1. MUSEUMS SUSTAINABILITY PLAN – INTERIM STATUS REPORT

PLAN CONCERNANT LA VIABILITÉ des musÉes – rapport d’Étape

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

1. That Council approve the functions and shared service delivery concept model for the City-supported museum network described in this report and illustrated in Appendix A for the purposes of completing the museums sustainability plan and undertaking the museums Competitive Service Delivery Review including consideration of the financial investment options presented in Appendix B.

2. Whereas, although staff have identified three investment options based on the preliminary analysis of the current state of museum operations to demonstrate the range of choices Council may consider to mitigate existing gaps in museum operations;

Be it resolved that staff be enabled to consider further investment alternatives to respond to the long term sustainability of our museums within the civic fabric of our city; and,

That the plan going forward for further consultation include information regarding the city funding necessary to move our present museums to the level necessary to access provincial funding for those museums wishing to do so.

RECOMMENDATIONS MODIFIÉES DU COMITÉ

1. Que le Conseil municipal approuve les fonctions et le modèle de partage des responsabilités dans la prestation des services pour les musées subventionnés par la Ville décrit dans ce rapport et illustré à l’annexe A. Cette approbation permettra de compléter le Plan concernant la viabilité des musées et d’entreprendre l’évaluation concurrentielle de la prestation de services pour les musées en tenant compte des options d’investissement financier présentées à l’annexe B.

2. Attendu que bien que le personnel ait déterminé trois options d’investissement basées sur l’analyse préliminaire de l’état actuel de l’exploitation des musées afin de mettre en évidence l’éventail de choix que le Conseil pourrait envisager en vue de gommer les disparités dans l’exploitation des musées;

Il est par conséquent résolu que le personnel pourra examiner d’autres options d’investissement afin de satisfaire à la viabilité à long terme de nos musées dans notre municipalité; et

Que le plan qui sera avancé pour un examen plus poussé comprendra de l’information en ce qui a trait au financement municipal nécessaire afin d’amener nos musées actuels, du moins ceux qui le souhaitent, au niveau requis pour obtenir un financement provincial.

DOCUMENTATION

1. S. Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager, Community and Protective Services report dated 12 January 2005 (ACS2005-CPS-CSF-0001).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 20 January 2005.

Report to/Rapport au:

Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee

Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux

and Council / et au Conseil

12 January 2005 / le 12 janvier 2005

Submitted by/Soumis par : Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager, Community and Protective Services/directeur municipal adjoint, Services communautaires et de protection

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Colleen Hendrick, Director,Cultural Services and Community Funding/Direction des services culturels et du financement communautaire

(613) 580-2424 x24366, colleen.hendrick@ottawa.ca

Ref N°: ACS2005-CPS-CSF-0001

SUBJECT:	MUSEUMS SUSTAINABILITY PLAN - INTERIM STATUS REPORT
OBJET :	Plan CONCERNANT LA VIABILITÉ DES MUSÉES – RAPPORT D’ÉTAPE

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend that Council approve the functions and shared service delivery concept model for the City-supported museum network described in this report and illustrated in Appendix A for the purposes of completing the museums sustainability plan and undertaking the museums Competitive Service Delivery Review including consideration of the financial investment options presented in Appendix B.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux recommande au Conseil municipal d’approuver les fonctions et le modèle de partage des responsabilités dans la prestation des services pour les musées subventionnés par la Ville décrit dans ce rapport et illustré à l’annexe A. Cette approbation permettra de compléter le Plan concernant la viabilité des musées et d’entreprendre l’évaluation concurrentielle de la prestation de services pour les musées en tenant compte des options d’investissement financier présentées à l’annexe B.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The local City of Ottawa museum system is comprised of 11 museums of which 4 are City owned and operated (Billings, Cumberland, Gloucester, and Pinhey’s) and 6 are City funded community operated museums (Bytown, Diefenbunker, Goulbourn, Nepean, Osgoode, and Watson’s Mill). The City is also currently supporting the development of a Vanier Museum.

During the budget deliberations in March of 2004, the Community and Protective Services Department was directed by Council to develop a sustainability plan to support the City-operated and community-operated museums, to conduct a Competitive Service Delivery Review (CSDR) of the 4 City operated museums, and to submit a progress report by the end of 2004.

The Museums Sustainability Plan Terms of Reference (Ref N°: ACS2004-CPS-CSF-0003) approved by Council at its meeting of August 25, 2004 called for:

· A description of the functions of local museums;

· A summary of the current situation, challenges and financial implications;

· A description of the best practices, supports and trends in sustainable local museums;

· The development of an achievable city-wide vision and service delivery model; and

· Recommendations to improve the sustainability of City-owned museums and community-owned museums

This progress report on the existing museum operations addresses a part of the Terms of Reference by seeking to obtain Council endorsement of the assumptions that will form the framework for the completion of the Museums Sustainability Strategy and the Competitive Service Delivery Review. These assumptions include a shared service delivery model for museums as well consideration of a range of investment options for local museums.

The proposed service delivery model outlined in this report calls for the addition of future facilities and the sharing of some services amongst all of the museum network partners. It includes a central Heritage Gateway and a combination of historically significant sites and community museums to respond to the absence of a cohesive program or communications strategy that effectively tells the “Ottawa story” and a collections preservation centre to address a lack of adequate artifact storage, processing and conservation facilities.

This interim report also identifies actions underway or to be taken in 2005 that will not require additional funding which when implemented will improve the current situation by moving the City towards improved sustainability of the museums network.

This progress report will be followed by a comprehensive Museums Sustainability Plan in June 2005 and the results of a Competitive Service Delivery Review (CSDR) of the 4 City operated museums in September 2005 as set out in the Terms of Reference approved in August of last year.

