NOTICES
DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION
Long-Range Plan for the Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund Grant Program for Public Library Facilities; 2009-2013
[39 Pa.B. 6619]
[Saturday, November 14, 2009]The Pennsylvania General Assembly passed legislation (Act 50) in 1993 to establish the Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund. The Department of Education (Department), through the Office of Commonwealth Libraries (OCL), Bureau of Library Development, administers the public library portion of this program.
Program Regulations of the Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund grant program for public library facilities, located in 22 Pa. Code § 142.2(d) (relating to the long-range plan) requires that, ''Commonwealth Libraries will publish the long-range plan and subsequent modifications to the long-range plan in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.''
Background
The Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund was established by an act of the Pennsylvania General Assembly (Act 50) in 1993. The voters approved Keystone by a two to one margin in a referendum. The Statewide referendum designated Keystone Funds for, ''nature preserves and wildlife habitats, and for improvements to and expansion of State parks, community parks and recreation facilities, historic sites, zoos and public libraries.''
The Department, through the OLC, Bureau of Library Development, administers the public library portion of this program. Within the Department, the OCL operates a major research library and leads the development of the State's public, school, academic and special libraries to meet the information, education and enrichment needs of its residents.
Moneys for the grant fund come from a portion of the realty transfer tax. The act calls for 4% of the fund each year to be allocated for library capital projects.
In the first year of the program, $1.2 million was available to public libraries, out of the initial $32 million. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, there was $4.1 million available to public libraries. In 2008, $2,525,000 was appropriated. Since a portion of State realty transfer tax funds Keystone, the health of the real estate market determines the amount of funds available for public library projects. An increase in home sales resulted in an additional grant round in 2007, instead of the usual bi-annual program, and a round has been held each year since.
The current competitive grant application process is used to award matching construction grants to municipalities that sponsor State-aided public libraries. Grants reimburse up to 50% of eligible costs. Since the beginning of the Fund until the end of FY 2008-2009, 238 projects have been completed or are currently under construction.
Current funding priorities have been set for two programs within the Fund:
Mini-Grant Program
The mini-grant program addresses construction related to making public library facilities accessible to persons with disabilities, nonroutine maintenance, and building additions or remodeling of existing buildings to demonstrably improve library service to patrons. Up to $75,000 in matching funds may be requested and total project costs are not to exceed $200,000 for this program. If submitting an application under the accessibility priority, an application must show that at least 70% of the project's construction cost is related to American Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility compliance. If submitting an application under the new construction, remodeling or renovation priority, a library building consultant is required.
Major Grant Program
This major construction grant program is for projects exceeding $75,000 that address ADA accessibility, new building construction, additions or remodeling of existing buildings to demonstrably improve library service to the general public, and nonroutine maintenance, particularly where lack of maintenance is impeding service to the general public, creating a public hazard or causing a hazard to the library collection. If submitting an application under the accessibility priority, an application must show that at least 70% of the project's construction cost is related to ADA accessibility compliance. Mechanical systems with replacement costs of over $100,000 are included in the priority of nonroutine maintenance in this program. No award has exceeded $500,000. All Major Grant projects require a building consultant.
Keystone grant applications are scored according to the criteria laid out in the grant application packet. The current application is available on the Keystone web site, located at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server. pt/community/keystone_recreation%2C_park%2C_and_ conservation_fund/8701, and the application for the 2009 round is also included at the end of this document.
Planning Process
About the Plan
In consultation with the Advisory Council on Library Development, OCL has prepared this long-range plan for the allocation of grants available to municipalities for public library facility planning, acquisition, development, or rehabilitation from the Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund, in fulfillment of 22 Pa. Code § 142.2. The Advisory Council on Library Development, established by the Library Code, offers advice and recommendations to the Governor, the Secretary of Education, and the Commissioner for Libraries in areas relating to general policies and operations of the State Library and the Commonwealth's library development programs. Council members represent library trustees, librarians, and lay advocates.
In preparing the long-range plan, Commonwealth Libraries also consulted with municipal officials and library representatives and worked with consultants Pat Owens and Mary Sieminski of RPA, Incorporated to gather information. Sarah Aerni provided statistical assistance. David Belanger provided representation from the Governor's Advisory Council.
As required by these regulations, this long-range plan includes the following components and will be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin:
1) A library facility needs assessment, including an analysis of the need in different geographical regions of this Commonwealth and of libraries serving various size municipalities, and a consideration of county library system plans;
2) An action plan to meet the need for improved library facilities through the use of the Fund and other available moneys;
3) Commonwealth Libraries' policies concerning the grants for public library facilities;
4) A plan for Commonwealth Libraries' administration of the program, including provision of technical assistance, monitoring of on-going projects and evaluation of completed projects.
