HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-21; City Council; 17049; Grant Application Institute Of Museum & LibraryCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# 17,049
MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES MTG. 1/21/03
TITLE:
APPLICATION FOR A GRANT FROM THE INSTITUTE OF
DEPT. Librarv
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. / authorizing the Carlsbad City Library to apply for a grant from
the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS).
2003-022
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The City of Carlsbad began to measure its performance in achieving desired outcomes in
1999. The City’s goal is to create and maintain a measurement system to identify the key
outcomes of City services, including the City’s library system.
Within the library profession a keen interest in outcome measurement has also developed.
At the Federal level, the Institute of Museum and Library Services has fostered research
through its National Leadership Grants for Libraries Program. The IMLS encourages strong
proposals for research in library science and for demonstration projects to test potential
solutions to problems.
This grant proposal from the City of Carlsbad will build upon previous research which is
noted in the grant proposal document attached as Exhibit 2.
In addition to the Carlsbad City Library, four other public libraries in San Diego County will
participate:
San Diego Public Library, San Diego County Library, San Diego County
Public Law Library, Chula Vista Public Library
The questions this project will attempt to answer are: What IS the value of the public
library? What performance measures should a library be collecting and communicating to
decision makers and other stakeholders?
The purpose of this project is to develop a process to create a balanced scorecard and
choose the most appropriate set of performance measures for each participating library.
The Director of the Carlsbad City Library will be the Project Administrator, and Joe
Mathews, Library Consultant, will be the Project Director.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The budget and anticipated award amount for this grant proposal is $342,625, and will be
disbursed from IMLS on a quarterly basis upon award. If the City is awarded the grant, the
project could begin as early as October 2003. No funds will be expended or encumbered
prior to the award. These funds will be used for supplies for each participating library, travel
for the Project director and the Project Administrator, and consultant fees for the Project
Director. No cash match is required. The match will be in-kind based on the staff hours
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,049
devoted to the project by the participating libraries. Those hours represent $1,018,142 of
in-kind contribution over the two- year life of the grant.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. /2003-:;iroving the application for a grant from the
Institute of Museum and Library Services.
2. Grant application packet for the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-022
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR A GRANT FROM
THE INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES.
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad desires to use outcome measures to measure its
performance; and
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad City Library desires to develop a balanced scorecard
approach to outcome measures to measure its performance; and
WHEREAS, the Institute of Museum and Library Services offers the opportunity to
financially support research for the development of outcome measures for public
libraries;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Library Director is .authorized to apply for a grant in the amount of
$342,625 from the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
3. That the City Manager or his designee is authorized to sign all necessary
documents.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad, California, at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of
January , 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ATTEST: I . /m R
M. WOOD, City Clerk
Face Sheet OMB NO. 3137-0035
CFDA No. 45.312
1. Applicant Organization
2. Institutional Mailing Address
Carlsbad City Library
1775 Dove Lane
3. City Carlsbad 4. State CA 5.2 Code 92&9-4048
6. Web Address <rcarlsbad./ligrarv. hu
7. Name of project Directalprtmfpal hst&torCI Mr. OMS. CdDr. 8. Business Phone of Project Director
Cliff Lanae 760 602-2010
9. Project Director MaUng Address
1775 Dove Lane
10. City 1 1. State 12. Zip Code
13. Fax Number of Project Dwtor 14. E-maU Address of Project Director
Carlsbad CA 92009-4048
760 602-7942 clange@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
15. Name and Title of Authodzing Omdd 16. Business Phone of Authorizing Official
17. sponsoring institution if applicable (e.g., munictpality, state, or university)
Frank Mannen, Asst City Manager 760 434-2823
@check if this entity will manage funds if an award is made. Name and address:
City of -bad 1635 Faraday Ave, Carlsbad CA 92008
18. Is the applicant organization university controlled? ayes a no
19. For museum applicants. Non-Federal operating budget for the most mntly completed flscai year $
22. Employer identification nwnber/tax ID number 95-6004793
27. Grant Period (Starting Date) 10 / 01 103 - 9 / 30 / 05 (Ending Date)
28. In the space below, Include names of any organizations that are &cia1 partners of the prqect. The Chula Vista Public Library
The San Diego County Public Law Library
The San Diego County Public Library
The San Diego Public Library
Proposal to Create a Library Scorecard
to Communicate the Value of the Public Library
Using Outcome-based Performance Measures
Submitted to
The Institute of Museum and Library Services for a
National Leadership Grants for Libraries Program
Research and Demonstration Grant
Submitted by
The Carlsbad City Library
In Partnership with:
The Chula Vista Public Library
The San Diego County Law Library
The San Diego County Library
The San Diego Public Library
January 15,2003
2
Abstract
Need: For the past several years, considerable attention has been focused on developing outcome-based measures of library services. Yet, despite all of these projects, fiustration persists among Public Library
Directors, Library Board members, members of City Councils and other library decision makers. What IS the value of the public library? What perlbmance measures should a library be collecting and
communicating to decision makers and other stakeholders?
The purpose of this project is to obtaii the reaction of decision makers about the utility of tbe Balanced Scorecard concept and to work with a number of libraries to develop a process to create the scorecard and
choose the most appropriate set of performance measures for each specific library. The development of a Library Scorecard continues the IMLS focus on outcome-based evaluation.
Project Objectives: The objectives of this pject are to:
0 Assess the resources required for a library to create and implement a Library Scorecard
0 Discover some of the reasons why some citizens do not use the library
0 Determine if there are unique problems that occur as the size of the library increases during the
0 Assess the utility of the Library Scorecard for the library director and other members of the library
0 Assess the utility of the Library Scorecard from the perspective of the library's stakeholders
0 Create a workbook that would document the process to create, implement and maintain a Library
process to create a Library Scorecard
management team as they seek to communicate the value of the public library
(library decision makers, Iibrary patrons, and other interested individuals)
Scorecard that can be shared with other libraries.
Project Activities: The activities of the project will include:
0 Working with staff of each library to develop a Library Scorecard that reflects the vision and
0 Share a draft of the Library Scorecard with library stakeholders to obtain their reactions and fine-
0 Monitor the value and utility of the Library Scorecard during its &st year of use.
0 Survey library directors, library staff members and stakeholders of the utility of the Library Scorecard. The survey will be complemented by a series of interviews with library decision
makers.
0 Produce a Developing a Library Scorecard Workbook that will document a recommended process
to create a Library Scorecard.
strategies of the library.
tune the scorecard.
Project Leaders: Dr. Cliff Lange, Director of the Carlsbad City Library, will be the Project Manager and handle administrative oversight of the project. Joe Matthews, Project Director, will be responsible fbr assisting each library in developing their own Library Scorecard as well as producing the planned
workbook pertaining to the development of a Library Scorecard.
Anticipated Res- It is anticipated that library stakeholders will have a better sense of the direction and
accomplishments of the public library and will welcome the use of the Library Scorecard. Evaluation:
Surveys will be conducted of library staff and stakeholders to determine their views of the value of a
Library Scorecard. Dissemination. Project inhrmation will be disseminated primarily througb the production of the Developing a Library Scorecard Wurkbook This workbook will provide a recommended
process for my library to develop a Library Scorecard as well as document any lessons Iearned as a result of this project. It is anticipated that this workbook will be made available for downloading fiom a Web site as well as published so that it can be distributed widely. It is also anticipated that some of the library
directors and the consultant will prepare papers for submittal to library and information science journals and speak at library conferences about the utility of a Library Scorecd. Sustainability. Ultimately, the
interest in and the adoption of a Library Scorecard will indicate the sustainability of this proposed project.
4
Libraries have traditionally collected and reported a plethora of perhance measures, typically input,
process and output measures, to their local jurisdictions and to state library’s. During the last few years, several projects have been hnded to explore the possibifities of identifying the outcomes that arise fiom the
use of a public library.
Glen Holt, Director of the St. Louis Public Library received hnding to assess the financial benefits fkom use of a public library. Four methodologies were used with the results suggesting that the financial benefits
when compared to the library’s budget ranged ftom $4 to $10 - in other words, the benefit-to-cost ration
was 4: 1 to I0:l. The approach taken in St. Louis requires a large sample size and a telephone survey to
identify some of the benefits, which most libraries are not able to replicate due to the high costs to obtain the information molt et al, 1999; Holt 1998; Holt 1997; Holt et al, 1996).
Charles McClure and John Carlo Bertot (1998) conducted a hge, statewide study that identified the uses,
benefits and impacts of public libraries in Pennsylvania. Their study found that there were direct and indirect economic benefits that arise fiom the use of a public library but the researchers wete unable to
provide an estimated return on investment.
The Bibliographic Center for Research in Denver, Colorado, in cooperation with others, received an IMLS grant to develop new tools for outcomabased evaluation of public libraries (this is the Counting on Results (COR) project). The intent of the COR project was to build upon the Public Library Association’s Planning
for Results model, which identified thirteen possible service responses, e.g., Basic Literacy, Business and Career information, Library as Place (Commons), General Information, Information Literacy and Local
History and Genedogy, that a public library could choose to provide. A short postcard survey was used to
obtain inhation about what public library services people used and why.
The COR project identified the reasons why a library patron visits the library. However, the results of the
COR project must still be interpreted so that a decision maker will understand the significance of the
information. Even then, knowing that about 314th~ of people are seeking materials to read for pleasure or
that about half of the library patrons learned more about a skill, hobby or other personal interest does not really communicate the value of the library (Lance et al, 2002; Steffen et al, 2002~ Ste&n et al, 2002b).
To the north of the US, a study investigated the role of public libraries in society end resulted in a report titled Dividendr: The Value of Public Libraries in Canada. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate
that public libraries have a positive economic and social impact on the community and nation using output measures (Fitch and Warner, 1998). Using a series of statistics and output measures, the report was designed to demonstrate the value of public libraries to the economic aud social fabric of local communities
and to Canada as a whole.
At the same time, a manual was prepared for the public libraries in the province of Ontario tht identified
measures of social and economic benefits of the library are most useful as a part of a larger strategy that
includes ongoing demonstrations of community support fix the library (IER Planning, Research and Management Services, 1998). Tbe manual suggested that there are six categories of social/personaI and economic impacts of a public library revolving around 21 benefit measures (some of which are similar to
ALA’S Planning for Results service responses).
In England, a study examined book borrowing and infbrmation seeking in an attempt to identify how public libraries contribute to social inclusion (Morris, 2000; Hawkins et al, 2001). Similar to the approach used at
the St. Louis Public Library, this study asked patrons to estimate the price they would be willing to pay to
buy the books, CDs or other materials they borrowed or used. Interestingly, most patrons were only willing
to pay about $1 per item.
In Florida, a major study was conducted to determine the economic impacts and benefits &om taxpayer
investment in public libraries. Benefits were divided into two groups: direct (e.g., borrowing of materials,
using financial publications to better manage an individual’s assets) and indirect (e.g., enhance professional
skills, learn to use a computer and the Internet). The survey revealed that patrons believe that libraries contribute to their fmancial well-being, provide economic benefits to local businesses, and support
5
community development. In short, it is a difficult task to measure economic benefits individually but
possible to prepare reasonable estimates in aggregate - although this was not done so in this study
(McClure et al, 2000).
Yet, despite all of these projects, hstration persists among Public Library Directors, Library Board
members, members of City Councils and Board of Supervisors all across the United States. What IS the value of the public library? What performance measures should a library be collecting and reporting? And
how can this information be best communicated to decision makers and other stakeholders?
Project Design
The purpose of this project is to build upon the results of the above projects and develop M approach to effectively communicate the value of a public library that will be easy for public libraries of all sizes to use.
Most importantly, this approach must be one that will be recognized by library board members, City Councils, and other over-sight boards as effectively communicating the value of the public library.
When collecting evidence about the value of the library to the community and its impact on people’s lives,
there are four primary roles that can be examined and reported:
Traditionolfinctions - reading and literacy, information provision and leisure reading, education
Social and caring roles -- including personal development, community empowerment and
&uig between groups and communities as well as equity of access
Economic impuct -- including business and employment information, training opportunities and
learning, local image and social cohesion
tourism information.
The various approaches to identify the value of a public library can be summarized in Figure 1. These approaches can be divided into two broad groups: economic and social. Each of these groups can then be
fi\rther subdivided.
Participating Libraries
As shown in Table 1, the libraries that will be participating in this project range &om Sily mal1 to large, multi-bmch Urban public libraries.
