|
Danielle McDonald, CEO gave an overview with respect to the
potential partnership with Library and Archives Canada (LAC), and the impact
it has on the project plan. (Held on file with the Chief Executive
Officer)
Ms. McDonald indicated that
the potential LAC partnership is very promising; however, we need to protect
the OPL’s and the City’s best interests in the event that a partnership
arrangement cannot be reached. She asked the Board’s support and endorsement
to proceed with two project streams: OPL and the OPL stand-alone and a joint
OPL/LAC.
Trustee Sweet introduced
the following Motion to support and endorse the two streams:
Whereas the Ottawa Public Library (OPL) Board is
committed to delivering to the residents of Ottawa a new stand-alone Central
Library; and,
Whereas the new Central Library in Ottawa will serve
three purposes: a community branch for local residents, a Library for all
residents across the City, and a destination for visitors to our Nation’s
Capital; and,
WHEREAS the OPL Board believes that the new Central
Library should be a civic landmark embodying great architecture, a great
location with spaces and programs that draws residents from across the City,
and inspires civic pride; and,
WHEREAS the Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI),
that was issued in September 2015, encouraged the identification of potential
partners that could by their involvement contribute to the successful delivery
of a new Central Library; and,
WHEREAS through the REOI process, Library and Archives
Canada (LAC) expressed interest in a potential partnership with the OPL which
led to a signed Letter of Intent (January 15, 2016) to explore a potential
and innovative partnership opportunity with respect to the Central Library
Development Project and the development of a landmark facility in the
Nation’s Capital; and,
WHEREAS OPL is currently tasked with planning for the
delivery of a stand-alone Central Library;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the OPL Board directs
that OPL staff undertake a concurrent planning process for both a stand-alone
Central Library, and a OPL-LAC joint facility; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff report to the Board
in 2016 with recommendations regarding the partnership opportunity.
The Board heard from the
following delegations:
Mr. Jevone Nicholas, Bookmark
the Core: was
pleased to see comments on public engagement and site selection process in
the CEO’s presentation, however he thought the report appeared to be a
one-sided view. He put forward four recommendations for the Board’s
consideration:
1) Publish criteria and
weighting that will be used to evaluate the optimal location, and the release
of data that will support all relevant criteria affecting how residents will
access the new library.
2) Focus on public consultation
by improving transparency and engagement, by increasing openness and
improving stakeholder awareness, by creating a fully functional dedicated
website, an interactive social media campaign, and information displays in
all branches on the project, and by establishing a Public Consultations
Advisory Group.
3) Establish an Independent
Advisory Committee of experts in the fields of modern public libraries,
architecture, urban planning, landscaping, and community building, to provide
input on best practices for an important civic project and advice on key
decisions on location, design, and size.
4) That the Central Library Development
project be on the agenda of every OPL Board meeting to allow the public to
make statements and ask questions about the process, and staff be on hand to
respond.
Mr. Mike Pyndus*: provided a presentation on project
management planning including a work breakdown structure. (Held on file
with the Chief Executive Officer) He provided his views on the 132K
square foot number, said the business case for the project is very limited,
and that other options could have been explored. Project management is a key
deliverable that should be included at the beginning of a project focusing on
outcomes rather than activities. Mr. Pyndus referenced the Beaverbrook
branch project and of Trustee Wilkinson speaking of tracking costs. He noted
that a professional project management piece should be put in place as there
were City projects where the costs were more than originally planned.
Mr. Paul duBellet Kariouk: a licensed architect; tenured
professor at Carleton University spoke of transparency, that a thorough
process on site location had not been done, and that an arms’ length group to
review the process is needed. Mr. duBellet Kariouk made brief statements regarding
the CEO, the Mayor, the Chair, the planners, and Trustee Sweet’s appointment
and position on the Board, specifically her role with developers. During the
delegation’s presentation, Vice-Chair Bergeron asked for a point of order as
the delegation was not speaking to the report on the agenda and was speaking
disrespectfully of many persons in contravention of the Board Procedure
By-law. Chair Tierney asked the presenter to speak to the report. The
delegation continued to speak with Trustee Wilkinson raising a point of order,
upon which the delegation concluded by speaking briefly of the LeBreton Flats
site.
Mr. Mitch Vandenborn, President,
Centretown Citizens Community Association: was pleased with the report thus far but disappointed
in the public engagement aspect. He echoed concerns regarding location and
strongly questioned the perception that downtown is shifting West. He had
concerns with putting the library west before people are even there and about
the timeline for completion. Mr. Vandenborn said he looks forward working
with the City and the Board on the project.
Bruce Morgan: a Rosemount and Main branch customer
provided some observations on the conclusions that are set out in the report
to the Board and the process for involving the public. He appreciates the
stewardship offered by OPL Board trustees and for the services the library
provides to the current and future customers of the City. Mr. Morgan had no
preference at this time regarding the site, the location, the design but
cautioned some of the views on page six of the report as it should not be
used as determining or a definitive but rather seen as useful input. He said
that 2K people that participated in the Nanos Public Opinion Research results
is not really engagement, it should go beyond focus groups and surveys. He
pointed out that only 15 people responded to the REOI and said it is
reasonable to assume that most participants are developers. Mr. Morgan was
pleased to hear from the CEO, he said that READ and Councillor Leiper are
holding open houses in the next couple of months on the Rosemount branch and
that the Central Library Development project should be able to do the same to
get customers views from local community.