Library Facilities Need Assessment
Methodology
In accordance with 22 Pa. Code § 142.2, a facility-needs assessment was undertaken. The assessment included an analysis of the need in different geographical regions of this Commonwealth and of libraries serving various size municipalities, and a consideration of county library system plans.
The following sources of data were used for the Needs Assessment:
• Facilities Survey of all State-aided public libraries (March, 2007);
• State-wide survey of municipalities (March, 2007);
• Review of Keystone Frequently Asked Questions (June 19, 2007);
• Interviews with Office of Commonwealth Libraries staff (July 17, 2007);
• Survey of past grant recipients (September 2007);
• Survey of grant reviewers (September 2007);
• System Administrators and District Consultants meeting (September 6, 2007);
• Eight focus groups across the Commonwealth (October—November 2007)
Facilities Survey
A detailed survey regarding facilities for all State-aided public libraries, and branches, was distributed in early March 2007, by means of e-mail, using Survey Monkey. The survey questions covered facility structure, condition of interior and exterior features, facility impact on services and future needs of the facilities. Questions regarding the Keystone Grant Program were also elicited. A total of 438 responses were received by the cut-off date of May 10, 2007. Responses to the survey were not assumed to have been completed by a library representative with facility management education or training. Results of the survey were also analyzed by geographic region and by the size of the population served by responding libraries.
The 2007 Keystone Public Library Needs Assessment Survey responses are located on the Department's Keystone Recreation, Parks and Conservation web page.
Findings:
Survey recipients were asked to report on the age, condition and future needs for their library facilities. Their responses were not verified by outside experts, such as architects or building consultants, but valid conclusions may still be made about the facility needs for libraries in this Commonwealth over the next 5 years.
This Commonwealth's public libraries are aging. Forty-two percent of Commonwealth libraries are housed in facilities that are over 57 years old. Thirty percent of the libraries were built in the first half of the 20th century, 12% were built in the 19th century and one facility was built in the 18th century. Fifty-eight percent of State-aided libraries have constructed new facilities since 1950, with 9% in the 21st century.
Year of construction of existing facility:
Frequency Valid Percent Valid Prior to 1800 1 .3 1800—1849 8 2.0 1850—1899 39 9.8 1900—1949 117 29.5 1950—1974 95 24.0 1975—1999 101 25.5 2000 or after 35 8.8 Total 396 100.0 Missing System 42 Total 438 Thirty-three percent of libraries reported that they have constructed additions to library facilities. Of these, 50% were added between 1975 and 1999, with an additional 33% in 2000 and after; however, 66% of libraries have never constructed an addition.
Year of most recent addition, if any:
Frequency Valid Percent Valid Before 1950 9 6.2 1950—1974 16 11.0 1975—1999 72 49.7 2000 or after 48 33.1 Total 145 100.0 Missing System 293 Total 438 Fifty-two percent of public libraries reported that they made renovations to the structure of the facility. Of those, 51% reported renovations between 1975 and 1999, and 41% completed some renovations in the 21st century. Forty-eight percent of libraries in this Commonwealth have never been renovated.
Year of most recent major renovation, if any:
Frequency Valid Percent Valid Before 1950 4 1.8 1950—1974 14 6.1 1975—1999 116 50.9 2000 or after 94 41.2 Total 228 100.0 Missing System 210 Total 438 Condition of existing facility
While 31% of respondents rated the overall condition of their library facilities as adequate, 29% rated the condition as less than adequate. Only 40% of libraries were ranked as more than adequate. Of those, 12% were ranked in the highest category of ''good.''
On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=substandard, 3=adequate, and 5=good, rate the overall condition of your facility:
Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 24 7.5 7.5 2 69 21.4 28.9 3 100 31.1 59.9 4 89 27.6 87.6 5 40 12.4 100.0 Total 322 100.0 Missing System 116 Total 438 Library directors were asked to describe the condition of specific areas of their current library facilities. Particular interest was given to areas libraries described as ''less than adequate'' for daily use. ''Less than adequate'' was defined using the five point scale from the question. The value ''3'' was defined as adequate, and anything rated below a three was less than adequate.
The following table shows the 15 aspects of library facilities that received the lowest ranking about the condition of their facility. It is ordered by mean ranking from all respondents, from lowest to highest. All of the lowest 15 answers were rated less than adequate, except for signage, at the bottom, which was at the minimum level of adequacy.
Three that really stand out are the inadequacy of the young adult areas, the tutoring rooms and the lack of adequate parking spaces for the disabled.
