Chair Tierney noted that
in July 2014, the Board gave staff direction to develop a further option
analysis for a full 130,000 square foot functional program requirement for
the Main Library at a new site, based on many points and to report back to
the Board in 2015. The Ottawa Public Library staff worked with relevant City
of Ottawa staff. He pointed out that this is an exciting project, and much
work has been accomplished over the past 12 months. Referencing a recent
branch renovation and expansion in Beaverbrook, Chair Tierney announced that
the OPL was the recipient of an award by Ontario Library Association (OLA) in
the Library Architectural and Design Transformation category, recognizing
outstanding building design and architecture for the Beaverbrook Branch. He
mentioned that the success of Beaverbrook is a positive sign as that branch
was modeled on the vision for the future of public library spaces. He
acknowledged the support of Trustee Marianne Wilkinson for the leadership she
demonstrated in building community momentum and advised that the award will
be presented in July 2015.
Danielle McDonald, CEO said
the purpose of the meeting is to move forward in the quest for a Central
library and her role is to help guide the members of the Board in making
decisions to achieve that purpose. Ms. McDonald provided a presentation
overview of the Central Library Development. (Held on file with the Chief
Executive Officer)
Ms. McDonald pointed out that the work prior and up to
today’s meeting was not done in isolation, and not a solitary effort. She
introduced the team who is available to respond to questions following the
presentation.
Key highlights of the
presentation:
·
Discussed
the July 2014 Board directive, and recapped what staff were asked to do;
·
Provided
details of what has been accomplished thus far;
·
Recommended
where we need to go;
·
Summed
up the final recommendations.
Trustee Sweet thanked staff, the
consultants for a very impressive, and comprehensive process. The Framework
was accessible, and the Business Case was very thorough. In response to a
question from Trustee Sweet clarifying that the report is not recommending
557 Wellington as the preferred location, just as a placeholder for next
stage, Ms. McDonald responded that it is a placeholder.
Trustee McKenney said this is an
exciting new project, and will be glad to see a new building, and say goodbye
to the old. She mentioned that this is the first time that the public has
heard, think or talked about a site. She said it may have been better to say
“example site” rather than “preferred site”. Ms. McKenney clarified that the
report is not presupposing either a funding model or a preferred site. She
asked what is the process for procurement, Will McDonald, Manager,
Procurement, Supply Branch noted that a Request for Information is used to
inform decisions, an open enquiry that scans the marketplace seeking broad
data that will be put through the process and brought back.
Further to a question from Trustee
McKenney regarding how it will establish the City’s level of interest in
financing and building a Central library, Gordon MacNair, Director, REPDO,
noted that the first stage is the initiation of the implementation process
through a RFI. 557 Wellington was determined as the highest scoring
(preferred city-owned) site as per Board direction to look at those options
as a comparator. Once all the information is received and evaluation measures
are developed to assess the site assessment approach, it will help develop
the work in comparing options. Mr. MacNair reiterated that the report is not
presupposing a site or funding model.
Chair Tierney pointed out that there
is misinformation with respect to the preferred project delivery model.
In response to a question from
Trustee Wilkinson with respect to people being concerned in having a say, the
public wanting public engagement at every step, Ms. McDonald advised that
through each stage, there will be public engagement, starting with the RFI
stage. Trustee Wilkinson pointed out to that it is a voluminous document,
people focused on some areas over others.
Trustee Higdon commended the CEO on
the work that has been done. He asked whether the 60-year operational life of
the facility was looked at, and about the 36-year lease agreement lifespan
opposed to a 60-year term. Bing Bing Wang, Grant Thornton, external
consultant and Elaine Condos, Division Manager, Central Library project advised
that calculating the value on a whole-life cost basis over a 36-year term
includes a 6-year development period and a 30-year operational period. Ms.
Condos stated that a financial analysis is conducted after the 30-years.
The Board heard from the
following delegations:
Ms. Sarah
Anson-Cartwright, Bookmark the Core, Citizens for a Central Library in
Downtown Ottawa*
spoke to location, size, design process, project delivery method, P3, public
engagement and to recommendations of the Board. She noted that the group has
met with six community groups so far. She asked for a deferral of the
decisions as the public had not had enough time to fully examine the report.
She noted that there was a short turn around time and not sufficient time to
prepare a response.
Ms. Mary Cavanagh was thankful that a
Central Library was back as a strategic priority. She spoke of the public
engagement process not being comprehensive, far too little process for such
big decisions. She mentioned that not enough time, notice, or input was
given. She finalized by stating that the OPL’s process to-date has failed the
City’s standards, that there hasn’t been any follow-up after the public engagement
session in March and that consultation stopped April 8th. She said
an effective public engagement isn’t one event; Halifax had three meetings up
to the same point.
Chair Tierney asked CEO
McDonald to address the delegates comments. Ms. McDonald pointed out that the
public engagement was done and well received. More public engagement will be
forthcoming, however, the Central library is still not an approved project.
