Item 07 - California State Library Building Forward: Library Infrastructure Program - Grant Award and Agreements

Agenda Item No. 7

CITY OF YUCAIPA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Raymond A. Casey, City Manager i
Shane Massoud, Public Information Officer/Grants Coordinator d FOR: City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
SUBJECT: California State Library Building Forward: Library Infrastructure Program - Grant Award and Agreements
RECOMMENDATION:

That City Council:

1.) Review and re -authorize the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the California State Library for the Library Building Forward: Library Infrastructure Grant Program; and

2.) Review and provide direction regarding the draft Joint Use Agreement between the City of Yucaipa, County of San Bernardino, and the Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District (District) for the proposed new library facility.

BACKGROUND:

The California State Library promotes the development and growth of public libraries throughout California by providing funding, equal access to resources, and ongoing technical assistance.

The Library Development Services Bureau of the State Library supports this mission by administering State and Federal grant programs; developing statewide programs and initiatives; fostering interagency collaboration; and facilitating interagency resource and information sharing.

The State of California Budget Act of 2021 (SB 129, Chapter 69, Statutes of 2021) allocated $439 million in one-time funds to the California State Library Building Forward: Library Infrastructure Program to address life safety and critical maintenance needs of public library facilities throughout California. This competitive grant program prioritizes funding for local library facilities located in high poverty areas of the state. The maximum grant amount per library facility is $10 million.

Applications may be submitted by cities, counties, and/or library districts on behalf of local library jurisdictions or facilities under their jurisdiction. Priority will be given to projects supporting libraries "located in high -poverty areas of the state", and to projects that directly address life safety and/or critical infrastructure and maintenance needs. While the City has taken the lead on completing and submitting the grant application, both the County of San Bernardino (County) and the Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District (District) intend to be partners on this project. 153

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
California State Library Building Forward: Library Infrastructure Grant Program - Award and Agreements For the purposes of this grant, life safety projects are defined as those that address significant health and safety risks to patrons and/or staff using a facility. This includes any physical aspect of the facility, its building systems, and/or equipment essential to emergency response situations specific to the library facility.

Additionally, critical maintenance and critical infrastructure projects are defined as those needed to keep existing facilities, building -related structural components, and related building systems suitable for public use and compliant with all prevailing codes, rules, regulations, and standards governing their usage, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Grantees will be required to provide matching funds on a dollar -for -dollar basis. Match contributions must be a cash match, either from the applicant organization or funds from third party sources (other grants, foundations, or private donors). Unfortunately, neither in -kind contributions nor land values (the District has expressed an interest in providing the land for the joint project) are considered as an eligible source of match funds. Funds expended before or after the grant period are not considered an allowable match. Matching funds can only be used for costs eligible under this grant program.

On March 28, 2022, the City Council confirmed the submittal of an application and approved Resolution Number 2022-11 for the Yucaipa Branch Library Project. The application requested grant funding for the planning, design, and construction phase of the project in the amount of $9 million. The total estimated planning, design, and construction cost is $18 million.

Resolution Number 2022-11 authorized and directed the City Manager, or designee, to prepare and file an application for funding with the California State Library and take such other actions necessary or appropriate to obtain grant funding. Additionally, Resolution 2022-11 authorized the City Manager, or designee, to execute the funding agreement with the California State Library and any amendments thereto as well as submit any required documents, funding requests, and reports required to obtain grant funding. The resolution also certifies that the project will comply with any laws and regulations including, but not limited to, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), legal requirements for building codes, health and safety codes, the California Labor Code, disabled access laws, and that prior to commencement of the project, all applicable permits will have been obtained.

On October 18, 2022, the City was notified by the California State Library that the Yucaipa Branch Library Project was awarded $9 million in State grant funding for the new library facility.

DISCUSSION:

City staff is recommending that City Council review and re -authorize the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the California State Library for the Library Building Forward: Library Infrastructure Grant Program.

Also, City staff is seeking City Council's direction regarding the draft Joint Use Agreement between the City of Yucaipa, County of San Bernardino, and the Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District (District) for the proposed new library facility.

The Yucaipa Branch Library was built in 1969 and expanded to its current size of 11,698 sq. ft. in 1987. While some modest improvements have been made to the facility over the years, it stands 154

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
California State Library Building Forward: Library Infrastructure Grant Program - Award and Agreements much as it was originally constructed fifty years ago when it served less than 10,000 residents.

The County of San Bernardino's Library Master Facility Plan, which was published in 2001, addressed the inadequacies in the existing building by recommending a new facility be built. A 25,000 sq. ft. facility was advised based on a projected 20-year population growth of approximately 60,000 people by the year 2021. In 2010, the City initiated a Library Needs Assessment Study (Study) which based the size of the facility on the projected 2030 population growth which resulted in similar finding as the County's Master Facility Plan.

The methodology for this Study took three approaches to examining the library facility needs in Yucaipa. The first approach was to use a set of standard space guidelines. This gives a relative size total of a library facility based on population and space -per -capita. The second approach uses "benchmark libraries" (libraries recently constructed in the County) as guidelines for space needs, which includes a breakdown of the total areas into departmental components. For example, children's department, adult's department, young adult's department, program room and support, study rooms, and etc. Finally, the third approach is the use of a basic planning model which is total square footage per service population.

Based on the 2010 Study, the City's population was 51,317 and the library's gross square footage is 11,698 resulting in 0.23 space -per -capita in the current facility.

Out of the 30 branch libraries that are operated by the San Bernardino County Library, four benchmark libraries were used in the Study to determine the need in Yucaipa. The table below highlights the benchmark from the May 2010 Library Needs Assessment.

Branch
Service Population
Branch Gross Square Feet
Square Feet Per Capita
Highland
52,372
30,260 sq. ft.

0.58 Chino Hills
78,725
27,975 sq. ft.

0.36 Hesperia
88,184
19,429 sq. ft.

0.22 Apple Valley
69,861
19,412 sq. ft.

0.28 Yucaipa
51,317
11,698 sq. ft.

0.23 Based on this data, there is a reasonable expectation that a city the size of Yucaipa, if it is to provide library services similar to the benchmark cities as best -practice prototypes for this county area, should provide a library with a space -per -capita ratio in the range of 0.32 to 0.46. Applying these values to the current and projected Yucaipa populations, the Study obtained the following table.

The values chosen for the space -to -population ratios are ratio 1 = median for benchmark libraries; ratio 2 = mean of benchmark libraries; ratio 3 = means for San Bernardino Libraries; ratio 4 = median for San Bernardino Libraries.
155

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
California State Library Building Forward: Library Infrastructure Grant Program - Award and Agreements Year
Yucaipa
Population
Ratio 1 (0.32
Space Per
Capita)
Ratio 2 (0.36
Space Per
Capita)
Ratio 3 (0.37
Space Per
Capita)
Ratio 4 (0.46
Space Per
Capita)
2009
51,217
16,421 sq. ft.
18,747 sq. ft.
18,987 sq. ft.
23,606 sq. ft.
2010
52,729
16,873 sq. ft.
18,982 sq. ft.
19,510 sq. ft.
24,255 sq. ft.
2015
55,215
17,669 sq. ft.
19,877 sq. ft.
20,430 sq. ft.
25,399 sq. ft.
2020
57,359
18,355 sq. ft.
20,649 sq. ft.
21,223 sq. ft.
26,385 sq. ft.
2025
59,440
19,021 sq. ft.
21,398 sq. ft.
21,993 sq. ft.
27,342 sq. ft.
2030
61,441
19,661 sq. ft.
22,119 sq. ft.
22,733 sq. ft.
28,263 sq. ft.
2035
63,357
20,274 sq. ft.
22,809 sq. ft.
23,442 sq. ft.
29,144 sq. ft.
"Build-
out"
70,000
22,400 sq. ft.
25,200 sq. ft.
25,900 sq. ft.
32,200 sq. ft.

The analysis in the Study indicates that a gross library size of approximately 25,000 sq. ft. to 30,000 sq. ft. would adequately meet the space -per -capita needs of the City at "build -out." Since this Study, a joint library, serving the needs of the City, District, and the County, including a teen caf6 center has evolved, known as the Yucaipa Branch Library Project. This new 25,000 sq. ft. library will incorporate new educational technologies, energy efficiency standards, solar energy, and meet all current building requirements, including green building standards and technologies.

The new proposed facility would be in the Dunlap area of Yucaipa (APN: 03037128) on a 4.4- acre site adjacent and east of the Yucaipa High School campus.

During the 1990s, based on circulation of library materials, the Yucaipa Branch Library was recognized as the busiest library in the County. Today it ranks approximately 5th in circulation, gate counts, and computer usage in the County library system. The library currently houses approximately 60,000 items available for check out and has seen a significant increase in library usage. For example, in FY 2015-16 the branch circulated 191,025 items. In FY 2018-19 the branch circulated 217,997 items with 4,414 active users. And last year, even with occasional door side service, due to COVID-19, the branch circulated 111,997 items. In addition to the circulation numbers, the library has several active programs and hosts an average of 264 programs a year, with an average attendance of 30 or more participants. One of the large programs is the Summer Reading Program, which has averaged 1,550 participants in the last five years leading up to COVID-19. Last year, near of the end of the Pandemic, the program was reinstated and had more than 740 participants.

Additionally, the library has 18 publicly accessible computers (some of which were initially purchased through grant funding obtained by the City) including several devoted to early learning; unfortunately, there are no computer labs available for group instruction, or individual study 156

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
California State Library Building Forward: Library Infrastructure Grant Program - Award and Agreements rooms. The children's area is small with little room for activities and no comfortable lounge furniture for parents to interact with their children. There is a small but active teen group at the library, but limited space is available for individual or group study and the participation level for such teen programming was much higher when it was housed near what was then the ninth -grade campus at the seventh street `Teen Center." There is also an active literacy program, supported in part by the City; however, there are no quiet areas or individual rooms that allow for tutors to serve the educational needs for residents in the community.

A new library that can meet the needs of the community is an integral part of supporting a successful City and region, enhancing educational attainment levels, providing workforce development opportunities, and giving children of all ages a positive outlet for learning. In a working report revised and published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in 2021, titled The Returns to Public Library Investments, states, "In 2018, there were 9,261 library systems across the United States with 15,427 branches. Libraries spent $12 billion on operating costs and patrons checked out over 2 billion items. This funding supports widespread library use: more than 50% of Americans visit public libraries each year. Beyond their collections, libraries also provide instructional programs on topics ranging from literacy to computer usage, job search, and tax preparation; and they serve as one of the few non-commercial indoor spaces available to the public.

A particularly important focus of library services is child development. In 2018, children checked out more than 750 million library items and attended events more than 80 million times at libraries nationwide." The working report also found that, "significant capital investment sharply increases library visits (by 21 %), children's checkouts of items (by 21 %), and children's attendance at library events (by 18%). These increases in usage persist for at least 10 years after capital investment. Capital investment also increases library book holdings, employees, spending on salaries, and operating expenditures. In other words, library capital investment increases both the quality and usage of libraries."
In addition to this working report, in 2019 the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools published a Countywide educational report that highlighted the importance of early childhood education, stating that "research shows that children who are not proficient readers by the end of third grade are four times more likely to leave school without a diploma than proficient readers, and more likely to engage in criminal activity, impacting public safety." A library is just not another public facility, it's a multi -generational resource that provides everyone, regardless of circumstances, an opportunity to better one's life.

A new library will not only be a facility that is an accessible safe space, but it will also be a center piece for the community that will enhance and enrich the quality of life and educational opportunities for the residents of Yucaipa and the surrounding communities.

As part of the award process, City Council authorized the City Manager to submit any required documents, funding request, and reports required to obtain grant funding. The City and partners submitted a letter confirming availability of local match funding for this grant. Once the required documents have been received and approved by the California State Library, the City will be issued $4,500,000 in State funding. The second payment of $3,600,000 in State funding will be received once the City submits and receives approval of the January 31, 2024, report and receipt. The final payment of $900,000 will be made upon submission and approval of the final interim grant report.

All State grant funding and local match funding must be spent at the same rate. 157

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
California State Library Building Forward: Library Infrastructure Grant Program - Award and Agreements In addition to the funds being spent at the same rate as the local match, there are specific terms that City Council should be aware of in the grant agreement with the California State Library. For example, any changes to the proposed library project would have to be approved by the State (a "change" is defined as any information that may impact the original information presented in the application). Additionally, the agreement includes a non -appropriations clause; meaning it is possible that the full amount of the funding will not be available. Also, the agreement specifies that the State can terminate the grant funding without cause on a 30-day notice. Another specific term is the agreement is that the State Librarian is listed as the final decision maker regarding a dispute. Finally, the agreement also requires that the City to indemnify the State for anything related to the project which could exposes the City to potential liabilities. City staff is working with the California State Library staff to see if the State would be willing to make any amendments to the grant agreement.

In addition to the State agreement, City staff, in coordination with the County and District, have been working on a Joint Use Agreement (Agreement) for the proposed library project. Over the past several weeks, City staff has met with County and District staff to discuss the terms of the Agreement and have incorporated their feedback. As part of these discussions, the County has committed to contributing $3 million towards the project, $2 million would be used towards the local match and $1 million for the library materials/equipment. The District intends to direct its Redevelopment Agency (RDA) "Pass -Through" funds from FY 25-26 through FY 31-32 (end of the RDA) to the new library project. This amount will be reimbursed, up to $2 million.

City staff and our partners continue to work on the development of a Library Ad -Hoc Committee for this project. At this point in time, it is suggested (as City Council previously approved) the formation of an Ad -Hoc Committee will consist of one City Council member and alternate (Councilmember Thorp and Councilmember Garner); County Supervisor and alternate, District and alternate; and staff from each entity. The Ad -Hoc Committee will be utilized for the planning, design, public outreach, and construction of the new library facility. The Ad -Hoc Committee will remain in place till construction is complete.

FISCAL IMPACT
City staff continues to have discussions with the County of San Bernardino and the Yucaipa- Calimesa Joint Unified School District regarding the local match commitment for the design, and construction of the project as well as the specific location, and operating/maintenance costs associated with the new library.

In addition, as City Council is aware, the City is in the process of selling several surplus properties valued in excess of $2 million in aggregate, (with two of the properties already in the development process, and with an exclusive negotiating agreement) which could allow for funds to be allocated 158

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
California State Library Building Forward: Library Infrastructure Grant Program - Award and Agreements towards the local match commitment, if approved by City Council. City Council has also reviewed and directed staff to proceed with the formation of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD), perhaps in partnership with the County and others, could be used as another potential source of local match funding for the proposed library.

In addition, the City's total fund balance including Unassigned fund balance, Emergency Contingency, Economic Stabilization, and Fire Protection is approximately $27.5 million, excluding the Fire Protection, the total fund balance is approximately $18.2 million and actual total general fund balance estimated to be $50 million as of July 1, 2022. There are several alternative sources of funding potentially available to accommodate the local match for this proposed project, including Development Impact Fees (DIF), "past -through" Redevelopment Agency Funds, County Funding, District Funding, TFF Loan to PFF, partnerships, additional grant funds, surplus property sales. Like many other projects completed over time, the library project can start with limited DIF, Public Facility Fund, Pass -Through RDA funding, and General Fund contributions while staff continues to pursue other sources of funding.

City staff is actively pursuing additional local and federal grant funding opportunities for this library project. Just this past October, City staff submitted a $1 million grant with the National Endowment for the Humanities — Infrastructure and Capacity Building Challenge Grants: Capital Projects (awards announcements are anticipated between December 2022-April 2023) as well as other potential public and/or private partnerships.

Library Local Match (Proposed)
General Fund
$1 million
(Approved on 11/14/2022)
EIFD/Property Sales/City Pass -
Through RDA/DIF/Other Grant
$4 million
Funds
County
$2 million
District (Pass -Through RDA)
$2 million
Total
$9 million
It is important to note, that as the lead agency, the City initiated the grant application process, the partnership process, and efforts to create a partnership agreement. This current draft agreement has not been fully reviewed by our partners and further changes may be anticipated.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution No. 2022-11
Award Letter
Draft California State Library Agreement
Draft Joint Use Agreement
159

City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023
California State Library Building Forward: Library Infrastructure Grant Program - Award and Agreements Police Department and Library Final Report Needs Assessment and Conceptual Site Analysis Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago - The Returns to Public Library Investment San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools — Countywide Educational Report County of San Bernardino Email
160

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-11

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA,

CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING, ACCEPTANCE, AND EXECUTION OF THE GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUDGET ACT OF 2021(SB 129)
WHEREAS, the Legislature and Governor of the State of California have provided funds for the program shown above; and
WHEREAS, the California State Library has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of this grant program, establishing necessary procedures; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California State Library require a resolution certifying the approval by the potential grantee's governing board either before submission of said application(s) to the State or prior to execution of the grant agreement; and WHEREAS, the Applicant/Grantee, if selected, will enter into an agreement with the State of California to carry out the project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yucaipa proposes to implement the Yucaipa Branch Library Project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yucaipa has the legal authority and is authorized to enter into a funding agreement with the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yucaipa intends to apply for grant funding from the California State Library for the Yucaipa Branch Library Project; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

YUCAIPA, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LIBRARY, AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. That pursuant and subject to all of the terms and provisions of the California Budget Act of 2021, the City of Yucaipa, City Manager, or designee is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and file an application for funding with the California State Library and take such other actions necessary or appropriate to obtain grant funding.

Section 2. The City of Yucaipa, City Manager, or designee is hereby authorized and directed to execute the funding agreement with the California State Library and any amendments thereto.

Section 3. The City of Yucaipa, City Manager, or designee is hereby authorized and directed to submit any required documents, funding requests, and reports required to obtain grant funding.

Section 4. Certifies that the project will comply with any laws and regulations including, but not limited to, the California Environrnental Quality Act (CEQA), legal requirements for building codes, health and safety codes, the California Labor Code, disabled access laws, and that prior to commencement of the project, all applicable permits will have been obtained; and, Resolution No. 2022-11
161

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this Monday, March 28, 2022 avid Avila, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
� f
—
��/fir C David Snow, Cit Attorney Jennifer Crawf , City Cler Resolution No. 2022-11
162

rim

SA STATE LIBRARY
October 11, 2022
Shane Massoud
Public Information Officer and Grants Coordinator
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
Re: Building Forward Grant Program
Jurisdiction: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LIBRARY
Library: Yucaipa Branch Library
Project: Yucaipa Branch Library Project
Dear Shane Massoud:

Congratulations! Following a rigorous review process, the California State Library is pleased to notify you of our intent to award a Building Forward grant for the project submitted for Yucaipa Branch Library.

Your grant award will be: $9,000,000
This award is intended to fund the following project outputs and related activities listed in your Supplementary Budget in accordance with allowable costs per the Grant Guidelines:

Concrete
Masonry
Metals
Woods, Plastics Thermal & Moisture Openings
Specialties
Conveying Systems
Fire Suppression Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical
Electronic Security/Alarm
Construction Management
Permits & Inspections Fees
Communications
Based on your Award amount and your Local Income Per Capita (LIPC) level, your organization is required to provide a matching amount of $9,000,000 to support this project. Please note: Match funds must be expended during the grant period and at the same rate as state grant funds.

Library — Courts Building
P O Box 942837
Sacramento. CA 94237-0001
916-323-9759
csl-adm@library ca.gov
www library.ca gov
163

Building Forward Grant Program

Page 2 ends

Neither grant funds nor match funds may be spent on unallowable costs, which includes work done outside of the grant period.

At this time, please acknowledge receipt of this Intent to Award as soon as possible, and no later than Friday, October 21, by email to [email protected].

Your official Award Packet will be issued in the coming weeks after we have received your acknowledgement of this Intent to Award correspondence. The Packet will include the Award Letter confirming the award amount, project period, and required match amount (if applicable), as well as the Grant Agreement, a list of unallowable costs, and templates and guidance for submitting the following items, which are required for us to process your first payment:
• Confirmed Project Budget
• Final Project Implementation Plan
• Certification of Compliance
• Letter Certifying Availability of Match Funds (if applicable) • Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of the Grant
• Signed Grant Agreement
• Completed Fiscal Claim Form for the first award payment Please note: No payment will be made until the above items, free from errors, have been received by the State Library. Awardees may typically expect payment to be issued within 45 days from the date a grant payment request is properly submitted and approved by the Fiscal Analyst.

Hard copies of this correspondence will not follow. Please keep this Intent to Award correspondence as part of your official grant files. If you have any questions, please contact the Building Forward Team at [email protected].

The St to Libra I 'oks forward to working to help you complete this project.

Res e tfully,
Gr g L cas
Ca ifor is State Librarian
cc: I ly Roman
Reed Strege
Library — Courts Building
P O Box 942837
Sacramento CA 94237-0001
916-323-9759
csl-adm@library ca gov
wu+nN library ca gov
164

V r A' ore-,%nk,ij,6
/I STATE LIBRARY

STATE FUNDED GRANTS

AWARD AGREEMENT AND

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
165

PRO r"" 'IF ORNI *

FAA STATE LIBRARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT SUMMARY

PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS
A. Term of the Agreement
B. Scope of Work
C. Budget Detail
D. Narrative and Financial Reports
E. Claim Form and Payment
EXHIBIT A: TERMS AND CONDITIONS
EXHIBIT B: ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 1 ends

VA
3 3
3 4
5 7
22 EXHIBIT C: CERTIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE FORM 28
A. Certification
EXHIBIT D: STATE REIMBURSABLE TRAVEL EXPENSES
32 34
166

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 2 ends

I/dSTATE LIBRARY

PROJECT SUMMARY
Award Agreement between the California State Library and City of Yucaipa for the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LIBRARY - Yucaipa Branch Library project.

AWARD AGREEMENT NUMBER BF-2-21-007
This Award Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into on the date of execution of the agreement by and between the California State Library ("State Library") and City of Yucaipa ("Grantee").

This Award Agreement pertains to Grantee's State -funded project at the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LIBRARY - Yucaipa Branch Library.

The Library Development Services Bureau ("LDS") of the State Library administers state and federal funds in the form of awards.

The Grantee was selected by the State Library to receive state grant funds in the amount of $9,000,000 through the process adopted by the State Library in administering such grants.

The State Library and the Grantee, for the consideration and under the conditions hereinafter set forth in the Grant Agreement, agree as follows:
167

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 3 ends

CALIFORNIA

IID STATE LIBRARY
PROCEDURES and REQUIREMENTS
A. Term of the Agreement
The Grant term begins on the date of execution of the Agreement by both parties, until March 31, 2026. If completion of the project occurs prior to the end of the grant period this will be the end date of the term of this agreement. Grant eligible program expenditures may begin no earlier than the start date. The project period ends on March 31, 2026, and all grant project costs must be incurred by this date.

B. Scope of Work

1. Grantee agrees to perform all activities specifically identified in the Grantee's submitted application and award packet.

2. The following activities and deliverables to be performed by the Grantee include, but are not limited to the following:
• Maintain and keep records of expenditures related to the grant that are consistent with Generally Acceptable Accounting Practices (GAAP). • Make financial records available to the State Library upon request. • Work with the State Library staff to assure that funds are disbursed in compliance with the purpose of the grant.
• Prepare and submit required narrative and financial reports. • Procure equipment, and other supplies as needed for the project. • Issue contracts for services, personnel, and consultants as needed for the project.
• If applicable, make payments for services, including for hours worked and travel reimbursements, to consultants and contractors.
• Oversee the implementation of project activities.

C. Budget Detail
The State Library shall provide the Grantee funding for the expenses incurred in performing the activities specified in the Grantee's award packet documentation. The Grantee shall request the distribution of grant funding consistent with the approved project budget incorporated herein, and according to the payment schedule 168

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 4 ends

specified in this Agreement. Under no circumstances shall payments exceed the total grant amount identified in this Agreement.

D. Reports
The Grantee shall be responsible for submission of interim and final narrative and financial reports on the progress and activities of the project, to the State Library, using the sample report documents provided by the State Library. Visual documentation (e.g. still or video photography) will be required as part of each Narrative Report.

2. All the reports must be current, include all required sections and documents, and must be approved by the Grant Monitor before any payment request can be processed. Failure to comply with the specified reporting requirements may be considered a breach of this Agreement and result in the termination of the Agreement or rejection of the payment request and/or forfeiture by the Grantee of claims for costs incurred that might otherwise have been eligible for grant funding. Any problems or delays must be reported immediately to the Grant Monitor. The financial reports shall reflect the expenditures made by the Grantee under the Agreement and may be incorporated into the same reporting structure as the narrative reports.

3. The reports shall be submitted by the following dates:

Reporting Period
Report
Due Date
Project start date
Financial Reports Due
May 1, 2023
- March 2023
April 2023 -June
Financial Reports, Expenditure Detail, and
July 31, 2023
2023
Narrative Reports Due
July 2023 -
Financial Reports Due
October 31, 2023
September 2023
October 2023-
Financial Reports, Expenditure Detail, and
January 31, 2024
December 2023
Narrative Reports Due
January 2024-
Financial Reports Due
April 30, 2024
March 2024
April 2024 -June
Financial Reports, Expenditure Detail, and
July 31, 2024
2024
Narrative Reports Due
July 2024-
Financial Reports Due
October 31, 2024
September 2024
169

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 5 ends

October 2024-
Financial Reports, Expenditure Detail, and
January 31, 2025
December 2024
Narrative Reports Due
January 2025-
Financial Reports Due
April 30, 2025
March 2025
April 2025 -June
Financial Reports, Expenditure Detail, and
July 31, 2025
2025
Narrative Reports Due
July 2025-
Financial Reports Due
October 31, 2025
September 2025
October 2025-
Financial Reports, Expenditure Detail, and
January 30, 2026
December 2025
Narrative Reports Due
January 2026-
Final Financial, Narrative, and Expenditure
April 30, 2026
March 2026
Reports Due

4. Failure to submit timely reports with the appropriate documentation by the due date may result in rejection of the payment request and/or forfeiture by the Grantee of claims for costs incurred that might otherwise have been eligible for grant funding.

5. The Grantee agrees to maintain records and supporting documentation pertaining to the performance of this grant, subject to possible audit for a minimum of five (5) years after final payment date or grant term end date, whichever is later. Please refer to Exhibit A, Terms and Conditions for more information.

E. Claim Form and Payment
The State Library shall provide the Grantee payment as outlined in the payment schedule only if all requirements for claiming the funds as outlined in this document have been met, and only for those activities and costs specified in the approved award packet documentation.

2. The Grantee shall complete, sign, and submit the Certification of Compliance form (Exhibit C) and the Financial Claim form (included in your award packet), to the State Library within 30 days of receiving this award packet. These forms will be issued, signed, and submitted using the online signature and agreement platform, DocuSign, unless DocuSign is unallowable or inconsistent with practices and policies of the local jurisdiction. If the use of DocuSign is not acceptable to the Grantee organization, please contact the grant monitor regarding alternate options.
170

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 6 ends

3. Any of the sums appearing under the categories in the approved budget may be adjusted with prior authorization from the State Library Grant Monitor. This would be to increase the allotment with the understanding that there will be corresponding decreases in the other allotments so that the total amount paid by the State Library to the Grantee under this Agreement shall not exceed the awarded amount, which shall be expended/encumbered during the grant period.

4. If the payment amount made by the State Library exceeds the actual expenses incurred during the term of this Agreement, as reflected in the financial reports to be filed by the Grantee, the Grantee shall immediately refund the excess payment amount to the State Library.

5. The Award payments will only be made to the Grantee. It is the Grantee's responsibility to pay all contractors and subcontractors for purchased goods and services.

6. The Final Payment of 10% will be withheld and retained by the State Library (if applicable) until all conditions agreed upon in this Agreement have been satisfied.

7. Prompt Payment Clause
The State Library will make payments to the Grantee in accordance with the Prompt Payment Clause under Government Code, section 927, et. seq. The Grantee may typically expect payment within 45 days from the date a grant payment request is properly submitted and approved by the Grant Monitor.

8. Budget Contingency Clause
a. It is mutually agreed that if the Budget Act of the current fiscal year or any subsequent years covered under this Agreement does not appropriate sufficient funds for the program, this Agreement shall no longer be in full force and effect. In this event, the State Library shall have no liability to pay any funds whatsoever to the Grantee or to furnish any other considerations under this Agreement and the Grantee shall not be obligated to perform any provisions of this Agreement.
b. If funding for any fiscal year is reduced or deleted by the Budget Act for purposes of this Program, the State Library shall have the option to either cancel this Agreement with no liability occurring to itself or offer an Agreement amendment to the Grantee to reflect the reduced amount. 171

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 7 ends

00a STATE LIBRARY
EXHIBIT A: TERMS and CONDITIONS
Accessibility: The State is responsible for ensuring that public websites are accessible to both the general public and state employees, including persons with disabilities. Grantee shall assist the State in meeting its responsibility. Therefore, all project materials generated by state funded programs must meet the California Accessibility Standards. Additionally, all project materials designed, developed, and maintained shall be in compliance with the California Government Code, sections 7405 and 1 1 135, and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, or a subsequent version, as published by the Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium at a minimum Level AA success criteria.

However, if for some reason project materials are not generated to be in compliance to meet these standards, please still submit it to the State Library. When submitting the material make sure to note that the material is not accessible by including "NOT ACCESSIBLE" in the file name.

The State Library reserves the right to post project materials to its website that are in compliance with these standards.

2. Acknowledgment: The State of California and the State Library shall be acknowledged in all promotional materials and publications related to the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LIBRARY - Yucaipa Branch Library Project. a. Grant award recipients must ensure that the State of California receives full credit as the source of funds and that the California State Library, likewise, is acknowledged as the administrator.
b. Publications and information releases about the project must credit the State of California. An appropriate statement for a publication or project press release is:
"This [publication/project] was supported in whole or in part by funding provided by the State of California, administered by the California State Library."
Grantees must include the above statement in any publications, vehicle wraps, and promotional materials, including websites. If space is limited the State Library logo and the following shortened acknowledgement statement is acceptable:
172

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 8 ends

"Funding provided by the State of California."
This credit line on products of a project, such as materials, is important to foster support from the public, and state funding sources. c. California State Library Logo: Use of the State Library logo, which can be downloaded on the California State Library website, is required on any publication, vehicle wrap, or promotional material along with the above statement(s).
d. Project Photography: Photographs and videos are a great way to document your project. If obtaining still or video photography featuring members of the public, Grantees should obtain a photo release form. Grantees may use their organization's image release form, or contact the State Library grant monitor for a sample image release form.

3. Agency: In the performance of this Agreement the Grantee and its agents and employees shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees or agents of the State Library. The Grantee is solely responsible for all activities supported by the grant. Nothing in this Agreement creates a partnership, agency, joint venture, employment, or any other type of relationship between the parties. The Grantee shall not represent itself as an agent of the State Library for any purpose and has no authority to bind the State Library in any manner whatsoever.

4. Amendment: No amendment or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing, signed by the parties, and approved as required.

No oral understanding or agreement not incorporated into this Agreement is binding on any of the parties. This Agreement may be amended, modified, or augmented by mutual consent of the parties, subject to the requirements and restrictions of this paragraph.

5. Applicable Law: The laws of the State of California shall govern all proceedings concerning the validity and operation of this Agreement and the performance of the obligations imposed upon the parties hereunder. The parties hereby waive any right to any other venue. The place where the Agreement is entered into and place where the obligation is incurred is Sacramento County, California.

6. Assignment, Successors, and Assigns: The Grantee may not assign this Agreement or delegate its performance to any third -party person or entity, either in whole or in part, without the State Library's prior written consent. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the State Library, the Grantee, and their respective successors and assigns.

7. Audit and Records Access: The Grantee agrees that the State Library, the Department of General Services, the State Auditor, or their designated representatives shall have the right to review, audit, inspect and copy any 173

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 9 ends

records and supporting documentation pertaining to the performance of this Agreement. The Grantee agrees to maintain such records for possible audit for a minimum of five (5) years after the final payment, or grant term end date, whichever is later, unless a longer period of records retention is stipulated, or until completion of any action and resolution of all issues which may arise as a result of any litigation, dispute, or audit, whichever is later. The Grantee agrees to allow the auditor(s) access to such records during normal business hours and to allow interviews of any employees who might reasonably have information related to such records. Further, the Grantee agrees to include a similar right of the State to audit records and interview staff in any subcontract related to performance of this Agreement.

Examples of audit documentation may include, but not limited to, competitive bids, grant amendments, if any, relating to the budget or work plan, copies of any agreements with contractors or subcontractors if utilized, expenditure ledger, payroll register entries, time sheets, personnel expenditure summary form, travel expense log, paid warrants, contracts and change orders, samples of items and materials developed with grant funds, invoices and/or cancelled checks.

8. Authorized Representative: Grantee and the State Library mutually represent that their authorized representatives have the requisite legal authority to sign on their organization's behalf.

9. Communication: All communications from either party, including an interim check -in at any time during the grant term, shall be directed to the respective grant monitor or representative of the California State Library or Grantee. For this purpose, the following contact information is provided below:

City of Yucaipa
Shane Massoud California State Library
Kevin Webb
34272 Yucaipa Blvd. 900 N Street
Yucaipa, CA 92399 Sacramento, CA 95814]
[email protected]
(909) 797-248 [email protected]
(916) 603-6707
Confidentiality: Grantee will maintain as confidential any material it receives or produces that is marked Confidential or is inherently confidential or is protected by privilege. Grantee agrees to alert the State Library to this status in advance, and State Library agrees to maintain this status in conformity with the Public Records Act.

2. Contractor and Subcontractors: Nothing contained in this Agreement or otherwise shall create any contractual relation between the State and any contractor or subcontractors, and no contract or subcontract shall relieve the 174

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 10 ends

Grantee of his or her responsibilities and obligations hereunder. The Grantee agrees to be as fully responsible to the State for the acts and omissions of its contractors, subcontractors, volunteers, student interns, and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by any of them as it is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by the Grantee. The Grantee's obligation to pay its contractors and subcontractors is an independent obligation from the State's obligation to make payments to the Grantee. As a result, the State shall have no obligation to pay or to enforce the payment of any monies to any contractor or subcontractor.

3. Copyright: Grantee owns and retains titles to any copyrights or copyrightable material from any original works that it creates within the scope of this Agreement in accordance with the federal Copyright Act. (17 U.S.C. 101, et seq.) Grantee is responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses, permissions, releases, or authorizations to use text, images, or other materials owned, copyrighted, or trademarked by third parties and for extending such licenses, permissions, releases, or authorizations to the State Library pursuant to this section. Also, the State Library may upload, post or transmit copyrighted material produced or purchased with grant funds on a State Library website for public access and viewing.

4. Discharge of Grant Obligations: The Grantee's obligations under this Agreement shall be deemed discharged only upon acceptance and approval of the final report by State Library. If the Grantee is a non-profit entity, the Grantee's Board of Directors shall accept and certify as accurate the final report prior to its submission to California State Library.

5. Dispute Resolution: In the event of a dispute, Grantee will discuss the problem informally with the Grant Monitor. If unresolved, the Grantee shall file a written "Notice of Dispute" with the State Library Grant Monitor within ten (10) days of discovery of the problem. Within ten (10) days of receipt of the Notice of Dispute, the Grant Monitor shall meet with the Grantee for purposes of resolving the dispute. Any dispute arising under the terms of this Agreement which is not disposed of within a reasonable period of time, the Grantee may bring it to the attention of the State Librarian or the designated representative. The decision of the State Librarian or designated representative shall be final. Unless otherwise instructed by the Grant Monitor, the Grantee shall continue with its responsibilities under this Agreement during any dispute.

6. Drug -free Workplace: The Grantee certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of California, that the Grantee will comply with the requirements of the Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1990 (Gov. Code, § 8350 et. seq.) and will provide a drug -free workplace by taking the following actions:
175

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 11 ends

a. Publish a statement notifying employees that unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions to be taken against employees for violations.
b. Establish a Drug -Free Awareness Program to inform employees about all of the following:
1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace.
2) The Grantee's policy of maintaining a drug -free workplace; 3) Any available counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs.
4) Penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations.
c. Require that every employee who works on the project funded through this Agreement will:
1) Receive a copy of the Grantee's drug -free workplace policy statement.
2) Agrees to abide by the terms of the Grantee's statement as a condition of employment on the Agreement.

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under the Agreement or termination of the Agreement or both and grantee may be ineligible for award of any future state agreements if the State Library determines that the grantee has made a false certification or violated the certification by failing to carry out the requirements as noted above.

7. Effectiveness of Agreement: This Agreement is of no force or effect until signed by both parties.

8. Entire Agreement: This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, oral or written, made with respect to the subject hereof and, together with all attachments hereto, contains the entire agreement of the parties.

9. Exclusive Agreement: This is the entire Agreement between the State Library and Grantee.

10. Executive Order N-6-22-Russia Sanctions: The Grantee shall comply with Executive Order N-6-22 (the EO) regarding Economic Sanctions against Russia and Russian entities and individuals. "Economic Sanctions" refers to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine, as well as any sanctions imposed under state law. The EO directs state agencies to terminate grant agreements with, and to refrain from entering any new grant agreements with, individuals or entities that are determined to be a target of Economic Sanctions. Accordingly, should the State determine Grantee is a target of Economic Sanctions or is conducting prohibited transactions with 176

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 12 ends

sanctioned individuals or entities, that shall be grounds for termination of this agreement. The State shall provide Grantee advance written notice of such termination, allowing Grantee at least 30 calendar days to provide a written response. Termination shall be at the sole discretion of the State.

11. Extension: The State Librarian or designee may extend the final deadline for good cause. The Grantee's request for an extension of the grant period must be made in writing and received by the California State Library at least 30 days prior to the final deadline.

12. Failure to Perform: The grant being utilized by the Grantee is to benefit the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LIBRARY - Yucaipa Branch Library Project. If the Grant Monitor determines the Grantee has not complied with this Agreement, the Grantee may forfeit the right to reimbursement of any grant funds not already paid by the California State Library, including, but not limited to, the ten percent (10%) withheld.

13. Federal and State Taxes: The State Library shall not:
a. Withhold Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) payments from Grantee's payments or make FICA payments on the Grantee's behalf; or
b. Make Federal or State unemployment insurance contributions on Grantee's behalf; or
c. Withhold Federal or State income taxes from Grantee's payments Grantee shall pay all taxes required on payments made under this Agreement including applicable income taxes and FICA.

14. Force Majeure: Neither the State Library nor the Grantee, its contractors, vendors, or subcontractors, if any, shall be responsible hereunder for any delay, default, or nonperformance of this Agreement, to the extent that such delay, default, or nonperformance is caused by an act of God, weather, accident, labor strike, fire, explosion, riot, war, rebellion, sabotage, flood, or other contingencies unforeseen by the State Library or the Grantee, its contractors, vendors, or subcontractors, and beyond the reasonable control of such party.

15. Forfeit of Grant Funds and Repayment of Funds Improperly Expended: If grant funds are not expended, or have not been expended, in accordance with this Agreement, the State Librarian or designee, at his or her sole discretion, may take appropriate action under this Agreement, at law or in equity, including requiring the Grantee to forfeit the unexpended portion of the grant funds, including, but not limited to, the ten percent (10%) withhold, and/or to repay to the State Library any funds improperly expended.

16. Fringe Benefit Ineligibility: Grantee agrees that neither the Grantee nor its employees and contract personnel are eligible to participate in any employee 177

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 13 ends

pension, health benefit, vacation pay, sick pay or other fringe benefit plan of the State of California or the State Library.

17. Generally Accepted Accountinq Principles: The Grantee is required to use Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in documenting all grant expenditures.

18. Grant Monitor: The Grant Monitor's responsibilities include monitoring grant progress, and reviewing and approving Grant Payment Requests and other documents delivered to the California State Library pursuant to this Agreement.

The Grant Monitor may monitor Grantee performance to ensure Grantee expends grant funds appropriately and in a manner consistent with the terms and conditions contained herein. The Grant Monitor does not have the authority to approve any deviation from or revision to the Terms and Conditions (Exhibit A and B) or the Procedures and Requirements unless such authority is expressly stated in the Procedures and Requirements.

19. Grantee: The government or legal entity to which a grant is awarded and which is accountable to the State Library for the use of the funds provided. a. The grantee will make reports to the State Librarian in such form and containing such information as may be required to ensure the proper used of funds consistent with the grantee's application, and award agreement and accompanying documentation submitted. The grantee will keep such records and afford such access as the State Library may find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports.

20. Grantee Accountability: The Grantee is ultimately responsible and accountable for the manner in which the grant funds are utilized and accounted for and the way the grant is administered, even if the Grantee has contracted with another organization, public or private, to administer or operate its grant project. In the event an audit should determine that grant funds are owed to the State Library, the Grantee is responsible for repayment of the funds to the State Library.

21. Grantee Funds: It is mutually agreed that the Grantee is responsible for furnishing funds beyond the grant award that may be necessary to complete the project.

22. Independent Action: Grantee reserves the right to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement in an independent manner, at any location and at any time within the agreed -upon timeline. Grantee's employees or contract personnel shall perform all services required by this Agreement, but their time need not be devoted solely to fulfilling obligations under this Agreement. Grantee shall furnish all equipment and materials used to meet its obligations, and complete the Project. The State Library shall not provide any personnel or other resources beyond the grant award and is not required to provide training in connection with this Agreement.
178

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 14 ends

23. Indemnification: Grantee agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the State of California, the State Library and its officers, employees, and agents, from any and all claims, losses, and liabilities accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, laborers and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this Agreement, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by Grantee in the performance of this Agreement.

24. License to Use: The State Library reserves a fully paid -up, royalty -free, nonexclusive, sub -licensable and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, prepare derivative works, distribute or otherwise use, and to authorize third parties to use, any material received or maintained by Grantee in connection with this Agreement. This includes intellectual property, with or without third -party rights. All such usages will be for public library and State governmental purposes:
a. The copyright in any work developed under this grant, sub -grant, or contract under this grant or sub -grant; and
b. Any rights of copyright to which a Grantee, sub -grantee, or a contractor purchases ownership with grant support.

25. Limitation of Expenditure: Expenditure for all projects must conform to the Grantee's approved budget and with applicable State laws and regulations. The total amount paid by the State Library to the Grantee under this Agreement shall not exceed $9,000,000 and shall be expended/encumbered in the designated award period.

During the award period, the Grantee may find that the approved budget may need to be modified. Budget changes, requests for additional funds, or requests for reductions in award funding must be discussed with the assigned State Library Grant Monitor and a Grant Award Modification may be required to be submitted according to the instructions. Approval is by the State Librarian or their designee. Adjustments should be reported on the next financial report. Any adjustments in approved budgets must be documented and documentation retained in project accounts.

26. Lobbying: Grantee confirms that the grant funds will not be used for the purposes of lobbying or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, as those purposes are defined by the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

27. Non -Discrimination Clause: During this grant period, the Grantee and the Grantee's contractors, and subcontractors shall not unlawfully discriminate, harass, or allow harassment against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical 179

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 15 ends

disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. Grantee shall insure that the evaluation and treatment of contractors, employees and applicants for employment are free from such discrimination and harassment.

Additionally, Grantee, contractors, and subcontractors, if applicable, shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12900 et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11000 et seq.), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (Gov. Code §§ 1 1 135-1 1 139.5), and the regulations or standards adopted by the State Library to implement such article.

Grantee shall permit access by representatives of the Department of Civil Rights and the State Library upon reasonable notice at any time during the normal business hours, but in no case less than 24 hours' notice, to such of its books, records, accounts, and all other sources of information and its facilities as said Department or the State Library shall require ascertaining compliance with this clause. Grantee, and its contractors, and subcontractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 1 1 105.) Grantee shall include the non-discrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all contracts and subcontracts to perform work under the Agreement.

28. Notices: All notices and other communications in connection with this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be considered delivered as follows:
a. Electronic Mail (Email): When sent by e-mail to the last e-mail address of the recipient known to the party giving notice. Notice is effective upon transmission.
b. DocuSign (e-signature platform): When sent via DocuSign a notification will be sent to the last e-mail address of the recipient known to the party giving notice. Notice is effective upon transmission.
c. Grants Management System: When sent via / uploaded to the State Library Grants Management System, a notification will be sent to the last email address of the recipient known to the party giving notice. Notice is effective upon transmission.
d. Personally: When delivered personally to the Grantee's physical address as stated in this Agreement.
e. U.S. Mail: Five days after being deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to Grantee's address as stated in this Agreement.

29.Order of Precedence: The performance of this Agreement shall be conducted in accordance with the Terms and Conditions, Procedures and Requirements, Certificate of Compliance, Project Summary, Implementation Plan, and Budget, 180

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 16 ends

of this Agreement, or other combination of exhibits specified on the Grant Agreement Coversheet attached hereto (collectively referred to as "Terms").

Grantee's State Library -approved Application (Grantee's Application) is hereby incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of conflict or inconsistency between the articles, exhibits, attachments, specifications or provisions that constitute this Agreement, the following order of precedence shall apply:
a. Grant Agreement Coversheet and any Amendments thereto b. Terms and Conditions
c. Procedures and Requirements
d. Certificate of Compliance
e. Project Summary
f. Grantee's approved outputs from the submitted application (including Budget and Implementation plan submitted as part of the required award documents)
g. All other attachments hereto, including any that are incorporated by reference.

30. Payment:
a. The approved Budget, if applicable, is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and states the maximum amount of allowable costs for each of the tasks identified in the Implementation Plan submitted as part of the required award documents. The State Library shall provide funding to the Grantee for only the work and tasks specified in the list of approved outputs at only those costs specified in the Budget submitted as part of the required award documents and incurred in the term of the Agreement.
b. The Grantee shall carry out the work described in the Implementation Plan in accordance with the approved Budget and shall obtain the Grant Monitor's written approval of any changes or modifications to the Implementation Plan, approved project outputs, or the approved Budget prior to performing the changed work or incurring the changed cost. If the Grantee fails to obtain such prior written approval, the State Librarian or designee, at his or her sole discretion, may refuse to provide funds to pay for such work or costs.
c. The Grantee shall request funds in accordance with the funding schedule included in this Agreement.
d. Ten percent (10%) will be withheld from the Payment Request (if applicable) and paid at the end of the grant term, when all reports and conditions stipulated in this Agreement have been satisfactorily completed. Failure by the grantee to satisfactorily complete all reports and conditions stipulated in this Agreement may result in forfeiture of any such funds withheld.
181

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 BF-2-21-007

Page 17 ends

e. Lodgings, Meals and Incidentals: Grantee's eligible costs are limited to the amounts authorized in the California State Administrative Manual (see Exhibit C or contact the Grant Monitor for more information). f. Payment will be made only to the Grantee.
g. Reimbursable expenses shall not be incurred unless and until the Grantee receives a Notice to Proceed as described in the Procedures and Requirements.

31. Personal Jurisdiction: The Grantee consents to personal jurisdiction in the State of California for all proceedings concerning the validity and operation of this Agreement and the performance of the obligations imposed upon the parties.