Aspect of Facility Valid data Missing data Mean (valid data) Air conditioning (window units) 371 67 2.15 Storage (general) 369 69 2.18 Storage for
Children's supplies369 69 2.30 Book sale area 271 167 2.49 Young adult area 269 169 2.50 Basement 196 242 2.56 Technical services area 234 204 2.64 Shelving (sufficient quantity) 395 43 2.77 Tutoring rooms 109 329 2.83 Staff Lounge 211 227 2.85 Parking lot 272 166 2.88 Conference rooms 193 245 2.94 Accessible parking space for disabled 336 102 2.96 Meeting rooms 298 140 2.99 Signage 393 45 3.00 Various aspects of the library facility that are lacking
The following chart shows the results of the same question about the condition of various aspects of the library facility. However, it is ordered by the facility aspect with the highest amounts of nonresponses. We assume by nonresponse that the library facility does not contain that particular element. In some cases, it is good not to have certain aspects of the facility (for example, window air conditioners because we assume that the facility has central air). For other facility components, a lack is definitely a draw-back, such as not having handicapped accessible parking.
The number of libraries responding to the question about each aspect of their library facility as ''N/A'' or ''missing,'' was compared to how many total responses there were. By answering ''N/A,'' the library is saying that they do not have, for example, an office for the director. If many libraries do not have this feature/service, then that aspect of the facility will have a high percentage. The ranked list of the top fifteen follows.
Aspect of Facility Missing Total responses % who said N/A Gift shop 425 438 97 Coffee shop 419 438 96 Air conditioning (window units) 371 438 85 Automatic doors 332 438 76 Tutoring rooms 329 438 75 Elevator 320 438 73 Computer lab 315 438 72 Conference rooms 245 438 56 Basement 242 438 55 Ramps 228 438 52 Staff Lounge 227 438 52 Wireless Internet 223 438 51 Technical services area 204 438 47 Facility Security System 188 438 43 Young adult area 169 438 39 This table shows that 75% of libraries do not have tutoring rooms, 73% have no elevator and 72% do not have a computer lab. The fact that 85% of libraries responded ''N/A'' to the question of having window air conditioning units is seen as positive since more have moved to central air.
On the other hand, automatic doors and an elevator are particularly important for libraries to be accessible to the elderly and to the disabled, however, many facilities do not have them. Tutoring rooms and computer labs are very useful for many types of life-long learning and continuing education activities for people of all ages. Library facilities were lacking these aspects in over 70% of all responses. These categories really stand out as definitive needs for the Commonwealth's public libraries going forward.
Interior renovations
Construction Needs Positive responses Percentage of total (438) Category (see below) Furniture 142 32% Shelving 141 32% Signage 135 31% Paint/plaster on interior walls 118 27% Libraries need to be updated. Thirty-two percent indicated that they needed new furniture. Thirty percent indicated that they needed improved lighting. Twenty-seven percent indicated that interior painting and plastering were needed. Library customers prefer public buildings with environments that are clean, attractive and inviting, and this is demonstrated by the responses of library directors.
Facility maintenance
Construction Needs Positive responses Percentage of total (438) Parking lot upgrade 123 28% Sidewalk upgrade 58 13% Smoke/fire alarm 52 12% Because of a shortage of funds, many libraries have had to defer maintenance, often requiring a more expensive repair later. The poor condition of sidewalks presents a hazard to library customers. A prevalent problem is the lack of parking as well as the dearth of handicapped parking spaces. With this Commonwealth's aging population, this problem will only increase.
• 28% indicated that they need better parking lots and sidewalk repair.
• 13% indicated that sidewalk repair was necessary.
• 12% need smoke or fire alarms.
New construction
Construction Needs Positive responses Percentage of total (438) New facility 86 20% Addition, new 125 29% There exists a great need for new construction for State-aided public libraries within this Commonwealth. Approximately 42% of these libraries were constructed prior to 1950.
• 20% of reporting libraries indicated that they were in need of a new facility.
• 29% indicated a need for an addition to their present facility.
The top construction needs for which libraries had bids
To determine which needs were most likely to be met or were considered most critical, the survey included a question on construction needs for which libraries had completed a bid process. One hundred and fifty-six libraries indicated that they had obtained cost figures for a needed project.
Thirty-two libraries had received a cost estimate for a new facility or an addition. Energy-related items such as window replacement, insulation, lighting, heating and air conditioning system replacement had been considered by 71 libraries. Forty-seven libraries had estimates on interior renovations such as furniture, shelving, carpeting, paint and plaster. Bids on external repairs were obtained by 37 libraries, while handicapped accessibility improvement costs were received by 20 libraries. Some libraries had bid out more than one project.
This category includes only a small subset of libraries in this Commonwealth that actually had bids for construction and is not representative of the greater library population. Many libraries may not be aware of maintenance needs, or may not have the funds to consider obtaining estimates for maintenance or new construction.
Sources of funding
State funding requires a local match and, with project totals often higher than the match limit, it is estimated that every $1 in Keystone funding leverages nearly $6 in local library capital funding. The needs assessment indicates that, as of 2007, the demand for construction funds is in excess of $335 million.
The sole funding source available to OCL for funding construction is the Keystone Fund.
For the 156 libraries with construction projects planned, the following sources of funding were being pursued.