A Single Measure
Some have suggested that a single mdicator would be the best way to communicate the value of a library. Among the approaches that have been taken are:
HeMen’s American Public Library ratings. This composite index uses a combination of six input
measures and nine output measures to create the index to rank libraries nationally by population
groups (Hennen, 2002).
e In the early 1980’s, Daniel O’Connor developed a Library Quotient with the purpose of making it possible to make an equitable comparison of all libraries fix evaluation and planning purposes.
However, the Library Quotient never caught on for a variety of reasons (O’Connor, 1982).
0 The Association of Research Libraries is creating an index dled LibQUAL+ that is being tested by a number of large academic libraries. Adapted &om a measure of customer satisfsction developed for the retail industry called SERVQUAL, the LibQUAL+ measure uses a customer
survey to assess a variety of factors including facilities, service quality, collection strength and so
forth. None of these kctors however focus on the outcomes of the library’s customers.
6
Figure 1 Public Library Valuation Techniques
Val a Contingent valuation - ” “close the libmy-
4.
‘‘value of time”
Chil(hll8tSadents
Lifelong learning
Access & technology
I I
Literacy I
Proposal to Create a Library Scorecard
to Communicate the Value of the Public Library
Using Outcome-based Performance Measures
submitted to
The Institute of Museum and Library Services for a
National Leadership Grants for Libraries Program
Research and Demowhation Grant
Submitted by
The Carlsbad City 'Library
In Partnership with:
The Chula Vista Public Library
The San Diego County Law Library
The San Diego County Library
The San Diego Public Library
January 15,2003
2
Abstract
Need: For the past several years, considerable attention bas been focused on developing outcome-based measures of library services. Yet, despite all of these projects, frustration persists among Public Library
Directors, Library Board members, members of City Councils and other library decision makers, What IS
the value of the public library? What performance measures should a library be collecting and
communicating to decision makers and other stakeholders?
The purpose of this project is to obtain the reaction of decision makers about the utility of the Balanced
Scorecard concept and to work with a number of libraries to develop a process to create the scorecard and choose the most appropriate set of performance measures fm each specific library. The development of a
Library Scorecard continues the Ih4LS hcus on outcome-based evqluation.
Project Objectives: The objectives of this project are to:
Assess the resources required for a library to create and implement a Library Scorecard
0 Discover some of the reasons why some citizens do not use the library
e Determine if there are unique problems that occur as the size of the library increases during the
e Assess the utility of the Library Scorecard for the library director and other members of the library
Assess the utility of the Library Scorecard from the perspective of the library’s stakeholders
e Create a workbook that would document the. process to create, implement and maintain a Librsry
process to create a Library Scorecard
management team as they seek to communicate the value of the pubfk library
(library decision makers, library patrons, and other interested individuals)
Scorecard that can be shared with other libraries.
Project Activities: The activities of the project will include:
0 Working with staff of each library to develop a Library Scorecard that reflects the vision and
0 Share a draft of the Library Scorecard with library stakeholders to obtain their reactions and fine-
0 Monitor the value and utility of the Library Scorecard during its first year of use.
e Survey library directors, library staff members and stakeholders of the utility of the Library
Scorecard. The survey will be complemented by a series of intertriews with library decision
makers.
Produce a Developing a Library Scorecard Workbook that will document a recommended proms to create a Library Scorecard.
strategies of the library.
tune the scorecard.
Project Leaders: Dr. Cliff Lange, Director of the Carlsbad City Library, will be the Project Manager and
handle administrative oversight of the project. Joe Mattbews, Project Director, will be responsible fix assisting each library in developing their own Library Scorecard as we11 as producing the planned
workbook pertaining to the development of a Library Scorecard.
Anticipated ResnlQ: It is anticipated that library stakeholders will have a better sense of the direction and
accomplishments of the public library and will welcome the use of the Library Scorecard. Evaluation: Surveys will be conducted of library staff and stakeholders to determine their views of the value of a Library Scorecard. Dissemlnation. Project inhrmation will be disseminated primarily through the production of the Developing a Library Scorecard Workbook This workbook will provide a recommended
process for any library to develop a Library Scorecard as well as document any lessons learned as a result of this project. It is anticipated that this workbook will be made available for downloading from a Web site
as welt as published so that it can be distributed widely. It is also anticipated that some of the library
directors and the consultant will prepare papers for submittal to library and information science journals and speak at library conferences about the utility of a Library Scorecard. Sustainability. Ultimately, the
interest in and the adoption of a Library Scorecard will indicate the sustainability of this proposed project.
3
Introduetioa
I
Librarians, managers, library boards, and city council's have always found it difficult to assess what are the
tangible and intangible benefits that arise f?om a public library but the pressure is on to do so.
When a public library is established it is provided with a set of resources. Those resources are organized,
directed and transformed into a set of capabilities to provide a range of services. These capabilities are
then utilized. And once utilized, the service provided has the potential for a positive, beneficial impact or
effect on the individuai and/or society. Feedback can and often is employed by the library to make adjustments in service offerings. For example, service levels may decline as utilization increases; feedback
can be used to make adjustments by increasing resources so that service levels are improved. The feedback
is ficilitated through the use of petformance measures.
A General Evaluation Model
Resources ,-, Capability -+ Utilization + Impact or Effect
Input
Measures
ProceSS output
Measures Measures outcomes Outcomes for the for
Individual Society
The inptrt measures associated with the resources or inputs that have been allocated to the library. These
input measures are also the easiest to quanti@ and gather. Lllrmrians will often speak of their annual budget, number of professional stae size of the collection and so fbrth.
Process measures are focused on the activities that transhrm resources into services offered by the library and as such are internally directed. Process measures are reflected in an analysis that will quantify the cost
or time to perform a specific task or activity. Process measures are uitimately about efficiency which answers the question "Are we doing thirtgs right?"
Ovtput measures are used to indicate &e degree to which the library and its services are being utilized (Childers and Van House, 1993; Van House et al, 1987). More often than not, output measures are simply munts to indicate volume of activity. For example, annual circulation, number of people entering the library, number of reference questions answered and so %rth are all output measures. Historicatly, use of output measures was regarded as measures of goodness - after all, the library's collection and its services
were being used, often intensively so! Therefore, the public library was doing "good."
Outcome measures indicate the impact or effects of the library and its infbrmation servicds on the
individual. The outcomes on the individuals then have a cumulative impact on society itself. Outcome measures are the most difficult to assess.
Outcomes ultimately address the issue of effectiveness. And effkctiveness answers the question: Are we doing the righr things?" Outcome measures center on the impact of the library on the individual and
indirectly on society itself.
The transition fiom input-oriented to output and outcome-based performance measures have occurred over
a relatively long period of time as demonstrated by a whole series of publications which documented the work of a number of Public Library Association committees (see Palmour et al, 1980; McClure et al, 1987; Zweizig et al, 1996; Himmel and Wilson, 1998; and Nelson, 2001). These publications and workshops at professional library conferences helped raise the awareness of librarians of the need to collect and analyze a
wide range of performance measures.
4
Libraries have traditionally collected and reported a plethora of perfonnance measures, typically input, process and output measures, to their local jurisdictions and to state library’s. During the last few years,
several projects have been funded to explore the possibilities of identifying the outcomes that arise from the
use of a public library.
Glen Holt, Director of the St. Louis Public Library received funding to assess the financial benefits from
use of a public library. Four methodologies were used with the resuIts suggesting that the financial beneflts
when compared to the library’s budget ranged fiom $4 to $10 - in other words, the benefit-to-cost ration
was 4:l to 1O:l. The approach taken in St. Louis requires a large sample size and a telephone survey to identify some of the benefits, which most libraries are not able to replicate due to the high costs to obtain
the mforrnation (Holt et aI, 1999; Holt 1998; Holt 1997; Holt et al, 1996).
Charles MKlure and John Carlo Bert& (1998) conducted a large, statewide study that identified the uses,
benefits and impacts of public libraries in Pennsylvania. Their study found that there were direct and
indirect economic benefits that arise from the use of a public library but the researchers were unable to provide an estimated return on investment.
The Bibliogaphic Center fbt Research in Denver, Cotorado, in cooperatian with den, received an IMLS grant to develop new tools for outcomebased evaluation of public libraries (this is the Counting on Results (COR) project). The intent of the COR project was to build upon the Public Library Association’s Planning for Results model, which identified thirteen possible service responses, e.g., Basic Literacy, Business and Career Information, Library as Place (Commons), GeneraI znformation, fnformation Literacy and Local
History and Genealogy, that a public library could choose to provide. A short postcard survey was used to
obtam information about what public library services people used and why.
The COR project identified the reasons why a library patron visits the iibraty. However, the results of the COR project must still be mterpreted so that a decision maker will understand the significance of the
information. Even then, knowing that about 314th~ of people are seeking matexiab to read @r pleasure or
that about half of the library patrons learned more about a skill, hobby or other pd interest does not really communicate the value of the library (Lance et al, 2002; St&n et aI, 2002% Sbffen et ai, 2002b).
To the north of the US, a study investigated the role of public libraries in society and resulted in a report
titled Dividenh: The Vahe of Public Libraries in Canada. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate
that public libraries have a positive economic and social impact on the community and nation using output measures pitch and Warner, 1998). Using a series of statistics and output measures, the report was
designed to demonstrate the value of public libraries to the economic and social fabric of local communities and to Canada as a whole.
At the same time, a manual was prepared for the pubfic libraries in the province of Ontario that identified
measures of social and economic benefit8 of the library are most usefid as a part of a larger strategy that
includes ongoing demonstrations of commdty support for the library (IER Planning, Research and Management Services, 1998). The manual suggested that there are six categories of sociaYpersonal and economic impacts of a public library revolving around 21 benefit measures (some of which are similar to
ALA’S Planning for Results service responses).
In England, a study examined Wk borrowing and infirmation seeking in an attempt to identify how public libraries contribute to social inclusion (Morris 2000; Hawkins et al, 2001). Similar to the approach used at
the St. Louis Public Library, this study asked patrons to estimate the price they would be willing p pay to buy the books, CDs or other materials they borrowed or used. Interestingly, most patrons were only willing
to pay about $1 per item.
In Florida, a major study was conducted to determine the economic impacts and benefits fiom taxpayer
investment in public libraries. Benefits were divided into two groups: direct (e.g., borrowing of materials, using financial publications to better manage an individual’s assets) and indirect (e.g., enhance professional skills, learn to use a computer and the Internet). The survey revealed that patrons believe that libraries
contribute to their financial well-being, provide economic benefits to local businesses, and support
5
community deveiopment. In short, it is B diEcuIt task to measure economic benefits individuaIIy but
possible to prepare reasonable estimates in aggregate - although this was not done so in this study
(McClure et al, 2000).
Yet, despite all of these projects, hstration persists among Public Library Directors, Library Board
members, members of City Councils and Board of Supervisors all wms the United States. What IS the value of the public library? What performance measures should a library be collecting and reporting? And
how can this information be best communicated to decision makers and other stakehoiders?
Project Design
The purpose of this project is to build upon the results of the above projects and develop an approach to effectively communicate the value of a public library that will be easy for public libraries of all sizes to use.
Most importantly, this approach must be one that will be recognized by library board members, City Councils, and other over-sight boards as efhctively communicating the value of the public library.
When collecting evidence about the value of the library to the community and its impact on people’s lives,
there are bur primary rob that can be examined and reported:
Traditionalfirnctions -- reading and literacy, inhmation provision and leisure reading, education
0 Social andcaring roles -- including personal development, community empowerment and
0 Equiry between groups and communities as wall as equity of access
0 Economic impact -- including business and employment information. training opportunities and
learning, local image and social cohesion
tourism infwmation.
The various approaches to identify the value of a pubtic librnvy can be summarized in Figure I. These approaches can be divided into two had groups: economic and social. Each of these groups can then be
hrther subdivided.
Participating Libraries
As shown in Table 1, the libraries that will be participating in this project range fkom hirly small to large, multi-branch urban public libraries.
A Single Measure
Some have suggested that a single indicator would be the best way to communicate the value of a library. Among the approaches th8t have been taken are:
Hennen’s American Public Library ratings. This composite index uses a combination of six input
measures and nine output measures to meate the index to tank libraries nationally by popuIation
groups (Hennen, 2002).
e In the early 1980’s, Daniel O’Connor developed a Library Quotient with the purpose of making it
possible to make an equitable comparison of all libraries fbr evaluation and planning purposes. However, the Library Quotient never caught m for a variety of reasons (O’Connor, 1982).
