Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy
Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe, Planning
and Infrastructure / Urbanisme et Infrastructure
(613)580-2424 x
12551, Peter.Radke@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT:
|
disposal STRATEGY - 9 Leeming
Drive – former St.
Thomas School |
OBJET :
|
STRATÉGIE D’ÉLIMINATION –
9, promenade LEEMING, ancienne école ST. THOMAS |
That the Finance and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:
1.
Approve the staff recommendation to retain a small
portion of the property at 9 Leeming Drive, shown as Parcel A on Document 2
attached and having an area of approximately 0.124 ha (0.306 acres) to
increase the size of Maki Park to allow for
future park development;
2.
Declare the remainder of the property at 9 Leeming
Drive, being Parcels B and C on Document 2
attached as surplus to the City’s needs;
3.
Approve the staff recommendation to market the
remainder of the property at 9 Leeming Drive for sale being Parcels B and C on
Document 2 attached and having an area
of approximately 1.00 ha (2.47 acres) and legally described as part Block E,
Registered Plan 442519 to recoup a portion of the $2M expenditure; and
4.
Approve the transfer of the property
described in Recommendation 3 to the Ottawa Community Lands Development
Corporation (OCLDC) to initiate the sale and redevelopment of this property as
described in this report.
Que le Comité des finances
et du développement économique recommande au Conseil :
The subject property abuts the north side of Maki Park as outlined on
Document 1 and has a site area of approximately 1.12 ha (2.78 acres). The
property is zoned Minor Institutional and is improved with a one-storey school
building, constructed in 1962 with a total building area of approximately
2,403 sq.m. (25,875 sq.ft.) including a
gymnasium addition built in the mid-1960s. The school gymnasium was used by community groups (e.g. Scouts) from
the mid-1960s until June 2006 when this arrangement was apparently terminated
by the Ottawa Catholic District School Board.
On 9 December 2009,
Council considered a report (Ref. # ACS2009-CMR-REP-0055) regarding the
potential purchase of this property. The report indicated that the Crystal Beach/Lakeview Community
Association (CBLCA) had requested that the City purchase this property for
re-use as a shared-used community centre and that the Ward Councillor
supported this acquisition request.
The report also
noted that:
·
the
existing recreation facilities at Maki Park includes a soccer field, a
baseball diamond, a children’s play area and structure, an outdoor hockey rink
and a one-storey community building known as Maki House with a ground floor
area of 379 sq.m. (4,085 sq. ft.) for community activities and a partial
basement with a floor area of approximately 139.35 sq.m. (1,500 sq.) ft. used
mainly as storage;
·
Parks,
Recreation and Culture staff could not support the acquisition of St. Thomas School
within currently funded programs given the large capital investment (purchase
price, major repairs and lifecycle replacement that would be needed to operate
the property as a City-owned community facility); and
·
Parks, Recreation and Culture
staff would strongly support squaring off of the southern
property line, increasing the available land for future expansion of Maki House
(additional programming rooms and/or gym) without having to lose, or adversely
affect, the existing sports fields.
Based on an analysis of options presented, Council then
directed staff as follows:
1.
To pursue negotiations with the Ottawa Catholic
School Board for the City to acquire the St. Thomas School site at 9 Leeming
Drive;
2.
To consult with the Ward Councillor and the
community on the future uses of the school on the condition of funding this
acquisition and/or all related net renovation, demolition or construction
costs through a Special Services Levy;
3.
To report to the Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee on the status of the negotiations for acquiring the site
and the funding sources for this acquisition.
Staff met with Councillor Cullen on 12 February 2010, to establish a
community consultation process on the future uses of the school and the
related condition set out by Council that the property acquisition and/or all
related net renovation, demolition or construction costs be funded through a
Special Services Levy. It was agreed that the community consultation process
would also include feedback on the process for development planning, and for
the eventual sale of the residual lands.
On 12 May 2010,
Council approved report (Ref. # ACS2010-CMR-REP-0014) and directed staff as
follows:
In response to the Council direction, the Realty Services Branch acquired the property on 31 August 2010 for a purchase price of $1,730,750. The purchase price was based on the most probable highest and best use of the property if exposed to the open market. The total cost of the acquisition was approximately $2,000,000 including the purchase price, GST, Land Transfer Tax and one (1) year’s operating cost for a vacant facility.
In accordance with recommendation 3 of the 2010 staff report (Ref. #
ACS2010-CMR-REP-0014) noted above, three (3) options outlined in the report
were examined by staff and cost estimates were prepared with the assistance of
staff from Parks and Recreation, Design and Construction and Finance, to
determine the lot levy, based on 1,490 households as of 2010.