Hortense Kailo: a citizen with a disability, and a
big customer of the library, who walks to the Main branch with her husband
every day. She pointed out that if the library is to move west, it would
mean having to get a bus pass that is not affordable. She is concerned with
the perception of the criteria for visitors and tourists as customers versus the
downtown core customers who will be thrown under the bus. She asked that the
Board take into consideration the human face to the project if the library
should move to LeBreton Flats.
Chair Tierney said that Trustee
McKenney is a strong voice who represents the ward and the branch and has
brought this point up as part of the discussions.
Donna Kearns: a resident of Lowertown and member
of the Community Association was not happy with the assertion that only five
people sit on Bookmark the Core and expressed disappointment at the Chair’s previous
statements about individuals in the group. During the delegation’s
presentation, Vice-Chair Bergeron asked for a Point of Order as the
delegation was not speaking to the report on the agenda. Chair Tierney asked
the presenter to speak to the report being discussed.
In addition to that
provided by the individuals marked with an asterisk above, written
correspondence was also submitted by the following, as noted:
·
Stephen
Thirlwall, Seniors Committee of the Centretown Citizen’s Community
Association* was concerned that the Central Library would not be in
Centretown and that there would not be an adequate branch in the core.
·
Hilary Seddon*
expressed feedback on the agenda item order.
·
Jennifer
McIntosh* asked staff to provide the document electronically.
*Individuals / groups marked with an
asterisk above either provided comments in writing or by email; all
submissions are held on file with the CEO.]
Trustee
McKenney thanked staff for the presentation and asked that the criteria be
included in the public engagement process. In response to Trustee McKenney’s
question on how the Nanos information will be used, Ms. McDonald pointed out the
information will feed into the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request
for Proposal (RFP) process.
Trustee
McKenney said that when the OCL Ad-Hoc Committee looks at criteria, will it
compare, the number of residents, workers, transit users, etc. Ms. McDonald
replied that staff will look for guidance from the Committee for criteria.
In response
to a question from Trustee Higdon on how long OPL will stay engaged with LAC,
Ms. McDonald noted that there is no specific answer at this time; however,
staff expect that an arrangement will be made by the end of the year.
In response
to the Disposition statement on page 7 of the report saying site evaluation
criteria are in development for review by the Board in March 2016, Ms.
McDonald pointed out that the Board is not approving site evaluation criteria
today. Further, Trustee Sweet asked that the CEO’s presentation be posted to
the website.
Action: That staff post
the CEO’s OCL project update presentation to the website. (*Note: an
alternate format version will be posted to the website to meet accessibility
standards)
In terms of the types of public
consultation expected, Ms. McDonald identified the following: 1) development
of new website, 2) a town hall on functional building program, and 3) engaging
stakeholder groups, which staff will be looking for help from the Board. Further
to a question from Trustee Sweet as to when an engagement plan would be
brought back to the Board, Ms. McDonald mentioned that staff can’t comment on
that yet; however, updates will be provided to the Board as they become
available.
Trustee Wilkinson
reiterated that a public engagement framework is needed as the public has
voiced that concern, which could include how FOPLA can assist. Ms. Basile,
Program Manager, Planning and Board Support replied that information about
how the public can get involved will be on the new website and will need to
be aligned with what OPL does with the joint stream with LAC. Trustee
Wilkinson pointed out that the site evaluation criteria is needed soon and
information from the public will make the process richer.
Following up on a
question regarding public engagement on site evaluation criteria, Trustee
McKenney reiterated the importance of hearing from the public and to have a
process to solicit information.
In terms of the proposed
motion of two streams and whether there is a plan to develop assumptions in
order for the Board to review, Ms. McDonald said that slide five of her
presentation speaks to those potential synergies and co-location
opportunities. Staff need to narrow down the shared values and details when
a decision is going to be made but it will be part of the overall plan.
In response to a question
from Trustee Begg on what is the estimate time as to when the OCL website
will be re-launched, Ms. Basile mentioned by mid April with social media being
integrated.
Vice-Chair Bergeron
thanked staff for transparency in the release of the REOI results as he
didn’t think other Boards have been this transparent. He asked whether the REOI
results were interpretations or statements of fact. Ms. McDonald pointed out
that they have a Fairness Commissioner for the process. Elaine Condos,
Division Manager, Central Library Development Project indicated that the
Commissioner has been engaged since July 2015, and attended all the Commercially
Confidential meetings (CCMs). She said that the statements made are
representative of the comments made in the meetings.
Vice-Chair Bergeron asked
if the comments regarding the downtown moving west was a statement from
developers. Ms. Condos answered in the affirmative saying that the
statements in the report were validated by the Fairness Commissionaire of
what was said at the CCMs.
Vice-Chair Bergeron
thanked the delegations for appearing today and mentioned that the report
does speak to the site evaluation criteria being included in the public
engagement.
Chair Tierney thanked
staff and said it is worth noting the amount of work that has been produced
on this project. The process is being followed with much work ahead. He promised
involving the public in the process every step of the way and the Board will
continue to work towards that goal.
Chair Tierney asked
Trustee Sweet to speak to the motion. Trustee Sweet said it is a very
important project that will stand out, and be a source of pride for the City.
As the need to continue the mechanism for a plan for a stand-alone OPL facility,
she was also happy about the idea of a joint OPL/LAC facility and continuing
to explore and quantify those benefits.
There being no further
discussion, the report was received as presented followed by the motion being
carried.
|