The Association of Research Libraries is creating an index called LibQUAL+ that is being tested
by a number of large academic libraries. Adapted hm a measure of customer satisfaction
developed for the retail industry called SERVQUAL, the LibQUAL-t measure uses a customer
survey to assess a variety of &ctors including facilities, service quality, collection strength and so forth. None of these fitctors however focus on the outcomes of the library’s customers.
6
Figure 1 Public Library Valuation Techniques
1
r -T
b 111
I
10
The Balanced Scorecard
One approach to communicating value and performance that has taken on an increasingly important role in
both profit, no-profit and governmental agencies is the use of the Balanced Scorecard.
The scorecard approach is based on answering four basic questions:
* How do customers see the public library? * What must the library excei at? (Internal perspective) * Can the library continue to improve and create value? (Ennovation and learning perspective) * How does the public library look to stakeholders? (Financial perspective)
Answering these questions together lets you see "whether improvements in one area may have been achieved at the expense of another". Using this approach means that you can consider disparate elements of
the competitive agenda such as becoming more customer orientated, shortening response times, improving
collection quality, emphasizing teamwork, and developing new services together.
Viewing a variety of performance indicators that are focused on the four perspectives allows management
to take a broader perspective. The library does not just pursue circulation, or customer satisfaction or expenditure on fiction in isolation. Rather, the scorecard provides the vehicle to allow the management
team and library staff members to see how their actions are reflected in the performance indicators (Birch,
2000; Brown, 2000; Kaplan and Norton, 2001; Kaplan and Norton, 1996; Kapfan and Norton, 1994;
Kaplan and Norton, 1993; Kaplan and Norton, 1992).
+ Customer Perspective
-7"
Innovation Perspective
The Original Balanced Scorecard
The idea behind the scorecard is to formulate targets in each of the four areas (3-5 measures in each) and to
design a measure(s) for each "goal".
Customer perspective (users) Customer concerns tend to fall into four categories: time, quality, performance and service, and cost. A
variety of customer-focused measures can be employed, including customer satisfaction (although use of customer satisfixtion surveys must be used cautiously in a library setting due to their positively skewed
results).
11
Internal perspective Managers need to focus on these critical internal operations that enable them to meet satisfy customer
needs. This part of the scorecard looks at the processes and competencies a public library must excel. For
example, technological capability, introduction of new ideas, monitorin@evaluation mechanisms might be
addressed.
Innovation mrd learning perspective This looks at the library's ability to grow, learn, develop and introduce new services.
It fbcuses on measures such as introduction of new services, infrastructure and the skills of library staff members.
Financial perspective
In the non-profit, governmental arena of a public library, financial measures such as profitability are not
relevant. But the library can, and must, demonstrate that it makes effective use of the fimding that is
provided.
The assumption is that the innovative perspective (dealing with inbtructure and the quality of staff) wilt
create a more efficient operation (internal prspective). The wm bination of staff, inhtructure and internal operations will lead to products and services that will be more appealing to customers. The customers are then going to purchase more products and services leading to better financial resutts
@nuncia1 perspective).
Since tradiional measurement systems sprung hm the finance function, the performance measurement systems have a control bias. That is, traditional pdormance measurement systems specify the particular
actions they want employees to take and then measure to see whether the employees have in fact taken
those actions. In that way, the systems try to control behavior.
The Balanced Scorecard, on the other hand puts stmtegy and vision, not control, at the center. It establishes goals but assumes that people wilt adopt whatever behavior and take whatever actions are necessary to help
acbieve those goals.
The Balanced Scorecard provides a usefiil framework that provides the focal point when a library is trying
to draw up performance measures for the library. The system is based on the understanding that no single
measure can focus attention on critical areas of the service.
A group of German public libraries are involved in a project to develop The Library Index. The approach
being taken is a variation of a library scorecard in that it combines 15 performance indicators into a single
library index &lug, 2000). These fifteen indicators are grouped into four categories or perspectives:
Collection sizdpopulation
Total square W1,OOO pop.
Renewals (% of circ.)
Sta@l,OOO pop.
Number of visits Circulation/pop.
Collection turnover rate Hour's open
Collection budget/circ. Absenteeism rate # Staff hourdopen hour Further education rate
Visitdsq. foot Fluctuation rate (3 year avg.) Total budgethisit (gate count)
12
A Library Scorecard
Rather than using the original Balanced Scorecard with its four perspectives that were created for for-profit
firms, a revised Balanced Scorecard may be more appropriate for public libraries, which exist in the governmental arena. In addition to a re-organized structure, the Library Balanced Scorecard introduces an
additional perspective - i$ormation resources. These information resources are comprised of the library’s physical collection, the access to electronic databases subscribed to by the library, as well as obtaining resources from other sources, such as libraries through interlibrary Ioan and/or a document delivery service.
Customer Perspective
t
Innovative Perspective
Financial Perspective
The Library Scorecard
Under this model, the library is provided with funding. The funds allow the library to hire and train staff,
provide ficilities and infrastructure, and add to its collection of information resources (including physical
items in the library’s collection as well as electronic resources). Staff provides services in an efficient manner. The customer uses the library’s information resources and derives some benefits.
The choice of performance measures to be used by a library will be determined by the strategies chosen by
the library in terms of what services to provide to its customers. Thus, even though a number of libraries
could be using the Library Scorecard as a vehicle to communicate with its decision makers abut the wlue
of the library, the specific performance measures included in each balanced scorecard would likely differ and could range from input, output to outcome-based measures.
The purpose of this project is to obtain the reaction of decision makers about the utility of the Balanced Scorecard concept and to work with a number of libraries to develop a process to create the scorecard and
choose the most appropriate set of measures for each specific library. The Library Scorecard continues the
IMLS focus on outcome-based evaluation. Each of the participating libraries will determine what mix of
performance measures will best reff ect the actual performance and impact of the library in their community.
Project Objectives
The objectives of this project are to:
Assess the resources required for a library to create and implement a Library Scorecard
Learn more about the reasons why some citizens never use the public library
Determine if there are unique problems that occur as the size of the library increases during the
Assess the utility of the Library Scorecard for the library director and other members of the library
Assess the utility of the Library Scorecard &om the perspective of the library’s stakeholders
0 Create a workbook that would document the process to create, impIement and maintain a Library
process to create R Library Scorecard
management team as they seek to communicate fhe value of the public library
(library decision makers, library patrons, and other interested individuals)
Scorecard that can be shared with other libraries
13
Ea& activity would be compieted at each library and would require the cooperation and assistance of each
library. A Library Scorecard team would be created at each library composed of 6-8 staff members. The consultant would act as a resource person and meeting facilitator as each team works to develop their
library's scorecard.
Goal 1:
Activity 1:
Activity 2:
Activity 3:
Activity 4:
Activity 5:
Activity 6:
Activity 7:
Activity 8:
Create a Library Scorecard
Introduction to the concept of a Balanced Scorecard
A 1-day workshop to introduce and review the Balanced Scorecard and &e process used
to create a scorecard
Identify the strategies used by the library
A 2 day workshop that would use the library's Mission Statement and Vision Statement, to identify the strategies being used by the Iibrary as well as identi@ the critical success
factors for each strategy.
Identify the cause-and-effect relationships of the critical success factors for each strategy.
A 2-day workshop to identify the cause-and-effect relationships of the critical success
factors fw each strategy.
Develop a list of performance measures
A 2-day workshop to identify a list of possible measures for each strategy that potentially
would be used far one of the perspectives in the Library Scorecsrd. These perfonnance measures would include input, process, output and outcome measures, including those developed by the Counting on Results project.
Lkcide on a finat list of performance measures
A 2day workshop to decide on a fi~l list of performance measures. Criteria that would
be used to judge the utility of 8 possible performance measures might include: a leading or lagging indicator? An input, process, output and outcome measure? Is it collected
now? Can data €or the measure be easily gathered?
Develop a series of cascading Library Scorecards (for larger libraries)
Larger libraries may want to deveIop a series of Library Scorecards for their branches
and/or other units. This would entail a 2-day workshop.
Decide on targets
A 2-day workshop to decide on targets (goals for improvement) for each measure. The library may also decide to implement a specific action plan in order to achieve the goals.
Share lhe drafi of the Library Scorecard with stakeholders
Sharing the Library Scorecard with library decision makers (Library Boards, City
Councils, City Manager, Board of Supervisors), employees and citizens to obtain their
reactions. Once the reactions have been obtained, it wiII be necessary to incorporate any concerns in a final revision of the Library Scorecard. A 2 day workshop to incorporate
any concerns may be needed.
14
Activity 9: Decide on a format fbr sharing the Library Scorecard
The Library Scorecard will need to be presented to a wide range of individuals and
stakeholders. Presenting the mecard in a brochure or small report are options that will need to be finalized. Typically the data for the performance indicators are gathered on a
quarterly basis and shared. A lday meeting.
Activity 10: Monitor the process
Identify any problems that may occur, as the Library Scorecard is prepared in each library over a 1 year time period. A quarterly review meeting with ail Library Directors participating m the project is planned. The consultant would meet with each participating
library up to 5 days each quarter (after the first 6 months).
Goal 2:
Goal 3:
GOPI I:
Goal 5
Goal 6
In order to better understand why some people do not visit and use the setvices of a public library, a telephone survey of some 1,500 San Diego county residents (who do not have a
library card) will be conduced. The intent of the survey is to determine what these peopIe do
to meet their information needs. Using the information obtained as a result of the survey, the libraries will be able to better fiishion a set of strategies to provide library services that would appeal to this group of people.
Determine if larger libraries confiont any unique problems when developing their Library
Scorecard. If any special problems are encountered, they will be identified and documented
in the planned workbook.
Query each library director and other Library Scorecard team members of their observations
concerning the strengths and limitations of the scorecard approach. Their observations wilf be noted and included in the workbook. Two surveys will be conducted.
Assess the utility of the Library Scorecard from stakeholders. A series of interviews would be conducted with library board members, city managers, members of City Councils add the Board of Supervisors. In addition, a survey would be sent to other stakeholders to obtain their
reactions. The results of the interviews and survey would be included in the planned
workbook.
Produce the Developing a Library Scorecard Workbook.
Management Plan
Staff of Carlsbad City Library and the City of Carlsbad Finance Department will handle the disbursement
of funds and the administrative procedures related to accounting mechanisms.
Dr. Cliff Lange, Director of the Carlsbad City Library, will handle administrative oversight of the project.
Joe Matthews, Project Director, will be responsible fbr assisting each library to dmlop their own Library Scorecard, preparation of the interim (every 6 months) reports and the project final report as well as producing the planned workbook pertaining to the development of a Libtary Scorecard.
Budget
The largest portion of the budget is for the consultant and compensates each of the participating iibraries
for some of the direct costs that they will incur when conducting surveys of users. Details regarding
allocation of personnel time and other expenses are provided in the budget notes.
Each of the participating libraries will contribute the salaries for those involved in the process to develop
the Library Scorecard, meeting rooms, etc. These contributions represent 69% of the project budget.
15
Personnel
Dr. Cliff Lange, Director of the Carlsbad City Librq, will serve as Project Administrator. Dr. Lange
received his PhD fiom the University of Wisconsin - Madison. In addition to being a library director, Dr.
Lange has served as a State Librarian, worked as a librarian in a variety of positions, and tau@ in a library
SChWl.
Joe Matthews, Project Director, is an experienced consultant and is knowledgeable about performance
measures. He recently completed a book about performance measurement and the potential use ofthe
Balanced Scorecard in libraries that was recently published (The Bottom Line, 2002).
His consulting company was one of four organizations that received major hding, sponsored by the
Council on Library Resources, for a major research project concerning the use of online catalogs.
Joe is &I active member of the Special Library Association, the American Library Association and the
American Society of Infbrmation Science and Technology. Joe has written several books and numerous
articles pertaining to libraries, pertbrmance measurement, library automation and information retrieval. He
holds an MBA degree &om the University of California, Me. He is an adjunct faculty member at San Jose State University’s School of Library and Information Science.
Resumes for Dr. Laage and Mr. Matthews have been appended to this proposal.
Project Evaluation
The project evaluation will be a continuous in that the participating library directors and other staff
members will be asked to critique the process of developing a Library Scorecard at each step in the process. Their comments and observations will be documented and included in the DeveZoping u Library Scorecard Workbook as it is being written.
