BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 438
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
AB 438 (Williams) - As Amended: April 4, 2011
SUBJECT : County free libraries: withdrawal.
SUMMARY : Requires voter approval for the withdrawal of a
library district from the county free library system, if that
withdrawing entity will be operated by a private contractor.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires, if the board of trustees, common council, or other
legislative body of a city or the board of trustees of a
library district (hereafter referred to as "legislative body")
intends to operate the city's or the district's library or
libraries, with the help of a private contractor that will
employ library staff, the following to apply:
a) At least once a week for two consecutive weeks prior to
taking any action, the legislative body shall publish, in a
newspaper designated by it and circulated throughout the
city or library district, notice of the contemplated
action, giving the date and place of the meeting at which
the contemplated actin is proposed to be taken.
b) Upon approval of the intent to withdraw by the
legislative body, the question of the decision to withdraw
from the county free library system and to use a private
contractor that will employ library staff to operate the
city's library or libraries shall be submitted for voter
approval at a regularly scheduled election; and,
c) If a majority of voters approve the withdrawal, the
legislative body shall notify the county board of
supervisors of approval by the voters to withdraw from the
county free library system.
2)States that the notice to withdraw shall not be effective
until the succeeding year.
3)Requires, in both Los Angeles County and Riverside County, the
process of voter approval established above in 1) in the
situation that the legislative body intends to operate the
AB 438
Page 2
city's or the district's library or libraries itself with the
help of a private contractor that will employ library staff.
4)States that reimbursement to local agencies shall be made, if
the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act
contains costs mandated by the state.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows boards of supervisors to establish and maintain county
free libraries, within their respective counties.
2)Allows, after the establishment of a county free library, a
city or library district to be a part of the county free
library, and for the city or library district to be entitled
to the benefits of the county free library; the property
within the city or library district shall be liable to taxes
levied for county free library purposes.
3)Allows the board of trustees, common council, or other
legislative body of any city or the board of trustees of any
library district, on or before January 1st of any year, to
notify the board of supervisors that the city or library
district no longer desires to be a part of the county free
library system.
4)Requires the board of trustees, common council, or other
legislative body of any city or the board of trustees of any
library district to publish at least once a week for two
successive weeks' notice of the contemplated action, giving
the date and the place of the meeting at which the
contemplated action will be taken, prior to notifying the
board of supervisors of the withdrawal.
5)Specifies that the notice of withdrawal shall be given to
specified entities including the county assessor and the State
Board of Equalization.
6)Contains special provisions for withdrawal of a city or
library district from the county free library system in Los
Angeles County and Riverside County.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
AB 438
Page 3
1)The current process contained in the Education Code allowing
the establishment of municipal libraries and the county free
library system dates back to 1911 and was continued in a new
code section in 1977 (Ch. 1010, Statutes of 1976), when there
was a major reorganization of the Education Code. Existing
law allows a board of trustees, common council, or other
legislative body of any city or the board of trustees of any
library district (hereafter referred to as "legislative body")
to notify the county board of supervisors that the city or
library district wants to withdraw from the county's free
library system.
Before any legislative body can take action to withdraw, the
legislative body must follow specific noticing requirements
contained in Education Code 19106. This section of law
requires the legislative body to "publish at least once a week
for two successive weeks prior to Ýlegislative action], in a
newspaper designated by the legislative body, and circulating
throughout the city or library district, notice of the
contemplated action, giving the date and the place of the
meeting at which the contemplated action is proposed to be
taken."
Once the legislative body approves the withdrawal, the
legislative body must send a notice to the board of
supervisors who then works with the county assessor and the
State Board of Equalization to resolve taxation issues related
to the withdrawal from the county free library system.
2)SB 1998 (Mountjoy), Chapter 522, Statutes of 1996, and AB 927
(Thompson), Chapter 248, Statutes of 1997, established a
process for the withdrawal of cities from the Los Angeles
County free library system and the Riverside County free
library system. Both of these bills required those counties
to transfer to a city or library district the portion of
property tax proceeds attributable to that city or district
and also established provisions relating to the right of the
withdrawing entity to acquire county library facilities under
specified conditions.
3)This bill establishes a new process for a legislative body to
withdraw from the county free library system. The legislative
body, as is already current law in Education Code 19106, would
be required to meet noticing requirements (as specified in
AB 438
Page 4
Comment #1 above), and then once the withdrawal is approved by
the legislative body, the question of the decision to withdraw
from the county free library system and to use a private
contractor that would employ library staff would be posed to
voters. Upon approval by a majority of voters, the
legislative body would follow the noticing requirements under
existing law to inform the county board of supervisors.
While the noticing requirements in the bill are the same as
existing law, the major change in policy is the need to have
voter approval before a legislative body can proceed with
withdrawal from the county free library system. The voter
approval requirement would only apply in situations where the
legislative body wants to withdraw from the system and instead
use a private contractor that will employ library staff. This
bill is not intended to affect the ability of a municipality
to withdraw from the county free library system in order for
that municipality to run the library or libraries themselves.
