Docstoc

WATERLOO PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES FOCUS ON THE FUTURE

Document Sample
WATERLOO PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES FOCUS ON THE FUTURE Powered By Docstoc
					WATERLOO PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES
FOCUS ON THE FUTURE


REPORT OF THE LIBRARY BOARD TASK FORCE ON
EXPANSION 2002




Presented to the Library Board on Thursday, May 23, 2002

Task Force Chair: Terry Hallman
Members: Bob Taylor; Gail Hossack; Bob Ernest; Roger Gratl
WPL Staff: Joanne Tate; Chris Peysar
WATERLOO PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES
FOCUS ON THE FUTURE


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Summary and Recommendation……………………………………….3

2. Background……………………………………………………………….5

3. Public Consultation……………………………………………………….7

4. The Shared Facility……………………………………………………….9

5. Costs………………………………………………………………………11

     Capital
     Operating

6. Previous Studies and Recommendations……………………………..12




APPENDICES

     A.   Library Facility Space Needs to 2016, p. 14
     B.   Questions and Answers Report 2002, pp. 15-31
     C.   Handouts and Notes from Three Public Meetings 2002, pp.32-87
     D.   Comments from the Public Re: Main Expansion 2002, p. 88
     E.   Operating Costs 2002 to 2016, pp. 89-94
     F.   Facility Options and Criteria, p. 95




                                                                         2
1. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION



The Waterloo Public Library Board has completed a five-year study of facility needs,
which has culminated in the belief that a stronger Main Library will best serve the
needs of the community for the next ten years or more. Key criteria for decisions
about the Main Library are:

       central location
       operating efficiency
       affordability
       future focus

Central location

A good library system needs a strong central library to provide special resources,
larger collections, and support for any branch libraries. A central or Main Library
should be located in the city core on an accessible site, which is flexible for growth
and change.

Operating efficiency

Facilities must be efficient in terms of staffing and customer traffic patterns so that
operating costs are supportable. Whenever possible adjacency to other “consumer”
activities, e.g. shopping or recreation, will lead to convenience for users and greater
use of all service providers.

Affordability

The cost of facility expansion must provide the best dollar value in the long term for
the citizens of the community.

Future focus

A central library must take into account how the community has, and will, change.

The Task Force reviewed three options: expand the current Main Library, build a
new Main Library, build two new branches, and their analysis is summarized in
Appendix F. Facility Options and Criteria.

The current proposal of a shared Main Library and YMCA, partially funded by a
SuperBuild grant, supports the primary vision of the Board in that it would
provide a strong Main Library, which satisfies the identified criteria.




                                                                                   3
This report is provided to the Library Board in order to record the recent public
consultation process, summarize some of the current issues related to library
facility expansion in the City of Waterloo, and provide a recommendation for
consideration. It was prepared by the Library Board’s Expansion Task Force
for distribution at the Board’s regular May 2002 meeting.

After attending the public meetings, reviewing comments, letters, and phone calls,
and considering all current options, the Task Force’s unanimous decision is that a
new Main Library shared with the Waterloo YMCA will provide the best service
option for a growing community and will allow significant savings because of the
availability of a large SuperBuild grant. Details on this are further outlined in the
report.

Recommendation:

       That the Library Board reaffirm to City Council its support of the shared
       Main Library of 64, 000 sq. ft. and YMCA as described in the SuperBuild
       proposal, and that the Library Board continue to assist the City in its
       review of facility expansion

At the last public meeting, City staff proposed that a fourth option, a small expansion
to the current Main Library, be reviewed with an architect. Should this study be
approved by Council, the Board and Library staff will contribute information and
analysis using the experience of its consultant, Margaret Beckman.

Next Steps:

   •   Presentation of this report and any recommendation from the Board to
       Council (May 27, 2002)
   •   Copies of this report made available to the public (May 28, 2002)
   •   Continuation of public consultation through collection of comments and
       recording of delegations (ongoing)
   •   A further review by the City on another expansion option at the current Main
       Library site (starting May/June 2002)
   •   Board response to this option and final recommendation to Council (Summer
       2002)
   •   Council decision and response to an available SuperBuild grant of $2,982,012
       (Summer or later 2002)

The facility space needed by the Main Library is attached as Appendix A. Library
Space Needs to 2016. This particular planning issue and a number of others were
discussed in reports and documents previously distributed to the public and City
Council. They are available on the Library’s website www.wpl.ca and in the Main
Library and McCormick Branch. Specific titles are listed at the end of this report.




                                                                                   4
2. BACKGROUND

The Library Board began its review of facility needs in 1997-98 with an in-house
Customer Survey and Needs Assessment Report. This Report indicated that a 77%
majority of library users favoured a larger Main Library as opposed to new
neighbourhood branches. Accordingly, an architectural feasibility study on expanding
the Main Library was commissioned and completed by the Walter Fedy Partnership
in 1999. This study looked at a variety of expansion options on site and
recommended one large expansion to meet future growth needs.
In 2000, other sites, options, and a variety of issues were considered in two
“A Place to Grow” reports prepared by the Chief Librarian for the Board and public.

Costs identified by the consultants’ studies indicated that expanding the
current Main Library would be more expensive per square foot than building
new.

After reviewing these reports, consulting various experts, and reviewing public
comment, the Library Board made its recommendation to Council for a new large
Main Library in June 2000. The sites favoured were on Caroline St. or adjacent to
the Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex (WMRC.) City staff was asked to review
the recommendations and report back to Council.

In 2001 the City commissioned an independent community survey on the Library, the
results of which verified the majority preference for a larger Main Library.

In April 2001, the City, with formal approval from the Council and the two Boards,
applied for a SuperBuild grant that proposed building a facility to house a new Main
Library and a Waterloo YMCA on a site adjacent to the Waterloo Memorial
Recreation Complex.

In March-April 2002 the City embarked on a new round of public consultations about
this project with the participation of the Library and YMCA Boards.

In the City application for SuperBuild grant funding, the original proposal from the
Board was to build a new 70,000 sq. ft. Main Library in conjunction with the YMCA.
Along with the existing McCormick Branch of 3,000 sq. ft. this would achieve a long-
term goal of around 73,000 sq. ft. by the year 2016.

When the City was approached by SuperBuild about adjusting the dollar amount of
the proposal, the Library Board agreed to a smaller Main Library of 64,000 sq. ft.
Discussion with the library consultant indicated that the Main Library’s needs could
be reasonably met by a smaller building if it was new and efficiently designed and
there was opportunity to share space with the YMCA. New buildings typically yield
more assignable or usable space than do renovated facilities where existing
structures have to be worked around.




                                                                                 5
The target of 73,000 sq. ft. was used in financial projections distributed at the 2002
public meetings. However, in this report and in its capital and operating projections
the space target for the Library system has been reduced to 67,000 sq. ft. The Task
Force feels that a new and efficient Main Library can reduce need for more library
space until the 2016-year mark, assuming that growth and demand remains as
projected. (See Appendix A. Library Facility Space Needs to 2016.)

In May 2002 notification was sent to the City that the Province had approved its
portion of the SuperBuild grant with approval pending for the federal 50% costs of
the project. The total grant is worth $2,982,012.

In the SuperBuild budget, the capital cost to the City is estimated at:

   •   $1,500,000 Development Charges collected by the City and earmarked for the
       library
   •   $3,500,000 capital funding through debentures
   •   $3,000,000 upfront for the YMCA portion of the building which would be
       recouped through lease payments over a 20 to 25 year period at no cost to
       the taxpayer

(See Appendix C. Handouts and Notes from Three Public Meetings 2002,
specifically Overheads from March 21 City of Waterloo, Library Capital Budget page)

In addition to the SuperBuild grant, revenue would be generated by

   •   the sale of the existing Main Library, at an appraised cost of $4,850,000
   •   fund-raising which has been modestly estimated at $500,000 but which could
       be more (research has shown that even smaller Ontario communities have
       been able to raise $1,000,000 for new buildings)


In simple terms, the taxpayer would be acquiring an 81,500 square foot
building for a capital cost of $3,500,000.

Need for library space, currently far behind other communities, would be satisfied for
the next ten years and without concern about locating and paying for available land
in the future.

This proposal provides a unique opportunity for the community to acquire a
new, modern building at a very low cost and improve a valued service for
many years.




                                                                                  6
3. PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Library serves a population of over 100,000. Approximately 60% of the
community, or 60,000 people, use the Library on a regular basis.

Our City, the fastest growing one in the Region, is expected to have at least 122,000
people by the year 2016.

A wide range of the community was consulted about library planning through two
survey instruments.

(1) The Library’s Needs Assessment in 1997-98 identified user concerns about
collections, hours, parking, and the interest in a larger Main Library as opposed to
more branches.
(2) A City-commissioned Community Survey in 2001 asked a number of questions
about the Library, with a key one intended to find out if the public now preferred
branches to a larger Main Library. This did not prove to be the case.

The City Community-wide Survey validated the Library’s internal finding that
the majority of citizens preferred a larger Main Library over branch
development.

Whether because of the proliferation of cars, the relative short distances to travel,
higher education level and expectations, or the desire to have a lot of choice under
one roof, this community prefers a well-serviced Main Library over more branches.

During 2000 the public had been invited to see displays, read reports, and attend
meetings regarding expansion options for the Main Library. Delegations were heard
and recorded at regular and special meetings.

In 2002, the City requested the participation of the Library and YMCA Boards in a
new series of public meetings, which were held in March and April of this year. The
intention was to provide more information about the needs of the Library and the
SuperBuild grant and to gather comments and suggestions from the public.

Extensive background information was provided on the Library website and at
service counters in the Main Library and McCormick Branch. People were
encouraged to voice their opinions and questions. Many of these were responded to
and documented in a report made available in the Library and on the website. (See
Appendix B. Questions and Answers Report, 2002.)

One of the benefits of the public consultation was that the Task Force and Library
staff heard comments and questions from people who had not formerly been aware
of the facility study. Some citizens also did extensive review of various questions
related to expansion and these were collected for consideration by the Task Force.




                                                                                  7
Unfortunately, it was noted that there were a number of misunderstandings spread
during the process that continue to cloud the dialogue. Some of the mistaken “facts”
include:

   •   That the Main Library isn’t open on Sundays (it is open from October to May)
   •   That the small McCormick Branch was busier than the Main Library (not true)
   •   That the Library Board could provide free parking at the Main Library if it
       wanted to (the City controls this)
   •   That the construction costs for expanding the current Main Library were over-
       estimated (the costs carefully took into account all the building, equipment,
       and renovations that would be required in an expansion and were double-
       checked by an additional cost consultant)
   •   That construction costs omitted the costs for furniture (they were included in
       the total)

The public meetings provided a forum for citizens to voice concerns and questions
after hearing information presented by representatives of the City, Library and
YMCA. In the second and last of three meetings the audience was also formed into
breakout groups and this had the advantage of eliciting a number of divergent
opinions. (See Appendix C. Handouts and Notes from Three Public Meetings, 2002.)

The total audience for the three public meetings was estimated at 110 individuals,
taking into account repeat citizen attendance but excluding representatives from the
Boards, City, Library and YMCA staff.

The majority of people at the public meetings expressed concern about funding for
the Library and the need to improve service in some way.

Opinion was divided about where expansion should take place with concern for the
architectural heritage of the current Main Library building and its preservation
expressed by a number of individuals.

It was noted that the composition of the audience did not reflect the demographic
base nor population distribution of the City. This is an important fact since a library
expansion must be planned to serve all facets and needs of the population. The City
is projected to be dominated by young families in the future.

In addition, 296 comment forms, letters and emails were gathered by the Library
between March 10 and May 21 and analyzed (see Appendix D. Comments from the
Public re: Main Expansion 2002.) These were reviewed by the Task Force




                                                                                  8
along with phone calls and meetings with individuals. Citizens were also encouraged
to write to City Council to make sure their thoughts were completely and
independently expressed.

The Task Force reviewed three options as previously stated.

Although comments from the public were listened to attentively and many
suggestions will be useful for facility improvements, the Task Force concluded
that the current proposal to build a shared Main Library with the YMCA best
suits the criteria of location, efficiency, affordability, and the future and
therefore remains its recommended option.


4. THE SHARED FACILITY

What would a new Main Library and YMCA be like? Why is it being suggested?

Both public libraries and YMCAs have a long and stable tradition as non-profit
organizations that contribute to the well being of Canadian communities. The
concept of a public library and YMCA sharing a building is new but gaining ground
because of the benefits of:

   •   Shared capital and operating costs
   •   Shared users
   •   Developing common programs, for example, in health information, skills for
       new Canadians, use of technology, and family activities
   •   Providing customer convenience by offering more under one roof
   •   Accessing government grants that support partnerships

While the Waterloo Public Library and YMCA were separately investigating new sites
next to the Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex, funding for the SuperBuild grant
program was announced that made a shared facility very attractive.

The current proposal includes funding for a 64,000 sq. ft. Main Library and 20,000
sq. ft. YMCA with some shared space, resulting in a finished building of 81,500 sq. ft.
The shared facility would be located to the west of the WMRC with Luther Village to
the other side.

The Task Force feels that the building should have a distinct and individual
presence. Though efficiency might require a box-like configuration inside, the
building should be unique and something that future generations can recognize and
be proud of.




                                                                                  9
The proposed building would likely be two storeys high with a common entrance,
lobby, program room, and café.

The Library entrance would have a service counter for reception, getting library
cards, signing out and returning material. Space would be provided for future self-
checkout terminals, which would save time for users.

The first floor would have a new Children’s Department approximately twice the size
of that in the current Main Library, which has remained the same since 1965.
Because all check out services would be at the front entrance, Children’s staff would
be free to offer more time to individuals and families looking for help finding material,
and would be more available to provide story hour and other programs. Because
there would be more floor space, bookshelves could be made lower so children
wouldn’t face material out of reach. Most of the furniture would be replaced and look
much fresher. An adjacent room would offer story hour, craft and literacy programs.
There would be comfortable seating for families to read together and for older
children to read and study.

Next to the Children’s Department, a popular Adult browsing department would
provide high demand material such as best sellers and paperbacks for the library
user on the go. This would be particularly good for the busy parent whose child was
in a program or reading next door, or for the user who was dashing in and out.
Depending on the final layout, a section for teens could also be provided on the first
floor with furniture and collections designed for and with that age group.

On the second floor, a quieter reading area and larger collections would suit the
library user who could spend more time and appreciated a sanctuary to browse,
read, and think. An enlarged and prominent Local History collection would be more
accessible than the current, invisible collection. Specially trained staff would be on
hand to help students; researchers and others find material and information.

All public sections of the library would have computer equipment in appropriate
numbers as well as comfortable places to curl up with a book. Space would be
designed in consultation with groups that promote barrier-free access.

Staff workrooms would be located in areas that are efficient in terms of layout and
proximity to related public areas. Meeting rooms would be rented to the public.

Lighting, air handling, and acoustics would be upgraded and more efficient.