Near the end of the project, library decision makers (members of library boards, City Councils, Board of supervisots) will be asked to complete a brief survey dig their views of the utility of the Library
Scorecard. In addition, a series of interviews will be conducted with library decision makers to better understand their views and concerns about an effective way to communicate the value of the public library and the utility of the Library Scorecard.
Dissemination
Project information will be disseminated primarily through the production of the Developing a Librury Scorecard Workbook This workbook will provide a recommended process for any library to develop a
Library Scorecard. The workbook will also document any lessons learned as a result of this project. It is anticipated that this workbook wifl be made available on a Web site so that it can be downloaded as well as published so that it can be distributed widety.
Several articles will be submitted to library and infirmation science journals for publication including a
major library publication (Library Journal, American Libraries, etc.).
It is likely that one or more of the library directors and/or the consultant would be asked to make
presentations at both national and state library association conferences. Further, each library would prominently feature their Library Scorecard on their tibtary’s Web site. Press releases will be prepared to
inform the local newspapers about the avaitability of the Library Scorecard on the library’s Web site.
16
Sustainability
Ultimately, the success of the Library Scorecard will be determined by how quickly and how widespread
other public libraries adopt the use of the scorecard. The adoption rate will be influenced by the ready
availability of the Developing a Library Scorecard Workbook and the published articles describing the process to create a Library Scorecard.
17
Bibliography
Charles Buch. Future Success: A Balanced Apprmch to Measuring and Improving Success in Your Organization. New York: Pmtice-Hall, 2000.
Mark Graham Brown. Winning Score: How lo Design and Implement Organizational Scorecar&.
Portland, OR Productivity, 2000.
Thomas A. Childers and Nancy Van House. What Good? Describing Your Public Library’s Eflectiveness.
Chicago: American Library Association, 1993.
Lestie Fitch and Jody Warner. Dividends: The Vahe of Public Libraries in Canada The Bottom Line, 11
(4), 1998,158-179.
Margaret Hawkins, Anne Morris and John Sumison. Socio-Emnomia Features of UK Public Library
Users. The Bottom Line, 22 (6/7), 2001,258-265. .
Thomas J. Hennen Jr. Hennen’s American Public Library Ratings. 2002. Available at: http://www.haplr-
index.com. Accessed November 27,2002.
Ethel HimmeI and William James Wilson. Planning for Results: A Public Library Transfurmation
Process. Chicago: American Library Association, 1998.
Glen E. Holt, Donald Elliott, and Amonia Moore. Placing a value on public library services: at Saint Louis
Public Library. Public Libraries, 38 (2), MarIApr 1999,98-9. Also available at: http://www.slpI.lib.mo.usliidex.htm.
Glen E. HoIt. Roving your library‘s worth: a test case using St. Louis Public Library. Library Journal, 123
(18), November I 1998,424.
Glen E. Hoft. Economics - As Parents and Teachers See It: The Community Values of a Public Library.
The Bottom Line, 10 (l), 1997,26-39.
Glen E. HoIt, Donald Elliott, and Christopher Dussold. A Framework for Evaluating Pubfic Investment in
Urban Libraries. The Bottom Line, 9 (4), 1996,4- 13,
IER Planning, Research and Management Services. The Library’s Conhibution to Your Community: A Resource Manual for Libraries to Document Their Social and Economic Contribution to the Local
Community. Gloucester, Ontario: Southern Ontario Library Service, 1998.
Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton. Tke Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 200 1.
Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton. The Balanced Scorecard; Translating Stratem into Action. Boston:
Haward Business School Press, 1996.
Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton. Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy, CaZijhrnia
Managemeni Review, 39 (I), Fall 1996,53-77.
Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton. The Balanced Scorecard: Managing Future Performance Video.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1994.
Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton. Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work. Harvard Business
Review, SeptemberIOctober 1993,134-142.
18
Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton. The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, JanuaryFebruary 1992,71-79.
Petra Mug. BY( - The Library Index, or. Why Less Is Often More. Performance Meosarrement and
Metrics, 1(2), August 2000,129-134.
Keith Cuny Lance, Marcia J. Rodney, Nicolle 0. Steffen, Suzanne Kaller, Rochelle Logan, Ktistie M. Koontz, and Dean K. Jue. Counting on Results; New Tools for Outcome-Based Evaiuation of Public
Libraries. Aurora, CO: Bibliographic Center for Research, 2002.
Charles R. McClue, Bruce T. Fraser, Timothy W. Nelson, Jane W. Robbins. Economic Benefrts and
Zmpacufiom Public Libraries in Florida. Final Report. Tallahassee, m. Florida State University, School
of Information Studies, 2000.
Charles R. McCluxe and J. C. Bertot. Public Librury Use in Pennsylvania: Zdent@ing Uses, Benefls, and
Impacts. Final Report. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Education, Office of Commonwealth
Libraries, 1998. ERIC ED419548.
Charles R McCIure, Amy Owen, Douglas L. Zeizig, Mary Jo Lynch, and Nancy Van House. Planniw
and RoleSetting for Public Libraries: A Manual of Operations and Proceakres. Chicago: American
Library Association, 1987.
AM@ Manis, Margaret Hawkins and John Sumison. Economic Value of Public Libraries. London:
Resource (The Council fa Museums, Archives and Libraries), 2000.
Sandra Nelson. The New Pluming for Results: A Streamlined Process. Chicago: American Library Association, 200 1.
Sandra Nelson, E. Altman, and Diane Mayo. Managing for Results: Effective Resource Allocation fbr Public Libraries. Chicago: American Library Association, 2000.
Daniel 0. O’Connor. Evaluating Public Libraries Using Standard Scores: The Library Quotient. Library Research, 4,1982,s 1-70.
Vernon E. Palmour, Marcia C. Bellassai, and Nancy V. DeWath. A Plunning Process for Public Libraries.
Chicago: American Library Association, 1980.
Nicolle 0. Steff’, Keith Curry Lance, and Rochelle Logan. Time to Tell the Whote Story: Outcome-
based Evaiuation and the Counting on Results Project. Public Libraries, July/August 2002,222-228.
Niootle 0. Steffed and Keith Curry Lance. Who’s Doing What: Outcome-based Evaluation and
Demographics in the Counting on Results Project. Public Libraries, SeptemberiOctober 2002,271-279,
Nancy Van House, Mary Jo Lynch, Chdes R Mc€!lure, Douglas Zweizig, and Eleanor J. Rodger. Outpzrt
Measures for Public Libraries: A Manual of Stanabrdized Procedures. Chicago: American Library
Association, 1987.
Douglas Zweizig, Debra WiIwx Johnson, Jane Robbins with Michele Besant. 2% Teil It! Manual: The Complete Program for Evaluuting Library Performance. Chicago: Americm Library Association, 1996.
I
I I I
Project Budget Form
SECTION 2: SUMMARY BUDGET
d
Name of Applicant Organization Carlsbad City Library
IMPORTANT! READ I&TRUCTIONs ON PAGES 2.3-2.4 BEFORE PROCEEDING.
DIRECT COSTS IMLS Applicant Partnerts)
(if applicable)
SALARIES & WAGES $129,232
FRINGE BENEFITS 25,847 114,006
CONSULTANT FEES
TRAVEL 14.015
MATERIALS, SUPPLIES & EQUIPMENT 12,500
SERVICES
OTHER
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS s 287,665 155,079 499,389 t
INDIRECT COSTS' s t 31,016 100,478
If you do not have a current Federally negotiated rate. your
indirect costs mllst appear in the Appkant or Pm CO~U~M dy. If you have a cumnt Federan negotiated rate. you may TOTAL PROJECT COSTS request indlnct costs from dB only on the direct pmjm cats
requested from IMLS.
AMOUNT OF CASH-MATCH $ ., 8
AMOUNT OF IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS 8 186,095 4 599,867
(INSTITUTIONAL COST-SHARINO). INCLUDlllO IYDIRECT COSTS
TOTAL AMOUNT OF MATCH (CASH & IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS)
AMOUNT REQUESTED FROM IMLS, INCLUDING INDIRECT COSTS
Totd
5
139,853
261,150
14,015
12,500
s
t
942,133
131,494
1,073,627
s 785,962
8 287,665
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PROJECT COSTS REQUESTED FROM IMLS 31 %
(MAY NOT EXCEED 60% IC RCQULST EXCEEDS 8250.000 - REtflRCH PROJCCTS EXCEPTED, SEE COST CtlARlNG ON PAGE 1.7)
Have you received or requested funds for any of these project activities from another Federal agency?
(Please check one) 0 Yes 0 No
If yes, name of agency
Date of application or award Amount requested or received $
. ..
Project Budget Form
SECTION 1: DETAILED BUDGET Year 1 - Budget Period from 10 IO11 03 to 09 I30 I04
Name of Applicant Organization: Carlsbsd City Library
SALARIES AND WAGES (PERMANENT STAFF)
Name/Titfe No. Methocl of Cost IMLS Computation
1. Cli Lange, Director 26 5614lday 2. Oeoff Armow. Asst Director 26 49Ydey 3. Heather Puruto, Prin. Librarian 26 3Wday 4. Chris Hob, Prin. Librarian 26 339lday 5. Dawn Tucker, Ygmt Assistant 26 2751day 6. Callie Ahrens, Sr. Librarian 26 29Wday 7. Suzanne Smithson, Sr. Librarian 26 268lday 8. Penny Thompson, Sr. Circ Sup. 26 247lday 9. Lynda Jones, Sr. Ubrarian 26 318lday TOTAL SALARIES 8 WAGES
Applicant
$1 5,964 12,870 7,956 8,814 7,150 7,540
6,968 6,422 8,268 $81,952
Parlnw
SALARiES AND WAGES (TEMPORARY STAFF HIRED FOR PROJECT)
Natllflile N 0. Mathod of Cost IMLS Applicant Partner Computation
TOTAL SALARIES OF TEMPORARY STAFF
FRINGE BENEFITS
Rate Salary Base 1. Cli Lange Q 20% $1 5.964 2. Geoff Armour @ 20% 12,870 3. Heather Piuuto Q 20% 7,956
4. Chris Hdt @ 20% 8,814
5. Dawn Tucker @ 20% 7,150 6. Calk AhrenB @ 20% 7,540 7. Suzanne Smithson @ 20% 6,968 8. Penny Thompson @ 20% 6.422 9. Lynda Jones @ 20% 8,268 TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS
IMLS Apprmnt Pertner 53.193 2.574 1,591 1,763
1,430
1,508 1,394 1,284 1,654 $16,391
CONSULTANT FEES
Name/Tiik Of Consultant Rate of Compensation Number of Days IMLS Applicant Partner
Joe Malthsws 200 days S6Widay $120,000 Marketing Support Systems (Telephone survey) 12,150
TOTAl CONSULTANT FEE $132.150
(Daily) On Projed
TRAVEL NUMBER OF: SUBSISTENCE TRANSPORTATION FROWO PERSON DAYS COSTS COSTS IMLS Applicant Partner
Lib meetings 26 IMLS travel s 95 $ 95 4,000 4,000
TOTAL TRAVEL COSTS $4095
MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
Item Method of Cost IMLS Applicant Partner
Printing, copying oupplii Estimate $2,500
computation
