The Library Takeover Explained

Brilliant!

Man, that is just too damn funny! Brilliant!!!

Heelarious!!!!

Great job. Now the takeover makes perfect sense! There were some cracks forming.

Glad someone still has a sense of humor! On Tuesday, Nov. 30, county Librarian Margaret Todd will present her library-funding report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, at which time she will ask the supervisors to place a measure on the ballot to raise the library tax. To fill the cracks. Go figure.

Leon You have “jumped the shark”. The $36 million you reference is being spent by the city for capital improvements not for operations. The city has incurred $19 million of debt for construction of the Newhall Library and according to the figures you gave me are still $2 million in debt on the Canyon Country Library build. In all likelihood the $1.8 million the county was providing for Library remodeling came from Library Facility Mitigation Fees collected in the unincorporated county. What we need is a complete accounting of all the costs and funding sources without all the BS.

I don’t know what side of the city-county line you live on, Alan, but at some point, your “entitlement” argument has got to stop. It is high time for people to take responsibility for their decisions. If our unincorporated friends and neighbors see how much better off they’d be in the city and still choose to remain unincorporated, they’ve got nobody to blame but themselves. If the city were greedy or stingy, it would forbid the unincorporated communities from annexing into the city … because why should we existing city taxpayers have to fund all the amenities and services the county was unable or unwilling to provide to them in the first place? But our city doesn’t do that. Santa Clarita’s door is open to everyone in the Santa Clarita Valley — because it’s the right thing to do.

NickelDime– (1) Transparency/admission of guilt. No. Sorry, but if you’re going to ask my to repeat myself, I’m going to cut and paste. Here is how I answered your point earlier today when you brought it up: “We saw the cracks in the mid-1990s when the county wanted to shut the Newhall Library. We saw the cracks in the late 1990s when the county refused to spend the MONEY WE HAD PAID to expand the CC library. We saw the cracks throughout the last decade as the county cut services, staff and hours. We saw the cracks in the last couple of years when the county claimed it couldn’t contribute to the new Newhall library despite a SURPLUS from this valley of $2 million a year. We saw the cracks when the county librarian claimed she couldn’t expand services here, even if we build our own libraries, despite that $2 million annual surplus.” All of this has been published countless times over the years. It’s not the city’s fault if people don’t follow the news. Rushed? Taking over the library system was discussed a decade ago. At the time, the city decided against it. It wasn’t ready. Now, a decade of county budget struggles later, it is. “Other issues in play” such as the Newhall Library? What do you mean? The county wouldn’t build the library we needed with the money we gave to the county — so the city stepped up to the plate to fill yet ANOTHER void left by the county. The Newhall Library, like the CC Library before it, is precisely the point. It’s all part of the same point. They aren’t “other issues.” (2) I would be more than happy to have a televised roundtable discussion on this topic. As long as there are pending lawsuits and threats of depositions, etc., it ain’t gonna happen. No credible parties from either the city or the county are going to comment. (Remember, Ricketts sued the county, too.) When the lawsuits are dismissed — and they will be — I’ll be ready to host that forum. (3) “Equitable unincorporated resident access?” What in the hell does that mean? How is it in ANY WAY equitable for City residents to shoulder 100% of the cost of unincorporated county residents? BOY am I glad you stepped in this one. Right now, today, in the county system, we City residents pay 100% of the cost of EVERY book (etc.) checked out by EVERY unincorporated SCV resident at the 3 Santa Clarita libraries. The county does not spend one Nickel or Dime of unincorporated SCV residents’ tax dollars on services at those 3 libraries. Don’t believe me. Ask Alan Ferdman. He can show you that fact in his spreadsheets. Better still, ask Margaret Todd. She told me that same thing face-to-face. Under the city’s plan, we City residents will continue to subsidize the cost of EVERY book checked out by EVERY unincorporated SCV resident. Personally, I would CHOOSE to do that. But that’s the difference. Every city taxpayer deserves to have that CHOICE. In the county we do not have that choice. Only in the city do we have the choice. And if city voters decide they want county residents to pay a fee to use the libraries, that should be the city taxpayers’ RIGHT. What isn’t “equitable” is if only SOME of the people are paying for ALL of the people. (No, I’m not talking about the economically disadvantaged. I don’t particularly like the racial overtones of the anti-Newhall Library arguments, considering the studies of the various projected user groups, but I won’t get into that now.)