Native American Tribal grantees expressly waive tribal sovereign immunity as a defense to any and all proceedings concerning the validity and operation of this Agreement and the performance of the obligations imposed upon the parties.

32. Personnel Costs: Any personnel expenditures to be paid for with grant funds must be computed based on actual time spent on grant -related activities and on the actual salary or equivalent hourly wage the employee is paid for their regular job duties, including a proportionate share of any benefits to which the employee is entitled.

33. Pledge: This Agreement shall not be interpreted to create any pledge or any commitment by the State Library to make any other or further grants or contributions to Grantee, or any other person or entity in connection with the Project. It is mutually agreed that Grantee is responsible for furnishing funds beyond the grant award that may be necessary to complete outcomes or deliverables.

34. Privacy Protection: Both parties agree to protect the confidentiality of any non- public, personal information that may be contained in materials received or produced in connection with this Agreement, as required by Civil Code, section 1798, et. seq.

35. Prohibited Use: The expenditure under this program shall not be used to supplant Grantee efforts in other grant programs provided by the State Library.

36. Public Records Act: Material maintained or used by the State Library is considered "public record" under the Public Records Act (PRA) at Government Code, sections 6250, et. seq. This includes the Interim and Final reports, and any other written communications between the parties. Grantee agrees to ensure that all content contained in its written reports are appropriate for publication.

Said material, along with all other reports, documentation and data collected during the term of the Agreement, will be subject to disclosure unless it qualifies for exemption under the PRA in whole or in part. Grantee agrees to alert the State Library as to a basis for exemption, if any exists. 182

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 18 ends

37. Publicity Obligations: Grantee will notify the State Library of any promotional materials or publications resulting from the grant no later than five (5) days in advance of distribution, whether they are print, film, electronic, or in any other format or medium. Copies of all promotional materials will be provided to the State Library. Grantee will acknowledge the State Library's support as noted above. Grantee agrees that the State Library may include information about this grant and its outcomes in its own annual reports, with specific reference to Grantee, and may distribute such information to third parties.

38. Records: Communications, grant related documents, data, original receipts, and invoices must be maintained by Grantee and shall be made available to the State Library upon request. Grantee agrees to maintain adequate grant program records and adequate financial records consistent with generally accepted accounting practices, and to retain all records for at least five (5) years after the end -of -term. The State Library may monitor or conduct an onsite evaluation of Grantee's operation to ensure compliance with this Agreement, with reasonable advance notice.

39. Reduction of Waste: In the performance of this Agreement, Grantee shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that materials purchased or utilized in the course of the project are not wasted. Steps should include, but not be limited to: the use of used, reusable, or recyclable products; discretion in the amount of materials used; alternatives to disposal of materials consumed; and the practice of other waste reduction measures where feasible and appropriate.

40. Reimbursement Limitations: Under no circumstances shall the Grantee seek reimbursement pursuant to this Agreement for a cost or activity that has been or will be paid for through another funding source. The Grantee shall not seek reimbursement for any costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other State Library funded program.

41. Reports and Claims: It is the responsibility of the grantee make the required reports and claims to the California State Library.
a. The Grantee shall be responsible for submitting to the State Library Narrative Reports detailing progress and activities. The reports are due on the dates specified in the reporting schedule detailed in the Procedures and Requirements section.
b. The Grantee shall be responsible for submitting to the State Library Financial Reports reflecting Grantee expenditure activity. The reports are due on the dates specified in the reporting schedule detailed in the Procedures and Requirements section.
c. To obtain payment hereunder, the Grantee shall submit authorized claims provided by the State Library for that purpose, on each of the following 183

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 19 ends

mentioned dates for payment, and the State Library agrees to reimburse the Library as soon thereafter as State fiscal procedures will permit. d. The final 10% of the grant award (if applicable) is payable only upon approval of all reports and receipt of claim form. Failure to provide timely reports is a serious breach of an award recipient's administrative duty under the award.
e. Payment will be provided to cover the expenditures incurred by the Grantee for the project in the following manner:
1) $4,500,000 upon the receipt and approval, by the State Library, of the submission of all required documents as stated in the award letter; execution of the agreement, certification, and claim form by the Grantee organization.
2) The second payment in the amount of $3,600,000 after the submission and approval of the January 31, 2024 report and receipt, by the State Library, of a completed claim form unless:
i. The grantee needs the funding prior to the January date in order for the project to progress. To obtain funding prior to January 31, 2024, the grantee must provide documentation to the grant monitor demonstrating effectively either (a) that the first award payment has been spent, or (b) why the second installment is needed in advance of the scheduled payment. ii. The grantee's January 31, 2024, financial report demonstrates that they have not spent any of their initial payment. The second payment will be held until the Grantee demonstrates effectively that their project is moving forward and additional funding is needed.
3) A final payment in the amount of $900,000 will be made upon submission and approval of the final interim grant report and financial claim form.

42. Self -Dealing and Arm's Length Transactions: All expenditures for which reimbursement pursuant to this Agreement is sought shall be the result of arm's- length transactions and not the result of, or motivated by, self -dealing on the part of the Grantee or any employee or agent of the Grantee. For purposes of this provision, "arm's-length transactions" are those in which both parties are on equal footing and fair market forces are at play, such as when multiple vendors are invited to compete for an entity's business and the entity chooses the lowest of the resulting bids. "Self -dealing" is involved where an individual or entity is obligated to act as a trustee or fiduciary, as when handling public funds, and chooses to act in a manner that will benefit the individual or entity, directly or indirectly, to the detriment of, and in conflict with, the public purpose for which all grant monies are to be expended.
184

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 20 ends

43. Severability: If any part of this Agreement is found to be unlawful or unenforceable, such provisions will be voided and severed from this Agreement, but the remainder of the provisions in the Agreement will remain in full force and effect.

44. Site Visits: The Grantee shall allow the State Library to access and conduct site visits, with reasonable notice, at which grant funds are expended and related work being performed at any time during the performance of the work and for up to ninety (90) days after completion of the work, or until all issues related to the grant project have been resolved. A site visit may include, but not be limited to, monitoring the use of grant funds, providing technical assistance when needed, and visiting the State funded project.

45. Termination: The Agreement shall be subject to termination by the State Librarian or designee upon notice to the Grantee at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of termination. In the event this Agreement is terminated, the Grantee shall deliver to the State Librarian copies of all reports, accounting, data, and materials prepared up to the date of termination. The State Librarian shall determine and pay the Grantee for necessary and appropriate expenditures and obligations up to the date of termination which have not been covered by prior installments previously paid to the Grantee. Upon such termination, the unused portion of the grant award must be returned to the State Library within 45 days. If funding has been advanced to the Grantee, any unobligated balances, as determined by the State Librarian, shall be returned to the State Library within 45 days of the notice of termination.

46. Timeline: Time is of the essence to this Agreement. It is mutually agreed between the parties that the Budget and the implementation plan included therein are part of the Agreement.

47. Unused Funds: At the end -of -term Grantee agrees to return any unexpended or unaccounted for funds to the State Library, or to submit a written request for an extension of the grant period. Funds will be considered unexpended or unaccounted if they were: (1) not used for their intended purpose, or (2) used inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement.

Funds will also be considered unaccounted for, and must be returned, if the proposal outcomes or deliverables are materially incomplete by the end -of -term or earlier termination, as determined by the State Library in its sole discretion.

48. Waiver of Rights: The State Library shall not be deemed to have waived any rights under this Agreement unless such waiver is given in writing and signed by State Library. No delay or omission on the part of State Library in exercising any rights shall operate as a waiver of such right or any other right. A waiver by State 185

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 21 ends

Library of a provision of this Agreement shall not prejudice or constitute a waiver of State Library's right otherwise to demand strict compliance with that provision or any other provision of this Agreement. No prior waiver by California State Library, nor any course of dealing between the State Library and Grantee, shall constitute a waiver of any of State Library's rights or of any of Grantee's obligations as to any future transactions. Whenever the consent of State Library is required under this Agreement, the granting of such consent by State Library in any instance shall not constitute continuing consent to subsequent instances where such consent is required and in all cases such consent may be granted or withheld in the sole discretion of the State Library.

49. Work Products: Grantee shall provide the State Library with copies of all final products identified in the Work Plan and Application. Grantee shall also provide the State Library with copies of all public education and advertising material produced pursuant to this Agreement.

50. Worker's Compensation: The State of California will not provide Workers' Compensation insurance for Grantee or Grantee's employees or contract personnel. If Grantee hires employees to perform services required by this Agreement, Grantee shall provide Workers' Compensation insurance for them.

The Grantee is aware of Labor Code Section 3700, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the Labor Code, and the Grantee agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Agreement.
186

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 22 ends

Ift (7AwaIFOR.W6.

FIAA STATE LIBRARY
EXHIBIT B: ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
California Building Codes: Activities funded under this Agreement, regardless of funding source, must be in compliance with all applicable California Building Codes (Cal Code Regs., Title 24).

2. California Environmental Quality Act: Activities funded under this Agreement, regardless of funding source, must be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.).

Information on CEQA may be found in the California State Clearinghouse _ Handbook.

3. Changes in a project: Any proposed change in the project requested by the Grantee, which would change the information provided during the application process, requires approval from the State Librarian prior to execution. The State Librarian shall have the sole authority to determine if a proposed change by the Grantee is approved or not approved. The State Librarian's decision is final and binding.

4. Compliance with Laws; Consents and Approvals: Grantee will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of federal, state and local governments and agencies having jurisdiction over either the Grantee, the Property, or the project, and with all applicable directions, rules and regulations of the Fire Marshal, health officer, building inspector and other officers of any such government or agency. All permits, consents, permissions and licenses required by any federal, state or local government or agency to which Recipient, the Property, or the Infrastructure Project is subject, which may be necessary in relation to this Agreement, development, construction or ownership of the Infrastructure Project, at or prior to the commencement of construction, have been, or will be, obtained, and none of such consents, permissions and licenses are subject to appeal or to conditions which have not been met.

5. Contractors and Subcontractor: For the performance of all construction work on the Project, Grantee agrees to use a licensed general contractor or contractors ("Contractor"), in good standing, in order to complete the work described in the grant application. The Grantee hereby certifies that the Contractor is in good standing with the California State Contractors' License Board. The Grantee shall only 187

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 23 ends

contract with contractors who are licensed and shall ensure that the Contractor and any successor thereto shall only contract with subcontractors, that are also so licensed.

6. Contractor Insurance/Bond: Grantees shall be responsible for ensuring that any contractors/subcontractors hired for grant -funded work have all relevant bonds and insurance in place in compliance with prevailing wage and other applicable state and federal laws, the Department of Industrial Relations, and the Department of Consumer Affairs Contractors State License Board requirements.

Insurance:
a. Casualty Insurance
i. The Contractor shall procure and maintain insurance on all of its operations with companies acceptable to the State as follows:
1) The Contractor shall keep all insurance in full force and effect from the beginning of the work through contract acceptance.
2) The Contractor shall maintain completed operations coverage with a carrier acceptable to the State through the expiration of the patent deficiency in construction statute of repose set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.1.
b. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance i. In accordance with Labor Code Section 1860, the Contractor shall secure the payment of worker's compensation in accordance with Labor Code Section 3700.
ii. In accordance with Labor Code Section 1861, the Contractor shall submit to the Grantee the following certification before performing the work:
1) I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract. iii. Contract execution constitutes certification submittal. iv. The Contractor shall provide Employer's Liability Insurance in amounts not less than:
1) $1,000,000 for each accident for bodily injury by accident 2) $1,000,000 policy limit for bodily injury by disease 3) $1,000,000 for each employee for bodily injury by disease V. If there is an exposure of injury to the Contractor's employees under the U.S.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the Jones Act, or under laws, regulations, or statutes applicable to maritime employees, coverage shall be included for such injuries or claims. 188

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 24 ends

c. General Liability Insurance
i. The Contractor shall carry General Liability and Umbrella or Excess Liability Insurance covering all operations by or on behalf of the Contractor providing insurance for bodily injury liability and property damage liability for the following limits and including coverage for:

A. Premises, operations, and mobile equipment
B. Products and completed operations
C. Broad form property damage (including completed operations) D. Explosion, collapse, and underground hazards
E. Personal injury
F. Contractual liability
ii. The Contractor shall not require certified Small Business subcontractors to carry Liability Insurance that exceeds the limits in Section (d) (i), "Liability Limits/Additional Insureds," of these specifications. The maximum required Liability Insurance limits in Section (d) (i), "Liability Limits/Additional Insureds," of these specifications shall apply to certified Small Business subcontractors for work performed on the project, regardless of tier. The provisions of Section (d) (i), "Liability Limits/Additional Insureds," shall be included in all subcontracts for all tiers.

Public works construction projects, as defined in Labor Code Section 1720 et sea, must meet prevailing wage requirements. California law requires that workers are not paid less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages on public works projects.
d. LIABILITY LIMITS/ADDITIONAL INSUREDS
i. The limits of liability shall be at least the amounts shown in the following table:
189

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 25 ends

Construction
For Each
Aggregate for
General
Umbrella or
Contract
Occurrence'
Products/
Aggregate2
Excess
Amount 4
Completed
Liability3
Operation
5$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$5,000,000
>$1,000,000
$15,000,000
5$25,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$15,000,000
>$25,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$25,000,000

1. Combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage.

2. This limit shall apply separately to the Contractor's work under this contract.

3. The umbrella or excess policy shall contain a clause stating that it takes effect (drops down) in the event the primary limits are impaired or exhausted. "Construction Contract Amount" is the total amount of the construction contract all or a portion of which is funded with Building Forward Grant funds.

7. Delay: Grantee shall promptly notify the State Library in writing of any event causing delay or interruption of the project beyond the scheduled implementation plan timeline. The notice shall specify the work delayed and the cause and period of each delay.

8. Documentation: Grantees shall provide to the State Library photographic documentation of the project site prior to the start of the project, during the project, and upon completion of the project.

9. Grantee's Responsibility: Grantee and its representatives shall:
a. Faithfully and expeditiously perform or cause to be performed all project work as described in the application, timeline/activities, and budget submitted by the Grantee.
b. Accept and agree to comply with all terms, provisions, conditions, and written commitments of this Agreement, including all incorporated documents, and to fulfill all assurances, declarations, representations, and statements made by Grantee in the application, documents, amendments, and communications filed in relation to the grant funds.
c. Comply with all applicable California laws and regulations. d. Implement the project in accordance with applicable provisions of the law. e. Fulfill their obligations under the Agreement and be responsible for the performance and completion of the project.
f. Follow all applicable local, state and/or federal laws pertaining to the expenditure of funds.
190

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 26 ends

g. Retain any bid, contracts, and any other pertinent documentation. Likewise, all local, state, and federal permits required for construction projects must be acquired by the grantee and retained for a period of five (5) years after the end of the grant period.

10. Inspection of the Proiect: The State Library shall have the right to inspect the project during the grant term. Grantee shall deliver to the State Library any inspection reports prepared, to the extent available to the Grantee. Inspection of the project shall be for the sole purpose of protecting the State of California's interest and is not to be construed as a representation by the State Library that there has been compliance with plans or that the project will be free of faulty materials or workmanship. The Grantee can make or cause to be made such other independent inspections as the Grantee may desire for its own protection.

11. Interest: Any interest earned on grant funds held by the Grantee shall be contributed to the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LIBRARY - Yucaipa Branch Library Project. Interest funds cannot be used as local matching funds.

12. Maintenance and Operation: The Grantee is responsible for ensuring that grant projects funded by the State of California are maintained and operated in the same condition as when the project was completed; normal wear and tear is accepted.

Maintenance and operations standards should be adopted upon completion of the project.

13. Matching Funds: Per the Budget Act of 2021 (Chapter 69, Statutes of 2021, Item 6120-161-0001 1 d) Grantees shall be required to match state funds on a dollar -for - dollar basis. The State Library may reduce the amount of required matching funds if the requesting local library jurisdiction can demonstrate that it is eligible and financially unable to provide the required matching funds. Upon receipt and assessment of a reduction request, the State Library may lower the match requirement, as follows:
a. For each library with local operating include per capita (LIPC) of more than $40, no reduction in local match is allowed
b. For reach library with an LIPC between $40 and $15.01, the local match may be reduced by half.
c. For each library with an LIPC of $15 of less, the local match may be eliminated.

14. Permits, Licenses, Approvals, and Legal Obligations: Grantee shall be responsible for obtaining any and all permits, licenses, and approvals required for performing any work under this Grant Agreement, including those necessary to perform design, construction, or operation and maintenance of the Project(s). Grantee shall be responsible for observing and complying with any applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules or regulations affecting any such work, specifically those including, but not limited to, environmental, procurement, and safety laws, rules, regulations, 191

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 27 ends

and ordinances. Grantee shall be prepared to provide copies of permits and approvals to the State Library should the State Library request copies.

15. Relationship of Parties: If applicable, Grantee is solely responsible for design, construction, and operation and maintenance of projects within the project application and implementation plan. Review or approval of plans, specifications, bid documents, or other construction documents by State is solely for the purpose of proper administration of funds by State and shall not be deemed to relieve or restrict responsibilities of Grantee under this Grant Agreement.

16. Use of Funds: Grantee agrees that the grant funds shall be expended only in accordance with the applicable statutes and Grant Guidelines governing the Program, and only for the purposes and activities set forth in this Agreement and the Grantee's approved outputs, budget, and implementation plan completed as part of the award packet documentation. The grant funds shall be used exclusively for the payment of, or reimbursement for, approved costs as shown in the project budget completed as part of the award packet documentation or the amended budget as approved in writing by the State Library. Such payment of costs to be made only after the costs have been incurred by the Grantee. "Approved Costs" shall mean all hard and soft eligible costs under the project (and modifications thereto), which were approved, or will be approved by the State Library, which are needed for the completion of the project, in accordance with application.

17. Use of site: The facility, or the part thereof, acquired, constructed, or remodeled, upgraded, or rehabilitated with funds received as part of the Building Forward grant program will be dedicated to public library service and used as a public library according to the Education Code, sections 18010 through 20092 and California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Division 2 and provide at least the following: an organized collection of printed or other library materials, or a combination thereof; paid staff; and regularly scheduled hours for being open to the public for a period of not less than 10 years following completion of the grant period.

18. Withdrawal of a Project: If it is determined by the grant recipient that a project cannot be completed within the scope of the approved application, the project may be withdrawn by the Grantee prior to the completion of fifty percent of the project. Upon withdrawal of a project, all unspent funding must be returned to the State Library along with a completed detailed expenditure form showing how any unreturned funds were spent.
192

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 28 ends

C,+�I„AFQR.NWA,
/I STATE LIBRARY
EXHIBIT C: CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE FORM

1. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: I certify that the authorized representative named below is the legally designated representative of the Grantee for this Grant Agreement and project and is authorized to receive and expend funds in order to implement this grant -funded project.

I certify that all information provided to the California State Library for review in association with this award is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge, and as the authorized representative of the Grantee, I commit to the conditions of this award, and I have the legal authority to do so.

I certify that any or all other participants or contractors in the grant -funded project have agreed to the terms of the Award Agreement and have entered into an agreement(s) concerning the final disposition of equipment, facilities, and materials purchased for this project from the funds awarded for the activities and services described in the attached award packet, as approved and/or as amended by the California State Librarian.

I certify that I have reviewed and understand the list of unallowable costs and that my project does not contain any of the unallowable costs listed.

The authorized representative, on behalf of the Grantee, certifies that the Grantee will comply with all applicable requirements of State and Federal laws, regulations, and policies governing this project, to include the requirements listed below in this Certification of Compliance Form.

2. The authorized representative, on behalf of the Grantee, hereby certifies to the California State Library, for an award of funds in the amount $9,000,000. This award will fund library facility improvements as set forth in the list of approved outcomes, Implementation Plan and Budget as approved and/or as amended by the California State Librarian.

3. The authorized representative, on behalf of the Grantee, hereby certifies that City of Yucaipa will provide a cash match in the amount of $9,000,000. The matching funds (if applicable) will be expended during the grant period at the same rate as the state -provided grant funds.
193

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 29 ends

4. The authorized representative, on behalf of the Grantee, hereby certifies that the project property, or a part thereof, will be dedicated to public library services and used as a public library according to the Education Code, sections 18010 through 20092 and California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Division 2 and provide at least the following: an organized collection of printed or other library materials, or a combination thereof; paid staff; and regularly scheduled hours for being open to the public for a period of not less than 10 years following completion of the grant period.

5. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE: Grantee has, unless exempted, complied with the non-discrimination program requirements. (Gov. Code § 12990 (a-f) and CCR, Title 2, Section 11102).

6. DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS: Grantee will comply with the requirements of the Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1990 and will provide a drug -free workplace by taking the following actions:
a. Publish a statement notifying employees that unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions to be taken against employees for violations. b. Establish a Drug -Free Awareness Program to inform employees about:
1) the dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
2) the person's or organization's policy of maintaining a drug -free workplace; 3) any available counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and,
4) penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations. c. Every employee who works on the proposed Agreement will:
1) receive a copy of the company's drug -free workplace policy statement; and, 2) agree to abide by the terms of the company's statement as a condition of employment on the Agreement.

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under the Agreement or termination of the Agreement or both and Grantee may be ineligible for award of any future State agreements if the department determines that any of the following has occurred: the Grantee has made false certification or violated the certification by failing to carry out the requirements as noted above. (Gov. Code § 8350 et. seq.)

7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Grantee needs to be aware of the following provisions regarding current or former state employees. If Grantee has any questions on the status of any person rendering services or involved with the Agreement, the California State Library must be contacted immediately for clarification.

Current State Employees (Pub. Contract Code § 10410):
194

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 30 ends

a. No officer or employee shall engage in any employment, activity or enterprise from which the officer or employee receives compensation or has a financial interest, and which is sponsored or funded by any state agency, unless the employment, activity or enterprise is required as a condition of regular state employment.
b. No officer or employee shall contract on his or her own behalf as an independent contractor with any state agency to provide goods or services.

Former State Employees (Pub. Contract Code § 10411):
a. For the two-year period from the date he or she left state employment, no former state officer or employee may enter into a contract in which he or she engaged in any of the negotiations, transactions, planning, arrangements or any part of the decision -making process relevant to the contract while employed in any capacity by any state agency.
b. For the twelve-month period from the date he or she left state employment, no former state officer or employee may enter into a contract with any state agency if he or she was employed by that state agency in a policy -making position in the same general subject area as the proposed contract within the 12-month period prior to his or her leaving state service.

If Grantee violates any provisions of above paragraphs, such action by Grantee shall render this Agreement void. (Pub. Contract Code § 10420).

Members of boards and commissions are exempt from this section if they do not receive payment other than payment of each meeting of the board or commission, payment for preparatory time and payment for per diem. (Pub. Contract Code § 10430 (e)).

8. LABOR CODE/WORKERS' COMPENSATION: Grantee needs to be aware of the provisions which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions, and Grantee affirms to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Agreement. (Labor Code § 3700).

9. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: Grantee assures the State that it complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA. (42 U.S.C. 12101 et. seq.)

10. RESOLUTION: A county, city, district, or other local public body must provide the State Library with a copy of a resolution, order, motion, or ordinance of the local governing body which by law has authority to enter into an agreement, authorizing execution of the agreement.

11. PAYEE DATA RECORD FORM STD. 204: This form must be completed by all Grantees that are not another state agency or other governmental entity. 195

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 31 ends

12. DRUG FREE WORKPLACE:
a. Continue to provide a drug -free workplace by complying with the requirements in 2 C.F.R. part 3186 (Requirements for Drug -Free Workplace (Financial Assistance)). In particular, the recipient must comply with drug- free workplace requirements in subpart B of 2 C.F.R. part 3186, which adopts the Government - wide implementation (2 C.F.R. part 182) of sections 5152-5158 of the Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988 (P. L. 100-690, Title V, Subtitle D; 41 U.S.C. §§ 701-707). b. This includes but is not limited to: making a good faith effort, on a continuing basis, to maintain a drug -free workplace; publishing a drug -free workplace statement; establishing a drug -free awareness program for the employees; taking actions concerning employees who are convicted of violating drug statutes in the workplace.

13. ACCESSIBILITY: The organization receiving this award, as listed in the certification section below, and all project staff, will ensure all project materials will meet California accessibility standards.

14. NON-DISCRIMINATION: The organization receiving this award, as listed in the certification section below, and all project staff, agree to comply with all California non-discrimination laws.

15. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The organization receiving this award, as listed in the certification section below, and all project staff, agree to comply with California State Library acknowledgement requirements.
196

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 32 ends

Certification

ORGANIZATION
Name:

Address (official and complete):

PROJECT COORDINATOR
Name:

Email:

Phone:

GRANTEE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
Name:

Title:

Email:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:
197

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 33 ends

Authorized Representative Signature

ORGANIZATION
Name:

Address (official and complete):

AUTHROIZED REPRESENTATIVE
Signature:

Date: Click or tap here to enter text.

Printed Name of Person Signing:

Title:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Agency Name: California State Library
Address: 900 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Signature:

Date:

Printed Name of Person Signing:

Title: California State Librarian
198

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 34 ends

01010 STATE LIBRARY
EXHIBIT D: STATE REIMBURSABLE TRAVEL EXPENSES
Rates are subject to change per State of California, Department of Human Resources Please Check State of California, Department of Human Resources Website for updated expenses:
http://www.calhr.ca.gov/employees/pages/travel-reimbursements aspx Mileage:
$0.585 per mile - approved business/travel expense
Rate subject to change
Meals:
$7.00 - Breakfast
Receipts are required
$1 1.00 - Lunch
$23.00 - Dinner
$5.00 - Incidentals
Meals Note: Lunch can only be claimed if travel is more than 24 hours. Incidental charge may be claimed once for every 24-hour period and should cover incidental expenses, such as but not limited to, tip, baggage handling, etc.

Hotel: $ 90.00 plus tax for all counties/cities not listed below Receipts are required $ 95.00 plus tax for Napa, Riverside, and Sacramento and MUST have a zero Counties
balance. $ 110.00 plus tax for Marin County
$ 120.00 plus tax for Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura
Counties, and Edwards AFB. Excluding the city of Santa
Monica
$ 125.00 plus tax for Monterey and San Diego Counties
$ 140.00 plus tax for Alameda, San Mateo and Santa
Clara Counties
$ 150.00 plus tax for the City of Santa Monica
$ 250.00 plus tax for San Francisco County
Out of State: Prior authorization must be obtained, as well as three print-out hotel quotes. Actual receipt must be included with authorization and additional quotes.

Hotel Note: If the above approved reimbursable hotel rates cannot be secured, please contact your grant monitor to obtain an excess lodging form. This form must be approved prior to actual travel.
199

City of Yucaipa
Yucaipa Branch Library
2021-2022 B F-2-21-007

Page 35 ends

AIRLINE TICKETS: Actual reasonable fees pertaining to airline travel will be Itinerary and receipts are reimbursed. Business, First Class, or Early Bird Check -in fee required is not an approved reimbursable expense.
200

CALIFORNIA

II STATE LIBRARY
November 1, 2022
RE: Contractor and Grantee Compliance with Economic Sanctions Imposed in Response to Russia's Actions in Ukraine
Dear Grantee,
You are receiving this notification because you currently have an active grant through the California State Library.

On March 4, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-6-22 (EO) regarding sanctions in response to Russian aggression in Ukraine. The EO is located at https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/3 4 22-Russia-Ukraine-Executive-Order pdf.

The EO directs all agencies and departments that are subject to the Governor's authority to take certain immediate steps, including notifying all contractors and grantees of their obligations to comply with existing economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine, as well as any sanctions imposed under state law.

This correspondence serves as a notice under the EO that as a contractor or grantee, compliance with the economic sanctions imposed in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine is required, including with respect to, but not limited to, the federal executive orders identified in the EO and the sanctions identified on the U.S. Department of the Treasury website (https:Hhome.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/sanctions-programs-and-countrv- information/ukraine-russia-related-sanctions). Failure to comply may result in the termination of contracts or grants, as applicable.

Please note that for any agreements or grants valued at $5 million or more, a separate notification will be sent outlining additional requirements specified under the EO.

Annly Roman
Grants and Bureau Operations Manager
California State Library
900 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
201

Building Forward
Round 1
Grant Monitor Checklist
• Final Project Budget
• Final Project Implementation Plan
• Resolution from the grantee organization's governing body approving acceptance of grant funds and designating an Authorized Representative allowed to enter into agreements on behalf of the organization • Grant Agreement and Certification of Compliance
If required based on specific project
• A letter from the grantee organization's Chief Financial Officer, Finance Director, or equivalent confirming availability of matching funds (Required for all grantees contributing local match funds.)
• A current facility lease with a term extending at least ten years after the end of the grant period. (Required for all projects involving leased buildings.) All relevant documents received and approved by Kevin Webb.

Grant Monitor Signature
202

CITY OF YUCAIPA/YUCAIPA CALIMESA JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT/COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CONTINGENT JOINT USE OF

LIBRARY BRANCH AGREEMENT
THIS CONTINGENT JOINT USE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on , 2023 by and between CITY OF YUCAIPA, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), THE YUCAIPA CALIMESA JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "District"), and THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter "County") (collectively, "Parties") is made with reference to the following:

RF.CTTAT,S
WHEREAS, Yucaipa Branch Library was built in 1969 and expanded to its current size of 11,717 sq. ft. in 1987 by the County of San Bernardino; and WHEREAS, while some modest improvements have been made to the facility over the years, it stands much as it was originally constructed forty years ago when the library facility served less than 10,000 residents; and
WHEREAS, the County has historically operated and continues to operate the Yucaipa Branch Library; and,
WHEREAS, the County's Library Master Facility Plan (hereinafter MFP), which was published in 2001, addressed the inadequacies in the existing building by recommending a new facility be built. A 25,000 sq. ft. facility was advised based on a projected 20-year population growth in the City to approximately 60,000 people by the year 2021; and WHEREAS, in 2009, the City initiated a Library Needs Assessment Study which based the size of the facility on the projected 2030 population growth which resulted in a similar finding as the County's MFP; and
WHEREAS, since then, a plan for a joint library including a teen cafe center, serving the needs of the City, District and County, and known as the Yucaipa Branch Library Project, as evolved; and
WHEREAS, development of a 25,000 sq. ft. library, which would incorporate a teen cafe center and a 1,500 square foot multi -purpose room, that would be made available to the public during normal business hours, is estimated to cost approximately $18 million; and WHEREAS, the $18 million library development cost estimate is intended to cover all planning, design, construction, resources, and materials needed for a new library; and WHEREAS, a new library would incorporate new technologies, energy efficiency standards, solar energy, and meet all current building requirements, including green building standards; and
203

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the City shall act as the lead agency for the Yucaipa Branch Library Project with respect to associated grant applications, facility design, documentation required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), acquisition of regulatory permits and other details to be delineated in a future design/construction agreement among the City, District and County; and
WHEREAS, the California State Library Building Forward Library Infrastructure Program has awarded the City a $9 million grant (the "Grant") to assist in funding a new library facility; and
WHEREAS, the City, County and District must provide a local match of $9 million to obtain the $9 million in State grant funding; and
WHEREAS, the District has offered to provide the District owned property at 33002 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa CA, (See Exhibit A; APN: 030307128) as joint ownership for the purpose of developing a Yucaipa Branch Library Project including a teen cafe center. The Parties have identified the 33002 Yucaipa Blvd. site as the preferred site for review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), although any use of the site would be contingent upon compliance with CEQA, including consideration of project alternatives and mitigation measures to the extent required by CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the District intends to direct its Redevelopment Agency (RDA) "Pass Through" funds from FY 25-26 (once the high school football field "loan" is paid off) through FY 31-32 (the end of the RDA) to the new library project (reimbursed up to $2 million) to help fund the local match requirements for the Grant; and
WHEREAS, for this Project, the City would advance various Project costs which would contribute to the local match for the Grant, and which would be reimbursed to City by the District over time as RDA Pass Through funds become available to the District; and WHEREAS, the new library would contain, among other amenities, a 1,500 square foot multi -purpose room which can be converted into classroom, tutoring, and conference space for District meetings, activities, and programs such as the Yucaipa High School ConnectEd Academy and future Peer to Peer tutoring opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the County intends to allocate $3 million to the Yucaipa Branch Library Project; and
WHEREAS, the County's allocation of $3 million will be used towards equipment and operational cost ($1 million) as well as towards the construction of the new library facility ($2 million); and
2 204

WHEREAS, the City will contribute approximately $7 million over a three-year environmental review, design, and construction period, with up to $2 million to be reimbursed from the District from its "pass -through" RDA proceeds from FY 25-26 to FY 31-32; and WHEREAS, the City will continue to pursue additional grant funding that may be used as a part of the local match for the Grant for the Yucaipa Library Branch Project, in addition to managing the environmental review, planning, design and construction of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City, County and District will work on the development of a Library Ad - Hoc Committee for this project; and
WHEREAS, the Ad -Hoc Committee will consist of one City Council member and alternate (Councilmember Thorp and Councilmember Garner); County Supervisor and alternate, District member and alternate; and staff from each entity; and WHEREAS, the Ad -Hoc Committee will be utilized for the planning, design, public outreach, and construction of the new library facility; and WHEREAS, the Ad -Hoc Committee will remain in place till construction is complete; and WHEREAS, once the Yucaipa Branch Library Project is completed, the County will be responsible for staffing and maintaining all elements of the library facility; and WHEREAS, the City, County and District will entire into an additional agreement regarding the responsibilities of the teen cafd center; and WHEREAS, the City anticipates beginning construction of the Yucaipa Branch Library Project in the Winter of 2023; and
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledge, the parties hereby agree as follow:

1. AGREEMENT CONTINGENT UPON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Parties agree that the terms set forth in this Agreement are intended to provide a framework for pursuing the development of the new library Project, and to allow for the definition of the Project to, among other purposes, enable the Project to be assessed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Parties have agreed to designate the property at 33002 Yucaipa Blvd. as the preferred site for CEQA review, and any further agreements regarding use of the site for the new library Project are expressly conditional on CEQA compliance. Thus, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as binding any of the Parties to proceed with the Project, to proceed with the Project at 33002 Yucaipa Blvd., or to in any way limit the ability to study alternatives to the Project and potential mitigation measures as may be required for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 205

2. CITY CONTRIBUTIONS
A. The City shall act as the lead agency for the Yucaipa Branch Library Project with respect to associated grant applications, planning, design, documentation required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), acquisition of regulatory permits and other details to be delineated in a future design/construction agreement between the City, District and County; which agreement would only be considered and entered into by the Parties after completion of the environmental review required by CEQA.

DISTRICT CONTRIBUTION
A. District has offered to provide the District owned property at 33002 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa CA, (See Exhibit A; APN: 030307128) as joint ownership for the purpose of developing a Yucaipa Branch Library Project including a teen cafe center. The Parties have identified the 33002 Yucaipa Blvd. site as the preferred site for review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), although any use of the site would be contingent upon compliance with CEQA, including consideration of project alternatives and mitigation measures to the extent required by CEQA; and
B. The District intends to direct its Redevelopment Agency (RDA) "Pass Through" funds from FY 25-26 (once the high school football field "loan" is paid off) through FY 31-32 (the end of the RDA) to the new library project (reimbursed up to $2 million) in their entirety to help fund the local match requirements for the Grant; and

4. COUNTY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL FUTURE OPERATIONAL AND

MAINTENANCE COSTS
A. In the event that a new library Project is constructed, the County shall be responsible for all costs associated with operating and maintaining the new library, including but not limited to costs for utilities, supplies and maintenance staff.

5. SCHEDULING AND OPERATIONS
A. In the event that a new library Project is constructed, and except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, County staff shall manage and control the operation of the library, monitor, and oversee the use of the Facility, control the key distribution to the Facility and all rooms therein, and retain the right of access to all rooms and locations in the Facility at all times.

B. In the event that a new library Project is constructed, and thereafter, in the event of major facility failure necessitating temporary closure of the Library, County shall notify the City and District within twenty-four (24) hours. County will provide to 206

the City and District a written estimated timeline of repairs required to restore the facility to full operation.

C. The City, County and District will entire into an additional agreement regarding the responsibilities of the teen cafe center; and

6. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
All work, services, and activities pursuant to this Agreement shall be in accordance with all applicable ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulation of any federal, state, or local governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.

Notices. All notices, demands, requests, consents, approvals, or communications from one to another shall be personally delivered or sent by facsimile or e-mail to the persons set forth below and shall be deemed given one (1) business day after it is sent. Alternatively, it shall be deemed given five (5) calendar days after deposit in the United States mail, certified and postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed as follows, or at such other address as either may from time to time specify to the other patties in writing To CITY: City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, California 92399
Attn: City Manager
With copies to: Richards, Watson, and Gershon
350 South Grand Avenue, 37th Floor
Los Angeles, California, 90071
Attn: City of Yucaipa City Attorney
To DISTRICT: Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District Office of the Superintendent
Attn: Cali Binks
12797 Third St., Yucaipa CA 92399
To COUNTY: San Bernardino County Library
Office of the County Librarian
Attn: Melanie Orosco
777 E. Rialto Ave. San Bernardino, CA 92415
With copies to: [Insert anyone who is to receive copies of notices] 207

Notices personally delivered or delivered by document delivery sei vice shall be deemed effective upon receipt. Notices mailed shall be deemed effective on the second business day following deposit in the United States mail. Such written notices, demands, and communications shall be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may from time to time designate by mail.

The Parties agree to accept facsimile or scanned signed documents and agree to rely upon such documents as if they bore original signatures. The Parties agree to provide, within seventy-two (72) hours after transmission of such a facsimile or scan, the original documents that bear the original signatures.

6. VENUE. The venue of any action or claim brought by any Parties to this Agreement shall be either the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District, or the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside. If any action or claim concerning this Agreement is brought by any third -party and filed in another venue, the Parties hereto agree to use their best efforts to obtain a change of venue to either the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District, or the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside.

7. NEUTRAL INTERPRETATION. Parties have each cooperated in the drafting and preparation of this Agreement and in any construction to be made of this Agreement, the same shall not be construed against either Party to this Agreement in the event of any asserted ambiguity in, or dispute regarding the interpretation of any matter herein.

8. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

9. APPLICABLE LAW. The validity, interpretation, and performance of this Agreement shall be controlled by and construed under the laws of the State of California.

10. INTERPRETATION
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either parties by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply. The section headings are for purposes of convenience only.

11. INTEGRATION: AMENDMENT
It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and the subject matter hereof and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, oral agreements, and understandings, if any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent if the parties by an instrument in writing. 208

12. SEVERABILITY
In the event that part of this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining portions of this Agreement with are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.

13. ATTORNEY' S FEES
If a party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or take a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees.

14. GOVERNING LAW.

This Agreement shall be interpreted, enforced, and governed by the laws of the State of California.

15. COORDINATION OF WORK
A. The District's Superintendent or designee ("District Representative") and the County's Librarian or designee is hereby designated as being the principal and representative for the District and County, respectively, authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work, services, and activities specified herein.

B. The City Manager or designee ("City Representative") is hereby designated as being the representative of City authorized to act in its behalf with respect to work, services, and activities, specified herein.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.

Attest:

CITY OF YUCAIPA
IN

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
209

Approved as to Form: YUCIPA-CALIMESA JOINT UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT
210

EXHIBIT A
Addifianal County Parcel Resources
211

Ike pori°u LJI-ue C.Ni gy o1i
,mad F.., iflutcy Vbl ravdirhg Setrvi yes C"s'ojecit
ol r;J, �.
`thuca.'Upa. ('collet -a�.1i1�C:� I�'��111:>>Il��..: 1L-,uL�.C''�i�G°� -$'ubroittrad to C'okIIICiI 10 May 2610
G"11i�lUt S .VLOC—Mires, Inc.
385 Second Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
T: 949-497-9000
F; 949.497.8883
wmv.griffinholdings.net
Calirornia Mcvada Arizona holy
l"TC
ch itects. Inc.

W(1,C Architects, 9mr,.
8163 Rochester Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 987-0909 extension 5632
Project 0913400.61
www.wlcarchitects.com
Pnl om Rancho Cucnmonp Berkeley
212

�I b�l�=eWll..l�. �.�'11— `i.r@..✓Iltil II �= tl�'J I. �,

1. 11111TRODUCTION................................. ........................................................ I... ........ I............ I SCOPEof Wow<..................................................................................................................................... .....

SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................................................ I SHERIFF'S FACILITY DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT MATRIX..................................................................................................4 LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT MAl"RIX.................................................................................................................... S

2. ALTERNATIVE '.Sl u'E CONC;EP T' PLANS..............................................................................6 SITEALTERNATIVE PD-IV I.................................................................................................................................................... 6 SITEALTERNATIVE PD-N2:................................................................................................................................................. 10 SITEALTERNATIVE PD-N3.................................................................................................................................................. 14 SITEALTERNATIVE PD-N4.................................................................................................................................................. 18 SITEALTERNATIVE LIB -A I..................................................................................................................................................22 SITEALTERNATIVE LIB-N I ................................. ............... .................................................................................................. 26 SirsAL'I'r=RNATIVF LIB-N2............................................................................................................................_.....................30 Srl'E ALTERNATIVE LIB-N3 AND N4................................................................................................................................34

3. SUMMARY OF POLICE DEPARTMENT SPACE REQUIREMENTS .......................................

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................................39 STAFFPROJECTIONS .................................................. --.......................................................................................................40 EXISTINGPOLICE FACILITIES................................................................................................................................................42 REQUIREMENTSSUMMARY ..................... ...................................... ........................................................................................ 43 RFCOMMENDATION.............................................................................................................................................................44

4. SIJrIiA ,.RY ¢aF LIBRAr-a'Y SPACE REC,?UIREIA' E)4'1-S...........................................................45 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... .......45 ...................................................

COMPUTING LIBRARY SPACE REQUIREMENTS................................................................................................................46 ApproachOptions.................................................................................................................................................46 Approach I — Space Per Capita "Standards.. ..................................................................................................46 Approach 2 — Using the Benchmark Libraries as Prototypes.....................................................................51 Approach 3 — Computational Planning Model................................................................................................53 REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY AND PARKING NEEDS............................................................................................................54

5. EXISTING Pelsll.DR,1C CONDITIONS ..................................................................................56 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................................56 Am-IITECTURAL A55ES.5MEIIIT OP THE EXISTING FACILITIES...........................................................................................56 ATTACHMENT I—EX11STING BUILDING PLANS
ATTACHMENT 2 — EX� I4S TINE BUILDING ING CCrW19TIC MS; 17WAL.UATION ATTACHMENT 3 — Oli'I-IfnE-'t SITE CCavic f"TS, e 0+4 SlDr-. -,r-Fu Report to tho City of Yucaipa
Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc.

Library Needs Assessment Study
Table of Contents
213

f` e,
� Ir
h
sp
7� t.•r
INTO DUCT10N
a al »
6 r't w* ,
d
,MZ 44A
f
r r r tI
3 SCOPE OF WORK
This project hies been commissioned by the City of Yucaipa in order to address questions regarding how long term facilities requirements for city police department and library servicav can best he rnct.

The project examined projected needs based on build-oul of the city in thirty years, and considered options for locating these heeded facilities on city and county property in the Yucaipa Civic tenter.

I'hc program of work included several activity phases:
• Nceels Assessment. Art analytic analysis of the quantitative and functional Spacc requirements, for the Police Department and for the Library, Also, projection of space requirements in -5-year increments over the 30-year projection period; standardized approach to space needs computa- tions; calculation of requirements for staff, visitor, and department vehicle parking; assessment 01'111'(Wrnity and rclation8,11ip inl'rarrmlion; and con sidcral ions regarding building; efficiency and determination of gross building square. footage..
• Facility Analysis. An assessment. of the existing building conditions for both the Police De- partment building and the Library building. This included code and systems reviews, engineer- ing evaluations, assessments of feasibility of expanding or modifying the existing buildings, and related reviews.
• Parking Analysis. The parking analysis examined each building; site area as to its capacity and functional suitability for parking; the roquirod number of vehicles its duttlrl ihiud in the heeds its- sessment. 'Ills included both iWineric<'al revle%v of heeds and capucitirs. and graphical illustra- tions for various development options,
• Conceptual Facility and Site Plan. The site study plans developed as part of the Parking Analy- sis were extciided Into various options, and cost estimates associated with each of the alterna- tives were prepared.
• Final Report. After rovic.Ny by the City, a final set of alternative approaches were approved for elaboration in liiis lintel report. This report also includes sunurtary information on each phase results.

SUMMARY
Building Space Needs
We began this; project with an analysis of space and parking; retlulrements, The outcome is sumrra- rized later in this documcnl (Sections 3 and 4), Ilrtd i8 SUppprtcd by draft reports presented for the po- lice facility and library Iacility, respectively.

The needs Ibr the police buildmg;l an, projected to grow, based on future population and staffing lev- els of the police department, and are sutntnarized in Section _-. For planning future sits; and building; requirements we use the projected total need at: build -out (2040) of the City, which is 24,813 gross sq. ft. Note that this does not include parking and certain yard elernenis (trash enclosure, emergency power generator, etc.).

I Note that slalee plict: services are provided by the Sheriff, and same nl the geographic ar'GH served from this building is outsido the city, Ihere 1iti3 some stall'and oper'nlion^ teased ill Ibis buikdhrg whiuh are not funded by the Yuouipu, but wliiuh are provided with required fucililies.

Report to the City of Yucaipa Facilities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Page I
215

For the library, a space requirement of 25,000 gross sq. ft. is projected, which is a conserval.ive figure based on (a) typical standards and projected usage volumes, (b) experience ol'ot'her eities in Ll,c San Bernardino County system wil.11 relalively new library space, and (c) a quantitative platuiuig model.

The existing police building is estimated to be approximately 13,272 gratis sq, It., which compulcs to a nunlcrical' shartfiall ()I,11.541 gratis sq. I1. The existing literary building is estimated' to be ap- praxinlatcly 11,832 gross sq. ft., which Computes Lo a numerical shorl.lall ol' 13,168 sq, ft.

Parking Requirements
Parking requirements for police were computed in each 5-year increment to huild-oiit, the sale as we did for building, space requirements. At build -out, the total parking requirement is 7 visitor si lecs, 39 fleet vehicle spaces. and 60 employee parking spaces, for a t.olal parking of 106 spaces. Computed for llic inlcrirn plalmhig yunr of 2020, tiro local police parking is 86 spaces. Parking requirements for the 25,000 gross; sq. ft. library are estimated aL hq ,paces, including visitors and employees.

C«ncopt Appeoic ties
The opportunity �qiles for possible future developinatlt of required lacilitics were discussed with the City and arc sturlrnari•r,ed in the Potential Site illustration below.

8.� •••1 City of Yucaipa
WLC
Arahlt?C.��. Inc.