TOTAL MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT $2,500
Total
$1 s,w 12,870 7,956 8,814 7,150 7,540 6,968 6,422 8,268
sa1,952
Total
Total
53.193 2,574 1,591 1,763 1,430 1,508 1,394 1,284 1.654 $16,391
Total
$120.000
12,150
$132,150
Tal
t 95
~,ooo
$4,095
Tat81
$2,500
$2.500
Project Badget Form
SECTION 1: DETAILED BUDGET CONTINUED
Year 1 - Carlsbad City Library
SERVICES Item
OTHER Item
Method of Cost Computation
TOTAL COST OF SERVICES
Method of Coat Computation
IMLS Applicant Pattner Total
IMLS Applicant Partner Total
TOTAL OTHER COSTS
TOTAL DIRECT PROJECT COSTS 5138,745 $98,343 5237,088
INOIRECT COSTS
Applicant organltation is mlng:
“0 A. an indirect rate which does not exceed 20% of modified total direct costs
C. Rate base Amount
20% of $98.343 = $19,669
IMLS Applicant Partner Total
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO 519,669 51 9,699
Project Budget Form
SECTION f: MfAlLED BUDGET
Year 2 - Budget Period from 10 IO11 04 to 09 I30 I05
Name of Applicant Organization: Carlsbad City Library
SAIARIES AND WAGES (PERMANENT STAFF)
NaIWTitk No. Method of cost Computation 1. Cliff Lange, Dimor 15 S6lUday 2. Geoff Amour. Asst Director 15 4Wday 3. Heather Pizzuto, Prin. Librarian 15 3OWday 4. Chrki Hdt, Prin. Librarian 15 3391day 5. Dawn Tucker, Mgmt Atsktant 15 2751day 6. CaUie Ahrens, Sf. Librarian 15 290lday 7. Suzenne Smithson, Sr. Liarian 15 2681day 8. Penny Thompson, Sr. Circ Sup. t5 247lday 9. Lynda Jones, Sr. Librarian 15 3Wday TOTAL SALARIES 8 WAGES
IMLS Applicant Partner
$9,210 7,425 4.590 5,085 4,125 4,350 4,020 3,705 4,770 $47,2ao
SALARIES AND WAGES (TEMPORARY STAFF HIRED FOR PROJECT) NameRitle No. MsfhPd of Cost IMLS Appkant Partner
Computation
TOTAL SALARIES FOR TEMPORARY STAFF
FRINGE BENEFJTS Rate Salary Base
1. Cfii Lmge @ 2090 2. Geoff Armour 2096 3. Heather Pkzuto @ 20% 4. Chris Holt Clp 20% 5. Dawn Tuckrr Q?p 20% 6. Cmlfie Ahrens @ 20% 7. Suzanne Smithson @ 20% 8. Penny Thompson @ 20%
9. Lpda Jones @ 20%
$9310 7,425 4,590
5,085 4,125
4,350 4,020 3,705 4,770 TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS
IMLS Applicant Partner
$1,842 1,485 918 1,017 825 870 804 74 1 954 $9.458
CONSULTANT FEES btW"e Of Consultant Rate of Compensation Number of Days IMLS Applicant Partner
Joe Matthews, S6001day 21 5 days $1 29,000
(Ddly) On Project
TOTAL CONSULTANT FEE
TRAVEL
FROkVfO PERSON DAYS COSTS COSTS IMLS Applicant Partner NUMBER OR SUBSISTENCE TRANSPORTATION
Lib meetings 20 IMLS travel s 73 s 73 4,000 4,000
TOTAL TRAVEL COSTS $4,073
MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT Item Method of Cost IMLS Applicant PMner
Computation
Totat
$9,210
7,425 4,590
5,085 4,125 4,350 4,020 3,706 4,770 $47,280
Total
Total
$1,842 1,485 91 8
1,017 825 870 804 74 1 854
59,456
Total
$129.000
Total
5 73 4,000
54,073
tatat
TOTAL MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
Project Budget Form
SECTION 1: DETAILED BUDGET CONTINUED
Year 2 - Carlsbad City Library
SERVICES
Item Method of Cwt IMLS Applicant Partner Tatel Computation
TOTAL COST OF SERVICES
OTHER Item Mahod of cost IMLS Applicant Partner Total Computation
TOTAL OTHER COSTS
TOTAL DIRECT PROJECT COSTS $133,073 $63,671 9196,744
IffDlRECf COSTS
Applicant organization b using:
A. an indirect rate which does not exceed 20% of madied total direct costs
C. Rate base Amount 20% of $63,671 = 512,734
IMLS Applicant Partner Total
TOTAL INDRECT COSTS CHARGED TO $12,734 $12.734
Project Budget Form
SECTION 1 : DETAHED BUDGET
Year 1 - Budget Period from 10 I Oil 03 to 09 I30 I04
Name of Applicant Organization: Chula Vista Public Library
SALARIES AND WAGES (PERMANENT STAFF)
Name/Tiib No. Method of Cost IMLS AppLant Partner Total
1. David Palmer, Library Dir 26 Daily rate $14,664 $14,664 2. Ed Vaneeno, Fiscal Analyst 26 26 8,138 8,138 3. Paula Brown, Asst Lib Dir 10,660 10,860
4. Maureen Roeber, Prin. Lib 26 10,010 10,010 5. Mariya Anton, Admin Analyst 26 5,408 5,408
$46,880 $48,880
Computation
.
TOTAL SALARIES &WAGES
SALARIES AND WAGES (TEMPORARY STAFF HIRED FOR PROJECT) Namenitle No. Method of Cost IMLS Applicant Partner Total
Computation None
FRINGE BENEFITS
Rate Salary Base IMLS Applicant Partner Totel
1.21% 2.21% 3.21% 4.21 % 523%
$11,664 8,138
10,660 10,010
5.408 TOTAL FRiNGE BENEFITS
$3,079 $3,079 1,709 1,709 2,239 2,239 2,102 2,102 1,244 1,244 $10,373 10,373
CONSULTANT FEES
Namflie Of Consultant Rate of Compensation Number of Days IMLS Applicant Partner Total
(Daily) On Project
Joe Mamews S6001day 2a $1 5,600 $15,600
TOTAL CONSULTANT FEE $15,600 516,600
TRAVEL
FROMITO PERSON DAYS COSTS COSTS IMLS Applicant Partner Total
Lib meetings 26 $1,343 $1,343 $1,343
NUMBER OF: SUBSISTENCE TRANSPORTATION
TOTAL TRAVEL COSTS $ 1,343 $1,343
MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT Item Method of Cost IMLS Applicant Partner Total
computation
Printing, copying supplies Estimate S2,500 52,500
SERVICES Item
OTHER Item
Project Budget Form
SECTION 1: DETAILED BUDGET CONTINUED Year 1
Method of Cost Computation
TOTAL COST OF SERVICES
Method of Cost computation
IMLS Applicant Partner Total
IMLS Applicant Partner Totel
TOTAL OTHER COSTS
TOTAL DIRECT PROJECT COSTS $19,443 $59,253 $78,093
L
INDIRECT COSTS
Applicant organiration is using:
C'O A. an indirect rats whii doer not exceed 20% of modid total direct costs
C. Rate base Amount 20% of $59353 * $11,851
IMLS Applicant Partner Total
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO s- $1 1,851 $1 1,851
Project Budget Form
SECTION 1: DETAILED BUDGET Year 2 - Budget Period from 10 I 011 04 to 09 I30 I05
Name &Applicant Organization: Chula Vista Pnbiic Library
SALARIES AND WAGES (PERMANENT STAFF) NamNile No. Memod of Cost IMLS Appkant Partner Computation 1. David Palmer, Library OK 15 Daily rate $8,460 2. Ed Vaneeno, Fsed Analyst 4,696 3. Paula Brown, Asst Lib Dir 15 6,150 4. Maureen Roeber. Prin. Lib 15 5,775 5. Mariya Anton, Admin Analyst 15 3.120 $ 28,200
l5 : .
TOTAL SALARIES & WAGES
SALARIES AND WAGES (TEMPORARY STAFF WIRED FOR PROJECT)
Name/Titk No. Method of Cost IMLS Applicant Total Computation None
FRINGE BENEFITS Rete Salary Base IMLS Applicant Partner
1.21% 2.21% 3.21% 4.21% 5.23%
$8.460 4,695 6,150 5,775 3,120 TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS
$1,777 986 1,292 1,213 71 7 5 5,985
CONSULTANT FEES
NamelTitle Of Consultant Rate of Compensation Number of Days IMLS Applicant Partner
Joe Malthews SB00iday 20 $12,000
TOTAL CONSULTANT FEE $1 2,000
(Daily) On Project
TRAVEL
FROMRO PERSON DAYS COSTS COSTS IMLS
NUMBER OF: SUBSISTENCE TRANSPORTATION
ub meetings 20 t584 $584
TOTAL TRAVEL COSTS $ 584
MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT Item Method of Cost IMLS Computation
Applicant Partner
Applicant Total
Total
$8.460 4,695 6.150 5,775 3,120
$ 28,200
Tots1
$1,777 986 1,292
1,213 71 7
$6,985
Total
$12,000
$12,000
Total
$584
3584
TOTAL MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
SERVICES ttem
OTHER Item
Project Budget Form
SECTION 1: DETAILED BUDGET CONTINUE0 Year 2
Method of Cost Computation
TOTAL COST OF SERVICES
Method of cost Computation
TOTAL OTHER COSTS
IMLS Applicant Partner Total
TOTAL DIRECT PROJECT COSTS $1 2,584
. ~.
$37,185 547.769 1
INDIRECT COSYS
Applicant organization h using:
“0 A. an indirect rate which doe$ not exceed 20% of modified total direct costs
C. Rate bme Amount 20% of 537,165 = $7.437
IMLS Applicant Partner Total
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO $7,437 $7.437
Project Budget Form
SECTION I: DETAILED BUDGET Year I - Budget Period from 10 IO11 03 to 09 I30 I04
Name of Applicant Organization: Saa Diego Public Library
SALARIES AND WAGES (PERMANENT STAFF)
Namellitlo No. Method of Cost IMLS Applicant Partner
1. Deputy Director 36 smmay $12,816 2. Sf. Mgmt Analyst 38 2401day 8,W 3. Sr. Pub Info Officer 36 2191day 7,884
4. Librarian IV 36 247tday 8,892
5. Librarian lil 36 22Wday 8.100 TOTAL SALARIES 8 WAGES $ 48.332
Computation
SALARIES AND WAGES (TEMPORARY STAFF HIRED FOR PROJECT) Nme/Title No. Method of Cost iMLS Applicant Total Computation None
FRINGE BENEFITS Rate Salary Base IMLS Applicant Partner
1.35% 2.35% 3.35%
4. 35% 5.35%
$12,816 8,640 7,884
8,100 8,892
TOTAL FRtNGE BENEFITS
$4,486 3,024 2,759 3,112 2,835 S 16,216
CONSULTANT FEES Namflie Of Consultant Rate of Compensation Number of Days IMLS Applicant Pattner
(Daily) On Projsd
Joe Matthews S8001day 36 $21,600
TOTAL CONSULTANT FEE $21,600
TRAVEL NUMBER OF: SUBSISTENCE TRANSPORTATION
FROWO PERSON DAYS COSTS COSTS IMLS Applicant Partner
Lib meetings 30 $788 $788
TOTAL TRAVEL COSTS $788
MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
Item Method of Cost IMLS Applicant Partner
Printing, copying supplies Estbnate $2,500
TOTAL MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT $2.500
Computation
Total
$12,816 8,840 7,884 8,892 8,100
$ 46,332
$4,486 3,024 2,75$ 3,112 2,835 S 16,216
Total
Totel
$788
$788
Total
$2,500
$2,500
SERVICES Item
OTHER
Item
Project Budget Form
SECTION I: DETAILED BUDGET CONTINUED Year 1
Method of Cost computation
TOTAL COST OF SERVICES
Method of Cost Cmputation
IMLS Applicant Pattner Totel
IMLS Applicant Partner Total
TOTAL OTHER COSTS
TOTAL DIRECT PROJECT COSTS $24,888 $62,540 $87,436
INDIRECT COSTS
Applicant ofgankation b using:
JO A. an indit rate which does not exceed 20% of modified total direct casts
C. Rate base Amount 20% of $62,540 = $12.510
IMLS Applicant Partner Total
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO $12,510 $12,510
Project Budget Form SECTION 1: DETAHED BUDGET
Year 2 - Budget Period from 10 t 011 04 to 09 I30 t 05
Name of Applicant organization: San Diego Public Library
WRIES AND WAGES (PERMANENT STAFF) Nnme/Tltle No. Method of Cost IMLS Applicant Partner
1. Deputy Director 35 $356/day 512,460 2. Sr. Mgmt Analyst 35 24Olday 3. Sr. pub Info omw 8,400 35 219Iday 7,885 4. Librarian IV 35 247tday 8,645 5. Librarian HI 35 2251day 7,875
$ 45,045
Computation
TOTAL SALARlES & WAGGS
SALARIES AND WAGES (TEMPORARY STAFF HIRED FOR PROJECT) NamedTitle No. Method of Cost IMLS Applicant Partner Computation None
FRINGE BENEFITS
Rate Salary Base IMLS Applicant Partner
1.35% 2.35% 3.35% 4.35% 5.35%
$12,460 8,400 7,685
7,875 8,645
TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS
54,361 2,840 2,683 3,026 2,756 S 15,766
CONSULTANT FEES
Name/Tiile Of Consultant Rate of Compensation Number of Days lML$ Appwnt Partner
Joe Matthews S6wd8y 35 $21,000
TOTAL CONSULTANT FEE $2 1.000
(Daib’) On Project
TRAVEL NUMBER Of: SUBSISTENCE TRANSPORTATION FROMlTO PERSON DAYS COSTS COSTS IMLS Appliint Partner
lib meetings 35 $767 $767
TOTAL TRAVEL COSTS $767
MATERIALS, SUPPUES AND EQUIPMENT Item Method of Cast IMLS Applicant Partner
Computaiion
Total
$1 2,480 8,400 7,665 8,645 7,875
$ 45,045
Total
Total
$4.361 2,940 2,683 3,026 2,756 $ 15,766