• Local public funds: 80%
• Gifts and donations: 75%.
• Keystone grant funds: 60%
• Other State grant funds: 60%
• Endowment funds: 30%
• Federal funds: 28%
• Bond funds: 19%
• Other private foundation grant funding: most of these libraries
Source Number who said yes Percentage who said yes (156=N) Local public funds 124 79% Gifts and Donations 119 76% Keystone Grant Funds 94 60% State Grant Funds 92 59% Endowment Funds 47 30% Federal Funds 43 28% Bond Funds 30 19% Other Private Funds 7 4% (''N'' is used to indicate the number of respondents to the questions)
Size of municipality
Survey results were analyzed by the size of the municipality served by the library and by the geographic region of this Commonwealth. The results indicate that building and construction needs are distributed fairly evenly over this Commonwealth's geographic regions and municipalities.
Survey results were broken down into five groupings, according to the population served by the responding libraries. The ranges were populations of 4,999 and under, populations of 5,000 to 9,999, populations of 10,000 to 49,999, and libraries serving populations of 50,000 and above. Estimated costs for planned projects by population served, show that the greatest need for Mini-Grants of $75,000 or less was in the areas with smaller populations of 20,000 or fewer.
The oldest library facilities were in areas with populations of 9,999 or fewer, although 43% of libraries in municipalities serving 50,000 or more were constructed prior to 1950. The newest facilities (the 9% constructed in 2000 or after) belonged to public libraries serving 20,000 to 49,000 residents. The 5,000 to 9,999 population grouping had the highest proportion of libraries (75%) ranking the condition of their facilities as adequate to good.
The top priority needs noted, include automatic doors (listed in four of the five population groups) and meeting rooms (listed in three of the five population groups). A few additional pieces of information are listed.
Sufficient Seating and Meeting Room Space for Different Sized Municipalities
Does the facility currently have
sufficient seating for patrons?
Yes No Total Categories of Population Served Fewer than 6,000 people 33
29
62
6,001—12,000 people 43 28 71 12,001—20,000 people 36 17 53 20,001—40,000 people 39 32 71 40,001—100,000 people 17 21 38 More than 100,001 people 16 6 22 Total 184 133 317 Twenty-two percent of respondents, without sufficient seating for patrons, serve populations with fewer than 6,000 people. Eighty percent of respondents without sufficient seating for patrons serve populations of 40,000 people or less.
Public Access Computers for Different Sized Municipalities
Does the facility have an adequate number of public access computers? Yes No Total Categories of Population Served Fewer than 6,000 people 35
28
63
6,001—12,000 people 21 51 72 12,001—20,000 people 17 37 54 20,001—40,000 people 29 42 71 40,001—100,000 people 8 30 38 More than 100,001 people 2 20 22 Total 112 208 320 Twenty-five percent of libraries without an adequate number of public access computers serve populations of between 6,000 and 12,000 people. Seventy-six percent of all libraries that do not have an adequate number of public access computers serve populations of fewer than 40,000 people.
The ability to accommodate larger numbers of people in meeting rooms is also needed.
Do you have sufficient
meeting room space?Yes No Total How many people
can your meeting
room accommodate?1—25 20 80 100 26—50 35 46 81 51—75 41 22 63 76—100 32 14 46 Over 100 23 9 32 Total 151 171 322
How many more would you like it to accommodate?
1—25 26—50 51—75 76—100 Over 100—125 Total How many people
can your meeting
room accommodate?1—25 19 38 13 11 6 87 26—50 17 16 11 12 6 62 51—75 9 6 5 3 5 28 76—100 6 1 0 3 8 18 Over 100 4 1 1 1 5 12 Geographic regions
The Needs Assessment was also analyzed by eight geographic regions, each of which consists of one or more District Library Centers:
• Central (C): Altoona, Central PA, Chambersburg, Johnstown
• Lehigh Valley (LV): Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, Pottsville, Reading
• North Central (NC): North Central
• North East (NE): Wilkes-Barre, Scranton
• North West (NW): Erie, New Castle, Oil Creek, Seneca
• South Central (SC): Capital Area, Lancaster, Lebanon, York
• South East (SE): Chester, Delaware, Doylestown, Montgomery, Philadelphia
• South West (SW): Aliquippa, Monessen, Pittsburgh, Washington
The North East and North Central regions had the highest percentage of libraries that were constructed prior to 1950. The South West had 50% of additions in 2000 and after, with 54% reporting major renovations since 2000. The proportion of libraries ranking the condition of facilities as adequate to good was highest in South Central (85%) and South East (81%) and was lowest in the more rural regions—North East (67%) and Central (62%).
• Central (C): Altoona, Central PA, Chambersburg, Johnstown
The top-ten most pressing needs reported for this region are listed as follows.