7. Note that this numerical difference does not take into acccaint any possible deficime•y Ill kite extshuE lnnldiny. systetlls C.\- peeted life, code compliance: functional adequitcy, of other non -numerical considerntiotls. {'I ter. rxistine Iihrary is 1 I,R32 pst'by our nlrnaurenu•.nr, 11 09Y get' Iinm the f.'.[alldy wnsler pinu ducumcnt.

Report: co Elio City of Yucaipa Facilities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Page 2
216

Based on a review of Ilicsc sites and on various considcral.ions as described in Section 2 of this report, the Prgject Tcam has idenl.ilicd 9 alternatives foi- City consideration. These approach alternatives are sunnnarized as 1`61lows;
VD-N1 (police new construction #1): Constrict all new Oil the exiaing police Sitc.

PD-N2 (police new construction 42); Construct all new on the existing library site.

PD-N3 (police new construction 43): Construct all new north of the existing library site.

PD-N4 (police new construction #4): Construct all new on the west civic center site.

L-Al (libraryaddition #1): Add the needed 13,168 gsf to the existing library (west side) L-NI (library new construction #l): Construct all new, on the existing library site.

L-N2 (library new construction 112)' Construct all new north orthe existing library site, L-N3 (library new construction 11:3): Construct all new On the West civic center site:.

Please sco Section 2 Im details and asstutnptions regarding these approaches, including illustrations and estimated budgets associated with each development Approach. A number of other a1proaches, or variation;, cif the above, were pre,,ented in an earlier draft mporl. 'These are recapitulated in an ap- pendix to this document for reference. Some of these alternatives were found not to he viahlo4.

Combining Approaches
The total parlung requirement, from the notes above, is 170 spaces in the year 2020 and 190 spaces at build -out (2040). We rcvicwcd parking availability under combined site layout uptiulls. Not till li- bi-tlry options co -exist with ull pulicC uptluns, which is indicated iri [tic table below. Upon review of the separate approaches, it is in sonic cases nueusJary I.o expand parking In and around the parking ar- eas 11CCdod fur the options Separt►tCly, but WC 11MIC atfil'n►Cd that the Parking heeds can be imct by ex- tending parlcing lots to the available areas where necessary. Using maximal parking oppominity, we arr-ive at the following approximate parking capacities at the site(,,).

PD-NI
PD-N2
PD-N3
PD-N4
Summary Matrix

LIB -AI

LIB -NI
LIB-N2
I.113-N3
LIB-N4
221
186
247
241
231
n/a
Ilia
213
235
225
208
206
n(a
246
186
260
225
266
Ilia
nla
The following two tables illustrate a sllnlinary comparison of the altertladvcs which are; discussed in this report.

We CU[ttil(tCYC(i, fur exumplu, the rdternative of adding,, 11,541 gir to the oxisling police buitdLug to nicer the proicctcd re..- quiron►cnt. TI►is option was rcjcctad chic tU rcuovattun costs on Ihc. retained portion, in order to meet current Structural codes, and also costs to make access and services in the resulting building function approlm•iately.

Report to the City of Yucaipa Facilltles Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Page 3
217

9c- HRH`sF'S r-AC.fLnry i.j;'r--LO&aM--PN3 " A Sr:!5 4MMN aIA' RIX Site Assessment
Alternate PD-NI
Alternate PD--N2
Alternate PD-N3
Alternate PD-N4
t:Iffer7fr
Now Shcritt's AT exlsttug
Vcw Stlerifrs raetilry fn
Construct NvaV Shctin'x at
Ctumtruct New Shciirrs a:

Sherill's Rile
existing Lihnl.^y Site
Nnrth Civic Cc ucr Site,
R°csl CIAO Gelder Sit.-
Mau/She Funetlonnl
Fair efficiency due to uu-
Fair cfEcieney due to uu-
Good efficiency dun to cam.
(imsd aniciency chat nt com-
Efncicncy
memus cxialing site, can-
:ncruus existing site con-
pact now building with lest
p m nev: building %vilh Ic:a
slraints.
straila:

U]I)llraililr and caoxt71idalcd
crmmminlb and conwlid:ded
site, area
site area.

Building Area Provided
24,813 Sr
24,813 sf
24,813 xr
7A,813 %f'
Spurr Me& CupnclM
IA140

7.040
2040
2040
Pnrldng Needs Cnpncity
Deficit 7 Spaces
C:cticit 6 Spnces
Sulplus 55 Spaces
Surplus 19 Fipacx:s
Ihrsmul Aburemrnt
Yes
Yes
Nn
No
Interim Qn•uponcy CA-
SIICfi4 a 1111paCt
No Sheriff impact/ Li-
NU lo:pact
No Impact
Pacify
brary Impact
Prnprrrp A,rgnlritinn
Required
"one
lnturim f.ihrtry She
None
Nano
Property kequialuou
Costs
$ n,uu
:; u,llrl
S 0.@0

0.00 Interim Ocrupnnvy
S 7281515100
S 723,617,00
S 0.00
S 0.00
Gusts
Hazmnt Costs
S 00PI0,00
y 99#10,00
S O.W
S 0.00
Saft f.111LY
k 2"W!'115.111)
:: 2,660,529.110
N 2,77:1,441,ef1
$ 7,749,972,00
Site(Iluilding f:nnsiraa
S 9,5112,5?4.(111
4 rl!:117.,Ik7.p11
IO,O66A15Q0
4 994�,ri73tt11
tlon Costs
Total Casts
$ 13$212,47-1.00
d 1.>..51`;33.3,UU
S 12'80,856.00
6 12,692,64SA10
Report to the City c f Yucaipa
Submittod by GrifFln Structures, Inc.

Facilities Needs Assessment Study

Page 4 ends

218

LI1 DRILY DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT MATRIX
Site Assessmeilf
Alternate LIB -Al
Alternate LIB-141
Alternate LIB-N2
Alternative LTB- -1
Cllfterilr
Bnlxnrd wvel side uud
Nuw L bnuy tit unistiug
Cululluul Nuty Library at
& Ull-Nil
Renovate the rxistinr
l.ihnirySite,
NoifnCivic Ccnb,rSite
Unixtruut New lArary at
I.ihrary
wort Civic Center Site
Pltsn/Mite runationul
Low efficiency due to
Good etliuitxiey due to
Goad efficiency due I„ cony
Ucwd clllciuuuy tluc tv
Widelicy
numerous ,xisting build-
compact now buiidiag
pact now Iwildiyi , wilh less
compel new building;,
iag constraints end lim-
mAth Icss constraints and
001l8tfainl8 and mimolidalud
decilmell with 18w ❑ul-
iled site urea.
cvnsulidated site ureu.
site area.
shainly nn11 kinvir eilc.

Building Area Provided
25,0UO s1'

2.S,OIIU sl'
75,000 Sr
25,0005f
$pure Nucds Oipueltr
1040
2040
2040
2040
Parlting Needs Capacity
Surplus 55 Spaces
surplus 16 81mues
Surphe; 57 Spaces
Afcets 2WO
Itn..nlnt Almiraleul
Yea
Ycs
Nu
Nu
Interim Occupancy Vu-
No Im ut
rt
I hrory tm act
r
;4n trn tart
t
r,,, Iu1 1
paelty.

Property Aegtdsitlon
Itmluired
\ouc
Luetbu Liulary Site
Nnnc
None
-
Property Acquisitiuu
CmatA
S 0.00
S 0,00
S 6.00

0.110
InlcrimOccolinnc?'
S 0.00
S 641,721.00
5 U.IIU
S 0.00
({iai6
I'IWAIllut Costa
S '10,01y,).00
S, 99,OIIOAlt1
-S (),Oft
S 0.00
Raft Comm
S 1,541,7 n.fill
S '2,46;t,ti46,410
5 2,475:J26.00
S 2,493,138.00
Sitc/J3uildiug coustrue-
lieu Caaiv
S 5,049,669,00
S 8,370,5011.00
S 8,859,738,tA7
S I t, 3351664,00
S 8,749,916,00
S 11,203,054.00
'l otul t'ovls
S 6 fim,431.110
S 11,574;271.110
Report to the City of Yucaipa raziiities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Page 5
219

S ITE ALTERNATIVES
I
Ts ,
,
v'
I
VO
r
i
mf
ttI4"
v"•.I "ti
s
1ai�aac
i
e'

Sri-E ALiERNF TiVL"- I:,L_ *,9 I
Demolish the Existing Sheriffs Station and Build a New ;structure nllernaLive. PI)-Nl : Dctnolish the existing PD building and replace it with a new one of I.he total re- quired sire. This alternative requires temporary relocation of PI) into trailers or operates at an alter- nato silo.

Assumptions and Observations:
• This approach would consolidate building mass and footprint, anti would employ surface parlc- ing area to meet rcgt3ircd year 2040.building space and parking Creeds • This alLctnativc rnecls ~pace requirements by constructing a new Lwo-level building. The rosull. is a sing to functional strucLurc, Optimum functional relationships and building* systems can be achieved.

Costs for relocation of the Sheriffs Department to another site during constriction will leave to be considered, Becau.Ge of this factor, overall construction time is increased which contribiaes to increased construction acid project costs
Report to the City of Yucaipa Farllities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Page 6
221

Lf)
kD
CD
C:)
w
Ln U-)
(A
(1)
u a,
u)
E
ul"Ln
F
Ln
EU)
+
0- r-E u 3
aC
0 CA
fn C3
c CL W
4�
22 L,C/Griffin Structures, Inc
Architects
Alternative. PD-NI: New whe•ifPgj B uiltloilg am EA xi ;vii11l, Sluliriffls City of'Ylicaipa Sheriffs Faeiilky
Project No. 09-13-40U
0 New Corstru^.tiou Areas 24,813
New Building Expansion 24,81.1
-Neer Consiruction I Quantily I Unlit C oA I ('Oht Fstilnatb

1. PUundations
24,913 sf
$12,30
$305,200
2, Vertical Structure
24,913 sf
$45,60
S1,111,47.1

3. Floor & Roof StnieWros
24,813 sf
$36.70
$910,637

4. Exterior Cladding
24,813 sf
$25.32
$628,265
5, Roofing & Waterproofing
24,813 sf
$17.10
$424,302
Subtotal Sikes (1-5)
24,813 it'
$t37.02
$3,399,877

6. interior Partitions, Doors & (dazing
24,813 sf
V5.81)
$394,279

7. Floor, Wall & Ccilin4 Finishes
24,813 sf
$15.81)
$392,045
Subtotal interiors (6-7)
24,813 sf
$31.69
$786,32.4
8, Function likill ipalatu & Specialties
24,813 s1'
$22.89
$507,721
9, Stoirs & Vertical Transporla(ion
24,813 sl'
$5.20
$129,029
Sublolal Lgttipmeal & Vertical Transportation
24,813 r:f
$28.08
$696,749

10. Plumbing Systems
24,81-1 sf
F1'.>.'l.f
`103,9.59

11. Healing, Ventilating & Air Conditioning
24,813 sf
$28.00
$694,764

12. )"'lectric i,ighting, lower & C'olniuullicatious

24.813 sf
$40.00
$992,520

13. Fire Protection Systems

24.813 sf
$6.00
$148,878
Subtotal MechsanicAl & Electric fll (10-13)
24,813 st'
$86.25
$2,140,121
TOWBuilding construcliun (1-13)

2.4,1413 s1'
$283.04
$7,023,072

14. Site Preparation & Demolition
40,350 xf

11.50 $6t1,525

15. Surface Parking, Driveways, Curbs, Paving, Enclosures & Landscaping 40,350 sf
$3.00
$121,050

16. Utilities on Site.
40,350 si'
$100
$80,700
Total Site Construction (14-16)
A*
$6.50
$262,275
Schedule, Staghig, Trinsitional and Interim Occuponcy Impacts 24,913

10.00%
$728,535
General Conditions & Utended Overhead
24,813 sf

15.00%
$1,092,802
Contractor's Fee
24,813 sf

5.00%
$455,334

PLANNED CONSTRUCTION COST
24,813 sf
$385.36
$9,562,017
Con ling(;n :y 1er Dwilm, DevOopment
24,813 sf

5.00%
$478,101
Altowancv lbr Markel Escalation
24,813 sf

2.00%
$191,240
Ilazardous Materials Rcmoval/Abatement
(,and Acquisition And Purchase Costs
13,272 al' S7,50 $99,540

0.0 acre 'S0,00 $0
223

Pre -Design Space Needs & CunWplual Dvsign Scrviccs
Primary Architectural & Engineering Services
Estimated City Consultant Reimbursable Expenses
I?xtended Construction Suppolt
Geotechnical & Topographical Surveys
"bests & Inspections
PIancheek, Pcrmils & Fees
Furniture dr. Equipment
Reprographics - Bidding Phase
11' and 'Telephone Systems
C,onstlltction Management Posts
prnjecr
CA
$57,530
prnjcct
co
$767,:352
pmicct
CA
al€mance
$100,000
pluiect
ea
ultuwance
$100.000
wo.imt
eu
ulluwunm
S20,000

1.75%
curisirucl.cuat
$ I i 9,049
consmicr.cosr
$102.314
24,813
sf
WIN
$372,195
Pmjccr
CA
$35,000,00
$35,000
pruiect
ea
S115.000,00
$125,000

10.004/a
cunst ucl.cosl
S 1,023,13G
,p Coats do nor. iachirle. Detentior, & Dispatch fiinedons which call he lwnvided tomporm ily Ihnmgh the County 224

t
q+_
I
,`. .� JI i
f 5 7Y � yi• k�'1 1
5 l II Y
nit,
I V
fK.
wft
II
!l
Ppp�,
' � i v➢� a%�d I - ,s iiM
IY iYk: �U ri'A% 3
1{ ,t4��' I{ Y l�lt➢��n '�i 3 r
y°f t
(ti:zl 11 �`{I"tit Yw rk ➢�uk ��Yc lil 3�t Iltl
tiI ➢ r�+ r
k �a
vt�,➢,r r �w�a
li ➢
1 I

SITEALTEKWATi7fE Ci''rla`1-W2
Relocate Library; Delnolish Library; Replace with New Sheriff's building Alternative FD-N2 consttlrcts a new Sheriff s Facility at the Library site. The existing Library would be demolished and relocated and a new 2-story Shcriffs Station would be constricted in its place Assurriptioros and Observations:
• This alteniative would consolidate building mass and footpritit, and would crnplay surface parking only if additional parldtig is developed at the future transportation center northeast lot; to meet required year 2040 bi ild ng space and parking needs. • This alternative allows interim occupancy of the existing, Sheriff's Station without intcrniption during construction of the new Sheriff"s Building. Ovcnall construction titre is less with thus al- ternative, but the costs for relocation of the Library to Another site will have to be addressed.

Overall construction tine iS decreased, whicli contributes to decreased eellStrUetlon and pioject costs.

The City has the option to demolish the existing Sheriffs Station for additional parking or sell the site
Report [o the City of Yucaipa Facilities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structure, Inc. Page 10
226

LO
cz�
4 M
W
\],
LL.
<
ID
ria T

0. <
V)
(1)
(_)
m
u
fma
CL
+
E ft) EP
ce
CL
U)
V) u
E VOIL
of
C%j CN
CL Z
(IJ
L5
%; {��\ � \
27 �.��,1�C�1'i�i��ir�l ;��r�11�[�ll•�,:_., Irtc
.Aichitccts
Alternative PP-M. Now 2 Stovy' ElRcriff's Statio)i :i( JCO�Js6iug 1Libn- ry Site City of Yucaipa Shcriff'4; Fneility
1'rojccl No, 09.13400
April 27 ,201O
Building Renovation & Remodel Areas 11
0 New Construction Areas
24,813
New Building Expansion
211.,813
New Construction
Quantity I
Unit Cost
Cost Eslimatc

1. Foundations
24,813 sf'
$12.30
$305,200

2. Vertical Stmotiu'e
24,813 sl'
$45.60
S 1,131,473

3. Floor & Roof Structures
24,81;3 sf
$36.70
$910,637

4. Exterior Cladding
24,813 sf
$25.00
$620,325

5. Rooting & Watoproofing
24,813 sf
$17.10
$424,302
Subtotal Shell (1-5)
24,813 sf
$136.70
$3,391,937

6. lntcrior Partitions, Doors & Glazing,
24,813 s1'
$15.89
$394,279

7. Floor, Wall & Coiling finishes
24,813 sl'
$15.80
$392,045
Subtotal Inferiors (6-7)
24,813 s1'
$31.69
$786,324
R. Function Equipment & Specialties
^4,R11 sf
$211,00
$496,260
9, Stairs & Vertical Transportation
24,813 sf
$5.20
$129,028
Subtotal Equipment & Verticni Transportation

24.813 sf
525.20
$625,288

10. Plumbinggymolm

2.4,8t3 _r
$12.2,
$303,959

11. ffcatuig, Ventilating &. Air Conditioning
24,813 sl'

9.28.0()
$694,764

12. Electric Lighting, Power & Communications

2.4,R 13 sf
$A(1.00
$992,.520

13. Fire Protection Systems
:14,RIR sf
'%.on
$148,87R
Subtotal Mechanical & Tlectrrcal (110-13) 24,813 sf 586.21,+ $2,140,121 Total Building C:oustnrctiom (1-13) 24,813 sf S279.84 $6,943.670 14, 5ilc Propmrmlion & Demolition
45,000 sr
$1.50
$67,500

15. 5urlaec Parking, Driveways, Garbs, Paving, Enclosures & Landscaping 45,000 sl'
$3.00
$13.5,000

16. Utilities on Site
45,000 sf
$7..00
`1;90,(.N)o
Total Site Construction (14-16)
Sf
".50
$292,500
I. ..d.f,
Schedule, Staging, Transitional and. Tnterim Occupancy Tmpacts * 24,913

10.001V,
$723,617
General Conditions & Ovenccad
24,813 sf
1(I.00 ;,;
$723,617
contractors FCC
24,813 sf
:S 00%
$434,170

PLANNED CONSTRUCTION COST
24,813 sf
9-167.45
$9,117,574
C.ontingeMy far DeSlgfl I)cvCl0pTt1CTtt
24,813 sf

5.000/t,
$45.5,879
Allowance for Market Escalation
24,813 sf
2,00%:
$182,351
Hazardous Materials Romoval/AbatunCnt
Land Acquisition and Purchase Casts
13,272 0 SIM $99,540

0.0 acre S0.00 $0
228

Pre -Design Space Nees & Cone ptual Design St:rvict:s
project
co
OCtt121
$57,530
Plimary Architectural 8,- Enginecling Suvices
project
ea

8.00%
$780,464
Estimated Cite Consultant Reimbursable Expenses
ptnicct
ca
aTluwance
$100,000
Extended C onst111Ction 5tippoil
pwjecl
en
rlllommuc
$50,000
Cieotechnical et5't TO1)Ogaphical Surveys
ptX iect
en
idlowanee
$20,000
TeSIS & Inspections

1.75^/
etrnstnict.aist
$170,727
Plancheek, Pcmiits & Fees

1.00%
cc) nAwe l.cost
S97,559
Fumiturc & Equipment
24,813
sr
S10.00
$248,130
Reprographics - Bidding Phase
pixtjet:t
ea
$35,000.00
$35,ODU
iT and '1'alepllnnt; SyRINW[
1nr jest
ca
S125,000.00
$125,000
[.'.tln lnw.Iion Vlnnngnivitinl f:uslr;
1U.0UiG
cottstnict.cost
$975,5CO
Moving Expenses
prujey.
eu
net included
$O
TOT A 1, 1 ND I R ECT COSTS
$2.759,529
,t- i_snlsincaudC I,ihl'an/ I:Clocalian and Tl i_otiis
229

t
,
` r
i
t
IeV
1 yv a a t
w
yr
a
�-�, t yu1ttir'f s t
:r -U.
},prYrka 1'S:.
i girds^rv� i, ti
S 1TEALT E RNAT IVE S

SITE ALTERidATivr PD-H
New Sheriffs Station at North Civic Center Site
Alternative PD-N3 constrticts a new Sheriff's Facility at a new site north of the existing Library site.

Assumptions and Observations:
• This alternative proposes constricting a new Sheriffs facility on a new site. just north of [tic existing Library. The new larger site; allows surface Barking to execcd required year 2040 park- ing demand. Optilmim flnlctional bllilding, and parking relationships are achieved with a new Si te.
• This alternative allows interim occupancy of the existing Sherill's Station widioul. intc;]ruption during construction of the new Sheriffs Building. Ovei,t11 construction time is less with this al- ternative.
• 'fhc City his I.hc option to demolish the existing Sheriff's Station for additional parking or sell I,hc sil.e
Report to the City of Yucaipa Facilities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Page 14
231

o Ln W
U-) O
I'D
C)
r-j
o 5z
m
In
< u
cr
E
d u:,
V
Qn
al
cn
C:

CL :5,-4 tu
70 0
-,a
s P
.1
a- U- Lu <
12 V)
I-
232

Archi Leek
"theiriwjtive PD-N3: New f Story Sherii'f's Statioll at North Civic tC`entor ,151 Fti6y of Yucaipa Sheriff's Facility
Prgicoc No. 09-13400
Auril 23 .2010
irrmr+�er�.�iatu111 RAM"�or
Building Renovation & Remodel Areas ll
0 New C'onstructiou Arens 24,813
Now Building Exptulsion 24,813
Col strtact:ioll - -
(hlautit_i� I
Unit
it ("It
I l.osC Estinrttc
L Fattndalions
24,913 sf
S12.:10
S305,200

2. Vertical Sln,cturo
24,813 s1'
345.60
S 1,1311473
3, floor & Roof Strnctiires
24,813 sf
$36,70
$910,637

4. ISxlerior Cladding
24,813 sf
$25.32
$628.265

5. hoofing & Waterproofing
24,81.E sf
$17,10
$424,302
Subtotal :Shell (1-5)
24,813 sf
$137.02
$3,399,877

6. Tntcrior Partitions, Doors & (dazing
24,913 sl'
S 15.89
$394,279

7. Floor, Wall & Ceiling Finishes
24,911 sr
$15.90
$392,045
Subtotai interiors, (6-7)

7.4,813 Rf
$31.69
$786,324

8. function Equipment. & Specialties
24,813 sf
$20.00
$496,260

9. Stairs & Vertical Transportation ��-
24,813 sf
$0.75
$18,610
- -
Subtotal Equipment & Vertical Trauspor(ation
24,813 sf
$20.75 '--
$514,870

10. Plumbing Systems
24,sIl s1•
$12.2.5
5303,9i9

11. Heating, Ventilating & Air Conditioning
24,813 sl'
R28.00
$6.94,764

12. filectric Lighting, Power & Contniunicntions
24,813 sf
940.00
$992,520

13. Fire Protection Systoms
24,813 sf
$6,00
$148.878
Subtotal Mechanical & Electrical (10-13)
24,8I3 sf
$86.25
$2,140,121
Total Building Couslrue(ion (143)

7.4,813 sf
$275.71
$6,841,192

14. Site Preparation
10o,o00 sr
$2.50
I S. Surface Parking, Driveways, Curbs, Paving, Enclosures & Landscaping I oo,000 sr
$5.00
$500,000
{.

Ge-nrral Conditions & Overhead 24,913 sf I5.00% $1,168,679 Cniilractor's Fee, ?A,Xl I sf 5.00% $447,994
PLANNEM CONSTRUCTION COST 24,813 Rf $379.15 $9,407,865
Contingency for Design Development
24,813 sf

5.00%
$470,393
Allowance fray Market Escalation
24,813 sf

2.00%
$1 Rh,157

PROJECT INDIRECT COSTS
I luardous Materink I2emovnl/Ahntetrtcm
0 gr

57.50 $0
I ,nod Acgnigit.inii rmd hm•chnso, COMA

0.0 Sr
$18.00
$0
Tlm-T)esign Space Needs & Conceptual Design Services
peojCct Cu
uctuul
$57,530
233

Primary hrchitectta-al & Engineering Services
Estimated City Consulrant Reimbinsable T:xpenses
Extended Consrnlction Support
CTeotcchnical & Topographical Surveys
Tests & inspections
Planeheck, Pemits & Fees
Purniturc & L+duipmenl
Reprographics - Bidding Phase
IT and Telephone Systems
construction Mailagement Costs

TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
project
eu
K00%
pru.iecL
ea
ulluwawe
prujccL
ea
allowam e
pmjcet
ca
allnw-mnce

1.750/t.

CiL14h11CI,CUS1

1.00%
consL)a:6rost
24,813
sr
$10.00
project
eu
$35,000.00
p7u)ecl
Ca
$125,000.00
lo.na�i�
cvclsrrlLal.rwl
$905,313
$100,000
$100,000
$20,000
$176,162
$100,664
$24&,130
S35,000
$125,000
S 1,006,642
$0
234

RNAT IVE S

SITE ALTERNATIVE C'I; -Mll
New Sheriffs Station at West Civic Center Site
Alternative PD-N4 constructs a new SherifrS facility al. a flew site Wes( of the existing city I fall site.

Assumptions and Observations:

This alternative proposes constructing a new Sheriffs facility on a new to I.hc west. of City Hall. The new larger site allows Surface parking to exceed required year 2040 parking demand.

Optim(m functional building and parking relationship~ are achieved with a new site.

This alternative allows interim occupancy of the existing Sheriffs Station without interruption during construction of the new Sheriffs Building. Overall construction time is less with this al- tcrnativc.
• The City has the option to demo the existing Sheriffs Station for add'I parking or sell the sil.e Report to the City of Yucaipa Farilities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc, page 18
236

-1 Q1
T-i M
to �D
0 io
to
CA
u 40)
0'
(1)
CL
ul
rL (D
to Q.

V) je
toC71
17 cn
237

IL�z� j/Griffin Structures, Inc
Architects
Alternative. PTD-N4: New 1 Story Sheriff's Station at W,' , t Civic Cuutcr'Ate City of Yucaipa Sheriffs Facility
P1•ojcct No. 09-13400
Auril23 2010
Building Renovation & Remodel Areas
0 0
-Nevv C'o,tsl:rucllon Areo18
24,813
New Building Lwxpansion
24,813
Neiv Co113ilrucl3on
(luanlily
Unil Cod
Cost Estimate

1. Foundulion,
24,813 sf
$12.30
$305,200

2. VCrtiCal Slrttt:ttUC
24,813 ar
$45.60
$1,131,473

3. Vlour & knof Stnlctnres

7.4,913 sf
$36.70
$910,637

4. Vxterinr C indding

7.4,913 sf
$75.32.
$629,265
5, Roofing & Witerpl-00fing
24,813 sl`
$17.10
$424,302
Subtotal Shell (1-%)

7.44;13 sl'
$137.07.
!$3,399,877

6. Interior Partitions, Boors & Glazing
24,813 sr
$15 49!
$394,279

7. Floor, Wall & Ceiling Finishes
24,813 sf
$15.80
$392,045
Subtotal interiors (6-7)
24,91.1 of
$31.69
$786,324
8, Vunetion liquiprnent & Specialties
24,813 sl'
$20.00
$496,260

9. Stairs & Vortical Tr:Insportution
24,813 sl'
$0.75
$19,610
laubtolal Vilnipmenl &. Verlicsll Transporlalion
24,813 sf
$20.75
$514,870
10, Plumbing 5yslcros -- - --
24,813 sf
$12.25
$303,959

11. Heating, Ventilating & Air Conditioning
24,813 sf
$28,00
$694,764

12. 11lectric Lighting, Power & C:OT1ltnuniCELUUTlti
24,813 sl'
$40.00
$992,520

13. Fire Protection Sy41o1ns

7.013 sf
$6.00
$148,878
Subtolal Medinnlcfll & Elect rival (10-13)
24,813 st'
$86.25
$2,140,121
Tot:1111ni61ic11;('.ouslro4.linrs I=13
24,813 sl'
$275.71
$6,841,192
14, Site Preparation
90,000 1:f
$2.50
$225,000

15. Surface Parking, Driveways, Curbs, Paving, Enclosures, & Landscaping 90,000 sf
$5,00
$450,000
General Conditions & Overhead
24,813 sf
15,00%
$1,154,429
C:ontrlctor'R FCC
24,813 ul
5,00%
$442,531
PLANK K1) CONSTRUCTION COST
24,813 sr
$374.53
$9,293,152
Contingency for Design Development
24,913 sl'

5.00%
$4G4,fi5R
Allowance for Market Escnlation
24,81.1 sf
2,00%
$185,863
PROJTCT iNDMEC'T COSTS
Hazardous; Malerials Rc1T10va1/AI?,11.emenl
0 sf
S7.50
50 I and Acquisition and Nrchame Costls

0.0 of
$18.00
SO
Pre Design Space Needs & Conceptual Design Services
pr<;icet cs1
SWIM
$,57,530
238

Prininty Architeaw-al chi Engineering Services
pmjecl
en

8.00%
$795,494
estimated City Consultant Reimbursable Expenses
Imliecl
ea
allowntice
$100,000
Extended Constnction Suppott
project
ea
allowance
$100,000
Gcolechnical &, ToPagraphiurll Survrvs
project
ca
allowal1ce
$20,000
Tots & lsispcx:tions

1.75%
constnlct.cost
$174,014
Planchcck, Ponnits & Fcm

1.11O%,
eonsmtct.enst
$99,437
PurniIIII.0 r.l'.gnjpment
24,913
�,r
$10,00
$2<18,130
R eprneysphiCS - Iliddirlg Phase,
pmjm-1
r,.sl
'('35,fr(1(1, (1(r
$35,000
IT and Tolcplione Systems
project
ca
$125,000.110
$125,000
Construction Management Costs

10.00%
',ai994,167
239

i�
P
a 'Y
t+
P �r
Y a ,
hrl`L
l
a.

K
J
i Hry"7
My,
r
r ;pi
r

SITE ALTERNATIVES

SITE ALTERNATIVE LIB.A I
Build a I Story Addition on West side with Minimal Renovation to the Existing Library Alternotive Lib -A I is based upon minor renovation to the existing library to bring the building up to minimum ADA standards with miner cosmetic carpet and paint to freshen up die interior, The: miijor portion of work is eunstructing a new one story 13,163 siluarc foot addition on the we.,t side of the existin- building.

Assumptions and Observations:
• A 1 story addition on the west, face allows firr a new fa4adc of similar archite:cl.ural style litcin;; the new city hall creating a more cohe4ive civic center campus, • A I story west side oddition may bifurcate, the library functions since the current layout has back-of-tlie-house fitnctions on the west side witli little connection to patron spaces an the east side
• A. main west rat adc may rt;gtlirc costly shading devices for west. facing windows • A one stoty addition generates more net usable area than a two story with a building efficiency of approximately 850A.
• The west side addition may rctluirc costly foundation design to build the addition up to match the train level or will require some vertical circulation elements, at grade, such as stairs and a whecichair lilt. to mccl. the oxisl.ing level,
Report to the City of Yucaipa
Submitted by Grihin Structures, Inc.

Facilities Ncads Assessment Study

Page 22 ends

241

0) CD ON
1-4
Nt 00
0 Ln
Ul
N M
a)
u
:3
(a
CL
cn
"
cm
2ai
<
j
u
22 {
�� rrII 1 .' , � dMz
1L_.:�+_.�. �_�r 1171i"I ._��;1l_ICia_ll'C. , Inc.

Architects
Alternative. Wunr RenCevndioet of Existing Library
City of Yaac aipm Branch II :I:G vary
Project No. U9.1 400
April 23,2010
i
13uiltiinp ltenowitlon tL',- Remodc..1 A.r(,;as: 11,$32 Existing Library Renovation 11,8 12
New Construction Areas �^ J3,168
New "Nfill" Building Expansion-� - - 13,168
ltCatyyad:iUull cot Itch IU(%CI ��
Quantihr L
Unit Cost I
Cost Estimate

1. Selective Building Demolition
I I,R:12. sf
$0,65
$7,691

2. Vertical Structure Upgrades
I I,R32 sf
$0.t10
U)
3, Floor & Roof Structure Renovation
11,812 sf
$0,00
$0
,I. Exterior Cladding Remodel
11,932 s1'
$0.00
$0

5. New Roofing & Wtilororuuffim Svslcros

11.932 sl'
$0.00
$0
11,832 sf $0.65

6. Tnrerior Partitions, Doors & Glazing
11,R4?. sf
$0.00
$0

7. Floor, Wall & Ceiling Finishes _
11,Rj7. sf
$3.50
);d1,412.

Subtotal Interiors (6-7)
11,812 sf
$3.50
$41,412

9. Falncclion Fcluipmonl tit. Spveialdcs
11,532 sf
$0.00
:lb

9. 131mirs & Varlical Tmnspor(aliun
11,832 sf
$0.00
E)
Subtol-Al Equipment & Vcrlicaal'1'r;ansportatiol►
11,832 sf
$1).()0
$0

10. Plumbing Systems �
11,932 sf
{(i.Stl
$76,908

11. Beating, V entilatuig & :fir Conditioning
11,932 sf
$0,00
$0

12. Flectric Lighting, Power c'�c. Communications
11,832 sf
$0.00
$0
13, Pircc Prolva lum Sysloms
11,832 sf
$0.00
$0
Subtotal Mecchaaic-A & F leeirieml (10-13)
11,932 sf
$6.50
$76,908
New Construction I Quantity I Unit Cush Cost Lstimate

1. rounclalions
13,168 sf
$12.:10
$161,906

2. Vertical Structure
13,168 sf
$30,60
$402,941

3. Floor & Roof Structures
13,168 sf
$28,70
$377,922

4. Exterior Cladding
13,168 sf
$25.32
$333,4111

5. kooC1r>g & Waterprouling
13,168 sl'
$18,50
$243,008
Subtulal Shell (I-5)
13,168 sf
$115.42
$1,519,851
6, IutcriorPartitiuns, Duurs & CJlIII-mv
---- -- 13,168 sf
$[..IMY
$209,240

7. Floor, Wall & Ceiling Finishes
13,168 sf
$15.80
$208,054
Subtotal Interiors (6-7) 13,16t7 sf $311.69 $417,294

8. Function Equipment& Specialties
13,169 St
$22,89
$301,28d

9. Stairs & Vertical Trausportation
- _._... 13,168 sl'
$0.00
$0
Subtotal Equipment & Vertical Transportation
13,168 sf
$22.88
$301,284

10. Plut11bi11,9 5ystcttls
13,168 sl'
$12.25
$161,3119

11. Beating, Ventilating & Air Conditioning
13,168 sf
$25.UU
$329,200
243

12. 1dectric Lighting, Power & Communications
13,1618 sf
$28.00
$168,704

13. tits Protection Systems
13,16K sf
$6.00
$79,008
Subtotal Mcchanical &. Electrical (10-13)
13,168 sf
$71.25
$9a8,220
ToJO Ruilding t .Carnelian (1-13)
13,168 sf
$241.24
$3,1176,648
1Lt. Sito Prepara(ion & Dcluolition
45,000 Sr

5.1.50 $157,500

15. Surface Parking, Driveways, Curbs, Paving, Enclosures & Landscaping 45,000 sf
$5.00
$225,000
16_ Gtililies nn Site
Asluln c1'
TI) nn
Kon-nnn
Schedule, Staging, Transitional and Tnterim Occupancy Tmpacts 11,832

5.00%
$188,758
( ienoral Conditions & Hxtcndcd ()verllead
25,000 sl

15.00".si,
$566,274
Contrac[A)r's Nee
25,000 Sr

5.00%r
$226,510

PLANNED CONSTRUCTION COST
25,04111 sf
$190.27
$4,756,700
Contingency for Design Development
25,000 ,f
S.00Y.
$237,935
Allowance for Market Escahition
25,000 sf

2.00%.

S95,134

PROJECT INDIRHX T COSTS
H:vor luux Materiuk RL moval/Abatument

11.832
sf
$3.50
S41,412
Land Acquisition and Purchitsc Costs

0.0 ACIY
$n.nn
$0
Pre -Design Space Needs & Conceptual Design Services
rinkjecl
nu
$42,450
Primary Architechual & Engineering Services
pnkjv�[
nn

10.00%
$508,967
I?stimated Cite C:onsi leant Reimbursable Expenses
prujecl
nn
uuuwunue
$S5,000
Exl.ended Construction Support
project
ca
allowanec
S90,000
Gcotcehnical & Topoggaphical Surveys
project
ca
allowance
$20,000
Tests & Inspa lions

1.75%
colls11,11Mcusl
$89,069
Planchectc, Permits & bees

1.00%
constnct.cost
$50,897
Reprographics - Bidding Phase
pul'irci
en
$:ta,000.00
$10,()0()
iT and Telephone :systems
project
Crl
$75,000.00
$75,000
C'.onslm c icm Managemml Caa15

10.00°i
c011011C .cost
$508,967
mining (?xpellses
project
ca
notiucluded
$0
TOTAL INLDIRI:CT COSTS
$1,541,762
244

a x
T C�
r
j
r• c
•r ,

SITE ALTERNATIVE IL.OD-M I
Build a New 2 Story Library at the Existing Library Site Alternative Lib -NI requires demolishing the existing, libraty to construct anew 25,000 %r building at the existing site.

Assumptions and Observations:

This alternative would consolidatie building mass and footprint, and would employ surface parking area to meet required year 2_04U building Space and narking needs, C This alternative meets space requirements by constructing a new two-story building. The result is a single compact functional Structure custom designed to meet library nccds to 2040 and hc- yond.

This approach extends the construction phase, and interim occupancy of the Library iiuiction will have to be considered durum* construction of the new facility.

Report to the City of Yucaipa
Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc,
Facilities Needs Asseurnent Study
Pale 26
246

(410)
247
247

VVLC/Griffin Structures, Inc
Ai-chitects
Alternative. Lull-T,dll. New 2 Story Library at Existing lLiltlroi y .`•rite City of Yucaipa lflh- meh Library
Praia r No. 09-17400
April 27.2010
Building Renovation & Remodel Areas U
0 1Jc<< Construction Areas 25,000
Now Building L Lptmsion 25,000
Ne-,n Consiriac(i0Y1
Qaantity
IMil C (1-1 I
Cost Fstintate

1. Foundations
25,000 sr
$12.00

2. Vertical SITUeturu
25,000 sf
$40.00
51,000,0(t0

3. floor & Ttoof Structures

25.000 sf
$35.00
$875.000

4. Lxterlor Cladding
25,000 sf
$25.00
$625,000

5. Roofing & Waterproofing
25,000 sf
$17.10
$427,500
Subtotal Shell (1-5)
25,0110 sr
$129.1t1
$3,227,500

6. Tntcrior Paititions, Doors & Glazing 25,000 sf $ I S.R9 $397,250

7. Floor, Wall & Ceiling Finishes 25,000 sf $15.80 $395,000 Subtotal 1(nteriors (6-7) 25,000 sf S31.69 $792,250

9. Rnnclinn I?iluiptn mf &. Spneitallins 75.000 sl' $0.00 $0

9. Stairs & Vertical Transportation 25,000 sf $S 20 $110,000 Subtotal Equipment & Vertical Transportation 25,000 sr $5.20 'fi130,000

10. PluM14ing Systtrus
25,0U0 sf
$1 O.OQ
$250,000

11. Heating, Ventilating & Air Conditioning
25,000 sf
$28.00
$ 700,000

12. Flectric. Lighting, Power & C ointmurireliono:
75,000 sf
$35.00
$875,000

13. fire prote5ation Sysloln5

7.5,000 sf
$6.00
$150,000
Subtol.fll Mechanical & Electrical (10-13)
25,000 st'
$79.00
$1,97.5,000
Totat Building couslrnctiou (1-13)
25,000 sl'
$244.99
$6,124,750

14. Site Preparation & Demolition
45,060 sf
$1.50
$67,500

1.5. Surface Parking, Driveways, Curbs, Paving, Enclosures & Landscaping 45,000 sf
$3.00
$135,000
16, 1-11ilitim W, Silo:
45,000 sf
$2.00
$90,000
Total Mir C:nu%truetinn (14-16)
sf
r

56.50 $292,500
Schedule, Staffing, Transitional and Tnterirn Occupancy Tmhacts 25,000

10.00%
$641,725
[funeral Conditions & Fx1miled Uvunccud.
25,000 sf

15.00%
$962,588
C'ontraClnr"R I-oc
25,000 sf

5.00%
$401,078

PLANNED CONSTRUCTION COST
25,000 sr
$336.91
$8,422,641
C:oatiugency for Design Development
25,0(I4) sf

5.0O%
$421,132
Allowance for Market Escalation

25.000 sf

2.00%
$ 168.453
PROJECT I n D I R H:CT COSTS
Hazardow, Materials Rcnnovtil/Abatement
Lr,n(i Acciuisition and Purellasc Costs
13,272 sf 57.50 $99,540

0.0 acre MUM SO
248

Pre -Design Space Needs & Conceptual Design Services
Primmy Aiclutectural R, Engineering Services
Estimated City Consultant Reimbursable Expenses
hxlenclod t.:nnrlriwlion SuPrnrl
Goofc.c:hnicol K.'I'clhc/V'HphiL,Hl SurVvys
Tests & lnspeclions
111micheclr, Permits & Fees
Uurnihtre & Equipment
Reprographics - Ridding Phase
TT and Telephone Syalonis
Construction Management Costs
111Y11ec(
en
IlL'tll{ll
$57,530
f>Inject
ea

7.50%
$675,917
project
eil
ullowance
$100,000
pmjce
cs
Allowance
$50,000
prajoct
ca
AIIOWAllcc
$20,000
13%
colmrillct.rnst
$157,714

1.00^/
ronrlrtic;l,coul
$90,122
?S,ilOn
%r
.1W1,00
$250,000
Project
eA
$35.000.UO
$35,000
project
oa
$125,onn.nn
$125,000
1 n.n0%
constrnct.r:nsl
$901,223
249

�s`tY'CFI�`^?s" POYa 'i
ko
fi y� W- }, + ,
n
trt' � r
.. .. .. .. .+ +S�.i,:z �-ed.V�ut�f%zlN.dfl45eNi:L.niNcSl�i'.'�i lPavltri .:..u{�.G.wibiv:�Ni1w.14�i ..�fsiii.>en•t�l�.'

SITE ALTERNATIVE LIB-K.2
Build a New One Story Library at the North Civic Center Site Alternative Lib-N2 recornnwnds the cantctruction of a new one-story 25,000sf Library building m. the North Civic Ccntcr Site.

Assumptions and Observations:
• This alteniative meets splice and parking requirements by constructing a new one-story build- ing that can be custom designed to nieet library needs to 2040 and beyond, • The north site can allow for north oriented structure which can provide more glazing opportuni- ties with north diffused light and views of the lulls
• Tbis site alternative does not ruquirc intcwrim occupancy of the Libraty fitnction • This alternative vacates the existing library site to be used for other ruture development options Report to the City of Yucaipa Facilities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Page }o
251

252

l
Inc.

Architects
Alternative. Lib-N2: New R S1:0r,•y 11 Abrr arry nt i'` ertth C".ivic C:eRi s"r Site City of Yucaipa Ro-anc h l,ibrtrry
Project No, 09.1 ad00
April 23 ,2010
Renovation & Remodel Areas
0 New Construction Areas 25,000
New Tiatilding Expansion 25,000
[New C,omstruction _] (ivanlily I Unit Cost Cost. Estimate

1. Poundations
25,000 sf
912,00
$300,000

2. Vertical Structure
25,000 sf
$40.00
S1,000,000

3. Floor & Root' Structures
25,000 sl'
$35.00
$R75,000

4. Exterior Cladding
25,000 sf
$25,00
$625,000

5. Roofing! & Waterproofing
25,000 sl'
$17.10
$427,500
Subtotal Shell (1-5)
25,000 sf
$129.10
$3,227,500

6. Interior Partitions, Doors & Glazing

25.000 sf
$15.89
$397.250

7. Floor. Wall & Ccilina Finisll,cs _
25,000 sf
$15.80
$395,000
Subtotal ht(eriors (6-7)
25,0110 st'
$11.69
$792,250
R. Function Equipment & Specialties

2.5,000 sf
$0.00
� $0
9, Stairs & Vertical Transportation
25,000 sf
$0.50
$12,500
Subtotal E'quipmcnt & ycrtica? 'Transportation 25,000 sf $0.50 $12,500 10, Plnrnhing sysintm
?i,1100 st'
%1 fl.0fi
!{25(1,110f1

11. Healing, Ventilating & Air Conditioning
25,000 sf
$28.00
$700,000

12. Electric Lighting, Power & t,cmununications
25,000 sf
$35.00
$975,000

13. Fire Protection items
25,000 sf
$6.00
$150,000
Subtotal Mechanical & Electrical (10-1.1)
25,000 sf
$79.00
1,975,000
Total Building Construction (1-13)
25,000 sf
$240.29
$6,007.250

14. Sift; Prrptn•stlinn
100.000 st'
$1.50
$150,000

15. Surlace Parking, Driveways, Curbs, Paving, Lnclosuros & Landscaping 100,000 SI'
$5.00
$500,000

16. Utilities on Site
100,000 sf
$9-00
!C2t10,Of1O
Total Site Construction (14-16)
Total New
sf
S8.50
$850,000
$6,W,250
Construction (1-16)
25,000 sf
$217429
Schedule, Sta,jpng, Transitional and Interim Occupancy Impacts 25,001)
t},At)%
$0
General Conditions & Extended Overhead
25,000 sf

15.00O,i,
$1,029,598
Contractor's Fee
25,000 sf

5.00%,
$394,292

PLANNED CONSTRUCTION COST
C.rmtingoncy lbr nesigm ne.velopment
rlllowanue fior Market F.scalarlion
I lazardous Materials Retno-unf/Abatement
i,and Acquisition and Purchase Costs
25,000 A $331.21 $8,280,129
25,000 sf 5.00% $4147006
25,000 sf 2.00% $165,603
0 xf SO.()O SO

0.0 ure 50,00 SO
253

Pre -Design Space Needs & Conceptual Design Services
Pn,iL:ut
(c:i
lc: wd
$57,530
Primary Architectural & Engineering Services
rr,>jcw
un
t,.00%
$708,779
Estimated City Consultant Reimbursable T?xpenses
project
eu
allummw
$100,000
Extended Coush•ue.6on Support
projeot
co
atlowmroc
$50,000
Gootechnical & Topographical Surveys
project
on
ntlowauoc
$20,000
Tests & inspections

1.7.5%
construcUrist
$155,045
Planclieck, Permits & Vocs

1.00%
contanlc.t,cost
$88,597
Furniture & I?quipment
2s,110D
at'
$10.00
$250,000
ReprographiOS 7 Bidding P1ui sc.
eject
on
$35,000.00
$35,000
IT and Telephone Systems
proioct
eu
$125,000.00
$125,000
Construction -Management Costs

10.000.:;
cu,u.truuIxw;I
$995,974
Moving Expenses
ptniect
ca
nor i:rehided
i 0

TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
--
g7,175,i?2ai
254

SITE ALTERNATivii; Lll13-N3 AND N4
Build a New One Story Library at the 'alr3ect Civic Center Site Alternatives Lib-N3 and Lib-N4 recommends the construction of :a new one-story 25,000sf Library building at the West Civic C:entcr Site. Alternative Lib-N3 proposes Et new I -story structure on the weel. half of the site with parking on the east side of the site. Alternative Lib-N4 proposes a stricture positioned on the north half of the site pushing the building back frorxx Yucaipa Blvd with parking fronting the street.