Total
521,000
$2t,OW
Tot81
E767
$767
Total
TOTAL MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
SERVICES
Item
OTHER
Item
Project Budget Form
SECTION 1: DETAILED BUDGET CONTINUED Year 2
Method of Cost Computation
TOTAL COST OF SERVICES
Method dC& Computation
TOTAL OTHER COSTS
IMLS Applicant Partner Toto1
IMLS Applicant Partner Tatal
TOTAL DIRECT PROJECT COSTS $21,767 $80,811 $82,578
*
INDIRECT COSTS
Applicant organization k wing:
eo A. an indirect rate which dosr not exceed 20% of modi total dked casts
C. Rate base Amount 20% of $60,811 = $12,162
I IMLS Applkant Partner Total
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO $12,162 $12,162
Project Budget Form
SECTION 1: DETAILED BUDGET Year 1 - Budget Period from 10 1 Oil 03 to 09 I30 104
Name of Applicant Organization: San Diego County Public Law Library
SALARIES AND WAGES (PERMANENT STAFF)
NsmelTitlr No. Method of Cost IMLS
1. Library Director 26 $642/day 2. Deputy Dksctor 26' 482lday 3. Asst Di for Public senrlcea 26" 263Iday 4. Ass% Dir *Tech Services 26' 352tday 5. Asst Dir for Branch Senrices 26' 3211day 6. Asst Dir for Finance 26" 32Wday 7. Executive Asst 26" 186tday
Computation
TOTAL SALARIES &WAGES
Applicant Partner
$1 7,134
12,896 7264 9,308 8.892 8,476 4,550 $ 88,510
Total
$17,134 12,896
7254 9,308 8.892 8,476 (1,550 S 68,510
SALARIES AND WAGES (TEMPORARY STAFF HIRED FOR PROJECT) Name/We No. Method of Cost IMLS Applicant Partner Total Computation None
FRINGE BENEFITS Rate Salary Base IMLS Applicant Partner Totel
1.7% 2. 7% 3.7% 4.7% 5.7% 6.7% 7. 7%
$17,134 12,896 7254 9,308 8,892 6,476 4,550 TOTAL FRINQE BENEFITS
$1,199 903 508 652 622 593 319 54,796
61,199 903
508 652
622 593 31 9 $4,796
CONSULTANT FEES
Nameflitla Of Rate d Compensation Number of Days IMLS Applicant Partner Total Consultant WJY) On Project
Joe Malthews S6Wlday 26 $1 5.600 $1 5,600
TOTAL CONSULTANT FEE $1 5.600 51 6,600
TRAVEL
NUMBER OF: SUBSISTENCE TRANSPORTATtON FROMflO PERSON DAYS COSTS COSTS IMLS Applicant Partner Total
Lib meeti 26 5829 $829 $829
TOTAL TRAVEL COSTS $829 $829
MATERINS, SUPPUES AND EQUIPMENT item Method of Cost IMLS Applicant Partner Total Computation
Printing, cppyino SUPPlkS Estimate $2,500
TOTAL MATERLALS. SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT $2,500
$2.500
$2,500
SERVICES
Item
OTHER
Hem
Project Budget Form
SECTION 1: DETAILED BUDGET CONTINUED Year 1
Method of Cost
computation
TOTAL COST OF SERVICES
Method of Cost Computation
IMLS Applicant Partner Total
IMLS Applicant Partner Total
TOTAL OTHER COSTS
TOTAL DIRECT PROJECT COSTS S 16,929 $73,306 592,235 I
~
INDIRECT COSTS
Applicant organitation is using:
ell A. an indksct rate which dws not exceed 20% of modified total direct casts
C. Rate base Amount 20% d $73.308 = $14.661
IMLS Applicant Partner Total
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO $14,661 $14,861
Project Budget Form
SECTION I: OETAILED BUDGET Year 2 - Budget Period from 10 I011 04 to 09 I30 I05
Name of Applicant Organization: San Diego County Public Law Library
SALARIES AND WAGES (PERMANENT STAFF)
Name/Tiite No. Method of Cost IMLS
1. Library Director 15 SM2lday 2. Deputy Director 15’ 482lday
3. Asst Dir for Public Services 15’ 263fday 4. Assac Dir for Tech Sewices 15’ 352fday
5. Asst Dir for Branch Services 15’ 321lday 6. Asst Dk for Finance 1 5’ 32Olday 7. Executive Asst ?5’ 185Iday
Computation
TOTAL SALARIES 8 WAGES
Applicant Paftner
$9.885 7,440 4,185 5,370
5.130
4,880 2,025 $19,305
SALARIES AND WAGES (TEMPORARY STAFF HIRED FOR PROJECT)
NameITiie No. Method of Cost IMLS Applicant Total Computatfon None
FRINGE BENEFlTS
Rato Salary Base IMLS Applicant Partner
1.7% 2. 7% 3.7%
4. 7% 5.7% 6.7% 7. 7%
$9,885 7,440 4,185 5,370
5, I30 4,090 2,625 TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS
5 692 521 293 375 359 342 184 S 2,766
CONSULTANT FEES Namemtle Of Rate of Compensation Number of Days IMLS Applicant Partner Consultant (DW On Project
Joe Metthews WWday 20 512,000
TOTAL CONSULTANT FEE 512,000
TRAVEL
FROWTO PERSON OAYS COSTS COSTS IMLS Applicant Partner
Lb meetings 20 $638 5838
TOTAL TRAVEL COSTS 5638
NUMBER OF: SUBSISTENCE TRANSPORTATION
MATERfALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
Item Method of Cost IMLS Applicant Partner Computation
Total
$9,885 7,440 4,185 5.370 5,130 4,890 2,625 $19.305
Total
$692 521 293 375 359 342
184
$ 2,760
Total
$1 2,000
$1 2.000
Total
$638
$638
Total
TOTAL MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
SERVICES
Item '
OTHER
item
Project Budget Form
SECTION 1: DETAILED BUDGET CONTINUED Year 2
Method of Cost Computaiion
TOTAL COST OF SERVICES
Method of Cost computation
lMtS Applicant Partner Tatai
lMlS Applicant Partner Total
TOTAL OTHER COSTS
TOTAL DIRECT PROJECT COSTS $12,638 $22,073 $34,709
INDIRECT COSTS
Applicant organization is wing:
JO A. an indirect rate which does nd exceed 20% of modii total direct costs
C. Rate base Amount 20% of $22.071 = $4,414
IMLS Applicant Partner Total
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO U,414 34,414
I I
Project Budget Form
SECTION 1 : DETAILED BUDGET
Year 1 - Budget Period from 10 IO11 03 to 09 I30 I04
Name of Applicant Organization: $an Diego County Library SALARIES AND WAGES (PERMANENT STAFF)
Namerile No. Method of Cost IMLS Applicant
1. Marilyn Crouch, Dkector 28 Wday 2. Natalie Rencher, Dep. Director 26 3Wday
3. Valarie Rodak, Dep. Drector 26 329/day
4. Jacqueline Ayata, Prin. Librarian 26 272lday
5. Betty Wmb, Prin. Libfarian 26 27Uday
6. Judith Oregg, Librarian 26 2071day
7. Libby Nobis, Librarian 26 207lday 8. Ann Tendl, Lbrarian 26 207lday 9. Marilyn Falsetti, Lbrarian 26 187lday 10. Ann Hammon, Librarian 26 1871uay
11. Franz Leppanen, Librarian 26 187lday 12- Honey Hotley, Lib. Technician 26 1431day
13, Isabel Sanchez, Lb. Technician 20 laday
Computation
TOTAL SALARIES 8 WAGES
SALARIES AND WAGES (TEMPORARY STAFF HIRED FOR PROJECT)
Namflitle
None
FRINGE BENEFITS
Rate
1.45% 2.45% 3.45% 4.45% 5.46% 6.45% 7.45% 8.45% 9.45% 10.45% 11.45% 12.45%
13.45%
No. Method of Cost IMLS Computation
Salary Base IMLS
26 $1 1,570 26 9,360 26 8,544 26 7,072 26 7,072 26 5,382 26 5.382 26 5,382
26 4,802 26 4,862 26 4,862 26 3,71 a 26 3,718 TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS
CONSULTANT FEES Namerie Of Consultant Rate of Compen88tion Number of Days iMLS
(Daily) On Prom
TOTAL CONSULTANT FEE
TRAVEL NUMBER OF: SUBSISTENCE TRANSPORTATION FROMnO PERSON DAYS COSTS COSTS IMLS
Lib meetings 26 $569 $569
TOTAL TRAVEL COSTS $569
MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
Item Method of Cost IMLS
Prinrn, copying supprles Estimate $2,500
Computation
TOTAL MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT $2,500
Partner
$1 1,570 9,360 8,544 7,072
7,072 5,382 5,382 5,382 4.862
4,862 4,862 3.71 8 3.718 $81,786
Applicant Partner
Applicant Plvtner
$5,207 4,212 3,845 3,162 3,182 2,422 2,422 2,422 2,169 2,189 2,189 1,673
1,673 $36,807
Applicant Pwtner
Applicant Partner
Applicant Partner
Total
$1 1,570 9,360
8,544 7,072 7,072
5,382 5,382 5,382 4,862 4,862 4.862 3,718
3,718 581,786
Total
Totef
$5,207 4,212 3,845 3,182 3,182 2,422 2,422
2,422 2,189 2,189 2,189 1,673
1,073 $36,807
Total
Total
$569
$569
Total
$2,500 $2.500
SERVICES
ltem
OTHER
ltm
Project Budget Form
SECTION 1: DETAILED BUDGET CONTtNUED YePr 2
Method of Cost iMLS Applicant Partner Tatal Computation
TOTAL COST OF SERVICES
Method of Cost IMLS Appliint Partner Totd computalion
TOTAC OTHER COSTS
TOTAL DIRECT PROJECT COSTS $329 $68,822 $68,951
INDIRECT COSTS
Applicant organization is using:
30 A. an indirect rate which does not exceed 20% of modified total dkbd Coots
C. Rate base Amount 20% of $88,622 = $13,724
IMLS Applicant . Partner Tot&
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED fO $13,724 $13,724
Project Budget Form
SECTION 1: DETAILED BUDGET Year2- BudgetPbtiodfrom 10/01104 to 09l30105
Name of Applicant Organization: San Diego County Library
SALARIES AND WAGES (PERMANENT STAFF)
NallldTii No. Method ofcost IMLS Applicant Computa!itm
1. Marifyll CrOuCh. Director 15 W51day 2. Natalie Rencher, Dep. Director 15 36O/day 3. Valario Rodak, Dep. Director 15 32Wday
4. Jacqueline Ayala, Prin. Librarian 15 272lday 5. Betty Waznb, Prin. Librarian 15 27Uday
6. Judlth Greg& Librarian 15 207lday
7. Libby Nobis, Librarian 15 2071day 8. Ann Tane#, Librarian 15 207lday
9. Marilyn Fefsew, Lllxarian 15 187lday
10. Ann Hammon, Librarian 15 187lday
11. Frant Leppanen, Libmian 15 187lday
12. Honey Honey, Lib. Technician 15 143day
13. Isabel Sanchez, Lib. Technician 15 143lday
TOTAL SALARIES &WAGES
Partner
58,675 5.400 4,935 4,080 4,080 3,150
3.150 3,150 2,805 2.805 2,805 2,145
2,145 $47,325
SALARIES AN0 WAGES (TEMPORARY STAFF HIRED FOR PROJECT)
Nsme/Tiile
None
FRINGE BENEFITS Rate
1.45% 2.45% 3. 45%
4.45% 5.45% 6.45%
7.45% 8.45% 9.45%
10.45% 11.45% 12.45% 13.45%
NO. Method of Cast IMLS computation
Salary Base IMLS
$6,675
5,400 4,935
4,080 4,080 3,150 3,150 3,150 2,805 2,605 2.805 2,145 2,145 TOTAL FRINGE BENEFITS
Total
$8,675 5.400 4,935 4,080 4,080 3,150 3.150 3,150 2,805 2,805 2,805 2,145 2,145 $47,325
Applicant PIltner
$3,004 2,430 2,221 1,836 1,836 1,418 1'41 8 1,418 1,262
1,262 1,262 965 965 521,297
T&l
$3,004 2,430 2,221 1,836 1,836 1,418 1,418 1,418 1,262 1,262 1,262 965 965 $21,29P
CONSULTANT FEES
Name/Tile Of Consultant Rate of Compensation Number of Days IMLS Applicant Partner Total (Daily) On Project
TOTAL CONSULTANT FEE
TRAVEL
NUMBER OF: SUBSISTENCE TRANSPORTATION FROM/TO PERSON DAYS COSTS COSTS IMLS Applicant Partner Total
Lib meetings 15 $328 $329
TOTAL TRAVEL COsfS $329 $329
MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
ltem Method of Cost IMLS Applicant Partner Total Computation
TOTAL MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
SERVICES Item
OTHER Item
Project Budget Form
SECTION 1: DETAILED BUDGET CONTINUED Year 1
Method of Cos! Computation
TOTAL COST OF SERVICES
IMLS Applicant Partner Total
Method of Cost IMLS Applicant Partner Total computation
TOTAL OTHER COSTS
TOTAL DIRECT PROJECT COSTS $3,069 $118.593 $121,662 I
1 I
INDIRECT COSTS
Applicant organization is using:
I'll A. an indirect rate which doas not exceed 20% of fnOdii€id tOtal direct at9
C. Rate base Amount 20% of $118.593 5 $23,719
IMLS Applicant Total
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS CHARGED TO $ $23,719 $23,719
I
Proposal to Create a Library Scorecard to Communicate the Vahe
of the Public Library Using Outcome-based Performance Measures
Project Budget Justification
The Carlsbad City Library (CCL) is requesting a grant in the amount of $ ?? from the Institute of Museum and Library Services for a project involving ?? public libraries in San Diego County, Califbmia. The
participating libraries will match the request with $ ??.
