Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07251995 - SD12 SD. 12 THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on !July 25, 1995,_ by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, Torlakson, Bishop NOES: Supervisor DeSaulnier ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Status Report Ad Hoc Task Force on the County Library The Board considered the July 18, 1995, status report of Anne Marie Gold, County Librarian, on the work of the Ad Hoc Task Force on the County Library. A copy of that report is attached and included as a part of this Board Order. Sandra Hall, representing Local One, commented on issues of concern pertinent to her membership. All persons desiring to speak were heard. Board members discussed various options to acquire funding for the County Library System including the establishment of a Library Benefit Assessment District and issues pertinent to governance and labor relations. Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the status report of the County Librarian is ACCEPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the County Librarian is DIRECTED to report to the Board on August 8, 1995, on a plan to proceed with the LAFCO process in the development of a Library Benefit Assessment District. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that September 12, 1995, at 4 p.m. , is FIXED as the time for a workshop with the cities to discuss the establishment of a Library Benefit Assessment District and other issues such as governance, funding, labor relations, utilization of volunteers to assist with providing library services, etc. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN . ATTESTED: _July 25, 1995 Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Deputy cc: County Librarian County Administrator LAFCO Anne Marie Gold County Library Contra County Librarian 1750 Oak Park Boulevard Costa Anne Henley Cain Pleasant Hill,California 94523-4497 J Assistant County Librarian (510) 646-642FAX(510)64636461 Count y �. SE y 1 O' DATE: July18 1995 -- �o.,y S'A coux TO: Supervisor Jim Rogers, District I Supervisor Jeff Smith, District II Supdrvisor Gayle Bishop, District III Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier, District IV Supervisor Tom Torlakson, District V FROM: Anne Marie Gold, County Librarian SUBJECT: Update on Ad Hoc Task Force on the County Library At the meeting on March 14, 1995 the Board of Supervisors approved the Formation o an Ad Hoc Task Force on the County Library with the following charge: • To examine the concerns of the cities regarding the governance and operation of the County Library and make appropriate recommendations to the City/County Relations Committee, Board of Supervisors and Mayors' Conference. • To explore any other issues regarding the County Library which are brought to the Task Force by any of its members and to make appropriate recommendations to the City/County Relations Committee, Board of Supervisors and Mayors' Conference. • To review work which has been done to date by staff and others on funding alternatives for the County Library and make recommendations to the City/County Relations Committee, Board of Supervisors and Mayors' Conference. Among the alternatives which should be explored is the possibility of a benefit assessment to be imposed by the Board of Supervisors only following a majority "yes" vote on an advisory measure by the voters, understanding that the imposition of the benefit assessment in a city could be accomplished only in response to a request from the city council. The composition of the Task Force includes two members of the Board of Supervisors, five representatives from the Mayor's Conference, two representatives from the Library Commission and two representatives from the general public, one representing organized labor and one from the unincorporated area of the county. Attached is a roster of task force members. After a lengthy appointment process, the Task Force held its first meeting on May 15, 1995 and has met for a total of 6 meetings. The Task Force set meeting dates for the second and fourth Monday of each month at 4 p.m. and approved the timeline as attached. At the first two meetings on May 15 and May 22 general background information was provided on options for governance, funding, resource allocation and partnerships. In a general discussion at the first meeting there was consensus on the need to explore the various issues regarding county library service such as agreeing on a basic level of service, resource allocation, local input for service programs and reinventing libraries before agreeing on a specific solution or another ballot measure. At the second meeting the Task Force members received and discussed the new volunteer agreements, which they were generally pleased about in terms of the cooperation shown between the unions and the county. They also discussed the Library Master Plan in detail, including its proposed resource allocation growth model. At the June 1 Mayors Conference a report to the mayors was given by Task Force member Pat Boom from San Ramon which updated them on the activities of the Task Force on a general basis. Most of the discussion at the Mayors Conference focused on the volunteer agreements rather than the Task Force. She also discussed the fact that the Mayors Conference would be taking up their tabled motion regarding seeking county library funding for the cities at their July meeting. At the third meeting on June 12 detailed information on funding, governance and resource allocation models was provided and