RÉSUMÉ

Le réseau local de musées de la Ville d’Ottawa comprend 11 musées. La Ville est propriétaire et exploite quatre de ces musées (Billings, Cumberland, Gloucester et Pinhey’s) et fournit le financement à six autres musées communautaires (Bytown, Diefenbunker, Goulbourn, Nepean, Osgoode et le Moulin Watson). La Ville soutient aussi l’aménagement du musée de Vanier.

En mars 2004, lors des discussions entourant le budget, le Conseil a demandé aux Services communautaires et de protection d’élaborer un plan de viabilité pour appuyer les musées municipaux et les musées communautaires, de procéder à une évaluation concurrentielle de la prestation de services des quatre musées municipaux et de soumettre un rapport d’étape avant la fin de 2004.

Le cadre de référence du Plan concernant la viabilité des musées (Réf. N^o : ACS2004-CPS-CSF-0003) approuvé par le Conseil à sa réunion du 25 août 2004 demandait :

· Une description des fonctions des musées locaux;

· Un résumé de la situation, du travail à accomplir et des incidences financières actuels;

· Une description des pratiques exemplaires, des soutiens et des tendances dans des musées locaux viables;

· L’élaboration d’une vision à l’échelle municipale réalisable et d’un modèle de prestation de services; et

· Des recommandations pour améliorer la viabilité des musées municipaux et communautaires.

Ce rapport d’étape sur les opérations actuelles des musées aborde une partie du cadre de référence en voulant obtenir l’approbation du Conseil en ce qui a trait aux hypothèses qui constitueront la structure pour la réalisation de la Stratégie concernant la viabilité des musées et de l’évaluation concurrentielle de la prestation de services. Ces hypothèses comprennent un modèle de partage des responsabilités dans la prestation des services pour les musées ainsi que l’examen d’une gamme d’options d’investissement pour les musées locaux.

Le modèle de prestation de services proposé dans ce rapport requiert l’ajout d’installations futures et le partage de certains services entre tous les partenaires du réseau de musées. Il inclut un Carrefour du patrimoine central et une combinaison de sites ayant une valeur historique et de musées communautaires pour répondre à l’absence d’un programme cohésif ou d’une stratégie de communication qui raconte efficacement l’histoire d’Ottawa. Le modèle comprend aussi un centre de préservation des collections pour tenir compte de la question du manque d’entreposage adéquat pour les artefacts et du manque d’installations de traitement et de restauration.

Le rapport provisoire souligne aussi les mesures en cours et celles qui seront prises en 2005. Ces mesures n’exigeront pas de financement supplémentaire et, une fois exécutées, redresseront la situation actuelle en permettant à la Ville de progresser vers une viabilité améliorée de son réseau de musées.

Tel qu’il a été établi dans le cadre de référence approuvé en août 2004, ce rapport d’étape sera suivi d’un Plan détaillé concernant la viabilité des musées en juin 2005 et d’une évaluation concurrentielle de la prestation de services des quatre musées municipaux en septembre 2005.

BACKGROUND:

During the 2004 budget deliberations, the former People Services (now the Community and Protective Services) Department was directed to develop a sustainability plan to support the City-owned and community operated museums and to submit a progress report on this by the end of 2004. In keeping with that direction, this report provides an update and lists immediate, largely revenue neutral, actions to be undertaken to improve the museums network and increase sustainability in 2005.

This report follows upon the 2003 Heritage Plan and the Cole Study of Museums (2003). This report presents a series of recommendations for immediate action to improve sustainability, drawing upon the Cole Study findings as well as additional analysis undertaken by KPMG consulting and City staff. In general, the research and data reviewed and undertaken for this report indicate that Ottawa’s community and city-run museums are currently under funded. In order to begin to address this situation, a number of immediate actions are presented in the report. However, it needs to be acknowledged that in order to make progress towards the sustainability of museums, program adjustments and resource investment will be required in future years.

A more comprehensive sustainability review and proposed strategy report will be brought forward in June 2005 and a report on the findings and recommendations of the museums Competitive Service Delivery Review (CSDR) will be tabled in September 2005. To ensure and enable a meaningful CSDR of museums the groundwork of this preliminary sustainability plan report needed to occur. This report sets out a program mandate, the service delivery model and investment options for museums. With these elements clarified and approved, the CSDR can proceed in 2005 with clear direction to determine the most efficient options to achieve the desired service delivery and program outcomes.

The Role of Local Museums

Heritage stewardship recognizes that each generation has a responsibility to care for heritage resources and to preserve them for future generations. The Heritage Plan approved by Council in April 2003 calls for the City to take a leadership role with respect to local heritage stewardship. Museums are a critical part of the foundation of a City-wide strategy to collect, preserve, research and interpret local history and heritage.

Museums are public trustees. Collections are usually donated by members of a community or acquired with public money. Donors expect that the collections will be professionally cared for in perpetuity. Museums therefore have an obligation to carry through on the trust placed in them by individuals and the broader community. They have the responsibility to preserve and interpret their collections for the education and enjoyment of future generations as well the current population. As public trustees, the museums’ governing authority and staff protect the long-term interests of the public and the museum. They must keep collections accessible to the public, while ensuring that the museums are operated in a responsible manner.

Overview of the Current Service Delivery Model

The City directly operates four museums: Billings Estate, Cumberland Heritage Village, Gloucester and Pinhey’s Point Historic Site. The City also provides funding support to six community operated museums: Bytown; Diefenbunker; Goulbourn; Nepean; Osgoode Township; and Watson’s Mill. The Vanier museum, to be operated by the community, is currently in development. The City’s 2004 operating funding contribution for museums was $1,388,000.