The individuals identified fix each participating library in the Detailed Budget will be members of the team who will develop a Library Scorecard for their respective library. Dr. Cliff Lange, Director of the Carlsbad City Library, will be the Project Director and the City of Carlsbad will be the fiscal agent.
The project will hire Joseph R. Matthews as a consultant who will assist each participating library in developing a Library Scorecard as welt 89 assessing the impact of the scorecards from the perspective of
the stakeholders. Mr. Matthews will ais0 be responsible for producing the project’s final report and a workbook that would document the process to create, implement and maintain a Library Scorecard that can
be shared with other libraries. Time estimates for each goals and activity is shown on the following page.
The project will hire a telemarketing firm to conduct a telephone survey of library noa-users to ascertain
how they obtain information. It is anticipated that some 1,500 residents of San Diego County will be contacted and asked to respond to 12-15 questions about their reading habits and information needs. The
sample will be subdivided so that each participating library will have respondents from within their
jurisdictional boundaries.
Supplies & Materials: Each library will receive $2,500 to use to produce customer surveys of the library.
For example, some libraries are planning on distributing surveys that were developed by the Counting on Results project.
Travel: Travel monies will be used to pay the consultant for automobile expenses associated with trave1
tdfiom each library for the various meetings. Monies fbr IMLS meetings have been included. The library directors expect to pay their own expenses to professional conferences to make presentations about the planned project.
Proposal to Create o Library Scorecard to Communicate tbe Value
of the Public Library Usiag OutcoaPe-baeed Performance Msasures
Project Budget Justification
The Carlsbad City Library (CCL) is requesting a grant m the amount of 5287,665 &om the institute of Museum and Library Services for a project involving five public libraries in San Diego County, California
The participating libraries will match the request with $785,962.
The individuals identified for each participating library in the Detailed Budget will be members of the team who will develop a Library Scorecard fbr their respective library. Dr. Cliff Lange, Director of the
Carlsbad City Library, will be the Project Director and the City of Carlsbd will be the fiscal agent.
The project will hire Joseph R. Matthews as a consultant who will assist each participating library in
developing a Library Scorecatd as well as assessing the impact of the scorecards fiom the perspective of
the stakeholders. Mr. Matthews will also be responsible for producing the project's find report and a
workbook that would document the process to create, implement and maintain a Library Scorecard that can be shared with other libraries. Time estimates fix each goals and activity is shown on the following page.
The project will hire a telemarketing firm to conduct a telephone survey of library non-uses to ascertain how they obtain information. It is anticipated that some 1,500 residents of San Diego County will be
contacted and asked to respond to 12-15 questions about their reading habits and information needs. The sample will be subdivided so that each participating library will have respondents f?om within their jurisdictional boundaries.
Supplies & Msterirls: Each library will receive $2,500 to use to produce customer surveys of the library. For example, some libraries are planning on distributing surveys that were developed by the Counting on
Results project.
Travei: Travel monies will be used to pay the consultant for automobile expenses associated with travel
to/fkom each library fw the various meetings. Monies for lMLS meetings have been included. The library
directors expect to pay their own expenses to professioaal conferences to make presentations about the
planned project.
t
h)"r 00
Clifford E. Lange
Resume
Education
B.S. 1959, University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh
M.S.L.S. 1960, University of Wisconsin - Madison (Library Services Act Scholar)
Ph.D. 1972, University of Wisconsin - Madison (Higher Education Act Fellow)
Professional Experience
1960-1962, Extension Department Head, Oshkosh Public Library, Oshkosh, Wisconsin
1962, Assistant Director, Jervis Library, Rome, New York
1962-1963, Reference Department Head, Oshkosh Public Library, Oshkosh, Wisconsin
1963-1966, Director, Eau Claire Public Library, Eau Claire, Wisconsin
1966-1 968, Assistant Director, Lake County Public Library, Grfith, Indiana
1968-1971 (Ph.D. program, Madison, Wisconsin)
1971-1 973, Assistant Professor, School of Library Science, University of Iowa, Iowa
City, Iowa
1973-1975, Director, Wauwatosa Public Library, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin
1975-1978, Assistant Professor, School of Library Science, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, California
1978-1982, State Librarian, New Mexico State Library, Santa Fe, New Mexico
1982-to present, Director, Carlsbad City Library, Carlsbad, California
Professional Associations
American Library Association, 1959-to present
Wisconsin Library Association, 1960-1 966; 1968- 1971 ; and 1973- 1975
Indiana Library Association, 1 966- 1968
Iowa Library Association, 197 1 - 1973
California Library Association, 1975-1978 and 1982-to present
New Mexico Library Association, 1978-1 982
Joseph R. Matthews
5421 Kipling Lane
Carlsw CA 92008
Joe@oeh4atthews.Org
760 930-9223
Consulting Experience
Joe is a knowledgeable and experienced consUttant. He has assisted numerous libraries and iocal
governnments in a wide variety of projects including:
Assess the value and performaace of services offered in libraries
Prepare strategic plans for library services
Prepare long range plans for a consortiurn of lirbaties
Prepare information techology plans
Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of infixnution technology departments m hies
0 Select and implement automated library information systems.
and local governments
Mattbews & Associates was one of five organizations to receive funding for a large study of the
online catalog funded by the Council on Library Resources (theother organizations included the
Lt‘brary of Congress, OCLC, University of Califbnaa and the Research Lr’braries Group). Joe was
also a research associate with the Public Policy Research organization at theuniversity of
California, Irvine which received a large multi-million dollar grant to study the use of computers
in local governments.
Work Experience
Joe has worked for several lii software vendors andhas held positions in sales, marketing,
product development and product support.
Published Works
The Bottom Line: Measuring the Value of the Special Library or Infomation Center. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited, 2002.
Thomas Kochtanek and Joseph R. Matthews. Library Infomation Systems. Englewood, CO: Libraries unlimited, 2002.
--- and Mary Helen Gillespie. Service Pruviders: ASPS, BPS, MSPs and WSPs. A Wiley Tech Brief:
New York Wiley and Sons, 2002.
Internet Outsourcing Using an Application Service Provider: A How-To-Do-It Mamral for
Librurians. New York: Neal-Schuman, 2001.
The Impact of &line Catalogs. Editor. New York: Neal-Schwnan, 1986.
public Access to Online Catalogs: A Planning Guide for Managers. 2& Edition. New Ywk:
Neal-Schuman, 1985.
Using Online Catalogs: A Nationwide Survey. A Report of a Study Sponsored by the Council on
Llkary Resources. Edited by Joseph R. Matthews, Gary S. Lawrence and Douglas K. Ferguson.
New York Neat-Schuman, 1983.
A Reader on Choosing an Automated Library System. Ed. Chicago: American Library
Association, 1983.
Public Access to Online Catalogs: A Planning Guicie for Managers. Weston, CT: online, Inc.,
1982.
Choosing an Automated Librmy System: A Planning Guide. Chicago: American L13mu-y
Association, 1980.
Research m Planning and Management of Computer-Based Information Systems in Local
Government, Volume 2. A Review of the Research, in Computers and Local Government..
Kenneth L. Kraemer and John L. King (Eds,). New York Praeger, 1977.
He has had a number of articles published m Library Jotmul, American Libraries, I$ormation
Technology and Libraries, Library HiTech, Library Trends, Library Technology Reports,
Online, Information outlook, and Datamation.
Education
BS (Business CaJifornia State University, Long Beach
Adrrrinistration)
Professional Activities
Active member of the American Library Association, and the American Society for Infbrmation
Science.
Mr. Matthews is an accomphhed communicator and has conducted numerous seminars and
workshops on technology and technology planning.
Partnership Statement
1. Application Organization: The Carlsbad City Library
Other partner members: The Chula Vista Public Library
The San Diego County Law Library
The San Diego County Public Library
The San Diego Public Library
2. Each library will:
Create and implement a Library Scorecard for their respective library.
Provide staff and meeting space in a series of workshops to develop the
scorecard.
Ensure the participation of selected staff to complete a survey regarding the
utility of the scorecard to communicate the value of the public library.
Assist in the distribution of swveys and scheduling of interviews with library
decision makers.
Review and critique drafts of the planned Developing a Library Scorecard
Workbook
3. We, the undersigned institutions, agree to all the following:
8 We will carry out the activities described above and in the Application
0 We will use the! hds we receive from IMLS in accordance with applicable
8 We assure that our facilities and programs comply with applicable Federal
Narrative;
Federal laws and regulations; and
requirements.
The Carlsbad City Library
Purtner Organization (Typ of Print)
Frank Mannen Januarv 22. 2003
Name of Authorizing Wcial (Type of Print) Date
Signaiure of Authorizing Offtcial Partner Orgamzation (Type of Print)
Name of Authorizing mcial (Type of Print) Date
Partnership Statement (Continued)
San Diego County Public Law Library
Signature of Authorizing Oflcid Partner Organuation (Type of Print)
Charles R. Dyer, Director of Libraries 'i2u.30, ZOD'I
Name of Authorizing mcial (Type of Print) Date
Public Library
Signature of Authorizing Oflcial Partner Organization (Type of PriM)
Tn tar - T.ihrarv nirorfnr Tuayv 7 79a? Name of Authorizing Official (Type of Print) Date -
CERTIFICATION
OF
AUTHORIZIIW
OFFICIAL
IMLS Assurances
Tbe IMLS is requid to obtain fim all apphunts crrtifations regarciingfederal &bt status, debanncnt andsuspmion, non-dism’mination, and a drug-+ workpkzce. Appk-
cants mquesting more than $lOO,OOO in grant fin& must alro ce~tifi qarding lobbying activitia and nury be trquired to submit a “Discbonrw of Lobbying &vitics* (Stan&rd
Form LLL). Some applicants wiu be repired to cm$ &ut the wiu comply with other
fi&aistamtes that pertain to tbeirparticulbr situation. Tbese requimmxc are incolpo-
wed in tbe Assurances Statement below. Review the Swentent and sign the certz$kaation firm. ryou receive a gnrnt, you must cornply with these requirements.
(7“ appkant otganiwtioni authorizing oficial shouhd sip the following certsfxa-
rion ajier all other parts ofhe appkcatim firm have been compbted)
I have examined this application, and I hereby certq on behalf of the applicant
1) the information provided is true and correct; and
2) ad requirements for a complete 2003 IMLS application have been fulfilIcd;
3) the applicant is providing and will comply with the applicable cedications
qanization that
and
regarding federal debt status, debarment and suspension, nondiscrimination,
drug-ke workplace, and lobbying activities as set bsth in the Assurances statement below.
