|
Ms. McDonald introduced the budget by providing
procedural context for the tabling of the budget, vis-à-vis approval at the
December Board meeting, and outlined the recommendations.
Monique Désormeaux,
Deputy CEO outlined the approach taken in developing the draft budget. She reviewed
the direction provided by Ottawa City Council in October, summarized an
overview of the budget details, examined the proposed funding strategy to
sustain planning for the Central Library Development Project, and concluded
with the recommendations to the Board. A presentation overview of the 2016
Draft Operating and Capital Budget was provided. (Held on file with the
Chief Executive Officer)
Chair Tierney expressed
pride in the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
project, which showed leadership to provide the services needed to
enable staff to interact with the customers on the floor.
Chair Tierney asked how the
$3.9M for the Central Library Development Project will be spent in going
forward, and how it compared to other large city projects. Ms. McDonald stated
that staff worked with city colleagues from Infrastructure Services, Supply Branch,
Real Estate Partnership and Development Office, and Finance to seek their
expertise on funding for large capital projects, using information gathered
from past experience.
Chair Tierney also noted
that that the budget maintains the existing staffing complement with no new request
for FTE’s since 2009.
In response to a question
from Trustee Wilkinson as to why the FTE numbers vary in the budget
documents, Ms. Désormeaux advised that there can be some discrepancies as it
is a snapshot in time (September 30, 2015). Through the Public Libraries
Act staff is delegated through the public library board to the CEO to
manage the FTEs, whereby all vacant positions are examined and adjustments made
if needed, within the compensation budget.
Trustee Wilkinson pointed
out that the proposed 2016 budget is less than the actual spent in 2015 and asked
if action is being taken to make sure there aren’t any issues at the end of
2016. Brenda Gorton, Account Manager, Financial Services Unit stated that
$1.6M in 2015 is a one-time retroactive payout for the Pay Equity decision. Trustee
Wilkinson asked why that number is not reflected in the salary and wage
adjustment for 2016. Ms. Gorton noted that salaries were adjusted in 2015 and
that the compensation amount in 2016 includes potential contractual increases
for 2016.
Trustee Wilkinson asked
about the $500K reduction of the materials budget, indicating that with the
$500K reduction in 2014 it represented a total of $1M. Chair Tierney
indicated that he did not recall a reduction in 2014. Ms. Gorton further
clarified that there was no materials budget reduction in 2014, only in 2015.
She further explained that the line item referenced in the budget book
includes a number of different items such as purchases and services, material
and supplies, fixed assets, etc. Ms. Gorton added that is a net of the $500K
plus the one-time increases for RFID training, etc. Trustee Wilkinson said
that she would like a breakdown on the budget line.
Action:
Staff to provide a breakdown of budget lines when associated with a number of
different one-time item requests for budgets.
Trustee Wilkinson
inquired about changing the rate for meeting rooms from four-hour bookings to
hourly rates, specifically with respect to consistency and equity in renting
rooms across the city. Ms. Désormeaux referred to the table format on page 16
of the budget report and stated that multiplying the amount by four, would
add up to the rate. Trustee Wilkinson was concerned with the rates and cost
for the size of the meeting rooms at the Beaverbrook and Nepean Centrepointe branches.
Ms. McDonald advised that staff would need to review the size details for
those specific branches and report back. Ms. Désormeaux added that in some
shared facilities there is a price differential where OPL aligns with the
City.
Action: Ms. McDonald advised
that staff will review the meeting room sizes at Beaverbrook and Nepean Centrepointe
and report back to the Board.
Chair Tierney said this
change will bring OPL in line with the city with respect to hourly rates. He
reminded the Board that these questions are technical in nature and
ward/branch specific, and should be brought back at the December meeting.
Trustee Fisher thanked
staff for providing a breakdown of the activities that would be covered with
respect to the $3.9M for the Central Library and asked if there is a balance
between external costs and cost recovery from services or activities that
would be carried out by the City. Elaine Condos, Division Manager, Central
Library Development Project advised that cost recovery is applied in some
areas and a number of city departments are providing significant resources to
the project at no direct charge to the library. Trustee Fisher asked whether
the figure identified in 2016 is part of the city cost recovery or if funds
will be used for external contracts. Ms. Condos said that it is part city
cost recovery and part external contracts as staff are engaging professional
services where required.
Trustee Fisher asked
staff to explain the item “land acquisition legacy.” Ms. Gorton noted that it
is debt financing for the potential acquisition of land for a former capital
project. As it is debt financing, it is on the budget and remains available. Trustee
Fisher asked about the expenditure against the line item. Ms. Condos advised
that there were expenditures for legal services related to work completed at
that time and not associated with the current project.
Trustee Moffatt
referenced the 2012 facilities renewal priorities listing and asked about the
plan for the North Gower Branch which ranked higher than the Orléans Branch
in the listing, noting that work has already been done to Orléans. Ms.
Désormeaux advised that funds will be requested through the Friends of the
Ottawa Public Library Association to reshape or reimage North Gower. Trustee
Moffatt was encouraged to hear that news but did not want the branch to be forgotten.
Ms. McDonald said that staff will review this as no funds were allocated for
each priority.
Direction to staff: That staff review the
facilities renewal priorities listing and report back to the Board.
There being no further
discussion, the report was tabled and received as presented.
|