for the three areas. For FY2008-09, Newhall is $874,027, Canyon Country $2,283,687 and Valencia $3,143,848. This shows Newhall as the smallest service area. Now tell us, what is your source of information?
  58. Tim MyersOctober 11, 2010 at 4:39 pm
    Can we start a rumor that the City master plan is to shut down the Valencia and Canyon Country branches to force everyone to go to the Newhall Branch to promote its usage?
  59. Coastal SageOctober 11, 2010 at 5:41 pm
    I certainly have wondered about a potential shut down of the Valencia Library. As to Canyon Country, the City owns the building. What would they do with the building if the library vacated the place?
  60. Cheryl PhillipsOctober 11, 2010 at 10:55 pm
    The libraries will definitely be shut down when the County Integrated Library System is gone and a new Library Management System has to implement the database and software that runs the entire library’s acquisitions, cataloging, circulation, tracking and public interface for all SCV users – not to mention issuing all new library cards. I seriously question the City’s ability to handle this lawsuit and meet with advisory committees and still be able to hit their Dec. 2nd deadline.
  61. Berta González-HarperOctober 12, 2010 at 10:14 am
    @Cheryl the December deadline is to give 6 month notice to the County that the City is withdrawing from COLA Library System so that County call plan fiscal year budget. City already gave notice, no deadline in play.
  62. Berta González-HarperOctober 12, 2010 at 10:15 am
    @J, the Jo Anne Darcy Canyon Country Library build out will be completed and remain a public library. Both County representatives and City representatives have affirmed that fact.
  63. KellyOctober 11, 2010 at 7:07 pm
    Traffic would be much worse if we had no public transportation. The dog park was quite reasonable, a passive use requiring minimum financial outlay. Recreational opportunities like our bike trails and parks create a desirable community which enhances real estate values. Now about those libraries, I think we all are just screwed and the lawyers will be the ones laughing all the way to the bank.
  64. cashOctober 12, 2010 at 7:11 am
    You don’t get it Kelly. Traffic would not be much worse if we had no buses. Very few people ride the bus in the first place and the empty buses would be off of the road. 19 million dollars a year to drive around town empty or with 5 or 6 people. You just don’t get it. Minimal financial out lay when we can’t even fund the cost of education. You seem a bit selfish to me Kelly. You just don’t get it. How are those real estate enhancements working for you Kelly? You just don’t get it.
  65. KellyOctober 11, 2010 at 7:08 pm
    Ha, ha, grumpy old men for sure, ND!
  66. KellyOctober 12, 2010 at 7:24 am
    No, Cash, I get it, you don’t Get It, and haven’t for a long, long time. The reality is the dog park, bus service, and bike trails are established and serve a wide range of our community, including the elderly and students. Selfish?? I pay my fair share of taxes and our real estate is quite secure with abundant equity.
  67. cashOctober 12, 2010 at 7:41 am
    What you don’t get is that we are broke and cannot afford the kinds of things you beleive, in your reality, to be so important. Your real estate may be secure, but all of the nice things you mention did very little to protect the value of your home in the financil crisis. No you don’t get it. You will get it when these problems come to roost at your front door.
  68. Timothy Myers Sr.October 12, 2010 at 7:55 am
    Alan: They will extend, extend and extend the application period for the Library Advisory Committee until they can fill it with a suitable number of quislings and yes folks. They did this with the Open Space Advisory Committee and the Hart Board did it with the first Bond Oversight Committee. Look for a lot of Ender cronies on the Committee.
  69. cashOctober 12, 2010 at 8:03 am
    Have a great day Kelly. I enjoy the debate.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support