Collection areas of the Library would be designed with the help of a special planning
consultant to allow for logical distribution and growth. Books would be on more
accessible shelves to prevent excessive bending and reaching by customers. With
more space, books would be tidily arranged instead of jammed in




                                                                                   10
and potentially damaged. Services and collections would be placed to accommodate
growth and change in later years.

Free parking would be provided on site and a return book chute would be open at all
hours.

The YMCA would concentrate on programs related to wellness and “Getting Started”
- activities for people over 40 years of age who aren’t currently, but want to be, fitter.
50% of the space would be provided for these programs with 25% allotted for other
programs and activities and 25% for reception and locker space.

The presence of the YMCA and Library users would increase use of the WMRC
track and pool, as well as promoting awareness of special events and regular
programs provided by the three organizations. Increased usage for the three facilities
is conservatively estimated at 10%. Two recently opened relocated main libraries in
Ontario have experienced a 40% increase in use in their first year of operation.


5. COSTS

5.1 CAPITAL COSTS

During the 2002 public meetings, the City and Library staff provided an analysis of
the capital costs and a long-range estimate for adding other space in the future.
Projections were shown based on achieving 70,000 sq. ft. by the year 2016 either by
expanding the current Main Library, building a new Main Library or adding branches.

In reviewing these, the Task Force developed a comparison model using the space
equal to the amount proposed in the SuperBuild grant. (See Chart 1. Waterloo
Public Library Expansion to 64,000 sq. ft.) In each column of the chart the goal is to
achieve 64,000 sq. ft. in addition to the 3,000 sq. ft. McCormick Branch which is not
included in this analysis as it is not a new capital cost, but is part of the overall space
referred to in Appendix A. Library Facility Space Needs to 2016.

It should be noted that fund-raising revenue could be more than projected (given
other libraries’ experience) and that revenue from the sale of the current Main Library
might be less than was included in the SuperBuild application.




                                                                                    11
CHART 1. WATERLOO PUBLIC LIBRARY EXPANSION TO 64000 SQ. FT.
                             Expansion New Large   New Main
                             of Current Branches   (SuperBuild)
                             Main
Library Space:
Current Building                                    35800         35800
Expansion of Current Building                       28200
New Main Library                                                                64000
New Branch #1                                                     14100
New Branch #2                                                     14100
TOTAL LIBRARY SPACE                                 64000         64000         64000

Estimated Construction Cost per sq. ft.               $330         $208           $208
Estimated Construction Cost                     $9,306,000   $5,865,600    $13,312,000
LESS:
Sale of Current Main Library                                               -$4,850,000
SuperBuild Grant                                                            -2,982,012
Donations (Fund-raising)                         -$500,000    -$500,000     -$500,000*
                                                $8,806,000   $5,365,600     $4,979,988

Land Requirements and Values
Parking Structure                               $1,833,000
Acres                                                                             4.33
Value                                                                       $1,300,000
Branch 1
Acres                                                              1.65
Value                                                          $495,000
Branch 2
Acres                                                              1.65
Value                                                          $495,000
Total Land Cost/Assigned Value                         $0      $990,000     $1,300,000

Construction Costs & Land Values               $10,639,000   $6,355,600     $6,279,988

Funding per 2002 Capital Budget:
Development Charges                            -$1,500,000   -$1,500,000    $1,500,000
City Capital Funding                           -$3,500,000   -$3,500,000   -$3,500,000
City contribution for land/parking                             -$990,000   -$1,300,000
Parking garage                                 -$1,833,000
                                               -$6,833,000   -$5,990,000   -$6,300,000

Funding Shortfall (Excess)                      $3,806,000     $365,600      ($20,012)

YMCA
Estimated Construction Cost per sq. ft.                                           $184
Estimated Construction Cost (20,000 sq. ft.)                                $3,674,000
Funding per 2002 Capital Budget:
YMCA Donation                                                                -$674,000
YMCA Lease payments                                                        -$3,000,000
YMCA Shortfall (Excess)                                                             $0

FUNDING SHORTFALL (EXCESS)                      $3,806,000     $365,600      ($20,012)
* Possibility of much greater fund-raising




                                                                                   12
5.2 OPERATING COSTS

These were analyzed in detail. (See Appendix E. Operating Costs 2002 to 2016.)

In summary, the assumptions used in the operating projections are:

   •   Based on a new Main Library of 64,000 sq. ft. opened in 2004 and the current
       McCormick Branch
   •   A tax impact expressed at 1% for every $300,000 (2002 assessment base)
   •   Increase in revenue from more use, café, and room rental
   •   Inflation at 2% per year
   •   Increasing cost in some service areas because of population, 1%
   •   Continuation of the Capital Book Plan to increase volumes to 2.5 per capita
   •   Modest increases in staff due to streamlining some functions, removing
       circulation duties from the Children’s Department, staffing a reception desk in
       the Adult Browsing Section, and circulating and re-shelving more material
   •   Increases related to square footage, e.g. maintenance, utilities

An estimate of the effect on the annual tax rate is included in the summary section.


6. PREVIOUS STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS


For those wishing more information the following reports are available in the Library
and on the WPL website:

   •   Needs Assessment and Customer Survey, 1998
   •   Feasibility Study on expanding the WPL Main Library, 1999
   •   A Place to Grow (two volumes) 2000
   •   City Community Survey on the Library 2001
   •   Presentations to Council March 2002

Also provided for the public are some of the appendices included in this report:
   • Handouts and notes public meetings 2002
   • Questions and Answers report 2002




                                                                                   13
APPENDIX A. LIBRARY FACILITY SPACE NEEDS TO 2016

Year space added *
1966 Main Library moved from Carnegie Branch
1975 McCormick Branch added
1988 Main Library expanded
2004 new Main Library (proposed)

YEAR          POP           SQ. FT.        SQ. FT. PER   TOTAL SQ. FT.
                            AVAILABLE      CAPITA        RECOMMENDED
                                                         AT .6 SQ. FT.
                                                         PER CAPITA
1966          29,894        16,000*        .54           17,936
1975          48,468        19,000*        .39           29,081
1989          77,830        38,800*        .50           46,698

2000          97,122        38,800         .40           58,273
2001          100,310       38,800         .39           60,186
2002          101,888       38,800         .38           61,133
2003          103,467       38,800         .37           62,081
2004          105,046       67,000*        .64           63,028
2005          106,625       67,000         .63           63,975
2006          108,203       67,000         .62           64,922
2007          109,589       67,000         .61           65,754
2008          110,974       67,000         .60           66,584
2009          112,359       67,000         .60           67,415
2010          113,744       67,000         .59           68,247
2011          115,120       67,000         .58           69,072
2012          116,496       67,000         .58           69,897
2013          117,872       67,000         .57           70,723
2014          119,248       67,000         .56           71,549
2015          120,624       67,000         .56           72,374
2016          122,000       67,000         .55           73,200.




                                                                    14
APPENDIX B. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT LIBRARY EXPANSION AND
THE PROPOSED MAIN LIBRARY/YMCA

These questions include those asked at public meetings. The answers come from
the Library Board and staff, the City staff, and the YMCA Board and staff. Comments
from the meetings that did not imply the need for an answer are not included. Please
consult the handouts from these meeting for detailed information on capital and
operating budgets.

This list of question and answers, first made available as of April 16, will be added to
as needed. Please forward other questions to:

Expansion Questions
Waterloo Public Library
35 Albert St.
Waterloo, Ont. N2L 5E2

Or, visit the library website www.wpl.ca

A) BOOKS

What is meant by the term” collections?”

In libraries this means all the materials that are collected for users to borrow, consult
in house, or access online, e.g. books, maps, magazines, videos, CDs, electronic
format, etc. Books make up the largest component of the collections

How does the City support acquiring new books?

The Library Board has worked with the City over a number of years to increase the
operating budget for services and collections. In 2000 the City set up a capital book
fund to help the Library reach a target of 2.5 vol. per capita by the year 2016. The
amount allotted for books in the annual operating budget covers 6% of the inventory
that is discarded or lost during each year. About 16% of the current operating budget
goes to collections.

B) CAFÉ

Has there been any consideration given to including a café in the new building? Is
this really needed?

A small café has been proposed for the shared Library/YMCA building as it is
something both organizations have been asked for in the past. Requests for
beverages and light refreshments come from a variety of people of different ages.
With the facilities open a number of hours; seven days a week, we expect




                                                                                   15
this service would be popular. Users of both the YMCA and WPL often comment on
how they enjoy the social nature of the facilities, meeting up with people they know,
or taking the time to do something with the family. Sitting down at a café with friends
and family could enhance that experience. It could also serve as a revenue source.

C) CAPITAL COSTS

(For more information please see the handouts from the public meetings)

Will there be an increase in the developmental charges? Have you consulted the
development industry?

Development Charges are collected by the City from developers and reflect
increases to services because of growth. The amount set aside for the Library
($1,500,000) has been in place for some time so there will not be an increase to this.
And, once it is spent there is no other DC money to support library projects. The
development industry was consulted about the City’s overall policy and the approach
to the funds available for the Library was included in that policy.

How did fundraising increase from $100,000 in the Place to Grow report spreadsheet
to $500,000 in the March 21 handout?

The estimate made for fund-raising in the 2000 Place to Grow report was modest
because there was a lot of community fund-raising going on that the Library would
be in competition with. The potential for fund-raising could be greater than that now
so a more ambitious amount was included in the SuperBuild grant application. The
Library also held a Think Tank with community fund-raisers back in 1997, which
indicated there was potential to raise more than $1,000,000 for the Library
depending on the type of project.

What about the expense of furniture?

Furniture is included in the capital costs for both expanded/renovated and new
buildings.

Could costs for expansion be as low as $105 per sq. ft.?

True costs for smaller expansion at the current Main Library on Albert St. cannot be
solely about adding walls while ignoring costs to finish the new space and reorganize
the older space for improved usage. Estimates for on-site expansion have been
prepared by the Walter Fedy Partnership (WFP) and are included in their 1999
Feasibility Study and in the second Place to Grow report, 2000.
WFP, during its review of the Library space needs, developed a good understanding
of what would need to be changed even through a small expansion. A fuller
description of the construction and finishing is in these two




                                                                                 16
reports. Vermeulens, a cost consulting company who studied the estimates, said
that, in any case, they might be too conservative.

Why does the expansion of the current Main Library cost more then building new?

Renovations cost more than building new because as well as adding new space you
are required to upgrade older parts of the building to bring these up to current
Building and Fire Codes. And practically speaking, because you take this opportunity
to improve things like roofs, air handling, lighting, acoustics, wiring and cabling,
traffic flow, access, etc. Adding onto a library is not like a small addition to a house. It
provides the chance to correct layouts and equipment that are costly or inefficient or
no longer work for today’s services. It should also provide room for growth. New
library buildings should always have built-in flexibility for the future rather than having
to makes expensive renovations later. This is harder the older the building.
Doing a full-scale expansion to 70,000 sq. ft. on Albert St. would displace parking
spaces and require building a parking structure. This would increase costs
significantly.

D) CITY

When did the City get involved?

City staff was asked to review the Board’s request for a new Main Library in 2000.
Part of the review included hiring a University of Waterloo consultant in 2001 to
conduct a community survey on branch vs. Main Library preferences (among other
questions.) The City had also been discussing the potential for a relocated Waterloo
YMCA adjacent to the Waterloo Memorial Recreation Centre. With an
announcement for SuperBuild grants that favoured sharing between community
organizations, City staff pursued this possibility for a combined Main Library/YMCA.
Council approved the application in April 2001.

The City is in serious debt. Why are we talking about spending more money?

Council will need to address a number of capital issues in the future. A City staff
report on managing debt is to be released soon. Realistically speaking the
community will not be able to stand still on all capital projects. Council will need to
make its own determination on how to approach community needs.

Can the library services of Kitchener and Waterloo be amalgamated under one
Region?

Although municipal amalgamation has been discussed for a number of years this
change seems to be no closer than ever. Both libraries are separately and legally




                                                                                     17
the responsibility of their own cities and boards under the Public Library of Ontario.

E) COMPARING TO OTHER LIBRARIES

Does the Library look at others who are successful, for example, the Greater Victoria
B.C. or Oakville, Ont. Libraries?

Looking at other libraries is always worthwhile, especially those that have similarities
to Waterloo. In the past WPL has compared to libraries in terms of usage, hours,
collections, costs, space, etc. There are also annual statistics that indicate best
practices, or communities that are good to compare to for a variety of reasons.
Comparisons do require an in-depth study in order to understand all the facets of the
other libraries.

F) DECISION PROCESS

How will the Board and City Council go about reviewing the expansion issues and
public comments?

The Board will consider comments gathered during the current public consultation
and prepare a final report for Council with their recommendation. This report will be
available to the public. The report may be presented or sent to Council in May or
June. The usual practice then is for Council to refer the report to its own staff before
considering it formally.

The public is welcome to attend Board and Council meetings when these issues are
discussed. Each authority has a formal delegation policy to allow members of the
public to comment as well as observe.

Is SuperBuild a done deal? Would the Library/YMCA project go forward if an
announcement of the grant is made by the Province.

No. Even if the grant is awarded, Council has made it clear that it will vote again on
the proposal and could turn the grant back. The current public consultation process
is another chance for the community to ask questions and make suggestions about
library issues and expansion.

Can the grant be used for other kinds of expansion?

No. The grant is only for the shared facility with the Library and YMCA.

How much time does Council have to respond if the grant is received?

This is not known but there should still be time for public review before the matter is
put to a vote.




                                                                                   18
G) EXPANSION OPTIONS

Why not expand the current Main Library to the west into the parking lot under the
building?

An investigation into the costs and benefits of this showed it would be very
expensive for what was gained. The Library is currently more than 20,000 sq. ft.
behind what it should have and the area in question would provide only 10,000 sq. ft.
There would be no allowance for future growth with this minimal of an expansion.
There would also be loss of parking spaces.

What about the idea of having three floors in the current Main Library?

Although it is possible and was discussed at the time of the Walter Fedy study in
1999, adding another floor could be costly because of the need to strengthen the
floors below. Three floors can work sometimes for a building of a large size, but it
depends on a number of factors. Generally, the fewer floors the better for access to
collections and to limit staffing costs.

Why does the Library Board favour sharing with the YMCA and relocating the Main
Library? Why is it important that something be done now?

After five years of study the Board believes this is a great opportunity for the
community, which will serve its future well. Sharing with the YMCA will not only
enhance services but will allow some cost savings in terms of a SuperBuild grant.

Typically, it is very difficult to find sites and funding for any facility, particularly a Main
Library, which requires a larger lot. Construction costs are also more likely to
increase in the future making it even more difficult to get funding support.

Timing, costs, and opportunity are key issues in the decision that Council will need to
make.

In summary these are the reasons the Board has supported this option:

   •   Library facilities are at a critical point with no room for the present collections
       and future growth
   •   Users have indicated they want more collections and service and these take
       space
   •   The users and wider community prefer a larger Main Library as opposed to
       more branches
   •   Expanding the current Main Library is a costly band-aid solution
   •   The possibility of the SuperBuild grant, revenue from the sale of the building,
       and sharing with the YMCA will significantly reduce costs for a building that
       will be owned by the City.




