To: Winnefox Library System Trustees
From: Mark W. Arend, Interim Assistant Direcctor
Re: Legislative activity—Wisconsin Act 226 (formerly SB-273)
Date: 29 March 2006
This was one of a pair of bills based on recommendations that came out of the State Superintendent's Task Force on Public Library Legislation and Funding which met several years ago. Their recommendations were divided into two categories, non-controversial items that had broad general support and agreement and/or cleaned up inconsistencies in the statutory language (referred to as the “Language Bill”) and items on which there was less agreement or which might prove to be controversial (referred to as the “Reform Bill”). SB-273 was the “Language Bill”. The list below outlines the provisions of this law and their potential impact on Winnefox and its members.
Provision 1: A municipality may exempt itself from the
county library tax if it levies a tax for library services at a rate that is
equal to or greater than the county library tax rate. Formerly this included all monies raised by the county for library
purposes, including funding for library capital outlays. Municipalities, however, often fund major
library capital outlays through borrowing with repayment through a debt
retirement fund, a fund separate from the library fund. Therefore, the exemption test included
capital outlay funds (if any) on the county side but not always on the
municipal side. Where municipal library
funding rates are near county library funding rates, a sudden jump in the
county library rate due to capital outlays could have a dramatic impact on the
level required for municipal exemption.
The amount levied by a county for library capital expenditures is now excluded when determining whether a municipality is exempt from the county library levy.
Effect:
Municipalities in 3 counties,
Provision 2: Statute states that the library board must approve expenditures before they are paid. Common practice, however, is for a municipality to pay some bills without prior board approval. An example would be payroll, which is typically paid bi-weekly or semi-monthly. The law now allows the municipality to pay regular salary and other recurring payments (such as utilities) without prior board approval. The library board would have to audit and approve those payments at its next regular meeting.
Effect:
This change makes legal what many libraries are already doing. The language parallels language in
Provision 3: Former law allows a public library board to invest a gift or endowment as provided under the Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act. The revised law also allows a public board to invest such funds in the manner provided for surplus funds of a county, city, village, town, school district, or technical college district.
Effect: This gives boards an additional option for investment of gifts and endowments.
Provision 4: Libraries must provide service to any system resident at the same level as they do their local residents. Electronic resources are often priced according to population; if the vendor considers the entire system to be the library’s service population the price may be higher than a library could afford. The revised law allows a library to provide remote access to a library’s electronic database only to its residents.
Effect: By limiting online access to residents of its service area libraries may see a drop in the cost of online electronic resources.
Provision 5: To be a member of a library system municipalities & counties must support libraries at a level no less than the average of the past three years. Any amount spent for capital projects is now excluded from the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement.
Effect: This may lower the MOE figure for some member libraries. However, if AB-483 passes the MOE requirement will be eliminated and this section will have no effect.
Provision 6: Formerly, a county board was entitled to appoint one or two additional members to a municipal library board, depending upon the proportion of county funding to municipal funding the library receives. If county funding was equal to at least 1/6 of the municipal funding the county could appoint one board member, if equal to at least 1/3 the county could appoint two members.
Counties can now appoint up to five members to municipal library boards. The new figures would be:
1/6 to 1/3 of municipal expenditures: one member
1/3 to 1/2 of municipal expenditures: two members
1/2 to 2/3 of municipal expenditures: three members
2/3 to 100% of municipal expenditures: four members
county support equal to or greater than municipal: five members
This bill also provides that no more than one county supervisor could be appointed to a library board.
Effect:
Depending on the amount of county support they receive some member
libraries could have additional county representatives appointed to their
boards. Four Winnefox member counties (