Assumptions and Observations:
• 'Phis alternative meets space and parking requirenicnls by constructing a new one-story build- ing that can be custom designed to meet library space and parking needs to 2040 and beyond.

Alteinative Lib-N3 pushes the building fiu-ther west to allow for wider vista between the City Hall and new Library.

Altvrnartivcs Lib-N4 ;allows for north olieniud structure which can provide more glazing oppor- ninities with north diffused light and views orthe hills • Both site alternatives do not require interim occupancy of the Library function • These alternatives vacate the existing library sire to be used for other future development op- tions.

Report to the City of Yucaipa _ Facilities Needs Assessment Stucly Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Fage 34
256

a.
m
fu cl
m
CL
cy

0. V)
Lf)
Cr
257

, -1 In -..�
I -= — , A:t
GO CO
CL
cc
louv
M
co b
CL kn
Ln
a
0)
CL'n
28 m �

VS4TI�J��l_iYll�ll'1 �r[f"IJCi:I.JI"C`�; �llC
Architects
Alternativc Lih-N3 &. N4: New I Story Libirary nt Wes( Gvic Center Site City of Yucaipa Bi-noich IJH)r�iry
Prgjcct Nip. 09- t 1400
April 23 ,2010
Building Renovation & Remodel Areas 0
0 NesT C:oustruetion Areas
Now Building Expansion
New Construction
Q111 lily
Unit. CO3t I
Cost Estimate.

1. Foundations
'2,5,000 sf
$12.00
$300.000

2. Vertical Structure
25,000 sf
V10.00
S1,000,000

3. floor & Roof Structures
25,000 sl'
$35.00
$975,000

1. Exterior Cladcliag
25,000 sl'
$25.00
$625,000

5. Roofwg & W£dtxproolln
- ---- -----
25,000 sl'
--
$17.10
$427,500
Subtotal Shell (1-5)
25,000 sf
$129.10
$3,227,500

6. Tnterior Paititions, Doo s &. Glazing
25,000 Sf
$15,89
$397,250

7. Flour, Wall & Ceiling Finishes
25,000 Sr
$15.80
$395,000
Subtotal Interiors (6-7) 25,000 sf $31.69 $792,250

9. Ftmelion Equipment & Specialties
25,000 sf
$0,00
$0

9. Stairs & Vertical Transportation
25,000 sr
$0.50
$12,500
__......._._
Subtotal Equipment &. Vertical Transportation
25,000 sf
MS(l
$'12,500

10. Plumbing Systems
25,ti(io .ef
$i 0 00 - -
- $2,s0,OOO

11. Heating, Ventilating & Air Conditioning
25,000 Sf
$28,00
$700,000

12. Electric Lighting, Power & Comrntmications
25,000 sr
$35.00
$975,000

13. Fire Protection Systems
25,000 sr
$6.00
$1 MOO
_
Subtotal Mechanical & Electrical (10-13)
25,000 %r
$79.00
$1,975,000
Total Building Construction (1-13)
25,000 sf
$240.29
$6,007,250

14. Site Preparatinn
90,000 sf
$1.50
$135,000

15. Surface Parlcing, Driveways, Curbs, Piving, Enclosures &, Ludscapin; 90,000 Sr
$5.00
$450,000
16- 111ilitics can Rite,
on Ann qr
I2 An
,;1Rn O()O
1 Schedule, Staging, Transitional acid Interim Occupancy Impacts 25,000

0.00%
$0
Gencral C ondilions & Ex(cnded Overhead
25,000 sr

15.00%
$1,015,838
Con(rac(or's Fee.
25,000 sf

5.00%
$389,404

PLANNED CONSTRUCTION COST
25,000 sf
$327.10
$8,177,492
Contingency for i)esign Development

7.5.000 S['
.5.00%
$408,875
Allownnce for Market VSealotion

75.090 Sl'

2.00%
$163.550
PIROpECT INDIRECT COSTS
Hazardous Malrrials Removal/Abatement 0 sr S0.00 SO
Land Actluisilion anti Purchase Costs 0.0 Ive S0.00 ` o 259

Pro-Dagign Spnce Needs &4 f :onceptiml Design Services
Primary Architechtral & Engineering Saivices
Estimated C'im Consultant Reimbursnble Expenses
Extended Camlruction Support
Gcoteclhnical & Topographical Surveys
Tests & Tnspections
Planchcck, Permits & fees
Fumilure & Equipment
Reprographics-13idduig Phase
TT and Telephone Systems
Construction Management Costs
pl.ojr,.cl
on
SCUM
$57,530
prnjer!l
r..a
}).00%
$699,993
project
ea
allowance
$100,000
hrnject
on
;dlowarlem
$50,000
lrmjrrl
r:rt
allowatict-
$20,000

1.75%
coustrildwst
$153,124

1.00%
annstlttct.enst
$97,499

25.000
sf
s o.an
$250,0()0
nrnloot
6A
$35,0n0,00
$35,000
projecl
eu
$125.000.1)0
$125,000
10,00%
corWruct.coat
S874.992
260

t
k� 5
y.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

POLICE RE U R,' ME NT. ,w
t
c"9 VMsy -
j.l. t
t 1• � � ^�; f y
Trt 71�hf t`t'Ct�
`
T�
T rD
fD W
3 m
L
LA

3. St,PC'1fi'1MAYC: F POLPCE— IDEP` RTMIEN T SPACE REc( U111dPMV,11lzHl` -,

INTRODUCTION
This police department space needs analysis is, analytical and statistical, It does not contain Iayouts of a future facility, but instead arrives at the numerical requirements for facilities based on an analysis of staffing, operations, functional needs, appropriate space assignments or facility reuse, and other such considerations. For reference, however, we have included sketches of existing ,Pace al locations.

Our study focuses on the main headquarters facility's. It also quantiiies needs, at a general level, for the open areas, parking, and light eovered facilities, Such as hicycle storage, barricade storage, and other items in low-grade structures.

Approach
The amount of space needed in a new police headquarters facility depend:; on several factors, includ- ing I.ha n caber anti deployment. of staff to be accommodated, assumptions of operational needs (evi- dence handling, records management, etc.), allowances made for operational support areas (such as locker rooms, meeting areas, training areas, etc.), the needs for special operational areas, and as- sumptions of circulation and access within the building. The computation of these elements depends on a sequence of activities beginning with data collection and including analysis of each functional area in turn.

The statistical requirement% computations id.mit.ify both the absolute need for each function, and also the relative need compared to existing space allocations.

Nate that one line of examination is to compare how idjustrncnts might be made to the statistical pro- grarn requirements, in fitting; existing and projected functions into the existing building and its vari- ous rooms and areas. This statistical testlit is an important part of the assessment of the existing building in satisfying the future requirements of the Police Department. To this end, we have com- puted space requirements based on hest police practices meeting operational needs. These results have been reviewed by the City project team, including Rhcriff staff, and adjusted where appropriate to result in a fully vetted projection of needs.

Methodology
In summary, tat: rnclhodology used in computing :,paco requirements is outlined as follows Data Collection. Our first step has been to interview key staff representing each ol'the divisions re- garding their operations, staffing levels, space usage, earlier space planning, and long tern require- ments. We also surveyed mu'rent space use in detail, observing the amount of space in use as well as tabulating the equipment used, the nature of space use, and areas of apparent space deficiency.

Projection of Staff and 01wrations. We projected future operations based on information obtained from the staff interviewed, along with application of a model whieh sucks to achieve certain City- approvctl target staff per -capita ratios. The staffing projections were accomplished in two steps: first is an aggregate -level projection by which total staff atc computed (swom and not sworn), second is a distribution of these macro level numbers into individual positions in the department. This model is "['he Yrtmnipn o'll ion has addilionnl op>zrariiatis in 0& Uleu, Meawur., and Forest Palls_ Report to the City of Yucalpa Facilities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. page 39
262

explained in some detail in the main body or this report, In accord with the project RFP and Agree- ment, we have used projection levels in 5-year increments to the year 2040, Subsequent to the computation of stal'f in aggregate; using the method above, we then. developed a distribution of the total Staff projeeLit)tl into specific positions throughout the department, generally followazb current allocation ratios, which are reflective of current City agreements with the County and which presumably provide the level of service that the City is seeking. This distribution is the "Detailed Projection." This staffing model was reviewed in draft by the City and the Department, and, based on that review, an update was developed and distributed, This update is also presented in this report, and is the basis on which fixture space needs are computed.

Space Standards. We developed Space standards initially in draft, which were prepared by (a) review of existing operational roquirernonls and working conditions for each person, (b) consideration of ex- isting and projected activities, (C) analysis of "Imblished standards in use in Yucaipa and elsewhere, and (d) consideration of firtu a trends and the needs for flexibility and adaptability. After review of these standards by Lhc City and the Department, they were updated according, to that review, with a goal of maintaining consistency with those space standards used in planning liar the new City Hall.

Computation of space Requirements. The calculation of space requirements For each of I.hc functions and operations in the department. was accomplished partly by applying space standards to tlhe staff le- vels or to the projected support areas required to perform City functions. For equipment areas, we use the cxi iI-iiig quantity of files and other items as a baseline, and increased this square footage in the fu- ture projection period% based cm identified growth factors. The draft projection was then further modified and adjusted (generally through selective reductions) in an organized review Process. This resulted in a. "best practices" model of space rogUil-CM :ntti for each of the projection years.

Detail: and Summaries of I:ecluircmenLs, The eompuled requirements details are tabulated on data sheets for each organizational component. These detail sheets Show tine items, the apace standards used, and the projected quantity as well as square footage requiremnnL at each of the projection levels, This allows the City to analyze the needs in an individual basis, Lo examine how requirements change from now to the future, and to consider various scenarios by which the requirements migthL he met.

Summary tables were generated from the respective detail sheets.

STAFF PROJECTIONS
Projection of Staff — Aggregate level
In order to compute staff requirements, we have taken a two-part. approach. The first par[ is Lhc de- termination of overall, or "Aggregate -Level" staff projections, based on sconario tu;suanptions of ofti cers-per-capita. This is the approach suggested by the Department in our initial interviews.

Current Sworn Positions per Capita
The table on the following page provides a detail listing of Police staff (Sheriff's Office staf) based in. Yucaipa. The silnini-ary of these positions is given as follows. Notc that. the Current ratio of sworn (arm -command) staff pc:r capita is about 0.565 sworn staff per 1000 population, The City goal is 0.60 ratio or staff to 1000 population, according to City and Department sources.

Report w the City of Yucaipa FaCllltios Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc.

Page 40 ends

263

lixhibiL
Population Projertion Det,aik (SLAG)
Position Class Total City County
Command Staff
Captain
cp
1 0
1 Lieutenant
It
I
1 0
Sworn Total
2 1
1 Sworn Staff
Scrgoant
sg
7 4
3 Corporal
cp
I
1 0
Detective
dt
5 3
2 Deputy
dp
3s"
21 14
Sworn Total
4 29
19 Civilian Strife
Sheriff Specialists
ss
'1
4 0
Automotive
cv
2 1
1 Clerical
cv
G
5 3
Civilian Total
14 10
4 64
40 24
Ratios per Capita
Number of Sworn Personnel (above) 29
Current Population (2009) 51.317
Sworn/1000 Pcp'n 0.565
City Goal 0.600
Future Sworn Positions Pcr Capita
The exhibit, below (Computation of Aggregate Sworn and Civilian SUIFO, provides an analysis of Ills Projected staffing, assuming an increase in the ratio to population from the current 0.565 per 1000 to 0.600 per 1000. The population figures which we have used are those: noted in the exhibit pre- sented above.

In yurnrnary, we have taken the following approach.
• City swore staff have been iiiu t:tised to the target ratiu u1 0.600 per 1000 carplla, in addition L4r [lie projected undci•lyirrg inereaisc in Poiiulalion itself. • The County (non -Yucaipa) staff have been increased using the rate of Yucaipa population in- crease, maintaining the current ratios per capita.
'this appears to be a teasonablc approach. The specific population projectioxrs for the serviced unincorporated areas of the County are difficull. to assess from the SC:AU data as presented in the earlier lathe, mud even the current population base in this area is not easily estimated, The total unincorporated area of the county, however, is projected to grow consitlerably faster than Lhc Population Of Yucaipa, sn that, on one hand, the assumption using the Yucaipa ante of growth may be low. On the other hand, as the unincvrporaLed population increases, the t:ounty Sheriff is more likely to provided additional substations and police service facilities in the counly, shifting the service bouriclilrios, so Lhat the service requirenlCnts at the Yucaipa {facility may remain more level than the raw Unincorporated population may imply.

Report to the City of Yucaipa Facilities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. page 41
264

Future Professional Positions
In the exhibit below, (lie ratio of civilian stall' to sworn staff has been kept constant. The apportion- ment is pro-rata between City and County, based on the sworn staff in each case.

Summary
The resultof these caleulat.ions is shown in exhibit: 6, below. Note that, at this poitlt in the calcula- tions, we have relAdned fractional parts. The tractional rounding is peiforined later, with the distribu- tion of these aggregate ntunber5 into the detailed staft'projecLions which 1i,111ow, lixhihit
Cnnlpul:at.inn of Aggregrlt.e Swornand Civilian Staff
Present
Total City Co
7015
Total City Co
7020
Total City Co
7075
Total City Co
2030
Toral Ciry Co
2035
Total City Co
!build out
Toed City Co
ConunwdCivil 2 1 1
200 t00 100

2.00 1.00 1.00

2.001.00 1.00

2.00 1.00 L00
x.00 1.00 1,01)
Wvn TOM 4u 7`) 19
5357 3313 2044
Mg 34.42 21.24
:57.07 ,5,GG 22.01

69.ff't.85 22.75

61.47 35.01 25.46

67.92 42.00 25.92
emllan-total 14 10 4
15,73 11.42 430

16.34 11,87 4.47

16.93 12.30 4.63

17.501,-.71 4.79
1n,05 13,11 4.94
19,04 14.48 5A6
Grard lolat 61 40 24
71,30 4665 2515
T5.99 47.28 0s71

76.60 43.96 27.54

79.11EC•.511 2n.54
111.57 97.17 79.40
a9m. 57,40 32,37
EF IIS'l-1tM4r POLWt FACILITIES
Summary Of Police Space Occupied
The following exhibit stunnharizes the spaces occupied by the Police Department Headquarters oper:t- tiona in Yuctliptl. For lheso areas, as measured, the ratio of the nct spacc to tlhc gross space is 87.7%.

Exhibit
Sununary ufspat:c f)ccupied
Upper Lower Garage
Floor Floor Level 'focal
Offices - Private
1,291
216
88 Offices - Shared
1,001
363
77 Conference / Meeting
712
526
Other Rooms!'
383
689
1,456
Open Areas - Assigned
456
518
Open Areas - Circulation
--
18 Jail
--
181
-
Jail - Circulation
--
302
Lockers, Lavator•les, Janitor
351
794
Subtotal Assigned Net
4,194
307
3,621 11,422
Mechanical / Comm,
82 7
254
Genii Circulation**
541
628
Shafts, Walls, Etc, (e3t.)
115
123
101
Subtotal n-t-g Elements
738
Y58
355 1,851
Total Estimated Gross SF
4,932
4365
3,976 13,273
'r Includes storage shed for Yard Workers now located in parking area. `1!` The layout of the existing building puts most major circulation space-botweon Floors and between major units - outside the building, The "circulation" shown 6h this line of the table may be thought of either as "unit net circulation" or as "building gross circulation" depending on interpretation. See the illustrations provided as an Attachment to the report.

In this cable, the ch-Culadon Is shown Idenclffed In this line Item, so iliac It Is easily called out. In programming require- ments, however, much of this circulation is treated as not circulation within the respective unit(s), and corresponds to the not square footage calculation. See definitions in a separate Attachment to this report.

Report to the City of Yucaipa
Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc,
Facilities Deeds Assessment Study
Pnge 42
265

I~nEQ0..r[C'EIAENTS SVI HAARY
Total Building Space Requirements
The total space requirement is summarized on the tbllowing table, mostly as "not sq, W' An allow- ance for Net -to -Cross additions (building "gross -tip") is added at the bottom. We have used an effi- ciency factor of 82.5% far this calculation.
'['his table is based on hest space planning practices and assignments of spaces as discussed through- out this report. A discussion of feasible adjustments to these requirements for the purposes of testing the, "fit" of the CASting building appCarr; later. 'I be requirements summary is the result of the compu- tatiOn detail shccts which arc presented at the cntl of lh(: rcporl, bAirc the Attachments.

ExhIbIL
Summary of Space Requiretnents
Actual
Req'd
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Item
Sq. Ft,
Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft.

Sq. Ft,
Sq. FL
Sq. Ft.

Office Of the Chief
1,030
1,024
1,024
1,024
1,024
1,07.4
1,024
1,024
Administration
Admin-Office Area
859
1,106
11106
1,106
1,106

1.226
1,334
1,334
Admin-Outreach Programs
643
973
973
973
973
973
973
973
Admin--Evidonce and Property
3,363
31338
3,468
3,S20
3,572
3,696
3,722
3,904
Admin-Maintenance
90 SIB
518
518
518
519
518
518
Admin-Jail I Detention
574
940
948
948
948
948
948
948
Subtotal Administration
5,529
6,883
7,013
7,065
7,117
7,361
7,495
7,677
Investigations/Detectives
11266
1,730
1,730
1,830
1,838
1,838
1,838
1,916
MeT / Traffic 1 Focused Policing
602
T70
878
878
878
878
878
974
Patrol & Watch Commanders
1,444
1,854
1,938
11998
11998
2,358
2,358
2,394
Support Areas / Shared by Department
Building Lobby / Rcccption
105
1,566
1,566

1.566
1,566
1,566
1,566
1,566
SARB ) Training Roarn / Assembly
1,039

1.716

1.716
1,716
1,716
1,716
1,716
1,716
Locker Rooms
766
1,836
2,172
21220
2,232
2,292
2,352
2,460
Break Rumn and Rulatad Areas
281
396
396
396
396
396
396
420
Other Areas
367
294
294
294
294
294
294
294
Subtotal Shared I Other Areas
2,558
5,808
6,144
6,192
6,204
6,264T
6,324
6,456
Total Net Square Feet
12,437
18,069
18,727
18,995
19,059
19,723
19,911
20,471
Mechanical Areas / Circulation°` 835 3,832. 3,972 4,029 4,042 4,183 4,224 4,342 Total Gross Sq. Ft. 13,772 21,901 9 2, 69 9 23,024 23,101 23,906 24,141 24,513 1` A not -to -gross ratio of 82.5% has been asswned in r111s calculation of requirements.

Net vs. Gross Sq. Ft.

III dill' U0IIM16011S, L11C S[MCe allocated to listed areas and items litr which space is individtially as- sjgnQ(1 is callr;d "Assigned Sq. Ft." (or `assignable" net sq. ft.). To this a "unit circulation" allowance is added, which produces the "Usable Net Sq. Ft:," for that unit, The unit circulation allows rot inte- rior circulation paths, which may be open or may be designed as walled inner corridors inside a unit.

The main corridors of the building, and the other areas which arc not assignable to the users in the of lice suites, is generally part of the net -to -gross addition. The usable net sq. ft. omits major corridors, Report to the City of Yucaipa Facilities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Page 43
266

elevator shalts, mechanical shall.~, exterior wall t.hickncsses, structural elements, mechanical and equipment rooms, and other non -user specific elements of the building. To account for this necessary addition, it is customary to use a factor by which the net square footage is increased, called; vari- ously," the efficiency," or "net -to -gross," or -gross -up" factor Jbr the building.

This can be expressed as a multiplier (like 1.25, a multiplier applied to the net sq. ft. to arrive at the gross) or as a ratio, or percent (like 80%, the ratio of the net sq. ft. to the final gross sq. 111.). Now that there are many examples of police building design in which a greater or lesser efficiency is achieved, ranging from figures in the high 8()-percents to the low 70-percents. One variable is the use of atri- ums, lighl- shall,y, or grcltl.cr skin -to -floor -area ratio, which lowers efficiency. Use of sirnpler, linear design typically incrcascx tht; efficiency. Atriums, if required, are best handled by a direct addition of space to the net requirement, rather than adjusting. the net -to -gross ratio.

Parking and Open Area Requirements
The calculations lending to these requirements are tabulated on data sheets supplied at the end of this; section of the rcporl.. The parking stall count requirements are summarized as follows:

Present
2015
2020
Ms
2030
2035
2040
Visitor Parking
6 6
6 6
7 7
7 Fleet Vehicle Parking
28 31
32 34
35 35
39 Employee Parldng
43 47
48 50
54 55
GO
Total 77 84 86 90 96 97 106
Additional site requirements are summarized in the lollowing table:

Presrnt
City sq. fr,
20IS
Ciry aq. ft,
2020 1 202S
try sq, ft, Qty sq, fc.
2030
Qty Sy, IL
2036
I yty sy. fL
2040
qty sq.fL
Sv.Ncv. nag String ; nlns
Stank af3 nllowgnralrr
13 195
14 210
15 225 15 225
16 240
16 240
18 270
Provide enclosed bins (covered) In th
secured City Ve
11cle parking ar
a for bins- stacked, unt fur eac
I prujceted swn
n position,
Emergency Generator
Pad for Gen, allow 200
1 200
1 200
1 200 1 200
1 200
1 200
1 2D3
Generator Fuel :,lbw• 100
1 100
I 100
1 100 1 100
I 100
1 100
1 [DO
I lash and Loading allow 200
1 200
1 200
1 700 1 7.00
1 200
1 200
1 2M
We believe the projected requirements, as adjusted through careful review and asscssmcnl. by the C;ity's project teatri, is a true and Faithful representation of the requirements of the department's space needs. Feasibility for renovation and expansion of the existing facilities will depend on site capacity examinations, including site opporbinil.ies and constraints for achieving the building expansion as well as for providing projected parking needs,
Hollowing this general assessment, an Als review of the building's condition and physical ability to accept an expansion was perfonned. This can be seen in further detail in Attachment The requirements above show a projected eventual additional need over today tat haild-out) of ahotil. 8,030 net square feet (11,540 gross sq. ft. using a nct-to-gross factor of 82.5%), Report to the City of Yucaipa Facilities Needs Assessment Study Subrnitted by Grlffln Structures, Inc. Page 44
267

LIBRARY I- EQU EMEI TS
,
{
I i
1 f,
t �

4. SkJIM1A1rhY 09' ILHPVIrUMIN SPACE REa, L111I111E--( iIE NTS

INTRODUCTION
This library space study presents information regarding existing library facilities in Yucaipa, and pre- sents an approach to determining the C.iLy's Creeds for a rUttirU library facility. The purpose is to iden- titt, an estimate of those needs, with associated parking and related support requiranents; so that an inron-ned site nccd,1; analysis can occur in dic Civic C:c;nl.cr area. Accordingly, it is not necessary for us to compute detailed space needs that identify elements of the library at the hnokshelr, desk:, and item ICvQl'
Our approach gives the City a grand Nmis fill, planning, situating, M.Stiilg, arrd implementing its future library needs, including the related parking, site area: access, and associated components. It is sug- gested that upon 001-1i1.letion of the facilities needs. assessment, the: City may elect to conduct a public outreach progr �nr, with the objeclive of refining the library needs, and to consider enhancement to specific library resources that might be included in a new library facility.

Approach
We have taken three approaches to examine library facility needs in Yiicaipa.

1. Use of standard space guidelines.

This gives a relative. sire total based on library areas per, capila, The guideline ratios which we examine are. based cm San Rcrilardirio C.'ounLy branches, a selection of these which have recently been constructed (,,ve identify these as "I)enchmark" libraries}, recent California library planning grant Rinds (new -construction libraries), and California state-wide libraries.

2. Use of the Benclunark libraries as guidelines for space needs.

This includes a breakdown of the total areas into departmental components based on local "best - in -class" criteria. We normalize and pro -rate these departmental areas for a "standard" lilmary of the Size propose(] for Yucaipa.
3, Use ora basic quantital.ive plannning modc,l.

There arc a nurnbor of such models available. We have adapted one which was originally devel- oped in Connecticut, but which has found favor nationally as a guideline for library space ncccls planning. The model was applied botli to the existing library resources and numbers, as well Lis to a projected sihiation for the year 2030. In doing this, we made a number of Lassumptions regard- ing collection size, numbers of seats, and other factors.

Parking requirements have been estunated using standard parking allotments per &rroms squarc foot of building, and also by consideration Of user volumes and associated liinction-driven parking implica- tions.

Summary
In summary, we propose that a future library facility it) Yucaipa should be lalamicd for 25,000 gross sq. ft. which is a conservative figure based on typical standards and pr(jected usage volumes, and on experience of other cities in the San Bernardino (.aunty system witb relatively new library space.

This is the size we have used for site planning purposes. The ultimate requirement, however, is suli- ject to consideration for public policy, available budget, and public opinion.

Report to the City of Yucaipa Facilities Needs 4ssessinent Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Page 45
269

The 25,000 gross sq. ft. planning figure is conservative, and a larger Iihrary of up to 30,000 gross sq. ft. is within the "nornial" community library size fir cities sirnilar to Yucaipa, if City policy should place adlded emphasis on library resources in the coriltmulily ;.Is a natter of policy. Conversely, we also note that libraries for similar communities in the county may be sized in the 20,000 sq. ft. range; but that, at least in some cases, those other communities have incorporated plans firr increasing that size in the future.

Parking needs for a 25,000 gross sq. I'l, library arc eslimat.ed at 84 stalls". Li addition, allowance should be made for patron drop -oft', materials drop-off, SBC system van parking, anti access to and storage of trash bins. Site needs also may include utilities access and support elements, landscaping, and other items.

COMPUTING LIBRARY SPACE REQUIREMENTS
Approach Options
We have developed three approaches to assessing space needs I'm a future Yucaipa Library. These methods are surnrnarized as follows:

1. Use of standard space guidelines. This gives a relative size total based on Iihrary areas per capita.

The guideline rlidm which we examine are based on local (San Bernardino County) experience, C ulifornia state-wide statiSticS, and a Selection ofstal.ist.ics used in other locations in the country.

2. Use of the Benchmark libraries as guidelines for space needs, which includes a breakdown of the total areas into departmental components based on local "best -in -class" criteria.

3. lJse of a basic planningft
model which was originally developed ui Connecticut, but which has found favor nationally as a guideline for library space needs planning. We also consider and dis- cliss lisc of other such planning models and their impact..

Approach I — Space Per Capita "Standards"
Experictice of other lihrarics, and their sucecss with serving respective populations of users, is an ef- fective tool in estimating library needs. Library organizations have worked with development of "standards" for many years, and the use of standards in planning new libraries has come in and out of favor as the role of the public library, availability of other purpose-built community facilities, usage of in -home and at-worlt information systems, public interests, socialization, and a host of other dy- ilamic factors have evolved.

The current interest in standards is more focused on best -in -class models, or best -practices planning guides, and similar application of business case study methods. So, in this tliselrSBion of sucousslul experience as a benchmark, or flee use of average library experience as a standard, we mean only to identify optional directions based on the successful practice of other jui isdictions.

The simplest planning guide is total square footage per (legal) service populatinn, and statistics which measure this value are widely ;available. New libraries are almost always larger than the libraries they replace (but not always), since one reason for physical itttprovenrcntis an increase hi the population being served, and the need fiw new program or other spaces within tile. library itself. Accordingly, the newer flncl "better" librories usually have more space per capila than the older and "poorer' libraries, For a'241,000 gsf library we estimate 80 stalls; fir a 3(1,000 gsl'library we rstiullilc 100 stalls.

Report to the City of Yucaipa Facilities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Page 46
270

Ultimately there is an average which seems to meet the local needs xvcll, and this can be taken as a guideline for estimating the right size for a preferred library racility.

San Bernardino County Library
San Bernardino County Lil-racy operates 30 branches, including Yucaipa. These are surrmiarized in the following table, Note that our 13ouolumarlc Llbmtries (dlsctrescd earlier In this report) are all the new construction racililics it Icast as large as Yucaipa today, excepting Fontana, which is viewed sta- tistically mi too largo to compare.

Est Age of
Legal Service
Branch
Sq. Ft/
Branch
building
Population
Gross SF
Capita
Big Bear
Over 10 years
6,255
7,689

1.23 Needles
Over 10 years
5,793
5,395

0.93 Trona
Over 10 years
2,678
2,250

0.84 Wrightwood
Old bldg converted 5 yrs

4.482
3,700

0.83 Mentone
2 years

9.150
7,254

0.79 Lucerne Valley
Add'n; 5 yrs

5.221
4,026

0.77 Loma Linda
Add'n ; 2 years
22,619
15,525

0.69 Running Springs
Now modular bldg
5,986
41000

0.67 Highland

1.5 years

52.372
30,260

0.58 Lake Arrowhead
Over 10 years
10,435
5,513

0.53 Fontana

1.5 years
189,091
86,000

0.45 Joshua True
Ovur 10 years
4,914
2,000

0.41 Yucca Valley
Over 10 years

21.239
8,252

0.39 Serrano PublicW"
Over 10 years
13,434
51000

0.37 Chino Hills
I year
78,725
27,975

0.36 Montclair
Over 10 years
36,964
13,130
U.36
Barstow
Over 10 years
24,213
0,466

0.35 Grand Terrace
Over 10 years
12,484
3,500

0.28 Apple Valley

6.S years
69,861
19,412

0.28 Crestlinetf
Over 10 years
11,935
3,149

0.26 Yucaipa
Over 10 years
51,317
11,698

0.23 Hesperia
2 years
88,184
19,429

0.22 Bloomington
Over 10 years
22,610
4,000

0.18 Twentynine Palms
Over 10 years
30,832
5,318

0.17 Adelanto
Over 10 years; lease
28,265
4,200

0.15 Chino
Over 10years
84,173
10,600
0,13
Malin
Over 10 ynnne
100,077
10,000

0.10 Carter Public
5 years
[Rialto]
7,540
nra
Kaiser Public
10 years
[Fontana]
5,500
n/a
Summit High School
4 years
[Fontana]
7,768
n/a
Replaced by Phelan, new library, 8400 sf.
'" Replacement library is under construction 7,800 sf
Report co the City of Yucaipa facilities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin SCrI MITS, Inc. Page 47
271

The graph of service population and the computed space -per -capita ratio is shown in the following chart. The mean ratio for the figure~ in the uable is 0.:37; the rnedian is 0,46, Yucaipa is 0,23, 7Ugatx;
__ ........

1.40 tKOM
t r,,n,nrrr
crv.:a Pupulutim
-Sq, pt)t:rp
140.000
LOU
ian,Or{s
�

0.80 1nUd1C4
-- -- ---
.

MUM
�
0 fin
MUM
UA U

A II,IIIY)
'n• '� i� n
:° _"
g c
'`-' -,
c'
ail
ii
�.
n
c
'�
a 6 m
rr�
m i ill m
U n 4 J

1. J
Y
Cz
F
The innfurnnatiun fur the four benchmark libraries is: extracted from the above table and presented be- low, ordered by size of library building, The space per capita ratiu for lhcso libraries has a median of

0.32 and rncan or 0.36, and range hclwccn 0.22 and 0.56. Note that Hesperia, however, recognizes the need for more library space and has planned their building for future doubling in size by the man ner in which the situ im prepared and the building is designed.

Est Age of Leta, I Service Rranrh Sq, I'd
Branch Building Population Gross SF Capita
Highland

1.5 years
52,372
30,260 0,58
Chino Hills
I year
78,725
27,975 0.36
1 lesperia
2 years

88.184
19,429 0.22
Apple Valley

6.5 years
69,861
19,412 0,28
On the basis of these data, it appeam that [here is a reasunable expectation that a city the si7.e of Yu- caipa, if it is to provide library services similar to the benchmark chits as best -practice prototypes for this county area, should provide a library with a space -per -capita ratio, in this range„ Applying these values to the current and proJecred Yucaipa populations, we obtain the following table. The values, chosen for the space-wjmpulation ratios are ratio I - median for benchmark libraries; ratio 2 - tncall ofbenclunark libraries; ratio 3 - mean for SBC Libraries; ratio 4 - median for SHC: Libraries, Yucaipa
Year population
Ratio I

0.32 Ratio 2

0.36 Ratio 3
0,37
Ratio 4

0.46 2009
51,317
16,421
18,474
18,987
23,606
2010
52,729
16,873

18.982
19,510
24,255
2015
551215
17,669
19,077
20,430
25,399
2020
57,359
18,355
20,649
21,223
26,385
2025
59,440
19,021
21,398
21,993
27,342
2030
61,441
19,661

22.119
22,733
28,263
2035
63,357
20,274
22,009
23,442
29,144
Build -out
70,000
22,400
25,200
25,900
32,200
Report to the City of Yucaipa
facilities
Needs Assessment Study
Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc.

Page 48 ends

272

On this basis, a range of'gross library Sizes or20,000 gsl — 25,000 gsl* 10,000 gsf is Suggested as the appropriate planning size. Assutning a single sl0ry building, this is the arca footprint of the building block, to which must he added sot -backs, landscaping, parking, cle.

Libraries in the State o('Calitbrnia
There are two California library groups to consider in looking at current ratio, of space per capim measures. These are (a) the recipients of funding; from the California Library Grant or2000, and (h) Ihu general libraries as reported by the California :State Library ngency.

Grant Recipients
The data I'm the grant. recipients includes only new construction facilities (or facilities which havc had new additions), and so represents more accurate planning experience than a list oral] libraries xvliieh includes inadequate ones. In order to provide relevant Size -to -population values, I.hc State has pub- lished per capita figures using projected 2020 population values. 'This data is summarized in the fol- lowing chart.. 'There are 42 libi-ar14s in this group (City of San Diego is omitted; the project is not coniplcic, and the population is oul of range for this calculation comparison).

The median ratio 1`01- this grerup is 0.54; the nican is 0.03.

Approximate SF per Capita of Funded LBA 2000 Projects
14A nno ._.___..._.__� 3.00
I All g
100 000
AO M
40 000
10 000
20 000
Lan
I.00
I'll

1.10 1.00
j
/
000
1160

11.111
I 2 4 4 5 0 7 0 V 10 II 11 13 14 IS 14 17 10 19 29 21 21 23 14 2S 26 27 20 29 30 31 31 33 34 35 31 37 30 39 40 41 42 43 44 (Based on 2020 Population Projections, OnAts San Diego City) Other California Libraries
020
The State of California publishes an annual report of* library statistics. This report, however, does not provide branch informyl.ion rrom county systems, so, for example, the report only shows data lbr San l3crnardirur County Library as a whole and does not report the hidividual county branches separately, but Redlands, as an independent library, is separately reported. C,'onscqucnl.ly, each library listed may Report to the City of Yucaipa Facilities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin StructureS, Inc. � Pnge 49
273

have multiple service locations (outlets). The state data are divided into groupings of service popula- tion, and we have included, below, inforrnation fir libraries; wilh service population in the range of 100,000 - 70,000; 70,000 - 50,000; and 50,000 - 25,000.

Sitnunary statistics for these groupings are as follows, based on current reported population:

Population Sq. Ft. No. Outlets SFI(Apita
Population = 100,000 - 70,000
Median 83,186
46,181

2.50 0,54
Mean 83,821
53,708

2.70 0.64
High Value 99,533
127,686

6.00 1.40
Low Value 71,607

24.000

1.00 0.29
Population = 70,000 - 50,000
Median 58,422
27,750

2.00 0.43
Mean 59,872
34,723
2,37

0.57 High Value 69,898
114,500
8100

1.64 Low Value 51,863
11,143

1.00 0.20
Population = 50,000 - 25,000
Median 36,183
17,400
1,50
0,44
Mean 36,219
22,190

2.21 0.62
High Value 49,552
72,700

12.00 2,02
Low Value 25,792
5,804

1.00 0.14
Report to the City of Yucaipa Facilities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Page 50
274

Approach 2 - Using the Benchmark Libraries as Prototypes Existing layouts
Plans of the Yucaipa Library, and of the eoanparison Benchmark libraries, were used to identity each of the lunctumal areas of the library, tfrc area takeoffiq, and irlektd(c both the fitnctional usage areas as well as fiurniture layouts,
Functional Area Comparison
Based on the layouts of these libraries, and takeoffs of the relative functional areas, these benchmark libraries are compared in Table A. Table A includes ninny ininor library components, and unique spe- cialty areas such as the environniental education facilities at. IIighland. Note that circulation and me- chzai►ical spaces are included in the rospeclive eolunws. However, basic shafts, certain structural ele- mcnts, and cxlcrior wall thicknesses are onriacd. hi order to make a better comparison, we have re- compuwd spaces and focused on the main library components, which we show in Table'13. All sizes are based on take -offs of plans ag provided from various Sources.

Table A
Comparison of Benchmark Libraries: All Component Areas
Arca/Room
Apple Valley
SF %
Chino Hills
SF %
Hesperia,
SF %
Higlitrnd
SF %
Yucaipa
SF %
Adult Dcpnrtmcnt
4,911

25.7%

5.626

20.5%
6,224

31.7%

5.509

19.1 %
4,597

38.9%
Children's Department

2.516

13.3%
5,815

21.2%
3,231

16.4%
5,927

20.6%
1,965
16,6%
Programming Rm/Meeting Rm/Support
2,061

10.8%
1,296

4.7%
1,768

9.0%
2,130

7.4%
1,242

10.5%
Staff (all)
1,294
6,8%

3.193
11,6%
1,905

9.7%
1,595

5.5%
994

8.4°%
Young Adult Department
2,080

10.9%

1.871

14.1%
1,463
7A%
1,721

6.0%
775

6.6%
Lobby/Public Corridor
1,028

5.4%
2,073

7.5%
1,323

6.7%
1,838

6.4%
499

4.2%
Publie Lay.tor'res
521

2.7%
605

2.2%
457

2.3W,
$96

2.I1W.
173

4.0%
Circulation
862

4.5%
456
1,70%
622

3.2%
428

1.5%
368

3.1%
AV Department
464
2A%
1,111

4.0%
250
13%
1,169

4.1%
298

2.5%
Utility
197

1.0%
217

0.8%
317
1,6%
919

3.2%
265

2.2%
Reference
745

3.9%
534

1.9%
470

2.4%
492

1.7%
168

1.4%
Literacy
158

0.8%
321

1.2%
193

1.0%
340

1.2%
118
110%
Friends of Library/Boolestore
477

2.5%
315

1.1%
309

1.6%
380

1.3%
70 0.6%
Study Roams
143

0.7%
1,022

3.7%
344

1.7%
120

0.4%
0 0,0%
Computer Lab$Classroom
719

3.8%
716

7..5%
780

4.076
1,131

3.9%
0 0.0%
Cafe
0 0.0%
308
I.I %
0 O,U%
253
U.9%
U
U.U%
Specialty Departments
$88

1.7%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
4,245

14.7%
0 0.0%
Toral Library
19,094
100.0%
27,509
100.0%
19,664
100.0%
1 28.013
100.0%
11,832
100.0%
Area/Room
Children's Department
Young Adult Department
Staff Areas (all)
Program RoomlMtg Rm/Supt
Computer LabiClassroom
AV Department
Reference
Study Rooms
rricnds of Library/0oolcsturo
Literacy
Total of Thasa Itams
Table R
caparison of Benchmark Libraries: Primary Component Areas Apple Valley Chino Hills Hesperia Highland Yucaipa Total sF % sr % SF % SF % Sr- % SF %
4,911

31.5%
5,626

23.6%
6,224

36.7%
5,509

26.8%

4.597

44.9%
26367

30.8%
2,546

16.3%

5.845

24.5%
1,231

19.1%

5.927

28.9%

1.965

19.2%
19,514

22.4%

2.080

13.3%

3.871

16.2%
1,463

0.6%
1,721

8.4%
715
/,6%
9,910

11.4%
1,291

8.3%
3,193

13.4%
1,905

11.2%
1,595

7.8%
994

9.7%
8,981

10.3%
2,061

13.2%
1,296
5A%
1,768

10.4%
2,130
10,47f,

1.242

12.1%
8,497
9,7%
719

4.6%
716

3.0%
7110

4.6%
1,131
5,57o
0 0.0%
3,346

3.8%
464

3.0%
11111

4.7% ,
25a

1.5%

1.189
518% '
298

2.9%
3,320

3.8%
745
4,8%
534
22%
470

2.8%
492

2.4%
168

1.6%
2,409

2.8%
143

0.9%
1,022
1,37.
344

2.0%
120
OA%.
0 0.0%
1,629

1.9%
477
11%
315

1.3%
309

1.8%
300

1.9%
70 0.7%
1,551

1.8%
158

1.0%
321

1.3%
193
L1%
340
0%
118

1.2%
1,130

1.3%
15,598 100.0% 1 23,850 100.0% l 16,945 100.0% l 20,534 100.0% 10,227 100.0% 1 07,154 100.0% Report to the City of Yucaipa Facilities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. _ Pape 51
275

SUN
45,0%-
w Arr4n Vallny

40.0`\
i Cbiew HiIIH

35.O:C
Ilnwpnrio
• whnlu,a
au.u�
.

IhN,c:rpa
_—

29.0%
-
ie.u%
4f
1h.0%
5F,
lw
11h
i. 1
W.
— y„ti
3 r
'beF.
sp
o,p
E
NU_ N
V m
lY
=Ix
o
ff
m
J
N
C
As sliowwn, Yuuiipa has a Im-ger percontagre in adull areas and smaller percentages ill some of the pro- gram spaces. Public interests and the result of surveys in other cities has led to relative increases in new libraries both in technology (for example, the use of separate technology training rooms) and ir) youth programming areal; autd collections (both young adults and juveniles, but especially in clul- dren's areas).

Applying the average of the new libraries as a guideline, we can estimate feasible: programs for librar- icti of 20,000, 25,000, aru1:30,000 gro-ss sq. ft. Tliiti is shown in dle following table, Exhibit
Using 13encbulark Libraries as Prototype for a Future 201t - 251c - 301s sq. ft. Library* 20,000 sl 25,000 st 30.000 sf Exist'p Yucaipa
Area/Rolm 5F % SF % SF % SF %
Adult Department
5,026
2W..,
6,283
25%
7,539
25%
4,597
39%
Children'sDepartment

3.650
10%

4.563
IB%

5.476
18%
11965
17%
Programming Room & Support

1.590
8%

1.987
8%

2.384
8%
1,242
IU%
Staff (Ill)

1.680
A%

2.100
n%

2.52.0 AY.
994
8%
Young Adult Department

1.854
9%
2,317
9%
2,781
9%
775
7%
LobbylPublic Corridor

1.265
6%
11581
6%
1,897
6%
499
4%
Public Lavatories
496
2%
620
2%
744
2%
473
4%
Circulation
512
3%
640
3%
768
3%
368
3%
AV Department
621
3%
776
3%
932
3%
298
3%
Utility
358
2%
448
2%
537
2%
265
2%
Reference
451
2%
563
2%
676
2%
168
1%
Literacy
211
1%
264
1%
317
1%
118
1%
Friruds t,rf Library/8ouk,�tory
290
119
363
1y/
435
IYc
70 1%
Study Rooms
305
2%
381
2%
457
2%
0 0%
Computer LablClassroom
626
3%
782
3%
939
3%
0 0%
Cafe
105
1%
131
I%
157
17 0
0%
Speciality Deparunents
960
5:�
1,200
5%
1,440
5%
0 0%
* Percentages rounded to nearestwhole number.

Report to the City of Yucaipa
Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc,
Facilities Needs ,Assessment Study

Page 52 ends

276

Approach 3 — Conlputational Planning Model
There are a number of conipi tational models available for platning library space. 'These include, for oxarnple, the Libris Dcsign system which was used by many submittal, for the California Library Grant of 2000, Other notable librarians have produced tools of varying complexity and refinerrient.

The complete and elaborated tools require atalysis and input. of collection volumes and library re- sources, and produce a complete listing of space items, shelving utlits, and other components of the facilities program. '11lis devil is not deeded ill 4his study for Yucaipa, which is aimed primarily at idcntif;ying reasonable planning Square -Footage level for site analysis and long term building usage and viability. Once a piaster plan is established, the next step will be the refinement of overall re- quirenients into the component details for the facility, including rho input from public outreach.

Simpler tools are useiifl for this purpose. Often discussed in the available literature, ;ire siniplilied spreadsheet tools compiled by Linda Dcmnrcrs ofLibris Design, by Mary Louise Jensau of the Cull- inecticut State Library, by Antlers Uahlgrein of the Wisconsin De-pilrtilleilL of Public litit uUtion, and by a number of others. For this computation, we have based our estimate on the Connecticuit spread - Sheet bmai 1sC It is Casy to follow and Inui himplo bctichinurk allutlnerlL4 for assuming resources in the library. It is al,u e£r,y to apply our rnodul to the: exi-Airlg condition, al. the library in Yucaipa, to see what size the model produces for tllc existing conditions, as a comparison to the actual library size.

Three comptltatiotl models have bectl surnmarired below:
• The first model is based on using the existing; library resources and conditions as inputs to the model, to compare whether the model produces [lie existing space when the existing resource inputs are used. 'I'llc result is a model result. or 13,943 gross sq. ft. (The existing Library is 11,832 gsf by our measurement, 11,698 gsf from the C'ounl.y master plan document.) The dif- ference between existing actual space and the model is attributed to generally undcmixed staff work areas, minimal program spaces, and limited circulation allowance. • The second model is based on the proicetcd grid estimated filture conditions (+20 years cc) 2030). For the futUEU projected library, wu- have NOT included £l CUFTITTILLnity rouln, but have made the following assumptions regarding other program or .amenity areas:

Cafe or vending area ...................................................... 200 sq. IA.

Friends tlr Lbe Library area or store ................................300 sq. it.

Literacyprograrnnllrlg areas.........................................300 sq. ft.

Ueneral program roorn................................................... 600 sq. ft.

Conference Room — Scating 12..................................... 300 sq, ft.

Children',, Program .area ............................................... 60+ Seats HaplyLearning Area..........................................................20 Seats Study Rooms ................................................... 4 Rooms (24 ,eats) '1'lie inudrl results 111 a regUirCil pi-cICrrod deed Ur 27,986 gross sq. ft., to meet library needs in Yucaipa ror Lhe year 2030.
• The third model is a target -based computation, made to come up with a final requirement close Lo 25,000 gross sq. 11., the low -end planning; size suggested by comparison to other cities in the County. We have taken the second model noted just above and removed certain lines or re- duced certain values in a coordinated and balanced malmer, arriving at 25,024 gsf. The as- sumptions we made to the above model are the following:

Report to the City of Yucaipa
Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc.

