|
Danielle McDonald, CEO
began with opening statements reminding the Board the purpose was to approve
and recommend to Council, an operating and capital budget for 2016. She
discussed the recommendation on furthering the work required to develop a
central library, asking that $3.9M be approved to continue the planning
requirements. The proposal was for the Board to fund $1M, with the balance of
$2.9M coming from City Council. The CEO reminded the Board that they
received the three-year capital forecast at the November meeting, and it was
not up for discussion this evening.
Chair Tierney asked
Monique Désormeaux, Deputy CEO to respond to two inquiries from the November
board meeting.
With respect to an
inquiry raised by Trustee Moffatt to the priorities listing, and where North
Gower fit in, Ms Désormeaux advised that North Gower was one of eight
facilities that were identified by the Board in May 2012, calling for
renovations and a slight expansion. The priorities came with no funding, and
were subject to move as opportunities presented themselves. Ms. Désormeaux
reported that funds have been secured through the Friends of the Ottawa
Public Library Association (FOPLA) to refurbish the branch in 2016, which
includes new shelving, new desk, paint, and possibly carpeting.
With respect to Trustee
Wilkinson’s inquiry regarding meeting rooms at Beaverbrook Branch, Ms.
Désormeaux stated that rates were aligned with those at the Mlacak Centre
when the branch was re-opened as a larger facility to ensure the Library was not
competing with the centre. She explained that when the two meeting rooms are
rented out individually, the room is rented at the small meeting room rate;
when the room is rented out as one large room, it is rented out at the medium
room rate. The same holds true for the Nepean Centrepointe branch.
The Board heard from the
following delegations:
Richard Van Loon, Rosemount
Expansion and Development (READ) group,* noted that READ, and a group of
representatives from seven community associations in the Rosemount catchment
area were in attendance. He expressed concerns with the capital budgeting
for the Rosemount branch. Mr. Van Loon said that until recently,
relationships with the Board and staff had been good. He set out some facts
about the Rosemount branch stating that it very overcrowded and by any modern
library standards, quite obsolete. Expansion as well as renewal is highly
desirable. He noted that the Board had listed Rosemount as the top branch
priority for the last four years but aside from an elevator replacement,
nothing has happened. Meanwhile, six other branches have been renewed and/or
expanded, all of which were lower than Rosemount on the priority list, and
some promising opportunities had passed by. Mr. Van Loon asked that the Board
reassert the priority of Rosemount expansion and development, and work in
consultation with the community, to get actual costs estimates of the options
for expansion as well as renewal, in time to consider for the 2017 budget. As
well as complete the project in time for the 100th anniversary of
Rosemount in 2018.
Chair Tierney commented
that much staff effort has been put into exploring options: a leasing
opportunity and submission to the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program (CIP 150). While neither were
fruitful, he said that Rosemount remains a priority and looked forward to working
with READ.
In response to a question
from Trustee Moffatt regarding promising opportunities that had passed by Mr.
Van Loon mentioned that the Chair pointed out a few, as well there were early
discussions with Tamarack Developments.
Sophia Wong, Co-Chair, Connaught
Public School Council*, spoke
of the importance of the Rosemount branch to the Connaught Public School, the
students, and the families. She was in support of the expansion and renewal,
and provided a few examples of how the programming and the learning enhance
the users’ experience. She referenced areas for improvement such as
increasing resources in other languages, and increasing or offering free
programming as there is a high population of low-income families in the neighbourhood.
Megan Therrien and
Jeannette Rule, Dalhousie Community Association (DCA) and Champlain Park
Community Association (CPCA)*, (Jeannette Rule was unable to
attend).
The DCA and CPCA represent two of eleven Community Associations that sit on
the READ Board. Ms. Therrien highlighted the importance of the Rosemount branch,
and provided her personal experiences. Historically, the community has many
young families, low-income households, and new Canadians, all of which have
special needs that a properly sized and equipped library can accommodate, but
which Rosemount in its current form cannot. Both the DCA and the CPCA fully
support the request previously put forward by READ.
Mike Pyndus*, spoke of the Central Library
and various components of the project, such as the pre-definition and
implementation phase. He said the full cost of the project is a significant
factor, including space requirements. He wondered how staff derived the 130K
square foot space as well as the 30K square foot minimum for the ground floor
as it would have had an impact on the results of the business case. He expressed
concerns with the functional programming, and the reduced height of the
shelving from seven to five feet, as this would increase the cost and the
size of the collection space by 40%. He had issues with moving forward
without a commitment of funds, especially without a project charter or a
project management plan. He asked that these questions be responded to via an
access to information request he would be submitting.