4)The author argues that some public entities have opted to turn
the administration and operation of their libraries over to
private, for-profit companies, and in certain instances
taxpayers have opposed the idea but did not have adequate
ability to have their voices heard or to have their will as
taxpayers impact the decision of their elected officials.
Additionally, the author notes that experiences with private
library service providers in other states have shown
diminished library services and new fees on taxpayers.
The author asserts that the existing public noticing
requirements are not adequate for the contemplated withdrawal
from the county free library system and believes that a vote
of the people will trigger greater community input and
involvement that would occur under existing law, allowing
voices of residents to be heard.
5)The sponsor, the Ventura Readers' Book Group, states that this
bill will "require there to be a vote of the people, and
although it cannot command the city council to involve its own
community with this important decision, it does, by default
give the opportunity for the public to be involved." The
Ventura Readers' Book Group believes that this bill is "an
excellent compromise while at the same time does not create
any additional cost upon the community."
AB 438
Page 5
6)Service Employees International Union (SEIU), in support,
writes that "attaching a profit margin to library services
will inevitably result in new or increased fees to the public,
thus turning our "free" library system increasingly into a
system that only those who can afford the extra costs will be
able to benefit from the whole services of the library."
7)The League of California Cities, in opposition, states that
"city council members routinely make administrative decisions
on contracts, policies and fiscal decisions that are essential
to government functioning smoothly. Sometimes the decisions
must take place in an expedited manner so as to balance the
city's budget. Forcing a city to wait an extended period of
time, until the next regularly scheduled election, could
exacerbate an already bad fiscal situation for the city."
8)Library Systems & Services, LLC (LSSI), a private company that
currently provides library services in Riverside, Los Angeles,
Ventura and Shasta Counties, in opposition to this bill,
states that "as the recession has hammered the budgets of many
states and local governments across the nation, local elected
officials are forced to maintain services with fewer available
dollars?to do so, our local leaders must be able to exercise
the decision-making authority for which they were elected."
Additionally, LSSI writes about the importance of "maintaining
the authority for locally-elected officials to make decisions
with the threat of a costly election."
9)Supporters of the bill argue that there is a need for more
public involvement before a decision is made by a local
government to withdraw from the county free library system.
Current law in Education Code Section 19106 specifies that
there must be two weeks of notice before a decision is made by
the legislative body to withdraw.
The Committee may wish to consider whether increasing the
length of the notification period or enhancing notification
requirements may be a more appropriate remedy to the author
and sponsor's stated problems. Existing law allows the act of
a city to withdraw from the county free library system to be
referendable. The Committee may wish to consider if this bill
is needed because voters already have the right to overturn a
city's decision to withdraw.
10)While the goals of greater community involvement in local
AB 438
Page 6
decision-making are laudable, this bill may set a dangerous
precedent by allowing voters to exercise control over local
government contracts. These decisions, which are typically
viewed as administrative in nature, are the types of decisions
that local elected officials are elected by voters to make.
The Committee may wish to consider whether opening the door to
voter approval before a local government can contract out for
library services accomplishes the goal of increased
participation by local residents in the decisions of that
local community, or whether this may result in tying the hands
of municipalities.
11)Support arguments: Supporters argue that this bill provides
taxpayers a clear right to determine how library services will
be delivered in their communities by allowing them to vote on
the matter in a regularly scheduled election. Additionally,
public hearings and noticing requirements do not reach the
public en masse; rather, an election may bring greater
scrutiny and public involvement in decision-making about the
types of services that meet the needs of local communities.
Opposition arguments: Opposition states that municipalities
need to be free to make decisions that meet local needs,
without the burden of a mandated election. When voters elect
their representatives, they are vesting in those people the
authority to make decisions on their behalf. This bill may
set a bad precedent of giving voters control of decisions that
are currently made by elected officials, and may pave the way
for other bills that aim to stop local governments from
contracting out for other types of services.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Ventura Readers' Book Group ÝSPONSOR]
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO (AFSCME)
CA Labor Federation
Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy
Democratic Alliance for Action
Friends of Bell Foundation
AB 438
Page 7
Friends of the Hollydale Library
Laborers' International Union of North America Locals 777 and
792
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (if amended)
Santa Clarita Valley Fair Elections Committee
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Individual letters (2)
Opposition
CA Contract Cities Association
Cities of: Cerritos, Costa Mesa, Highland, Moorpark, Palmdale,
Placentia, Redding, and Vista
Friends of Redding Library
Friends of the Sun City Library
Friends of the Temecula Libraries
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
League of CA Cities
Library Systems & Services, LLC (LSSI)
Shasta Library Foundation
Individual letters (20)
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958