                                                                                        19
The Board is listening very carefully to comments from the community during the
public consultation process to see if anything has been missed in the reasoning
leading to the present proposal. However, it does have concerns that prolonged
delay will mean the loss of this opportunity and that the Library will suffer irreparably.

H) FUNDING THE PROPOSED MAIN LIBRARY/YMCA

Is the Y prepared to pay the annual fee of $220,000? Why does the Y get 25% of the
space without contributing 25% of the cost? How will the YMCA repay the loan to the
City?

The exact terms of the lease agreement have not been defined. The following
principles have guided planning discussions:

   •   The City will wholly own the building.

   •   The YMCA will fully repay the City, including carrying costs (interest) for the
       portion of the building occupied by the YMCA, over a 20 or 25-year term.

   •   The YMCA may pay a lower lease rate during an initial 4-year period with the
       payments for the balance of the agreement at a higher rate, fully recovering
       all costs of the loan and borrowing.

   •   The YMCA will pay its fair apportionment of facility operating costs.

Would the City lend the Y $3 million to build the shared facility? What is the Y’s
contribution?

The City would borrow the money for the portion of the building that the YMCA will
be occupying as a tenant. The cost will be recouped over a long-term 25-year lease.
In addition to contributing these lease payments the YMCA is contributing $674,000
to the project for furniture and equipment. The building would belong to the City.

I) HERITAGE NATURE OF CURRENT MAIN LIBRARY AND LACAC

Can the current Main Library, built in 1965 and expanded in 1988, be considered a
heritage property? Can this designation reduce potential construction costs if the
building is expanded?

The City has asked LACAC (Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee) if
it wants to comment on this issue.




                                                                                    20
The Building Inspector for the City has commented that a heritage designation,
should it be granted as the older part of the building was constructed in 1965, would
not mean expansion construction costs could be reduced to save money.
Changes to Building and Fire Codes are made in the interests of public safety and it
is unlikely this would be ignored for a very public building.

J) LIBRARY BOARD

What does the Board do? How does it relate to City Council?

The Library Board is comprised of nine residents appointed to a three-year term by
each new Council. Three members are recommended by the local school boards.
The Board is legally responsible for the Library and although reporting directly to,
and working closely with Council, has independence in terms of its
recommendations. The current Board, chaired by Bob Taylor is comprised of one
Municipal Councillor (Morty Taylor) a personnel consultant, an engineer, an urban
planner, an engineering professor, a lawyer, two teachers, and an insurance
examiner.

K) MAIN LIBRARIES AND BRANCHES

What is the difference between a Main Library and branches?

A Main Library is centrally located and the largest facility in any library system.
Typically, it has the largest collections, specialized collections and services, more
user space, and departments that administer, provide technology, acquire materials,
and store collections for all the branches.

Branches can be of various sizes but are generally spread out in a pattern that
makes the most sense in terms of equidistance. Collections tend to be family
oriented and concentrate on current, popular titles. Branches are generally all on one
floor.
Sometimes a Library system will need another facility just to provide administration
and support services, rather than public services. This is not ideal as it increases
operating costs.

What did the City’s Community Survey show about facility preferences?

The City commissioned a community wide telephone survey on library services in
Waterloo in 2001. The intention was to update and broaden some of the information
that the Library itself had gathered from an in-house survey conducted in 1997 and
reported as part of a larger Needs Assessment in 1998.
The new survey and report were provided by Dr. Geoff Wall of the University of
Waterloo. A number of survey questions were asked including one that addressed
preferences for spending any increased funding for WPL.




                                                                                21
This response was:
   • 58.7% chose expand the Main Library
   • 10.4% chose build a new Main Library
   • 20.0% chose develop a branch library
   • 10.9% chose a number of other options

The results in terms of facility preference mirrored the 1998 Needs Assessment
survey that the majority of respondents (77%) wanted a larger Main Library while
12% favoured development of branches.

The results of this original survey had instigated research by the Library Board from
1999 – 2000 into expanding the current Main Library, an option they later dropped
for a variety of reasons in favour of a new Main Library.

The result of the City’s 2001 Community Survey, showing a majority in favour of
expanding the current Main Library, was not a surprise as this was the same
investigation path the Board had followed before determining that a new Main Library
would be better than an expansion on the current site.

Is there a minimal size for a branch?


Although older and rural branches are often quite small, even the McCormick Branch
at 3,000 sq. ft. would be considered too small by today’s standards. Branches are
expensive to operate, generally costing more per sq. ft. to run than Main Libraries,
especially if a lease is involved. Customer preferences and mobility have changed a
lot in the last 25 years. Branches for a community the size of Waterloo are more
often configured at a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. This allows room for growth, efficient
and accessible shelving, computers, and program space.
The numbers, size and placement of branches are influenced by demand, availability
of site, and funding.

Have the needs of the suburbs been taken into account? What about those in the
interior of the City?

The City’s Community Survey on libraries elicited opinion throughout the City,
including the suburbs and core area so it should be statistically valid in terms of
facility preference. People who prefer branches are in the minority by a significant
number. The things, which dictated the interest in a Main Library rather than new
branches could be, increased mobility; relative short distances to travel, and a
preference for more collections and services under one roof – a supermarket rather
than convenience store approach.




                                                                                22
Why not rent?

Renting for a branch or support service space is always possible but unless the
lease is very favourable this can redirect funding away from services and collections.
Grants for construction and capital are also often more available than ones that
support operations. Changes to the landlord or the major focus of the facility can be
a problem in terms of sustaining costs and service.

Isn’t being able to walk to a branch or library an important consideration?

Most communities cannot afford to have a network of branches close enough for all
people to walk to. Waterloo is smaller in terms of distance than most with a multi-
branch system. 80% of the current WPL members come to the library in a car.

L) OPERATING COSTS

Please see the handouts from the public meetings.

M) OTHER SITES

Has the Library Board looked at other sites for a Main Library? For new branches?

At the time of preparing the second Place to Grow report (2000) twelve sites and
buildings in the Uptown were reviewed but set aside, mainly for reasons of size,
location, age and availability. The first preferred site for a new Main Library was on
Caroline St., and the second at Father David Bauer Dr. (current proposal.)

The Library Board has considered and discussed a branch within a school and at the
RIM Park but the concern is that this would not meet the preference of both users
and the community who have been surveyed in 1998 and 2001 and opted for a
larger Main Library. Branches are generally more expensive to operate on a per
square foot basis.
One of the key problems with any kind of expansion plan is making sure there are
sites and land available when you want to build; this holds true for both branches
and a main library.
It is likely that the Library will have to ask for operating funds for off-site
storage of collections in 2003 due to crowding in the existing facilities. This
will be expensive but a better alternative than discarding titles that are of value
because of an increasing lack of space. Unfortunately, any increase of this
kind to the library’s operating budget makes continuing to acquire new titles or
improve other services difficult.




                                                                                  23
What about reclaiming the old Carnegie Library?

It has little to offer in terms of use for public or support services. It has been
considered in the past as an annex to the Main Library and been rejected.

Has any consideration been given to using the Seagram’s building at the corner of
Caroline and Erb Streets? It would be a better location and the architecture would fit
better with a library.

Originally this building was not considered because it was rented out in a long-term
lease to Maple Software. The City is currently going through a process where the
building may be used for another non-profit enterprise. Even without this
complication, the Seagram building at 43,000 sq. ft. does not meet the growth
needed by the present Library which is under-sized at 35,800 sq. ft. Typically re-
using an older building for a library is difficult because the floor-loading, design and
placement on the site do not meet the needs of a library, More success has been
found recently in re-using retail stores for relocated central libraries in Brantford and
London.

N) PARKING

Could the parking at the current Main Library be made free? Whose decision is this?

The parking lots around the current Main Library are owned by and under the
jurisdiction of the City, not the Board. There have been several discussions over the
years about providing free parking. One of the major problems is that the free library
spots would have to be policed and there is no guarantee that library users would get
them. There would also be a loss of revenue for the City.

Who uses the parking in the non-metered areas in Dupont?

A variety of people who work in adjacent businesses and who pay for permits.

O) PLANNING

What kinds of strategic plans does the Library have? Would a review of these or
development of new strategies change the current expansion focus?

After the Needs Assessment (including the in-house customer survey) was
completed in 1998, the Board developed a five year Strategic Plan with a Mission
Statement, Guiding Principles, and key directions for asset management; advocacy;
accountability; and, service delivery. The Strategic Plan has been used to formulate
annual Business Plans from 1998 to the present and to assist in discussing with
Council the need to improve the Library’s budgets.




                                                                                     24
The Board may choose to update its strategic directions somewhat in 2002 but this is
not seen as a reason to change or delay action on the critical need for more space.
Other service and user specific surveys the Library wants to do for Children’s
services and the McCormick Branch are also not a reason to delay expansion.


P) POSSIBLE RE-USES OF MAIN LIBRARY

What would happen to the current Main Library if a new one were built with the
YMCA?

The City could retain the building for some other use or sell it. Wilfrid Laurier
University has indicated an interest in acquiring the building for graduate studies.
The revenue from the sale would support the new Main Library construction.


Q) PUBLIC CONSULTATION

What kinds of public consultation have been done in the past and what is being done
now?

The public has been consulted systematically through studies/surveys done by the
Library and City in 1998 and 2001. The Library Board held advertised public
meetings in 2000 when it first considered a change to the Main Library and displayed
floor plans over several months. Library reports have always been available to users
and can now be seen on the website www.wpl.ca.

The current round of three public meetings (March – April) has been sponsored by
the City with participation from the Library and YMCA.

Suggestion boxes are always available in the Library with special ones added for
topics like expansion. Citizens are encouraged to attend Council and Board
meetings, appear as delegations, and send comments and questions for
consideration.

R) SERVICE LEVELS, CURRENT


Does the Board and Library staff consider the type of service delivery it can offer in
current and proposed facilities?

The Board developed a Strategic Plan in 1998, which forms the background for
annual Business Plans approved by it. Service Delivery is one of the key strategic
directions in the plans. The Board also receives annual reports from the Library
management team on trends and issues. Although libraries have




                                                                                  25
introduced a great deal of technology in the last ten years there does not appear to
be a major shift away from print resources, e.g. there is a lack of interest in e-books.
However, technology and print can complement each other.
Some years ago the Board developed a book volume per capita target of 2.5 and
tries to maintain a level of 15% of the operating budget spent on collections.

Any new facility space has to consider all kinds of service delivery and be flexible
enough to accommodate these as well as unpredictable changes. Both expansions
to the current Main Library and any new Main Library show a change to a first floor
that streamlines circulation operations and provides a family friendly atmosphere,
while allotting quieter space for reading and study on a second floor.

Is the McCormick Branch busier than the Main Library?

No. As with most branches, its service focus on popular materials leads to a high
turnover rate per volume, but the total activity of circulation, reference, and users is
far greater in the Main Library.

Is there any danger that the McCormick Branch would be closed or not supported if
the Main Library was bigger?

No. The McCormick Branch is very successful in spite of its limited size and less
visible location on one side of the McCormick Arena. It is only additional new
branches or a larger Main Library that have been in question.

Are the opening hours for the Library low?

Opening hours are very comparable to what they were in 1988. After some closures
because of budget restraint, the Library was able to reinstate all but a half hour
Monday to Saturday in the early morning when the demand had never been great.
WPL’s opening hours also compare very favourably to other communities of its size.

Given the growth of Waterloo, are people demanding an increase in service? Or are
people going to the Library less often

People in the Library’s 1998 Needs Assessment indicated a dissatisfaction with the
quantity and breadth of the collections. Since that time the Library Board has
secured increases to the operating budget for collections and a slow growth capital
fund for books. In the City’s 2001 Community Survey respondents indicate further
support for the Library through taxes was justified.

People are going to the Waterloo Public Library more often. In a survey last year
there has been a 15% increase in visits to the Library over 2000. When the Library is
able to make an improvement to collections, as happened recently with




                                                                                   26
audio-visual materials, there is a sudden increase in borrowing: 15% in 2001 over
the year before.

Because the increases to the print collections are planned to be more gradual and
affordable, the circulation increases related to these will also be more gradual.
However, the major obstacle to a planned increase in books is the space to hold
them.

The Library has a whole new service dimension to offer the public with increased in-
house access to the Internet, popular software, electronic titles, and access to
electronic subscriptions. In 2001 there was a 64% increase in bookings for computer
workstations. At the same time, we are seeing a continued interest in traditional
services through attendance at Children’s and other programmes, which grew by
34%.

Is the circulation the same as it was in 1995?

No. The circulation or borrowing of materials was 808,582 in 1995 and 815,197 in
2001. There can be many reasons for fluctuations in this statistic (new building, more
or less inventory, opening hours, loss of buying power, etc.) but in the last couple of
years there has been an increase. Throughout Ontario in the mid to late 1990’s there
was a general decline in library use but that seems to have turned around as
libraries build, increase stock and add electronic access.
The addition of new technology meant that in 2001, almost 29,000 users reserved
time on WPL computers. In 1995, this service did not exist.

WPL is examining making some e-books available through a buying consortium
called COOL. We presently provide access to many magazine and newspaper titles
through COOL and the Electronic Library.


S) SHARING BETWEEN THE LIBRARY AND THE YMCA
What are the benefits of having a shared facility? Were other partnerships
investigated?

It is now common for public libraries to share facilities or premises with schools,
recreation centers or shopping malls. The benefits are shared capital and operating
costs; shared common space such as a waiting area or café; shared (potentially
free) parking; convenience for users and their families making different visits to
adjacent buildings or services. Government grants such as SuperBuild sometimes
favour associations of different organizations.

What does sharing the Library/YMCA facility achieve?

There will be benefits to the community at large, the citizens who use the facility, the
WPL and YMCA.




                                                                                  27
For the community at large:

   •   Creates a sense of community in the Uptown Core
   •   Further achieves the “Quality of Life” vision for Uptown Waterloo where
       people live, work, shop, play and learn.

For the citizens/users of the shared facility:

   •   Provides enhanced choices of recreation and leisure programs and services
       in Uptown Waterloo, with convenient access to Waterloo Park and the
       Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex (WMRC).
   •   Reduces any barriers of those who may otherwise never enter a Library or a
       Y. Both operators share a core value of accessibility and being open to all
       regardless of circumstance.
   •   Provides value-added services for each user group. Services typically not
       available to the Library users, such as babysitting or life-style consultation,
       could be provided by the Y. Services such as Internet access and healthcare
       information, typically not available to YMCA members, would be available in
       the library.

For the shared-use organizations:

   •   Generates opportunities to promote shared family services and wellness
       programs
   •   Creates a capacity to mobilize voluntary participation.
   •   Shared meeting and seminar rooms
   •   Shared reception and social space
   •   Sharing of capital and operating costs
   •   Shared Administrative and IT equipment and space

In addition to the benefits mentioned above the Waterloo Public Main Library and the
Waterloo YMCA have a shared interest in subjects like health information and
helping new Canadians adjust. Both are long-standing, charitable organizations with
a history of service to people from all walks of life.