Deirdre Foucauld and
Sarah Anson-Cartwrigh, Bookmark the Core*, (Sarah Anson-Cartwright did not
speak)
spoke of the group’s strong support of the City’s decision to build a Central
Library. Ms. Foucauld urged the Board and the City to include the public by
engaging them in the two most critical decisions: location and design. The
group looked at libraries in cities across North America run by municipal
governments, and Library Boards in a design-bid-build approach. She said the City
and the Board hold design competition, award the architectural and building
contracts, and raise the funds to pay for the project. Every aspect of the
project is under the control of the City and the Board. She was concerned
that this was not the current approach taken for Ottawa’s proposed Central Library.
She said this matters because $3.9M is a first funding request for the City’s
most significant civic project after the Light Rail Transit (LRT) during this
term of Council. She expressed concerns about the most vital aspects of the
project, and that the City has not consulted with the public about the
location of the Central Library. The location has to draw people to visit, a
vibrant and successful Central Library like those in other cities. She urged
the Board and the City to engage the public.
Alayne
McGregor
registered in advance to speak to the Board, she did not attend the meeting
and no communications were received.
[ *Individuals / groups marked
with an asterisk above either provided comments in writing or by email; all
submissions are held on file with the CEO.]
Prior to asking his questions
to staff, Vice-Chair Bergeron noted the Board does see the need to work on
Rosemount, and demonstrated such earlier in the year with support towards
submitting an application to the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program (CIP 150), which was not
successful.
In response to allocating
development charges or levies in new areas where communities are already
established, Ms. Désormeaux confirmed that there are opportunities for the
community to obtain a special levy to raise funds, noting it would require
the Councillor’s support in the particular ward. In the past, community
associations have also participated in raising funds, which was the case with
the Constance Bay branch.
Trustee McKenney reminded
staff that she would like to see more public consultation for the Central Library
project as noted a few months ago.
She asked for details regarding
the amount assigned in the budget estimate for analysis related to the exemplar
site. Elaine Condos, Division Manager, Central Library Development project
advised that there is less than $300K allocated.
Trustee McKenney questioned
why staff are doing anything with the exemplar site if it is not the
preferred site. Ms. Condos replied that the work is needed to undertake
planning studies that include a traffic study, servicing of the exemplar
site, investigation into zoning, and official plan application, as well as
the application fees. The work is required to test the viability of the site,
and feed into the financial analysis that needs to be completed in order for
the Board to make a decision on the next steps.
Trustee McKenney inquired
what those next steps would be, why the analysis is needed if the location is
not yet known, and why a detailed traffic study is necessary. Robin Souchen,
Manager, Realty Initiatives and Development, Real Estate Partnership and
Development Office (REPDO) advised that the request is required as part of
the process in moving forward with the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and
the Request for Proposals (RFP). If 557 Wellington is not the end site, the
money is not lost. The analysis will be used by REPDO in the potential
disposal of the site to fund the library.
Trustee McKenney was skeptical
as the traffic study and a full viability test for the exemplar site would
not be needed unless it was the preferred site. Ms. McDonald, CEO explained
that the site at 557 Wellington can be used as leverage to finance the
project. Staff need to undertake the work to ensure that the property can be
sold or used. The preferred site is not known at this time.
Trustee McKenney
requested that a breakdown of the $300K be issued to her prior to next week’s
Council meeting. Chair Tierney said that that would be taken as direction.
Trustee Wilkinson stated
that there is money in the budget for planning at Rosemount. The community
has a committee (READ) already established and asked if staff would find it
feasible to work with the community group, and the ward councillor to keep
this moving forward. Ms. McDonald pointed out that staff have been working with
the group and in fact emailed the Feasibility Report to Mr. Van Loon in the
spirit of cooperation.
Chair Tierney paused the
dialogue and advised the public of the inaccurate media story, where the Rosemount
study was referenced as a bootleg copy.
Ms. McDonald mentioned
there are challenges with the site but there is planning money. She did not
have any issues in continuing the dialogue with the community group.
Chair Tierney mentioned
that there has been some misconception that the Board doesn’t feel that
Rosemount is important, but it is. It is difficult when the Library is land
locked in a building that cannot go up nor wide, but options will continue to
explored. Chair Tierney said that the tools of options, such as levies, have
been discussed with the READ group. He understood that the group would like
to expedite the process but the Library is constrained when it comes to
budget. He reiterated that the Rosemount branch is a priority and something
that staff will be focusing on in the future. Looking at the inside of the
building is the next logical step but that is a decision that will be made at
a future board meeting.
Action: Staff continue to work with
the READ group and the ward councillor (Jeff Leiper) with respect to levies,
and fundraising opportunities for the Rosemount branch.
