A staff memo.
I propose that we’d all agree that looking back to 2000 and now forward to today, the Wilson Farmhouse project could have been handled differently.
· The 2000 recommendation in the Official Plan was a laudable vision
– one that stated that (3.5.20.1) the farm house at 595 Victoria Road North will be incorporated into the design of the main public square for the lands located along the west side of Victoria Road, providing opportunity for use of this building as a public facility (community centre or library) or alternatively, to be retained as a residential use.
·Its practical execution – the translation of this vision into the design of the neighbourhood and its located park – did not meet the OP vision, based on the evidence of this current discussion.
As it stands today, we appear to be approaching a ‘no win’ scenario with tensions akin to a classic dilemma of mitigating opposing positions, conflicted values and responsibilities held by caring and committed residents, their representatives and staff. These are:
· the legislated responsibility and a shared commitment to the value of preserving and honouring Guelph’ s identity through our respect and investment in our history;
· respect for the range of needs of residents who live and re-create in close proximity to the public park, and the intimate dynamics of being neighbours;
·access to public park land and its use, by all residents, now and over time;
·evolution of the City’s multi-year capital budget plan and the competition for financial resources. This is an outstanding dilemma related to how a City commits and invests in its cultural resources when faced with finite dollars; the‘hard services vs. soft services’ debate that we attempt to address each year.
Staff has been working within these conflicting positions for years. This spring, it was clearly time to bring this issue forward for Council deliberation rather than continuing to expend valuable community and staff resources which might lead to further disappointment, fractured relationships and negativity.
Over the last 7 years, we have consulted the community using methods that were based in the practice of the time. We:
· consulted on the design of the park, knowing that this corner was an outstanding matter;
· issued a public Expression of Interest (EOI) to find a public/community use of the Farmhouse building. The lack of a feasible use was provided to Council;
· there was an evaluation of its heritage designation using public processes as per Heritage Guelph, the Conservation Board etc;
· Councilors received feedback through ward meetings;
· Staff also budgeted for further work on Wilson Farmhouse and for the collection of data on heritage assets located at sites throughout the city (i.e. Carter Farmhouse). This last item was taken out of the budget due to financial constraints and remains outstanding.
This spring Council approved the City’s new Community Engagement Strategy which includes many new approaches and tools that we are actively applying.
In this spirit of community engagement, we deferred bringing the Wilson Farmhouse report forward from June to September respecting that all voices might not be available in the summer to participate.
And in keeping with this position, the decision to delay a further new round of community engagement, and the decision to pause conducting a full formal survey of the neighbourhood and of the broader community, was my decision after consultation with staff. It was based on:
· The recognition that we already had a reasoned understanding
of the opposing opinions and needed a Council deliberation prior to further actions.
·That a successful solution to this dilemma would not be arrived at by ‘majority rule’ approach.
·That the level of input required to solve this matter, likely went well beyond the project itself. The root issue is determining how best to approach balancing the interests of a whole community with those of a specific neighbourhood.
·It was agreed that our next steps should be informed by Councils’ deliberation of a corporate wide staff recommendation.
The rational for the staff recommendation to ‘document, salvage and demolish’ is based in reasons outlined in the staff report. It has been a very difficult recommendation to land and has been informed by a similar range of opinions.
Ultimately the recommendation seeks to balance the neighbourhood with the city wide needs by finding an approach that has positive outcomes for all parties, knowing that not everyone will be fully satisfied.
It took into consideration the:o cost of restoring the farmhouse as a public facility;
o desire to retain public access to all the land
–a beautiful site with a canopy of mature walnut trees, great elevations and the peaceful repose that its’ heritage provides;o opportunity to find a new process
that integrates the design of this corner of the park with the story of the Wilson Farm through the documentation, salvaging and appropriate takes down of the structure.With regard to the option to sever and sell, staff contemplated the notion of shrinking the size of the property lot prior to severing and selling, however, no further action has been taken in light of Councils 2011 reconsideration.
Going forward, this recommendation offers a way to find a solution somewhere in the middle of the opposing positions and tensions.
It provides a creative design process using a public, community art and design approach.There are many examples of cities using a community arts processes to tell the documented story of the history of public spaces.
The City of Guelph has a public art policy and an advisory which could oversee this process and the Wilson Farmhouse Park would be one of our first projects.
There will be costs to the recommendation.
We have an outstanding obligation to resolve this corner of the public park. This includes:
· The cost to document and demolish the facility estimated at 40-70K.
· Salvaging costs need to be considered along with the storage and future use of the materials.
· The time and commitment of our neighbourhood, our heritage advisors and our creative community will be required to come to a successful solution.
There are remaining funds in the park construction budget that can assist however a further budget will need to be determined.
Closing thoughts and some proposed amendments for your consideration:
There are learning’s to be gained from all involved – Heritage Guelph, the residents, our staff and our Council. We should take the time to clearly identify those learning’s and recommend approaches so that we are successful in the future.
If the overall recommendation is approved, Councillors might also consider providing three further directions to staff, to:
a)Propose an appropriate public/community design process, sources of budget and any additional resource that makes use of the corner of the park for public use; utilizing items salvaged from the farm and the walnut trees; work with the physical grades of the corner lot in a way that the public and neighbourhood can all benefit.
b) Undertake a review of the Ingram
Farmhouse file to document the practices and approaches required to execute the visions of our Official Plans in a way that integrates the wide range of legislated policies with the distinctive needs of individual neighbourhoods and communities;c) Respond back to Council with an approach and
the resources required to develop a comprehensive program to address the maintenance and future use of city owned stranded assets along with the care, storage and approach for the use of salvaged heritage materials and artifacts. Staff