In the scramble to secure state money for local projects, even a
very good proposal may not be good enough.
In the scramble to secure state money for local projects, even a very good proposal may not be good enough.
State reviewers announced last week that Morgan Hill and Gilroy each received marks of “very good” on separate proposals for multi-million dollar library projects. The state will select recipients based on those ratings on Nov. 29, but local officials seem to have already written off their chances in this third and final grant cycle.
“It doesn’t look good for us,” said Carol O’Hare, incoming president of the Friends of the Morgan Hill Library. “There were too many proposals that received an ‘outstanding’ ranking.”
Councilman Steve Tate, Morgan Hill’s biggest library booster, said the results weren’t unexpected and would just give the council the impetus to forge ahead building a new $17 million, 28,000-square-foot library without state financial help.
“If we get money later from a new round of bonding, we can expand,” Tate said.
Gilroy, too, is planning a new library to meet its growing population’s needs.
“We know that we’re not going to be in the running next week,” said Gilroy Facilities Manager Bill Headley, who helped prepare the city’s $14.9-million proposal for a 53,500 square-foot-library.
Morgan Hill asked the state for nearly $14.2 million.
In this grant cycle, 72 California cities proposing a combined $583 million in projects competed for just $77 million in remaining state funds.
“This is just such a competitive process,” said state Librarian Susan Hildreth, a member of the state board that hands out the money. “You know, ‘very good’ is very good. If we had more funding it wouldn’t be a question.”
The lion’s share of the remaining $77 million will go to cities with applications rated as “outstanding” – a top category that includes 20 proposals worth a combined $212 million.
Gilroy’s rating actually fell between the first and second round of grant applications, a result of the highly competitive and evolving nature of the application process, according to Jerry Scribner, a Sacramento lobbyist the city hired to help with its grant application.
Scribner began helping with the grant about 18 months ago during the second grant cycle. He explained that state reviewers judge applications in four over-arching categories, based on a scale of one to four (with four corresponding to “outstanding”). The main categories – age and condition of the current library, an evaluation of community need, the plan to meet that need, and the integration of technology – are made up of multiple subcategories, also rated on a one-to-four scale.
“On the age (subcategory), for example, if you have no library or one built in 1949 or earlier, you get a four,” Scribner said. “If you were built later than ‘69, you get nothing.”
Gilroy’s existing library was constructed in 1975 and Morgan Hill’s in 1973. Gilroy received a three in the overall age and needs category, according to Hildreth, who declined to provide additional details about cities’ ranking until officials received their detailed review. According to Scribner, applicants must receive top marks in at least three of the four main categories to earn a score of “outstanding.”
“The state office does a very respectable job of following an objective process,” Headley said. “We may not like all the yardsticks they’re applying, but they apply them to everybody.”
While the South Valley cities have lost out on this final round of state funding, they may have priority on grants if voters in March 2006 approve an additional $600 million for library construction projects. The new bill was introduced by State Senator Dede Alpert, D-San Diego.
Legislation already approved by the governor would allow the state to allot as much as $300 million to applicants who failed to win a grant.
Cities that received marks of “outstanding” but failed to get funding will likely get first priority, according to Hildreth. Those proposals would eat up half of the $300 million.
Morgan Hill’s chances on getting a portion of the remaining half will depend on how much, if any, the state decides to award to applicants rated “very good,” and how the city’s proposal stacks up against others.
The city expected to receive a detailed breakdown of its review by today.
Tate expressed hope that voters in 2006 will approve the $600 million bond issue for library construction projects.
He was also concerned that voters approve a measure reinstating a parcel tax for the Santa Clara County Library System, of which Morgan Hill’s library is a part. Voters narrowly defeated a similar measure extending an annual payment, per parcel, of $33.66 and adding $8.34 for a total of $42 in March 2004, which led to libraries closing on Monday and with more cuts to hours, services and new materials possible in the future.
“If we can’t keep the doors open and books on the shelves, what good is a beautiful new library,” Tate asked.
The $42 was considered the bare minimum in March 2004 to keeping the doors open; no amount has been decided upon for the next parcel tax measure.