discussed. During discussion concern was expressed by members that the group had not yet begun to really deal with the key issues and that the group needed to have a clearer workplan. There was discussion that until a new structure that addresses local control is identified and accepted that there will be no support for additional funding mechanisms. The group also expressed the concern that the negative perception of the county by the cities and the voters has contributed to the ongoing problems trying to craft a solution for the library. There was extensive discussion of different types of funding mechanisms,including County Service Areas and Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts. The city members of the group expressed concern with Mello-Roos since residents in some areas of the county have opposed such districts since they have raised local taxes significantly in developing areas. At the fourth meeting on June 26 County Counsel Vic Westman gave a presentation on options for funding, including assessments through County Service Areas and Mello- Roos. There was discussion of the need to have cities agree to be included in either type of district and the LAFCO filing requirements for a CSA. Two representatives from the Santa Clara County Library Authority then gave a presentation on their newly formed JPA and benefit assessment. The Santa Clara County Librarian and the Cupertino City Manager reviewed the JPA development process as well as their resource allocation model. Santa Clara County now has a JPA agreement with all cities served by the County Library which establishes a new governing board for the library, which is composed of one representative from each city and two representatives from the Board of Supervisors. The county has also established a County Service Area which includes all cities served, as agreed to by the City Councils of those cities, and imposed a benefit assessment for extended library services of $33 per parcel. The assessment was approved in an advisory vote by 68% of the voters. The allocation of both the base property tax and the assessment proceeds was agreed upon by all JPA members and includes funding for both a basic level of service and return to source of additional revenues to fund higher levels of service. The basic level of service is 30 hours per week for branches. Employees remain county employees and the Board of Supervisors will continue to approve labor agreements. At the Mayors Conference on July 6 the mayors present approved a motion that asked that the final written report of the Task Force be presented to the Mayor's Conference at its meeting on October 5 with the intent that it will be discussed and voted on at its November 2 meeting. Subsequent to the approval of that motion, the group unanimously approved a second motion to put together a working group to simultaneously explore state legislation so it could be ready to be introduced should the work of the Task Force not be successful. Representatives from Antioch, Martinez and Danville volunteered to be part of that working group. At the fifth meeting on July 10 the members approved the revised timeline for the work of the Task Force in order to meet the deadlines approved by the Mayors Conference. There was extensive discussion at this meeting about the need for cities to have local control over local service decisions. Joint governance was also reviewed with the issue of a county-wide JPA versus regional JPAs considered. The issue of resource allocation as it related to joint governance was also discussed. LAFCO Executive Officer Annamaria Perella gave a short presentation on assessment districts and LAFCO process. Concern was expressed that the timeline for establishment of a County Service Area for FY 1996/97 was already too short. At this meeting the group felt that more meetings were needed than had been scheduled because of the complexity of the issues being discussed and the timeline and decided to meet again the following week to discuss various JPA models. At the sixth meeting on July 17 the group reviewed three library JPA documents (Sonoma, Sacramento and Santa Clara) and discussed regional versus county-wide local control mechanisms. The general discussion of the group was that some form of local input over service delivery decisions would need to be agreed upon before agreement on any funding mechanism to enhance library services. There was also discussion of the question about voter approval for any type of funding mechanism. Task force members ranged in opinion from feeling that the 61% voter approval of Measure B provided enough authority to enact directly some form of assessment financing to other members who felt that a 2/3 voter approval should be sought for any type of additional funding. They developed a list of 16 issues to be addressed when looking at a JPA or another mechanism for shared governance: 1. One jurisdiction providing services to a number of jurisdictions without direct input and involvement (dated statute) 2. Efficiencies and effectiveness are present in larger structure - need to provide local input for local service delivery decisions 3. Regional JPA-whole county would be unwieldy, regional committees would not have full force of a vote. Whole county JPA will not give enough emphasis to a local community. 4. Resolving the disparity of services and facilities and providing the appropriate level of service in each community 5. Planning for new facilities should be looked at regionally (example: Prewett Park plans in Antioch & OMAC plans for new Oakley Library) 6. How do you allocate seats on the governing board; who should serve on the governing board (elected officials?) 