Item Number of positive responses Percent of positive responses Carpeting 20 49 Meeting room 19 46 Shelving 19 46 Automatic doors 18 44 Furniture 18 44 Storage 16 39 Tutoring room 16 39 Addition, new 15 37 Lighting 15 37 New facility 15 37 • Lehigh Valley (LV): Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, Pottsville, Reading
The top-ten most pressing needs reported for this region are listed as follows.
Item Number of positive responses Percent of positive responses Storage 26 52 Book sale area 25 50 Young adult area 24 48 Addition, new 22 44 Automatic doors 22 44 Carpeting 22 44 Shelving 22 44 Accessible parking space for disabled 21 42 Meeting room 21 42 Tutoring room 21 42 • North Central (NC): North Central
The top-ten most pressing needs reported for this region are listed as follows.
Item Number of positive responses Percent of positive responses Rest rooms 13 54 Automatic doors 12 50 Accessible parking space for disabled 11 46 Addition, new 11 46 Meeting room 11 46 Tutoring room 11 46 Carpeting 10 42 Conference room 10 42 Parking lot upgrade 10 42 Shelving 10 42 • North East (NE): Wilkes-Barre, Scranton
The top-ten most pressing needs reported for this region are listed as follows.
Item Number of positive responses Percent of positive responses Signage 12 41 Storage 10 34 Carpeting 9 31 Lighting 9 31 New facility 9 31 Young adult area 8 28 Accessible parking space for disabled 7 24 Automatic doors 7 24 Children's area 7 24 Computer Lab 7 24 • North West (NW): Erie, New Castle, Oil Creek, Seneca
The top-ten most pressing needs reported for this region are listed as follows.
Item Number of positive responses Percent of positive responses Parking lot upgrade 15 35 Storage 15 35 Young adult area 15 35 Addition, new 14 33 Computer Lab 13 30 Furniture 13 30 Carpeting 12 28 Meeting room 12 28 Shelving 12 28 Automatic doors 11 26 • South Central (SC): Capital Area, Lancaster, Lebanon, York
The top-ten most pressing needs reported for this region are listed as follows.
Item Number of positive responses Percent of positive responses Meeting room 19 44 Storage 19 44 Automatic doors 18 42 Young adult area 18 42 Addition, new 17 40 Computer Lab 17 40 Shelving 17 40 Tutoring room 16 37 Children's area 15 35 Furniture 15 35 • South East (SE): Chester, Delaware, Doylestown, Montgomery, Philadelphia
The top-ten most pressing needs reported for this region are listed as follows.
Item Number of positive responses Percent of positive responses Signage 45 42 Storage 43 41 Furniture 42 40 Young adult area 42 40 Carpeting 38 36 Lighting 37 35 Wireless Internet 37 35 Paint/plaster on interior walls 36 34 Shelving 36 34 Automatic doors 34 32 • South West (SW): Aliquippa, Monessen, Pittsburgh, Washington
The top-ten most pressing needs reported for this region are listed as follows.
Item Number of positive responses Percent of positive responses Automatic doors 29 36 Lighting 27 34 Carpeting 23 29 Furniture 20 25 Signage 20 25 Meeting room 19 24 Staff lounge 19 24 Window replacement 19 24 Paint/plaster on interior walls 18 23 Storage 18 23 The Most Pressing Needs Reported Statewide
Libraries were asked to list major aspects of their facilities that needed to be replaced or improved. Responses to this question are listed as follows, ranked in order of construction needs listed by the most respondents. Categories were created to group improvement priorities.
Key:
EE = Energy Efficiency
SP = Space Needs
ADA = Accessibility
Construction Needs Positive responses Percentage
of total (438)Category
(see below)Storage 155 35% SP Automatic doors 152 35% ADA Young adult area 150 34% SP Carpeting 144 33% EE Furniture 142 32% Shelving 141 32% Meeting room 140 32% SP Signage 135 31% Lighting 131 30% EE Tutoring room 130 30% SP Addition, new 125 29% SP Parking lot upgrade 123 28% Accessible parking space for disabled 121 28% ADA Paint/plaster on interior walls 118 27% Book sale area 112 26% Children's area 112 26% SP Computer Lab 112 26% SP Staff lounge 108 25% SP Conference room 106 24% SP Rest rooms 98 22% SP Air conditioning (Central) 90 21% EE Heating system replacement 89 20% EE Technical services area 89 20% SP Director's office 87 20% SP Phone system 87 20% Wireless Internet 87 20% New facility 86 20% SP Window replacement 86 20% EE Insulation 84 19% EE Wiring (Electrical) 83 19% Facility Security System 82 19% Drinking fountain 74 17% Plumbing 73 17% EE Roof replacement 73 17% EE Coffee shop 64 15% Ventilation system 64 15% EE Wheelchair accessible rest rooms 63 14% ADA Sidewalk upgrade 58 13% Wiring (Telecommunications) 57 13% Smoke/fire alarm 52 12% Ramp installation 44 10% ADA Gift shop 28 6% Air conditioning (Window Units) 17 4% Renovations for energy efficiency (EE)
Construction Needs Positive responses Percentage
of total (438)Category Carpeting 144 33% EE Lighting 131 30% EE Air conditioning (Central) 90 21% EE Heating system replacement 89 20% EE Window replacement 86 20% EE Insulation 84 19% EE Plumbing 73 17% EE Roof replacement 73 17% EE Ventilation system 64 15% EE Thirty percent of libraries reported that they would benefit from energy-efficiency improvements, ranging from new heating and ventilation systems to insulation, plumbing, roof replacement and new windows and doors. Since many of the libraries are not energy-efficient, the routine costs of heating, cooling and lighting are not as low as they could be.
