Report RPF 2006-41Page 1 of 2

DEPARTMENT: Recreation, Parks and Facilities

DATE PREPARED: June 29, 2006

COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 11, 2006

/ PAGE 1 OF 2
REPORT NO. RPF2006-41
SUBJECT: Otterville Hall Advisory Committee re: Public Meeting, June 28, 2006
[ ] Approved
[ ] Approved with Amendments
[ ] Other
Resolution #

INTRODUCTION /BACKGROUND

The purpose of this report is to advise Council on the Otterville Hall Advisory Committee Meeting held on Wednesday, June 28, 2006.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS

Over fifty community members attended the public meeting and listened to the presentations. Chair Jonathan Scott gave a brief background to the Otterville HallAdvisory Committee and its’ role. He reviewed critical dates and milestones and reinforced that Council does support this project in principle. Committee member Paul Groeneveld reviewed the PowerPoint presentation of the Business Plan for the proposed community hall. Areas discussed included the results of the community survey, municipal scan or hall comparisons, operating plan, promotion & marketing plan, financial sustainability, hall proposal and the fundraising plan. Refer to the attached notes for more information and the summary of discussions.

The next step is for the Committee to appear at Council Tuesday, August 6, 2006, as a deputation and make a recommendation to Council.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

n/a

FINANCIAL/STAFF/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

n/a

CONCLUSION

The Otterville Hall Committee continues to work on behalf of Council and the community and is set to present its recommendations to Council at the Tuesday, August 8, 2006 meeting. At that time, the final business plan will be presented.

RECOMMENDATION

That Report No. RPF 2006-41, Otterville Hall Advisory Committee re: Public Meeting, June 28, 2006 be received as information.

ATTACHMENTS

Otterville Hall Advisory PublicMeeting - Summary of Discussions – June 28, 2006

Business Plan – PowerPoint Presentation Notes

Prepared by:Approved by:

Mary-Lou Ambrose-LittleBetteanne M. Cadman, CMC, AMCT

Director of Recreation, Parks Clerk-Administrator

& Facilities

Summary of Discussions Otterville Hall Advisory Committee - Public Meeting

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - Otterville Fire Hall, Main & Dover

Attendance: Marj Pearce, Joyce Pettigrew, Nancy & Gary Walther, Jonathan Scott, Gail Lewis, Valerie Haley, Nancy Davis, Mae Leonard, Peggy Adlington, Mary-Lou Ambrose-Little, Councillors - George Amey, Alan Dale & Donald Doan, Paul Groeneveld, Rob Hussey, Don Ryder, Mary Margaret Church, Sandra & Dave Hussey, Joe Lampert, Walt & Barbara VanBesien, Glenn Riach, Bonnie Redman, Colin Hutchinson, Joe Lampert, John McSkimming, Mark Gilmore, Richard & Jennifer Crockford, Dennis Walters, Floyd Lewis, Mel & Violet Smith, Linda Hoffman, Geoff Erkelens and Dick Esseltine. Andrew Hureman, Trish Lewis, Tom & Ann Hanson, Janet & Julius Narancsik, Muriel & Dan Van Hooren and Lianne Todd

Regrets: Mayor Susan Hampson, Kim Armstrong and Joni Sanders.

7:05 PM called to order

Welcome from Chair Jonathan Scott, followed by the introductions of the Otterville Hall Advisory Committee, Township staff and Councillors present.

The purpose of the meeting is:

  1. To provide the community with an update on progress made to date.
  2. To recruit volunteers for the new Otterville Hall Management Board and the capital fundraising campaign.
  3. To give feedback and suggestions to the Otterville Hall Advisory Committee for consideration as the Otterville Hall Project moves forward.

Chair Jonathan Scott presented an overview of the timelines and milestones for the Otterville Hall Advisory Committee:

  • Read the terms of reference and mandate as approved by Council.
  • Early June 2005, concerns about the structural integrity of the old Otterville Hall; consultants were hired to conduct a study and the results showed that the structure was not safe.
  • June 21, 2005, a Public Meeting was held to inform the community of the status of the hall.
  • June 28, 2005, a Council resolution approved the demolition of the hall and further approved the formation of a citizen advisory committee to look into the feasibility of rebuilding the Otterville Hall. This committee would work on behalf of Council and residents to make recommendations, with the final decisions resting with Council.
  • September 25, 2006 was the first formal meeting of the Otterville Hall Advisory Committee.
  • Since that time, the committee has been meeting at least once per month and will present a Business Plan to Council at its August 8, 2006 meeting.