Should my organization receive a grant, the organization and I will compiy with
dl grant terms and conditions, all requirements of the IMLS Grants Regulations (45 2FR Part 1180 et seq.), all smtutes outlined below, and all other applicable Federal
01-22-03
Signature of Authorizing Official Date
Frank Mannen, Assist. City Manaqer
Name and Title of Authorizing Official (printed or ryped)
A
ASSURANCES STATEMENT
By signing the application form, the authorizing official, on behalf of the
applicant, assures and certifies that, should a grant be awarded, it will comply with
the statutes outlined beiow and all related IMLS regulations. These assurances are
given in connection with any and all fmancial assistance &om IMLS afier the date
this fbrm is signed, but may indude payments afier this date for financial assistance approved prior to this date. These assurances shall obligate the applicant br the
period during which the Federai financial assistance is extended. The applicant
recognizes and agrees that any such assistance will be extended in reliance on the
representations and agreements made in these assurances, and that the United States
government has the right to seek judicial enforcement of these assurances, which are
binding on the applicant, its success~rs, transferees, and assignees, and on the
authorized official whose signature appears on the application form.
2002 IMLS National Lea&rrb$ Grants Application Form 818
I. CERTl?lCATlONS RLQUlRlED OF ALL APPLICANTS - FINANCIAL, The authorizing official, on behalf of the applicant, certifies that the applicant has
ADMmIsTRAIIvE, financial capability (including funds sufficient to pay the non-Federal share of project AND LEGAL AccouNTABHzry costs) to ensure proper planning, management, and completion of the project
legal authority to apply for Federal assistance and the institutional, managerial, and
described in this application.
The authorizing offid, on behalf of the applicant, certifies that the applicant will
cause to be perfbrmed the required financial and compliance audits in accordance
with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 5 7501 et seq.) and OMB
Circular No. A-133, “Audits of Stam, hcal Governments, and Non-Profit
Organizations.“
The authorizing officid, on behaf of the applicant, certifies that the applicant will
comply with the provisions of OMB Circular No. A-1 10, *Uniform Administrative
Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher
Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations.” - The authorizing official, on behalf of the applicant, certifies to the best of his or
Do 6T federal debr.
’ IE IE A I, her knowledge and belief that the appiicant is not delinquent in the repayment of any
The authorizing official, on behalf of the applicant, certifies to the best of his or
E A E her knowledge and belief that the applicant and its principals:
SUSPENSION A (a) are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, dedared
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal
department or agency; (b) have not witbin a three-pu period preceding this proposal been convicted of or
had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal
offense in connection with obtaining, atrempting to obtain, or performing a
public (fkderal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction,
or in connection with a violation of federal or state antitrust statutes or
commission of embezzlement, theft, fbrgery, bribery, Msification or destruction
of records, makings fase statements, or receiving stolen property;
governmental entity (federal, state or local) with commission of any of the
offenses enumerad in paragraph (b) of this certification; and
(d) have not within a three-year eriod preceding this application/proposal had one or
more public transactions (fe B eral, state or local) terminated for Cause or dehult.
(c) are not presently indicted fbr or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a
The authorizing official, on behalf of the applicant, certifies that the applicant will ’ - comply with the fbllowing nondiscrimination statutes and their implementing DJSClllMlNAM reprulations:
($ Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5 2000 et seq.),
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin;
(b) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. P 701 et
seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disabiliv,
BI Appriation Fom 2003 IMLS National Lrkhip Grana
(c) Title M of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. $5
1681-83,1685-86), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in
education programs; and
(d) the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4 61 01 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. - (A) The authorizing official, on behalf of the applicant, certifies that the applicant
WORKPLACE
ACT OF
1988
" E E will or will continue to provide a drug-&e workplace by:
(a) publishing a statement n0tifUi.g employees that the unlawfid manuhcture,
distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance is
prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the action that will be
taken against employees for violation of such prohibition;
(b) establishing an owing bug-fiee awareness pmgram to inform employees about:
(1) the dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
(2) the grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
(3) any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance
(4) the penalties that may be imposed on employees fbr drug abuse progamq and
violations occurring in the workplace;
(c) making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the
performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by
paqpph (4; (d) notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a
condition of employment under the grant, the employee will
(1) abide by the terms of the statement; and
(2) notie the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation
of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace not later than
five calendar days after such conviction;
(e) notifjring the agency in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receiving
notice under subp-aph (d)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving
ad notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must
provide notice, including position title, to every grant afficer on whose grant
activity the convicted employee was working, unless the federal agency has
designated a central point fix the receipt of such notices. Notices shall
include the identification number(s) of each &ted grant; (0 taking one of the folbwing actions within thirty (30) days of receiving notice
under subparagraph (d)(2) with respect to any employee who is so convicted:
(1) taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and induding termination consistent with the requirements of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. I 701 et seq.); or
assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a
federal, state; or local health, law or other appropriate agency; and
(g) making a good faith &ort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace
(2) requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse
through implementation of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (0.
(B) The applicant shall either id+ the site($ for the performance of work done in
connection with the project in the application material or shall keep this inbrmation
on file in its office so that it is available fbr Meral inspection. The street address, city,
munty, sate, and zip code should be pmvided whenever possible.
2003 IMLS National Lcahbip Grants Applicdon Form 5l
CERTIFICATION
REGARDING
LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES
(APPLIES
TO
APPLtCANTS
REQUESTING
FUNDS IN
EXCESS OF
$100,000)
GENERAL
CERTIFICATION
The authorizing official certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief that:
no federal appropriated hnds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of
the authorizing official, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence
an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or
employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection
with the awarding of a federal contract, the making of a federal grant, the making
of a federal loan, the entering into of a Cooperative agreement, or the extension,
continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of a federal contract, grant,
loan, or cooperative agreement.
if any bds other than appropriated federal funds have been paid or will be paid
to any person (other than a regularly employed officer or employee of the
applicant) for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any
agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employ= of Congress, or an
employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this fderal contract,
grant, loan or cooperative agreement, the authorizing official shall request,
complete, and submit Standard Form UL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,”
in accordance with its instructions.
the authorizing official shall require that the language of this certification be
included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including
subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants. loans, and cooperative
agreements) and that all subrecipients shaU certify and disclose accordingly.
The authorizing official, on behalf of the applicant, certifies that it will comply
with all applicable requirements of all other Federal laws, executive orders,
regulations, and policies governing the program.
II. CtRTlflCATlONS REQUIRED OF SOME APPLICANTS
The following cedkations are required if applicable to the project fbr which an application is being submitted. Applicants should be aware that additional federal
certifications, not listed below, might apply to a particular project.
Applicants who plan to use awards to bd subgrants, contracts and subcontracts
should be aware that they must receive rhe following certifications from applicants ro
grant programs and those who bid on contracts
(1) certification of compliance with the nondiscrimination statutes from institutional
(2) certification repding debarment and suspension from applicants to grant programs
applicants and contractors, and
(regdes of the amount requested) and &om potential contractors and
subcontractors who will receive $ lOCl,OOO or more in grant funds. Applicants are also required to include without modification the foilowing wording in soiicitauons fbr all
grant pmposais and fbr contracts that are expected to equal or exceed $1OO,oOO:
(a) The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal,
that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended, proposed
for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation
in this transaction by any federal department or agency.
(b) Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to cere to any of the
statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an
explanation to this proposal.
2003 IMLS Nktional Lcadrrrhip Gram
NATIVE
AMERICAN
HUMAN
REMAINS
AND
ASSOCIATED
FUNERARY
OBJECTS
HISTORIC
PROPERTIES - BNv1Ro)IMIIENIIAL PROTECTIONS
The authorizing official, on behalf of the applicant, certifies that the applicant will
comply with the provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.), which applies to any organization that controls or possesses Native American human remains and
associated funerary objects, and which receives fkderal funding, even for a purpose
unrelated to the Act.
The authorizing official, on behalf'of the applicant, certifies that the applicant will
assist the awarding agency in assuring compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1366, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 4700, Executive Order
(E.O.) 1 1593, and the Archaeologica and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (1 6
U.S.C. 6 469 et seq.).
The authorizing official, on behalf of the applicant, certifies that the project will
comply with environmental standards, including the following:
(a) institution of environmental quality control measures under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) and
Executive Order (E.O.) 11514;
(b) notification of violating &&ties pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 11738; (c) protection of wetlands pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 1 1990, as amended by
(d) evaluation of flood ham& in floodplains in accordance with Executive Order
(e) assurance of project consistency with the approve3 State manwent program
Executive Order (E.0.) 12608;
(E.O.) 11988, as amended.
developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (1 6
U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.); and (0 cohrmity of Federal actions to State (Clean Air) Implementation Ph under section
176(c) of the Clean Air Aa of 1955, as amendd (42 USC. 5 7401 et seq.);
(g) protection of underground sources of drinking water under the Safe Drinking
Water Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. $300f et seq.); and
(h) protectiun of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. $5 1531-1543).
The authorizing official, on behalfof the appiicant, certifies that the project will
comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 91271
et seq.) related to protecting components or potential components of the national
wild and scenic rivers system.
The authorizing offiad, on behalfof the applicant, cedes that the applicht will
comply with the flood iasurance requirements of the Flood Disaster Prodon Act of
1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9 4001 et seq.), which requires recipients in a special flood hazard area to participate in the program and to purchase flood insurance if the total cost
of insurable conmction and acquisition is $10,000 or more.
The authorizing official, on behalf of the applicant, cextifies that the project will
comply with 45 C.F.R. Part 46 regarding the protection of human subjects involved in research, development and related activities supported by this award of assistance.
Application Fom
I The authorizing official, on behalf of the applicant, certifies that the project will ' A IC comply with the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966, as amended (7 U.S.C. (5 " " A 213 1 et seq.) pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of warm blooded
A ' animals held fbr research, teaching or other activities supported by this award of
SUBJECTS assistance.
DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
Complete this form to disclose lobbying activities pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352
(See bottom of Instructions Page for public reporting burden disclosure) Approved by OM 0348-0046
I. Type of Federal Action: 3. Report Type: 2. Status of Federal Action: CJ a. Contract a. Initial filing a. Bid/offer/application
0 c. Cooperative agreement c. Post-award 0 d. Loan
Date of last report: 0 f. Loan insurance
Year: Quarter: 0 e. Loan guarantee For Material Change Only
4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity: 5. If Reporting Entity in No. 4. is Subawardee, Enter Name and Address of Prime:
b. Grant 0 b. Material change b. Initial award
El Prime 0 Subawardee Tier 0 ifknown:
Congressional District, ifknown: 51st
7. Federal Program NameAIescription: 6. Federal DepartmenUAgency:
Congressional District, ifknown:
Institute of Museum and Library
&%etfl&Cme-S Services
National Leadership Grants for
8. Federal Action Number, ifknown: 9. Award Amount, fknown:
$342-625
10. a. Name and Address of Lobbying Entity 10. b. Individuals Performing Services
(iyindividual. last name, first name, MI): (including address if different from No. 1O.a.) (last name,Jirst name, MI): Packard Government Affairs
220 West Grand Avenue
Escondido. California 92025
(attach Continuation Sheet($ SF-LLL-A ifnecessaty)
1 1. Amount of Payment (check all that apply):
$ 108,000 bi Actual 0 Planned
13. Type of Payment (check all that apply):
0 c. Commission 12. Form, of Payment (check all that apply):
0 b. One-time fee
fia a. Retainer
a. Cash
b. In-kind; specify: nature:
0 d. Contingent fee 0 e. Deferred
0 f. Other; specify:
value: I
14. Brief Description of Services Performed or to be Performed and Date@) of Service, including officer(s),
employee(s), or member@) contacted, for Payment indicated in Item 11:
General lobbying activities on City's behalf/interests.
(attach Continuation Sheet(
15. Continuation Sheet(s) SF-LLL-A attached: 0 Yes
16. Information requested through this form is authorized by
Title 3 1 U.S.C. section 1352. This disclosure of lobbying
activities is a material representation of fact upon which
reliance was placed by the tier above when this transaction
was made or entered into. This disclosure is required pursuant to 3 1 U.S.C. 1352. This information will be
reported to the Congress semiannually and will be
available for public inspection. Any person who fails to
file the required disclosure shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for
each such failure.
SF-LLL-A ifnecessaty) fl No L
Signature
Print Name: Frank Mannen
Title: Assist. City Manager
Telephone No.: 760-434-2821
Date: January 22, 2003
Federal Use Only
Authorized for Local Reproduction
Standard Form - LLL (Rev. 11/24/98)