This is a really fundamental concept, and it amazes me that people don’t seem to grasp it: PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO LIVE IN THE CITY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CITY SERVICES. Want city services? Move to the city. Move your house to the city. Annex your whole neighborhood into the city. You’ll be welcomed with open arms and treated as an equal — because then and only then will you be an equal. Do we city people want all of our city money to stay in the city? Yeah. Deal with it.

So we blog on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

ALL CRACKED UP Here is a taste of county Librarian Margaret Todd’s report to the Board of Supervisors this coming Tuesday: “Over the next 10 years, the Public Library will experience a $22 million annual structural deficit if immediate measures are not taken. “In the past 3 years, declines in the Public Library’s operating revenues caused by the recession had a significant impact on the budget. Budget balancing measures have included, but were not limited to, reductions in service hours, consolidation or suspension of programs, curtailment of spending for books and materials, and a 30% reduction in part-time staff hours. “Despite these measures, the gap between operating revenues and operating costs will continue to increase even as the economy slowly recovers. Even with increasing efficiencies, the Public Library will need to increase revenues to simply maintain adequate service levels.” Note to Don Ricketts: I rest my case.

I have to admit that I didn’t read all of the rhetoric above, for two simple reasons: (1) Figures can lie, and liars can figure. (2) I don’t believe in crying over spilled milk. Under Education Code Section 19116, the city had the right to secede from the county library system. The fracas over the library withdrawal is because of the city staff’s engineering the secession so that no public input was obtained, and because there was no meaningful public discussion by the Council members before they took their vote. As Leon well knows, the City Manager Ken Pulskamp has far more power than the City Council members. Pulskamp’s mentor, George Caravalho, was a master manipulator, operating 99% of the time through his assistants and rarely saying anything in public. One rarely saw George’s signature on a piece of paper. I’ve noticed Pulskamp operates the same way. The only relevant reality, now, is that: (A) The 3 libraries being taken over by the city will produce a regular library tax cash flow into the city’s balance sheet. Under Education Code Section 19116, the only thing that cash flow can be used for is to “maintain library services”. Not to repay the city for loans to its redevelopment agency. Not to build buildings. Not to finance land purchases. The California Courts of Appeal are very big on enforcing the plain English wording of legislation. The Courts of Appeal get very testy when local government agency employees do not do what the Legislature expressly says. “Maintain” and “services” have a specific meaning in English, which are 100% inconsistent with any use of the regular library tax cash flow to “maintain library services”. (B) At the most recent City Council meeting, Ken Pulskamp refused to answer Cam Noltemeyer’s straight forward question. Cam says she repeatedly asked Pulskamp whether the city had closed and obtained the money from the city’s library-related certificate of participation deal. Pulskamp refused to answer the question. That refusal to answer a straight forward question is very telling. Cam knows, and Pulskamp knows, that the proper terms she used are “municipal finance” industry jargon for the city borrowing money, based upon the lender’s relying on the regular library tax cash flow as the source of repayment of the loan. (Below, I will use plain English, not municipal finance jargon which that industry and sophisticated city employees rely upon so that civilians don’t understand what is going on.) (C) Cam is not just imagining the existence or potential existence of such a Certificate of Participation transaction, aka the city borrowing money based upon library tax cash flow. Darren Hernandez’s staff report, for the August 24, 2010 City Council meeting, said that the city could use the library tax cash flow to obtain approximately $25 Million, to replenish the city’s General Fund. Pulskamp understood what that meant. Hernandez understood what that meant. Cam understood what that meant. Who knows what the City Council members understood? What the city is going to use the borrowed money for is the question for the coming weeks, not crying over spilled milk (aka whether the county historically ripped off the city or not). Darren Hernandez has made it clear that $8 Million of the borrowed money will be used to buy the libraries and to pay for the Canyon Country Library renovation. It’s a legitimate question for any member of the public interested in the libraries to ask: “What is the city going to use the other $17 Million for?” (C) In 1997, the Board of Supervisors put the County library special tax on the ballot, seeking the voters approval. The Board of Supervisors resolution recites two things: (1) Proposition 218 mandated the election, even though the county had been collecting the library special tax for several years. (2) If a city seceded from the county library system, the county would stop collecting the library special tax from the city’s residents. As previously discussed ad nauseum, the city staff does not want to acknowledge that the county can no longer legally collect that tax from city residents after 7/1/11, based upon the text of the Board of Supervisors own resolution. The interesting and really puzzling question is why the city staff members who are not lawyers keep saying they will not put a replacement library special tax on a city ballot. It’s only $28 per year, or so. As a result, why are the city employees afraid to put a city library tax on a city election ballot? That is a legitimate question for city residents to be discussing now. Not crying over spilled milk, or caring whether the county ripped off the city in the past. (D) The library related resolution the City Council passed in August, concerning the county library withdrawal, is so broad that the city staff could interpret it to mean whatever Pulskamp, as City Manager, thinks it means. A city employee has already signed a contract with LSSI, without bringing it back to the City Council for review and approval, let alone any public comment on the contract’s deal terms. There has been little discussion of what is in that contract, and what is missing from it in terms of guarantees of quality library services. The content of the LSSI contract is a relevant issue now. However, theoretically, thanks to the wording of the LSSI contract, if this new library advisory committee of 37, or the City Council, decide they are unhappy with how LSSI is managing the libraries, Frank Pezzanite, the CEO of LSSI can simply say “Vaffanculo”. The text in the LSSI contract, and what is missing from the LSSI contract, signed by a city staffer, without any City Council public discussion of its deal terms is a relevant issue now, not more crying over spilled milk. To recap the 4 relevant questions for public discussion at this point in time: (A) Will the library regular taxes received by the city be used to “maintain library services” and nothing else? (B) What will the $25 Million or so borrowed by the city, based on the library regular taxes cash flow, be used for? (C) Should the city staff and City Council be afraid to put a city library special tax on the ballot? Would such a city library special tax be passed by 2/3rds of the voters? (D) What is the City of Santa Clarita going to do if library users are unhappy with the library services provided by LSSI?

