WATERLOO PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES
FOCUS ON THE FUTURE
REPORT OF THE LIBRARY BOARD TASK FORCE ON
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
3. Public Consultation……………………………………………………….7
4. The Shared Facility……………………………………………………….9
6. Previous Studies and Recommendations……………………………..12
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
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:
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
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.
The cost of facility expansion must provide the best dollar value in the long term for
the citizens of the community.
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.
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
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.
• 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
• 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.
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
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
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.
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
• $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
(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
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
(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
(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
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.
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”
• 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 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
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
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.
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
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
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.
5.1 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.
CHART 1. WATERLOO PUBLIC LIBRARY EXPANSION TO 64000 SQ. FT.
Expansion New Large New Main
of Current Branches (SuperBuild)
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
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
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)
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
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
• 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
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.
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.
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
This list of question and answers, first made available as of April 16, will be added to
as needed. Please forward other questions to:
Waterloo Public Library
35 Albert St.
Waterloo, Ont. N2L 5E2
Or, visit the library website www.wpl.ca
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.
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
F) DECISION PROCESS
How will the Board and City Council go about reviewing the expansion issues and
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.
G) EXPANSION OPTIONS
Why not expand the current Main Library to the west into the parking lot under the
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
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
• The users and wider community prefer a larger Main Library as opposed to
• 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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
What about reclaiming the old Carnegie Library?
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
For the shared-use organizations:
• Generates opportunities to promote shared family services and wellness
• 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
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
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
• 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
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
• Meeting & program rooms for Pre-school & Youth programs, educational and
• 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
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.
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.
APPENDIX C. Handouts and Notes from Three Public Meetings 2002
PUBLIC MEETINGS ON
WATERLOO PUBLIC LIBRARY
MARCH TO APRIL 2002
SPONSORED BY THE CITY OF
• Audience to sign in, please
• Other information that is available
Description of the public meetings
• 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,
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
• Council could make a decision in
early summer but not before then
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:
A SHARED FACILITY BETWEEN THE
LIBRARY AND YMCA
• Our needs and facility requirements
• Research and consultation
• Benefits of a shared facility
THE LIBRARY NEEDS IDENTIFIED
• Space significantly below standard
• Need for more quantity and quality in
• Need for more services like Children’s
collections and programs
• Need to maintain and increase
• Need for more space to contain the
present and future services
“Room to grow with a growing City”
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.
LIBRARY LONG TERM GROWTH
Facility space goal:
73,200 sq. ft. by the year 2016
Based on .6 sq. ft. X population of
• Do nothing
Or, reach space goal by:
• Expand current Main Library and add
• Build new Main Library and add one
• Build new branches
RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION
• Needs Assessment and Customer
• Architectural Feasibility Study of
expanding Main Library (1999)
• Research and recommendation to
Council for a larger new Main Library
• City Community Survey on the Library
• Presentations to Council, information
for the public, and open houses
Recommendation of Library with YMCA
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
• Waterloo is rapidly growing, how can
YMCA best provide program/services?
Primary YMCA program site in Waterloo
to be vacated in 5 years
STRATEGIC GROWTH AND
• Open more “YMCA doors” where
people live, work, play, and learn
• Program/Service delivery growth
Focus on “Wellness” as a program/service
THREE DISTINCT DISTRICTS
IDENTIFIED IN WATERLOO
• Uptown core
• Families in the suburbs
• Education/technology corridor
RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION
• Research into Waterloo needs in
each defined district
• Identified unique “Getting Started”
program as strategic fit for Uptown
• Met with City leaders to review
YMCA strategic thinking and discuss
• Studied other “Getting Started”
• Commissioned third party market
BENEFITS OF A SHARED FACILITY
WHAT WOULD A NEW LIBRARY AND
YMCA LOOK LIKE?
• A building for present and future
• 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
• Contribution to the Uptown Waterloo
• Better service and family focus
• Convenience (one-stop programs,
education and leisure site) and free
• Employment and voluntarism
• Accessible (open to all regardless of
differences or economic
• 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
COMPARATIVE COSTS FOR THE
• Engineering consultant estimates for
expansion of current Main Library
• Construction cost comparison for a
new Main Library and branch, or just
• Estimated operating expense
comparison at full utilization by 2016
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
Net Project Cost Comparison
Estimated Building Costs
New 64,000 sq.ft. Main Library $13,312,000
($208.00 per sq. ft.)
Less sale of current Library -$4,000,000
Less Superbuild Grant -$2,982,000
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
Add two additional Branches 17,200 $3,577,600
Sub Total: 34,400 $7,155,200
Keep Current Main Library and 35,800
McCormick Branch 3,000
Estimated Operating Expenses By Year 2016
-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
Main 3,302,000 3,302,000 5,903,000 3,302,000
McCormick 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000
Branches: #1 750,000 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
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
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
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
We looked at other options, but it turns out that WPL and the YMCA have common
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.
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
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
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?
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?
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
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
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
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
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
JT: I would like to discuss Victoria’s Library more with you later. However, a café is
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
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.
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:
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?
We’ve got someone from Council here. Councillor Taylor would you like to
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.
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
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?
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.
• 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
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
• 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
o Exploring other
• Currently evaluating 3 options for
expansion of services
Handout for Meeting April 3, 2002
• Expand current location with future
• Maintain current location with
immediate branch expansion plan
• Build expanded main with future
• Vision of a shared facility
Handout for Meeting April 3, 2002
Library Course of Actions
• Present the Capital Cost Analysis of
• Present the Objectives of YMCA
• Next Steps
o Further refine operating
calculations based on various
o Explore other options with
o Explore present options with
Handout for Meeting April 3, 2002
Prepared by the City of Waterloo
Waterloo Public Library
Expansion of New Large New Main
Current Site Branches (SuperBuild Plus)
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
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
Value $ $ $1,300,000
Acres 2 0.72
Value $ $600,000 $216,279
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
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
Handout for Meeting April 3, 2002
The original spreadsheet was printed on two pages
This page intentionally left blank
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
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
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.
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
Additional Handout at Meeting April 16, 2002
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
Susan Rodrigo: I put forth that we should.
Audience Member: If you are under-funded, how do you plan to pay for a new
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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%.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Affordability More expensive to build Most costly to Most cost-effective;
operate per sq. ft. savings from
and building sale;
potential of shared
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