Table 1 below provides a brief overview of the 11 museums in the City museum network. Six of the museums primarily cover the history of a particular geographic area within the City of Ottawa. Two museums tell the story of particular families that played important roles in the development of Ottawa. Two other museums focus on unique heritage structures (Diefenbunker and Watson’s Mill), the history of their use and the social and technological circumstances that pertain to them. Cumberland is unique in presenting a complex of buildings designed to provide a living history experience. In total, six of the museums are housed in heritage structures that contribute substantially to the story being told. The Vanier Museum is under development and scheduled to open in 2006. The Gloucester Museum while listed, has been closed since 2002.

Table 1 – Summary of Museum Mandates and Facilities

	Year Opened	Type	Period	Facility	Historic Designation*
Billings Estate	1976	Historically Significant Site	1813 to 1975	8 acres, 7 buildings	NHS, Part IV
Pinhey's Point	1983	Historically Significant Site	1820 to 1971	88 acres, 9 buildings	Part IV, OHF
Cumberland	1976	Historically Significant Site	1920' and 1930's	100 acres, 31 buildings	Part IV
Nepean	1989	Community	1792-present	former library	N/A
Goulbourn	1990	Community	1818-present	1.3 acres, 2 buildings	N/A
Gloucester	1991	Community (Closed)	1792-present	In seniors centre	N/A
Osgoode	1972	Community	1827-present	2 acres, 2 buildings	N/A
Bytown	1918	Community	1826-1918	Stone comissariat	NHS, Federal, Part IV
Watson's Mill	1998	Historically Significant Site	1860's	Working Grist Mill	Part IV
Diefenbunker	1998	Historically Significant Site	1945-1988	Cold War Bunker,14 acres, 5 buildings	NHS
Vanier	2006	Community	1792-present	Former city hall	N/A
* Part IV of the Heritage Act - refers to designation under Ontario Heritage Act, OHF refers to an Ontario Heritage Foundation Easement, Federal refers to a Federally designated property, NHS is National Historic Site designation

Gaps and Deficiencies

The following gaps in the provision of museum services in Ottawa have been identified:

• There is neither a single museum nor a comprehensive communications strategy that provides an overview of Ottawa’s historical story.
• Some unique Ottawa community themes are not currently covered by any of the local museums. For example, First Nations’ history in the area; the history of early Ottawa (e.g., the Parliament fire, Lebreton Flats fires, the early lumber history, etc.)
• Most museums do not have the resources to collect and interpret the 20^th century.
• There is a lack of clarity with respect to defining communities, as well as the need and method by which these community histories will be captured and represented. For example communities defined by geographic (rural, suburban, urban), linguistic, ethnic or cultural considerations.
• Many museums have limited access to professional resources trained in museology due to limited financial resources. While full time experts are not required (or affordable) for all elements of the work it is not realistic to expect local museums to be “staffed” by volunteers.
• Eight of the museums lack appropriate climate controlled storage areas to ensure that their collections are preserved undamaged for the enjoyment of future generations.
• The museums lack adequate resources to develop enhanced revenue opportunities, develop new “products” and tell the community what they have to offer through effective marketing.
• The community-run museums do not have access to modern collection management systems, and their individual budgets are too small to justify the investment required.
• There are no venues suitable to house larger temporary and traveling exhibits.
• There are inadequate resources available to increase community involvement through volunteerism.
• Providing museum services and products in both official languages continues to be a challenge for local museums due to inadequate resources.
• Easy and regular access to world-class museums by a highly educated community has also raised expectations with respect to the quality of exhibitions, educational programming and available amenities.
• Most community partners do not have multi-year plans in place.
• There is inconsistency in the application of City policy with respect to rent charges. Nepean is currently the only museum located in a city-owned facility that pays market rent to the City.
• Overall, the ability of the local museum network in Ottawa to fulfill it’s three-pronged role in the community is hindered by inadequate capacity and operating funding.

Vision for the Future – The Mandate of Museums Program

Museums fulfill three key local community functions in Ottawa:

· Collect and preserve period artifacts, buildings and cultural landscapes;

· Conduct research on their collections, relevant local history and museum audiences; and

· Inform and educate people of all ages about their heritage and the museum collections through exhibits, interpretation, educational programming, and outreach activities.

Proposed Museums Service Delivery Model

In June of 2002, the City of Ottawa approved the Ottawa 20/20: Charting a Course document which outlined seven principles to guide the City’s growth over the next 20 years. One of the principles supported is: “A Creative City, Rich in Heritage, Unique in Identity”. Stemming from this initiative, the City developed an Ottawa 20/20 Arts and Heritage Plan, (approved by City Council in April 2003), which sets out the City’s commitment to investing in local heritage. The Ottawa 20/20 Arts and Heritage Plan speaks to future investment in museums and recommends the creation of potential future local facilities: a Heritage Gateway and a Preservation Centre. The Heritage Gateway would serve as an entry point to Ottawa’s history and to heritage resources and programming throughout the City, while the Preservation Centre would provide storage and conservation services for collections not on display in local museums.

In August of 2003, the consultant, Catherine Cole was retained by the City to develop a Museums Strategy. The Cole Museum Strategy Report study was initiated because it was becoming increasingly clear that the current model for museums and the existing levels of funding and staffing were not sustainable given the scope of work asked of local museums. The consultant’s report provided the City with a picture of the situation within city-owned and community operated museums, a review of best practices and trends in municipal museums, a summary of the current model, a presentation of options, and a series of recommendations. In particular the study noted that the current level of funding is inadequate to support the 11 operating museums, let alone new facilities (e.g. a Heritage Gateway, Preservation Centre). The strategy report recommended that the Gloucester Museum remain closed, and that any further budget reductions be implemented as additional closures rather than across the board cuts. The report recommended that continuation of community operated museums, and that Billings, Cumberland and Pinhey’s remain City operated as they “represent very significant financial, heritage and recreational assets that the City has a public trust to maintain”. However the report recommended an expanded community involvement in the operation of the museums and additional budget resources for these museums.

