Recently I stopped at our Museum: not to view an exhibit but rather to look at it in context of the proposed Genview partnership. I came away more convinced than ever that this partnership represents an opportunity for positive change. To quote Councillor Mortelliti: “An opportunity to renovate and increase programming space. An opportunity to enhance the architectural features of the building to something that is more in keeping, and more sympathetic to the old Kinghorn School.”
You can read his full comment here.
Our decision criteria on whether to seize this opportunity must include the following.
What are the specifications for the temporary storage solution for the artifacts currently stored in the area which is to be retrofitted to serve as the Genview Sales Office? Specifically: does it have temperature & humidity controls? Will it be secure? Is access easy enough to accommodate the changing of exhibits? Is it large enough?
Will the programming at the Museum be affected negatively? I understand that there has been suggestion that the Sales Office would close, as required, to address this potential problem. Given that the Museum does do long range planning this might work; need to have the details reviewed.
Is the parking adequate?
What are the architectural details of the renovation: both the renovation from current to the interim stage (i.e. when the Sales Office is open) and from interim stage to the Museum being sole occupant? Already there are indications that this particular question is being addressed effectively. Our Heritage Committee and their Restoration Architect have been invited to work with Genview.
As I doubt that anyone would argue that the health of the Museum’s future is risk free given the poor financial position of King I cannot imagine anyone arguing that we should ignore this opportunity. I for one will continue to advocate exploring this partnership possibility fully.
To learn more details about the proposal read my first posting.
In none of these posts and comments is mention made of the King Township Museum Board of Management and the role they have in advising Council on the long term viability of the museum. Unfortunately, the previous Board’s mandate expired with the last Council and this Council has not seen fit to appoint a new one. Discussions are being conducted and decisions are being made without the benefit of the advise and knowledge of a local, volunteer group.
Mr or Ms Unknown: I am really grateful that you have commented as it gives me a good opportunity to try and clarify something which has been misunderstood by several people.
It is correct that the newly elected Council did not establish a new Museum Board in early 2011 as would have been done per previous practice. Specifically, there was no sollicitation of new members; terms of reference were not reviewed. This traditional process did not occur for two reasons. First, to give time for establishment of new selection process and subsequent appointment of new selection board. (This is for purposes of all the municipality’s boards and committees.) Second, to give time for the creation of the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP) task force. The ICSP is a major priority for the Township as we move forward; and as it will encompass the scope of many of our committees and boards we want to effectively incorporate them into the new task force. We will be advertising for volunteers from the Community to participate in the ICSP. (We have already done one round of advertising for ICSP Ambassadors and work group members.)
A bylaw to disband the Museum Board was not enacted. We (i.e. the Council) continue to think that they have a mandate.
Similarly, the Heritage Committee was not disbanded. And accordingly it has seemed quite normal to us that the Heritage Committee would have volunteered to participate in discussion with Genview on the renovation possibilities in terms of exterior changes.
Debbie
The use of the museum in part as a sales pavilion while enterprising in the face of tough, economic times is still not appropriate. A typical sales pavilion is a facade over a square box and the proposal does not address long term permanent structural improvements of any substantial worth to this heritage site. i) Signage which is typically large and at street level may appear confusing to the public.
Is it a museum, was it a museum or is it a sales office? ii) The tenure of one to two years could hamper the availability of extra recreational space in the event the township needs it. iii) Being at the west gateway to King City one may be concerned about the symbolism of such a joint venture. Are we giving the impression “not only did the developers get their way in King City but they also got control of what little heritage property the township has tried to hang on to”.
So what is next? Station Road Securities using Hogan’s Inn for the same purpose. You can’t get a coffee here but there will be plenty of people who are happy to sell you a house.
Are we JUST building houses here or are we working on bringing commercial business here. Those quaint little storefronts had thriving businesses here not so long ago but the landlord in anticipation of intensification decided to raise the rent. How realistic is it to expect an artist, artisans and creative entrepreneurs to be any better at affording higher rents during tough, economic times. Why all of a sudden is there a need to make quick decisions when there isn’t a single new dwelling in sight. Plenty of dug up fields and road mayhem but I don’t see any stampedes at the two sales pavilions in operation at the moment.
Again, your inquiry falls short as to what benefit I would get as a taxpayer and resident when now being asked to relinquish “historical” spaces or places while adjusting/transitioning to the undermining of the rural lifestyle that no longer appears to be fashionable or is being suggested selfish of us “estate lot owners” to want to protect.
Sheila Comisso
Hello Sheila,
I can only repeat that I believe we should be investigaing this opportunity. There are probably dozens of possibilities which anyone could articulate as being a possible problem. I do not know how real they are as all we have is a concept.
There is significant change going on; and King City, particularly west side of it is just now beginning to see the consequences of decisions made in previous years. I am not looking to urbanize our community; having said that, decisions have been made which will drive King City’s population to 10,000 in a relatively short time (target is 2016). I assume that everyone wants to mould the change so that it is the best; it is in that spirit we are looking at the Genview-museum proposal. I am glad that you are participating and I hope you will continue. Debbie
Hi Debbie,
I was against the idea for the same reasons that Sheila has posted. However, we don’t have any financial numbers it seems. How much will the developer pay? What will the refurbishing of the museum cost? I raised these questions of the numbers earlier. We are dealing with zero discretionary cash in the township budget. But there are other ways to pay for things besides our Township budget or the developer’s largess.
It is unfortunate that counsel apparently has not yet appointed a new museum board. Community input via such a board would be valuable.
I appreciate your insight subsequent to your visit to the museum.
Hans Martin
Hello Hans,
I don’t know if you have seen the comment posted by Mr or Ms Unknown; it too questions about the Museum Board.
A bylaw to disband the Museum Board was not enacted. We (i.e. the Council) continue to think that they have a mandate. In my response to Unknown I provide background as to why a new Board was not appointed; I would direct you to it.
I need to follow up on whether the Board has been totally absent from the discussion. As for your other questions–I understand what you are getting at. Debbie
Thank you for the quick response regarding my comment on the King Township Museum Board of Management.
Unfortunately, I must disagree on your and council’s belief as to the Board’s mandate still being in effect.
The Board is governed by By-law 2004-38, The Corporation of the Township of King Museum Board of Management Terms of Reference. Its mandate is clearly defined under paragraph 2.3, which reads:
“The Council shall appoint members by By-law to the Board, and the term of appointment shall be concurrent with the term of Council.”
The previous Board was appointed by By-law 2007-28 which states under paragraph 2 and reads in part, “….and such appointments shall terminate on December 31, 2010….”
Thus, the previous King Township Museum Board of Management’s mandate has expired. Contrary to your statement, “A bylaw to disband the Museum Board was not enacted”, a by-law to disband the Board to affect the end of their mandate is not necessary as both By-law 2004-38 and By-law 2007-28 prevail.
This position is supported by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture, the department responsible for the operation of the King Township Museum.
As such, I re-iterate, the King Township Museum Board of Management does not exist.
Hello Unknown:
I am responding back to you quickly as I want to acknowledge that I have received your comment which indicates that I have spoken in error.
I will need to do some research to comment any further on this. Given my schedule I will not be able to do so for several days. I do appreciate your concern for getting the right information in the public domain. Debbie