@ND I am sure I posted this some time ago but here goes again and I hope this answers your question: 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.

I have used COC’s library… it’s pretty good.

So in a nutshell…The city has the money to build the new library and they found a way to operate all 3 branches with the available tax revenue. While uncertain whether the city can collect the $1.4M in special taxes, Darren Hernandez has affirmed that even without those funds, we have sufficient tax revenue to meet our obligations. We’re getting more parking at the Valencia branch and longer hours at all 3 branches. Some uncertainty still exists about protocols for inter-library borrowing, but the city has assured us that if certain materials are unavailable they will purchase them with the enhanced budget for books/materials. Lori Ender even hinted that we will have on- demand book printing machines (interesting technology, see ondemandbooks.com). No additional fees or taxes for city residents and the residents outside the city can use the libraries for at least 5 years with the same privileges as city residents. Worst case scenario, I get my books from the county for pick up at Castaic. Do I have this right?

Leon: “The trouble in the case of libraries is that this (here I go again) close-knit group of distrusting people were predisposed to disbelieve the city (staff or council) on the subject of libraries, and they spread their anti-city-library message far and wide.” I’ve been accused of a lot of things on this blog, primary among them that I’m a City fan, that I favor the city in my blog posts more than I should. I’ve even been called a lackey and a foot soldier of the City. So don’t give me that line of bull. I’m predisposed to believe the City of Santa Clarita is well-run and fiscally responsible, that its staff is professional, responsive and sharp. And yet even with my predisposition, what the City did with the libraries offended me. They hatched & executed this idea that affects everyone who uses the libraries in less than 90 days. Zero outreach to actual library users or homeschooling parents. They tossed up a slick and misleading website virtually overnight, timed to Laurie Ender’s wish for the item to be placed on the agenda. They pretended they were going to consider three options; well we now know they were talking to LSSI way before the Council meeting. They asked leading questions to staff members on 8/24 and ignored the hundreds of people who came to protest the move. They promised respect to the librarians and employees even as they hired a company whose CEO has nothing but contempt for public employees. And so we see the result of their haste and contempt for the public. For the last two months they’ve stumbled through unexpected obstacles: the closure of Canyon Country, the lawsuits, the letters to the editor, entire new groups of people becoming aware and getting involved because they love their libraries as they are. They chose to do this and now we see the result. And you have the gall to claim the City is the victim in all this? You know what else? Those who participate in a democracy get to have the final say. So I could give two shits what the uninformed and apathetic think. They choose not to have a say. Those of us who do take the time to care and think about our community should be listened to first and foremost. And when we’re not listened to, we are allowed to address our grievances through the courts. That’s Democracy. If the City had been a bit more democratic in its desire to privatize the library system, if they had treated the libraries as something treasured and valued by the community rather than one more thing to optimize and make money off of, they could have avoided much of this resistance, as I have stated again and again since July.