There is a compelling need to transition to alternative sources of clean energy and ensure that our public libraries are energy-efficient.
Additional space (SP)
Construction Needs Positive responses Percentage
of total (438)Category Storage 155 35% SP Young adult area 150 34% SP Meeting room 140 32% SP Tutoring room 130 30% SP Addition, new 125 29% SP Children's area 112 26% SP Computer Lab 112 26% SP Staff lounge 108 25% SP Conference room 106 24% SP Rest rooms 98 22% SP Technical services area 89 20% SP Director's office 87 20% SP One-third of the libraries responding indicated that they needed additions, space for young adults, meeting space, tutoring rooms, additional shelving space, and just plain storage space. Many public libraries are located in spaces that were not originally designed as libraries—older homes, schools, township buildings—and do not function efficiently in providing library services.
Thirty-four percent of the respondents indicated that they needed storage space to better serve their users. Shelving space was also desired. Libraries also serve as community centers for a variety of programs, lectures, workshops, and similar activities. Adequate large meeting rooms as well as tutoring rooms are needed. Restroom facility updates would provide accessibility as well as savings on utilities.
Access for the disabled and elderly (ADA)
Construction Needs Positive responses Percentage
of total (438)Category Automatic doors 152 35% ADA Accessible parking space for disabled 121 28% ADA Elevator 83 19% ADA Wheelchair accessible rest rooms 63 14% ADA Ramp installation 44 10% ADA Making libraries more accessible for the disabled and the elderly is a priority for libraries in this Commonwealth, which has one of the oldest populations in the nation. Libraries undergoing renovation are required to comply with the ADA.
The U. S. Department of Commerce Population Projections by States, 1995-2025, based on U.S. Census 2000 data, indicates that all States will have more people and more elderly residents as Baby Boomers age. This Commonwealth ranks 49th in terms of projected population growth, however, this Commonwealth has an aging population that represents a significant percentage of library users, as shown in the following chart.1
The needs for access in public libraries in this Commonwealth are clear:
• 35% indicated a need for automatic doors (68% of libraries indicated that they do not have automatic doors now);
• 28% indicated a need for handicapped parking spaces;
• 15% need accessible rest rooms;
• 10% need ramps for accessibility.
Municipal Survey
The municipal survey was distributed to 2,600 municipal officials. Over 750 responses were received.
Findings:
Responses to the facility survey of library directors and the survey of municipal officials indicated that the greatest impediments to libraries improving their library facilities are
• Limited knowledge and skills in facility planning
• Limited financial resources
Keystone Frequently Asked Questions
Consultants reviewed each posting of the Keystone Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) e-mail group and summarized findings.
Conclusion: The FAQs are viewed as extremely helpful to grant applicants and recipients.
Office of Commonwealth Libraries Staff Interviews
Consultants met with the staff of the OCL on July 17, 2007, to solicit input regarding the Keystone Conservation, Park and Recreation grant program. Eight staff members attended. A separate meeting with the Keystone Library Facilities Advisor, Diana Megdad, and Grants and Contracting Manager, Constance Cardillo, followed this meeting.
The following comments were elicited:
• The Keystone Fund provides hope for libraries, particularly small libraries that need roofs or elevators
• Improved facilities result in overall increase in library usage
• Problems include lack of local planning and lack of adequate funding
• District Consultants and System Administrators should play a larger role
• Lack of communication between the library and municipality, caused in part by turnover in the library and municipal staffs, causes problems, such as municipalities that proceed without library input
• System Board role is uneven throughout the State
• Existing time frame is thought to take too long
• Paperwork is cumbersome
• Building Program statements are not standardized; quality of statements varies
• Planning grants are needed
Conclusion: Consultants found the information gathering in this staff meeting extremely helpful in drafting the long-range plan.
Survey of Past Library Projects
A survey of past grant project libraries was drafted and was approved by the OCL. The link to the survey was distributed on September 6, 2007, to the director of each of the 213 libraries that had benefited from a Keystone grant since 1994. Responses were received from 69 libraries that had a Keystone project in the past.