Chair Tierney reiterated the
component of a defined site or model to be used is yet decided.
Stephen Thirlwall, a Centretown resident
appreciated that a lot of work has gone into the report but what is missing
is the people’s aspect. He spoke to the report not having information about
the users, who is using the library now, who will use the library in the new
location. He found that the report was centered on transit system and said
cost should be kept as low as possible. Mr. Thirlwall said to examine the
whole library system network for distance, such as walking (20-40 minutes),
biking (10-20 minutes), working downtown (5 minutes to walk). He summarized
by saying that the report doesn’t properly consider location, if it moved, it
will be extremely inconvenient. Will another branch be built in Centretown? He
cautioned that consultation should be about asking the public feedback not
simply providing information to them.
Trustee McKenney agreed on
the need to investigate users, today’s downtown library is a community hub,
serving all users. She pointed out that her colleague Trustee Wilkinson would
be moving a motion shortly to address that point. The preference is Bronson
to Elgin, where people live as well. She asked the delegation whether he
thought a user survey is a good idea to find out who is using today, and
where are they coming from? Mr. Thirlwall agreed.
Further to Trustee
McKenney’s point regarding a user survey, Trustee Wilkinson added that her
motion will not only ask who is using presently, where they are coming from
but also will ask potential future users. This info will be requested by Q1
of 2016 as part of site location.
Susan Arab, CUPE 503* mentioned that the
report was only issued last week with hundreds of pages, not much time to
review. She expressed concerns that consultations were only on design, not on
location or financing. The Business Case is based on P3, not on public
financing options. Would have appreciated looking at the gateway criteria,
and how that was applied. Ms. Arab asked, why discount sites that couldn’t
provide mixed-use. The preferred site is not in the downtown core, what would
the ramifications be in the future? All the options involve partners, if a
placeholder only, that is the true comparator. She finalized by saying that
the site evaluation is flawed and cautioned the Board to look more carefully
at the documents because this needs to be done right.
Chair Tierney reiterated again that
no decision on location or delivery method have been chosen.
Trustee Wilkinson appreciated the
comments from the delegation, and advised that seven sites that were
identified were City-owned as directed by the Board, we did not ask staff to
look at others. This is a report from a consultant, a background study, not
an implementation report. She asked the delegation to continue to be
involved.
Ms. Paulette Dozois spoke to the location
being completely unsuitable and not accessible. She said she has walked to
the library for 30 years.
Trustee McKenney asked
the delegation whether she would consider the central area between Bronson
and Elgin an appropriate location and Ms. Dozois said she would.
Councillor Toby Nussbaum mentioned that this is
an exciting file and Council will play an important role. He commented on
location, and said the language wasn’t clear in the Implementation Plan of document
four, paragraph A, where it reads RFI process before public engagement. It
doesn’t give developers clear understanding of site, and signals issues. The
direction is on much smaller site area. He pointed out that the Board should
ask staff about costs related to the environmental assessment for 557
Wellington. He found issues in the Grant Thornton report with respect to the
site evaluation criteria, visibility, and escarpment. The criteria failed to
capture other criteria such as population density, existing users,
accessibility, visitors, office workers, etc. Councillor Nussbaum added it is
a big role for the library and the city, as it is a major civic landmark.
In response to the
environmental assessment point made by Councillor Nussbaum, Trustee Wilkinson
said that she will not support costs for this. Mr. MacNair, Director, REPDO
pointed out that they have been spending money on the environmental
assessment as the asset is a City portfolio. He noted that his department is
looking at what is involved through land disposal, and added any site in the
downtown core requires remediation.
Mr. Cicvak, a local writer spoke of
the CUPE public forum he attended Monday evening. He said the soul of the
library is missing. The public library is to serve but the public has not
been consulted. The library reports on books, and is creative on programming
that benefits writers. The soul of the Main library needs to be rejuvenated
and be part of every decision-making process. Mr. Cicvak stated that some
communities have been excluded in the consultation and noted the writers
would be keen to participate.
[ *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 that provided
by the individuals marked with an asterisk above, written correspondence was
also submitted by the following, as noted:
·
Ms. Alayne
McGregor* (in support of the Board and staff’s progress towards defining the
requirements for the library as shown in the Framework document but was
concerned at some of the recommendations being proposed for approval).
·
Joseph and
Leslie Giacomelli* (did not support Bronson as it is not central and
recommended another space).
·
Georgia Lay*
(opposed to relocating a new Main Branch of the Public Library outside of
Centretown and spoke to choosing a location which serves local users as well
as the broader community).
·
Yves
Potvin*(spoke to the proposed 132,000 square foot size for the Central
Library being far too small and recommended a 327,237 square foot building in
Centretown).