Berta – No. The city & county library consultant I’m referring to wasn’t talking politics. She was merely talking about the need & plans for the Newhall library. She wasn’t the right authority figure to discuss financing. But, Berta — DUH! I just had a revelation. Hit me upside the head. *NOW* I get it. *NOW* I get why people in this blog and elsewhere haven’t heard the community outcry for more library service. I mean, how can I be hearing one thing, and so many other people aren’t hearing it? Because. What are the two primary beneficiary users of the future Newhall library? (1) Newhall’s senior community; and (2) Newhall’s 50-percent-plus Latino community. Jeez, you’d think I’d have figured it out before this. These demographic groups respond to city & school district surveys (people who claim to have a “heart” should read them) but are not prone to spouting off in places like SCVTalk — or anywhere else, for that matter. Someone in this blog suggested that we shouldn’t care what people think if they don’t vote. Well I’m here to tell you that is WRONG. Absolutely we should try to increase civic involvement. Absolutely we should encourage people to participate. But we have a civic responsibility to care about people who do not participate in the political process, whether old, young, black, white, English- or non-English speaking. People who only read The Signal or this blog or other general media aren’t necessarily getting the full picture — and they aren’t hearing the same things the city is hearing because they aren’t listening in all of the right places. Friends, you can disagree with me on the subject of caring about our fellow SCV residents regardless of race, creed, color, language, sexual orientation, religion and so forth — but I’m afraid we will have to agree to disagree.

“she’s the only one in this entire debate who is actually a librarian” Oh God now THAT is funny!! Heart — I have no problem with people who think county life is better than city life. (Though I don’t know why they’d continue to live in the city if they think it’s so horrible.) As far as I’m concerned, either you want political autonomy for the Santa Clarita Valley, and the ability to keep all of your local tax dollars in your local community … or you don’t. If you don’t, then we really have nothing more to discuss on this topic.

Berta & Leon, If I understand correctly, you defend this Council’s decision because you believe it was the right thing to do. The ends justify the means. We (and nearly all involved in such matters) are concerned that the manner in which this is being executed puts the City at risk – financially, legally, and in the end product itself. The ends are dictated by the means. That’s not ‘crying over spilled milk’, it’s an ongoing, real issue. By not admitting the City made mistakes in the process, you only have credibility with the City. Public figures shouldn’t ask the public to “move on” (as Ferry did) without acknowledging fault. As a Christian, Ferry should know better . The Council serves us . And the part you seem to miss: we may actually agree with the end decision. The process and details just need to be vetted properly in a public forum.

Ferry says that to continue to argue against the city withdrawal from the county library system is ridicules, since it already done. This is very likely true. I have little hope of changing anyone’s mind. But isn’t it even more ridicules to continue to argue for the city withdrawal? It’s already done, what more do you want?

New Drinking Game: Take a shot every time Berta says “do my own research.” Pie eyed in twenty minutes or less!

Berta you’re wrong. An important part of an elected official’s job is to bring the community along on important decisions. If done well not everyone will agree with the decision, but most everyone will agree it was a good process. This may or may not have been a good decision, but it was a bad process. The city council failed to have a good process. The mistrust and anger that now exists did not have to be there. They failed that important test of leadership.

Jeff — “Ironically, the thing that would empower Latinos in the SCV (District-based council seats) is the very thing you just said you hoped would never happen here.” Yes, Jeff, I’m aware of the roadmap. I well remember the political science curriculum at UCLA, which was built around the goal of overthrowing “white male conservative” city councils and boards of supervisors. (By their definition, Marsha McLean and Barbara Boxer would have been white male conservatives. That is not a joke and I am not being facetious.) The roadmap: *Divide the electorate into districts. *Limit campaign contributions. *Directly elect the mayor. *Move to 11- (rather than 5-) member councils and boards of supervisors. *Dramatically increase the number of commissions. *Switch to a mayoral form of government rather than city manager form of government. It’s a tried-and-true roadmap for liberals to follow (meaning, in a 50-year span where it has been implemented, it has achieved the goal) … just as it is a comprehensive list of things for conservatives to avoid. My opposition to election by district, specifically, pertains to the fact that my goal is to have the ability to vote for all of our local representatives, rather than just one. But of course, I wasn’t talking about political structure. I was talking about listening to what our minority groups are saying.

@ Jeff personally as an American of Hispanic ancestry I would prefer 5 Anglo guys or gals to any 5 Hispanics, male or female, like the crooks on the Bell City Council so thanks for thinking of me but I EMPOWER MYSELF with my voice and my vote.