Based on the Ottawa 20/20 Arts and Heritage Plan, the Museum Strategy Report and the additional consultation and investigation that has been carried out in the past year, a new and more specific model is required to guide the long term evolution of the City-supported museum sector in Ottawa. This model is based on a City wide service delivery approach to the preservation, study and appreciation of our local heritage through a museum network that is cost-effective, accommodates professional staff as well as volunteers and community partners, and is flexible enough to be implemented over time, as resources become available. The City supported museum network would include “community museums”, “historically significant local sites”, and “common shared services” that would be provided centrally to minimize costs and maximize effectiveness, including a “Heritage Gateway” and a “Collections Preservation Centre”. Recognizing that there is a limit to municipal responsibility, the City would not be expected to fund thematic museums, institutional museums or national museums, but the City museum network would co-operate with such museums as appropriate, on a cost recovery basis, or joint initiatives such as marketing. Refer to Appendix A for a visual illustration of the basic elements of this model.

An Ottawa Heritage Gateway would have three key purposes: (1) it would tell the story of Ottawa as a whole; (2) refer residents and visitors to the community museums and historically significant sites as appropriate for more details on those elements of the Ottawa story; and (3) provide exhibit space for temporary and travelling exhibits. The Gateway could exist as a ‘virtual’ museum, in paper (publications) and electronic form (internet) or as a physical structure. The research necessary to present the Ottawa story can be provided effectively in these formats to contribute to educational curriculum studies, etc. A common web portal can provide this global information and detailed information on each of the operating museums. Eventually, it may evolve into a brick and mortar facility, perhaps if and when a particular facility opportunity emerges (i.e., developed in concert with the new Central Library, Arts and Heritage Centre, etc.)

The Historically Significant Local Sites are museums established within particularly important heritage structures and properties, where the physical environment is an important part of the museum collection. The museums also contain collections of documents and artifacts that relate specifically to the history of the structures and the site they are situated on. Cumberland, Billings, Pinhey’s Point, Diefenbunker, and Watson’s Mill all fall into this category. These museums may be operated by the City or a not-for-profit community group depending upon the scale of activities, as well as the interests and capacity of community groups.

Community museums will operate in various locations throughout the City to tell the specific stories of local communities and their growth and development over time. They are shown in two categories, the larger, provincial Community Museum Operating Grants (CMOG) compliant community museums (Nepean and Bytown), and the smaller museums that generally are not yet CMOG compliant and offer more limited programs, reflective of their funding levels (Osgoode, Goulbourn, Vanier). Community museums would all be operated by community-based not-for-profit organizations.

The new model would support common and pooled access to some of the critical operational tools and services needed by all museums to enhance their capabilities and generate economies of scale. It is proposed that the following centralized services be made available to all:

· Access to a standardized collections management software across all museum operations.

· A facility to properly store, manage and conserve the collections that are not on display.

· Coordination of marketing programs and resources (which would not preclude individual museum initiatives).

· Provision of professional advice and assistance in strategic planning, translation, business development, conservation, research, emergency preparedness plans, and systems for the consistent evaluation of museums.

· The establishment of a potential museums foundation to enable fundraising on a city-wide scale.

Proposed Financial Costing Model for “Community” Museums

Based on a review of “community” museum operating budgets, and considering the basic requirements to operate a community museum, a financial costing model has been developed for community museums with two categories; those that are larger, complying with the provincial Community Museum Operating Grants (CMOG) standards and offer a full and balanced range of programs, and those that are smaller, not CMOG compliant and offer a more limited range of programs. Table 2 presents details on a budget model for community museums.

Table 2: Costing Model for Desirable Level of “Community Museum” Operating Funding

The budget model above assumes earned revenues of 30% for larger compliant museums and 20% for smaller museums. Although higher than current levels, adequate funding leading to effective exhibits and appropriate marketing should make this level attainable. Provincial support is assumed for the larger museums that would meet the provincially established CMOG standards. Facility costs (rent if paid and maintenance costs) are in addition to the amounts shown, as they will vary widely based on the nature of the facility. When applying the model to particular museums, adjustments may also be required to reflect unique aspects of their operation (reduced or expanded programming, unique collection requirements, capacity to generate revenues, etc.). This preliminary costing model was developed to help inform the preparation of detailed budgets in the next phase of the review.

Proposed Financial Costing Model for Historically Significant Sites

It is not possible to develop a model for the historically significant sites, as each tends to be somewhat unique. However there are a number of external museums similar to Cumberland and others similar to Billings. The needs expressed by the “historically significant sites” are reflected in the three high level investment options presented in Appendix B.

The investment options are intended to provide a preliminary “order of magnitude” illustration of the scale of investments under consideration as well as a sense of the value added at each level of investment ($500K; $1 Million and $1.5 M). As noted previously, detailed costing will be provided in the next phase of the review.

Interim Sustainability Review Analysis Findings

Immediate Actions: Which do not require additional funding to be realized in 2005.

There are a number of actions that would be useful in the administration of the museums that would not require additional funds from the City. Approval of the concept model and budget model for the City supported museum network as outlined in the report will be helpful in determining the long term direction of the museums and will ensure that steps taken in both the short and long term will contribute towards achieving that vision.

