|
Danielle McDonald, CEO
provided a presentation on the planning process that is underway for the
Central Library and how the public will be engaged. (Held on file with the
Chief Executive Officer). The CEO is asking the Board to approve the initiation of the site
selection process to continue to move forward on this important project.
The following staff were
in attendance to respond to questions: Ms. Elaine Condos, Division Manager,
Central Library Development Project; Anna Basile, Manager, Planning and Board
Support; Gordon MacNair, Director, Real Estate Partnership and Development
Office; and, Robin Souchen, Manager, Realty Initiatives and Development.
The Board heard from the
following delegations:
Mike Pyndus* provided a presentation
with examples of buildings and business cases that he has worked on and
offered a project management methodology process for the Ottawa Central
Library. He stated that the Board is rushing, that the project is too
convoluted, and not ready for site selection. Mr. Pyndus identified process
deficiencies and said that OPL should consider partnering with Provincial or
Federal Departments; repurpose other city buildings or space, such as having
the Rosemount branch as a joint branch and move Central to the west. Trustee
Higdon reminded the delegation that OPL has not actually ignored partnering
with Provincial or Federal Department, as OPL is looking at partnership opportunity
with Library and Archives Canada (LAC).
Mary Cavanagh, Bookmark
the Core
is engaged and excited about a new Central library but has concerns about the
process. Bookmark the Core fully supports the priority placed by Mayor
Watson on transparency and accountability, and his commitment to public
consultations for the new Central Library, including location. Ms. Cavanagh
spoke to the quality of the process for public input and participation and
highlighted three key observations of the process outlined in the report:
1) Report appears very
rushed and lacks detail on outreach to hear from different stakeholders and
segments of Ottawa’s population, the public engagement plan sounds like
one-way input;
2) She asked when the
minimum footprint was increased and what was the rationale behind the change,
as a larger footprint could reduce the number of prospective sites in the
downtown core;
3) Providing public input at
the same time as the Library and City staff are selecting sites seems
contradictory or very bad planning. The tight project timelines are less
important than making the best decisions for this once in a lifetime,
city-building project.
Bruce Morgan reiterated that his home
branch is Rosemount, while his work branch is the Central Library. He spoke
to the interest in a robust and inclusive approach to public engagement
leading to a great new Central Library. Mr. Morgan noted the site selection
process sets out an ambitious approach to the concurrent management of a
number of deliverables required to inform a complex undertaking, particularly
as a result of the parallel planning processes for the stand-alone and the
LAC options. He pointed out the importance of the observation Trustee
Wilkinson made in March about the benefits of having a plan so those keen to
participate understand the opportunities that will be provided throughout the
process, not just one step at a time. Public engagement requires a dialogue,
not just an opportunity to provide input. He commented that the report does
not speak to objectives, particularly on direction on what design criteria
must be included in order for a robust and comprehensive public engagement.
Mr. Morgan said if the library user-focused process can be used to inform
decision-making on improving Rosemount, it can certainly be used for the new
Central Library.
Yves Potvin* said the location of the
Central Library will be a crucial determinant of whether or not it will be a
success in meeting the needs of its catchment area and of the entire City of
Ottawa. The library should be located where it will serve the largest number
of library customers possible, specifically in the downtown core, close to
the largest concentration of office space in the region and where customers
have the closest walking distance to reach the library. He mentioned that if
the Central Library is built at the 557 Wellington street location, the
walking distance increases significantly for the office, restaurant, and
retail workers as well as thousands of local residents. Mr. Potvin said
statements from others that the downtown core was moving west were
exaggerated. In fact, the weighted center point of the downtown core will
move only marginally and is moving east in recent years. A copy of Mr.
Potvin’s speaking notes were distributed to the Board. (Held on file with
the Chief Executive Officer).