How does a collection of books and general library activities connect with the YMCA
wellness focus?

People often come to the Library to do research on issues related to health and
fitness. As well as providing a number of books, videos, and magazines on these
subjects the Library also provides Internet and special access to electronic
magazines, newspapers and databases that would interest someone trying to get or
stay healthy.




                                                                                 28
The YMCA perspective on wellness is two fold:

      1. The YMCA has always considered wellness to be a development of the
         whole person – a balance of mind, body and spirit. Research indicates that
         individuals and families engaged in activities and wellness contribute back
         to the community.

      2. The provincial healthcare system is suggesting all citizens need to take
         more responsibility for their personal well being. 65% of the community,
         who are currently inactive but wish to be healthier, to live longer and
         maintain a healthy lifestyle, require support for this transition.

      This group of people, usually educated, solicits information and has questions
      about how they can be healthier, achieving appropriate activity levels,
      exercise, diet, or perhaps concerning rehabilitation. Access to library
      resources for research and studies on matters of wellness will enhance the
      program. The YMCA and Library can invest in information and access to
      resources on wellness.

What will be in the YMCA? How will you use the 20,000 sq. ft. space? Will the new
facility have a swimming pool or similar facilities?


The KW YMCA has key strategic criteria, which guide our growth and development:
    • To open “more doors” where people live, work and play
    • Consider K-W as one community in planning programs/services
    • Seek opportunities to collaborate and partner with groups of similar values
      and purpose
    • Create opportunities to encourage wellness and support healthy lifestyles

The programming and services at the Uptown Waterloo YMCA site will complement
and expand on services currently available at the WMRC (pool, track and arena).
The YMCA, Library and WMRC will plan and coordinate program delivery for
children, youth, adults, seniors and families without duplicating existing services or
facilities.

The YMCA space will be designed to include:
   • Space for both individual conditioning/training (with workout equipment) and
      group conditioning/training (fitness classes)
   • Special program, workout and consultation space for the new “Getting
      Started” program - a healthy lifestyle transition process.
   • Consultation and support space for specialized healthcare services, such as
      cardiac rehabilitation
   • Meeting & program rooms for Pre-school & Youth programs, educational and
      Leadership development




                                                                                 29
    •   2 change/locker rooms (male & female)
    •   Shared reception, babysitting and social gathering space

A new program called “Getting Started” will be introduced at this YMCA site. This is a
prevention initiative, which provides special services to assist the 65% of the
community that want to be healthier to begin a lifestyle transition for personal
wellness. It is designed to eliminate intimidation barriers for those who want to be fit
but may be uncomfortable with taking the first step.

Members of the Uptown Waterloo YMCA will have full use of the Health, Fitness and
Recreation Programs at A.R. Kaufman Family YMCA and RIM Park YMCA site.

How do you recover the costs to build the YMCA?
Over a 20-25 year lease.

Are there examples of other libraries that are partnered with a YMCA?

There are many examples of YMCA partnerships with local government, community
centres and schools. Branch libraries are often included with community services
and recreation and leisure facilities such as a municipal pool, arena and fire hall.
Other Ontario and Alberta libraries are investigating having a YMCA with a branch
library.

T) SPACE FOR LIBRARIES

Where does the target of .6 sq. ft. per capita come from?

This is a facility space standard developed in North America in the 1960s and still
used by public libraries in planning space. Although some have suggested that
technology may now save space allotted to books, workstations and the
management of technology require more room than was thought of four decades ago
– likely more than can be accounted for by displaced print volumes. The Library
Board also considered the average per capita space for libraries the size of Waterloo
and this currently runs around .58 sq. ft. per capita with several of the comparator
libraries now increasing space through building projects. The .6 sq. ft. per capita
therefore continues to be a good benchmark and planning estimate.
WPL at about .38 sq. ft. is far behind in terms of present needs and future growth.

How can we improve current library services? Is rental space an option?

A major concern for users is the limited quality and space for collections. It is difficult
to improve these in the current facilities.
Rental space is difficult because it adds significantly to ongoing operating costs,
often at the expense of collections and opening hours.




                                                                                     30
U) TEMPORARY CLOSURES

Why would the current Main Library need to be closed during an expansion?

Staying open during a renovation/expansion can depend on a number of public and
staff safety issues and the extent of the renovation. While a temporary removal is not
done lightly due to expense and inconvenience, it should not be ignored if deemed
necessary. This is particularly true of any major expansion/renovation. Finding
affordable, temporary space can be difficult and it adds to the overall project costs.

V) WPL AND UNIVERSITIES

Why don’t the universities pick up the slack?

Public libraries within university/college communities can have common users to
some degree. For example, about 12% of WPL users are university and college
students. They come to the public library for a variety of reasons: study space, help
using collections and finding information, less scholarly works on subjects, access to
the Internet and electronic resources, and recreational reading. Citizens of Waterloo
do not appear to visit the academic libraries to the same degree, likely because of
the research nature of the collections. University libraries cannot and do not
substitute for public libraries.




                                                                                31
APPENDIX C. Handouts and Notes from Three Public Meetings 2002



         PUBLIC MEETINGS ON
       WATERLOO PUBLIC LIBRARY
             EXPANSION

               MARCH TO APRIL 2002

       SPONSORED BY THE CITY OF
             WATERLOO




                                                                 32
 • Introductions


 • Audience to sign in, please


 • Other information that is available


Description of the public meetings




                                         33
MEETING DATES

 • Thursday March 21 Waterloo Public
   Library, Auditorium, 7 pm
 •   Wednesday April 3 Waterloo
     Memorial Recreation Complex,
     Hauser Haus, 7 pm

Tuesday April 16 Albert McCormick
Community Centre, Community Room,
7 pm




                                    34
COUNCIL DECISION PROCESS

 •   Questions and suggestions from
     the public meetings to be reviewed
     and reported on to Council

 • Council will review these and any
   others they receive on this subject

 • Delegations to Council are
   encouraged

 • Council could make a decision in
   early summer but not before then




                                      35
City of Waterloo
Library Capital Budget
New Library YMCA Joint Facility



Funding Source                                                 2002

City of Waterloo - Development Charges                          1,500,000
City of Waterloo - Capital Funds                                3,500,000
Community Donations for Library                                   500,000
Proceeds from Sale of Main Library                              4,000,000
Super Build Funding                                             2,982,000
Library Sub-Total:                                             12,482,000
YMCA Donation                                                     674,000
City of Waterloo - Debt for YMCA                                3,000,000
Library & YMCA Sub-Total:                                      16,156,000
Estimated Value of Additional City of Waterloo Contribution:
Land                                                              900,000
Parking                                                           400,000
TOTAL:                                                         17,456,000




                                                                36
A SHARED FACILITY BETWEEN THE
LIBRARY AND YMCA
Summary of:

 • Our needs and facility requirements

 • Research and consultation

 • Benefits of a shared facility




                                         37
THE LIBRARY NEEDS IDENTIFIED

  • Space significantly below standard
  • Need for more quantity and quality in
    collections
  • Need for more services like Children’s
    collections and programs
  • Need to maintain and increase
    technology
  • Need for more space to contain the
    present and future services
“Room to grow with a growing City”




                                       38
FACILITY SPACE FOR THE LIBRARY

Currently have .4 sq. ft per capital
   Main Library at 35,800 sq. ft.
   McCormick Branch at 3,000 sq. ft.
   TOTAL 38,800 sq. ft

Recommended minimum is .6 sq. ft. or
61,133 sq. ft.

Current Shortfall is 22,333 sq. ft.




                                       39
LIBRARY LONG TERM GROWTH

Facility space goal:
73,200 sq. ft. by the year 2016
Based on .6 sq. ft. X population of
122,200

Options:
 • Do nothing

Or, reach space goal by:
 • Expand current Main Library and add
   branches
 • Build new Main Library and add one
   branch
 • Build new branches




                                      40
   RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION

 • Needs Assessment and Customer
   Survey (1997-98)
 • Architectural Feasibility Study of
   expanding Main Library (1999)
 • Research and recommendation to
   Council for a larger new Main Library
   (2000)
 • City Community Survey on the Library
   (2001)
 • Presentations to Council, information
   for the public, and open houses
   (ongoing)
Recommendation of Library with YMCA




                                      41
THE YMCA NEEDS IDENTIFIED

1998 Strategic Vision and Planning
process driven by the following needs:

 • Only 15% of YMCA program/service
   participation in Waterloo – City
   underserved

 • Waterloo is rapidly growing, how can
   YMCA best provide program/services?

Primary YMCA program site in Waterloo
to be vacated in 5 years




                                         42
STRATEGIC GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES

 • Open more “YMCA doors” where
   people live, work, play, and learn

 • Program/Service delivery growth
   through alliances

Focus on “Wellness” as a program/service
outcome




                                        43
THREE DISTINCT DISTRICTS
IDENTIFIED IN WATERLOO


 • Uptown core

 • Families in the suburbs

 • Education/technology corridor




                                   44
RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION

• Research into Waterloo needs in
  each defined district

• Identified unique “Getting Started”
  program as strategic fit for Uptown
  Core

• Met with City leaders to review
  YMCA strategic thinking and discuss
  possibilities

• Studied other “Getting Started”
  programs

• Commissioned third party market
  survey




                                    45
BENEFITS OF A SHARED FACILITY
WHAT WOULD A NEW LIBRARY AND
YMCA LOOK LIKE?

 • A building for present and future
   growth

 • Shared capital costs

 • Shared operating costs

 • A collective capacity for serving more
   people in the community, and a
   greater use of all three facilities:
   WMRC, YMCA, Library




                                       46
• Contribution to the Uptown Waterloo
  Core

• Better service and family focus

• Convenience (one-stop programs,
  education and leisure site) and free
  parking

• Employment and voluntarism

• Accessible (open to all regardless of
  differences or economic
  circumstances)




                                         47
• Shared programs and customer
  convenience between the WMRC,
  Library and YMCA. (For example,
  health awareness and activities,
  computer literacy, employment,
  orientation for Newcomers.)

• The Library could establish a ground
  floor focused on children and families
  with an upper floor for education and
  “sanctuary”




                                      48
 COMPARATIVE COSTS FOR THE
 LIBRARY

• Engineering consultant estimates for
  expansion of current Main Library

• Construction cost comparison for a
  new Main Library and branch, or just
  branches

• Estimated operating expense
  comparison at full utilization by 2016




                                       49
     Research into Main Library Expansion




     Engineering Consultant Estimates




                                          Walter Fedy                 Vermeulen


                                           Per Sq. Ft.   Total Cost   Per Sq. Ft.   Total Cost


A)   Add 10,000 sq. ft. to total 45,800      $385.00     3,850,000       $639.40     6,394,000



B)   Add 22,200 sq. ft. to total 58,000      $260.72     5,788,000       $419.01     9,302,000



C)   Add 34,200 sq. ft. to total 70,000      $397.37 13,590,000          $471.90    16,139,000


                                                                      All are 1999 Values




                                                                                                 50
Net Project Cost Comparison




                                 Estimated Building Costs

                                      without Land



New 64,000 sq.ft. Main Library         $13,312,000

($208.00 per sq. ft.)



Less sale of current Library           -$4,000,000

                                       $9,312,000



Less Superbuild Grant                  -$2,982,000



Total:                                 $6,330,000




                                                            51
Costs to Reach Library Space Target
                   of 73,200 sq. ft.




                                                 Estimated Building Costs
Future I                               SQ. Ft.        without Land


New Main Library                        64,000         $6,330,000
New Branch                               6,200         $1,289,600
Sub Total:                              70,200         $7,619,600
Current McCormick Branch                 3,000
                                        73,200




Future II


Add two additional Branches             17,200         $3,577,600
                                        17,200         $3,577,600
Sub Total:                              34,400         $7,155,200
Keep Current Main Library and           35,800
McCormick Branch                         3,000
                                        73,200




                                                                            52
Estimated Operating Expenses By Year 2016




Assumptions:


-Goal: to reach 73,200 sq. ft. by 2016                                                             Current Main Library is 35,800 sq. ft.
-Costs are + 2% Inflation per year and 1% growth each year                                         McCormick Branch is 3,000 sq. ft.
-Future Branch operating costs are based on Current McCormick operating costs




Options:                  Current                Expansion                    Future I                            Future II


Square Feet               38,800                   73,000                   73,200 sq.ft.                       73,200 sq.ft.
                                            Current Main Library &     Proposed 64,000 Main,
                   Current Main Library &    McCormick Branch         and McCormick Branch              Current Main, McCormick &
                    McCormick Branch          and 34,200 sq. ft.     and 1 Branch @ 6,000 sq.ft.        2 Branches @ 17,200 each
                                                 Expansion                    in 2012                        in 2004 and 2012
Expenses:


Main                     3,302,000                3,302,000                  5,903,000                           3,302,000
McCormick                 375,000                  375,000                    375,000                             375,000
Expansion                                         3,154,000
Branches: #1                                                                  750,000                            2,150,000
            #2                                                                                                   2,150,000

Other Revenue            -500,000                 -500,000                    -658,000                            -500,000

City Tax Support         3,177,000                6,331,000                  6,370,000                           7,477,000




                                                                                                                          53
BREAK OUT SESSIONS



QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Public Meeting on Waterloo Public Library Expansion

                                   March 21, 2002


Andrew Friedel’s presentation~

Will there be an increase in the developmental charges? Have you consulted the
development industry?

AF: Development charges are built in, based on feedback from developers. The
charges are not based on capital and are not hard costs. The timing of the charges
affects pricing.

Is this THE proposal?

BD: The entire evening is about the proposal.

Ken Hague: This is a new set of figures. It is very difficult to tie in the figures. How
did fundraising change from $100,000 to $500,000?

J. Tate: Initially, we set our sites low for fundraising. After discussions with the think
tank we felt confident with the higher amount.

Ken Hague: What about the expense of furniture
BD: Andrew presented a Funding Model, not an expenditure model.


Bob Taylor’s presentation~

What are the benefits of having a shared facility? Were other partnerships
investigated?

We looked at other options, but it turns out that WPL and the YMCA have common
goals.

What is meant by the term collections?

That refers to the Library’s text books and other materials available to the public.

What does sharing the facility achieve?

BD: J. Tate and J. Haddock will address that later tonight.




                                                                                    55
JT: With .4 sq. ft. per capita, we are behind on space requirements for the
established criteria of .6 sq.ft. We need roughly an additional 22,000 sq. ft. to be at
the proper service level for our population. Plans should include coverage for
growth.

Shortreed: B. Taylor says that, based on the survey results, 10.4% corroborates
your claim that the majority supports a new building.

BD: We’ll come back to the later.

Reporter from K-W Record: So the City would lend the Y $3 million? What is the Y’s
contribution?

BD: That will be covered later, when the Y makes their presentation.


John Haddock began his presentation~

How does a collection of books and general library activities connect with wellness?

JH:
       WPL has an internet site with Health Information
       The Y helps new Canadians with language assessment
       150 new businesses started with our partnership with HRDC
       Fitness is only 30% of what we do.