Currently Underway

City staff is currently reviewing the feasibility of allowing community-operated museums to have access to the City’s collections management software. The software will improve the ability of museums to properly manage their collections, and facilitate the development of cooperative exhibits. The implementation of this recommendation would be subject to the identification of financial implications and approval of funds within the 2006 budget.

Real Property and Asset Management (RPAM) maintains the City’s portfolio of 95 heritage structures which includes municipal museums. Their re-investment profile (as described in the Long Range Financial Plan II) has been applied to the heritage properties portfolio, resulting in an estimated annual funding plan increase from under $800,000 to $1 million. This is reflected in the 2005 Draft Capital and Operating Budget estimates.

Corporate Security has identified remote security solutions for Pinheys, Billings and Cumberland Museums at a cost of approximately $50,000. This estimate is included in the Corporate Security’s Draft Capital Budget submission for 2005 and is needed to discourage vandalism and protect the collections for future generations.

To Be Implemented:

The action identified in this section will improve the sustainability of local museums and are to be implemented as soon as possible, at no additional budget cost.

Transfer the responsibility for booking Pinhey’s Point grounds, and related revenues from the Parks and Recreation Branch to the Cultural Services and Community Funding Branch. The transfer will allow the museum to aggressively promote, and quickly book programs using the grounds and potentially increase earned revenues.

Next Steps

This progress report will be followed by a comprehensive Museums Sustainability Plan in June 2005 and the results of a Competitive Service Delivery Review (CSDR) of the 4 City operated museums in September 2005 as set out in the Terms of Reference approved in August of last year.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The immediate actions identified in this report are revenue neutral. The financial implications of future investment options are presented generally here and will be provided fully in a more comprehensive sustainability review and proposed strategy in June 2005 and a report on the findings and recommendations of the museums Competitive Service Delivery Review (CSDR) that will be tabled in September 2005.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

Billings Estate Museum, Cumberland Heritage Village Museum, and Pinhey’s Point Historic Site are significant environmental and recreational resources. The lands associated with these heritage resources provide valuable green space and make Ottawa a more liveable city.

CONSULTATION

The Arts, Heritage, and Culture Advisory Committee of Council, museum directors, staff and key stakeholders were consulted during the preliminary development of this report.

City staff outlined the City’s proposed directions with respect to local museums to the Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee (AHCAC) November 25^th, provided the same presentation to a community Open House, and consulted with museum staff and directors on these directions.

Feedback from the Advisory Committee meeting and Open House helped inform the development of this interim status report and detailed comments received at the meetings will assist with the next phase of the development of the Museum Sustainability Plan. Draft minutes from the Advisory Committee and Open House are attached as Appendix C. Those minutes have yet to be confirmed by the Advisory Committee and are on the AHCAC agenda for its meeting to be held the evening of January 20.

Further consultation will also be occurring in 2005 during the development of a comprehensive sustainability strategy and the CSDR phase of this project.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Appendix A – Service Delivery Model for the Museums Supported by the City of Ottawa

Appendix B – Preliminary Analysis of Sustainability Options

Appendix C – Draft Minutes from the Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee Meeting and Open House held on November 25, 2004

DISPOSITION

The Community and Protective Services Department will implement the directions of Council.

APPENDIX A

Service Delivery Model for the Museums Supported by the City of Ottawa

Museums fulfill three key local community functions in Ottawa:

· Collect and preserve period artifacts, buildings and cultural landscapes;

· Conduct research on their collections, relevant local history and museum audiences; and

· Inform and educate people of all ages about their heritage and the museum collections through exhibits, interpretation, educational programming, and outreach activities.

LEGEND:

Billings Estate Historically Significant Site Bytown Community Museum

Cumberland Historically Significant Site

Diefenbunker Historically Significant Site

Gloucester Community Museum

Goulburn Community Museum

Nepean Community Museum

Osgoode Community Museum

Pinhey’s Point Historically Significant Site

Watson’s Mill Historically Significant Site

Vanier Museum Community Museum

APPENDIX B

Preliminary Analysis of Sustainability Options

Even with Council approval of the proposed program mandate, service delivery and financial costing models recommended, considerable flexibility remains with respect to the investment options to which Council may choose to commit funds. The preliminary analysis assumes the intent is to meet basic museum operating standards, ensuring the preservation of collections for future generations and providing suitable programs for public education and enjoyment of the collections. Council will of course establish the extent to which this is achieved in Ottawa. Based on the preliminary analysis of the current state of museum operations staff has identified three investment options which demonstrate the range of choice Council may consider to mitigate existing gaps in the museums operations:

Option 1 - Increase Funding by $500K

• This level of funding would satisfy the most pressing of needs with respect to improvements in collection conservation and research, exhibit development and presentation for community museums

• Additional educational and outreach programming could be purchased

• Additional funding will support additional hours for a visitor services clerk shared between Billings and Pinhey’s Point Museums.

• A volunteer coordinator to ensure the City museums effectively use the volunteer resources available and to coordinate programs for the network to maximize use of volunteers and recognize volunteer contributions. A part-time coordinator could be funded in this option.

• Limited marketing and translation services could be purchased with this option.

Option 2 – Increase Funding by $1 Million

• This level of investment would allow improvements in the quantity and quality of collections conservation and research, exhibit development and presentation for all of the museums in the network and enable them to meet and maintain Provincial CMOG museum standards.

• Additional marketing could be purchased which would target Ottawa residents and visitors to the area as well as leverage additional sponsorship and potentially increase visitors and revenues.

• Funds could be allocated to increase translation services.

• Watson’s Mill would be funded to levels similar to those of other community museums.

• This option would enable the addition of an exhibitions/researcher coordinator for the Billings Museum and an education/interpretation officer for Pinhey’s Point Museum.