Toby Sanger* is a resident in Old
Ottawa South, works as an economist and spoke to the four year process of
building his house. In looking at the OPL schedule for the Central Library,
he said it is ambitious and unrealistic, especially if public input is being
sought. Mr. Sanger has seen main libraries across Canada that are in the
central core of its cities, where the public has better access and where the
buildings have inspiring architecture. It is his hope that the Ottawa
Central Library can be in the downtown core because the 557 Wellington
Street/Lebreton Flats location is a wasteland, not accessible, and needs
independent architectural design and competition. Mr. Sanger cautioned the
Board to stay away from Public-Private Partnerships (P3s), largely because
they are financial scams and cost more, and the buildings are poorly
designed. He noted that the schedule is backwards, the design takes a back
step to the process, and urged the Board not to rush but take the time and do
it right, otherwise the Central Library will end up with a mediocre product. The
Auditor General’s report entitled “Infrastructure Ontario-Alternative
Financing and Procurement” and the University of Calgary report entitled “The
theory and evidence concerning Public-Private Partnerships in Canada and
elsewhere”, brought by the delegation, are held on file with the Chief
Executive Officer.
Catherine Dubois a mother who formerly
resided in the Chair’s ward and now resides in Trustee McKenney’s ward, spoke
on behalf of her grown 39 year old son with mental illness. She said her son
keeps connected with the world via the Main branch, which is a daily
destination that eases his isolation and makes him feel part of the community.
Ms. Dubois asked that the library be a central site as the library location
is important to her family. She was concerned that people with mental
illness can’t compete in the process with the architects, the developers, and
the planners. She urged the Board to remember who they see when visiting the
Main library and be advocates for people with mental illness.
Tong Zhao-Ansari, Board
member, Centretown Community Health Centre (CTCHC), resident of Centretown
and mother of
two school aged children provided background on the CTCHC and the
community it serves, specifically that works with local partners including
OPL. CTCHC participated in the 2015 spring consultation process and would
like to be included again on an ongoing basis. Ms. Zhao-Ansari spoke to low
school readiness skills for children in the area and asked that the Board
ensure a consultative process is in place so everyone can participate and get
it right.
[*Individuals / groups marked with an asterisk above
either provided comments in writing or by email; all submissions are held on
file with the CEO.]
In addition to comments
provided by the individuals marked with an asterisk above, written
correspondence was also submitted by the following, as noted:
·
Amber
McCoy* email dated April 13, 2016 expressed feedback on the current Main
branch being too hard to get to and the building being very uninspiring. She
urged the Board to focus on sites that are accessible via the new LRT line
that will be running through the City when it looks for a new site and
construction of a new building.
·
Andrew
Babawy* email dated April 8, 2016 was really supportive of the initiative to
build a world-class library in downtown Ottawa. He hasn’t seen an article
with the nine potential sites listed, however, the waterfront location
appearing to be a parking lot for Library and Archives Canada seems to be a
nice place, especially given the desired partnership with LAC.
·
Caroline
Herbert* email dated April 8, 2016 was seeking information on location of OPL
Board meeting.
·
Jason
Jacques* email dated April 7, 2016 asking to obtain a copy of the REOI for
the Central Library project.
Chair Tierney asked why PACE Consulting
was brought in for the public consultation. Ms. McDonald pointed out that
they came highly recommended. Ms. Basile said that when the two paths became
a reality, the complexity of the project increased, PACE was brought on to
assist with public engagement and public input. With the REOI, some changes
to the process were made based on feedback received to date. In response to
the new website allowing for input, Ms. Basile mentioned that the website
launch will outline how the public can get involved, will provide information
on the project, and keep people up to date. It will also offer the public a
glimpse of what inspires OPL and what inspires the public; the website will
have ongoing updates.
Trustee McKenney said public input is
a lot of things for the public and asked when the Board could expect a
detailed plan as to what the input will look like. Ms. Basile noted there
are still many unknowns but specifics on site criteria consultations will be identified
in two weeks. Once the details of the overarching framework are finalized,
information will be posted on the website. Further to a question on when the
criteria will be developed, and how the input will be weighted, Mr. Souchen said
weighting will be based on public input (what people think is important),
cross-referencing best practices and technical expertise.
Trustee McKenney asked why the
report had a different size footprint of the June 2015 Business Case. Ms.
Condos, Division Manager, Central Library Development Project explained that
the 30K square foot floor plate represented a minimum size of floor for a
Central Library, anything smaller would lead to increased operating costs.
The refined process looks at adding 10% to the floor plate for external space
which responds to feedback heard last year. In addition to exterior program space,
site area for busses is needed, pick up and drop off, sidewalks for
pedestrians; parking spots, and greenspace, etc. Ms. Condos said that the
Central Library is to be a destination building, similar to City Hall versus
current facility with only sidewalks. Ms. McKenney asked whether the 40K
square foot number is set in stone and Ms. Condos replied that there may be
flexibility bared on a geography of the future site.