Will the new facility be wet or dry?

JH:    Dry. There will be no pool.

Is the Y prepared to pay the annual fee of $220,000?

JH: Yes. It is projected in our capital budget.

Are there are other cities with this partnership?

JT: Yes – Library branches in Calgary, Hamilton and Niagara Falls all have a
partnership with the Y. Our is the first time with a Main Library.

Why does the Y get 25% of the space without contributing 25% of the cost?

JH: WPL is not putting in 75% of the capital cost.

20,000 ft2 …how will you use this space?




                                                                                  56
JH: There will be designated areas for Education, social activities, children, “getting
started”. A general workout area will also be provided, but no gymnasium.

BD: Let’s move on. I was hoping to have time for the break away groups, but it
looks like we need more time for Questions and Answers. With that in mind, we will
carry on with the discussion.

When RIM Park was built, the City promised facilities would be available for all ages
of children. Programmes have been lost for younger children because there is no
space available at RIM Park.

BD: Could you let my office know about this in writing? I will look into this matter
separately.

Mrs. Shortreed: Firstly, I have been asked to speak on behalf of two elderly ladies
who were unable to come here tonight. They have difficulty getting around and
being avid readers want books made available closer to their homes, more branches
would meet this need.

I have a feeling for financial matters. I am sure that $3 million could do for the
expansion here. I want to see two branches added and I won’t be ignored tonight.

I am willing to compromise with the Board. If they would direct their energies to the
expansion of this building and two branches – then we would give you our total
support when you ask Council for further funding.

[Mrs. Shortreed then insisted J. Tate read aloud 3 questions from a survey- Mr. &
Mrs. Shortreed loudly and in unison recited the answers.] Mrs. Shortreed’s dialogue
ended.

In a community with two Universities, why does our Library need a partnership – it
can only diminish the Library’s symbolic … . .6 sq. ft. is just a figure on paper.

J.T: .6 esq. is the standard established by the Ontario Library Association.

Why don’ the universities pick up the slack?

J.T.: 10-13% of our users are university students. It is more common for students to
come here than it is for the general population to use the University Libraries, as
their books tend to be very academic.

I agree that we need more branches. We need to look at more options and possible
locations. There is no library at RIM Park – and that would be an ideal




                                                                                 57
location. The Board should investigate that possibility further. You could look into
having storage facilities and books available by request.

This is the best public building in town – I don’t want to see it ruined. I think it could
have a second expansion with success. As to the question of remaining open while
renovating – Wilfrid Laurier’s library has managed to stay open while currently
undergoing major renovations. Has the Board had thoughts on reclaiming space in
the old Carnegie building to alleviate some pressure?

JT: There is one issue regarding the lease. We have had discussions about the
Carnegie Library, as a possibility for Technical Services. However, the floors would
need considerable strengthening which is a very expensive proposition.

Kitchener made a huge mistake when they tore down the old City Hall. I still have
concerns that Waterloo may have made a similar mistake. [ends]

I would like to draw a comparison with the library in Victoria, B.C. Their main
library is 50,000 sq. ft., with 7 branches. It is among Canada’s top 10, in terms
of use. I feel that WPL is in danger of neglecting the youngsters, but at the
same time this is a very user-friendly building. I know KPL delivers books
over the Internet – is this not a service WPL could offer? [ends]

Let’s see the survey results. Given the growth of Waterloo, are people
demanding an increase in service? Or are people going to the Library less
often? I suggest that we have a good building here, and we should add to it.
As we still don’t know about the real cost of RIM Park, we can’t afford a new
building. [ends]

Shortreed: Is the circulation the same as it was in 1995?

JT: Library use has changed. In the mid 1990’s circulation went down, but it is
starting to pick-up again. We have noted an increase in usage of 15%. Not having
space limits for collections and services attracts more people.

I was on the Library Board at the Carnegie Building, and at the time of the current
building. There was always money for expansion, but not for books. Now you are
looking at spending 16 million for 20,000 sq. ft. [ends]

Is there a microphone available?

BD: No, I am sorry.

Has there been any consideration given to including a café in the new building?
Parents and grandparents need a drink. You want to provide a comfortable
atmosphere.




                                                                                    58
JT: I would like to discuss Victoria’s Library more with you later. However, a café is
not desirable.

Those little furry things love cafes! You would have a mouse problem…


Joanne Tate began her presentation ~

J. Tate explained the following costs of renovating vs. building. The numbers were
quoted from Walter Fedy Consulting Engineers:

$208 per sq. ft. for new building OR $385 per sq.ft. for existing building.

Vermeulen were also consulted with higher quotes.

Shortreed: I know an addition could be done for $105 per sq. ft.

Mrs. Shortreed: The Library could become a heritage property. This would allow it
to fall into the Heritage Code, has LACACK been consulted?

JT: Yes. LACAC will be making comments at a future meeting.

[Discussion then led into the issue of more branches]

A good size for a branch is 10,000 sq. ft. The Vancouver Library had to cut
programmes as they were spread too thin and unable to properly support their
branches. [ends]

Why not use portables, or rent space for branches? – there are many opportunities
to use other locations.

JT: 20,000 sq. ft. (for Branches] would have to work out to be extremely
advantageous in light of what would be very heavy operating costs.

The Board is trying to keep away from expanding this building because of how the
building will change, and certain location limitations such as decreased parking. We
are already 22,000 sq. ft. behind and an additional 10,000 sq.ft. won’t suffice. We
need to build for the future.

B. Taylor said that the survey corroborated the notion of a new library. I
disagree and think it is important to keep this building. We would in a sense,
be paying $16 million for a new branch? A. Furdell’s Funding Model was made
up of many resources – I don’t see how he arrives at the bottom line of $7.5
million for a new building.




                                                                                59
JT: For clarification we will make adjustments to ensure that the “Cost to Reach
Library’s Space Target” and Andrew’s “Funding Model” appear side by side.

Shortreed – The Board and Library staff should be considered a type of service
delivery. You took what you wanted from the internal survey and Wall survey. You
aren’t interested in offering more branches.

Wall’s survey gave the following breakdown:

Expanding           58.7%
New Building        10.4%
Additional Branch   7.3%

The ideas of the Board appear to be very fixed. The Board should interpret the
survey to see that people want branches more than a new building. [ends]

This is the first meeting I’ve been to like this. We are sitting here and see a
presentation, but you don’t seem to be listening. For this to be a public meeting we
are sure it will take the Board to listen.

BD: As you’ve said, this is the first. There may be more meetings. Council can’t
make a decision until they are sure that they’ve heard from everyone.

When did you get involved?

BD: I became involved after the process had begun.

If SuperBuild goes through – will this be a done deal?

BD: No.

We’ve got someone from Council here. Councillor Taylor would you like to
comment?

MT: Sure. This is not a done deal. All of the information must first be gathered and
then go to Council for their informed decision.

Even if we get the grant- do we still have options?

MT: No. If it is not used for a new building we give the money back.

How much time does Council have to accept or reject the grant?

MT: I do not know the exact time frame given, but Council will take whatever time is
required to make a decision.




                                                                               60
Gail Hassock, Vice Chair of the Board: (introduced herself) I have a question for the
audience tonight. Would the people who want to stay in this building, still want to be
here if it became unrecognizable?

I have called many Councilors with regard to the expansion. I couldn’t find one who
was for a new library. Needham is against the suggestion that Wilfrid Laurier
University takeover this building.

Superbuild has come to Waterloo, but we have to go into a large debt to receive the
money.

People should think ahead. The Library is on the Internet. I don’t see why people,
especially children should come to the Library to use the Internet. Perhaps there is
no need to expand when you consider the expenses associated with coming to the
Library like gas and parking which are not incurred when on line. [ends]

So you need extra space. Why not fill in the Dupont St. parking lot overhang –
there’s 10,000 esq.

I have a different opinion from what has been heard tonight. I would ask you people
to be more open minded. I, like so many people have acquired the Internet in my
home. Others are not so fortunate, and for them, the Internet should be available at
the Library. Our growing population needs better services, space to accommodate a
larger collection. Your sentimental attachment to the present building is against
expanded services. Many of you are older and are not thinking about the future. I
am part of the future and would like to see future needs looked after. I am new to
the study of expansion and I’ve got an open mind regarding the new building, and
offer you a different opinion. [ends]

Could a third floor be added?

[J. Tate showed the blueprint for expansion plans]

Shortreed: What are these openings here for? This plan has expensive light wells.

Why can’t people see the big picture here? Why not move in that direction. I am in
favour of a new facility.

BD: Thank you for your comments. Additional information will be available. We
appreciate the informality of this meeting. I am sorry we did not have time for the
break away sessions. There will be two more meetings, both very similar to this
evening. I would like to do the break out session next time.

Shortreed: When will the minutes be available?




                                                                                 61
BD: Five business days. Let’s have a vote on see how many would like a copy.

Minutes will be posted on the website and also available at the Library and City Hall
in five business days.




                                                                                62
Meeting Dates

 • Thursday, March 21 Waterloo Public
   Library – Auditorium 7:00 p.m.

 • Wednesday, April 3 Waterloo
   Memorial Recreation Complex –
   Hauser Haus 7:00 p.m.

 • Tuesday, April 16 Albert McCormick
   Community Centre – Community
   Room 7:00 p.m.




           Handout for Meeting April 3, 2002




                                               63
Council Decision Process

 • Questions and suggestions from the
   public meetings to be reviewed and
   reported on to Council

 • Council will review these and any
   others they receive on this subject

 • Delegations to Council are encouraged

 • Council could make a decision in early
   Summer but not before then



            Handout for Meeting April 3, 2002




                                                64
          Library Objectives

• Board Objective
   o expand Library Services
   o goal 2016 – 73,000 sq. ft based on
     .6 sq. ft. per capita

• Based on 5 years of research involving
   o Library Survey, Community Survey
   o Walter Fedy Group, Vermeulen
     Group
   o Exploring other
     relationships/cohabitation

• Currently evaluating 3 options for
  expansion of services

           Handout for Meeting April 3, 2002




                                               65
           Library Options

• Expand current location with future
  branch expansion
• Maintain current location with
  immediate branch expansion plan
• Build expanded main with future
  branch expansion
• Vision of a shared facility




           Handout for Meeting April 3, 2002




                                               66
     Library Course of Actions


• Present the Capital Cost Analysis of
  each
• Present the Objectives of YMCA
• Next Steps
   o Further refine operating
     calculations based on various
     options
   o Explore other options with
     Community Input
   o Explore present options with
     Community Input




           Handout for Meeting April 3, 2002




                                               67
Prepared by the City of Waterloo
    Waterloo Public Library
       Capital Analysis
                                                     Expansion of         New Large        New Main
                                                      Current Site         Branches (SuperBuild Plus)
                                 Library Space
                               Current Building             35,800           35,800                  -
                     Current Building Expansion             34,400
                              New Main Library                                                 64,000
                      Albert McCormick Branch                3,000            3,000             3,000
                                  New Branch 1                               17,200             6,200
                                  New Branch 2                               17,200
                           Total Library Space              73,200           73,200            73,200

Estimated Construction Cost per Square Foot                  $395              $208              $208

                                          Less:
                            Sale of Main Library                                          $(4,000,000)
                              SuperBuild Grant                                            $(2,982,012)
                                     Donations          $(500,000)        $(500,000)        $(500,000)

                        Net Construction Cost          $13,090,050        $6,647,959       $7,104,811

                 Land Requirements & Values
                                   New Main
                                       Acres                                                     4.33
                                       Value                    $                 $        $1,300,000
                                    Branch 1
                                       Acres                                      2              0.72
                                       Value                    $          $600,000          $216,279
                                    Branch 2
                                       Acres                                       2
                                       Value                    $           $600,000
              Total Land Cost/Assigned Value                    $         $1,200,000       $1,516,279

        Net Construction Cost & Land Values            $13,090,050        $7,847,959       $8,621,090

             Funding per 2002 Capital Budget
                        Development Charges             $1,500,000        $1,500,000       $1,500,000
                          City Capital Funding          $3,500,000        $3,500,000       $3,500,000
                                                        $5,000,000        $5,000,000       $5,000,000

         Add: City Contribution for Land/Parking                $                 $        $1,300,000

                                   Total Funding        $5,000,000        $5,000,000       $6,300,000

                               Funding Shortfall        $8,090,050        $2,847,959       $2,321,090

                                        YMCA
                        Additional YMCA Space                                                  20,000

Estimated Construction Cost per Square Foot                     $                 $              $184

             Funding per 2002 Capital Budget
                              YMCA Donation                     $                 $          $674,000
                      YMCA Lease Payments                       $                 $        $3,000,000
                                                                                           $3,674,000
                                      Handout for Meeting April 3, 2002
The original spreadsheet was printed on two pages

                                                                                                68
This page intentionally left blank




                                     69
         Public Meeting on Waterloo Public Library Expansion
                                    April 3, 2002

                              Questions and Answers


Brian Detzler welcomed the audience. There are handouts available from the last
presentation and a new one for this meeting.
Terry Hallman, past Chair of the Waterloo Public Library made his presentation.
John Haddock, CEO of the YMCA made his presentation.

Joyce Cummings: (in response to J. Haddock) what you’re saying is a lot of
phrases. What’ll be in the YMCA? Although this was discussed at the last meeting
I still don’t know.

      John Haddock: We will have a program and services. There will be 20,000
      sq. ft. designed to get people started on a fitness programme with exercise
      equipment, consultation and educational services.

      Brian Detzler: This evening we have adjusted the financial information to be
      on one sheet to help clarify the numbers.

Andrew Friedel, Recreation and Leisure Dept. for the City of Waterloo, began his
presentation.

Russell Rodrigo: Can you explain what the cost per sq. ft. is? How is it that costs
of expanding the present building are double the costs of building a new building? I
find this very hard to believe.

      Andrew Friedel: It is double the cost to retrofit an old building and bring it up
      to code. The Library did a cross check which proved that is costs more.

Russell Rodrigo: What…is there a spring under the land? I still find this hard to
believe.

      Andrew Friedel: I am not an Engineer. I am an Accountant. There are
      always options as to how a renovation is done which affect the cost.

Audience: Can you get a different number based on the choices? I think Mr.
Shortreed estimated 1/3 of that price.

Valerie Eagle: The City is paying the Y’s share of $3 million up front. This creates a
loss of revenue to the City, of approximately $1.3 million.

      Andrew Friedel: The lease will cover the cost.




                                                                                 70
Valerie Eagle: How do you figure that? It comes to over $1 million at 5%.

      Andrew Friedel: The lease analysis is over 20 years. The City would
      recover any income loss.

Stan Retgers: It’s hard to believe the sq. ft. cost is double. Don’t tell me it costs
twice as much to renovate than to build new. There are two possibilities here.
    1. There is another building to consider. The Maple property in the old Seagram
       building. There are two nice buildings there. Something old and something
       new. I think the Library is a better fit with a museum than the Y. Would this
       building be suitable for a Library?
    2. Then the City has 4 or 5 acres to sell.

      Brian Detzler: That proposal has not been looked at. We welcome any
      suggestions.