Facilities Needs Assessment Study

Page 53 ends

277

Net avg. book additions per year .............950 volurmes (not 1200) Net avg. non -print adds per year..__ ..............250 titles (not 300) Total hard -copy periodicals on display .................... 240 (not 300) (note: this reduced periodicals area from 200 sf to 160 st) 1 1ce(rorik: v.`orkstat.ions in library ................................ 54 (not 62) Seats per capita ..................................... 1.85/1000 (not 2.25/1000) (note: this reduces the total seals frith 135 u.) 114)
Staff workstations........................................................ 22 (not 24) (thus includes total workstations in the public and staff area:,) Early Learning workstations ........................................ 15 (nol. 20) Photocopy areas..... . ................ . ...................................... l (nett 2) Study room scats.......................................................... 16 (not 24) Cafe or vending area...........................................75 sf (not 200 sf) Friends of the Library area or store...................200 sf (not 300 so Literacy programming areas ............................200 sf (not 300 sf) General program room ........................ unchanged from 2"' model Con fercrtce Room Scaling 12 .......... unchanged from 2" u model REQUIREMENTS SUMN`ls`k RY AN FU V,�',RICIMG FIC-l:DS
Total Building Space Requirements
The above analysis suggests that future library facility size for Yucaipa should be planned in the range of 25,000 gross sq. ft. to 30,000 gross sq. ft. Also, we note that lihraties fnr tiimil;n comtruni- tics may adequately be sired as small as the law 20,000 sq, 0. range; however we also note that, at least in sonic cases where benchmark: sine for a comparable library is in this range, those other rnm- rnunities have incorporated plans fnr increasing that size.

For the purposes of this stony, We are listinP the implications of e8011 of these sizes, and suggesting that the City select from this range for its site planning purposes, according to consideration for public policy, available budget, and public opinion. As a single planning model, we suggcsl. using; a total size of 25,000 gross sq. fit., which appears to be a conservatively low figure based on typical standards and projected usage volumes (based on experience of other cities in the San Bernardino County sys- tem upon the construction of new library space),
Parking Requirements
There are several ways to compute parking space requirements. Relative needs fiu therrnorc will vary for main or urban public libraries, far suburban branches, and for regional or small community librar- ies, as well as for research and special collection libraries, The most commonly ltsed mcasurc of parking requirements is to wqc a ratio or -number of stalls per area of building; typical values used are:

I stall for each 250 gross sq. ft. for smaller libraries. • 1 stall for each 300 sq. ft. of gross building, when the library is a mid-si e branch or smaller collltnunity library.
1 stall for each 400 gross sq. ft_ of building when the (branch) building is large.

Of course, tiorrte communities have harking codes Llvfl. may he more restrirtive. Frn• example, some cities Mandate 4 stalls per 1000 gross sq. ft. of public areas (I per 250 sq, 1t.). Whcu specifics of the 7 1 Insperia, for eNnnrple, designed its library to easily ac.cepr dUubl. its 20,000 sq. fl. vile in the future.

Report to the City of Yucaipa Facilities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc, Page S4
278

Iibrary layout are known, it is also possible to compute parking based on adding up needs for (a) number of staff, (b) public patron seating counts, (c) browsing anon or gcrteral public space, and (d) special eveirts or assemblies. These munbers are more precise, but usually arc close to the ral.ios per area, above. For large main ptiblic libraries and specialty facilities, this component method is pre- ferred, however.

Igor the purpose of this study, we believe parking requiremenl.g are best comptited using the ratio of one stall for each 300 gross sq. ft. of building fort total sire between 25,000 and 30,000 gsf, and one stall for 250 gsf if below 25,000. The parking stall count requirements are gummarixed as follorws:

G. Sq. Ft. per Stall Stalls
20,000 sf library 250 00
25,000 sf library 300 84
30,000 sf library 300 100
In addition, allowance should be made tot, patron drop -of, materials drop-off, 5BC system van parking, and access to and storage of trash bins. Site needs also include utilities access, landscaping, and other support elements.

Report co the City of Yucaipa
Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc.

Facilities Needs Assessment Study

Page 55 ends

279

5. L:Xll5if fliMC4 BU9lLl0di4G C0hMlll"fi Tl1('MliN!IS

INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of the Existing Sheriffs and Library Assessment is to evaluate tltc potential ficasibility i()r renovating and modernizing the C:ity's existing buildings and site facilities for the piu1aosc of consid- ering potential building renovation and modernization to extend facility life -expectancy another 30 to 50 years. An Cxistitig facility Assessment was conducted on October 16, 2009 to duturnine the over- all condition of the two buildings and related site facilities, needed improvements, and infrastructure system~:. The engineerv' san,eyv are attached as an Appentli:' to this doc ninent, The following dis- cussion sununarizes key results, and includes the Architect review of those tacilitic:r.

With this nssessrnent, prelinunary costs for upgrading the facilities to meet Essential Services Build- ings and (.''uhlbi-nia Blrilcling C.;ode yLandards will be idanlilicd and compared to the cost of new con- struction. Similarly, optimum design criteria gained from the opportuniLtes lnhcrcnt to new construc- tion Were compared to identified disadvantages and lnuitations caused by interim occupancy require- ments and retention of existing facility conditions which results in less functional conditions. These evaluations provide the information necessary to idetiti ry the heat overall clevelopmcnl. sirategy for the project,
Design Standards and Methodology
Where available, existing construction documents were reviewed, and. existing Wilding Conditions were documented by physical assessment and observations. Sines the Limc or original construction of the two buildings, numerous major updates usually occur in the mnJority of applicable building codes and ragultitioris affaeting the two structures. Aduptnlion Lind ruodcrnization of the existing City facili- ties require future renovation and modification to iueet the target 30 to 50 year life expectancy and must conform to [tic latest edition of the following codes. • Nationtil Fire Protection Agency Standards for Automatic Fire Spridtler Systems • Titic 24 Accessibility Standards for the Physically Handicapped Title 24 Energy Gornpliuncu Slundurds
• hivirontnnntal I'rntcction Agency rteonlntinns ror tlnznainns Materinis Abileiiteut • Seistnic Safely ALA liar l ssenliul Services Buildings - Americans With Disabilities Act
California Building Code
Based upon required code modifications and updates, assessments were obtained which identify the extent of new upgrade; and rrtodi lications. A review of the existing building(s) was performed to de- termine the six critical areas for investigation which are as follows: (1) Seismic and Structural Safety "Essential Services Act", (2) Fire Panic and Life Safety, (3) hazardous Materials, (4) Accessibility (AJDA), (5) Energy Efficiency and Building Envelope, (6) Site Itiffastr uctatv, Capacities.

ARCHITECTURAL ASSESSPiEV9T OF THE EXISTING FACILITIES
Yucaipa Sheriffs Station
The Yucaipa Sheriff's Station shares a 3-acre site with the Yucaipa branch Library, C111Tcntly the Sheriffs station is siLuattd on IA acres of the site which is located on the northwest corner of Yucaipa Boulevard and Fifth Street. 'there are 23 parking space~ in the Iasi. lot and 9 spaces on the west lot for a total of32 on -silt parking space~.

Report to the City of Yt,caipa Facilities Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Page 56
281

The ShcriflPs Sl.alion is comprised of two wings which form an "L" configuration on the site. The original structure's long section is oriented east -west and fronts Yucaipa Boulevard. The original building was built in 1960 and is approximately 8,400 sf with two levehi. The north south wing is 5,000 sf and was built in 1976. The total building area is approximately 13,300 sf, The building is classified as a "B" occupancy according to the California Building Code and is a Type V, non -rated construction without a fire sprinkler system.

Yucaipa Branch Library
The Yucaipa Branch Library sits, on 1.5 acres and is bounded by Fifth Street on the east, the future Trpnsportation Center/New City 11g11 on the west., and (lie Sheriffs Station to the south. There ;ire 58 existing parking spaces, which includes two handicap spaces sorving the Library. The original Library was built in 1969 and was approximately 8,000 sf. A 4,000 sf addition was constructed on the north side of the Library in 1987 malting the total structure approximately 12,000 sf, The. building is classi- fied as a "B" occupancy tinder the California Building Code and is ti Type V, non -ratter construction.

The building has no fire sprinkler system.

Both buildings were assessed based on the various areas of investigation listed in Section 2.0 of this report. The areas require careful consideration with respect to the mnoval.ion and expansion of the ex- isting facilities. 'These criteria are imporuint because they mprosent the primary building and site categories which have the greatest potential to generate technical and costly modifications. Because of their importance; they also affect the extent to achieve specified space requirements, funcLional and operational cfticiencics, and cost budgets which arc established by the 11UMIS USSMS111Cn1S and devcl- opinCut prufurnias cslablished for the project.

Seismic and Structural Safety
A general structural investigation and review to evaluate seismic and structural safety conditions was conducted by R.M Byrd and Associates who reviewed available structural Plan,, and by on -site obscr- valions will identify any signs of foundation sclticnr4n1, structural cracking, building stress, evidence of movement or deflection, or areas of deterioration. Based upon this effort, specific procedures and recomunendations will be identified to bring the stlucture(s) into conformance with applicable codes and standards. Structural engineering analysis of the existing building(s) was limited In an overview or existing conditions and to the extent of probable structural upl,Frados required for long-term fixture use.

Fire Panic and Life Safety
Like most older buildings, the ^ihcrifli; Facility IcaLUMS nlixc(t occupancy classifications. Along with special Occupancy provisions, rcqui.rcnlcnts firr exiting, panic, and life safety become the basic con- siderations. The Sheriffs Facility was originally classified as a "B" occupancy, however, current code puts the jail portion in an "I" occupancy and the jail will have to be isolated by a 2-haUr fire barrier.

The building is almost to Lhc limit of this allowable area per current code as well as area increases with side yards} that expansion will require the addition of a fire sprinkler system and'or rated con- struction to increase the current building's size. ".fire same can be said for the existing library. The cur- rent area is at the limit of allowable area even including side yard increases I1141. rat.cd con,rl.ruction and/or lire sprin1ders will be required to increase the existing library's area. Smoke detection and gen- eral mechanical and electrical upgrades will be required to support related lif4 safety comidcrat.ions.

Additionally, primary mechanical, electrical, and plumbing existing conditions were generally re- viewed by TMAD Engineers who will address energy and environmental considerations, and their assessments are in the latter portion of this study.

Report to the City of Yucaipa I'militles Needs Assessment Study Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Page 57
282

Hazardous Materials
Review of existing documantg indicate the rase of asbestos floor tilt: throughout both facrhlres. -Based upon the age of i.hcse buildings all(] construction nlateliolS uml at the time of initial construction, the potential existence of other hazardous materials like Asbestos insulation, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and lead paint can be suspect, and the likely degree of removal and mitigation can be evalu- ated. A cotilprchen5ive Survey performed by a qualified testing laboratory is necessary to determine the specific existence of any lla7ardous naateriaals, and is beyond the scope of this study. Where con- ceptual design options involve the retention and W-Use of existing structures, this study recomnnends further preliminary testing as may be appropriate to the building(s) under consideration.

Accessibility (ADA)
Generally, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements related to the future use of I.hc exist- ing btrildirig( s) arc: sorracwhat unique because of dic type of docility and nature of operations con- ducted. Future modifications will be required at staff' find public circus rrx}stly induct& a-cfin&mcnl. of ergonomic nauilit.y features where the potential for access by the physically challenged exists. These revisions include modification of the clearance space at each side cif door- jambs, rcp,la&&m&nt of non- conforming; door hardware, resiroonns, building fixtures, and provisions for wheelchair turnaround and access cl&aranlc&s. CTraphics, signage, and alanns for the visually and aurally impaired should be considered for fixture modernization.

Energy and Environmental Considerations
A preliminary survey of energy and eliVlrowliienta7l con iderationS was performed to address consid- eration;; for energy efficiency, operaalions, maintcntance, and overall serviceability. Lighting, heating, ventilaating and air conditioning systems were generally aasscssed for future ecmlorrnance and altcra- liun. The overall building crivelope(s) were noted and evaluated to determine current serviceability and the failure for continued use. Both buildings will be required to amcel. current Title 24 energy stan- dard%. F.xisl.ing windows are sing]& glazed and drawings indicate little or no wall and roof insulation.

All windows will need to be replaced with double -glazed low "E" glaring; and insulation to be added to existing perimeter wails and roof The potential to add (hire technology, cc}rnnlunicatiOn systems, day lighting, ataa to increase the overall perliirnlaricc of the outer building enclosure is noted in the aasscssm&all-s by TMAD and CWA Electrical Engineers in the Appendix.

Site Infrastructure Capacities
An assessment of site infrastructure considerations was perfortncd to address the potential for in- creased use, utility sizes: and caparities, emergency power and communications and overall service- ability. Electrical, telephone, cable '1'V, wales, wfislc, and gas systeans were looked at where possible (o asa css the potential for future expansion. The overall site configuration was evaluated to detertnine overall barking capacity, ace-css, and circulation, and to identify the potential yield for fixture expan- sion. Future parking needs will be based on the expected growth for sheriffs, library, and staff. Phas- ing of future parking facilities will he addre%scd in relation to access and circulation for on -site parla- ing.

Report to the City of Yucaipa
Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc
Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Page So
283

-
xti
7t kl FtyF �^IY r iRrr�
1 y ,V r
14 4 '
J
_ aTK
4 1 1
rt
XISTING BUILDING PLANS-.
�aroq i r
�^ v s

Report to the City of Yucaipa Needs Assessment Study
Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Attachments
285

I U. orp��.lt, -i.
20 4� 53 23 !Cc
City ai Yucaipa
�7-
--e� F t
-F-- -e D
wo,epartmer es,
Needs Assc-ssms.
;

BUS I PL&Z
BUSIS rvt-M?
Analysis of Existing
Space Use
'T,
Existin-
Site Plan
7a
L—c
Griffin Structures, Inc.
305 Second Strcet
Laguna Beach, CA
92651
286

Upper Lev -el
Lower Level E-
Haar
70 n. -f
—12
117
. tj--.
57 City of Yucaipa
Police Department
Needs Assessment
Anal-, sis of Existing
C, 51 1c, WO
L=�==l
Garage I Storage
I a
Garage Lower Upper
Floor Floor Floor
Existi
Nztng
r
Floor Plan BEI 21W 1291 0 U-71 0'-"- - P--
--- IC
-.56 cp- Ara. - X'st-3
r IF 13 f 0
a If IB sl 0sF j3i F.-
011 J4
01, J,,i ... 6-efi.
1!.143 e _nil 11 3.45, of I ;1,f
I;a
2" If TA -2d
14, 4:c 51 511,f C--b-

38.i If -141 A •�sr
S,f
IM-1-30 T-7767i 73-55.1 isf
Griffin Structures, Inc.
395 Second Street
Laguna Beach, CA
92651
949-497.9DOO
287

City Or t I.7CRi7Z
Yucaipa Librar-;
Needs A_-sesc-rent
Analysis of, Existing
Space Use
�.1
-
coR. n
R. cm
rr
T{59f
•..
csl6laa`a =

11.932? I :,
1 6rancl,
�
'Librasi
I
',Eta •{
SnR
Y/orkroom ib5 :t
Aduk-
; Reference
Ofice-
ELE x
k'--d
Ghildren's _ t
. L�
203 e. .. '.
c° l
y.
'� !stir
_
st
I .I 1
Poor Plan
Adalt-
3 eai
-
Genor1
- -
441 d
I
7aa'
Young Adullt
.

Frlmds
T
Aduk-AY
-Mat
r
GOMM structures, Mc.
385 Stcund Street
Laguna Beach, CA
42b51
949.497.4R00
288

r
q6n 4t y l''J '1 ,-�
� av
FI ,3 tar 1. r x
� Ft
y.;
Y = r . r,•: , .-ri4 Cf�'� e is --
t
r
> pp
;-

EXISTING BUILDING

CONDITIONS EVALUATION
till
r M�
.
1 1
� 1
' 4

AV-ll A`l"sC-OPiIEhMT 2 -- L"- VUS IN''G BtMLL O l(3 COM) IT I0' S FV PALA, z II OOENI Report to the City of Yucaipa Needs Assessment Study
Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Attachments
290

RM � BVIRE) AND ASISOCUTE SI) 11 NC.

Yucaipa ShorifTs tied Library Facility Assussixicid.

P60913400.x2-i-pt
Pape 21
291

i
RA, BYRD and Associates, Inc.

Consulting Structural t rlc�i icers
Oijober 21, 2009
VWLC Architects
8163 Rochester Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attention: Frank Cuomo
Subjcct: Ytic uipa Branch Library
Re; Structural Assessment
Dear Mr. Cuomo,
Pcr the request of, WI.C. Architects olif limn has coyop owd a Structuj'al need assessment of the Yucaipa f3muclt Library.

The existing Libra*, is located at the Northwest c;oruer u1'Yucaipa Boulevard and 1" street. The:
strachwe has been rcvicwcd in accordance. Widt fire 20.07 CBC as an "Essential ssential 1"°acility", Occ-upancy Catcgoiy IV, and Seistnic Dosign 0-4tegory D. Oui' reviow is based or the as -guilt construction documents which havo been provided, Ondwings ror the east side, the ofig;inal structure, were developed ill 1967 with the addition ot: the wisst side designed in 1986_ The Librlty is a single -story CMU 4earitig wall and plywood shearwall structure. The east side of the structure is approximately 134 feet by 72 f ,41, 41 plan. The west side consists of twvi) portions approximately 70 feci by 30 feet. The roof is flat with licights thatvary betwct:n 12 and 20 "fecal above finished floor '1 ho roof siructurc consists of plp.,� Tod diaphragms with 2x lcaining supported by steel girders on. columns and bearing walls at the east side and ptimaril tr plywood web joists ('1'JIj supported by bcal-ing walls at tilt -,vest side. The fctindation consists of conventional cAtitintious footirfgs supporting tltc. bcafing walls and spread footings at Lire colatatrs. PkywQod. diaphragmssupported by CMII and plywood shearwalls provide lateral support for the buildings.

Our review of the subject structure has revealed the following defiWimcies and powntiail mitigation strategics.
1, Drag ties and collector.; are inadequate or missing. . Add collectors, straps with blocking ar►.d or new s(ructaral collector mernbers.

2. 7'ht CMU wall tie anchorage to the diaphragm at the east side is not adequate. - Add hold clowns or other mechanical anc-horage to top of CMU walls at 2.4-01, o.c. attached to strut mechanism to transfer Lhe load to the diaphragin.

3. CMU is tutder reinforced.
- Add reinforced shotcrctO to surface of CMU walls.
t U)Ilir,CJQamkeG'1.C•[TEe&�.!tl!IO-37f.1 dn;.
`J I '2-2222 r'hc:)! Ir : ` 0') W.13 •a s99 Fix: 9y-?�1. 56 292

4. 1"xisting sheat will construction is not adequate_ Where shcarwaIl loading, cmxeds 350 pounds per lineal liiot walls shall tie constructed witli at minin,tt►n oi'3x studs. sill plates kind blocking ai. p;rrtel edges. Sill plate anchors not in 3x sill must bo designed Par half allowable stress.
- Add studs at panel odges, blocking aid anchor bolts ms. required by analysis.

We c,4iu►atr. that the structural rcniediation Outlined above will cost bemeen $/10 and $50 per square root of the strttctvre.

Should you have any questions or, require additional irstornration please (to not hesitate to contract Our office.

Sincerely,
Carol Stevcnsou, Rri.

Princivol
' P\Ulticr.AaumcwalLE'ITC.RtiU1�U•i?� L�6m
293

RJO. B a° D and Associates, Inc.
�.i�,.. Consttiring Stoxtt_tral 1 r�yii�ccrs
Ocl:ohor 2.7, 2009
WLC Arebiteets
8163 Rochester Avenue
ltaricho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attention: Frank C:n,:lmo
Subject: `+ruesipa Sheriffs, Station
Re: Structural Assessment
Dem. Mr, Cucltna,
Per the request of WLC Architects our firin has completed a strocttlral ilecd assessment of tile yocuipa Sheriffs Station.

The eristinb 4herritf ", Station is Incited at. the Nordiwcst corner of Yucaipa Bou.lcvar(i and 5"i street. The struettlre has been reviewed in accordanoc with the 2M7 CBC as, an "Essential Facility"., C)ecupaney C'akegwy IV, ai-td %leimititr, Design C9t'ogory D. Our review ii basod on the =1R-built coastruc_tion doautuents which have been pra'vided. DrawinPs ,for the snutl7c rn wing, tl;c original structure, Were devt opc d in 1960 with the addition of tile'nortbern, wing desigiictl i.n 1976.

The Sli :rift's Station is a single -story CMlJ bearing wall structure with a full basement below the original southern wino, The southern want; of the structure is iipproxint}ltiyly 107 feet by 47 feet in plan. The nafthern wind; ;ir: approximately I 16 feet by 41 feet. The roclf is flat with heights dult vary botwcep 9 itnd 14 feet above finished floor. The r00f structure consist:4 of plywood dialbrapts supported by 2x froming at the southern wing and primari ly apen web joists (TJL) at the northers] wing.. The roof frantitiG is supporNA by C1VtL1 bearing walls on conventional (;ontiuurnls fol.Md itinfts. At tho millm wing the first 110m. is oast -in -place concrete, su}spotted by cast -in -place concrete joists and br..t ms. Plywr,od diaphragms suppoll:ed by CMJ shearu'alls provide lateral support. For the bnildings.

Our review of the subjed structure has revealed the following deficiesicies and poto!l ial mitigation sfrutegies.

1. That; ties and rollectots are inadequate or missing, Add collectors; straps with blocking and or new siruetural cnitectot• tnclnbers.

2. Tlie t_ MU wall tit; anchor gp to the diapbragai throii hunt both wings is not adequate.
- Add hold downs or other rnechanical anchorage to tip of CMU walls at 24-118" O.C. Attached to strut mechanism to transfer the WtI io tho. diaphragm, f'�U11icMacmm:�na\Ln'r�RlIU110 523.doc
! r) % ti i%t `ii `5ihl't i Si;f eft, Sl.!!l'l' i�., t )I"lt�l"IC!, C_,:f111C•I'f ltcl 91762 i?i xx le: 901) 982, 9',' 1 mXi 909-98 4-1f156 294

3. roof plywood sheathing and attachments at the southern wing, 318" Plyseord ShtMtlIin#, wilh 8d at 6- o-c.. is nominally oymsiressed. - Providc new plywood overlay on existing diaphragm with new nailing.

4. C:11l is midor roinliorml.
- Add reinfvreed slu3t(;R ft: to surface of C MU walls.

We CStinlate 1.11$t the structural rL'mediatlon dintliuccl above will Cost between .$4•0 and $50 pet' Square foot of the structure.

Should you have any qucstioas or rcgnire additional informatim please do not hesitate to Contact our office.

Sincerely,
C;arcl Stavcnson, P.L.

Principal
F. �. 1 �Oltircclix��memsU.2:7'niR�.tm)f}}Z�,duS
I f
295

TMALI-D ]t'AY.LOj9,-,S),,GALN
Yucaipa Sheriff% and Library Facility Assessment
1-16091340b.x2-i-pt
PIT

Page 26 ends

296

MEET MAD

STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERS
Anaheim Ontario Pasadena Phoenix- San Diego San Francisco Thousand Oaks Or:tunl ch- 26) 200.9
�C.7TY OFiT4J�.ANP.A.>f�,a'�TJCT, A�'��C'1fiL11T'6,.;- r 8ll W'kJi9(� I.,17f Ri'!,�1�� , ASSE5S-ESyAIEI1' 11' Slioriff's Station AssG,6s -ut with I °tidied fox-1CxELansiou 2ile;dIallic:al
l�,xi8tim� Ihnri6alivafs E=N€wtnvfl�5, I, and and AJ11- fl(l idiltiongg sf:r Rkh • The existing sheriff building is approximately 13,272 Sly. Ono scction was Built in 1960 and the addition in 1976.
• 'I'he existing 1960 building heating, ventilating and air conditioning system consists of three (3) Aero .Air split air conditioning systern with indoor gas funiaee (AC-5, AC-6, and A(i-7) and one packaged rooflop Lair conditioning with gas heating (AC-8). The condensing units and package units are located oxi the roof and the gas 11w-naces with cooling coils arc located in a mcc&&wi.cal room inside the building.

AC.-5 and AC-6 tic:rvc5 the general and private oflxcc. Both systems split type air conditio6ig units with gas ft"ace heating. Units were manufactured by Acro Air with it capacity of 3 tons cooling and 75,000 BTT.T gas heating. The original liumaces appears to have been replaced are about 20 years old. "1'hc condensing ants are replacement for the original equipment and. were approximately installed approximately in the 1990's.

AC-7 w-ve i the large meeting room and storage. Syste:I_-s is split type air conditioning waits with duplex gas furnace beating. Units wore manufactured by Aero Air with a capacity of 7.5 tons cooling and 150,000 BTU gas heating. The original fu maces appear to have been replaced and are about 20 years old. The condensing uatits arc wplacennent for the original equipment.

AC-8 serves the offices south of the large meeting rooms. This area used to be served by AC-7 and was disconnected as Dart of a renovation in this area. The area is now served by a packaged rooftop air conditioning unit with gas heating. Duct disttibution is done above Yucaipa Sheriff's and T.ibrary Pacilily A-"eSXT11Crlt
P609134 OOx2-rpt

Page 27 ends

297

H P Ed& �.�AINES March 26, 200'�
the roof•. No information on the unit is legible and to our estimation may be a 3 ton unit.

The unit was installed when the remodel was clone in 1976 Two ceiling mounted exlkaust fans are serving the: toilets adjacent to the meeting rooms, two ceiling fans cAmust t o toilets in the main toilets and one iat.ility typo fan moimted on the roof serve the other smaller toilets close to the gene-ra.l office. • The existing 1976 addition is served by four rooftop packaged units. All tnoamted on the roof.

AC-1 is ail International Comfort Product unit, 7.5 tons and is serving the Clerks, Squad room, Lockers and toilets. It appears that the origtnat equipment was replaced With this unit. No infonxaation is available on the units but appears to have been installed in than 19805s.

AC-2 serves the Evidence, Process area, Cells and electrical .axed equipment rooms. The unit is approximately 5 tons and appears to be the original installation. The uni,l i, m poor condition and past its useful life. No information is available for this unit.

AC-3 is a'York unit with a. capacity of 3 tons and serves the Offices, Lobby and Building Deparhnent. Unit appears to have replaced the; original in.,&-thaadou in the 1990's. Unit is still in good condition.

AC-4 serves the private offices and conference room. Unit is manuGwtured A.ero .Aare with a capacity of 7.5 Ton. It appears that the original unit was replaced with this unit approximately in the early 1980's. Unit is in poor physical condition.

Property, Evidence area and the Telecominunicatioo rooms are served by window typo air conditioning units.

Findings:
1960 Building
All the air conditioning units a.utl exhaust fans in tltc 1960 building are past their life expectancy.., in poor physical condition. and will require replacenactlt soon. One of the furnaces in the alncclimical room had the access panel dislocated and is hold physically by a metal wire.

The furnaces imtalled in the mechanical room are gas furnaces with no direct connection for outside air. Culzent code requires that outside air be provided at the rate of 15 C FIVI per person.

Yucaipa Sheriff's an.d t.ibraary Nacillty Assessineut Page 28 1160913400n2-Tpt
298

n r. T M A D
�rir
s. jz�cr� %c, ?ot�9
& (_'AI I\1.FS
DLLC.(worlc installed is the original ductwork and will need to be tested for lelkage, sealed and cleaned in order for it to be rC:LISCd. The insulation will also deed to be replaced due to age and deterioration.
a 1976 Addition
.A_11 the uliits serving the 1976 addition except for AC-3 are in poor physical condition and are past their useful life. They will need to he replaced soon. 7Iv oxhaust fares are also in poor condition find will need replacernent.

The locker room is currently served by AC-1 and also clue to the poor. air Orcull.atioti, portable fans have been installed. The room itsel f does not have adequate ventilation that is required to have proper air circulation.

It also appeals that Lllc present i irliHIL I 'Vellt11atlollVAC of 15 CFM per pL"csoi1 Ii)l' Fill itic spaces is not being Illet.

Duc;tworl: i3 the original installation and most likely has mgjor leakage 1ssucs. In addition the insulation may be deteriorating and will require replacement.

All refrigerants used for the air conditioning, units are Ozone depleting v'-f_i igeralit ; (11C:VC- -22) which is Scheduled prodocuon phase mil in 2020, Recommendations:

Rcplacc all Air Conditioning units and exhatist fails for both 1960 and 1976 building with new rooftop package units. All equipment will be install.txl an the root Additional structural supports as required will deed to he Provided.

Replace all ductwork with new insulated duct system.

Proposed Building Renting, Ventilating and Air Conditioning ftst:em 1960 and 1976 Buildings
]New system will consist. of High Efficiency Pkkaged rooftop GaslBlectric Air conditioning units complete with fil.let:s, compressors, condenser, fans, Cat sensors. and outside air econou.dzer, Demand control ventilations will also be provided.

Yucaipa Sheriff's and Library Facility Assessment Page 29 F60913400x2.-rpt
299

March 26, 2009
NeNv system will use iioii C;EC'refrigerants such as PURON or R 134a, Nl ,v System capacity will l7e as follows:
1976 i3uilding
AC-1
T5 tons
AC-2
S tons
AC-3
4 Tons
AC-4

7.5 '.Pons
Provide new exhaust fans each for Toilets, mechanical room, Janitors closet and locket rooms.
1960 Building
AC-5
4 Toiis
AC-6
4 Tons
A.C-7

7.5'1biis
AC-8
5 Tons
Provide new exhaust fags each for Toilets, mechanical room, aild. Janitors closets.

Provide new.gplit system unit for telecoin room.
• 5,000 SF new addition Tied into the existing,
The system for this addition will he similar to the inodihcation of the existing building.

The estirnated capacity of the new system is ten (10) new 5 ton packaged rooftop Caslelectric units_
Provide exhaust for locker roorns, break rooms, evidence and property arcs, and maintenance area.

Plumbing:

Original building construction was in 1960.

Nardi addition was constructed in 1976.

Yuoaipa Shariff's and Library 'Facility Assessment Pago 30 1160913400x2-rpt
300

0, T M A D
�� 0'_1 TAYLOR
E MEN & AINES March 2G, 2009
Fine Protection:

Building is not havinj, lire protection installed. Baseiwx nit area is required by c d(--, and as an essential building and would require total building protection.

Waste and Vent:

Cast iron lead and oakUrn waste Sydow and galvanizcd steel ve-wing are ohsolewent material along,%ith leaks and ABS hatching.

Outside building is a seNver septic system. Thi,,, would be, required to connect to the public street sewer system, if tool already done.
o Stor in Drain and Overflow:

Maui st.urin drain piping; .is concealed and ca►mot be sce►n. Material .is .probably the same as waste piping as indicated above. overflow drain appears -to be sheet metal from roof line, t1ml ceiling space thett out the side wall which does not meet code.

Water Piping:

Building water piping (t-TW, C XV) is a galvanized steel piping system with questionable water quality and shut off valve are gate type. Outsicla budding water Service would be too small for any Riture building addition amd there is no above ground back flow pmventer device, there; is a pressure reducing valve in a. vault. below grade. Water licalcrs appear aiew aid are anchored to wall.
• Natural Gas:

No eartliquake valve at meter. Exposed piping on roof is black steel piping and is rusting.

Gas Ilex comiection to water heater and A/C unit are not code approved and may be undersized.
• Dueling System. for Emergency (;eticration:

Dueling system including storage dnk, pumping unity piping and day tank do itol. meei present wde standards.
• Fixtctxes:

F.ixhires are clean and in working order. Pixtums do aaot ►rmm-t state mandated low flow, lead free or ADA requirements. Them is no trap primer to floor drains or vacuum breaker on hose bibs.
• F.ssenUal Faculty Building:

There is no 72 hour fueling system, domestic, water holding lank, or waste. holding fa►n1c system..
tioaipa Sheriff's and Library Facility Assw%%ni snt Page 31 P60913400x2-rpt
301

.� ORO & r�AI N S March 26, zoos
Car Maintenance:

These are a pottable air compressor and there znay be a. car wasti tig area with water Hovv to a storm drain system,
Recommendation atio n and 116uicliggss,
a Fire Protection: Provide total building fire protection system, Provide dispatch data rooms with a pre -action system or clean agent system.
0 Waste and Vent: Total system should be replac,cd.
9 Storm Drain and Overflow: Replace both storm drain and overflow piping- 4 Water Piping; Replace all building piping with copper type L with ball type shut off valve. Provide a reduce pressure type hack flow preventer above grade. Provide a new pressure reducing valve above grade at building.
+ Nattu,al Gas: Provide eartlh(juakke halve,, paintpiping and replace :flea connection with convL of ")do type.
0 Fucting System for Emergency Genera lor: Replace ert.1ire system to meet present, code. w Fixtures: Replace all fixtures with new.
4 Essential facility Building: Provide aill as indicated. m Car Maintenancc: Provide an area with compressed air and cleaning vacuum station for washing; automobiles. Provide a roofed port area with draitc to sewer "ith clari flex.

Convet-k Existing 1Libnvry to ;-,'Nwr°if'q'Stathd na vViith 1'pitelpfi.al for /Ac:eh anYeal
��i�fi!{�1160'f kfn.i9lz ixng IHla:y'tii�n}�, "✓_anflaiaiiu n ad Air,' k ontditionhigSystt-nk ffi The existing Cooling sy-ftni for the libraij.' consist of a 50 Ton air cooled abiller., chilled water circulating pumps, expansion tanks and our separator. All equipment. is located ozi the ioof.

Yucaipa Shoriff s and Library Facility Assessment — Page 32 P60913400x2-rpt
302

ONE T M A D
M.I N 0 T A Y L 0
`' & GAINES March 26, 2009
• Thie heating system for the Library consist ol`a 500,000 BTU gas fired heating hot. water boiler, heating hot waster circ«lating pumps, Mpan,'iffln lank and accessories. All cquipancnt is located in the mechanical room.

Piping is distributed from the Chiller and Boiler to the multi zone and constant volimie air bandling units.
• Air Hanclling system consist of tllc followalig.

One (1) 13750 CEM, multi zone air handling unit complete with beathig and cooling coils, supply fan and filters. Unit is located inside the mechanical room. Unit serves a total cf (',six zones and servos the stack areas of tho libnary.

One rooftop air handlinf, MIR, cbrlstnt vohatne, and with at capacity of 3000 C VM. This unit serves the community roomand lobby area.

Teutperatu.re control for the building is all Direct. Oigi tat system from cquiptncnt control to zotic controls.

Recommendaadiom and Findinpa5:
• The existing system for the Library is fairly new and recently installed cauiy part of this year. System is in great condifXon and is cull able for convcrsion to a Sheriffs facility.

Zoning may be limited to 6 zones for the multi zone tinit plus a zone for the roollop air handling unit.

IT additional zones are required, additional rooftop units or fan coil units can be added. 4- The proposed system for a new 12000 Sr addition will consist of the following to watch the existing systuna for the libAa.ry.

New air cooled chiller, chilled water circulating pump, expansion tank and air separator.

System is to match the existing wi.tl:t a capacity of 40 tons. Equipment will be located on the root.

New 400,000 BTU heating hot water boiler, eirc plating pumps, expwision taril: and air• separator..l_�quipnicnt will be located on. the roof.
'Yew hoof ait handling unit:, variable volume complete with cooling coils, pre Feat coils, filters, variable frequency drives and outside air economizer. System will include variable air volume poxes with reheat coils to provide for multiple temperature zoning,, Capacity of new unit will be app.roximautely 16,000 CIiM. Air will be distributed from the air li andling unil to the lerntinal boxes.

Yucaipa. Shoriff's and l,ibraary Facility Aase;ssrticrit Page 33 P60913400x2-rpt
303

MEMBTMAD

FAMADI TAYLOR
:I � &GAINES iviircn �t� ?ao�
Chilled water will be circulated from the chiller to the air handling unit.

Heating hot water will be circulated from the boiler to the air handling unit and reheat coils at the terminal units.

Exhaust will be pr()vided for: ttl.l toilets, evidence rooms, locker rooms, JaliilorS closet, electrical rooms and mechanical rooms.
plumbin
Original, NdIding constniction was 1960.

North addition was constructed in 1976.

Mechanical upgrading construction was in 2008.

Fire Protection:

Building is not fire protected.

Waste and. Vent:

All waste (mainly underground) and vent is concealed.

In 1976 the north addition indicated septic system was abandoned in place with a sewer connection to public street sewer system.

Storm Drain �md Overflow:

Minimal (10%) roof drains, trust (90%) is scupper and Sheet metal gutters/down spouts, whi,C.h is not a. plumbing item.

Water Piping:

Original building water piping is galvanized bite anti all hewer piping is copper. Some valves are gate type and some are ball type. Water heater appears to be new mid anchored iu wall.

Natural Cray:

No earthquake valve at ureter. '.the general pipe system appears adequate.

Fixtures:
mixtures are clean and in gcrlcral working order. Fixtures do not meet statc mandated low How and lead free requirements.

Yucaipa Sheriff's and Library Facility Assessment
1160913400x2-rpt

Page 34 ends

304

0"0 T M A D
L . .�h• "A &GAiNES
Reeomnnendaliohi and Fhadinas
March 26, 2009
Fire Protection: Building should be Luc protcctcd for insurance life/risk. liability and would provide UU11ACCtUEU allowaru:G ill uptrUdiilg Of L;XISIiilg buildiing.

A Waste and Vent: The sewer system shmild be inspected by cameraand reportconditions.

Storm Draia and Overflow: Architect to review scuppers and sheet metal work. m Water- Piping. Replacing all oi-iginal l>iuilding galvani:(Xd piping witfi copper type L piping.
o Natural Gas: Provide earthquake valve meter.
9 Fixtures: lZeplacc all fixtures with new.

Build a new 24,800 8I+ BIRUrinruf DU FXiSJUAW Site.
y1 ft- 11-43i4 I
Proposed air conditioning system for a new 24,800 SF building will consist of two(2) new Packaged Rooftop Units, variable volume type complete with 30% pro filters, 8511/o after filter, cooling coil, preheat coil, supply Can, T'etlRm. xim and outside ails economizer.

Each twit will have a capacity cif 50 tons each.

Variable air volume ten-nirnal boxes will provide to allow for nntltiplc temperature zoning. Each terminal boxes will consist of a. hot water preheat, sound attenuntor and direct digital control. Variable volume tonninal bones will be louited above the ceiling as close as possible to the zone it is serving.

Air will be distributed -From the. Package rooftop unit down to variable volume terminal boxes.
fl_eatin.g system. will consist of two (2) 400,000 13Tt7 heating hot water boilers 4 complete with circulating l,urnps, expansion tarnlc and air separator_ Heating hot water will be circulated fionn the heating hot water boiler. to the variable volume terniinaI boxes reheat coils.

Exhaust fans will be providing to exhaust toilets, janitors closet, lockers, Jdtchcn, lounge.

Etreas, evidence area and storage, and electrical rooms.

Yucaipa Sheriff's and ].,ibr:iry.Facility .A scssmcnt Pa-ge 35 P60913400x2-rpt
305

FROM

T M A D

MO TAY L O R
H ;.;, &GAINED March 26, 2tJog
Control system will be direct digital controls '4 idi BAC net open protocol.

TQlmoliununicatlon rooms will be provided with bl)lit syste n computer room air conditioning units. Redundancy will be provided.

Fire Protection: Provide a new wet pipe automatic fire sprinkler riser and piping to fully spriulde the entire building per NFPA guidelines. A new connection wi11 be required iin:ta the existing street water main with a detector check in a concrete vault and double check backflow prevetater located adJa-lcent to the building above grade.

Waste and Vent: A complete sanitary waste and vent system will be provide thr•ougliout tine building serving the toilet. rooms, bolding cells, lc tchen sink, mechanical cquipment, and floor drains. Systom will rein by gravity flow wherever possible. building drains which cannot be discharged by gravity flow will be. collected into sewage ejector pit with duplex ejectors. The effluent will be lifted atnd discharged into gravity drainage system.

All of tho sanitary waste and vent systems will be cat iron pipe with. hub and spigot or no - hub ,joints. Provide it new 6 inch sewer with 4 inch clean out to grade and will be colmectecl into (lie existing pu.bliv sanitary wwor on ;street.

Storm Drain and Overflow: A complete gravity, flow storm drainage system connecting to each roof and area drain, including collection from the under slab drainage (if required) will be provided. The syste►n will be sized based on 6 inches of rainfall per hour. Storm drains which. cannot flow by gn-avity will be collected in a sump pit with dufalex sump pump systern. The tinder slab drainage system (if required) will also be connected to the sump pit. The diluent from the ejeetors will connect to the; gravity systQoa in the building to die site; drainage systein.

Domestic Cold Water: A coilnection will be made to the public water service. The; inconii.cng service will be protected with a reduce pressure bade flow preventer above grade. Two (2) 4" reduced pressure backflow preventers installed on building service; in parallel for building containment and to protect the municipal water maia...And one (1) 2" reduced pressure backflow prevcnter for mechanical make-up. A new water w ler assembly fbr the building will be provided per the local water company.

Domestic Hut Water; One riatural gas atmospheric water heater serves All domestic hot wsrteJ In file buildingwith CILCuIatLll puIrip, a thermal expansiontank per current cock.

The water hoater will be provided with an cilcrgy sawing and seismically braced with two straps. Hot water piping will be located above the ceiling throughout the building with insulation.

Yucaipa Sheriffs and Library Facility Assessment Vage 36 P60913 100x2-rpt
306

MEN- TAYLOR
March 26, 2009
Natural {Tias: A new gas meter will be provided per the local gas comp aay with the earthquake vahle at incter to provide. for heating hart water boilers and domestic water 11C'c1 GE.

Fueling System for Eniergeney Generation: A new system including storage tank pumping unit, piping and day tank will be provided 'tbr essential building per code standards.

Fixtures: Plumbing,, fiXtUlIes will he Provided with low flow, lend free and !' DA requirements.

Essential facility 13ui1c i.Aag:.l.'.cavide a 15,000 gallon fou domestic water liolding tittalc aaad a 15,000 gallon waste holding tank for 72 hour service - Czar Maintenance: Provide mi area with compressed air and clewiing vacuum station Ibr washing automobiles. Provide a roosted port area with drain to sewer N ith clarifier.

Cost for MCC110aa.ieal $yStelus
We estimate that. the new nicehatkal and existing retnediation work ouam- ed above will cost approximately $28 to $30 per square .(ect.

Cost for I hRuabing Systems
We estimate that the new p1wribing and existing remediation work ocdlined above will cost approximatcly $10 to $12 per square feet.

Tucaipa Sle"'rifif".-4 and Library Facility Assessmet_t. i'awe 37
P60413,100x-2-rpt
307

A�S'SESt, 3WEP.Tr
CYVA & UqC.

Yucaipa Sht:rMs and Library Facility Aiimmnollt
P6091.3401}x2.-riii
I a ge 3 N
308

CWVk
CWA ew INC
9540 Center Avenue Suite 120
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
TPI (909) 948-2723 • Fax (909) P48-2731
Electrical Planning-Detiyn
Ruiginm ring . htudic:s
YUCAIPA. 81-JE tf1T'S FACILITY
I. GENERAL:
(Option 1/3 Consttutet new 24,800 square feet Polico Facility,) A, The Facility shall include new power serx-ice from serving utility coinliany tee 4.40V-12Q/2,0RV, 3-PH, 4W system. With now powerr distribution system tluouO,iout the facility.

B. New Emergency s(andby system of generators to suppoti the total counccted loads of the entire building-
C. New uninterrupted (UP18) battery systems to support the electaical loads until [lie, transfer of the emergency standby system assures the loads.

D. New interior and exterior lighting utilizing high efficient sources a:ud controls to provide adequate illuminati.ort flu-}ughout the facility and conform to 'Title 24 State of California energy codes,
E. N.w data system conduit utul backbone ir&astruoturo which will include maim distribution fiaine (MDF) and intermediate frarnes (TDF) with Mier multi -mode cable from MDF to I.DF's and Cat 6F copper to the deslctops to support the data system equiptmetlL.

F . New security intrusion, CG FV and care] access system to be included to srq�port access to dilTere:nt departments throughout the facility, intrusion tier specific areas to detect intnision and CCTV system to monitor holding areas, the complete facility mid the axterior .>li:eas and parking arcnu.

G. Fire alarm system. Provide a complete and fully automatic system throughout tile facility as required.
-I. .11ail/1-Iolding Cells, New security and locking systems for tine jail area. wr(b CCTV capability to -monitor all holding areas.
1:1. UPTION #3 ELECTRICAL COST ES'1'1MME: 24,800sf x $40/sf = $992,000.00 Pa1;c 39
309

EVJIL
CVM ew ASSOCIA-MS, K NC
9540 Genter Avenue Suitt; '120
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Tel (909) 948-2723 • Fax (909) 948-2731
k4cchical Ylannvig a Desvrjn.

Engin xving . Shtdies
`VUCATPA SHERIUT"S YAC1LITY

ELECTRICAL SURVEY
(41 "Nl?RAI.:
(Option 41 Remodel and addition to existingbuildi►.rg)
The existing Slicrifl's Statiuii building is approximately 13,300 square feet. Onc section built in 1960, the addition built around 19'/6.

The Iacility is presently served lions SCE. The inain switchboard is a 400 ,Amp,120/24OV, 3-PT.-I service and an emergency bade -up generator 25 kw engine driven diesel generator located adjacent the main service room.

The inaln svvitcllboard consists of two sections, the main and the distribution section.

The age of the equipmcirt appears to be in excess of 25 years and in Lair condition.

This could result in flit possibility ol'parts and components not being readily available for replacement and/or preventative maitatenanco.

REC.t 7 MM EN 1a.A'.t I ON S :

Provide a new 4-80 volt, 3 phase 120/208V, 3-PI1, 4W systeni's aidin switchboard sized as required to accomi nodatc the remodel acid addition as proposed. The new service would have to be reviewed and coordinated with the serving utility company and coordination of a, new underground infrastructLite and new utility transformer as required.

II. EMERGENCY STAND-BY SYSTEM:

Tlic emergency standby diesel generator is 25 kw, 120/24OV, 3-PH which serves critical emergency loads throul;hotit the facility.

Per our field observation the generator is access o1'25 years in age, fair couditiort.

This could result in the possibility of parts and components not being readily available for replacement and/or preventative inaintenarnce.

Page 40 ends

310

C''WA &
9540 Center Avenue Suite 120
Rancho Cuoamonga, CA 01730
Tel (909) 948-2723 o Fax (009) 948-2731
. e-driaul!'tanning * Design
Enginow-Ing • Studies
RECOMMENDATIONS:

Provide a new emergency diesel stand-by generator, and emergency distribution, systimi thal- i.s sued to suppoil. the total cleotrical loads throughout Qic facility in the case of a power outage.