In response to whether the financial
envelope is a criteria or an overlay, and whether it is like the City’s
procurement process. Ms. Condos said the site evaluation process is to
qualify the sites, and affordability of the site is part of implementing due
diligence. Trustee McKenny asked for more detail with what the ranking means
and how the various processes with affordability lens looks like. Mr.
Souchen pointed out that as sites filter through, an architect will be engaged
to block sites to see what makes sense and whether it one will be more expensive
to build than another. Further, Trustee McKenney asked if project delivery
is something the public can comment on. Ms. McDonald said that project
delivery will be built into the decision package, looking to find the best and
most affordable site.
Trustee Wilkinson asked staff to
give examples of what PACE has done in the past. Ms. Basile mentioned that
PACE worked on Hydro Ottawa and more recently with the Ottawa Hospital Civic
Campus. In response to what types of things were included in the statement
of work, Ms. Basile said that the framework will be developed to assist in
implementing and execute public engagement.
Trustee Wilkinson asked more
specifically what PACE will be doing, will the engagement be broad and
thorough enough to include all view points city-wide, as the timetable of the
schedule is very tight? Ms. Basile reminded Trustee Wilkinson that OPL hired
PACE a month ago based on the March decision of the two paths. She said they
will be developing an overall framework and what will be going on with the
subsequent stages. Trustee Wilkinson did not see a lot of difference in the
two paths and said it being mid-April, the need for a public engagement plan
for the next few months is warranted. Ms. McDonald said there is a standing
offer in place, and it is her hope to have the strategy/framework to the
Board in May. Trustee McKenney said the Board needs it sooner than May/June
to have a continuous consultation process. As a point of clarification, Ms.
McDonald said that specifics regarding the upcoming consultations will be
developed first, and the overall framework would follow.
Action: Staff to provide the Board
with the complete public engagement framework.
Trustee Wilkinson said city-wide
input is needed. In looking at sites, there were good points raised in the
Nanos report that staff should review. She pointed out that most downtown
vacant buildings are Class C or lower; will staff look at repurposing
buildings that can be taken down and rebuilt. Mr. MacNair said that the
intent of the process is to explore all possible sites including those that
are ready for redevelopment. In response to the Arts Court redevelopment partner
example, Mr. MacNair mentioned that it is premature to comment on this type
of scenario.
Trustee Wilkinson said the project cannot
stay in a two stage process forever as the costs to do two streams is
significant and makes it all the more difficult. She asked whether the LAC
partnership was a go or not and whether a deadline can be established. Ms.
McDonald mentioned that a letter of intent is in place, that staff is working
with verTerra, and looking at developing term sheets. More details will be
fleshed out, including what the partnership will look like, in the business case
and reported to the Board by year end. Trustee Wilkinson concluded by saying
that site criteria should be done by July but has an issue with evaluation.
She asked staff to keep in mind that the right site is needed even if it is
more expensive. Chair Tierney said staff will take that into consideration.
Trustee Higdon asked who is on the
City of Ottawa REPDO team for the site selection. Ms. McDonald re-introduced
Mr. MacNair and Mr. Souchen. In response as to whom is on the selection team,
whether LAC will be involved, Ms. McDonald said that the internal/external
team will be independent, that the CEO will not be at the table, and more
information will follow in July.
In response to a question posed by
Trustee Sweet on where shovels in ground in 2018 and the new library being open
in 2020 timelines came from, Ms. McDonald pointed out that the timelines came
as Term of Council Priority and is a timeline target. She said if a change
is warranted, it will come back to the Board for approval. Trustee Sweet
said staff need to have a good handle on how the city will change over time
and continue to look at Official Plan policies. Mr. MacNair noted that
planning staff are indeed aware and looking at all of those components.
Chair Tierney thanked staff and the
Ad Hoc Committee. The project has many timelines with tremendous pressures.
He heard people saying let’s speed up the project, let’s slow it down.
Although the LAC announcement for a possible partnership has rejigged the
schedule, the project is exciting and we will have a robust consultation
process. Chair Tierney said more details will be available in the next four
weeks.
There being no further discussion,
the report was carried as presented.
|