7. Should there be a Central Library? 8. Resource allocation 9. Employees-union contracts,who employs staff,should JPA contract with County for employees 10. What is any part of current system would we keep; e.g. who does payroll 11. How to increase diversity-combination of individuality 12. Where does the Master Plan fit in; would JPA board change policies in Master Plan or accept existing plan 13. How to raise money necessary to operate the library at an adequate level ( e.g. NPTES) 14. What decision making is deferred to the local level 15. What type of election 16. How would financial contributions from cities affect participation in JPA At the next meeting on July 24 these issues will be organized in specific areas with options presented for each issue. In general, any type of agreement still needs to be reached on the key issues of: Governance •need to provide local control over local service delivery decisions •governance over current base property tax resources vs. enhanced resources •best model for governance - JPA, contractual relationships, etc. •employee issues relating to union contracts, work rules, staff appointments Funding •what is the best mechanism for seeking additional revenues to provide enhanced library services •what type of voter approval is needed for any such revenue measure Resource Allocation •what should be a basic level of service and how should it be funded •if there are additional revenues what should be the allocation process for those resources, e.g. return to source, funding of basic levels of service, centralized resources As the work of the Task Force has been ongoing some cities have continued to pursue local processes to look at community library service needs. The Concord City Council approved a motion asking to participate in discussions with the County to assess potential for change in the existing formula used for the allocation of tax revenues now collected for library purposes. The Pittsburg City Council approved a motion to establish a Council subcommittee to work with staff to develop a long term plan that would look at all os the issues related to the provision of library service to Pittsburg residents and determine how the City could provide the best library services including greater control by the City. There are also activities underway in the City of San Ramon looking at restructuring the provision of library services and with the West County cities. Added to these local efforts is the simultaneous work of the Mayors Conference group to explore state legislation should the work of the Task Force not be successful. Perhaps the most telling comment was by a Task Force member at the last meeting. She noted that should the Task Force fail to create an agreeable solution to the issues surrounding the County Library, that it would spell the end of county library service. is\ahtf\bosrpt.7 d) C) i 41) o f i .) a� i i i U r. U i . i. y�y�� U U U r. U r. 42'--. cd w � 'n O O cd O w � w x w Cd O w Cd oti, ou, o � cS. .amu. .c Ou. > oti. c� ofd. vow M t� M t` N N d O\ N 00 O D M N t- M 00. 1' 00 M O O00 _ 'Z \,O \-O V- V V1 ON �O O M 'T M \O C\ M OM Vn M O 00 �O v) [� -" N --+ N M �t V7 O M O i 1 i i ►x O O• \O \O Vl M O M M t- v) \O v) N N t` t` N N t` W) \�O C1r 000 000 � � N � N N 000 N 0000 N � \0 � r- M M 000 rn � M 00 kn It ON Q U o rn d CIAin 0 v o CN kn Nt M 00Q ON to U U � d rn N Cd ON U Q It -� Q C71%& °U i Q n U °` N C w U C\ O ni Q U �c a� U C/) 03 U a� Cd 0 W ri U GO „ 3 4 Q 0 a :3 oo U >N 03 v C5..a to 00 U Z `r' U ° �° W W a > a� x iA A U N O O � ON A 00 N N (14 O> O w N M d• t/) N MSI Cd CQ U r) •U U U •L~.i 'i. ir �� 'Lr U a Cd O O C� U U U U U U U U x z co w ZO O w w 42) 4111) w w W U U o 0 0 0 0 o O W o o U U U U U U U a Y ' o 0 0 0 0 0 =3a• >, >, >, >1 >, >% U, o cli 0X4 N U) T o o 041 :3 U 30 C/) ca on 0 bo Q co z 0 � V Q a C7 W x C/ X X X X X w w w w w M in C\ M I'D It ct 00 OO oo to �t Ch r- � \�o N It a N N 000 000 � \0 \0 \0 \0 � , O� N N O\ �O ¢ M U °i .sC N ¢ rn ai U U U UCIS ami Q � • > ai -w a � v U l ca C Ei � .� C7 Z o A O 000 Cf) Cn a� cz a; cz a i ¢ Q c � z z .° :0 � U U W �, ovn a1-4 Cd to ID .as a 0 cq CA O bczC c w 3 a ¢ cl CIS c .Cd - � AD HOC TASK FORCE ON THE COUNTY LIBRARY REVISED' MEETING DATES 1995 LOCATION: Library Administrative Headquarters 75 Santa Barbara Road, Pleasant Hill, CA TIME: 4:00 P.M. - 5:30 P.M. DATES: June 12, 1994 General presentations on resource allocation, governance, funding, and partnerships current and potential models June 26, 1995 Presentation by County Counsel and Santa Clara County July 10, 1995 Presentation and discussion on resource allocation and governance models July 24, 1995 Presentation and discussion on funding and partnership models August 14, 1995 Discussion on development of combined model August 28, 1995 Development of Task Force recommendations September 11, 1995 Review of first draft of Task Force Report September 25, 1995 Finalize Task Force Report to Board of Supervisors, City/County Relations Committee, Mayors Conference October 5, 1995 Transmittal of report to Mayors Conference at City/County Relations Committee Workshop and Board of Supervisors October 9, 1995 Review of feedback on report from Mayors Conference at City/County Relations Workshop October 10, 1995 Presentation of Task Force report at Board of Supervisors October 23, 1995 Review of feedback on report from Board of Supervisors November 2, 1995 Presentation of Task Force report at Mayors Coriference iAahtf\95revdt.mtg