Stan Retgers: Is that worth investigating? It’s a focal point. There will be more
future developments in that area. It is a tremendous location. Whoever is
responsible should look into that.

Connie Mare: I am looking at $1.3 million in the opportunity cost of SuperBuild.
Why is that added in as revenue? In the other 2 cases the City would have that land
for another use.

      Andrew Friedel: That has been added in so that the analysis matches the
      SuperBuild application.

Connie Mare: You’re adjusting the bottom line on only one figure. It is not reflected
in the other 2 options. In the cost analysis, why is the revenue for the value of the
land added back in. With options A and B we don’t look at what we could get for the
land. Is this a fair way to analyze costs? It doesn’t seem like “apples and apples”;
it’s more like “apples and oranges”.

      Andrew Friedel: You’re assuming the City wants to sell that land. There is a
      lot of land the City can sell.

Connie Mare: Well, I say you’re not looking at apples and apples.

John Shortreed: I will be limiting my question to finances. We are talking about $3
million. Are you in finance?

      Andrew Friedel: Yes.

John Shortreed: Are you an Accountant?




                                                                               71
      Andrew Friedel: Yes.

John Shortreed: The cost to the City is 7%. These numbers are not comparable.

7.5% of 3 million is over $220,000. How do you recover the costs to build the
YMCA?

      Andrew Friedel: Through the lease payments.

John Shortreed: But is that your area of expertise?

      Andrew Friedel: Although I am not in the Finance Dept., I am an
      Accountant. I can get the answer to your question if you’d like.

      Brian Detzler: Thank you for all of your questions. It is now time to begin the
      break out sessions. [Some audience voiced protest over this.] You don’t
      have to participate in the group session. But in all fairness, you were notified
      that there would be a break out session this evening.

Five groups were made, and the sessions commenced. A representative from
each of the five groups then spoke.

Don Bellanov, Group 1: Our group had lively discussion. This is the order we
arrived at:
    1. The City is in severe debt, as other Cities are who were involved with MFP
       Financing. Why are we talking about more spending?
    2. A Library is about services – it is more than bricks and mortar. We
       investigated some possibilities to expand with the least capital cost, e.g.
       renting a facility. The question came up of how could we afford to operate a
       larger facility if the services aren’t met.
    3. We should look into the future – as we continue to grow we’ll be looking at the
       area as a Region. Services should be considered for a Region, not just a
       City.


Group 2: We also had lively discussion. It was hard to note what was said. We
should increase the budget for the Library 1%. There was lots of talk about
mortgage and leases. Within 5 to 10 years we do need to increase the space and
services. One other point was that the Library should not get too hung-up about
having a joint facility. Library improvement should be the focus instead.


Rosemary Rahn, Group 3: Our group was quite talkative also. It was immediately
clear that we did not want to spend big bucks on bricks and mortar. Three in our
group felt a new Library was very important.




                                                                                72
We felt a study needed to be done in the suburbs. We weren’t convinced that
families in the suburbs had been properly consulted.
We seemed to favour a shared facility, but wondered if there were other options.
The operating funds are far below comparable cities. We would like to look at that
before funding a new building.


Group 4: Our group had a lot of discussion. We wanted more information on
Library services Citywide. We felt that we did not know enough. We would like to
see more services such as longer hours and audio books. As far as branches, we
would like to examine lease space as well as lot space. There was discussion on
amalgamating WPL and KPL. Three liked the idea of a new building and three were
against. Should the expansion be on one or two floors? Where is the current
building to be expanded?


Tom Abbott, Group 5: We had lively discussion. We broke away from the
suggested outline. We talked about expanding, and auditing existing services,
obtaining a better collection. We also talked about how we use the Library.

We favoured having a larger Main branch, because you can get what you want right
away. We wanted more hours and free parking – the meters should be torn out.
There was the question of dollars and cents. Two people in the group felt that
renovations do cost more. Applying for the SuperBuild Grant was well worthwhile.
We think that the subsidy is worth the partnership.

There was the issue of public transit – is there a good service to the proposed site?
A study should explore that issue. The existing building should be kept “as is” as a
condition of sale.

       Brian Detzler: Thank you for the group work. There were some very
       thoughtful comments. The Board is jotting down your comments. Individual
       comments are welcome. Are there any more questions?

Marilyn Truemner: The WFP Feasibility Study makes favourable comments on the
current Main Library site and it’s contribution to the pedestrian environment. This
said that an expansion at the current Main Library would contribute to uptown
Waterloo. The proposed new building, being 4 blocks away is in a comparatively
isolated area, except for Luther Village. It is not accessible except by car, and not as
visible as it should be. It does not have the excellent pedestrian environment we
already have.

According to an article from the March 13th Record, Waterloo Region’s growth is
double the national average. Our City can afford it. The Y should have a new pool,
a gym, track etc. with perhaps a branch Library along side it.




                                                                                 73
A standard distance for people from a Library is 1.5 miles. Our City has one branch,
while Cambridge has four. The proposed new Y would have after school
programmes and counseling. Childcare would be little more than daycare – which is
a very profitable business. The Y seems to have lost track of what they are all
about. We have only one full scale Y in Kitchener. Space went in the Waterloo Y at
Lincoln Road. They have covered their pool and have fitness there. It is not large
enough to accommodate a proper fitness programme. The Y should build a
Waterloo treasure for their next facility.

It would seem that when the SuperBuild funding comes through it is a fait accompli.
If that is so, these meetings are empty. Our deal will increase to 7 million and tax
hikes of 10%. We should put a stop on spending and adopt a more fiscally
responsible approach. Where we should start is with the Walter Fedy Study. This
new plan would plunge us further into debt.

Herb Epp: I need to know the impact of the RIM debt before a decision is made. I
don’t want to say if there should be a new building or renovations. I don’t want to
vote on this from a fiscal point.

I would like to pick up on the comments earlier regarding renovating vs. new
building. I have gone through extensive renovations in my home. I think renovations
are expensive if you want to keep the integrity of the building. I would not favour an
expansion of the existing building. It is architecturally pleasant as is.

Regarding leasing a building at 7%. That part I had clarified at my table. After 20
years the building is still owned by the City. Like any lease, you still don’t own it – it
wasn’t a lease-to-own contract. If the Library needs more space in 20 years, the City
could expand the Library into the Y’s space. The cost, when amortized, would not
be that high.

Harold Remus: Mine is a minority opinion. I have always liked WPL where it is. It
is pleasant to sit where the windows overlook the City and read from their selection
of magazines and periodicals. There is some history at the present location with the
Carnegie Library across the street. So when this whole discussion began I would
have been one of those against.

Since then I began to see things differently. Maybe WPL could expand – but then
there would be less parking, the add-ons would have their own problems, along with
the loss of green space and property. When we needed more space at the Carnegie
Library, the City wisely chose not to expand.
Waterloo has grown a great deal since I moved here in 1994. Among other things,
we need an extensive archival depository.




                                                                                   74
The best way to achieve all of these goals is to have a new building. This would be
the most economical option.

John Shortreed: I’d like to make a few comments about what I am in favour of:
     Expanding the overhang would cost $1.5 million; this could double the
     children’s space.
     I am in favour of relocating the technical services
     Nothing can be done without approval from Council
     It does no good to expand without the books to fill shelves
     Build a small 15,000 sq. ft. tower for the librarians’ work space
     It is imperative that we have branches at the East and West of Waterloo.
     These could increase circulation
     Costs per sq. ft. for renovations are not valid.

We need to do a revision to incorporate things that are known. Pay parking could be
put in at anytime at the new building, by the Board. We keep hearing that parking
would be free – that could change at anytime. Should show $385 per sq. ft. could be
as low as $90 per sq.ft. for renovations. These are all well documented differences.

Councilor Morty Taylor: Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for coming out
tonight. I appreciate public input, and want to clarify about whether this is a done
deal. I am going to read from a Memo of March 14, 2002 from the City Clerk.
In a newspaper article it was suggested that this was a done deal. This is not the
case. The City retains the right to reconsider this at anytime. The funds can only be
used for what was stipulated. (Morty read from a newspaper article, which was
inaccurate.) This is not a done deal. Again, I really appreciate your coming out this
evening.


Angelica Allen: The Library is not a business. I would hate to see something like
RIM Park financing sink this project. The Library should be a good resource for the
community. We don’t want to have a “donut” development the way they do in many
cities where there is nothing in the center and all of the services on the outside.

The Children’s Dept., in the Main Library is severely under-funded and not
comparable to other good libraries. Children’s books are worn and we have to pay
for children’s programs. KPL offers them for free, but they have more funding.
Should services be limited to only those who can afford them? We need to offer
them free of charge here too.

The community should put its money where its mouth is.

Personally, I like the idea of a Waterloo Town Square site. It is on a Main bus line
and very central, there is also the potential to share the space.




                                                                                75
A branch Library’s purpose is very different from a Main Library which needs to have
special resources as well as resources to support any branches. Branches tend to
have books with the most turnover, and very little to offer in terms of reference
material. A strong Main Library is required to support branches. The more branches
there are, the larger the Main Library needs to be in order to satisfy demand.

Someone from the Library, for example, the Chief Librarian, should inform Mr.
Shortreed that the McCormick Branch is not busier than the Main Library. The
circulation statistics seem high for a small branch. I would agree that outlying areas
do need more service. Thank you.

Bob Blake: I would like to agree with most of what Mr. Shortreed says, as part of a
comparison with more models. The capital cost issue makes a point. It seems to
me if you buy a rotten car; you keep spending money to live with. You need to live
with it. The City should make a better effort to present this issue to its citizens, to
inform them. Citizens need to have an organized capital plan in spite of Rim Park.
The cost of RIM Park should be put behind us, let’s get on with it and do the things
we need to do with the City.

David Sandrock: I agree with quite a few of the things being said tonight. I would
like to echo the need for adjustments to the presentation – such as seeing the total
operating costs. We need to have an operating projection that is useful in assessing
choices. I would recommend at the next meeting we see the operating costs of the
new building compared with the existing Library with renovations and new branches.
There is no point in buying these resources unless you can feed them.

       Brian Detzler: Operating costs will be provided at the next meeting.

Tom Abbott: We need a strong focus. There are still questions we didn’t get a
chance to address. The current project offers synergy by being in the same place. I
have already used this facility a couple of times this week. It is the same for RIM
Park. I see downtown cores are dying. The proposal would attract more people,
and families to the downtown area. We have to look at the best outcome for the City
and Waterloo Public Library.

Valerie Eagle: I am unsure about this proposal. What happens if the City does sell
the existing building to Wilfrid Laurier University? What will that do to the downtown
- if they choose to build a high rise?

Jane Mitchell: I was a Librarian working at KPL and in its branches. I also worked
at Renison College, which is similar in some ways to a branch at the University of
Waterloo. Some people have said branches only carry high traffic books. It is very
important to have a large, well-stocked Main Library. All of the




                                                                                  76
ordering and cataloguing is done at the Main Library. Whatever is the outcome here,
you need a larger Main Library to keep stock. Some people thought the Main would
add a second floor or overhang. What option does the pricing include? Could you
refine the new Main and tell me the yearly lease payment? Please clarify the Y’s
donation of $600,000. I am assuming that the $3 million at the bottom line is across
the life of the building. I think that might be confusing. The Y donation is important.
I find it becomes confusing with the land and parking issues.

Gord Hague: If you were to go through all of the information available, it would be
about a 1.5” stack of paper. I haven’t seen current issues – which is key to any
business decision. What are you going to do with those sheets from the break out
session?

       Brian Detzler: They will be included with the minutes. At the conclusion of
       these meetings we will complete a report to submit to Council.

Gord Hague: The cities of London and Mississauga just built libraries downtown. I
would like to see their rational for space increases. There has been reference made
to all of this material. Are you working on having all of these documents available?

Brad Marsland: If we were wildly innovative and had outgrown the Library, then I
could see a need. Currently, WPL is not well supported – only two thirds of the
population uses it. The studies are fraught with misinformation. The Library needs
to improve, and needs funding to do so. I can see money being used to improve
collections and services. I’d like to see a branch that is reasonably sized and located
where people are. For the long term, we should look at amalgamating KPL and
WPL. The Board tells us the magic number is .6 sq. ft. per capita. But what
happens when we add the University libraries and KPL to that equation. What is the
sq. ft. per capita then?

       Brian Detzler: We have more work to do here. The next meeting will be held
       on April 16th. The agenda will be much the same as this evening’s. I hope to
       have more information available.

Audience member: The Walter Fedy Partnership quoted $2.3 million in furnishings
– let’s see whether this is included.

Brian Detzler: The Library is in the process of putting its past reports on the website
as well as having them available in-house.




                                                                                 77
                  Staff Recommendation



Based on the public input and the financial analysis to date, we recommend that an
additional option to expand the library space at the existing site other than the
current expansion option be evaluated.



The evaluation should be based on affordability and potential space efficiencies.




                    Additional Handout at Meeting April 16, 2002




                                                                               78
Staff Recommendation
That an independent firm be consulted to perform this analysis.



Example: Add additional square footage by enclosing the existing overhang & adding
office space so the existing floor space could be dedicated to 100% library patron
space.




                    Additional Handout at Meeting April 16, 2002




                                                                            79
                Public Meeting on Library Expansion - April 16, 2002

                               Questions and Answers

Terry Hallman made his presentation.

John Haddock made his presentation.

Russell Rodgrigo: I have a question for the Library Board. Your budget is two thirds
of Cambridge's. If we expand WPL what will happen without further funding? If you
build a new library will the McCormick Branch be affected? Library use is constant
even though the City is expanding. There are many places to get information besides
the Library. I don't see why, with the current situation, we should change.

If you move WPL from the current downtown location to another area it will reduce
use.

As far as the Y goes, after 32 years of living here I find it hard to understand why
there is such a need for "quality of life" and increased child minding. This doesn't
seem to be valid. What is quality of life?

Terry Hallman: You are right; we do not receive the same funding as other cities.
WPL is under-funded. There will be an increase in costs. How we will stage the costs
in ten years is an issue that the Board and Council will deal with.

Joanne Tate: As far as the use remaining the same after an expansion -use will
increase, as we are able to offer more services and books to the public.

Russell Rodgrigo: Thank you for clarifying this -but I am worried about extra costs
and worried that Branch libraries will be lost.

Joanne Tate: There is no plan to close the McCormick Branch. We may reevaluate
the location and size. The McCormick Branch is very successful and has done a
good job. It is not in any danger.
We have increased our book and A V collections. Library use has increased by 15%
from last year. AV use has skyrocketed. We support people who don't have
computers -use in that area has increased by 60% in the last year.

John Haddock: You asked about Quality of Life. Research indicates that people
who are connected in the community feel healthier and are healthier. Communities
with new Canadians need more opportunities for them to be assisted with
integration. Children who can participate are able to improve their self-esteem and
confidence, this in hand, reduces the need for other services. People need a place to
be connected to have all of these benefits.

Andrew Friedel made his presentation.




                                                                                  80
Dave Sandrock: I think we should increase the size of the existing Library .It would
be nice to tie this in with rental space for the branches. We should consider a branch
size in the range of 6-8,000 sq. ft.