• The part-time volunteer coordinator could become full time with this option

• Additional funds could be targeted for outreach, programming, advertising and marketing which would allow the museums to become more pro-active in the museums network.

• Overall improvement in the professional capacity at Goulbourn, Watson’s Mill and Osgoode museums.

Option 3 – Increase Funding by $1.5 million

• This option would provide for a business development officer to help all museums in the network develop marketable products and concepts, maximize their revenues from operations and partnerships and lead network marketing efforts. (The museums have been working together to develop a marketing program and have launched their first product – a rack card that promotes all museums in the network. A number of other projects, including a “passport” concept and other joint marketing materials would be an effective use of marketing resources.)

• Additional translation services would be purchased.

• This level of funding would provide each community museum with funding consistent with the funding model for community-operated museums.

• This level of funding would facilitate increased interpretation and animation at all sites, through on-site trained interpreters, delivering adult, school programming, supported by quality publications, exhibits and web resources.

• This option would enable the re-opening of the Gloucester Museum. (Gloucester has been closed for over a year. There are no funds in the current budget to operate it, and it would not be the highest priority use of new funds. The collection will be preserved for potential future use in temporary displays, in the Heritage Gateway or in other museums. Additional funding in this option would have the museum re-open under the governance of a community-based, not-for-profit organization.)

• Cumberland Museum would operate as a city-wide museum with a unique focus on rural Ottawa during the 1920’ and 1930’s. (Note that the Cumberland Museum is a unique facility in Ottawa. The large number of buildings, the scale of the grounds and the need to animate the site requires a different level of effort and commitment. In addition, it has the potential to serve as a large-scale attraction, drawing in local residents and tourists. The potential of the site is significant, but under-utilized at present.)

APPENDIX C

Draft Minutes Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee

(to be confirmed at Advisory Committee Meeting of January 20)

MUSEUMS SUSTAINABILITY PLAN OVERVIEW / APERÇU DU PLAN SUR LA

VIABILITÉ DES MUSÉES

Brian Bourns, KPMG Consultants provided a detailed overview of the plan. He advised that an interim report would be submitted to the HRSS in January 2005, identifying short-term actions and service delivery, governance and management models, with a final report to be submitted to that committee in June 2005. The latter would identify medium and long-term actions and recommendations. A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is held on file.

Concern was expressed that in general, advertising and marketing for museums is very poor and there are limited dollars to advertise. Staff was encouraged to look at the resources they are setting aside for marketing in newspaper, magazine and even television advertising. Mr. Bourns agreed that the expenditures for marketing and advertising could be reviewed with regards to whether or not the amount would be sufficient.

It was suggested that the funding model be developed in consultation with people who are involved in community museums.

David Jeanes, Heritage Ottawa stated that Ottawa must ensure its historical artifacts are collected, preserved and displayed for present and future generations. He acknowledged that the former City of Ottawa has no general museum to reflect its history or the accomplishments of its citizens. Also, there is no repository for owners to donate important artifacts that have inner-city or city-wide significance. While the existence of community museums is important, the question of their sustainability must not preclude considering the larger question of the need for a city-wide museum facility repository and city-wide museum programs.

The consultant suggested that some of his concerns could be addressed through a virtual gateway, without having a physical museum associated with it. Member Bruce suggested that in 2005, consideration be given to posting some “virtual exhibits” on the City’s web site as a small, but fascinating experiment.

Chair Masciantonio noted that sustaining the City’s heritage is a priority for the committee as well as for Council.

Draft Notes, Museum Sustainability Open House

MUSEUMS SUSTAINABILITY PLAN OVERVIEW / APERÇU DU PLAN SUR LA

VIABILITÉ DES MUSÉES

Brian Bourns, KPMG Consultants provided a detailed overview of the plan. He advised that an interim report would be submitted to the HRSS in January 2005, identifying short-term actions and service delivery, governance and management models, with a final report to be submitted to that committee in June 2005. A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is held on file.

The following comments were submitted:

Bill Hawke saw some commonalities between museums and archives and suggested that if a superstructure is going to be built to manage pieces of entities, then perhaps the archives are simply another segment of that. With regard to the consultants projection of cost increases from low, medium and high he wondered whether he had taken into consideration any effect on City revenue, tourism, et cetera, that might be attracted if there was more programming and more advertising. And, what would be effects on the community by those increased costs.

The Consultant agreed that a relationship between archives and museums makes sense and indicated there are a number of possibilities and when it actually happens, it will be as a result of things fitting together at that time. In response to the question about revenues, he indicated that the “high” end was determined based on the ideal budget for each museum, taking into consideration any anticipated revenues.

Paul Stumas, Heritage Ottawa believed Ottawa needs museums where it collects important objects. However, he was of the opinion that “buildings”, where events and/or persons are the focus of attention, are completely different and therefore suggested treating the two separately.

In response to this comment, the Consultant indicated that there are objects in the Deifenbunker Museum, for example, that people can look at, but the biggest object is the building itself and together these things fit together to tell one story. Also, exhibits in the Billings Estate Museum are related to the Billings Foundation and the community they built, so there is a relationship between the building and the exhibits.

David B. Flemming, President, Heritage Ottawa believed there was a need for political will and leadership in order to determine how important museums are. And, until Council determined that heritage is important, whether it be in museums, archives or funding to community groups, then this exercise would not get the City anywhere close to what is needed to have a vibrant museum and archives community.

Brian Bevan, Archives Association of Ontario, Eastern Chapter believed the City must seriously consider some changes that will strengthen this Plan. He was concerned about the remarks made during the Consultant’s presentation about the governance structure and suggested that simply adding a councillor to a museum board underestimates what can happen between the writing of a report and its adoption by Council. He believed it was important that roles and responsibilities be addressed clearly and if the governance structure is wrong and it alienates the community and volunteers, the plan will fail.