In response to a question from
Trustee McKenney regarding selling the lands, looking at the sites identified
and how to use funds to publicly build, a library, Mr. MacNair advised that
that would be a Council decision. Coventry has a 10-year lease and would be
problematic.
Trustee McKenney asked whether Method
A is fully public and if it can operate on any land, city-owned or alternate.
Ms. Condos noted that implementation is involved with partner development. Ms.
McDonald added that Method A is a normal city process (publicly funded) sell
development rights and/or property to help fund the project on any site. There
are a number of options.
Further to a question from Trustee
McKenney whether an example of a successful P3 library partnership exists in
Canada. Ms. McDonald said she would bring back that information to the Board.
Trustee Higdon inquired if there was
any value in calculating the building cost over a 60-year term, Ms. Joanne Farnand,
Manager, Financial Services clarified that that criteria was looked at and the
residual value of assets was included, like-to-like comparison in order to
compare Option 4, however, extended life of a buidling that much further.
Trustee Wilkinson reiterated that
they have yet to complete analysis on other sites only that of city-owned and
pointed out the next steps.
Questions having concluded, Trustee Wilkinson
moved the following Motion:
MOTION
OPL 20150609/1
That an on site survey be made at
the Main Library during several time periods to determine existing users of
the Central Library, including how each person reaches the library (e.g. walk
from work, in the area for another primary reason, destination using transit
or cycling or walking etc.); their purpose (e.g. to obtain materials, to take
part in a program, to use the computers etc.) and non-personal information
such as their residential area, level of education, comments on location of
the library and any other item that would provide useful information on the
present clients for the Central Library; and
That a survey also be done to gain
some information on future users of the new library as described in this
report; and,
That staff report back no later than
Q1 2016.
CARRIED
Trustee
Catherine McKenney moved the following Motion:
MOTION
OPL 20150609/2
That recommendation 2 of the report
be amended to read: That staff be directed, not presupposing either a funding
model or a preferred site, to report back to the Board no later than Q1 2016
with respect to the outcome of the first stage in the implementation process,
recommending the preferred project delivery method.
CARRIED
There being no further discussion, the
report recommendations were put before the Board and were CARRIED, as amended.
MOTION
OPL 20150609/3
1. That the
Ottawa Public Library Board approve the next stages of the Ottawa Central
Library project as follows:
a. That the project be
based on the Ottawa Central Library Program Framework outlined in Document 1,
including the requirement that the Central Library be an estimated 132,000
gross square feet;
b. That “Option 4: New
Build” outlined in the Ottawa Public Library Main Library Facility Business
Case (Document 2) be the preferred option for Central Library development;
c. That the Central
Area as set out in Document 3 be used as the basis for considering
opportunities for a New Build;
d. That the
implementation process set out in Document 4 be used as the basis for
considering opportunities for a New Build; and,
e. That the Board approve
that $800,000 (Internal Order #905105 Main Library Modernization) be used to
further advance Central Library project facility and procurement planning in
2015 to permit the project to proceed in accordance with the timelines
described in this report.
2. That staff be
directed, not presupposing either a funding model or a preferred site,
to report back to the Board no later than Q1 2016 with respect to the outcome
of the first stage in the implementation process, recommending the
preferred project delivery method.
3.
That
an on site survey be made at the Main Library during several time periods to
determine existing users of the Central Library, including how each person
reaches the library (e.g. walk from work, in the area for another primary
reason, destination using transit or cycling or walking etc.); their purpose
(e.g. to obtain materials, to take part in a program, to use the computers
etc.) and non-personal information such as their residential area, level of
education, comments on location of the library and any other item that would
provide useful information on the present clients for the Central Library;
and
That a
survey also be done to gain some information on future users of the new
library as described in this report; and,
That staff report back no
later than Q1 2016.
CARRIED,
as amended
Vice-Chair congratulated staff and
noted that observations of the delegations clearly addressed the 557
Wellington site. There was consensus regarding the 132,000 square foot size,
degree of consensus on a new build, and heard loud and clear that there is
not a lot of city-owned sites for comparative purposes. The next steps will
allow gauging of interest to proceed.
Chair Tierney concluded by saying
that this is a great day for the OPL, and the City of Ottawa. He thanked the
following:
·
Public
delegations for their interest in the public library.
·
The
external Consultants:
·
Grant
Thornton, Bing Bing Wang, Principal
·
Library
Strategies International, Susan Kent and June Garcia, Principals;
·
Partners
at the City of Ottawa who assisted in this file, and who brought expertise
not found in the library. He noted it is a prime example of how the library
benefits from shared services agreement.
The Chair then thanked a number of
staff involved in the project to-date including those from the City Manager’s
Office, the Mayor’s Office, City Clerk and Legal Services, Infrastructure
Services, Real Estate Partnership and Development Office, Finance Department,
and Supply Branch.
In closing the Chair thanked the
many staff at the Ottawa Public Library, including the CEO Danielle McDonald.
|