Over and above the emergency stand-by system, provide; a IJPS battery system. to support the electronic loads for 15 min. until the stand-by generator seconds yeas urhes those loads which prevent crashing of such loads due to transl`ot time in less than 10 seconds.

III. LIGHTING SYSTEM:

Lighting interior and exterior for the most part throughout the facility consist of a variety of incandescent and fluorescent fixtures. The condition of most IyYlutes is poor condition and obsolete and in excess of 2.5 years in age. I'liat could resul t in, the possibility of pants and components not being readily available for replacement and/or preventative maintenance. '.l'Iie exterior lighting appears also in poor condition, with inadequate levels of illumination throughout the qj Lu and parking areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Interior and exterior lighting should be replaced utilizing high efficiou( sources to upgrade the levels of illumination; thus enssuting a condition of higher efficiency and conforming to title 24 State of 0difornia.

IV. PYRE ALARM SYSTEM:

Me facility currently does not have tire, alarm system.

REC;OM`MENDATTONS:

Provide a new hilly automatic fire al<mn system flu-oughout the facility which will conform to local and states codes.

V. SF,.C,' TRITYCQTV AND INTRUSION SYSTEMS:

The facility currently does riot have a security system.

Pit') u,4 1
311

rry'k. 1.
9540 Center Avenue Suite 120
Rancho Cucarnonga, CA 91730
TPI (909) 948-2723 a Fax (909) 94ti-2731
Ele-uWv-el Planning eDesign
Enghicarhu3 o : ihidymv
TtECOMENDATIONS:

Provide a CCTV and security inttusion systems throughout. the facility and access control.

V1. DATA SYSTEM:

The current system appears in poor condition and number of additions with exposed cabling,
ItHCOMTsNDATION:
.Provide a new da(a syAetn including MDI: and IUP's throughout Ole ?acility to accommodate alt work, stations etc.

Vll. JAIL SECURITY:

Tho faciTity per our field observations does not luive Jail security system that meets the current teelmulo y.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Provide a new security with CCTV capabi.)i.ty to monitor and secure imitates in the holding celts and throughout the facility.

VIII. OP'11O-Nf #1 ELECTRICAL COST ESTiM,/\TF: I4,800sf x $401sf - $992,000.00

Page 4 ends

312

aCW2R �'a �SOCYAPrYiffi, YY9�:
9640 Center Avenue Suite 120
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
I -of (909) 94tr-2723 • Fax (909) 948-2731
Hkctricnl I'ianning - Design
Rng nukn`ng • Studies

YUCAIPA BRANCH LIBRARY

ELECTRICAL SURVEY
{iV'NV',RA1..:
(Option 42 Convert library to Sheriffs Station and add a 12,100 square foot addition).

Thu original library building was c:unstructcd, appruxitriately, in 1969, the west addition -was consp-ucted in 1987.

The; (aoility is pr,t=n-dy served from SCE. The main. switchboard is a 800 .Amp, 120/208V, 3-PII, 4W service.

The age of tlic cquip.uicnt appears to be in excess of 20 years and in fair condition. '!iris could result in the possibility of parts and components not being rcadi ly available Iin- replacement: and/or preventative maintenance.

RECONIMENDATIONS:

Provide a new 480 volt, 3 phase 120/208V, 3-PH, 4W systetn's inain switchhoard sized as requirod to acconutiodate the proposed remodel and addition. The new service would bave to be reviewed and coordinated with. the serving utility company and coordinitioti of a dew underground infrastmeturc and new uti lity transfortner a5 required.

II. EML;I&GENCY STAND-BY SYSTEM..

Existing emergency standby system does not exist.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Provide a new emergency diesel stand-by generator and emergency distribution system tliat is sized to support tiic total. electrical loads throughout the facility in the case; of a power outage.

Over and above the emergency stand-by system, provide a UPS battery system to Support the electronic loads for 15 min. tuitil the standby generator seconds

Page 43 ends

313

G4.'Vt>A A"OCN,MES, INC
9540 Center Avenue Suite 120
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
TO (900) 948-2723 a Fax (909) 948-2731
Elimirical Flarating . Desiyn
Er1010wiNcl • SYe1 EO
rcassuincs those loads which prevent crashing of such loads due to transfer time in less than 10 seconds.

ITT, LIGHTING SYSTEM:

Lighting; interior and c xterior for the most part throughout the gracility consist of a variety ofincandeseent and fluorescent fWures. The condition oftrtost lixlures is fair condition and obsolete: and in excess of 20 years in age. That could rc;sult in the possibility of parts md. components not being readily available fur re>plac:ernent and/or Preventative maintename. The exterior lighting appears also in boor condition, with inadequate levels of illumination thaoerghout the site and parking areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Interior and exterior liglatiaag, should be replaced utilizing high efficient sources to upgrade the levels of i1hunitxation; thus ensuring a condition of hit her efficiency and conforming to title 24 State of California.

M 11MI ALARM SYSI' M:

The facility ctufrently does not have fine alarm system.

RECOMMFNDATiMPS:

Provide a new fully {automatic fire alarm system duuoughout the facility which will conform to local and states codes.

V. ST"'C1711YTY M"T'V AND 1N•FRUSi.ON SYSTEMS:
1'he facility cwTemly does not have a seeataity systein.

REC:OMENl)M IONS:

Provide a CCTV and security iutnision systems throughout i:hc facility and access control.

VI. DATA SYSTi :M:

Page 44 ends

314

LIM4L
0540 Cantor Avonue Suite 120
Rancho Cucamonga, (:A 91730
Tel (909) 948-2723 o Fax (909) 948.2731
RPIxertrival Planninq • Uevign
h':rqutFt rirtq s ,Stvdtes
The cut -rent system appears iii poot condition and number of additions with exposed cabling*.

Rt C:O MLNDATIC)N:

Provide a new data system iuctuding TADF and. Tr}}-';; ifiriMA1,1liuut (11 , I'ZICili(y i-O ,iccomnaodate all work stations etc,
VH, JAIL. I IOLDING C'.I;LI_ S S:tsCt 1 RITY:

Scmirity system dnc4 nt)t exist.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Provide a tiew security witli CCTV capability to monitor and secure i1nniates iti the holding cells and throughoixt the ficiIity.

VHL OPTI(-)N #2 FLLCTR.t(.Ar. c.:C)ST rsTINIATF; 12,100sf x :,'y-oi5i'= $4- 4,000.00 .l'agc 4.5
315

f
�
J
v i`1
t4r r�T,
y4.
':fit
i
1TSrv'%�
°
r n

OTHER SITE

CONCEPTS CONSIDERED
�q
,r
�`�T•�'t�+f3 ��
�{ qL_h ice¢ }1 � I 1
R 3 'by1�a—y��`ad i1�

PTT. \,� r,I[HENif o --. Olf'C- EEIVI SHE COV,!CEP TS Cc,:' N$ID RE- D Report to the City of Yucalpa
Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc.

Neods Assessment Study
Attachments
317

QD'➢'k-➢6S➢b P�IL'll'I'�1(ol�ll�'➢'1VIl;��: G;f1f�i.`,2:f,I�1CIRICI:�

OVERVIEW
in an initial Shady Phase for the Sheriff's Station and Library, several site design alternatives were evaluated all of which illustrated the: primary development options believed to exist at the time, Each site and building alternative was evaluated and compared leased upon site plan cortliguralions and building area required by 2040 space and parking needs. From these basicconsiderations, the follow- ing site alternatives were developed find OWALIatod during the Initial Study Phase of the project.

SHERIFF'S STATION S➢` E ;TUI)Y ALTERNATIVES
Site Alternative PD-0: Leave the° She r1 "s Station us Is Site Alternative Pl)-l: Expand and ran vats' the existing ,Slre:ri f's Station Site Alternative PD-2(Xoty PD ,'Vl).- Demo existitt� Sherifi`''.c .4truin/l !.trill reldac e. tvilli nee, building Site Alternative PD-3: Relocate. Lihrary and renovate Library to meet Sherj's needs Site Alternative PD-4(11ro►v PD 1'V2): Relocate Library' and dart o. Rel.jiuce with new S'hej-' # .V 'Vita iOn Site Alternative PD-5: New .Shai,?f�'.P St(dltli/'/ Gtl Gr /Ye VY Z/t/3yE:C r�CCI ,Y%tC'• Site Alternalive YD-0: Leave the Sherri��'s Building as is Allernulive PD-0 is to do nothing to the existing Sheriffs Building.

Sile Alteritalive PD-1: Expand and Renovate the Existing Sherfff's Station Alternative PD-1 is hawed upon the intent to ntaxirtuze the use of the existing Sheriff's Station and to minimize new building Construction to tine extent possible. There are 3 options within this alternative. Al- ternative PD-1,1 places a one-story, 11500 sl' addition on the: cast side of the existing Shcriff's Station which would eliminate the largest parking lot from the Sheriffs site to accommodate the addition. Alterna- tive PD-1.2 creates two one-story additions, one on the cast side preserving the parking lot and the second addition on the south lawn fronting Yucaipa Boulevard. All the redwood trees would have to be elimi- nated to allow for the south addition. Alternative: PD-1.3 Would create a two-story addition on [lie south lawn or a two-story addition on tile. east side of lire building which would preserve the trees but encroach into the east parldrie lot. Within these options there exists a deficit of 34 to 36 required parking spaces.

Conclusion:
'Phis alternative will require extensive costs to meet essential services scismic and life safety standards.

Also, the primary building, mechanical, electrical and core facilities require total replacement to meet pub- lic safety standards, In this scheme, surfact? parking will not meet total parking demand, Although Site op- tions meet year 2040 space requirenietlts, the plan configuration is the most inefficient because the new expansion Space be constructed which results in ICS4 functional building additions. 'Phis approach depcnels upon a scrius of construction phases linked together with numerous transitional occupancies which prevent any sort of reasonable interim occupancy by the Sheriff's Department. Bccausc of these factrns, overall construction time is the longest. which results in higher construction and project costs.

Report to the City of Yucaipa Needs Assesstnent Study
Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Attachnnents
318

She Allernatipe PD-2 (Now PD-1V' 1): t)emolish the R'xisting Sherf/1's Statfun and repiace. it with a new building
Now referred to as PI)-N l in the rocan(tii(a akornativas. (his option considers the possibility of construct- ing a new facility on the Sheriff's Station site, The existing Sheriff's Station would he demolished and a new two-story building would be oorrrttructod in its place. This approach would consolidate building mass, and footprint, and would employ surface parking area to meat squired year 2040 building space and park- ing needs. This alternative meets space requirements by construc(iog a new two -level building. The result is a Single compnd and funcl.iowd s(ructure. The compact structure will allow for additional site available to barely meet the parking demand. 0I)titrurtn funeiional relationships and building systems can also he achieved. However, this approach extends the constnrction phase, and occupancy ol'the Sheriffs staff will have to locate to an interim Incation, prresihly In boilers, during the construction of the new facility.

Conclusion:

The costs for relocation of the Sheriff's Department to another cite during construction will lurve to be considered. Because of this factor, overall constnrction time is increased which uontribulcs to increased construction and project costs. Alternative Ply-2 is a viable option bul it is more. expensive than Alterna- tive PD-1. The building will be compact, Cunctional, and efficient -- designed to the spenitic nendS of ihc:

Shcritl'x 1Dpartnient, however the costs are the highest.

Site Atterrtative PD-3: Relocate Library corn.! Renovate Library to Meel Slterf& Needs This alternative moves the library function to another location and relocates the Sheriff's Department to the Library Building. The existing Library structuremust be brought tip to meet essential services seismic and life safety standards. A new two-story 12,700 sf addition would be constructed on the west side of the existing building to meet the 2040 required space needs. The new roof and inechanical units of the exist- ing struuturc; meet the current Title 24 energy requirements and can remain in place to serve the existing building for a cost savings. This alternative allows interim occup:nicy of the existing Sheriff's Station without issue or interruption d1,11-in5 alteration of the Library Building. Site parking will not he adequate unless additional parking is developed at the existing Sheriffs Facility site after the Sheriff's Departnncat moves into the newly updated Library structure. The existing Sheriffs Facility can then be demolished for new parking or ctnr be sold to offset cost,.

Conclusion:

Overall constriction time is less than Alternative PD-I and Ply-2 which will save some cost and the Sher- iff°~ Department remains operational during construction. The relocation of the Library tins cost implica- tions and a new site will need to he determined. New Parking at the existing Sheriff's site will riot niecl parking demand, if parking is developed at the existing Sheriff's site, the parking and overall site are bi- furcated due to the bus drive for the proposed transportation center cutting through the site.

Report to the City of Yucaipa Needs Assessment Study
Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Attachments
319

Site Alrerna iw PD-•3 (Nv►p PD-IV2): Relocate Library and D mrnlish Library and Kel)lace wilh New She - Building
Now referred to as FLU-N2, this alternativC Constructs a nCW ShCriff'S Facility on the l.ihrary Sile.'I'Ire Gx- isting Library would he demolished and relocated and a new 2-story Sheriff's Station would be con- structed in its place. Once the building is constructed, the City has the option to demolish the existing Shc- riff's Slalion for additional parking or sell the situ. This xllemativc would consolidate building mass and li>atprirtl, and would employ Surface parking only il' additional parking is developer] at the future transportation center northeast lot to meet required year 2040 building space and parking nccclv,'I'his frl- tcrnativo allows inlurim uccupaney of the. existing Sheriff's Station without interruption during construc- tion ol'the Flew Sheriff's Building.

Conclusion:

Overall construction I inic is less with this A(urnativu, but (tic, costs for relocation of the Library to an other site will have to he addressed. Overall construction time is decreased which contributes lU de- civascd construction and project costs. Alternative PD-4 is a viable option and is the least expensive al- ternative.

Site Alternative PD-Sr brew Sheriffs Station. cal New Urrspecrrled Site This rnncept considers the porWhility of constrntcting a new f-snilily on a new 2 acre site., and uses a two- story building approach to consolidate building mass and foorprint, and eulploys surface parking area to meet required year 2040 building space and parking needs. Optimum i'unctionai building and parking re- lationships are achieved. Because of these factors, overall construction lime is the least which cont•il-)utcn to optimum construction costs. Land acquisition and off -site street iniprovemenl costs make this alterna• tive as costly as P11-3; however, this alternative allows for the resale of tilt existing Shcrill;s ,Jtc. Therc is no exhibit for this alternative since the site is unspecified. conclilsion:

Overall construction time is less than most ol• the alternatives, which contributes to decreased construction and project costs. Alternative PD-5 is a viable option and may be. one of the least expensive compared to all alternatives since there are no library relocation costw and the existing Sheriffs site can be sold to off- set cosls.'1'hc building will be compact, functional, and efficient designed to the specific needs of the She- rifl''s Departmcnt.

Report to the City of Yucaipa Needs Assessment Study
Submitted by Griffln Structures, Inc. Attacltmenes
320

LIBRARY SITE STUDY ALTERNATIVES
Sire Alternative LIB-0: Leave the Library built inn aN is Site. Alternative LIB-1: i.xl)and the ( isti►rg L.ibrmy,forLibrar;v use Site A ter•native GIB-2: Vacate the Librcxry for Sheriffs lass?, new Library sit..

Sh'e Alk?rnrtive LI—R-0: Leave Me Librzu:v building as is Alternative LIB-O is to do nothing to the existing Library Building.

Site Alternative LIB-1: l;:xpu►7c1 the exisling- l.ihrary f(nr library use Alternative. LILT -I is based upon the intent to maximize the use of the existing Library by expanding it to 25,000 sl' to meet 2040 space requirements. There are three options within this alternative. Alternative T.TB-1.1 places.1 large two-story addition on the west side of the building which eliminates all parking at that location. Lost parking is offset by a new 55-space lot to the north. In order to achieve 2040 parking demand, a 20-space lot must be developed at the northeast edgtG or Ihp now TnutspurtaGon Center. Altcrna- tive, LIB-1.2 wraps a 13,000 sf additioa on the north and west sides of the building. While this alternative mevis the required space needs, parking demand cannot be nict with this alternative with parking loss on' the north and west sides of the building. Alternative LTTI-1.3 adds anew facatdc to the Libnuy by placing an addition on the east and west sides of the building. The east addition provides opportunity to add space and provides a new facade to the public street side in keeping with the architectural style of the stew City Ilall. The west addition is smaller than Alternative LIB 1.1, preserving 14 spaces on the west side of the building. Parking demand can be met with this third option.

Site Alternative LIB-2: Vacate the. Lihrzu_v fur S•herif ar.s., n.tv Libra►y ,site Alternative LIB-2 relocates the Library to another Site in order to place the Sheriffs. function at the existing Library site as outlined in Alternative PD-3 and PDA of this report. There are two ;cub -alternatives for the relomition of the Library off -site. The first Alternative LM-2.1 moves the Library into an unspecified. exit- ing commercial building in a strip mall. The existing building would have to be refufbished to function as a library. The connnercial building must be a minimum of25,000 square feet and have adequate parking to nmr.Ct 2040 parking dcunund.

The Second sub -alternate 1.111-2.2 construcls a new I.,ibrtry building cilher at the Civic Center complex or another site within Iho City. A traininnurn of rat 1-1/2 atarc site would be rcquircd for a 25,000 squam foot building and adequate parlchig for 84 vehicles. There is no exhibit for this alternative since the site is tn- ., -ified.
*1 Ipon rarrfitl rrvirw, it was drrirind that mjaptation, rense, and PXI)nnsiau of the existing Libmry building its it Police De- partment facility is not workable due to structural requirements kin• esxenlial aCryicc8 buildings, fnnctionit configuration of the existing structure, and overall cast considerations, *Crttllorl I lilts Community Collcgc was studiod as an alternative area fora Kid's Libraty.

Report to the City of Yucaipa Needs Assessment Study
Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Attachments
321

SHERIFF'S STATION DFVFLOPMF.NT ASSF.SSMFNT MATRIX
Sifadlssessmenf
Altornnre.. PD-I
Alternate PD-2
Alternate PD-3
Alternate PD-4
Allemative PD•5
Cl•iferl'a
BApfid Allu Rclwwc
Duululish odic exilailig
Rulucatu Library and
Relncate Uhrnry.and
New ShnrifPA Slnrioo ill
Ulu Wdstillp slietllfli
Sherill's Stdtion alid
Renovate library In
I enlnlld'. Lihin.y'nlld
Now Unspceilied Site.
sladw
Ruplax it with a NUW
Mrql Sherirrs Needs
Reriare vri-h Nrw
Building
scent's mudding
1nnAiie Danctinnid
Low efficirn;.y due.. to
Cinrvi rtfiripligdur. to
14W elflrlolcyduc lu
Ouad elliciurey due bl
Cuod efficiency due to
Flo icira �:.v
uunwruua—Ndug
I ihh.lz
nunwroux existing
compact mw building
.myna new dud Wing,
building cunitrainb
Wiul Lss crvlsitainh, and
huilding cnnorninti
Willi kss crlllAtrainls Alla
,.l;,icucd Willi A:W
;urd hiniled Yitc area.
cunxllidated site area.
and lilniled sir urea.
eivxolidntcd Alto area,
ronstrF1015 mid Inrpor
tluiki,ne Area Ptovidcsi
: AU it
24,813.,d'
7A,613 al'
2-1t113 of

2.1,013 sf
SVacc NO`ais t,:npnrhy
2U'10
2010
2040
90411
iTkmg Heeds Capacity
Ilnreariblr
rlell'ible
IInM.nsihir.
1'1.21YIbIV
- l'l'aYible
Hacomt Abaternern
Y::>
Vn:,
�—
Ygat
Ycs
IVn
InlciimQrrnprrnry
-
'apuctiy
Shurilfhoillucl
Sherin llnpact
r.ihraryTrnp;cr
billowy Inliw,
Ni hapocx
Pre.-prrly Anqurrillon
L5 Anrrs mgalre.d
I S Acres Regained
2 Aires far Shexiff'A
tcyuired
None
K:Ina
rnrUhrn y •
for Libinry
31uLUn
Shoill's Ptupurl,+
cyuisifluu Cmis
$ DAn
Ann
$ 0,60
$ 0.01)
I.-HUMLIH
lnieriul Uccupaucy
costs
$ 11.136,842.O0
$ 1,117.012,0D
S OJ10
$
$ 90.M.00
$ 01J
laeulat C'u.i+
$ 99,540.00
$ 99.540.00
$ 90.015n0
LnCu<II;
.._
$ 2:151,67'.00
$ 2,152.902.0D
$ 2;163!1•IAAu
9; 21122,117.(D
$ aJ);3,717i11
Silclfnll[bnp
Construction Cntts
$ 9.911;114.60
$ u:r,ti'll,}Jtt,1JIY
s 9.40,23U.00
1 10,361,796.110
$ IN177,969J011
inl0.6ts
$ I?,�nl;lY1,00
$ 13044,972.00
:R 1L1840,05Y.UU
S 12,477.79RAD
S 13,951,6845A
'hcril'l'a Situ Itc;ale
cvennr:
$ will
$ U.UU
$ {:,13-0,UUt1.W)
S {1,134j.100.01T1
S (1,14DOOD.40
1-oraly Rclocnlion
—
vsts'
k 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 1,353,339.00
$ 4,13,1,119m
$ 0i1
Rer'erencu Library Assessment
Matrix Page 10 riircnsthr
ak dnWn_
Report to the City of Yucaipa Needs Assessment Study
Submitted by Griffln Structures, Inc. Attachments
322

YU(.'AIVA BRANCH LIBRARY DKVKL0PMP,N'I.' ASS :5SMYNT MATRIX Site M.Sesment Criteria
Af telwat: LIB -I
Expand h& aling Minty lur
Library uv
Alml-rintc LTR- 1.1
Vxcaw ILc Library I'm Sherill% use
Alternate Lib-L:d
Tludd a new l.ihmry at n nrty sirn
Ian Site t'unctimal nlftciency
1 JlP effizlency clue to ntlmennus
existing hnildinA constraints and
liudtcu situ arca,
t?xicling cnmmercinl In" 1041A n•il11
In . opw A,CA with taxi
consmahm.
(JOW ollwivaoy duv lu cumpact
nov building wide Ie: constraint,
nnA rnnsnllAnrcA &0a nron,
Rniiding hrrn PrnvidrA

2.^',nnn rf
23900 A
25,1)(Xl sl'
tilwec Necds Cotaui[y
2m40
21Mm
2044
Pnrking `lrrds Opr,.iry
Fungible,
Fvfraiblc
Feasible
Irtrrim p:Cupancy Capucily

1.'hT;" Im-pact
Tb.Whle _
Lihrnry Impno
NU Impact
larmat Abatement
Vr& for Sheriff& I lay
N,,
Ye:: IS Acres
.f, 1:176,120,1'
5 n,a
Prpparty .drelni&Ilinn Rrgnirrd
No
Nu CUmtnctclal Lca;a Space
Properly Acquisition Cwts

0.00 S n,nli
,lydul Uauupaacy CQv Ib
2- 7,223.00
!71,1 f;$ ipf?
S -- -- - 15(1470.0,
? 0.00
H:,r.mnl (aral�
$ G.00
v' UK
SrACnsrc
4• y7G!J3:{.UU
$ 1?12:,393.1Y
S 9,UG2.861A"
She nuiklingCemitructionCmscs

7.197,10L.0
4,i�3;39!:.OU
l'nlal ecom

9.UG2,629 f'
y S,i4!l,i?1,mm

11.660,374A
t'.mnmrrr:inl hnildinp. Irrar. cars nnr irch[drrl.

Report to the City of Yucaipa Needs Assessment Study
Submitted by Griffin Structures, Inc. Attachments
323

L C
Architects, Inc.
13 WOO Spaces
Spa z E S
4-1 Y
AiLl
4).

H31M
1,500 S.f.
15 E,
(E) Sheriffs
IF
Deficit Parking Spaces 36
q in lLp-mm
-pity of Yuca i poal
PD-1.11
324

El
17M
C FJ f �:Iti ti'IR: K.'li �zls� ,.C•.

WLC
,-, Lects, Inc_
r !Al'
PBC S
+
'
I
S
(E Space;
2 -::N Space,
t
w a•
-
1 YY I ff _�L``
1 Stc"
6,500 s.
.

Area C 20
Grand Total 72
Total Parking Required 106
At Buildout
Deficit Parking Spaces 34
-Cityof Yuca i po
PD-1 .2
325

(�d) Spaces P
Y1
-rf
Parking Summary
-(E) Utiea. Existing Spaces 32
77,77 Area A + Area B +2 New 20
Total 52
ace Area C 20
Grand Total 72
Total Parking Required 106
_-,{j�- At BltlidOUt
_ — r 1 i Deficit Parking Spaces 34
- it- _✓
4' r
aces
Z - [E 5Fa
- spa - I' ! I .�pvc.e e
2 , s
-
i
2 St�aies -
- 11,_C-0 S.i.
- UCa'
o
,WL y -. . �
Architects, Inc.
326

a
7 _ —sn
7 ;c 0
xv
Q5
i;R:F11t S'+RI.C.-i'LRtrt }\f�,
Architects, Inc.
' „� (ri} Spaces c
� l _ - I
S � 1

01. Parking Summary
�.
r - (E) Library Area A + Area C 32
r
Area B + 20 New Public
Spaces 59
:".Spa« _ Grand Total 10 1
Total Parking Required 106
' At BUIldOt1
4r
Deficit Parking Spaces 5
�—
1 }
u
y
'
' 49. i Phi S=cu�eJ �
241
p
�-S-7Pl_PS
-F
24a _ _..
—
- -- '.I: 1, r of Yucaipa
PD-
327

It t
Cl-
WLC
Architects, Inc.

Yucai
PD-3
328

9w
"PIN,
C�F7�i/lJ$'I�r. c/T7 RY'It �;P
• T .iT..t C
Architects, Inc.

Area-B-r
N) Space
5 I' Area C
(N) 2 Stories
l - �oace _ i'. 24,813 5.f. — -
�.:
_ ! Area A
�z� SLe�rs
-—
Parking Summary
Existing Spaces 13
Area A 1 Area B 34
Total 93
Total Parking Required 106
At Buildout
Deficit Parking Spaces 0
--- — --
n
_o uca
PD
329

-... F- 1 -47�
v
cswF7r tirH�.ciz Esr:c�.

NWIC
.architects, Me.

E
F P
•--- -----r--- 1
Area .B�1
z =7'
r
WES
�-
�— Parking Summary
p (E) Library Existing Spaces 13
E _e � � ' T ' �� Area B + Area C 75
G Grand Total $8
EI
�T Spaces
#Jpc Z Stories r -
-J:z;aeo s.` Total Parking Required 84
%r 5 At Buildou
AM
Deficit Parking Spaces 0
(E erifrs
.n
City or Yucaipa
LIB-1.1
330

GRIa'1 r� S: Ri./li:R6C tit'.

L C
Architects, inc.

Area B_'! �-•�
(E) Library'
aces i.
1j
t ?
I- r`—I s
{ a

7.G
r
� r
Parkina Summa
Existing Spaces
13 Area B A- Area C
52 Grand Total
75 i
Total Parking Required
84 At BUildOUL
Deficit Parking Spaces 9
.City. of Yucaipa
LIB-1.2
331

LC » a \ . LIB-1./
c,i! d& Inc.
332

■
O The Returns to Public Library Investment
cc
Gregory Gilpin, Ezra Karger, and
QPeter
Nencka
O
ct

REVISED
July 2021
WP 2021-06
https://doi.org/l 0.21033/wp-2021-06
7 'Working papers are not edited, and all opinions and errors are the responsibility of the author(s). The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago or the Federal Reserve System.
333

The Returns to Public Library Investment
Gregory Gilpin` Ezra Kargert Peter Nencka 4§
July, 2021
Abstract
Local governments spend over 12 billion dollars annually funding the operation of 17,000 public libraries in the United States, yet we know little about their effects. We use data describing the near -universe of public libraries to show that public library investment increases children's attendance at library events by 18%, children's checkouts of items by 21%, and library visits by 21%. Increases in library use translate into improved test scores in nearby school districts: a $1,000 or greater per -student capital investment in local public libraries increases reading test scores by 0.02 standard deviations and has no effects on math test scores. 'Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University tFederal Reserve Bank of Chicago
*Department of Economics, Miami University
5Thanks to Riley Acton, Matthew Birnbaum, Lauren Jones, Kurt Lavetti, Dean Lillard, and Bruce Weinberg for helpful comments on prior versions of this work. We also thank seminar participants at the Association for Public Policy and Management, Association for Education Finance and Policy, Case Western Reserve University, Miami University, and the Institute for Museum and Library Science for their feedback. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago or the Federal Reserve System. 334

1 Introduction
Research shows that neighborhoods play a critical role in child development. Where a child grows up affects their academic performance, long-term educational attainment, and labor market outcomes (e.g., Chetty and Hendren, 2018a; Chetty and Hendren, 2018b; Chyn, 2018). But despite a recognition that location matters for child development, there is much to learn about which local policies and institutions create beneficial neighborhoods. In particular, while a large literature has studied whether and how local public school spending translates into student achievement, less is known about the effects of other policy levers available to local governments.

In this paper, we analyze a ubiquitous yet understudied local institution: the public library. In 2018, there were 9,261 library systems across the United States with 15,427 branches. Libraries spent 12 billion dollars on operating costs and patrons checked out over 2 billion items.' This funding supports widespread library use: more than 50% of Americans visit public libraries each year. Beyond their collections, libraries also provide instructional programs on topics ranging from literacy to computer usage, job search, and tax preparation; and they serve as one of the few non-commercial indoor spaces available to the public.2 A particularly important focus of library services is child development. In 2018, children checked out more than 750 million library items and attended events more than 80 million times at libraries nationwide.

Despite the popularity and abundance of libraries, there is little evidence about their effects.

This is due to two major challenges. First, the vast majority of public library operations funding is determined locally; in 2018, 86 percent of library funding was provided by city and county governments, with only 6.8 and 0.3 percent, respectively, coming from state and Federal sources.' This local operating spending is relatively stable from year-to-year, limiting researchers' ability to 'All statistics from the 2018 version of the Institute of Museum and Library Services' (IMLS) Public Library Survey.

We discuss the construction of these data in Section 2. 2Building on Andrew Carnegie's observation that libraries are "palaces for the people," Kleinberg (2018) argues that libraries improve community health outcomes by providing vulnerable residents with a refuge of last resort. 'The remainder of funding is classified as coming from "other" sources in the IMLS data, and includes private foundations and philanthropists.
335

exploit policy -generated changes in annual expenditures. When operating expenditures do change, it is often due to shifts in local finances that may affect other locally provided services, like public schools. Second, there is limited understanding of how changes in library expenditures affect library resources and patron usage. Without estimating the public library production function, it is difficult for researchers and policymakers to understand how library investment generates community benefits.

We use new data and methods to address these challenges. We study how capital investment in public libraries affects library operations, patron usage, and local communities, with a focus on student achievement. We use detailed panel data on the near -universe of public libraries and school districts in the U.S. We compile library spending, revenue, and usage data collected annually in the Institute of Museum and Library Services' Public Library Survey. We link this data to district -level test scores from the Stanford Education Data Archive (SEDA) and zip code -level housing price indices from Zillow. Using this data, we examine a specific type of library expenditure: capital spending on major renovations and new library buildings. Unlike day-to-day expenses, capital investments are lumpy, allowing us to identify discrete changes in public library investment across every library system in the United States between 1992 and 2018. We show that the timing of these large-scale investments is orthogonal to changes in other local government spending and local demographics.

Using these sharp changes in investment, we estimate the causal effects of library capital spending with dynamic difference -in -difference models. We use a recent method that avoids biases common in staggered difference -in -difference designs (Callaway and Sant'Anna, 2020). We first estimate the effect of capital spending on library resources and usage. We find that capital investment sharply increases library visits (by 21%), children's checkouts of items (by 21%), and children's attendance at library events (by 18%). These increases in usage persist for at least 10 years after capital investment. Capital investment also increases library book holdings, employees, spending on salaries, and operating expenditures. In other words, library capital investment 336

increases both the quality and usage of libraries.

Next, we test whether library capital investment affects children's academic achievement. We find that library capital spending increases nearby children's reading test scores by 0.02 standard deviations on average in the seven years following the library investment shock. This is the first quasi -experimental causal evidence that public libraries improve the academic performance of children. We find no evidence that library investment affects math test scores, consistent with the reading -focused mission of libraries. We test for heterogeneous effects of libraries across community and student characteristics. We find that effects are largest in smaller districts and in districts that spent the least per -student on school capital improvements over our sample period.

Together, these results suggests that the effects of libraries are larger when libraries are more salient in the local community and that libraries may play a compensatory role when communities are investing small amounts in school infrastructure. Across child characteristics, we see no evidence of differential effects by grade or socioeconomic status. We find some evidence that our effect sizes are smaller for Black and Asian students and larger for white and Hispanic students, but we cannot reject sizable effects for all subgroups.

How do these increases in student test scores affect broader community outcomes? School spending often translates to increases in local housing values (e.g., Cellini, Ferreira, and Rothstein, 2010; Nielson and Zimmerman, 2014; Conlin and Thompson, 2017), implying that such spending is under -provided. In our case, similar logic suggests that if local communities under -invest in public libraries, then each dollar of local tax revenue spent to increase the quality of local libraries will cause more than a dollar increase in each resident's willingness to pay to live near to the higher -quality library, which will be reflected in increased housing prices.4 We find that library investment has no positive or negative effect on local housing prices, implying that homeowners value the improvement in local amenities enough to offset the cost of local tax increases that 'For a theoretically -founded discussion of the capitalization of school quality into housing prices, see Cellini, Ferreira, and Rothstein (2010) and Nguyen-Hoang and Yinger (2011). 337

fund the public library investment. Our results are precise enough to reject a 2 percentage point increase or decrease in housing prices following a sharp increase in public library investment.

We show that our results are robust to measurement and specification choices, paying particular attention to the possibility that our test score findings could be affected by other time -varying, local characteristics that are correlated with library expansions. First, we show that library capital spending does not correlate with changes in student demographics, local adult characteristics, or local school spending. Second, we show that our results are robust to controlling flexibly for these local characteristics in standard two-way fixed effect event study models. Third, we show that our results pass two placebo tests: (1) small library capital investment shocks have no effect on test scores; and (2) large library capital investment shocks near a school district, but outside of commuting distance (20-50 miles from the district), have no impact on student achievement.

To benchmark our findings, we use a back -of -the -envelope calculation to compare the mag- nitude of our test score results to the effects of public school capital spending. Jackson and Mackevicius (2021) argue in a recent meta -analysis that the balance of credible work suggests that capital school spending boosts test scores. Using Jackson and Mackevicius's estimates, we find that the typical large-scale library capital investment increases test scores by a larger per -dollar basis than typical school investments. This suggests that library investment can be an impor- tant complement to public school investment. However, we caution that precise dollar -to -dollar cost/benefit comparisons are complicated by two facts: (1) the typical library capital investment is smaller than the typical school capital investment, making dollar -to -dollar comparisons difficult, and (2) test scores are only one measure of the social return to public library and public school investment. Public library investment may have broader effects on local communities. In this paper, we only focus on the effect of public libraries on student achievement and property values, two important but non -exhaustive outcomes.
338

Related literature
Our paper is methodologically similar to a large literature on the causal effects of school spending.

Most relevantly, a subset of this literature focuses on the effects of capital investment in schools.

For example, Nielson and Zimmerman (2014) measure the effects of a 15-year, $1.4 billion school construction program in New Haven, Connecticut. They find that school construction increases reading test scores by 0.15 standard deviations and has no effect on math test scores six years after the new school building opens. They also find that school construction increases local housing prices by 10%. By contrast, Baron (2019) finds that Wisconsin districts which narrowly passed a capital bond referendum experience no gains in student achievement relative to districts that narrowly fail to pass these referenda.5 Summarizing this literature, Jackson and Mackevicius (2021) find that, on balance, school capital spending positively affect student test scores. We benchmark our findings to the school literature and show that library capital spending complements school spending.

Our research also builds on a large descriptive literature that discusses and structurally models the public finances of libraries. Early work recognized that libraries may be a public good and their characteristics could justify the government provision of library services (Tiebout and Willis, 1965). In public finance, a literature analyzes the efficiency of public library spending relative to theoretical benchmarks and other public institutions (e.g. Goddard, 1973; Feldstein, 1976; Getz, 1980; DeBoer, 1992; Vitaliano, 1998; Worthington, 1999; Vitaliano, 1997; Hemmeter, 2006; Neto and Hall, 2019). Papers in this literature often estimate library production functions by comparing library spending to usage. But in the absence of exogenous variation in library spending these comparisons may suffer from reverse causality. As local communities demand more library services, libraries are likely to increase spending. Once a production function is estimated, changes in library use can be converted into dollar valuation by assigning services a market value. This SBaron (2019) does find large effects of school operational referenda on child test scores. 339

literature is reviewed in Missingham (2005). While policymakers and interest groups often rely on cost -based valuations of library services — multiplying service usage by a market price proxy for similar services — most academic work uses survey -based contingent value preference elicitation to value public libraries (e.g., Casper, 1978; Aabo, 2005a; Aabo, 2009b; Aabo, 2009).

Our setting is closely related to a smaller literature that tries to directly estimate the effects of public libraries on communities and individuals.6 Bhatt (2010) instruments for library usage with the distance to the nearest public library and finds that libraries increase the amount of time that children spend reading and reduce children's television consumption. Rodriguez-Lesmes, Trujillo, and Valderrama (2014) use a difference -in -difference approach to show that the construction of two public libraries in Bogota, Colombia had no effect on nearby high school students' test scores.

Porter (2015) finds that when libraries stayed open for longer hours in Los Angeles, crimes rates declined. Neto (2019) finds no effect of library programming on local labor market conditions using a lagged funding instrument. Our paper uses variation in local community investment in public libraries as a shock to available resources and we focus on children's test scores as our main outcome.

Finally, another set of papers examines the historical impact of public library investment in the early 1900s. Using data from the late 1800s and early 1900s, Kevane and Sundstrom (2016) find that public library investment had no effect on political participation; Berkes and Nencka (2021) use a database of public libraries funded by Andrew Carnegie to show that libraries increased patenting rates in affected towns; and Karger (2021) finds that public library construction increased the long -run educational attainment and earnings of exposed children. These papers use identification strategies that exploit the lack of commonplace, high -quality libraries in the early 1900s. We test for the benefits of public libraries in a modern context. 'This literature often relies on changes in the demand for library services. For example, James (1985) studies how changes in local economic conditions impact public library use. Palmer (1981) and Ottensmann (1997) estimate the impact of patrons' distance to public library on the demand for services. Bekkerman and Gilpin (2012) estimate the impact of access to high-speed residential Internet access on the demand for library services. Goldhor and McCrossan (1966) and Guryan et al. (2014) study the impact of summer reading clubs on reading skills. 340

2 Data
In this section we describe our data and discuss how we identity capital construction shocks.

2.1 Library data
Our data on libraries come from the Public Library Survey (PLS), a census of public library systems collected annually by the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) since 1988. The survey unit in the PLS is a library system, which can contain multiple library branches. Survey response rates are extremely high. In 2017, 9,042 of 9,216 eligible public libraries responded to the survey, a 98 percent response rate corresponding to over 17,000 library branches (IMLS, 2019). The PLS contains a rich set of information about library finances and usage. IMLS (2019) provides a detailed overview and summary of the variables that they collect. Most information about spending and usage is reported at the library system level, and not at the branch level.

We are particularly interested in capital expenditures, so we use the PLS's measure of capital spending as one of our main treatment variables. IMLS defines capital expenditures as spending on major one-time projects that add to fixed assets, including purchasing land, building new structures, and renovating existing structures. Public libraries finance capital expenditures either directly from operating budgets or through one-off government transfers or bond issuance. We do not observe the source of capital funding. In our analysis, we focus on large capital investment shocks, which are more likely to be funded by one-off transfers and bonds. We also analyze operating expenditures, which the PLS separates out in its survey into several components, including spending on staff salaries, staff benefits, and collections.

In addition to financial library inputs, the PLS contains comprehensive information on library usage and holdings. As measures of library usage and resources, we analyze the number of children who attend library -based events, the total circulation of a library's collections, the circulation of 341

children's material, the number of visits, the total stock of books, and annual operating expenses.'

2.2 Test score data
We measure the effect of public library capital investment on test scores using a standardized dataset of district -level test scores from the Stanford Educational Data Archive (SEDA), compiled by The Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University (Reardon et al., 2020; Fahle et al., 2020). The basis for these data is annual standardized tests that public school students were required to take following the passage of the Federal No Child Left Behind Act in 2002. In our main analyses, we use reading and math test scores for 3rd-8th graders in over 5,000 school districts across the United States. The SEDA panel reports test scores in two types of units: standard deviation units (on a national scale) and grade equivalence units, where a value of 8 indicates that students are testing at an 8th grade level, and a value of 3 indicates that students are testing at a 3rd grade level.$ Our results our robust to using either test score measure. For our main analysis, we use standard deviation units so that we can compare our effect sizes to the school spending literature.

2.3 Housing price data
We use housing price indices from Zillow at the five -digit zip code -level. Zillow constructs its housing price index by forecasting the sales price of all houses in its national database of more than 100 million properties. Zillow calls these forecasts `Zestimates' Zillow then calculates the index for a zip code as the value -weighted average Zestimate in the area, excluding houses that There is no individual -level library usage information in these data. This means that we do not observe the number of unique users of library services, for example. Instead, we observe the number of unique user -by -visit events.
'The team that compiled the SEDA data construct the mean and standard deviation of the test score measure for each grade, subject, and year using a heterogeneous ordered probit model and restricted -access data from the US Department of Education. For more details, see Fable et al., 2019. 342

undergo significant construction or renovation.9

2.4 Summary statistics
In Table 2, we summarize our library -by -year panel constructed from IMLS data. We focus on library systems with 0 or 1 branch from 1992-2018 and each observation in our panel is a library- year.10 The average library in the sample has seven employees and spends $503,000 annually on operating expenses (in 2015 dollars). Libraries in the sample serve an average of 13,000 people, have an average of 68,000 visits, and check out 103,000 books or other resources each year." The average library has 3,000 annual attendees at children events and a collection stock of 43,000 books.

In an average year, each library spends $70,000 on capital expenditures (in 2015 dollars). But the distribution of capital expenditures is heavily skewed. In the median year, libraries spend no money on capital expenditures, in 10% of years libraries spend more than $71,000, and the standard deviation of capital spending in our panel is $535,000. When a library system replaces an entire building or builds a new branch library, capital spending jumps dramatically and significantly. We use these jumps as the main source of variation in this study.

Because the SEDA test score data is available at the district level, Table 2 also provides equivalent library summary statistics at the district level. To construct our district -year panel, we identify all libraries within 5 miles of a school district. We subset to districts that have at most 20 library buildings (including branches) within 5 miles of the modal zip code of the district to avoid 9For more details about Zillow's methodology, see https://www.zillow.com/research/ zhvi-methodology-2019-deep-26226/.
"If a library system begins as a single -library system with 0 or 1 branch, but then grows into a multi -unit library system, we include the system in our panel (as one library) to avoid selecting library systems out of our sample if they endogenously grow over time, but 90.8% of the observations in our library -by -year panel represent a library system with only 1-2 buildings. Our library data, subset to these 0-1 branch systems, describes an average of 8,314 library systems each year from 1992-2018.
"If one person visits the same library five times in a year, they are counted as five independent visits. Similarly, if patrons check out Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone five times, the same rule applies for counts of circulating items. 10 343

dense urban areas where treatment effects are more difficult to disentangle from hundreds of concurrent local policies.12 When we analyze library spending shocks within 5 miles of a school district, we focus on library outcomes in 2009-2018 to match the timing of available SEDA data.

In an average year, our data describe 5,512 school districts. The average district in our final sample has two library systems (and 2.1 branches) within 5 miles. In Table 2, we show additional statistics describing both the library systems within 5 miles of each school district and student enrollment at the schools in that district. For example, the average district in the sample has 13 percent Hispanic students and the nearby adult unemployment rate is 7 percent. The number of students enrolled in each district is much smaller than the number of people served by the libraries within 5 miles of that school district for three reasons: (1) elementary and middle school students make up only a small fraction of the population that could use a given library; (2) library systems often serve a larger area than is covered by one school district; and (3) our geographic rule for assigning libraries to school districts is broad: a school district may have one library system 5 miles to its east and one library system 5 miles to its west. In these cases, those two library systems likely serve many people who are not represented by the geographic bounds of the school district.
3 Effects of capital investment on library resources
In this section we describe our empirical framework and library -level outcome results. We discuss standard event study methods, their limitations in our context, and recent advances in the difference -in -difference literature that we use to overcome these limitations. We then discuss our results.
12Results are robust to using alternative cutoffs.
11 344

3.1 Event study framework
A standard approach for estimating dynamic treatment effects is to use an event study regression with unit and time fixed effects. In our context, the estimating equation to evaluate the effects of library capital investment shocks on library -level outcomes is:
10 y1t = � &1(Capita1Shock)ite + t1Xit + S1 + yt + Elt (1) e=-10
where Yt is an outcome measure of library resources, patron use, or student achievement in library system 1 and year t. The indicator variable 1(CapitalShock)1te tracks the year surrounding a capital investment shock for library system 1, Xit is a vector of time -varying library covariates, and 31 and yt are library and year fixed effects (respectively). The coefficients of interest are the vector Pe. Typically, researchers interpret Pe as the causal effect of the treatment on the outcome of interest e periods from the shock. However, this interpretation can be incorrect if there are heterogeneous treatment effects across cohorts or time. In particular, since standard event studies use early -treated units as controls for later -treated units, treatment effect dynamics can introduce bias.l3
For this reason, our main results use a difference -in -difference and event study procedure developed by Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) that accounts for dynamic treatment effects. They provide an estimation procedure to identify group -specific average treatment effects on the treated —denoted ATT (g, t)—reflecting average treatment effects on the treated in time period t for the group treated at time g. For example, in our setting we observe a group of units which experience a capital shock in 2009, 2010,... and 2018 (these years are our groups g). We also observe outcome data in the years (t) leading up to and after the treatment. We follow Callaway and Sant'Anna and formalize the idea of group -specific average treatment effects using standard 13For a discussion of this bias and evidence of how this bias can change the magnitude and statistical significance of estimated causal parameters in published research, see Baker, Larcker, and Wang (2021). 12 345

potential outcome notation:

ATT(g, t) = IE[Yt(1) - It(0)IG9 = 1] (2)
where G9 is a dummy variable equal to one if the unit is in treatment time group g, Yt(1) is the outcome variable at time t for treated units, and Yt (0) is the potential outcome for those units had they not been treated. As in standard difference -in -difference settings, Yt(0) is not observed for periods after g - we do not observe the counterfactual non -treated outcome for treated units. This fundamental problem of causal inference motivates the use of a control group of never -treated units (C) as a proxy for what would have occurred if a unit had not been treated. Callaway and Sant'Anna show that under the assumption that the control and treatment groups follow counterfactual parallel trends, we can express the treatment effect in Equation 2 as:

ATT(g, t) _ E[Yt - Yg-lIG9 = 1] - ]E[Yt - Yg-i I C = 1] (3) where the first term is the evolution of the outcome for the treatment group and the second term is the equivalent evolution of the outcome for the control group. Both quantities are simple averages and are easily calculated from the data. Notice that Equation 3 makes no comparisons across groups treated at different times, avoiding the issues that occur when researchers use early -treated units as controls for later -treated units.