Brian Detzler: So noted. These types of comments are important to us.

John Shortreed: I commend the City staff. You have come a long ways. It is still sort
of a one-sided journey and really not an opportunity for detailed dialogue. I would
say this before going into any further consulting -the answers to many questions are
wrong. If we are to have a new process than let's get people to work with you from
the community.

Brian Detzler: We want to continue involvement from the community. We do want to
hear other options. That is the purpose of these meetings. We've advertised in The
Chronicle and there's been great coverage in The Record.

Benton Leong: There needs to be more of a consultation process here. Focus
Group meetings would be a more productive approach, as that would give people a
chance to hear the presentation, and a better chance of hearing from people. People
have a limited imagination and need to help see beyond issues like pedestrian traffic.

Audience member: These numbers are really something. To have a new building
with 20,000 additional square feet costs $5,785,000 or $262 per sq. ft. To add
10,000 sq. ft. to the existing building costs $385 per sq.ft. This seems to be a big
discrepancy. With $5 million in SuperBuild funding - well you might have something
there. We definitely need branches in the East and West; they could be less than
10,000 sq. ft. We've got someone here who can tell us the cost of renting. What do
you say, Herb Epp?

Herb Epp: Renting costs about $10 per square foot.

Brian Detzler asked the audience to form breakaway groups.

Group 1: We tried to work quickly. We wanted to increase services, collections and
new media - things like CD ROMs, etc. We want to study the affordability - in terms
of a tax percentage increase for the joint project. We need more space and need to
bring WPL up to provincial standards. We would like you to make more apparent the
efforts to support youth (25 years or younger).

For the next 5 to 10 years would like to see increases continue with services, etc.
Perhaps consideration should be given to amalgamating KPL and WPL, or at least
increase co-operation. It would be nice to borrow from either.

We liked the look of the Y's future plans and goals. We would like the Y to consider
putting in a gym, seeing as the rec. center doesn't have one.

Don't forget about the McCormick Branch -make sure it gets expanded too.
Group 2: We started without referring to the suggested outline. Some people
thought the new location was poorly serviced in terms of accessibility. Others liked
it.

                                                                                81
Then we moved into what we need now. There needs to be an ongoing increase to
the budget. More hours, more space and more books came up strong. We would like
to hear from the librarians about their vision for services and programmes.

As far as 5-10 years from now - how will we know? We want better, free parking.
We
thought the branches tying into schools should be given consideration. There should
be more integration at a regional level.

One person was for, and one against the suggested partnership with the YMCA.

Group 3: We didn't look at the questions. With regard to the branch library aspect -
we felt that the Main has to expand to support branches. The new location should be
more accessible. We wondered if the Maxi store would be a good place for a Main or
Branch. It's on a main bus route.

When the survey was done we wondered about the age and location of those
interviewed.

As to the Y - we wanted to know why Lincoln Road was closed. Has the public
indicated a need for a new Y -would there be enough support for it?

People who use the suggested new location may not necessarily use the downtown
area. We were concerned if this would be a safe location for children when they are
walking or biking to get there.

Who would buy the existing building? [Wilfrid Laurier University was given as
answer.] "'

Are there no other land packages elsewhere the City could provide to support new
branches? Has the parking issue been studied and are there numbers to support it?

Joanne Tate: The parking was an issue referred to in the Needs Assessment Study
in 1998. We receive comments from patrons about parking, e.g. this past week
parents could not find parking spaces for their children to attend a program. More
people come to the library in the evening and weekends partly to avoid parking fees.
Presently, the situation is not as bad as KPL's, but it's getting there

Group 4: We saw three options. The main concern was about economics. Is City
Council prepared to approve this? Maybe we should wait for the local scene to die
down and wait it out. For the meantime we could have more rented branches.

We felt very positive about expanding into a new building. The joint facility makes it
perfect for families. Relatively speaking, the location should not be a big issue. It
would be less than half a kilometer from the present site. As far as parking - it is not
feasible to build a parking garage. The new location would have more and free
parking. It benefits families greatly. Let the figures speak for themselves and carry
on.



                                                                                   82
John Rieck: Regarding parking - how much does the City rent out in the Dupont Lot
behind the Library?

Joanne Tate: I don't have the exact number, but it's about two thirds of the spaces.
There would be plenty of parking if they weren't rented.

Mrs. Leong: I object to paying for parking. It is such a nuisance to have the right
change available. I got a ticket immediately, when I just nipped in to return a book. I
have a friend who goes only to McCormick, because the parking is free.

Roslyn Maple: We should remove the cost of parking.

Audience Member: Who gets the money for parking?

Brian Detzler: The money goes to the City.

Dave Sandrock: I have seen many places that offer some free parking for 5 to 15
minutes. Perhaps the Library should consider that as an option. I have a question for
the Y. Why did they sell the building? Are they planning the same programmes?
Changing programmes? Was what they were doing working?

John Haddock: Why did we sell? Well it predates my association with the Y. I know
that there was a decline in enrollment, and it wasn't in a position to go on. Will the
activities be different? Yes. Both the location and programmes will be different. We
have completed a survey, which validates these.

John Shortreed: I have a comment regarding a realistic option. I would like to see
the Library start with something simple like parking. The Board has control of the
parking - it would be a 'slam-dunk" for Council to approve of this. Why not tackle the
parking issue? There is a way to deal with this. If parking is a concern, then why not
solve the problem?

Benton Leong: This is about more than books and space. It goes beyond the
necessity of pedestrian concerns. We need to look at more options, and open our
minds to think with more imagination. I would like to invite the Chief Librarian to
share her vision with others.

Joanne Tate: We have spent a lot of time looking at other libraries to develop a
vision. Many services are changing, while others are staying the same. People have
told us they value the social aspect of the Library and want to see this develop.
Some people come with their kids, and some come to get away from them and find
some quiet. People have asked me what it would look like. We want people to
come in and see staff right away, not a series of closed doors. We want families to
feel welcome. I want staff to spend more time with people. We need a larger local
history section and a collection with breadth as well as quantity .We need a mixture
of access to the world using technology as well as the printed page. I want a place
where people can feel comfortable to curl up with a book, or kids can have stories
read to them by a person and not a tape.
David Davies: I recognize the limitations of the library. There is nowhere to put more
books. I have a short-term, and possibly a long-term solution. Has WPL considered

                                                                                 83
using a shelving system like KPL's? It's a little more condensed. For the much lower
cost of shelving, you could increase your space by almost 50%. I have calculated
this and drawn diagrams for you to examine. The overhang expansion would give us
10,000 sq. ft. 73,000 sq. ft. would be large -I don't know if we know what we want in
2016.

John Shortreed: What is the percentage?

David Davies: If you reconfigure you go from nine rows to eleven, seven shelves
rather than six. This increases shelf space by 50%.

Joanne Tate: We need the aisle space to provide room for wheelchair access. KPL
is reviewing their shelving system as they have found it crowding too. Perhaps you
could meet with me and share information.

David Davies: Wilfrid Laurier has smaller aisles, and there is room for wheelchair
access.

Joanne Tate: Yes - and they are currently expanding.

Roger Gratl: I am Roger Gratl, and I am a trustee on the Library Board. The people
on the Board are very educated. We have spent $17,000 on consulting fees. We
have been very frugal. $17,000 was spent on the Walter Fedy Partnership, with
another $4,000 to confirm it. Now we are talking about spending another $10,000 for
another architect? I want to emphasize that the people we hired are professional.
The cost consultants' estimates are within 5% of the actual cost. What you've seen
won't change much. We would be spending more money for the same conclusion.
Meantime, we could miss out on SuperBuild. $3 million that someone else will get. I
just heard today that Guelph has come up with a plan to build a 64,000 sq. ft. Library
and want it in the center of downtown, they also have done analyses.

Waterloo looks the worst in the Region. We've been fooling around for ten years.
We cannot go out to do a membership drive, as we could not support 80% of the
population. People would come here, and say that it stinks, not enough books or
parking.

My vision is that everyone will want to go to the library .The latest survey pointed out
that 10% of Waterloo's population has a card for KPL to get books they can't get at
WPL. We have 6,000 books not on display. 88% of people in the City Survey
questioned are willing to pay more money to get a better Library.
If you want a good library, with good service and branches you need a strong central
library. A place to meet, relax, communicate. How many of you have been to
Chapters? It's comfy. That's the thinking I want to see happen. The old building will
get more mucked up. I am very frustrated. We've been short-changed for years.

Vi Horton: I am the widow of the architect for the current library. The addition was
integrated. We did surveys galore. My husband's plan for the future was to have
more branch libraries. In terms of Dr. Davey's suggestion there is a concern with
weight load. We don't know if the floors could support more. I was on the Board,
just before Marcia Shortreed. My point is I think we need more branch libraries.

                                                                                  84
Randy Friesen: Hi, my name is Randy Friesen. My wife Marjorie and I met here at
university, found jobs and have raised a family in this community for the past 16
years. We love Waterloo. We love the values of this community, the energy of this
community and we applaud the vision and initiative of our Council and community
leaders to keep Waterloo and attractive place to work and raise a family.
Our family is regulars at the Waterloo Main Branch. We value its services and its
accessibility from various parts of the city. After some excellent research and
groundwork by the library board and staff we now have an opportunity to build a new
facility with 25,000 sq. ft. more space than our present facility - that's more books as
well as up-to-date technology and services - all for essentially the same money as
the cost of expanding our present facility. What are we waiting for? The partnership
with the Y is a win-win opportunity for young families like ours, who use the variety of
services that the overall facility would offer. They synergy of services will increase
participation in both the Library and the Y.

I attended the council meeting in March where people questioning the cost and
timing of this project made several presentations. What I didn't hear was anyone
representing the huge majority of young families who would be using these
expanded services and paying for them for the next 30 years. As one of those
taxpayers I want to encourage our local council to show some courage and vision in
this present climate of fear and uncertainty and get this project approved.

Our personal sphere of influence includes dozens of young professionals who chose
to live in Waterloo precisely because it offers top quality services for families. We're
at RIM Park every weekend and love it. Some unfortunate financing decisions were
made which we will pay for. But let's not let those mistakes set us back in the kind of
planning we need for this new library and Y. Now is the time. Let's go for it!

Andrew Altridge: I want to echo the sentiments of Roger Gratl. I would be terribly
angered and frustrated if we missed this SuperBuild money. Why not have our
people take advantage of this. We have a growing community with growing needs for
our Library.

Jim Stephens: I have a question for the Y. If this is a joint project near the
Recreation Centre, why not build a gym?

John Haddock: The question of having a gym has been discussed recently. We
have some space to work with. We have no designs as yet. Perhaps the City could
construct a gym. I agree that there is a need.

Jim Stephens: Where are the people playing hockey there now going to go?

John Haddock: I don't know.




                                                                                  85
John Shortreed: I would like to summarize what I support.
From the survey        -90% said that want anything but a new building
                       70% wanted to expand the current site
                       20% were in favour of branches
It's unfortunate that the survey didn't ask some of the following questions.
     1. The present building has a good ambiance and some wonderful spaces to sit.
        We don't know if we'll get the same spaces in a new facility.
     2. The building is designed to be expanded.
     3. We could relocate the librarians work area to small two-storey building
     4. We need branches. The population has needs.
     5. I was always for expanding the library when I was on council. Now you want
        to triple the operating cost -I think the Board is off in la-Ia land if they think
        council will go for that. Waterloo is frugal. I don't think you're going to see the
        funding. You've gotta be realistic. We should take advantage of what we've
        got now. I don't think it'll do the job.

Dave Sandrock: Is there some way a survey could be done for the East and West?

Brian Detzler: The survey has been fully discussed. The community survey was
based on the community. Staff randomly chose 4 names from each page of the
voters list. Did the survey address specific areas? No. It was intended to represent
the community.

Audience Member: It would have been nice to involve branches in the expansion; I
am worried we'll lose the branch we have.

Joanne Tate: Are people concerned McCormick will close? There was fear that it
might in the 1990s and a public campaign was mounted. There is no danger of
McCormick closing.

Susan Rodrigo: I am afraid the branch will be forgotten. It seems a lot of young
families in the new suburbs have not been counted and will miss out. Wouldn't it be
timely to survey the new areas?

Joanne Tate: The library in home survey (1997) had 400 responses and the handing
out was scheduled to reflect patterns of us.

Brian Detzler: There were 400 phone calls to homes all over the City in its survey
(2001). This was completed in April of last year. There hasn't been a specific
geographic survey.

Susan Rodrigo: I put forth that we should.

Audience Member: If you are under-funded, how do you plan to pay for a new
facility?

Brian Detzler: Council would fund this, and do supply increases for a new facility.
I would like to point out that council currently has money in the budget for the
expansion.


                                                                                     86
Dave Sandrock: Thank you for being so conscientious. What is the next move?

Brian Detzler: The information we've collected from these meetings will be reviewed
by the Board at their next meeting (April 25) to produce a report. The options will be
voted on at the following Board meeting (May 23).

The timing of this process will be posted on the Website.

City staff will prepare a report also. This report will go to Council in June at the
earliest.

Dave Sandrock: Where else can we find out about the timing of this process?

Brian Detzler: You can check with the City clerk's office and The Chronicle.

John Shortreed: This process has been very one-sided. There has been no face to
face. Knowledgeable people have been phoning me with valuable input. I don't see it
here. What's been presented doesn't line up with what we see. There should be a
way to get this on the table. Do the math -20% increase in funding. What if we don't
get the money? There needs to be a better process.

Brian Detzler: The staff report will highlight focus groups as something to do.

Roger Gratl: This is part of the planning process. We make a pIan, and submit the
cost to be approved. In between we have public meetings every month. Don't tell me
there's no chance to input. Anyone can come to a Board meeting. We don't call them
out privately. Present a plan to us.

John Shortreed: I did go to three board meetings. A trustee asked about branches.
Your consultant was there with the standards. Yes there are also standards for
branch libraries. Yes - the Waterloo Board should have three branches.

Roger Gratl: Your presentation at the meeting was offensive. You insulted everyone
at the Board meeting. We are trying to catch up on 15 years of neglect. You are a
part of the non-action. You have a second agenda. We are trying to catch up to a
normal standard. Guelph is almost there.

John Shortreed: I don't have a hidden agenda. I want what is best for the Library.

Brian Detzler: Everyone is concerned with expanding the library services. This has
got to be further processed. We want to go there. We must appreciate all input for
this to be a meaningful process.

Audience Member: Based on the 2001 population of 86,543 with the .6 per sq. ft.,
that means we are behind 13,126 sq. ft. Let's work from there.

The meeting closed.




                                                                                       87
APPENDIX D. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC RE: MAIN EXPANSION 2002

Collected between March 10 and May 17, 2002.

Only written submission with name, address, or email is included in the analysis.
Telephone calls and meetings held with citizens to provide information are not
included. Citizens were encouraged to write directly to the Library Board or City
Council.
This tally does not include submissions sent to the City except those for which
copies were sent to the Library.