In response to a question
from Trustee Wilkinson regarding the proposed 2016 budget being less than the
2015 actual spent, Brenda
Gorton, Account Manager, Financial Services Unit stated that the overspending
in 2015 was a result of a one-time retroactive payout for the Pay Equity
decision and the Library is expected to be on budget next year.
Mr. Souchen responded to
questions from Trustee Wilkinson regarding the Central Library Development
project and why the studies for the exemplar site, specifically the traffic
study were needed at this particular time. He noted the traffic study is part
of the overall Official Plan Mapping amendment zoning change. The zoning
change is a larger, broader, highest invest-use, not necessary specific to
the library but can be included in a library use. Trustee Wilkinson was
concerned that the Board was paying for studies that are not actually for the
Library and asked that staff provide more details.
As the question regarding
the $300K allocated for the exemplar site was raised by two Trustees, Chair
Tierney directed staff as follows:
Direction to staff:
That staff provide the
Board, in advance of the 9 December 2015 Council meeting, a breakdown of each component of
planning studies regarding the $300K allocated for the analysis for the
exemplar site.
Trustee Wilkinson commended staff
for the outstanding job on the budget.
Trustee Begg inquired about the
impact on the materials budget as $500K of it was being used for the $1M
contribution towards the Central Library project. Ms. Désormeaux advised that
the budget requires choices when it comes to what is going to be funded. The
two priorities for the Board are completing RFID implementation and moving
forward on the Central Library Development project. She noted that normally,
one-time funding would come from the reserve funds; however, the $1M could
not be taken from the reserve account because the Library would be operating
with a deficit in 2015. That deficit flows through the reserves because the Library
is not allowed to finish the year in a deficit situation. Ms. Désormeaux said
that staff look to close out previous approved capital accounts with residual
funding, using those funds for one-time funding. There was one dedicated
specifically to the collection account. By reducing the overall materials
budget of $4.8M by $500K, the library still has this capital account that can
be spent to offset that $500K resulting in no impact on the collection budget
in 2016.
In response to questions on public
consultation around the Central Library posed by Trustee Sweet, Ms. Condos
advised that public engagement in 2016 will take a number of forms. The Central
Library website will be refreshed and public engagement will be undertaken as
part of the development of the functional program. Other engagement is not
known yet as it is premature. Trustee Sweet inquired whether any of the $3.9M
was earmarked for 2017-2019. Ms. Condos stated that the $3.9M is intended to
complete the planning phase of the Central Library Development Project by the
end of 2016, early 2017. There is no budget for 2017 and 2018 as it is too
early in the process.
Trustee Higdon asked whether the
library received the outstanding $1.4M provincial grants for the upcoming
year, as the provincial figures were behind. Ms. McDonald noted that they
will be coming in shortly. Ms. Gorton advised that the provincial grant is a
fixed amount that the library receives every year. The province changed the
timing of the application process and the grant should be released sometime
in December.
Action: Staff will keep the Board
apprised once the provincial/federal grants that are approved.
In response to a question from
Trustee Higdon regarding a dramatic drop in fine revenue and how the amounts
set aside for anticipated revenue from fines is derived, Ms. McDonald advised
that fines projection has been a problem for several years. The Library sends
email notifications when materials are coming due, which has changed the
behavior of customers. In addition, the Library does not collect fines from
ebooks. The $70K in the budget is to address the second year of the
mitigation strategy. Ms. Désormeaux added that closing branches for the
conversion to RFID has also impacted the accumulation of fines as fewer
people are coming to the branch to pick up or return items. She noted that
by moving to hourly increments for the rental of the meeting facilities
across the branches may raise money to offset the drop in fine revenues.
Trustee Higdon suggested that the Library
should lighten up on the fine notification to help with revenues. Chair
Tierney pointed out that others have been vocal about turning off that
automated messaging system. In reference to a point made by Trustee Moffatt
about looking at raising the fines, Chair Tierney said that the opportunity
to discuss that in detail would be for another meeting but he directed the
following:
Direction to staff:
That as part of the 2017 budget,
staff review fees and fines with respect to tipping point for increased
revenues.
In response to a question from
Trustee Fisher regarding the debt financed “land acquisition legacy” item and
whether there are conditions associated with the use of debt financing for
any of the capital projects, Ms. Gorton identified that the debt financing
shows up as such but debt is not issued until a project begins. There is no
impact to the Library as it remains available on the budget. She said City Council
is very specific about limits and rules around the amount of debt that can be
issued. As the Library proceeds into the development of the Central Library,
and should the City enter debt financing for the project, there would be
interest charges that would accrue for which the Library would be responsible.
There being no further
discussion, the report was carried as presented.
Chair Tierney thanked
staff as 2015 brought the one-time pay equity and many other hurdles. He
commended the Board members for working hard in the first year of their term.
Many important questions were posed during the year and the length of
meetings have shown that.
|