Once we have calculated ATT(g, t) from Equation 3 for every treatment group g and time period t, we combine our estimates into a more manageable set of parameters. We follow Callaway and Sant'Anna's dynamic aggregation approach, since we expect that the causal effect of library investment will differ as a function of years relative to the treatment period g. For each time -period e relative to a treatment date (e.g., 2 years after g), we find the relevant ATT(g, t) for each g that corresponds to that relative time period. For example, for units treated in 2010; e = 2 corresponds to 2012, for units treated in 2011, e = 2 corresponds to 2013. We then take an average of those ATTs 13 346

across groups, weighting by the group size. This procedure results in a single average treatment effect estimate for every relative time period e, including time periods before the treatment occurs (e g.14
For inference, we use Callaway and Sant'Anna's recommended bootstrapping procedure. We report simultaneous confidence bands that are robust to multiple hypothesis testing and cluster errors by library system or school district, depending on the context.15 We rely on the standard difference -in -difference parallel trend assumption for identification:
treatment and control units would have followed parallel outcome trends after g if not for the existence of the treatment.16 In our setting, this implies that outcomes in areas that invested in library systems would have followed parallel paths as outcomes in areas that did not invest in public libraries, if the investing areas had instead not invested in libraries. This assumption is untestable, but we gauge its plausibility by seeing: (1) whether outcome trends in the years leading up to the treatment year g are parallel across treatment and control units, and (2) whether other observable characteristics between treatment and control units were parallel before and after the treatment. This second test helps mitigate the concern that other characteristics of the community that could affect outcomes changed at the same time as library investments. We find that our result are robust to both tests, bolstering the plausibility of our estimates.

The Callaway and Sant'Anna procedure can also incorporate pre-treatment covariates to create propensity -score -based matches between treatment and control units. This adjustment is 14In Section 4.1, we discuss alternative weighting procedures. For a full discussion of this method, see Section 2 of Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020). We calculate all treatment effects using Callaway and Sant'Anna's R Package, DiD, version 2.0.1.901. See https://bcallawayll.github.io/did/ for more information on this package. 15If we use pointwise standard errors, our results are more precisely estimated, but this precision may be overstated.

Unlike pointwise confidence intervals, simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 95% confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across event -times. 16For a technical definition of this assumption in a potential outcomes framework, see Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020).
14 347

needed if one believes that the parallel trend assumption only holds conditional on covariates. We observe flat unconditional pre -trends for every outcome in our analysis, so we do not match on any pre-treatment variables in our main results. However, in Section 4.1 we show that our results are similar if we incorporate covariates into the Callaway and Sant'Anna setup. In this case, we augment Equation 3 with propensity score weights for each group g so that we weight control units more if they are similar to members of the treatment group across included covariates." Because this procedure matches on pre-treatment covariates, it does not adjust for any time - varying confounders orthogonal to pre-treatment observables.18 To address this limitation, we also show in Section 4.1 that when we estimate standard, two-way fixed effect event study models, our results are not affected by the inclusion of time -varying covariates.19

3.2 Library use results
We begin by presenting event studies at the library system level. We define a capital spending shock as the first year in the PLS data (1982-2018) with at least $100-per-person of capital library spending.21 We also require that in year t — 1, the library system has less than $50 per person of capital spending to ensure that our capital spending shocks represent sudden changes from prior levels. In Figure 1, we show the library -level average treatment effects on the treated (ATTs) for four logged library -level outcomes. We present the logged outcomes as log(X + 1) to account for zeroes.21 Importantly, unlike in a standard event study framework, there is no omitted category. 17See Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020), Section 2 for the full discussion of this method and the assumptions that underlie it. Importantly, there must be enough common support across treatment and control group covariates to create reasonable propensity score matches, a common assumption in the broader matching literature. 18For example, suppose that some areas receive a random positive financial shock that allows them to invest in libraries in addition to other local institutions that affect outcomes. Since this fictional shock is orthogonal to pre-treatment characteristics by assumption, pre-treatment covariate adjustment would not remove bias. 19We use this approach since current implementations of the Callaway and Sant'Anna method does not allow for time -varying covariates after the treatment.
20So, in a library system serving our sample average 13,000 people, this would represent a one-time capital investment of $1,300,000 or greater.
"These results are robust to alternative transformations, including measuring the outcomes in their original units or using an inverse hyperbolic sine transformation.
15 348

Instead, each coefficient measures the causal effect of a capital spending shock on shocked library systems, e years after that shock, where e is the running variable on the x-axis and the coefficient measures the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) e years after the shock, averaging over the event -time coefficients for cohorts treated in each year.

In Panel A of Figure 1, we see a small run-up in capital spending in the years leading up to a major capital expenditure for a given library system. This may reflect planning expenses or small-scale preliminary construction. In the year of the first large capital expenditure for a library system, we see a sharp increase in capital spending that decreases quickly to low levels after three years. `Shocked' library systems have less capital spending in the post -period than in the pre -period because they have just initiated a big capital outlay for improvements, and so are less likely than `untreated' library systems to invest in major capital spending again soon after the initial expense.

In Panels B and C we present the causal effect of capital spending shocks on children's circulation and children's attendance at library events. We observe a sharp and persistent 30% increase in child library use that persists for ten years after the capital investment. Interestingly, we also observe a sharp drop in children's event attendance in the year of the shock. This is consistent with a brief decline in library capacity in the year when a library is under construction.

Panel D shows the effect of capital spending on total visits to the library. There is a small decline in visits during the year of capital investment followed by a sharp and persistent 30% increase in visits after investment. Across all three library usage outcomes, there are no pre -trends in the years leading up to library use.

To summarize, Figure 1 shows that library capital spending has sharp, positive, and persistent effects on library use. In Figures A2 and A3, we show the effect of capital spending shocks on additional library system -level outcomes. Here, we see large increases in the number of books, the number of employees, payroll, and total operating expenditures in library systems after a capital shock. These figures imply that libraries improve the quantity of services offered after a capital 16 349

investment.22
Because our main outcome of interest is children's test scores, which are only available nationally at the district level, Figure 2 replicates the same four panels as Figure 1 for capital spending shocks defined as a $1,000 or greater increase in per -student capital spending at libraries within 5 miles of the school district (during the years 2009-2018, to match the timing of our test score data).23 We focus on the event coefficients within seven years of the capital spending shock because the district level data are available for fewer years than the IMLS library data.24 Figure 2 shows qualitatively similar patterns as our library -level event studies: positive effects of capital expenditures on children's circulation, attendance at children's events, and total visits to the library. We find smaller effect sizes at the school district -level in these figures than we did in the library system -level event studies in Figure 1. This is unsurprising because districts are often adjacent to multiple library systems. In these cases, a capital spending shock in any one library system can have a more muted effect on overall library usage because other nearby libraries did not experience a capital shock.
4 Effects of capital investment on student test scores
In this section we estimate the effects of capital library investment on the test scores of children attending school nearby using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) approach described in the previous section. We define capital shocks as a $1,000 or greater increase in per -student capital spending at libraries within 5 miles of each school district. This is comparable to the $100/person 22As a robustness check, we show results using logged per -user library use (Figure Al) and library resource (Figure A3) outcomes. This identifies intensive -margin effects by taking into account each library system's potential expansion of their service area in the years following the capital investment shock —we find similar results as in our main specifications.
23Because our count of students is based on grade 3-8 public school test -takers, this is roughly equivalent to a $100/person library -level expenditure, since 3rd-8th grade students represent around 10% of the U.S. population as a whole.
24The SEDA test score data is available from 2009-2018
17 350

increase in capital spending at the library system -level, as discussed in the previous section. We also require that per -student spending in the past year was less than $600. If a district experiences multiple shocks, we take the earliest one. Finally, we only analyze shocks that happen between 2010 and 2017 so that we have at least one year of pre- and post -shock data for every treated unit in our analysis set. Using this shock definition, 10% of all school districts in our sample experience a shock between 2010-2017. Figure 3 shows the distribution of shock years conditional on observing a shock.

Our outcome of interest from the SEDA panel is district -grade -year measures of average reading and math test scores normalized to be mean zero and standard deviation one at the subject -grade -year level. A one -unit increase in these test scores corresponds to a one -standard deviation increase in test scores. Throughout, the standard errors are clustered at the school district level.

Figure 4 shows the results of the analysis for reading (Panel A) and math (Panel B) test scores.

For both subjects, we observe no pre -trend in test scores in the years leading up to a capital library shock, suggesting that districts are not positively selected on test score dynamics in the years preceding major library investments. After capital investment shocks, we observe gradual increases in reading test scores. On average, reading scores increase by approximately 0.02 standard deviations, with the largest effects (0.04-0.05 standard deviations) emerging in the later years of the estimation window. The timing of these results corresponds to the increases in library use following capital expenditures observed in Figures 1 and 2. Panel B of Figure 4 shows no similar increase in math scores following library capital expenditure shocks. Instead, effects are concentrated in reading, plausibly the subject in which children are most likely to benefit from improvements in their local library.
18 351

4.1 Test score results robustness
In this subsection we demonstrate the robustness of our test score results. First, we show that our results are unlikely to be driven by time -varying, district -level confounders. Second, we show that our findings are robust to alternative specification and measurement decisions.

A potential concern is that our results are biased by time -varying changes in local communities or school districts that correlate with the timing of library investments and also affect test scores.

We find no evidence of pre -trends in our event studies, implying that test scores and library usage in communities that invest in libraries are not changing differentially in the years leading up to library capital investment. However, if local policies or demographics that affect test scores change at the same time as library spending, our analysis could be biased.

We address this concern in multiple steps. First, as a placebo check, we vary the distance from school districts used to calculate shock exposure. Our baseline estimate uses all capital spending that occurs within 5 miles of a school district. Libraries are local institutions, and it would be difficult for far -away libraries to affect students' scores. Consistent with this intuition, our results in Figure 5 show that capital spending shocks that occur between 20-50 miles from a given district have no effect on either reading or math test scores. Similarly, Figure 5 shows that small capital investment — between 50 and 150 dollars per student — has no effects on either math or reading test scores. Our main finding that public library investment causes an increase in reading test scores is unique to large, local public library investments.

Next, we check whether the timing of library capital investment is correlated with changes in local characteristics that could affect student test scores. Importantly, the null math test results suggest that the reading results are not contaminated by any time -varying changes in student characteristics that are correlated with broad student success. Student in -migration that could bias the results would need to be positively selected on reading —but not math —ability. To explore this further, we test whether changes in library spending are correlated with the timing of changes in 19 352

local community demographics or other government spending. We estimate identical versions of our baseline model with these local characteristics —instead of test scores —as outcome variables.

In Figures A5-A8 we show that point estimates are very small and statistically indistinguishable from zero for a wide variety of these local characteristics in years following a sudden increase in library capital spending.

In particular, Figures A5 and A6 show that the composition of students does not change after library capital investment: the shares of Black, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian students, the share of student eligible for free/reduced-lunch, and the share of economically disadvantaged students remain stable in years following library investment. Figure A7 shows that the share of nearby adults with more than a bachelor's degree, the share of single mothers, the fraction of adults on SNAP assistance, and the fraction of unemployed adults do not change after library investment.25 Finally, Figure A8 shows that local school district expenditures, including spending on capital projects and instructional staff, do not change in the years after library investment.

This provides evidence that the timing of library capital investment is plausibly orthogonal to local changes that might have affected reading test scores.26 To further demonstrate the robustness of the main results, we explore alternative shock sizes.

Our baseline estimates define a per -student capital shock as $1,000 dollars or more of nearby library capital spending. Figure A10 shows reading results for this baseline shock size (Panel Q and alternative thresholds of $600, $800, and $1200 in Panels A, B, and D, respectively. These shocks produce results that behave as expected: smaller (larger) shock thresholds lead to smaller (larger) effects on reading test scores.

Next, we estimate the reading and math test score results using a standard event study design equivalent to the model described in Section 3.1. While these models may introduce bias, we 25These community -level variables are compiled by SEDA program staff from the American Community Survey and matched to standardized schooling districts.
26Note that we make no adjustment in this analysis for multiple hypothesis testing, making it easier for us to find differences between places that do and do not invest in libraries. 20 353

present them for robustness and so that we can include time -varying controls.27 Figure All shows a baseline version of a standard event study controlling for district -grade and year fixed effects, but with no other covariates. Figure All shows a similar pattern as the main results: a positive

0.02-0.05 standard deviation increase in reading test scores following a capital spending shock.

This effect increases over time. We also see smaller effects on math test scores that are significantly different from zero 6-7 years after the shock.

In Figure Al2, we show results from same specifications but include time -varying, district -level covariates. These covariates include the fraction of students who are Native American, Black, Hispanic, and the share of students who are eligible for free or reduced price lunch programs.

In addition, we include as covariates the fraction of nearby adults who have a bachelor's degree or greater, are below the poverty line, are unemployed, are receiving SNAP benefits, and who are single mothers. The inclusion of these time -varying covariates has no effect on the main results. Lastly, Figure A13 provides results from estimation that also includes district -level financial controls, including information on school district revenue, overall spending, and spending on capital projects and instructional staff. Adding these covariates does not significantly change the results (see Figures Al2 and A13).

Building on this idea, in Figure A14 we show results after incorporating Callaway and Sant'Anna's covariate matching procedure. We match treatment and control units using the district -level demographics covariates by augmenting Equation 3 with propensity score weights for each group g. This weights control units more if they are similar to members of the treatment group across covariates. Importantly, this matching occurs only in the pre -period, so it does not adjust for any post -treatment time -varying potential confounders. Figure A14 shows that our estimates using this covariate matching procedure are nearly identical to the main results, consistent with the lack of dynamic selection observed across covariates. In Figure A15, we show "For these figures, we plot the event study coefficients but we do not calculate the average pre -post treatment effect since it is not well-defined.
21 354

the same results after additionally matching on district -level financial covariates. Once again, we observe a similar pattern of results, though the overall estimated point estimates are lower because we use a treatment window of +/- 6 years due to data availability.28 These findings are consistent with the null effects of capital spending on local and district covariates shown in Figures A5-A8.

While many local covariates are correlated with changes in test scores, they are not correlated with the timing of library capital investment. Thus, controlling for these covariates does not affect our test score estimates.

Lastly, we show additional robustness to different weighting and estimation strategies. In our main event studies, we report a simple unweighted average of the Callaway and Sant'Anna e = 0 to e = 7 coefficients as our overall average treatment effect on the treated (ATT). In Figure A9 we show three alternate weighting strategies: Panel A constructs an overall, average ATT by weighting each group's post -treatment ATT(g,t) by group size; Panel B calculates group -specific average treatment effects (from post -treatment period ATT (g, t) values) and reports as an overall estimate of the ATT the unweighted average of these group -specific average treatment effects across groups; and Panel C first calculates year -specific averages of the ATT (g, t) values across groups treated during that year (from 2010 to 2017), and then reports as an overall estimate of the ATT the unweighted average of these year -specific average treatment effects across years. All three alternative weighting estimates are statistically significantly larger than zero and modestly smaller than our main estimates. Lastly, in Panel D we implement the staggered rollout algorithm of Roth and Sant'Anna (2021) which is valid and efficient under the additional assumption of conditionally random treatment timing. Panel D shows modestly larger and more precisely estimated effects relative to our baseline model. For all four robustness exercises in Figure A9, the overall ATT is statistically indistinguishable from our preferred specification. "Our district -level financial covariates are only available through 2017. 22 355

4.2 Reading results heterogeneity
In this subsection we test whether library investment has heterogeneous effects by student or community characteristics. We focus on reading test scores in this subsection; for mathematics scores, we find similar, null effects for all the subgroups described below.

First, we explore how reading effects differ by race. In Figure 6 we show results from the baseline reading event study estimated separately for the test scores of (A) white students, (B) Black students, (C) Hispanic students, and (D) Asian students. These results are less precisely estimated than our baseline results; SEDA does not report test scores in districts when there is an insufficient number of observations to construct their test score measures and many districts have only a small number of students of a given race, leading to more year-to-year variability in the test scores of small groups.29 The results in Figure 6 suggest that our findings are mainly driven by positive effects on the reading test scores of white and Hispanic students. However, the standard errors shown in these figures are large enough that we cannot rule out sizable, positive effects for all groups. Unfortunately, the PLS library data does not measure library use by race, so we cannot compare these results to similar measures of library usage. But these results suggest that programs aimed at boosting library engagement for specific racial groups may be needed to realize the full benefits of library investment.so
Second, we estimate heterogeneous effects by student economic status. Figure 7 shows results estimated separately by students who SEDA classifies as "economically disadvantaged" (Panel A) and "not economically disadvantaged" (Panel B), respectively. Families from higher -income and education families are more likely to use public libraries (Pew, 2015). However, the marginal value of library materials and programming may be higher for families with fewer resources. On balance, it is therefore unclear which group of students would benefit more from library investment. Figure 29Note that the y-axis in each of these figures changes, in order to clearly show the variability in the estimates. 30Importantly, these results may be complicated by the higher concentration of white students in smaller school districts, where we see larger effects.
23 356

7 shows similar patterns of results in both groups of students, with a larger point estimate for the non -disadvantaged. As with race, we do not observe information on library usage after investment by economic status. Future work on library use and benefits by socioeconomic status would be valuable to understand how library investment affects educational inequality.

Third, we investigate how effect sizes differ by grades. Students across all age groups may benefit from library services, though the types of books consumed and events attended varies by age. Figure 8 shows the baseline results estimated separately for student test scores reported in grades 3-4 (Panel A), 5-6 (Panel B), and 7-8 (Panel C). We observe similar results in all grades, suggesting no large differences in the effectiveness of public libraries by age.

Next, we explore heterogeneous effects across district sizes. Students in smaller school districts are likely to be more affected by a given per -capita library shock, since they are more likely to live near only one library system. This implies that they are "fully treated" by any library spending shock. By contrast, students in larger districts are more likely to live near multiple library branches. For these students, when one nearby library improves, it does not necessarily improve the local library they regularly visit. In addition, students in large districts may have more local educational amenities, like parks and museums, nearby. In Figure 9 we show results separately after splitting the sample into school district size terciles.31 Panel A of Figure 9 shows that our reading test score effects are largest in the smallest school districts, consistent with the increased salience of libraries in those communities.sz Finally, we estimate how our library results differ across levels of investment in school capital spending using Common Core data on annual district expenditures. Per -student school capital spending has a weak, positive correlation with school district size (r = 0.082), so this exercise is distinct from estimating heterogeneity by district size. In Figure 10 we show our baseline reading 31We split the whole sample, so both treatment and control school districts in each subsample are similarly sized. 31Our baseline results in the paper use unweighted event studies, giving equal weight to small and large districts.

Consistent with this heterogeneity, we find positive but smaller and statistically indistinguishable from zero effects when we weight our baseline specifications by the number of grade 3-8 test -takers in each school district. 24 357

test score results after splitting the sample into district capital spending terciles. We find that our results are driven by districts that have moderate and lower amounts of school capital spending, with the largest effects in districts that spent the least in capital expenditures. These results imply that libraries are a particularly important form of infrastructure investment when school capital spending is lowest, suggesting a possible compensatory role of library investment in the education production function.33
5 Housing prices
We now measure the effect of public library investment on local housing prices. Housing prices represent home -buyers' willingness to pay for local amenities. We use Zillow's estimates of the home prices in each zip code within five miles of a library system that experienced a capital spending shock to estimate the housing price responses to increased library investment. A large literature explains why this type of housing price capitalization is a useful way to measure the value of local amenities. In recent empirical work, researchers examine the relationship between public school investment, resulting increases in children's test scores, and changes in local housing prices. For recent examples, see Cellini, Ferreira, and Rothstein, 2010; Nielson and Zimmerman 2014; Conlin and Thompson, 2017; and Bayer, Blair, and Whaley (2020). These papers discuss and cite an underlying theoretical literature on hedonic regressions and the value of local amenities.

The intuition behind this literature is that (1) local taxes are capitalized into housing prices —if a local community charges a $1,000 tax for each home -owner and does nothing with the money (disposes of it), then housing prices should decrease in proportion to the net present cost of the tax; and (2) if local amenities improve, then the increased willingness to pay for those amenities will be reflected in equilibrium housing prices. So, if housing prices increase after local school 33By contrast to this result, when we test for heterogeneous effects of library capital spending across total per - student school spending levels, we see no clear pattern of heterogeneous results. 25 358

spending increases, then home -buyers are revealing a preference for an equilibrium increase in school spending —because home -buyers are willing to pay more for these amenities than the cost they experience as taxpayers in funding these amenities.

In our case, if library investment causes a decrease in housing prices, then it is evidence that home -buyers believe the money spent to improve local public libraries was not worth the cost of those improvements. If library investment causes an increase in housing prices, then it is evidence that home -buyers believe the money spent to improve local public libraries was worth more than the cost of those improvements —implying that local communities were under -investing in public libraries. By contrast, if housing prices do not change following library investment, it is evidence that home -buyers believe the improvement in local amenities exactly offsets the added cost of those amenities.

To identify home -buyers' willingness to pay for local library investment, we again use the method from Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020)—this time to estimate the causal effect of public library capital spending shocks on the average housing prices of zip codes within 5 miles of the library system (using Zillow's zip code level indices defined in Section 2). Figure 11 (Panel A) shows that capital spending shocks have no causal effect on house prices. We reject effects larger than 1 percentage point in either a positive or negative direction four years after the shock and there is no apparent pre -trend. Figure 11 (Panel B) provides event study coefficients at the school district -level and shows similar null effects of library spending shocks on housing prices for zip codes within 5 miles of each school district that experienced a shock.

These results suggest that households internalize the benefits of the library capital investments.

While households face increased local taxes to pay for sizable library investments, they are willing to pay these increased taxes in return for perceived benefits. In our paper, we document several of these benefits: increases in library resources, library usage, and the reading test scores of students. For a detailed discussion of a different setting where local spending on amenities causes an increase in housing prices, see Bayer, Blair, and Whaley (2020), who argue that school spending 26 359

shocks increase housing prices, implying that school spending is provided at inefficiently low levels in their setting. Based on the results from our paper, we do not find similar evidence for public library capital investment effects on house prices. 6 Comparisons to public school capital investment
In this section we conduct back -of -the -envelope calculations to benchmark our results to the school capital spending literature. We focus on school spending because there is an extensive literature that uses similar identifications strategies and outcomes as this paper.

Our baseline reading results in Figure 4 imply that library capital shocks greater than $1,000 per student lead to an average 0.02 standard deviation increase in reading test scores and a null effect on math test scores in the seven years after library investment. The average size of the $1,000+ per -student capital spending shock in our baseline specification is $2,496 per student. Averaging across our two test score results, a $2,496 per student library capital spending shock increases test scores by 0.01 standard deviations.34 In a recent meta -analysis, Jackson and Mackevicius (2021) find that a $16,339 per student capital expenditure on school buildings causes a 0.034 standard deviation increase in average test scores. Comparing our results to that paper, we find that our library capital spending shocks generate average test score increases that are 0-01 = 29% the size

0.034
of a school capital spending shock at 2,496 = 15% of the cost. 16,339
This does not provide evidence that library capital projects have higher benefit -cost ratios and we caution against this direct comparison for several reasons. First, school capital spending is orders of magnitude more costly than library spending and both are subject to diminishing marginal returns. Jackson and Mackevicius (2021) report that the typical construction of a new elementary school costs $44,000 per student. It is difficult to know if school capital spending effects 34Note that Jackson and Mackevicius (2021) equivalently calculate average effects of school capital spending by averaging over all available test subjects. We define per -student counts using the sum of all students in a particular district -year in grades 3-8
27 360

scale linearly in investment amounts — if the first dollars of school spending have larger effects, our comparison would overstate the relative benefit of libraries. Second, the 95% confidence interval around our estimate contains test score effects that are significantly larger and significantly smaller than the meta -analyzed overall effect from Jackson and Mackevicius (2021). Third, our 3-8 grade test score effects likely underestimate the importance of libraries: a single library expansion could affect others in surrounding areas, students in grades K-2 and 9-12, achievement in subjects where test scores are not measured in grades 3-8 (e.g., science), and adults and non -school -aged children (e.g., pre-K programs).31
For these reasons, we do not pursue direct, dollar -to -dollar cost/benefit comparisons of library and school capital investments. Rather, our results suggest that under reasonable assumptions: (1) library capital spending, like school capital spending, can have broad positive effects on local test scores, and (2) smaller -scale public investments in local amenities — like libraries — can positively affect children's academic performance at a lower absolute cost than typically more expensive school capital spending.
7 Conclusion
A growing literature suggests that neighborhoods can have long-lasting and important effects on child development. However, knowing that neighborhoods matter is not enough: for place - based policies to be effective, we need to know which characteristics of local communities cause changes in childhood experiences and which are simply correlated with desirable community characteristics. In this paper, we study the causal effects of investments into one of the most commonly used and lauded functions of local governments: the public library.

Every year, library administrators in local communities petition voters to approve additional "School construction also may have broader public impacts beyond direct effects on children, since school facilities are often used by other members of the community. We do not attempt to compare the possible spillover effects across libraries and school districts.
28 361

funds to expand and improve local public libraries. To date, little is known about the impact of these investments. We use an event study methodology to show that library capital spending has at least two effects. First, capital library investments cause patrons to use the library more. More residents visit the library, the stock of library materials increases, and more children attend library events. Second, library capital investments cause students to perform better on standardized tests. In particular, we observe persistent improvement in reading test scores in the seven years after library capital spending. These improvements in reading test scores coincide with increases in library use and are not driven by changing demographics in local communities. We study increases in capital spending in the post-smartphone era, so our results highlight the importance of public libraries to children, even in an era with widespread access to the internet and other new technologies that compete for children's attention. In the future, we hope to further investigate the many other ways that public libraries can affect local communities. 29 362

References
[1] Aabo, Svanhild. "Are Public Libraries Worth their Price?" New Library World (2005). [2] Aabo, Svanhild. "Valuing the benefits of public libraries." Information Economics and Policy 17, no. 2 (2005): 175-198.
[3] Aabo, Svanhild. "Libraries and Return on Investment (ROI): a Meta -Analysis" New Library World (2009).
[4] Baker, Andrew, David F. Larcker, and Charles C.Y. Wang. "How Much Should We Trust Staggered Difference -In -Differences Estimates?." (2021). [5] Bayer, Patrick, Peter Q. Blair, and Kenneth Whaley. "A National Study of School Spending and House Prices." (2020).
[6] Bekkerman, Anton, and Gregory Gilpin. "High-speed Internet Growth and the Demand for Locally Accessible Information Content." Journal of Urban Economics 77 (2013): 1-10. [7] Berkes, Enrico, and Peter Nencka. "Knowledge Access: The Effects of Carnegie Libraries on Innovation." (2021).
[8] Bhatt, Rachana. "The Impact of Public Library Use on Reading, Television, and Academic Outcomes" Journal of Urban Economics 68, no. 2 (2010): 148-166. [9] Bogin, Alexander N., William M. Doerner, and William D. Larson. "Missing the Mark: House Price Index Accuracy and Mortgage Credit Modeling." (2016). [10] Callaway, Brantly, and Pedro HC Sant'Anna. "Difference -in -differences with multiple time periods" Journal of Econometrics (2020).
[11] Casper, Cheryl. "Estimating the Demand for Library Service: Theory and Practice." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 29, no. 5 (1978): 232-237. [12] Cellini, Stephanie Riegg, Fernando Ferreira, Jesse Rothstein. "The Value of School Facility Investments: Evidence from a Dynamic Regression Discontinuity Design." Quarterly Journal of Economics 125, no. 1 (2010).
[13] Chetty, Raj, and Nathaniel Hendren. "The impacts of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobility I: Childhood exposure effects" The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133, no. 3 (2018):
1107-1162.
[14] Chetty, Raj, and Nathaniel Hendren. "The impacts of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobility II: County -level estimates" The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133, no. 3 (2018):
1163-1228.
30 363

[15] Chyn, Eric. "Moved to opportunity: The long -run effects of public housing demolition on children." American Economic Review 108, no. 10 (2018): 3028-56. [16] Conlin, Michael, and Paul N. Thompson. "Impacts of new school facility construction: An analysis of a state -financed capital subsidy program in Ohio" Economics of Education Review 59, (2017).
[17] DeBoer, Larry. "Economies of scale and input substitution in public libraries" Journal of Urban Economics 32 no. 2 (1992): 257-268.
[18] Fahle, Erin M., Benjamin R. Shear, Demetra Kalogrides, Sean F. Reardon, Belen Chavez, and Andrew D. Ho. "Stanford Education Data Archive Technical Documentation Version 3.0 July 2019." (2019).
[19] Feldstein, Kathleen Foley. "The Economics of Public Libraries" PhD dissertation, Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology, 1977.
[20] Getz, Malcolm. Public Libraries: An Economic View. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.
[21] Goddard, Haynes. "An Economic Analysis of Library Benefits" Library Quarterly 41 no. 3 (1971): 244-255.
[22] Goldhor, Herbert, and John McCrossan. "An exploratory study of the effect of a public library summer reading club on reading skills." Library Quarterly 36 no. 1 (1966)": 14-24. [23] Guryan, Jonathan, Kim, James, and David Quinn. "Does reading during the summer build reading skills? Evidence from a randomized experiment in 463 classrooms." NBER Working Paper 20689, 2014.
[24] Hausman, Jerry. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless." Journal of Economic Perspectives 26, no. 4 (2012): 43-56.
[25] Hemmeter, Andrew. "Estimating Public Library Efficiency Using Stochastic Frontiers." Public Finance Review 34, no. 3 (2006): 328-348.
[26] Holtmann, A, Tabasz, T., and W. Kruse. "The Demand for Local Public Services, Spillovers, and Urban Decay: The Case of Public Libraries." Public Finance Quarterly 4 no. 1 (1976): 97-113. [27] Jackson, C. Kirabo and Claire Mackevicius. "The Distribution of School Spending Impacts" NBER Working Paper 28517, 2021.
[28] James, Stephen. "The Relationship between Local Economic Conditions and the Use of Public Libraries" Library Quarterly 55, no. 3 (1985): 255-272. [29] Karger, Ezra. "The Long -Run Effect of Public Libraries on Children: Evidence from the Early 1900s" (2021).
31 364

[30] Kevane, Michael J., and William A. Sundstrom. "Public Libraries and Political Participation, 1870-1940." (2016).
[31] Klinenberg, Eric. Palaces for the People: How Social Infrastructure can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life. Broadway Books, 2018. [32] Missingham, Roxanne. "Libraries and Economic Value: a Review of Recent Studies" Perfor- mance Measurement and Metrics. (2005).
[33] Neto, Amir B Ferreira. "Do Public Libraries Impact Local Labor Markets? Evidence from Appalachia." (2018).
[34] Neto, Amir B. Ferreira, and Joshua C. Hall. "Economies of Scale and Governance of Library Systems: Evidence from West Virginia." Economics of Governance 20, no. 3 (2019): 237-253. [35] Nguyen-Hoang, Phuong and John Yinger. "The capitalization of school quality into house values: A review" Journal of Housing Economics 20, no. 1 (2011). [36] Nielson, Christopher A., and Seth D. Zimmerman. "The effect of school construction on test scores, school enrollment, and home prices" Journal of Public Economics 120 (2014): 18-31. [37] Ottensmann, J. "Using Geographic Information Systems to Analyze Library Utilization." Library Quarterly 67, no. 1 (1997): 24-49.
[38] Palmer, E. "The Effect of Distance on Public Library Use: A Literature Survey" Library Research 3, no. 4 (1981): 315-354.
[39] Pew Research Center. "Chapter 1: Who Uses Libraries and What They do at Their Libraries ."(2015) https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/09/15/who-uses-libraries-and- what-they-do-at-their-libraries/.
[40] Reardon, Sean F., Erin M. Fahle, Demetra Kalogrides, Anne Podolsky, and Rosalia C. Zlrate. "Gender Achievement Gaps in U.S. School Districts." American Educational Research journal 56, no. 6 (2019): 2474-2508.
[41] Rodriguez-Lesmes, Paul, Jose D. Trujillo, and Daniel Valderrama. "Are public libraries im- proving quality of education? when the provision of public goods is not enough" Revista Desarrollo y Sociedad 74 (2014): 225-274.
[42] Roth, Jonathan and Pedro Sant'Anna. "Efficient Estimation for Staggered Rollout Designs" (2021).
[43] Tiebout, Charles M., and Robert J. Willis. "The Public Nature of Libraries." The Public Library and the City (1965): 94-101.
[44] Vitaliano, Donald F. "X-Inefficiency in the Public Sector: the Case of Libraries" Public Finance Review 25 no 6. (1997): 629-643.
32 365

[45] Vitaliano, Donald F. "Assessing Public Library Efficiency using Data Envelopment Analysis." Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 69, no. 1 (1998): 107-122. [46] Worthington, Andrew. "Performance Indicators and Efficiency Measurement in Public Li- braries." Australian Economic Review 32, no. 1 (1999): 31-42. 33 366

Figure 1: Effect of capital expenditure shock on library use (library -level shocks) (A) Log capital spending (B) Log children's circulation Oven'
ATT = -0.886 OvenO ATT = 0.211

7.5 Overall SE = 0.178 Overall SE = 0.014

0.3 5,0 ,

0.2 2.5 E
x m
• 0.1

0.0 • 00
-2.5 • • • • • ,
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 A .3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -10 -9 -6 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock (C) Log children event attendance (D) Log visits
0A Overall ATT = 0.164 Overall ATT = 0.211
Overall SE = 0.033 Overall SE = 0.017

0.3 02
• 0.2 ,
E
� E
m . • m 0.1
00 0.0 . . , . .
-0 2
-10 -9 -8 -7 6 -5 4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 -10 -9 -8 -7 6 -5 -0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock Event study estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 3 at the library -system level. A library spending shock is defined in Section 3. The outcome variables are (A) Log capital spending, (B) Log children's circulation, (D) log children's event attendance, and (D) log visits. All figures show bootstrapped 95 percent simultaneous confidence intervals. Unlike pointwise confidence intervals, simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 95% confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across event -times. Standard errors are clustered by library system. 34 367

Figure 2: Impact of capital expenditure shock on library use (school -district shocks) (A) Log capital spending (B) Log children's circulation Overall ATT = -0.236 Overall ATT = 0.103
Overall SE = 0.295 Overall SE = 0.02
4 •

0.2 2
m m
E• • • • • E 0.1
0 N
U y
0 0,0
-2
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock (C) Log children event attendance (D) Log visits
Overall ATT = 0.048 0.2 Overall ATT = 0.076
Overall SE = 0.036 Overall SE = 0.02

0.2 0.1 • • 0.1

0.0 • • • w
• 0.0
-0.1
-0.2 -0 1
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years relative to capital spending shack Years relative to capital spending shock Event study estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 3 at the school district level. A library spending shock is defined in Section 3. The outcome variables are (A) Log capital spending, (B) Log children's circulation, (D) log children's event attendance, and (D) log visits. All figures show bootstrapped 95 percent simultaneous confidence intervals. Unlike pointwise confidence intervals, simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 95% confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across event -times. Standard errors are clustered by school district. 35 368

20 I
15 Figure 3: Distribution of library shocks in the school district sample 2010 2011
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Observed capital shock year
This figure shows the distribution of capital shock years in the school district sample for the sub -sample of districts with observed shocks.

Approximately 10 percent of all districts have a shock between 2010 and 2017. 36 369

Figure 4: Impact of library capital spending shocks on child test scores (a) Reading test scores
Overall ATT = 0.02
Overall SE = 0.008

0.100

0.075
a�
L
0 U
W 0.050
rn
a 0.025

0.000 • • • •
•
-0.025
-0.050
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
(b) Mathematics test scores
Overall ATT = 0.003
Overall SE = 0.01

0.100

0.075
Cn
m
L
c°) 0.050
a>

0.025 •
co •

0.000
•
-0.025 • •
-0.050
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
Event study estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 4 at the school district level. All figures show bootstrapped 95 percent simultaneous confidence intervals. Unlike poinhvise confidence intervals, simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 95% confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across event -times. Standard errors are clustered by school district. 37 370

Figure 5: Test score shock size and distance placebo tests (A) Reading, small shock (B) Reading, distance placebo
Overall ATT = 0.002 Overall ATT = -0.003
Overall SE = 0.004 Overall SE = 0.005

0.100 0.100
N

0.075 0.075
d v
cg 8
N 0.050 N 0.050
i m
m m
O
G 0025 9 0.025
0000 0.000
N N
d • W
-0.025 -0.025
-0.050 -0.050
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock (C) Mathematics, small shock (D) Mathematics, distance placebo Overall ATT = -0.007 Overall ATT = 0.007
Overall SE = 0.006 Overall SE = 0.006

0.100 0.100

0.075 0.075
v v
u 0,050 S 0.050
N
N
Y! N
L 0.025 L 0.025
t0 ip • '

0.000 ' • • • • • • • • 0.000 • ' • • • • ' • '
-0.025 -0.025
-0.050 -0.050
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock These figures show test score estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 4. Panels (A) and (C) show results of the baseline estimation approach when using small but positive shocks to library capital spending. Panels (B) and (D) show results when using shocks that occur 20-50 miles from a school district. All figures show bootstrapped 95 percent simultaneous confidence intervals. Unlike pointwise confidence intervals, simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 95% confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across event -times. Standard errors are clustered by school district. 38 371

Figure 6: Heterogeneous reading test score effects by student race and ethnicity (A)White students
(B) Black students
Overall ATT = 0.019
Overall ATT = 0.002
Overall SE = 0.009
Overall SE = 0.018

0.06 0.1

0.03 N
m
• •
E
m
• •
m 0.0
d
•
• •

0.00 -0.03
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
Years relative to capital spending shock
(C) Hispanic students
(D) Asian students
Overall ATT = 0.021
Overall ATT = 0.001
Overall SE = 0.016
Overall SE = 0.026

0.10 0.3

0.2 N 0.05
m
uNi
•
E
_
m
• •
E 0.1
N
N

0.00 0.0
-0.1
-0,05
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-7 -6 -5 4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
Years relative to capital spending shock
These figures
shows test score estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 4. Effects are estimated separately for each indicated subgroup.
39 372

Figure 7: Heterogeneous reading test score effects by student economic status (a) Economically disadvantaged

0.08 Overall ATT = 0.014
Overall SE = 0.009

0.04 N
N
•
E
•
•
N
•
•

0.00 •
• •
-0.04
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
(b) Not economically disadvantaged
Overall ATT = 0.02
Overall SE = 0.009

0.05 N •
N • •
f0
E • • • •
a) 0.00 • • • •
02ell
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
These figures shows test score estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 4. Effects are estimated separately for each indicated subgroup.
40 373

Figure 8: Heterogeneous reading test score effects by student grades (a) Grades 3-4
Overall ATT = 0.017
Overall SE = 0.012
5 0.05

0.00 a •
-0.05
-7 -6 -5 4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
(b) Grades 5-6

0.10 Overall ATT = 0.022
Overall SE = 0.009

0.05 m

0.00 -0.05
-7 -6 -5 4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
(c) Grades 7-8
Overall ATT = 0.016

0.10 Overall SE = 0.011

0.05 w
3 v •
rn
1 0.00 • • - -� - - -
K
-0.05
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
These figures shows test score estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 4. Effects are estimated separately for each indicated subgroup.
41 374

Figure 9: Heterogeneous reading test score effects by school district size (a) Smallest size tercile
Overall ATr = 0.041
Overall SE = 0.016

0.10 8
" 0.05 • .
v

0.00 -0.05
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
(b) Middle size tercile
Overall ATT = 0.019
Over
SE = 0.012

0.10 v 0.05
8 v 0.00 -
-0.05
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
(c) Largest size tercile
Overall ATr = 0.004

0.10 Overall SE = 0.013
u 0.05
d
c 0.00
-0.05
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
These figures shows test score estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 4. Effects are estimated separately for each indicated subgroup.
42 375

Figure 10: Heterogeneous reading test score effects by school district capital spending (a) Smallest spending tercile
Overall ATT = 0.046
Overall SE = 0.018

0.2 a�

0.1 v
rn
v •
y

0.0 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
(b) Middle spending tercile
Overall ATT = 0.026
Overall SE = 0.011

0.05 8

0.00 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
(c) Largest spending tercile
Overall ATT = -0.008
Overall SE = 0.014

0.10 • 0.05
m
s`
d

0.00 o
y
.0.05
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
These figures shows test score estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 4. Effects are estimated separately for each indicated subgroup.
43 376

Figure 11: Impact of library capital spending on local housing prices (a) Library system level
Overall ATf = 0.001
Overall SE = 0.009

0.02 U •

0.00 E • '
rn •
au •
-0.02
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Years relative to capital spending shock
(b) School district level
Overall ATT = -0.011

0.025 Overall SE = 0.007
rn 0.000 •
c
0 t
cc
•
•
•
•
o •
•
J
•
-0.025
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
These figure shows housing price estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 4. Outcomes are logged housing price data from Zillow. Panel (a) shows results at the library system level, panel (b) shows results at the school district level. All figures show bootstrapped 95 percent simultaneous confidence intervals. Unlike pointwise confidence intervals, simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 957 confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across event -times. Standard errors are clustered by school district. 44 377

Table 1: Summary statistics: library system -by- year panel Obs.

Mean
loth %
Median
90th %
Std. Dev.

Population Served (thousands)
204,567
13 1
5 33
22 Visits (thousands)
187,354
68 3
23 186
118
Children Event Attendance (thousands)
193,878
3 0
1 9
7 Books (thousands)
199,797
43 8
24 99
55 Total Circulation (thousands)
199,269
103
4 35
255
207
Children's Circulation (thousands)
193,419
38 1
12 94
83 Employees
200,488
7 1
3 18
12 Capital Spending ($1,000s)
198,297
70 0
0 71
535
Total Operating Expenditures ($1,000s)
198,840
503
20 145
1,296
1,007
Annual Payroll ($1,000s)
116,736
431
63 200
1,057
636
Notes: This table shows summary statistics describing our library -year panel described in Section 2. All summary statistics are at the library system -by-year level for libraries with no branches between 1992-2017. Data come from the IMLS's PLS census of almost all libraries in the United States.
45 378

Table 2: Summary statistics: school district -by -year panel Obs.

Mean loth % Median 90th % Std. Dev.

Library capital spending ($1,000s)
311,334
257.11

0.00 1.03
416.01
1,193.11
Per -student library capital spending ($s)
311,334
188.62

0.00 1.12
282.26
1,130.96
Child materials circulation (thousands)
306,203
184.51

3.10 31.23
555.41
418.78
Child event attendees (thousands)
306,677

15.90 0.37

4.17 47.49

30.44 Visits (thousands)
304,305
328.30

9.00 76.43
991.22
627.05
Books (thousands)
309,426
177.54

14.44 52.23
488.13
317.13
Employees
309,107

33.78 1.33

7.73 97.97

67.57 Salary spending (thousands)
249,506
1,806.40

77.98 385.10
5,213.86
3,528.56
Operating spending (thousands)
308,535
2,852.04

61.43 459.98
8,232.28
6,321.81
Library systems
311,334

2.01 1.00

1.00 4.00

2.77 Branches
311,334

2.08 1.00

1.00 5.00

2.64 Reading test scores
311,334

0.05 -0.39

0.05 0.50

0.36 Math test scores
296,720

0.05 -0.44

0.06 0.55

0.39 Reading test takers
311,334
326.71

38.00 152.00
673.00
995.20
Math test takers
296,810
316.62

38.00 150.00
651.00
1,001.15
Share Native American students
311,334

0.02 0.00

0.00 0.02

0.08 Share Asian students
311,334

0.02 0.00

0.01 0.06

0.05 Share Hispanic students
311,334

0.13 0.00

0.05 0.40

0.19 Share Black students
311,334

0.08 0.00

0.02 0.24

0.16 Share free lunch elig. students
311,334

0.39 0.13

0.37 0.66

0.20 Share reduced lunch elig. students
311,334

0.08 0.03

0.08 0.13

0.04 Share econ. disadvantaged students
311,334

0.47 0.17

0.47 0.76

0.22 Share BA+ adults
311,334

0.24 0.12

0.20 0.43

0.13 Share single mom adults
311,334

0.16 0.09

0.15 0.23

0.06 Share SNAP -eligible adults
311,334

0.11 0.03

0.10 0.19

0.06 Share unemployed adults
311,334

0.07 0.04

0.07 0.11

0.03 Federal revenue (per student, $1,000s)
252,405
1,046.90
406.56
878.78
1,779.10
858.35
State revenue (per student, $1,000s)
252,405
6,126.90
3,041.42
5,780.38
9,097.89
2,950.01
Local revenue (per student, $1,000s)
252,405
6,514.33
2,268.95
5,246.8212,607.70
4,749.14
Total expenses (per student, $1,000s)
252,405
13,590.16
9,135.97 12,183.62 19,758.42
5,152.79
Capital expenses (per student, $1,000s)
252,405
1,129.01
109.33
498.44
2,570.88
2,132.60
Capital construction expenses (per student, $1,000s)
252,402
816.24

0.00 195.20
2,069.70
2,000.45
Salary expenses (per student, $1,000s)
252,405
6,657.99
4,711.59
6,042.37
9,575.35
2,183.88
Instructional salary expenses (per student, $1,000s)
252,405
4,582.44
3,214.06
4,149.23
6,596.17
1,551.33
Notes: This table shows summary statistics describing our school district -year panel described in Section 2. All summary statistics are at the school district -by-year level for school districts with fewer than 20 library buildings within 5 miles of the main zip code of the school district.