I am sorry, Berta, that you interpreted all that from my statements. All I meant was the Anglos over Hispanics, thing, which, apparently, I misunderstood, and I was trying to understand what you meant, with my further questions. So, please forgive me for not clarifying first. Not sure how I discounted that you complained about the CC library — I am sure that you did, and that you had valid concerns. I never intimated that you would not represent the Hispanic community. And, as far as not being picked for the committee, yeah, I am disappointed, but I don’t know what your application looked like — or anyone else’s application. I cannot judge whether I should have been picked over you, or anyone else, without that information. I have no gripe with you, or any other committee member. The City chose who the City chose. I know Hispanics are not a one size fits all. I am fully aware that people have differing views on immigration. I am not offering any platitudes. I don’t know you, Berta. I am not angry at you. I do not doubt that you are sincere. Again, I am really sorry that I misunderstood you Anglos vs. Hispanics statement. I just don’t understand how you thought I was saying all those other things.

“I got all of those impressions from the comments you made above such as: “I have never, ever, EVER heard one single Hispanic resident complain about the library.” Discounting MY complaints.” I meant that I have never heard complaints in my community, in my social circles, in the communities which I outlined. Nothing was directed at you, Berta. Never even crossed my mind. “You also said, “Show me just one instance of the City trying to gather an opinion or participation from the Hispanic community.” Discounting my opinion and participation on the committee.” I meant that I have never seen the City gathering input from the Hispanic community at the Newhall library, at the Community Center, again, within the communities I outlined. “In addition: “Laurie Ender was running for City Council in 2008, she came to my door, to solicit my vote. She plugged the new library (the first I had heard of it), was very anti-immigrant … Intimating anyone not supportive of illegal immigration is “anti immigrant”.” I think that you assumed too much. I was purposefully vague about my conversation with Ender in 2008 because we are not so much discussing immigration. “You further said, “So, please forgive me if I have a difficult time believing that the City is looking to serve the Hispanic community with the new Newhall library.” Discounting my ability to advocate for Spanish-speaking library users or the City’s interest in serving all residents.” I think that you took all this way too personally, Berta. I am speaking in generalities, you are reading it as a personal attack. Believe me, I know that words have power. You might heed that same lesson, as well.

For your own sake, you may want to take a step back, then, Berta, because the library issue is not a personal attack, it is a city-wide effort. The only people who should feel insulted are those who have blatantly and categorically ignored the concerns of those opposed to the LSSI take-over. You may want to consider that your defensiveness colors your understanding of the comments posted here. I mean that in the kindest way possible, Berta, and in no way mean to imply that you should no longer participate in discussion.

Hello Berta (and everyone else) – you might want to check this out. It’s from early 2008. http://www.scvtv.com/html/notw033008.html It’s a conversation-changer on a number of levels. It discusses the survey results (1,400 responses) when the city asked the community what library services it wanted. It explores some possibilities for programs geared toward Spanish-speakers. Above all, it demonstrates that *the county*, via its own consultant — whom I really, really like — *believed the current Newhall library was obsolete and needed to be replaced* … and *influenced the city’s planning of the new library* … and further *led the city to believe the county would provide the services that the community was requesting if the city built the library*. Then Margaret Todd changed her mind. Had she not changed her mind, we would not be leaving the county library system today. Make no mistake about THAT. Margaret Todd rolled the dice. She said NO to helping finance construction of the library, and we sat there and took it. She thought if she said NO again — NO to spending some of our valley’s $2MM annual library surplus to provide the services her own consultant was recommending — we’d sit there and take it again. She gambled poorly. So she got mad. Not only did she lose a piece of her library system, but she lost the surplus she was receiving from city taxpayers each year. She took it out on Canyon Country … and AFTER THE COUNCIL DECISION, she went to county counsel to try to stop the city from collecting its special library assessment. (Asking an agency attorney for an opinion on another agency’s tax assessment is not standard operating procedure.) She had NOTHING to gain from trying to block the city’s tax assessment. Not one cent. Nothing to gain, that is, except for vengeance. Would we have left the county library system eventually? Sure. It’s the only way to insulate ourselves from the system’s budget problems (currently $22MM annually). Maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but one day. Blame her or, I think, eventually you will thank her — but the reason we are leaving the library system now, at this time, in this place, is Margaret Todd.

Look, the probelm here is exactly as Jeff stated way above. City Council took quick action to implement their library take-over plan with little concern about public sentiment and it came abruptly following a series of other unpoplular decisions. This entire episode has nothing to do with logic but everything to do with City Hall’s continued arrogance.