Findings:
• Many libraries had new boards and directors who were not aware of the history or procedures that had been followed.
• Quarterly Reports, which are required of Keystone grantees, were completed by the library director 46% of the time, by municipal officials 25% of the time, and by a trustee or some other person 29% of the time.
• The majority of grant recipients by far were satisfied or very satisfied with most aspects of the grant application process: timing (70%), clarity of the paperwork (74%) and the timely response to questions (81%). However only 48% were satisfied or very satisfied with grant training, and 30% responded that they had not had any training.
• The majority of past grant recipients were satisfied or very satisfied with most aspects of the grant administration process: the level of detail required in the reports (62%), the timing of payments (67%) and the timely response to reporting questions (82%).
• Eighty-one percent would apply again.
• Fifty percent said that they would be more willing to apply if the applicant were the library.
• One percent said that working with the municipality had a negative effect on their relationship with the municipality.
• Less than 5% said that the requirement to pay prevailing wage would negatively affect their decision to apply for funding, although many pointed out that it did raise the cost of the project.
• Sixty-five percent thought that the process could be simplified; 50% thought that the timeline should be shortened.
• The greatest obstacle encountered varied from community to community, from red tape to working through so many layers; many said there were not any significant obstacles.
• General comments were very positive.
Grant Reviewer Survey
A survey of the current review team for Keystone grants was drafted and was approved by the OCL. The survey was distributed by means of e-mail to the eight reviewers on September 4, 2007. Currently, two teams of four, review the applications. One team exclusively reviews the mini-grants, and the other the major construction applications. Thoughtful responses were received from each reviewer.
Findings:
• All reviewers felt they were adequately prepared to review the grants and noted the helpfulness and approachability of the Keystone Advisor.
• In terms of problems with the grants, there was a sense by three reviewers that libraries with more money and staff were able to write better applications. Reviewers would like to find a balance between an application that assures the OCL that a library has done all the work it needs to do to be able to manage the project, and an application that is easier and less time-consuming to write and review.
• There was consensus that some libraries do not allow adequate time to prepare grant applications.
• Three reviewers felt that the documentation by applicants of existing matching funds was often weak and perhaps the standard for providing this evidence should be better defined in the application, with specific examples of good evidence.
• To improve the process, reviewers felt that the training should be mandatory for all applicants; libraries need more instruction on how to put together a good grant application.
• Reviewers also supported the idea of requiring a letter of intent.
System Administrator and District Consultant Input
A brief Keystone survey was distributed to all System Administrators in early March, 2007. After numerous reminders, all 33 completed the survey. A discussion of the Keystone program was held with the administrators at their regularly scheduled meeting on March 23, 2007, in Grantville. Consultants held a focus group with System Administrators on September 6, 2007, at their regularly scheduled meeting in Grantville.
Survey highlights: Five of the systems were unaware that the system board was to review plans. Nineteen have not incorporated building needs into their long-range plans, but 12 plan to do so in the future.
Findings:
• System Administrators indicated that the review of grant applications by system boards is uneven at best. It was also noted that if a system did reject a proposal from a member library, new problems would be created.
• There is a need to involve System Administrators earlier in the process, so that they could have more input.
• There is a pressing need for training directors, boards, System, and District Administrators in building planning.
• System Administrators see a need for system-wide facilities planning
Additional Findings:
Responses to the facility survey of library directors and the survey of municipal officials indicated that the greatest impediments to libraries improving their library facilities are:
• Limited knowledge and skills in facility planning
• Limited financial resources
Focus Groups
Eight focus groups were held Statewide in late October and early November. The makeup of the focus groups is noted as follows:
• Franklin Focus Group—13 librarians, one trustee
• Pittsburgh Focus Group—eight librarians
• Bellwood Focus Group—nine librarians, one trustee
• Williamsport Focus Group—four librarians
• Scranton Focus Group—eight librarians, one trustee
• Norristown Focus Group—eight librarians, one trustee
• Harrisburg Focus Group—six librarians
• Allentown Focus Group—ten librarians (one is also a trustee)
Findings:
• Participants were very positive regarding assistance provided by the Keystone Advisor, particularly the FAQs. They did suggest that the questions and answers should be indexed and put on listserv or a web site for future reference.
• Building program statements need to be based on specific criteria, and building consultants need some sort of certification.
• The most cited problem areas were the prevailing wage requirement and the municipality as applicant requirement.
• Participants recognize that prevailing wage will remain a requirement, but think that a legislative change should be considered to make the library or owner of the building the applicant.
• A number of participants stated that the original legislative intent of the program was to foster partnerships with the municipalities, but, by and large, this has not happened. (By contrast, the Facilities Survey shows that relationships improved for 80% of the respondents after receipt of a Keystone grant. This survey question was answered by 189 libraries. See page 80).