The analysis resulted in the following:
Option 1
Retain and retrofit entire building of
2,403 sq.m. (25,875 sq. ft.)
Full Capital Cost: $4,296,000
Average Cost of Levy: $374 per year for 10 years
Cost to City: $258,750 per year (Operating cost at
$10/sq. ft. per year)
$54,596 per year (Life Cycle cost at
$2.11/sq. ft. per year)
Total Cost to City: $313,346 per year
Option
2
Retain Parcel A and B – demolish larger
portion of building and retain and contemporise
731.58 sq.m. (7,875 sq.ft) . (Gym and 2
classrooms), sell Parcel C
Full Capital Cost: $3,854,000
Average Cost of Levy: $335 per year for 10 years
Cost to City: $78,750 (Operating cost at $10/sq. ft.
per year)
$16,616 (Life Cycle cost $2.11/sq. ft.
per year)
Total Cost to City: $95,366 per year
Option
3
Sell Parcel B and C, retain Parcel A for
future park development - No Levy
Average Cost of Levy: $0
Cost to City: $220,143 to retain land
In the fall of 2010, Councillor Mark Taylor was elected as the new ward
councillor. Staff met with Councillor Taylor in June 2011 to discuss the next
steps to move forward with the Council direction. The Councillor chaired a meeting on 23 June
2011 to present the three (3) options outlined above. This meeting was attended by members of the
Community Association, representatives of the Great Rivers School (possible
tenants), staff from Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department and
from Real Estate Partnerships and Development Office. During that meeting, the
Community Association representatives indicated that the proposed levy for
options one (1) and two (2) was too high and would most likely not garner the
necessary support needed from the community.
Instead, the Community Association requested additional time to analyse
the details supporting the cost of the levy and investigate other
options. Councillor Taylor offered to
review any new alternative acquisition proposals to be submitted to his office
by the end of August 2011 with a view to determining whether he could present
the proposal at Council when the staff report came forward.
On 27 October 2011, the Community Association held a public meeting,
which was attended by the Councillor’s office, to present its alternative
option for the site to the community.
The alternative option proposed no property tax levy, and renovations
were proposed to be funded with annual membership fees or profits from programs,
including fundraising by the community and contributions from the City
Councillor. If these funding options did not materialize, the Community
Association proposed the City retain the property, demolish the building and
leave it vacant until there was a demonstrated need in the community for a
recreation centre.
A meeting was held on 12 January 2012 with members of the Crystal
Beach/Lakeview Community Association (CBLCA), Councillor Taylor, staff from Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Department and from Real Estate Partnerships and Development Office. The
Community Association presented two (2) new options and agreed to provide
additional details to City staff so they could examine the options in
preparation for a public meeting held on 21 February 2012.
A Public Meeting, organized by City Staff was held on 21 February 2012. A presentation was made by City staff
outlining the three (3) options from the 2010 staff report. As per Council approval, two (2) of those
options involved a lot levy and the third option involved retaining a small
parcel (Parcel A in Document 2) for expansion of the existing Maki Park. There
were questions relating to multi unit rental properties and whether they are
required to pay their fair share of the levy.
After further investigation, finance staff advised that in accordance
with Section 326 of the Municipal Act, the levy collected under the Special
Area Zone and Special Area Tax Rate is applied to each property owner and the
amount of the levy per property is based on the individual property
assessment. Therefore, the levy for a
multi-unit rental property would be considerably more than for the average
single household. The Community Association also made a presentation
showing other options, however, none involved a lot levy for consideration. These
options are described in the Consultation section of this report. Following the presentations, at the request
of Councillor Taylor, attendees were asked, by way of a show of hands, to
indicate if they supported the lot levy. It was clearly apparent there is no
interest in the lot levy option for acquiring the lands. The comments from the residents that were
gathered at the meeting are summarized in the Consultation section of this
report.
Recommended Action
Given the results from the consultation sessions held with the Crystal Beach Lakeview Community
Association and the community at large, there clearly is no support for the lot levy option
of acquiring the former St. Thomas property and its development as a community
facility. Although there appears to be community interest in retaining the
property for community use, the renovation, operating and life cycle costs are
substantial and there is no funding source to support this initiative. It is noted that Maki House does not fully
fulfill the community needs for indoor recreational space, however, the area
is not listed as a priority for indoor community space in the Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Services Department’s Infrastructure Strategy.
