Ottawa Public Library Logo

 

Ottawa Public Library Board Meeting

Minutes 7

Tuesday, 9 June 2015

5:05 p.m.

Andrew S. Haydon Hall, Ottawa City Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West

 

 

Notes:             1.         Underlining indicates a new or amended recommendation approved by the Board.

Present:

Chair:  Tim Tierney

Vice-Chair:  André Bergeron

Trustees:  Steven Begg, Kathy Fisher, Allan Higdon, Catherine McKenney, Scott Moffatt, Marianne Wilkinson

 

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No Declarations of Interest were filed.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

Minutes 5 - Tuesday, 12 May 2015

 

Confidential Minutes 2 - 12 May 2015

 

Minutes 6 - Tuesday, 26 May 2015

 

CONFIRMED

 

Chair Tierney stated that this was the last meeting before September.

 

REPORT

 

CENTRAL LIBRARY PROJECT

 

1.

CENTRAL LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT

 

OPLB-2015-0061

 

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.

 

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION No. OPL 20150609/4

Be It Resolved that the Ottawa Public Library Board meeting be adjourned at 7:05 p.m.

 

Minutes approved by:

Original signed by                                                  Original signed by

Chair Tim Tierney                                                   Danielle McDonald, CEO

_____________________________                    __________________________

Chair                                                                           Recording Secretary