• District Consultants need training, and System Administrators and boards should be encouraged to develop Master Facilities Plans.
• Participants observed that Keystone funds have never been sufficient to satisfy needs and suggested that PaLA should advocate for additional funds, and OCL should explore new funding streams to meet facility needs.
Webinar
Consultants registered for and attended the Webinar presented by OCL staff on January 30, 2007.
Findings: Consultant felt that the overall presentation was very well done and concluded that training is critical for creating a successful grant application.
Conclusion
Input given by hundreds of grant applicants, grant recipients, unsuccessful grant applicants, directors, and board members indicates that the strengths of the current program are many. The funding provided by the program is essential for many State-aid public libraries, and the present administration of the program, for the most part, works well. A major strength is the help provided by OCL staff to grant applicants and recipients.
Although the North East and North Central regions have the highest percentage of libraries constructed prior to 1950, and the highest proportion of libraries ranking the condition of their facilities the lowest was in the more rural regions of the North East and Central Region, building and construction needs are distributed fairly evenly over this Commonwealth's geographic regions and municipalities.
The top needs are renovations for energy efficiency, access for the disabled and elderly, nonroutine maintenance and additional space. Need is also shown for facility planning.
Action Plan
In response to the findings previously listed, the action plan has five major goals:
Goal 1: Keystone funds will be distributed to meet priority needs.
Proposed activities: 2009 and ongoing
• Establish a list of funding priorities. Those priorities include:
A. Energy efficiency projects that meet the State's energy priorities. This includes installing efficient heating and air conditioning systems, window replacement, lighting upgrades and other green building technologies or upgrades. At least 70% of construction costs must be related to energy efficiency to qualify for a grant in this priority.
B. ADA requirements. At least 70% of construction costs must be related to ADA accessibility compliance in order to qualify for a grant in this priority.
C. Nonroutine maintenance, and mechanical system upgrades and interior renovations
D. New building construction, additions or remodeling/renovations, which provide additional space and/or demonstrably improve library service to the general public.
E. Planning projects. The emphasis in this priority will be to assist Library Systems in meeting 22 Pa. Code § 141.24(g)(1) (relating to library systems) for reviewing and approving plans for construction, remodeling or enlargement of units in the System to confirm that the units fulfill the needs of the are served.
Goal 2: Potential applicants will have a choice of grant categories.
Proposed activities: 2009 and ongoing
A. Maintain Major Grants for additions and new building.
1. Require attendance at training by one of the contacts on grant application cover page.
B. Maintain Mini-Grants for renovations, major maintenance, roofs and windows.
1. Examine reporting requirements for any possible simplification.
Goal 3: Pennsylvania library directors, boards and municipalities will have a better understanding of library facility planning.
Proposed activities: 2010 and ongoing
A. Take steps to improve knowledge by working with other OCL staff to provide multiple opportunities for training such as workshops, presentations at the annual Trustee Institute, a comprehensive web site of construction-related information, and/or facilities planning toolkits.
B. Make public libraries aware of applicable library code.
22 Pa. Code § 141.24(g) states:
Facilities. Library system facilities shall conform to the following: (1) After the effective date of this section, it shall be the responsibility of the system board to review and approve plans for construction, remodeling or enlargement of units in the system to confirm that the units fulfill the needs of the area served.
C. Work with other OCL staff to provide facilities planning training opportunities to System Administrators and District Consultants.
D. Institute planning grants for system-wide planning.
Goal 4: Libraries and municipalities will become more aware of the Keystone Fund.
Proposed activities: 2010 and ongoing
A. Make the long-term schedule of grant dates available at least 2 years in advance, based on available funding.
B. Make presentations to groups, such as the County Commissioners Association and the Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities.
C. Continue the existing practices of
1. Sending each municipality and every library in the State a letter announcing the Keystone grant and all workshops.
2. E-mailing each library and sending reminder e-mails.
3. Posting information about training opportunities on the PDE web site.
4. Sending FAQ e-mail group announcements of training opportunities.
D. Encourage all System Administrators and District Consultants to attend Webinars and workshops. Brief the System Administrators, District Consultants and OCL staff on the Keystone Fund on an annual basis.
Goal 5. Pennsylvania library directors, boards and municipalities will be aware of the wide range of potential funding for library facilities improvement.
Proposed Activities: 2011 and ongoing
A. Work with other OCL staff to make available to library boards and directors information, training and/or toolkits for creating building funds, conducting capital campaigns, establishing library foundations and conducting successful local bond issues.
[Continued on next Web Page] _______
1 Taxpayer Return on Investment (ROI) in Pennsylvania Public Libraries by Jose-Marie Griffiths, Donald W. King and Sarah E. Aerni, September, 2006. Chart is on page 16. http://www.statelibrary.state.pa.us/libraries/lib/libraries/PAROIreport FINAL7.pdf
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