Mr. Bevan also had a concern about Fairfields, stating that it is a significant historical site/museum and he believed the City was ignoring an important asset that should be developed. Also, he believed that the Consultant has also not pushed the Gateway in terms of selling it to the councillors, which is important if Council is to understand the core of the vision. He strongly urged the committee to remove what is a very unsound principle that there should be no money given to new institutions until things are on a sustaining basis, because the two go hand in hand - the gateway and the Fairfields expansion. He also made reference to the fact that while the Plan captures some realities, it is a contradiction because it speaks to no new dollars for new facilities, and yet staff speak of a gateway - a significant investment - and it is important that Council gets that message.

The Consultant recognized the importance of the delegation’s comments about the involvement of Councillors on museum boards and the need to ensure this works. With regards to Fairfields, he believed it was important to make the statement that it should not be developed as a museum, but instead, as a heritage property consistent with the contribution on its own. He advised that the issue of a gateway would be addressed in the June report and did not anticipate a substantial investment in a physical facility for some time, although there were some short-term investments that could be made now.

Christina Tessier, CHOO/COPO recognized the good turnout of over 100 people and advised the committee that CHOO/COPO would send in a formal report. She encouraged people in the audience to send their comments to her for incorporation in a report. They would continue to be involved throughout the process.

Merridy Bradley, Association of Friends of Billings Estate Museum did not believe there could be an ideal budget for a particular size of facility with no recognition that there could be growth over the coming years. Also, the report suggests that one third of the budget should be raised from outside the city, and yet there is no means provided for how those funds could be raised. Therefore, if their association and their equivalent associations were expected to raise those funds in competition with one and other, they would not get anywhere. She believed it would not work out unless the idea of the foundation is seriously considered.

The Consultant mentioned that none of the forecasts have assumed the museums would achieve 30% revenue generation, except when looking at the high level at which point they have substantially more investments available to do promotion and develop exhibits, et cetera.

Guy Legault, Gloucester Historical Society advised that over a 40-year period, the Society built up a collection, which was moved about from place to place until finally, the former City of Gloucester provided some funding which allowed them to hire a curator. After a few years, the Society decided to split from the museums in order to concentrate on genealogies and local history and the museum was given to the City of Gloucester, which was amalgamated and 18 months ago, the museum closed. They are now left with the question of do they want the museum back and how should they run it.

In his closing remarks, Chair Masciantonio stated that the input received into the process is very important and he encouraged delegations to speak to their individual Councillors through their organizations collectively and individually to show that this too is a priority for Council.

MUSEUMS SUSTAINABILITY PLAN – INTERIM STATUS REPORT / PLAN CONCERNANT LA VIABILITÉ des musÉes – rapport d’Étape

ACS2004-CPS-CSF-0001

Colleen Hendrick, Director of Cultural Services and Community Funding provided a general overview of the report. She made note of the typographical error at page 10 of the report, where the amount for Corporate Security should read “$50,000”, not “$100,000”. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is held on file.

The committee received a memo dated 18 January 2005 from the Cumberland Heritage Village Museum Board in support of the report, as well as written comments from the Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee dated 15 January 2005. Both submissions are held on file.

Councillor Cullen inquired whether the option of adding a capital project to build an Ottawa museum to house, maintain and preserve Ottawa’s heritage resources could be included in the June report. Gilles, Seguin, Program Manager, Heritage Development, explained that the model does not propose such a capital project, but does recommend the creation of a Heritage Gateway to address the missing elements of Ottawa’s story and to promote the existing community museums and historical sites. Ms. Hendrick believed that what the councillor was eluding to was the concept of the Preservation Centre in terms of taking care of the City’s archival holdings and she confirmed that this is imbedded in the Heritage Plan and is identified as one of the components needed in the community.

The committee received the following public delegations:

Ken Clavette and Sanna Guerin, The Workers’ Heritage Centre addressed some of the gaps and deficiencies in the report and stated that while many museums have had difficulty dealing with the 20^th century history in their development, one of the main difficulties is post-war immigration and the growth of the community and how that community’s story is being told, e.g., working class and labour history, significant businesses and their contributions, et cetera. He believed that the report was somewhat weak on it’s vision for a Heritage Gateway and he was somewhat concerned about alternative service delivery and what that might mean.

As a museum studies student and a historian, Ms. Sanna wondered why the City is unwilling to support it’s own history and heritage. She noted reference in the report to the lack of interest on the part of the public in civic museums because of the bigger National museums and suggested this was probably more a lack of visibility because unlike the National museums, there are no pamphlets for local museums to advertise and market themselves.

Councillor Bédard asked whether staff have talked to the Ottawa Tourism Convention Authority about the concept of a Heritage Gateway and how it might fit in with their marketing plans. The Director advised that while there have been some preliminary talks with them, there will be more detailed discussions as the Gateway is developed. The councillor recognized that the Authority is looking at the possibility of having a visitor centre and he felt staff should speak to them immediately so there is no duplication of efforts. He hoped that by June, staff would be able to bring forward information on those plans and how the City can cooperate with them in this regard.

Susan Flemming spoke in support of the continued success of the Cumberland Heritage Village Museum as well as all the City’s supported cultural institutions. She believed that marketing should be improved and felt that engaging the community is important. She encouraged the committee to support and endorse the report, but posited that the report says very little, i.e., there are no operational dollars in the 2005 budget and little reference is made to how it fits with the 20/20 Plan and the Heritage Plan. She felt the museums have languished for far too long and action and a commitment by the City is needed that what is being endorsed has value and importance to protecting and building communities.