Approximately 43% of the suggestion box comments indicated an Uptown or Core
Waterloo address.


TOTAL NUMBER OF SUBMISSIONS                                               296

SUPPORT MAIN LIBRARY SPACE INCREASE IN GENERAL                            191

     Prefer larger Main Library but no recommendation as to where          34
     Prefer current Main be expanded                                      123
     Prefer shared Main and YMCA                                           34


Prefer no change to facilities (may include improvements to services)       37
Prefer new branches to any change to Main Library                           25
Primary concern against any expense                                         10
“No sale” comment (without more explanation)                                 8
Other comments about a variety of library issues without clear              25
comment or preference on facility expansion




                                                                                 88
APPENDIX E. OPERATING COSTS 2000 - 2016 (SUMMARY)

                      Financial Analysis of Operating - 2002 to 2016

                      2002          2003        2004         2005        2006         2007        2008         2010        2012           2014        2016
Revenue
Province of Ontario   127,888       127,888     127,888      127,888     127,888      127,888     127,888      127,888     127,888        127,888     127,888
Library Income        138,000       142,140     152,272      163,000     167,890      172,927     178,115      188,962     200,469        212,678     225,630
Library Cards         8,000         8,240       8,652        9,085       9,358        9,638       9,927        10,532      11,173         11,854      12,576
Donations             19,000        19,570      20,157       20,762      21,385       22,026      22,687       24,069      25,534         27,089      28,739
Endowment             3,000         3,030       3,060        3,091       3,122        3,153       3,185        3,249       3,314          3,380       3,448
Space Rentals                                   10,000       10,200      10,404       10,612      10,824       11,262      11,717         12,190      12,682
Capital Book Fund     50,000        82,000      98,000       113,000     126,000      140,000     153,000      181,000     165,927        146,613     110,747
Total Revenue         345,888       382,868     420,029      447,026     466,046      486,244     505,626      546,962     546,022        541,692     521,710

Expenses
Collections           416,650       464,687     491,821      518,807     544,486      572,132     599,486      658,684     671,631        677,393     661,355
Wages                 1,790,807     1,892,500   2,116,872    2,159,209   2,218,736    2,290,195   2,363,604    2,516,537   2,679,003      2,850,489
                      3,031,507
Operating             433,431       458,698     622,362      639,146     656,491      674,382     692,775      731,125     771,671        814,532     859,845
Total Expenses        2,640,888     2,815,885   3,231,055    3,317,162   3,419,713    3,536,709   3,655,865    3,906,346   4,122,305      4,342,414
                      4,552,707

City Support          2,295,000     2,433,017   2,811,026    2,870,136   2,953,667    3,050,465   3,150,239    3,359,384   3,576,283      3,800,722
                      4,030,997

Tax Impact                          0.5%        1.3%         0.2%        0.3%         0.3%        0.3%         0.4%        0.4%           0.4%        0.4%

Notes:             2002 - 2003 is Current Main (35,800 sq. ft.) and McCormick Branch (3,000 sq. ft.)
-                  2004 - relocate to new Main (64,000 sq. ft.), maintain McCormick Branch (3,000 sq. ft.)
                   (does not include any additional space of branches before 2016)
-                  using inflation of 2% per year and growth in some areas
-                  assessment base is 2002
tax impact expressed as $300,000, equaling 1%

               -          Supplementary information - see assumptions and budget detail (includes staffing increases)




                                                                                                                                     89
Assumptions:

Operating Budget 2003 – 2016

The benchmark used is 2% inflation and 1% growth in combination with other known
or assumed factors.

The 2003 budget has been changed to reflect known changes and not moving to a
new location in that year as had previously been anticipated in the Business Plan.

LN#

1. required City support.
2. Same as present over entire period.
3. Fines and Fees were $80,000 in 2001. A 10% increase would be expected in
   each of the first two years of operation (2004 and 2005), with the balance of
   income increasing annually by 3% each year.
4. Library card donations should increase 5% each of the first two years, after that
   3%.
5. Donations increasing at 3%.
6. Endowment Fund interest payout is at 1%.
7. Space income would increase by a growth factor of 2%.
8. Book fund is the same as the current City Capital Budget to 2001, after the
   Library Book Plan has been used.

Expenses:
9. Book expense is the 6% replacement cost of inventory. The cost used is $20 per
    book, using the volume inventory of the Library’s Book Plan.
10. Book Fund purchases are the same as receipts from the City Capital Book Fund.
11. Processing expense is 6% replacement of book inventory at $2.15 per book.
12. AV – increases of 3% per year.




                                                                                90
13. Periodicals – Increases of 3% per year.

14. Electronic – increases of 3% per year.

15. Endowment purchases are 50% of the interest income; the balance is used to
    support the Summer Reading Program.

16. Donation Purchases are same as donation income.

17. 2003 reflects the actual anticipated salary expense, increasing by 2% per year,
    and changing 2 part-time positions to full-time in 2003.

18. A conservative guideline has been used, that is, one FTE for every 2260
    population, with 54 FTE’s achieved by 2016. The salary estimate used is
    $40,000 (as of 2002) per annum (including benefits) and increasing by 2% per
    year.

19. Association Fees – increases of 2% per year.

20. Audit – increases of 2% per year.

21. Automation – increases of 3% per year – replacement and updating of equipment
    requirements are in the City’s Capital Budget.

22. Board – increases of 2% per year.

23. Courier – increases of 3% per year.

24. Marketing – increases of 3% per year.

25. Insurance – currently 38,500 sq. ft. is $7,000, 67,000 sq. ft. would be $12,000,
    increasing at 3% per year.

26. 2003 Maintenance expense less McCormick’s share has been used as a cost per
    sq. ft., $2,40, increasing at 2% per year. Current main is 35,800 and the new
    main is 64,000 sq. ft.

27. Office/Equipment – increases of 3% per year.

28. Photocopy – increases of 3% per year.




                                                                                 91
29. Postage – increases of 3% per year.

30. Programs/Volunteers – increases of 3% per year.

31. Telephone – increases of 3% per year.

32. Training – 2003 training budget is used increasing 3% per year and reflecting
    increases in staffing.

33. Utilities – 2002 budget plus 10% for 2003, after that increasing at 3%. Square
    footage expense increase is used.

34. Legal and Consulting – increases of 2%.




                                                                               92
                                  MAIN LIBRARY & MCCORMICK BRANCH

WPL FINANCIAL PLAN 2002 - 2016

POPULATION            101,888       103,467        105,046          106,625       108,203       109,589   110,9
REVENUE                2002          2003           2004             2005          2006          2007      200
                     Approved                     Move Year

City                  2,295,000       2,433,017         2,811,026     2,870,137     2,953,667 3,050,464    3,15
Province                127,888         127,888           127,888       127,888       127,888 127,888        12
income/interest         138,000         142,140           152,272       163,000       167,890 172,927        17
library cards             8,000           8,240             8,652         9,085         9,357     9,638
donations                19,000          19,570            20,157        20,762        21,385    22,026
endowment                 3,000           3,030             3,060         3,091         3,122     3,153
Space Rentals                 0                            10,000        10,200        10,404    10,612
book fund                50,000          82,000            98,000       113,000       126,000 140,000        15
TOTAL                 2,640,888       2,815,885         3,231,055     3,317,162     3,419,713 3,536,708    3,65
EXPENSE
books                   261,700         271,112          277,646        284,987       293,088   301,902     31
book fund                50,000          82,000           98,000        113,000       126,000   140,000     15
proc                     33,450          37,960           40,382         42,784        45,052    47,504
SUBBKS                  345,150         391,072          416,028        440,771       464,140   489,406     51
AV                       17,500          18,025           18,566         19,123        19,696    20,287
periodicals              18,800          19,364           19,945         20,543        21,160    21,794
electronic               14,700          15,141           15,595         16,063        16,545    17,041
endowment                 1,500           1,515            1,530          1,545         1,561     1,577
donpurch                 19,000          19,570           20,157         20,762        21,385    22,026
SUBCOLL                 416,650         464,687          491,821        518,807       544,486   572,132     59

Salaries & Benef.     1,790,807       1,892,500         2,116,872     2,159,209     2,218,736 2,290,195    2,36
FTE's                      41.0            42.0              47.5          47.5          47.9      48.5
SUBTSTF               1,790,807       1,892,500         2,116,872     2,159,209     2,218,736 2,290,195    2,36
assoc.fee                 1,200           1,224             1,248         1,273         1,299     1,325
audit                     3,000           3,060             3,121         3,184         3,247     3,312
automation              127,475         131,299           135,238       139,295       143,474 147,778       15
board                     1,500           1,530             1,561         1,592         1,624     1,656
courier                   2,500           2,575             2,652         2,732         2,814     2,898
marketing                20,000          20,600            21,218        21,855        22,510    23,185
insurance                 7,000           7,000            12,000        12,360        12,731    13,113
maintenance             105,356         110,000           177,600       181,152       184,775 188,471       19
office/equip             20,000          20,600            21,218        21,855        22,510    23,185
photocopy                10,000          10,300            10,609        10,927        11,255    11,593
postage                   6,000           6,180             6,365         6,556         6,753     6,956
prog/vol                  7,000           7,210             7,426         7,649         7,879     8,115
telephone                14,000          14,420            14,853        15,298        15,757    16,230
training                  6,500          11,000            11,330        11,670        12,116    12,639
utilities                96,900         106,600           190,720       196,442       202,335 208,405       21
legal & consulting        5,000           5,100             5,202         5,306         5,412     5,520
SUBOPG                  433,431         458,698           622,362       639,146       656,491 674,382       69

TOTAL                 2,640,888       2,815,885         3,231,055     3,317,162     3,419,713 3,536,709    3,65
                                                  (Approved)
2009        2010        2011        2012        2013        2014        2015        2016



3,253,349   3,359,386   3,468,023   3,576,283   3,687,415   3,800,723   3,916,316   4,030,997
  127,888     127,888     127,888     127,888     127,888     127,888     127,888     127,888
  183,458     188,962     194,631     200,469     206,484     212,678     219,058     225,630
   10,225      10,532      10,847      11,173      11,508      11,853      12,209      12,575
   23,368      24,069      24,791      25,534      26,300      27,089      27,902      28,739
    3,216       3,249       3,281       3,314       3,347       3,380       3,414       3,448
   11,041      11,262      11,487      11,717      11,951      12,190      12,434      12,682
  168,000     181,000     184,000     165,927     155,971     146,613     137,816     110,747
3,780,545   3,906,346   4,024,948   4,122,305   4,230,864   4,342,415   4,457,037   4,552,707



 321,505     332,215     343,482     354,073     364,029     373,387     382,184     389,253
 168,000     181,000     184,000     165,927     155,971     146,613     137,816     110,747
  52,622      55,171      56,704      55,900      55,900      55,900      55,900      53,750
 542,127     568,386     584,186     575,900     575,900     575,900     575,900     553,750

  21,523      22,168      22,834      23,519      24,224      24,951      25,699      26,470
  23,122      23,815      24,530      25,266      26,024      26,804      27,608      28,437
  18,079      18,622      19,180      19,756      20,348      20,959      21,587      22,235
   1,608       1,624       1,641       1,657       1,674       1,690       1,707       1,724
  23,368      24,069      24,791      25,534      26,300      27,089      27,902      28,739
 629,826     658,684     677,161     671,631     674,470     677,393     680,404     661,355

2,439,035   2,516,537   2,596,671   2,679,003   2,763,590   2,850,489   2,939,759   3,031,507
     49.7        50.3        51.0        51.6        52.2        52.8        53.0        54.0
2,439,035   2,516,537   2,596,671   2,679,003   2,763,590   2,850,489   2,939,759   3,031,507

   1,378       1,406       1,434       1,463       1,492       1,522       1,552       1,583
   3,446       3,515       3,585       3,657       3,730       3,805       3,881       3,958
 156,778     161,482     166,326     171,316     176,455     181,749     187,201     192,817
   1,723       1,757       1,793       1,828       1,865       1,902       1,940       1,979
   3,075       3,167       3,262       3,360       3,461       3,564       3,671       3,781
  24,597      25,335      26,095      26,878      27,685      28,515      29,371      30,252
  13,911      14,329      14,758      15,201      15,657      16,127      16,611      17,109
 196,085     200,006     204,007     208,087     212,248     216,493     220,823     225,240
  24,597      25,335      26,095      26,878      27,685      28,515      29,371      30,252
  12,299      12,668      13,048      13,439      13,842      14,258      14,685      15,126
   7,379       7,601       7,829       8,063       8,305       8,555       8,811       9,076
   8,609       8,867       9,133       9,407       9,690       9,980      10,280      10,588
  17,218      17,735      18,267      18,815      19,379      19,961      20,559      21,176
  13,747      14,334      14,947      15,584      16,246      16,933      17,647      18,388
 221,097     227,730     234,562     241,598     248,846     256,312     264,001     271,921
   5,743       5,858       5,975       6,095       6,217       6,341       6,468       6,597
 711,684     731,125     751,117     771,671     792,804     814,532     836,874     859,845

3,780,545   3,906,346   4,024,948   4,122,305   4,230,864   4,342,415   4,457,037   4,552,707


                                                                           94
APPENDIX F. FACILITY OPTIONS AND CRITERIA

During earlier discussions and in previous reports the Expansion Task Force had
considered various ways to achieve more space for the library. The three major
options are more branches, expanding the current Main Library, and building a new
Main Library.

An in-house survey done by the Library in 1997 (incorporated in a Needs
Assessment Report distributed in 1998) noted that the majority of respondents
preferred an expansion of the Main Library over new branches. At that time a new
Main Library was not under consideration.

In the City’s 2001 Community Survey it was still a minority of respondents who
preferred branches and of those who wanted a larger Main Library, a majority
preferred an expansion of the current building over a new one. This pattern was also
seen in the comments collected recently in-house.

The Task Force discussed a number of issues in their evaluation of the three options
and considered the community preferences noted above. Some key criteria are
summarized below. Other facility factors are elaborated on in other Library reports,
e.g. “A Place to Grow;” “Needs Assessment;” and this report’s Appendix B.
Questions and Answers Report.


CRITERIA        Expand current Main           New branches            New Main Library
                Library                                               (current proposal
                                                                      with YMCA
Location        Central; available;           Would need land or      Central; available;
                established location; but     building available in   sharing potential;
                problems with amount of       appropriate location    better parking, etc.
                land displacement,
                parking, etc.
Operating       Redesigning on site to        Could be efficient      Design could be
efficiency      improve could be difficult    but limited in          more flexible and
                leading to less efficiency    resources; needs        planned
                                              support of a strong
                                              central library
Affordability   More expensive to build       Most costly to          Most cost-effective;
                                              operate per sq. ft.     savings from
                                                                      SuperBuild grant
                                                                      and building sale;
                                                                      potential of shared
                                                                      operating costs
Future          Meets future needs only if    May be at expense       Meets future needs
Focus           large enough; limited         of Main Library and     and has more site
                potential to expand further   centralized services    flexibility for future
                on site                                               growth




                                                                                          95

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:4/9/2012
language:English
pages:95