Therefore in accordance with Council direction, and as per
Recommendation 1 in this report, staff is recommending that Parcel A (See
Document 2 attached) be retained for future Maki Park expansion and as per
Recommendation 3, that the remainder of the property be sold (Parcels B and C
in Document 2) to recoup as much of the City’s investment as possible.
Staff is also recommending that the property be declared surplus to the
City needs and transferred to the Ottawa Community Lands Development
Corporation (OCLDC), under Recommendations 2 and 4 respectively. The OCLDC will facilitate development of a
strategy for the sale and redevelopment of the property subject to development
conditions to ensure the future use of the site is compatible with the
neighbourhood.
There are no rural implications to implementing
the recommendations in this report.
As set
out in this report, staff has consulted with the Ward Councillor, the Crystal
Beach/Lakeview Community Association (CBLCA) and the community on the options
for acquiring the property. At the community meeting held on 21 February 2012
at the Nepean Sailing Club, after introductions by Councillor Mark Taylor and
Josée Helie from Parks, Recreational and Cultural Services, a presentation was
made by Dhaneshwar Neermul of the Real Estate Partnerships and Development
Office (REPDO) on the background and options under consideration. The CBLCA,
represented by Ruth and Michael Tremblay, made a presentation which is
summarized below. An exchange of Q & A’s then followed which is summarized
below after the CBLCA presentation.
Summary
of CBLCA Presentation:
Recommend
the City use a Two Phase approach to sale of land:
·
Phase One involves:
o selling a reconfigured parcel “C”, measuring
0.6 ha (1.5 ac.), which could potentially generate more than 50% of initial
cost to acquire the property
o Rezone
parcel “C” to an R2 type zoning to maximize land value and recover costs.
o Keep
existing gym and purchaser of Parcel C to pay for demolition and reinstatement
of end wall of gym
·
Phase Two involves:
o the
City continuing to work with the community towards providing for indoor
recreation centre and provide a Class B estimate for gym renovations
o It
is felt that the City generated numbers for renovations/addition to existing
gym (Class D estimate: $1M for gym renovations and $700,000 for 2 new
classroom addition on the south side of gym) are too high and approximately
40% higher than can be delivered.
§
City
renovate gym and lease it to CBLCA, revenues generated from memberships,
rentals, service providers and user fees OR
§
A
not-for-profit corporation could be formed, by interested community members or
the CBLCA to purchase the property and renovate the gym to Building Code
standards. Numerous grants are available for such community projects OR
§
City
tenders the sale of the property to a private sector operator who then
provides recreation services (YMCA or similar operators) OR
§
Demolish
the gym and leave the land vacant until a new LEED silver standard recreation
centre can be built by the City
Summary
of Residents comments:
· Propose the City issue a broad solicitation for proposals, inviting innovative approaches to generate revenue by offering: naming rights for new facility, free recycling of school building materials, approach Habitat for Humanity and other recyclers, free demolition by interest groups like the Canadian Forces for training purposes, a design competition offered by the School of Architecture at Carleton University and a design build opportunity to Algonquin College/s new Building Trades centre.
This
issue has been one that begun several years ago and has persisted to today.
During the community consultation meetings and during the interaction with the
local community association, while there is general support for the notion of
adding resource/activity space to the Maki Park area, there is slim to no
desire on the part of residents to pay a levy for such a resource. As a
result, I am in support of the staff suggested option which provides a small
addition of land to the park to facilitate a future development, which I would
support through the normal city budget process. The excess land, if sold on
the open market through the Ottawa Community Lands Development arm, should be
guided in their development to ensure there is a suitable fit for the
community.
There
are no legal impediments to implementing the recommendation in this report.
There
are no risk management impediments to implementing the Recommendations arising
from this report.
Proceeds
generated from the sale of parcels B and C by the Ottawa Community Lands
Development Corporation will be transferred back to the City upon completion
of the sale.
There are no
accessibility impacts associated with the recommendations in this report.
There are no environmental implications to implementing the
recommendations in this report.
There are no
technical implications to implementing the recommendations in this report.
The recommendations of this report support
City Council’s strategic priorities: Healthy and Caring
Communities (HC) and its objective HC2 to improve parks and recreation; and
Financial Responsibility (FS) and its objective FS2 to maintain and enhance
the City’s financial position.
Document 1 - Sketch of the property
Document 2 - Sketch of the property showing Parcels ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’
Following
Council’s approval Real Estate Partnerships and Development Office will market
Parcels B and C for sale and retain Parcel A for future development in Maki
Park.
DOCUMENT
1
DOCUMENT 2