Data cover the years 2009-2018 because those are the years for which we have test score data. Data come from (1) the IMLS's PLS census of almost all libraries in the United States; (2) the SEDA test score dataset (see Fable et al., 2019 for more details); and (3) the Common Core of Data -a database produced by NCES describing school -level and district -level financing information. Test -taker counts, student demographics, and the number of students on a free or reduced price lunch program come from the SEDA data. 46 379

Figure Al: Effect of capital expenditure shock on library use per person (library -level shocks) (A) Log capital spending (B) Log children's circulation Overall AT
= -0.007 0.20 Overall ATT = 0.119
4 Overall SE = 0.048 Overall SE = 0.01
3 0 15
2 0A0
E E
005
000
-1
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -10 -9 -8 .7 -6 -5 4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock (C) Log children event attendance (D) Log visits
0 oe Overall ATT = 0.03 Overall ATT = 0.154
Overall SE = 0.007 Overall SE = 0.014
02 004
• m 0 1
• E

0.00 • 0.0
-0.04
-10 9 -8 .7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -10 -9 -8 -7 .6 -5 4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 a 5 6 7 8 9 10 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock Event study estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 3 at the library -system level. A library spending shock is defined in Section 3. The outcome variables are (A) Log capital spending, (B) Log children's circulation, (C) log children's event attendance, and (D) log visits. Outcomes are normalized to a per -person measure by dividing by each library's service population. All figures show bootstrapped 95 percent simultaneous confidence intervals. Unlike pointwise confidence intervals, simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 95% confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across event -times. Standard errors are clustered by library system.
47 380

Figure A2: Effect of capital expenditure shock on library resources (A) Log book stock (B) Log number employees

0.20 Overall ATT = 0.11 Overall ATT = DA 14
Overi SE = 0.007 Overall SE = 0.006
• 015 • . .

0.15 0.10
10 10
• E
m v

0.05 005

0.00 • • • 0.00
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 4 -3 .2 .1 0 1 2 3 4 , 6 7 8 9 10 -10 -9 -6 .7 -6 .5 -1 -3 2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 - u 7 a 0 10 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock (C) Log salary spending (D) Log operating spending
overall ATT= 0.121 Overall ATT = 0.158
Overan SE = 0.009 Overall SE = 0.009
• . . 020

0.1 • • 0 15
g• E 0.10

0.0 •. _... • • __ 005

0.00 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 .3 .2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 4 -3 .2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock Event study estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 3 at the library -system level. A library spending shock is deputed in Section 3. The outcome variables are (A) Log book stock, (B) Log number employees, (C) log salary spending, and (D) log operating spending. All figures show bootstrapped 95 percent simultaneous confidence intervals. Unlike pointwise confidence intervals, simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 95% confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across event -times. Standard errors are clustered by library system. 48 381

Figure Al Effect of capital expenditure shock on library resources per person (A) Log book stock (B) Log number employees
0 12 Overall ATT = 0.059 0.00020 Overall ATT = 0
overall SE = 0.007 Overall SE = 0
• ' 000015
008 • • ' '
0,00010
E • E_ '
m 0.04 • u
0,00005

0.00 ' ' • • • • • • • • '

0.00000
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 5 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -10 -9 -B -7 -6 -5 4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock (C) Log salary spending (D) Log operating spending

0.15 Overall AT r = 0.098 Overall ATT = 0.122
Overall SE = 0.008 Overall SE = 0.01
0 15
010 • '
• 0.10
u
E E

0.05 0.05
000 • • • ' • • Mo ' • '
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -1 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 4 -3 -2 .1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock Event study estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 3 at the library -system level. A library spending shock is defined in Section 3. The outcome variables are (A) Log book stock, (B) Log number employees, (C) log salary spending, and (D) log operating spending. Outcomes are normalized to a per -person measure by dividing by each library's service population. All figures show bootstrapped 95 percent simultaneous confidence intervals. Unlike pointwise confidence intervals, simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 95% confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across event -times. Standard errors are clustered by library system.
49 382

Figure A4: Impact of capital expenditure shock on library resources (school -district shocks) (A) Log book stock (B) Log number employees
Overall ATT = 0.052 Overall ATT = 0.058
Overall SE = 0.012 Overall SE = 0.009

0.10 0.10
• 0.05
E 0.05 E
y • m 0.00 • '

0.00 • ' '
• • -0.05
-0.10
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock (C) Log salary spending (D) Log operating spending
Overall ATT = 0.049 Overall ATT = 0.07
Overall SE = 0.009 Overall SE = 0.012

0.10 0.10

0.05 • • • • 0.05
E E
' 0.00 '

0.00 • '
• • -0.05
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock Event study estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 3 at the school district level. A library spending shock is defined in Section 3. The outcome variables are (A) Log capital spending, (B) Log children's circulation, (C) log children's event attendance, and (D) log visits. All figures show bootstrapped 95 percent simultaneous confidence intervals. Unlike pointwise confidence intervals. simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 95% confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across event -times. Standard errors are clustered by school district. 50 383

Figure A5: Dynamic correlation between capital expenditure shocks and school district character- istics
(A) Share Black students
Overall ATT = 0

0.03 Overall SE = 0.002

0.02 (B) Share Hispanic students
Overall ATT = 0.003

0.03 Overall SE = 0.002

0.02 0.01 0.01

0.00 ' • • • • • • • • • • • E 0.00
-0.01 -0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
(C) Share Asian students
Overall ATT = 0

0.03 Overall SE = 0.001

0.02 -0.02
-0.03
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shack
(D) Share Native American students
Overall ATT = -0.001

0.03 Overall SE = 0.001

0.02 0.01 0.01
W
N
0-00 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' E 0.00 • • • • •
0 10
-0.01 -0.01
-0.02 -0.02
-0.03 -0.03
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -7 -6 -5 -4-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock Event study estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 4 at the school district level. A library spending shock is defined in Section 4. The outcome variables are (A) Share Black students, (B) Share Hispanic students, (C) Share Asian students, and (D) log Share Native American students. All figures show bootstrapped 95 percent simultaneous confidence intervals. Unlike pointwise con- fidence intervals, simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 95% confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across event -times. Standard errors are clustered by school district. 51 384

Figure A6: Dynamic correlation between capital expenditure shocks and additional school district characteristics
(a) Share of students who qualify for free lunch
Overall ATT = -0.001

0.03 Overall SE = 0.005

0.02 0.01
N • •
E 0.00
w
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
(b) Share of students who qualify for reduced price lunch Overall ATT = 0.003

0.03 Overall SE = 0.002

0.02 0.01
E0.00 • • • • •
.N
W • •
-0.01
-0.02
-0 03
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
(c) Share of disadvantaged students
Overall ATT = -0.003

0.03 Overall SE = 0.004

0.02 0.01
N
E 0.00 •
y
N •
-0.01 •
-0.02
-0.03
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
Event study estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 4 at the school district level. A library spending shock is defined in Section 4. 52
385

Figure A7: Impact of capital expenditure shocks on community characteristics (A) Share unemployed (B) Share SNAP eligible
Overall ATT = -0.001 Overall ATT = 0.003

0.03 Overall SE = 0.001 0.03 Overall SE = 0.002

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01
m m
-0.01 -0.01
-0.02 -0.02
-0o3 -0.03
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock (C) Share BA -plus adults (D) Share single mother
Overall ATT = 0.002 Overall ATT = -0.001

0.03 Overall SE = 0.001 0.03 Overall SE = 0.002

0.02 0.02

0.01 001
!• • w
N N
01 y
-0.01 -0.01
-0.02 -0.02
-0.03 -0.03
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock Event study estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 4 at the school district level. A library spending shock is defined in Section 4. The outcome variables are (A) Share unemployed adults, (B) Share SNAP -eligible adults, (C) Share BA - plus educated adults, and (D) Share single mother adults. All figures show bootstrapped 95 percent simultaneous confidence intervals. Unlike point -wise confidence intervals, simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 95% confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across event -times. Standard errors are clustered by school district. 53 386

Figure A8: Impact of capital expenditure shocks on school district finances (A) Log total spending (B) Log capital spending

0.05 Overall ATT = -0.006 Overall ATT = -0.064
Overall SE = 0.012 0.25 Overall SE = 0.089
• • • 0,00

0.00 E m
E E
y m -0.25
-0.05
-0.50
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock (C) Log salary spending (D) Log instructional salary spending Overall ATT = 0.002 Overall ATT = 0.004
Overall SE = 0.007 Overall SE = 0.007

0.025

0.02 0,000
v m
m m 0.00
E E
-0.025
-0-02
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock Event study estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 4 at the school district level. A library spending shock is defined in Section 4. The outcome variables are (A) Log total school spending, (S) Log capital school spending, (C) Log salary school spending, and (D) Log instructional salary school spending. All figures show bootstrapped 95 percent simultaneous confidence intervals.

Unlike pointwise confidence intervals, simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 95% confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across event -times. Standard errors are clustered by school district. 54 387

Figure A9: Impact of capital expenditure shock on reading test scores, alternative ATT weights (A) Simple weights (B) Group weights
Overall ATT = 0.016 Overall ATT = 0.016
Overall SE = 0.007 Overall SE = 0.006

0.100 0.100

0.075 0.075
N m
m m

0.050
rn rn

0.025 • • G 0.025 • •
m • �a •
m • • v

0.000 • • • ' • ' • 0.000 • • • ' • '
-0.025 -0o25
-0.050 -0.050
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock (C) Calendar weights (D) Efficient estimator
Overall ATT = 0.013 Overall ATT = 0.027
Overall SE = 0.006 Overall SE = 0.005

0.100 0.100

0.075 0.075
N
d N

0.050 • 3 0.050
rn m

0.025 • � .9 0.025 •
o: 0.000 • • • • • • of 0.000
-0.025 -0.025
-0.050 -0.050
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock These figure shows district -level test score estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 4. Event study coefficients are identical for panels A-C, which use different weights to combine group -specific ATTs into an overall ATT. Panel D presents the method of Sant'Anna and Roth (2020). All figures show bootstrapped 95 percent simultaneous confidence intervals. Unlike pointwise confi- dence intervals, simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 95% confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across event -times. Standard errors are clustered by school district. 55 388

Figure A10: Impact of capital expenditure shock on reading test scores, alternative shock thresholds (A) $600 shock (B) $800 shock
Overall ATT = 0.013 Overall ATT = 0.014
Overall SE = 0.007 Overall SE = 0.007

0.100 0.100

0.075 0.075
N N
N N

0.050 0.050
v � m

0.025 • S 0.025
o v
m m

0.000 • • • 0.000 • • •
-0.025 -0.025
-0.050 -0.050
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock (C) $1,000 shock (D) $1,200 shock
Overall ATT = 0.02 Overall ATT = 0.026
Overall SE = 0.008 Overall SE = 0.008
0100 0.100

0.075 0.075
N N
W W
$ 0,050 3 0.050
N

0.025 • • 9 0.025
a� • w

0.000 • • • • 0.000
-0.025 -0.025
-0.050 -0.050
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years relative to capital spending shock Years relative to capital spending shock These figure shows district -level library outcome estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 4 for different definitions of capital spending shock thresholds, including our baseline shock size (Panel Q. All figures show bootstrapped 95 percent simultaneous confidence intervals. Unlike poinhvise confidence intervals, simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 95% confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across event -times. Standard errors are clustered by school district.
56 389

Figure All: Impact of library capital spending shocks on child test scores, TWFE method (a) Reading test scores
.075
a .05
U
N
N
0 025 - -
Q)
_N O ° O
— —"
z 0 O —~~r
025 �~
-.05 -
.075
°1
O
O
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to library capital spending shock
(b) Mathematics test scores
v
`p .05
U
t!l
w° a
.025
a)
O ° t,\ ' O
0 ° ° ° O -
o -� O ° °
I
-.05
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to library capital spending shock
These figure shows test score estimates generated using the standard TWFE model discussed in Sections 3 and 4. Standard errors are clustered by school district. The model also includes district -grade and year fixed effects. 57 390

Figure Al2: Impact of library capital spending shocks on child test scores, TWFE method including time -varying SEDA controls
(a) Reading test scores
075
LO
0 0 05
o
U
N
U1
0 d
a
.025
0 m

N ------
-. O
O
O
O O O O O .0- -O
-.025 -- -
-.05 -
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to library capital spending shock
(b) Mathematics test scores
.1
075
N 0 0
0 025 -
(D - - -
N O O _ O
E O o -----0
O O ..O O O O ..—_.
z O O
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to library capital spending shock
These figure shows test score estimates generated using the standard TWFE model discussed in Sections 3 and 4. Standard errors are clustered by school district. The model also includes district -grade and year fixed effects and the time -varying SEDA district covariates described in Section 4.
58 391

Figure A13: Impact of library capital spending shocks on child test scores, TWFE method including time -varying SEDA and CCD district finance controls
(a) Reading test scores
.075
N o
N /
O
a .025 0
O
O
Z O O-
-.025 - ---
-.05
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to library capital spending shock
(b) Mathematics test scores
.075
o .05
U
N
N
(D
O
'a .025
-
—
O
(D
N
-
O 0
Z
O
O
O
O
-
O
O
O
O
O
-.025
-.05
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to library capital spending shock
These figure shows test score estimates generated using the standard TWFE model discussed in Sections 3 and 4. Standard errors are clustered by school district. The model also includes district -grade and year fixed effects and the time -varying SEDA and district financial covariates described in in Section 4.
59 392

Figure A14: Impact of library capital spending shocks on child test scores, covariate matching approach
(a) Reading test scores
Overall ATT = 0.017
Overall SE = 0.008

0.100

0.075
m
0 U
0 0.050
in •
(D
Y •
t)
.S 0.025
0 • •
a� •

0.000 • • • • •
-0.025
-0.050
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
(b) Mathematics test scores
Overall ATT = 0
Overall SE = 0.009

0.100

0.075
N
6 0.050
0 Y
a�
Y

0.025
m •

0.000 • ' . • •
-0.025 • •
-0.050
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Years relative to capital spending shock
Event study estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 4 at the school district level. All figures show bootstrapped 95 percent simultaneous confidence intervals. Unlike pointwise confidence intervals, simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 95% confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across 60 event -times. Standard errors are clustered by school district. 393

Figure A15: Impact of library capital spending shocks on child test scores, covariate matching approach with district financial covariates
(a) Reading test scores
Overall ATT = 0.016
Overall SE = 0.008

0.100

0.075
m
0 U

0.050
a� •
rn '
S 0.025
•
tm '
a�

0.000 • • • • •
•
-0.025
-0.050
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Years relative to capital spending shock
(b) Mathematics test scores
Overall ATT = 0.008
Overall SE = 0.011

0.100

0.075
w
aD
c°� 0.050
a�
s 0.025 • •
m

0.000 •
-0.025 •
-0.050
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Years relative to capital spending shock
Event study estimates generated using the Callaway and Sant'Anna (2020) procedure described in Section 4 at the school district level. All figures show bootstrapped 95 percent simultaneous confidence intervals. Unlike point -,vise confidence intervals, simultaneous confidence intervals include the path of treatment over time with 957 confidence and account for the dependence of the presented coefficients across 61 event -times. Standard errors are clustered by school district. 394

Availability of Childcare for Potential Demand 1 5%
Third Graders Meeting Literacy Standards
Fifth Graders Meeting Math Standards
Graduation Rate
10-Year Growth in STEM Degrees
4out of 10
1 out of3
83%
27%
The San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools is a leader in a statewide, education -based partnership that includes the California Association for Bilingual Education, Los Angeles -based Families in Schools, and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence. The goal of the partnership is to develop stronger family and community engagement in schools as a research -based strategy to accelerate student success. The partners were awarded a $13.2 million System of Support grant to build engagement capacity in school districts across the state. In the first year of the five-year grant, six pilot districts across the state are participating, including Ontario -Montclair School District in San Bernardino County. Participating districts will form Professional Learning Networks to disseminate the work statewide in subsequent years.
395

EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION
Increase in Number ®f Quality -Rated Sites
Research on school readiness and children's brain development confirms the importance of high -quality early education and care programs for children's future success in school and life. In addition, affordable childcare is essential for working families to maintain economic self-sufficiency. Early care and education has been shown to be an efficient and effective investment for economic and workforce development, with an estimated return of $7 for every $1 invested.' This indicator measures childcare quality and availability by tracking participation in Quality Start San Bernardino (QSSB) and the supply and demand of childcare spaces.

How is San Bernardino County Doing?
The number of Quality Start sites continues to grow:
• In 2019, there were 234 sites in San Bernardino
County participating in QSSB, with about half (119)
of those sites receiving a quality rating and another
115 receiving quality improvement services.
• The number of sites with a rating is up from 103 sites in 2017/18 and 76 sites in 2016/17.
• Of the 119 sites with ratings, 77 sites received a rating of 4 (Quality Plus) and 12 sites received a rating of 5 (Highest Quality).

Between 2014 and 2016, demand for childcare increased
while the number of spaces available decreased:2
• There was a 15% decrease in the number of spaces at
licensed childcare centers (center -based) and a 24%
decrease in the number of spaces at licensed family
childcare homes (home -based) in San Bernardino
County.
• The long-term trend is also downward. Between 2008
and 2016, there was an 11 % decrease in the number
of licensed center -based spaces and a 51 % decrease in the number of licensed home -based spaces.
• The need far outpaces supply. In 2016, there were
enough licensed childcare spaces for only 15% of chil-
dren ages 12 and younger with parents in the labor
force. This rate was 19% in 2014 and 21 % in 2012.
• This is the lowest rate among neighboring counties
and the California average of 23 %.

At the direction of the 5th District/Head Start Shared Gov- ernance Board, several local organizations— San Bernardino's Preschool Services Department, First 5 San Bernardino, Child Care Resource Center (CCRC), and San Bernardino County
Superintendent of Schools — are working on a project to maximize the utilization of the limited number of subsidized childcare slots in San Bernardino County.

While there is insufficient capacity to meet childcare demand in the county, some childcare slots still go unfilled. This is often because of where some eligible children enroll. For example, if a child eligible for Head Start (the lowest income threshold) is enrolled in a California State Preschool Program (CSPP) slot, that child is potentially blocking a child from a higher income family who does not qualify for Head Start from attending the CSPP. Alternatively, if a CSPP-eligible child is enrolled in Transitional Kindergarten (TK), they are potentially blocking a child with higher income who does not qualify for CSPP from attending TK.

While preserving parental choice, the partners are working on a plan to enhance the childcare referral process, which is primarily administered by CCRC, in order to fully maximize the utilization of available subsidized childcare slots.

National Institute for Early Childhood Education Research (hirp://nicer.org) ' 2018 childcare data were not available at time of this report's publication.

Quality Start San Bernardino County (QSSB) works to increase the quality of local early learning programs for San Bernardino County's youngest children through the development of a Quality Rating Improvement System (QRIS). Participating sites are rated every two years and receive support and incentives to gain and maintain the highest ratings through the system.

Availability of Childcare for Potential Demand
County Comparison, 2016
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
San Diego Orange California Los Angeles Riverside San Bernardino Source: The California Child Care Portfolio, Califtmia Child Care Resource and Refs al Network (LIL1tw.rroettwork. yl)
Childcare Sites Rated in Quality Start San Bernardino
San Bernardino County, 2018/19
90 80
70 N 60
m
' 50
0 m
E40
Z
30 20 12
0 M 0-
--- -- _
14 0
Emerging Quality (1) Rising Quality (2) Quality (3) Quality Plus (4) Highest Quality (5) Center -Based 0 Home -Based
Source: Fiat S San Bernardino
2019 EDUCATION 16
396

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE: THIRD GRADE ENGLISH
4 out of 10 Third Graders Meet English Language Standards Research shows that children who are not proficient readers by the end of third grade are four times more likely to leave school without a diploma than proficient readers, and more likely to engage in criminal activity, impacting public safety., This indicator measures third grade proficiency for English language arts/literacy (ELA/literacy) using the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress assessment (CAASPP) results. The CAASPP assessment is a computer -adaptive, end -of -year academic performance test that is aligned with California's Common Core State Standards.

How is San Bernardino County Doing?
In 2019, about four out of every 10 third graders in San Bernardino County met or exceeded ELA/literacy standards:
• Overall, 42.4% of third graders in the county met or exceeded standards for ELA/literacy in 2019, about the same as in 2018 (42.8%). • San Bernardino County's third grade performance is lower than the statewide average (51 % of students met or exceeded ELA/literacy standards) and all counties compared including Orange (56%), San Diego (55%), Los Angeles (49%), and Riverside (48%).

Third grade academic performance varies across a range of characteristics:
• For example, 71 % of Asian students met or exceeded standards, compared to 55% of White students, 39% of Latino students, and 3 7 % of Black students.
• More than one-third (36%) of economically disadvantaged students met or exceeded ELA/literacy standards, compared to 61 % of students who were not economically disadvantaged?
• For children whose parents were not high school graduates, 27% met or exceeded standards.
• Only 17% of children classified as English Learners met or exceeded ELA/literacy standards.

Percentage of Third Graders Meeting or Exceeding English/ELA Standards San Bernardino County, 2019
80%
70 %
60%
50%
40%
30 %
20%
Percentage of Third Graders Meeting or Exceeding
English/ELA Standards
San Bernardino County and California, 2015-2019
60% .
50 %
40%
30 %
20 %
10%
0%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
San Bernardino County N California
Source: California Department ofFducation, DataQuest
10% — --
0% --
Asian White Other Latino Black No Yes College Grad HS Grad Not HS English English or Higher Graduate Only Learner
Race/Ethnicity Economically Parent Education English Language Disadvantaged Learner
Note: Asian includes Asian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander and Filipino. Other includes two or more races and Native American.

Source: California Department of Education, DataQuert
Preparing young children for school is crucial to ensuring they have a head start to life-long learning. Exercising the brains of babies in the first years of life significantly impacts children's development. Being "school ready" means a child is ready to enter a social environment that is primarily focused on education that challenges cognitive, social, emotional and motor development. The quality of children's early life experiences can be affected by inequalities in a child's background. For example, research has shown that by age three, children from lower -income families hear roughly 30 million fewer words than their more affluent peers and that a high correlation exists between vocabulary size at age three and language test scores at age nine and 10 in areas of vocabulary, listening, syntax, and reading comprehension.a A system that supports quality early learning experiences for children from birth through age five is key to shifting the future generation.

Hart, B. Risley, T. Meaningful Difference in the Everyday Experiences of Young American Children (1995). Paul FL Brookes Publishing Co. ' Hernandez DJ. "Double Jeopardy: How Third -Grade reading skills. and Poverty Influence High School Graduation." The Annic F. Casey Foundation (2012). = Economically disadvantaged students include students eligible for the free and reduced priced meal program, foster youth, homeless students, migrant students, and students for whom neither parent is a high school graduate.
2019 EDUCATION 17
397

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE: FIFTH GRADE MATHEMATICS
Performance Improves for Fourth Consecutive Year
Research shows that basic math skills are necessary in order to navigate through life, and competence in math is associated with readiness for the workplace and higher future earnings., This indicator measures fifth grade scores for mathematics using the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress assessment (CAASPP) results. The CAASPP assessment is a computer -adaptive, end -of -year academic performance test that is aligned with the California's Common Core State Standards.

How is San Bernardino County Doing?
Less than three out of 10 fifth graders met or exceeded mathematics standards:
• Overall, 29% of fifth graders in the county met or exceeded standards for mathematics in 2019, higher than in 2018, when 27% met or exceeded standards.
• This is lower than the California average (38% of students met or exceeded math standards) and all counties compared, including Orange (49%) San Diego (45%), Los Angeles (38%), and Riverside (33%).

Fifth grade math performance varies by sub -group:
• 65% of Asian students met or exceeded math standards, compared to 41% of White students, 25% of Latino students, and 15% of Black students.
• 23 % of students who are economically disadvantaged met or exceeded math standards.
• For children whose parents were not high school graduates, 17 % met or exceeded standards.
• Only 6% of students who are classified as English Learners met or exceeded math standards.

Percentage of Fifth Graders Meeting or Exceeding Math Standards San Bernardino County, 2019
70% _
60 % - -
40%
30% —
20%
Asian White Other Latino Black No VYes
Economically
Disadvantaged
Percentage of Fifth Graders Meeting or Exceeding
Math Standards
San Bernardino County and California, 2015-2019
40°i° ---- - - — ---
35 %
30 %
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
a%
2015 2016 2017 2018
San Bernardino County ECalifornia
Sonrre: California Depamnent of &titration, DataQuert
2019
College Grad H5 Grad Not HS English English
or Higher Graduate Only Learner
Parent Education English Language
Learner
Note: Asian includes Asian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander and Filipino. Other includes two or more races and Native American.

Sozmre: California Depamnent of &lucatron, DataQaerr
The Importance of Mathematics for Child Outcomes
A growing body of research suggests that early math skills are a better predictor of later academic success than early literacy skills. In a widely cited study of large longitudinal data sets, University of California, Irvine professor Greg Duncan and colleagues found that in a comparison of math, literacy, and social -emotional skills at kindergarten entry, "early math concepts, such as knowledge of numbers and ordinality, were the most powerful predictors of later learning."
In a separate, large-scale longitudinal study conducted by Duncan and his colleagues for children in elementary school, the type of math knowledge most essential for children to know was fractions and whole -number division. The researchers found that mastering these two concepts were important predictors of students' long-term learning and success in high school.

Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klcbanov, P.,et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Dmelop?nmtal Pgchology, 43(6), 1428-1446; Siegler, R. S., Duncan, G. J., Davis -Kean, P. E., Duclovorth, K., Claessens, A., Engel, M., Susperreguy, M. I., & Chen, M. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement.

Ay,hologieal Srie,,. 23(7), 691-697.
'Child Trends. (2012). ALtthenmria profriemy ( http://www.childtrends.org/rindicators=mathematics-proficiency) ' Economically disadvantaged students include students eligible for the free and reduced priced meal program, foster youth, homeless students, migrant students, and students for whom neither parent is a high school graduate.
2019 EDUCATION 18
398

CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM

12.6% of County Students were Chronically Absent in 2017/18 The costs and impacts of chronic absenteeism are significant, with both short- and long-term implications for the student as well as for the family, school, and community.l Research suggests that chronic school absenteeism at the elementary school level reduces math and reading achievement, educational engagement, four-year graduation rates or any high school completion, and social engagement for the absent child as well as for other children in the classroom.2 Research aimed at discovering the causes of chronic absenteeism point to poor physical, mental and oral health, ACES (adverse childhood experiences), and poor school climate.3 How is San Bernardino County Doing?
With only two years of data, an absenteeism trend has not yet emerged:
• In 2017/18, 12.6% of all students were chronically absent, which is higher than the statewide rate of 11.1 %.
• In 2016/17, the first year of data collection, the San Bernardino County chronic absenteeism rate of 12.1%,
compared to the state rate of 10.8%.
• The rate of chronic absenteeism among students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged is more than twice that of students who are not socioeconomically disadvantaged (14.6% vs. 6.5%).
• The chronic absenteeism rate ranges widely by district, from a low of 0% to a high of 35%.

In California, chronic absenteeism is defined as being absent for 10% or more of the number of days a student is enrolled in school.

For students enrolled for a full school year, this equates to 18 out of California's state -mandated 180 days in a full school year.

Chronic Absenteeism by Socioeconomic Status
San Bernardino and California, 2016/17 and 2017/18
16% —
12 % --- --- ---
4% -----
2%
All Students FI Students Yes No
2016/17 2017/18 Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
2017/18
San Bernardino County N California
Note: Socioeconomically disadvantaged includes students eligible for free or reduced -price school meals, foster youth, homeless students, migrant students, and students for whom neither parent is a high school graduate.

Percentage of Chronically Absent Students by School District San Bernardino County, 2017/18
Mt. Baldy Joint Elementary
Trona Joint Unified
Etiwanda Elementary
Alta Loma Elementary
Chino Valley Unified
Ontario -Montclair
Silver Valley Unified
Central Elementary
Oro Grande
Fontana Unified
Mountain View Elementary
Cucamonga Elementary
Upland Unified
Rialto Unified
Chaffey Joint Union High
Yucaipa -Cali mesa Joint Unified
Colton Joint Unified
Redlands Unified
Victor Valley Union High
Apple Valley Unified
Hesperia Unified
Bear Valley Unified
Adelanto Elementary
Victor Elementary
San Bernardino City Unified
Snowline Joint Unified
Morongo Unified
Rim of the World Unified
Needles Unified
Baker Valley Unified
Helendale Elementary
Barstow Unified
Lucerne Valley Unified
San Bernardino County Office
of Education
Source: California Department ofEducatiou, DatuQuest 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Source: Ccdifbmia Deparmient of Education, DataQuest
'Maynard, B. R., McCrea, K. T., Pigott, T. D., & Kelly, M. S. (2012). Indicated Truancy Interventions: Effects on School Attendance Among Chronic Truant Students. Campbell Systen atic Reviews, 10.

Gottfried, M. A. (2019). Chronic Absenteeism in the Classroom Context: Effects on Achievement. Urban Education, 54(I), 3-34. Smerillo, N. E., Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., & On, S. R. (2018).

Chronic Absence, Eighth -grade Achievement, and High School Attainment in the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Journal ofScbool P.j-chology, 67, 163-178. Gottfried, NI. A. (2014). Chronic Absenteeism and its Effects on Studenrs' Academic and Socioemotional Outcomes. Journal ofEduratiou for Students Placed at Risk (jESPAR), 19(2), 53-75. Cook, P. J., Dodge, K. A., Gifford, E. J., & Shulting, A. B. (2017). A New Program to Prevent Primary School Absenteeism: Results of a Pilot Study in Five Schools. Children and Youth Services Review, 82, 262-270. ' Stempel, H., Cox -Martin, iM., Bronsert, NI., Dickinson, L. AL, & Allison, bI. A. (2017). Chronic School Absenteeism and the Role of Adverse Childhood Experiences. flcadewir Pediatric, 17(8), 837-843.

Van Eck, K., Johnson, S. R., Bettencourt, A., & Johnson, S. L. (2017). How School Climate Relates to Chronic Absence: A Multi -Level Latent Profile Analysis. Journal ofScbool Pjyzhology, 61, 89-102.

Pourat N., & Nicholson G. (2009). Affordability of Needed Dental Care is Linked to Frequent School Absences (pre-publicarion manuscript), UCLA Center far Heald) Policy Research 2019 EDUCATION
399
19 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Graduation Rate Improves, Surpassing the Statewide Average A high school diploma or college degree opens many career opportunities that are typically closed to those without these achievements. Beyond the personal benefits of increased educational attainment, the education level of residents is evidence of the quality and diversity of the labor pool — an important factor for businesses looking to locate or expand in the region. Educational attainment is measured by tracking the high school graduation rate and the proportion of residents over age 25 with a high school diploma or bachelor's degree.

How is San Bernardino County Doing?
The proportion of high school and college graduates among San Bernardino County's overall population has increased over the past 10 years:
• Between 2009 and 2018, the proportion of residents over age 25 who are high school graduates rose from 7 8 % to 80%. • At 80%, San Bernardino County falls below state and national averages (84% and 88%, respectively) for residents overage 25 with a high school diploma.
• Between 2009 and 2018, the proportion of residents over the age of 25 with a bachelor's degree or higher rose from 19% to 21%. • At 21 %, San Bernardino County is below the state (34%) and nation (3 3 %) for college graduates.

San Bernardino County outperforms or is on par with the state on most high school graduation rate metrics:'
• In 2017/18, the San Bernardino County high school
graduation rate was 83.4%, marking an improvement over
the prior year rate (82.6%) and exceeding the statewide rate (83.0%).
• There also has been progress in closing gaps among
subgroups of county students. For example, the difference between White and Black student graduation rates closed to seven points, well ahead of the statewide graduation rate gap of 14 points.
• The county's Latino student graduation rate is effectively on par with White students, which compares favorably to the statewide graduation rate gap of six points between these two student groups.
• The San Bernardino County graduation rate for socioeco- nomically disadvantaged students was 81 %, approximately 12 points below the rate for non -socioeconomically disad- vantaged students (93 %) but outperforming the statewide socioeconomically disadvantaged rate of 80%.
• County averages for English learners, foster youth, home- less students, and students with disabilities all exceeded state averages, as well.

Percentage Over Age 25 Earning a High School Diploma (or Higher) and Bachelor's Degree (or Higher)
San Bernardino County, 2009 and 2018
90% 85% 88%
81% 84%
78% 80 /o
70%
50% _
34%
° oea oaeo®e:::a®aoee:::«33%
30% 30%
_ _e•eo eo.e. ®erase• •e.e a}'_ -_
28%eeeeeeeeee•
18%•••eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew2l%
10%
2009 2018
High School Graduate or Higher: Bachelor's Degree or Higher:

San Bernardino County •••San Bernardino County
— California —California
— United States •••United States
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Cunrmuniq Surrey, I -Year Ea nrater, 2009 and 2018 (fable DP02)
Graduation Rate by Subgroup
San Bernardino County and California, 2017/2018
100%
i
80%
l
_
70 %
60% -
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Black Asian Latino
M . i a � J..

White Yes No
Race/Ethnicity Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
San Bernardino County N California
Sourre: California Deparnaent ofFduration, DntaQuest(Lttpr://AntnLrde.m.gov/dntngrrcstl) The four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate is the number of students who graduate from high school in tour years with a regular high school diploma (e.g. does not include a general equivalency diploma or similar or lesser credentials).
400 2019 EDUCATION 20

COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS
Strong Performance on Career -Tech Metrics
Career technical education (CTE) integrates academic and technical skills, supporting educational goals, workforce development, and economic development. It offers students research -based, relevant curricula developed expressly for success in college and careers. For those just entering the workforce, changing careers, or needing on-the-job skill upgrades, CTE provides applicable skillsets and increased career opportunities. For those entering college, CTE provides a foundation of real -world skills that will enhance academic learning. In addition to CTE coursework, preparation for success in college includes taking coursework that is academically rigorous and required for college admission. Successful completion of college can lead to increased earning power, better health, a stronger workforce, and societal benefits, such as increased voter participation and increased tax receipts.l This indicator shows enrollment in high school CTE and AP/IB courses, participation in work -based learning offered through the three Regional Occupational Programs serving the county, and CTE Pathways completions. This indicator also shows the number of high school graduates who have fulfilled minimum course requirements to be eligible for admission to University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) campuses, as well as the college -going rates among graduates.2 How is San Bernardino County Doing?
CTE and _1PAB Course Enrollment
Enrollment in high school CTE and AP/IB courses has grown over the past five years:
• CTE course enrollment rose 10% in the five-year period between 2014/15 and 2018/19.
• Meanwhile, AP/IB course enrollment grew 8%.
• These growth rates are significant in the face of an overall high school enrollment decline of 2% since 2014/15.
• The most popular CTE industry sector is Arts, Media,
and Entertainment with 10,517 enrollments, followed
by Health Science and Medical Technology (7,975) and
Business and Finance (4,965).
• The CTE industry sectors posting the fastest five-year rate of growth in enrollments were Energy and Utilities (+877%), Public Services (+104%), and Arts, Media and
Entertainment (+3 3 %).
• The most popular AP/IB courses are in History/Social
Science with 18,868 enrollments, followed by English
Language Arts (12,363) and Science (8,785).
• The fastest rates of increase for AP/IB class enrollments were in Computer Education (+320%), Science (+22%),
and Drama/Theatre (+18%).

Enrollment in Career -Technical Education (CTE) and IB or AP Courses in San Bernardino County Public High Schools,
2014/15-2018/19
70,000
60,000 _ 57,005
58,899 _______58,034_ _59,999
54,737
56,164 55,226 57,936
50,000 53,448 ___-53,276
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
o
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
— Total AP or IB Enrollment —Total CTE Enrollment
Source: California Department of Education, DaraQuest, Subject Area Courses (brtp://dntn1.rde.rn.gov1) Enrollment (2018/19) and Change in Enrollment (between 2014/15 and 2018/19) in AP or IB Courses in San Bernardino County Public High Schools by Subject
2018119
Enrollment
e
Computer Education 706
Science
8,785
Drama/Theater
100
Foreign Languages
7,285
History/Social Science
18,868
Music
338
English Language Arts
12,636
Physical Education
998
Mathematics
7,237
Art
1,256
'
.-9%
. 9 °%
15%
'3%
-4%
-6%
-50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300%
Percent Change 2014/15 to 2018/19
Sorare: California Depmr ne t ofEduation, DataQuest, Subject Area Courses (bttp.11dam1.rde.m.gov1) College Board, Educarion Pays, 2013 (hup://trcnds.collcgeboard.org/education-pays) 2 UC/CSU eligibility data are sourced from the four-year adjusted cohort outcome reports and should not be compared to data presented in previous Community Indicators Reports. 350%
401 2019 EDUCATION 21

COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS (Continued)
Enrollment (2018/19) and Change in Enrollment (between 2014/15 and 2018/19) in Career -Technical Education (CTE) in San Ber- nardino County Public High Schools by Industry Sector
2018/19
Enrollment
Work Experience Education 1,852 I
Multiple Industry Sectors 4,928
Energy and Utilities
Public Services
Arts, Media, and Entertainment
Marketing, Sales, and Service
Health Science and Medical Technology
Engineering and Architecture
Building and Construction Trades
Hospitality, Toursim, and Recreation
Automotive/Transportation
Business and Finance
Manufacturing and Product Development
Education, Child Development, and Family Services
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Information and Communication Technologies
Fashion and Interior Design
293
3,252
033%
.32%
26 %
1-4%
I -9%
I -10%
' -11 %
'-16%
i
-21%
-26 %
-26 %
■-41%
i
■ -48 %
-200% 0% 200% 400% 600% 800% 1000%
Percent Change 2014/15 to 2018/19
Note: Work Experience Education is a new CTE course category as of 2018/19 and Multiple Industry Sectors is a new category as of 2017/18, therefore a five-year trend is not possible to calculate.

Source: California Dept tofEdtecatiau, DataQuert, Subject Ana Cot—( http://dital.rdr.ca.govl) Work -Based Learning
Work -based learning opportunities for ROP students
remain strong: : , • • 11865
• Between 2014/15 and 2018/19, the number of signed
agreements with business partners to provide work -based Growth in ROP . •. . ROP • - participating learning opportunities increased 180%, from 137 to 384. business partnerships .classroom • A total of 1,865 students participated in ROP "community 2014/15, �21�U19 classroom" work -based learning in 2018/19.

Sourcer: Stu Re—relino County Superintendent ofScboo&, Bahly Pirw, and Colton-Redlandr-11twipa Regional Ocrnpatioual Programs
10,517
1,228
7,975
2,689
3,411
4,027
3,500
4,965
2,010
2,779
1,376
4,941
256
CTE Pathways Completions
CTE pathway completion among 2018 high school gradu-
ates varies by student group:
• Overall, nearly a quarter (23%) of San Bernardino
County high school graduates in 2018 completed a
CTE pathway, indicating they completed of a series
of courses in an industry sector with a grade of a C
minus or better in the last class of the series.
• Among the four largest race and ethnic student
groups in San Bernardino County, Latino graduates
had the highest CTE pathway completion rate at
25%.
• Fully 27% of 2018 graduates identified as homeless
or housing insecure (see Homelessness and Housing
Insecurity indicator) completed a CTE pathway.

CTE Pathways Completion Rate
San Bernardino County, 2018
25%
20 i°
15%
10%
5%
0%
Race/Ethnicity
Other Student Groups
— San Bernardino County (23%)
402 2019 EDUCATION 22

COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS (Continued)
UC/CSU Eligibility
The UC/CSU eligibility rate improved between
2016/17 and 2017/18:
• 43 % of the San Bernardino County cohort graduating
in 2017/18 completed the necessary coursework to
be eligible for a UC or CSU campus.
• This rate of UC/CSU eligibility is two points
higher than the previous year.
• San Bernardino County's rate of eligibility is
lower than the statewide average of 50%.
• Asian/Pacific Islander graduates had the highest
rate of UC/CSU eligibility at 70%.

California's math and English language arts/literacy assess- ments taken by 11th grade students are designed to give high school students an early indication of college readiness and to avoid incoming college students' need for remediation. 2019 Snapshot
• 96% of San Bernardino County juniors took the literacy assessment and 95% took the math assessment.
• In literacy, 21 % of San Bernardino County students were deemed college ready and 30% were conditionally ready
(i.e. the student can take identified coursework in their senior year of high school that, following completion, will deem them college ready). Statewide, 22% of students
were college ready in English and 29% were conditionally ready.
• In math, 9% of San Bernardino County students were
deemed college ready and 17% were conditionally
ready. Statewide, 20% of students were college ready in math and 20% were conditionally ready.

Sooner: California Department of Education, California Aaesrnnent of Student Perfot= ntance and Progress(Lttps://datal.cde.ca.gov/d`ataquenQ and Early Assernneut Progratu ( www.cde.ca.gov/Ci/gs/Gsleapindex.rtsp)
UC/CSU Eligible High School Graduates
San Bernardino County and California, 2016/17 and 2017/18 60%
40°i°
30 20%
tar°
0°r°
2016/17 2017/18
0 San Bernardino County ■ California
Source: California Department of Education, DataQuest (Lttp://datal.cde.ca.gov/dntagl,,so UC/CSU Eligible High School Graduates by Race/Ethnicity San Bernardino County, 2017/18
70%
60 %
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Native American Black Latino White Two or
More Races
San Bernardino County (43%) — California (50%)
Source: California Departnte t of Education, DataQuett Qntp://datal.cdc.ca.gov/d`ataquesO College -Going Rates
College -going rates are high:
• Over half (58%) of San Bernardino County public high school graduates in 2017/18 enrolled in college within 12 months of completing high school, below the statewide rate of 64%. • Of the 58% enrolling in college, 57% enrolled in a California community college, followed by 19% enrolling at a CSU campus and 10% enrolling at a UC campus.
• San Bernardino County's overall college -going rates have not changed substantially since tracking began in 2014/15.

The Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) college readiness system has a mission to close the achievement gap by preparing all students for college readiness and success in a global society.

Since the California budget eliminated AVID funding in 2012113, San Bernardino County, along with Riverside, Inyo and Mono counties (the RIMS region), has funded the program locally to keep it thriving and growing in the region. In an effort to plant the seed for college aspirations early, the AVID college readiness system is increasing dramatically at the elementary levels across the region.

Source: San Bernardino County Superintendent of Scbools Asian/Pacific
Islander
College -Going Rate Among High School Graduates
San Bernardino County, 2015-2018
70% _ 67%—
65%65% 64 /o o
60 % _.
58% 59% 60% 58%
50% 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
— San Bernardino County — California
2018/19 AVID Snapshot
In 2018/19, a countywide total of 50,588 students (23,474 in secondary schools and 27,114 in elementary schools) took AVID classes during the academic year. Of the 2,710 AVID seniors in the county graduating in 2019, 100% graduated from high school and 95.4% successfully completed their A-G course requirements (courses that count toward eligibility for CSU/UC schools). In addition, 86.2% of AVID seniors were accepted to a four-year college or university and 92.9% planned on attending a 2- or 4-year college for 2019/20.
403 2019 EDUCATION 23

STEM -RELATED DEGREES
27% Growth in STEM -Related Degrees Granted
The technical and problem -solving skills learned though the STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) are critical in our knowledge- and technology -driven economy. A technically skilled pool of local graduates reduces the need for employers to recruit workers from outside the county and can attract new high-tech jobs. This indicator measures the number of degrees awarded in STEM disciplines at colleges and universities in San Bernardino County, including associate, bachelor's, and graduate degrees.' How is San Bernardino County Doing?
STEM -related degrees — including health and medical
professions — accounted for approximately 24% of the total number of degrees awarded in 2016/17 by public and private four-year universities and public community colleges in San Bernardino County:
• Overall, STEM -related associate, bachelor's and graduate degrees granted have grown 27% since 2007/08.
• A total of 1,289 STEM -related associate degrees were awarded in 2016/17, which is on par with the number of
degrees granted 10 years ago.
• The number of STEM -related bachelor's degrees awarded (1,589 in 2016/17) grew 69% over the past 10 years.
• The number of STEM -related graduate degrees granted
has grown relatively steadily since 2007/08, rising 21 % to 1,065 in 2016/17.
• Since 2007/08, Physical Sciences, Mathematics and
Statistics, and Biological and Biomedical Sciences
posted the fastest growth rates (154%, 113%, and
94%, respectively), while Health Professions grew 30%
and Engineering and Computer Science, IT and
Communications Tech both declined (-74% and -4%,
respectively).

STEM -Related Degrees Awarded by Type of Award
San Bernardino County, 2008-2017
2,500 -- ---- - —._-
21000
1,589
1,500 1,280 - - - - -----
1,289
1,000 939-
862 1,065
500 -_ - - -- -
o - - -- —
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
— Associate — Bachelor's — Graduate
Note: Due to a change in the source, these data should not be compared to previous Indicators Reports.

Source: Emir Q3 2019 Data Set front California Labor Market Infornmtion Department '1=1 k4 i t=i(:4 In addition to the degrees tallied in this indicator, which comprise associate, bachelor's, and graduate degrees,
2,416 STEM -related certificates were awarded in 2016/17.

I
STEM -Related Degrees Conferred by San Bernardino County Colleges and Universities, 2008-2017 4,000
3,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
335
-
-
_.
- - -
-.._..
--
_
-323
231
246
127
234
94 -
200
0 . 92
- _
60 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
— Health Professions — Computer Science, IT, and Communications Tech Biological and Biomedical Sciences Physical Sciences Mathematics and Statistics Engineering Sortrte: Envr Q3 2019 Data Set frmtt California Labor Market btfo—atios Deparnneat STEM -related degrees include the subjects of biological sciences, health or medical professions, physical sciences, mathematics, statistics, computer and information sciences, communications technology, and engineering, environmental and industrial technologies. Data are inclusive all 2- and 4-Year, public and private post -secondary degree -granting institutions in San Bernardino County. 404 2019 EDUCATION 24

Shane Massoud
From: Ray Casey
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 11:54 AM
To: Shane Massoud
Subject: FW: New Yucaipa Library
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Ray Casey
City Manager
City of Yucaipa
City Hall • 34272 Yucaipa Blvd • Yucaipa, CA 92399
Office: 909-797-2489 Ext. 226
www., LV lcalpa.org
From: Hernandez, Leonard - CAD
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 12:13 PM
To: Ray Casey
Cc: Jimenez, Michael ; Orosco, Melanie
Subject: New Yucaipa Library
Ray,
Thanks for chatting with us about the library this week. We appreciate your passion and vision for the project.

Here is what the County can commit to:
- Third District — is already giving funds to a flood control project $900k+. We can have an offline discussion about the arrangement for these funds at your convenience
- County Library — will commit to $1 million for FF&E
- New: County Library — will commit to $2 million as a part of the City's portion of the $9 million match for the State grant
We look forward to moving this project forward and we are here to discuss any of the above items in more detail.

Thanks,
Leonard X. Hernandez
Chief Executive Officer
County Administrative Office
Phone:909-387-5418
Fax:909-387-5430
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92415
405

SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY
Our job is to create a county in which those who reside and invest can prosper and achieve well-being.

County of San Bernardino Confidentiality Notice. This communication contains confidential information sent solely for the use of the intended recipient If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are not authorized to use it in any manner, except to immediately destroy it and notify the sender. 406

Yucaipa City CouncilJanuary 9, 2023

Yucaipa City Council
January 9, 2023