David Flemming, Heritage Ottawa stated that an inadequately funded system of museums with a specific aim of collecting and interpreting the material culture of the City is an important first step in fostering the understanding that needs to occur between the various communities in the city. He urged committee members to make support for the transformation of the museums part of a base budget and to allow staff to proceed with the completion of the plan, as recommended.

With regards to funding and in response to questions posed by Councillor Bédard, the Director indicated that the June report would include more detail in terms of what the financial implications would be. For example, it is suggested that instead of annualized grant applications, that the City look at longer term financial commitments, through purchase of service agreements. This would allow greater stability to those organizations so they can plan accordingly.

Christina Tessier, Bytown Museum stated that museums have long been under funded and there is a need to ensure that all stakeholders are involved in the creation of the final sustainability plan. She asked the City to support increased funding in order to help museums be successful.

Meg Hamilton, Council of Heritage Organizations in Ottawa agreed that Ottawa museums have been under funded and recognized that this interim report is the first step in addressing the inadequacies of the current funding system. She noted that the report sets the framework in place for the next six months and asked that this second phase of planning include in-depth consultations with the museums and, in particular, with heritage organizations. She encouraged a long term commitment from the City to fund museums, noting that the $1.5M level mentioned in the report is necessary in order to bring the local museums up to the level where they adequately tell the stories of Ottawa and can better compete with the National museums.

In considering the report, Councillor Bédard recognized the importance of consultation and urged staff to ensure that the draft final report is circulated to all partners, including the Tourism Authority, TOP (The Ottawa Partnership), et cetera, before it is submitted to the committee. It was further suggested by Councillor Brooks that some of those consultation sessions be held outside the urban core.

Councillor Stavinga suggested that the sustainability plan should detail whether or not the assumptions made by Council are still valid and, if it is better that the investment be made in the 4-year horizon, for example, rather than now. She did not support the proposal for a centralized museum, noting that it is important to recognize the different communities across the city. However, she did suggest there might be a role for such a museum with regards to preservation.

Councillor Cullen referred to the options detailed in Appendix B and noted that the funding suggested in Option 3 does not address the balance of the needs that have been presented, i.e., the Preservation Centre, how to deal with the challenge of providing exhibition space for artifacts that cannot be showcased elsewhere, et cetera. The options also do not address all of the major gaps and deficiencies identified in the report. He believed that the next report should include those details as well as the time involved, so committee and Council will have a complete picture prior to making any decisions. He did not believe the City was being fair to the heritage community and is not grasping the challenges articulated in the Arts and Heritage Plan with these options. He proposed the following Motion:

That staff be directed to include in the Museum Sustainability Plan an additional option that would propose a future capital project to build an Ottawa Heritage Museum to house, maintain and preserve Ottawa’s heritage resources (not including historically significant sites), such capital project to include the possibility of housing the City Archive (including preservation and exhibition facilities).

When asked whether or not this option could be incorporated in the June report, the Director advised that if staff could estimate what the implications would be in terms of costs, it would be a high level estimate and would not include details. Concerns were expressed about receiving such an estimate on a capital cost that would not include details of what operating costs would be involved. However, some felt that it is something that should be looked, perhaps for the long-term capital plan.

Councillor Stavinga wanted to give staff the ability to explore additional options, should the need evolve after further consultations and proposed the following:

Whereas, although staff have identified three investment options based on the preliminary analysis of the current state of museum operations to demonstrate the range of choices Council may consider to mitigate existing gaps in museum operations;

Be it resolved that staff be enabled to consider further investment alternatives to respond to the long-term sustainability of our museums within the civic fabric of our city.

Chair Holmes believed the Motion to investigate an option for an Ottawa museum would, to some degree, mean an amalgamation of some of the local museums, and she did not support such action. She supported the retention of the museums because they provide local history and as such, should be preserved. She hoped that as part of the consultation, staff would also discuss how to get those local museums to the level where they can access provincial dollars. She also preferred to have options that would provide long range sustainable funding that museums could rely on to the level of their needs.

In his closing remarks, Councillor Cullen indicated his willingness to support Councillor Stavinga’s Motion because the City should be looking at options and as well as considering a long term sustainable plan.

Moved by A. Cullen

That staff be directed to include in the Museum Sustainability Plan an additional option that would propose a future capital project to build an Ottawa Heritage Museum to house, maintain and preserve Ottawa’s heritage resources (not including historically significant sites), such capital project to include the possibility of housing the City Archive (including preservation and exhibition facilities).

LOST

YEAS (1): A. Cullen

NAYS (7): G. Bédard, G. Brooks, R. Chiarelli, C. Doucet, P. Feltmate, J. Stavinga, D.  Holmes

Chair Holmes suggested and Councillor Stavinga accepted an amendment to her Motion as follows:

That the plan going forward for further consultation include information regarding the City funding necessary to move our present museums to the level necessary to access provincial funding for those museums wishing to do so.

Moved by J. Stavinga

Whereas, although staff have identified three investment options based on the preliminary analysis of the current state of museum operations to demonstrate the range of choices Council may consider to mitigate existing gaps in museum operations;

Be it resolved that staff be enabled to consider further investment alternatives to respond to the long term sustainability of our museums within the civic fabric of our city; and,

That the plan going forward for further consultation include information regarding the city funding necessary to move our present museums to the level necessary to access provincial funding for those museums wishing to do so.

CARRIED

That the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend that Council approve the functions and shared service delivery concept model for the City-supported museum network described in this report and illustrated in Appendix A for the purposes of completing the museums sustainability plan and undertaking the museums Competitive Service Delivery Review including consideration of the financial investment options presented in Appendix B.

CARRIED, as amended