Paul Groeneveld presented a PowerPoint presentation of the Business Plan for the proposed Otterville Hall. A copy of that report is attached. Some of the highlights include:

  • Community Survey was conducted, indicating a need for the hall and more users.
  • Municipal Scan was conducted to compare with other halls of similar style to determine what the operating costs could be; Hall Managers were asked what they liked about their hall and what they would change if they could. Most halls are being now managed by community organization, rather than municipal staff.
  • A proposed Operating Plan was presented with three options- Option #1 - Sole Management by Municipality; Option #2 - Managed by Board of Directors; Option #3 - Community / Municipal Partnership.
  • Promotion & Marketing Plan for the hall.
  • Financial Sustainability of the hall was discussed.
  • The actual hall proposal was discussed – building size, preferred location is the old site, design and building costs.
  • Fundraising Plan was reviewed briefly and volunteers requested to assist with the campaign and upcoming events.

Question & Answer Session

Q: What is the ball park figure or cost or the new hall?

A: The proposed building is a one storey, with no basement; 4,000 square feet and will cost somewhere in the range of $400,000 to $700,000 to build. The committee can be more specific once a consultant is hired to work on the actual hall design.

Q: Why is the Township not a partner in the project? (Joint-facility)

A: The current Township Office would require additional work to bring the office up to today’s building code, roughly $100,000 worth of work.

Q: Will the new hall have small rooms for meetings?

A: Yes, so that small groups can meeting there and be affordable for weekend and evening use.

Q: Will the Hall have a kitchen?

A: Yes, a full service kitchen for use by renters and/or caterers.

Q: What percentage of the fundraising will the public have to do?

A: Council’s rule of thumb for all projects is a 50-50 split. For the recently renovated Norwich Arena Community Centre, the Expanding Our Horizons committee was mandated to raise 28% of the total cost. When the Otterville Playground equipment was replaced, the community contributed 50% of the total cost. The percentage expected for the new Otterville hall could be as little as 33%.

Q: Has there been any decline in activities?

A: Many groups are utilizing OttervilleUnitedChurch (school graduation, small community boards) and in the good weather, karate is using the Otterville Park Pavilion. Springford Hall has also benefited from additional bookings for events up to 100 people. A concern expressed with building the new hall is that Council does not want it to be a white elephant in the future.

Q: Why did the Township not apply for hall funding through the Community Transition Program Fund?

A: The Township applied and received funding for an Economic Development Officer; as a part of the application, a request of $10,000 was included for the new Otterville Hall and it was to become a training centre for business development and community workshops. Unfortunately, when the application was evaluated, several other municipalities had applied for economic development staff and the evaluation team awarded only staffing costs to each community. A comment was made that the Township could have applied for the Otterville Hall.

Q: What’s happening with fundraising? Have you looked into foundations, like we did when Port Dover was raising money for its community?

A: Yes, we have a list and will be contacting them by telephone to see if we do qualify under their criteria. Applying to foundation usually is about 50% successful and it is a lot of work. This task will be handed over to the fundraising sub-committee and they could use more community volunteers to assist in this task. There are also some other grant opportunities which staff will make the committee aware of as things progress.

Q: Can we use the old “barn-raising” approach to getting the hall up?

A: In today’s environment, we can have to be careful with this approach as liability has become a big concern and this may not be feasible.

Q:Does Council support the hall project?

A: Yes, very much in principle; want to see solid public support for the project; don’t want that white elephant that was mentioned on a previous question; want to ensure that the hall will be used more than the old one. The Norwich-Otterville Lions Clubs made a good attempt at running the old hall at break even and could not do it. The cost of heating and other utilities was prohibitive; and they could not find any new users at that time. With the new hall having energy efficient equipment, that costs is expected to go down. In discussing costs of operation with the Mount Elgin Hall Board, it cost them $9,000 for heat last year and they will have to do more fundraisers to cover the increase.

Q: Who is going to commit to fundraising these days?

A: The Fundraising committee and community volunteers. People’s schedules are very busy; however the committee is counting on a few volunteers who can spare the time to step forward. If you are interested in getting involved, please sign up tonight or contact a committee member.

Q: There were concerns about some about who will use the hall. What about church and cultural groups?

A: Marketing of the new hall will be done to all groups; everyone will be encouraged to use the new hall. Brochures, word of mouth and place information on the Township web-site.

Q: What about the septic system?

A: A conventional system would not meet today’s standard for space and would have reduced the size of the hall. Then the committee has looked at to alternate systems that would work on the site. A tertiary system is the best option at a cost of $26,000 adding the Township office to the system would add another $2,000 to the total cost of installation. This system is cleaned each year and there is no maintenance contract. The peat moss system would also fit; however, it is a more expensive system at $40,000 an after 8 year it would cost $1,000 per unit to replace the peat moss.

General Comments

  • “Building the Hall can help with community spirit” stated Joyce Pettigrew.
  • Why not purchase additional property?
  • Otterville Hall can be self-sufficient if managed well.
  • Is the proposed hall part of the Community Strategic Plan?
  • The Otterville Hall Committee will be presenting to Council at the August 8, 2006 meeting.
  • Comparing Springford Hall and Otterville Hall for capacity, Springford is 100 and the proposed Otterville Hall 150.