LETTER: Council should support the use of facilities like the drill hall

GuelphToday received the following letter on the future of the historic Drill Hall.

I am writing to bring to your attention to the topic of the future of Guelph’s historic Drill Hall and the recent expression of interest submissions regarding its future use. This matter comes to the City of Guelph's committee of the whole on Tuesday, June 4.

Advocating for cultural enterprises is always challenging due to budget constraints and competing needs. However, the city plays a crucial role in furthering local community place-making - a practice that often relies on the cultural non profit community. Our council should support the use of its ‘unique’ facilities like the drill hall, as best it can, even in difficult times.

The drill hall holds significance as a gathering place for the Guelph community to engage in social, political, and cultural activities. I urge the council to recognize this legacy by taking the following simple action.

The Guelph Centre for Visual Art Committee (GCVAC) has submitted a valid proposal. As the city council has yet to see the proposal, I propose inviting volunteer representatives from the GCVAC to present their proposal. If council sees merit in the proposal, conducting a comprehensive feasibility study is reasonable.

This approach is necessary because the staff report recommending declaring the Drill Hall a 'surplus asset' and proceeding to sell it (at a nominal price) is premature.

1. The GCVAC's proposal is reasonable to explore as it addresses the Drill Hall's structural and operational challenges in a phased approach that allows for innovation and local community investment.

2. It may be unfair to disqualify the GCVAC's entire proposal on the grounds that it 'exceeds approved and proposed budget limits' when these financial limits are not clearly stated in the RFEOI.

3. Disregarding any 'expression of interest' that failed to ensure that the City of Guelph is made financially 'whole' and safe from further expenditures is unwarranted. This condition was not explicitly clear in the RFEOI. Furthermore, it may also be unrealistic to expect this, given the results of the earlier market survey that concluded no private market interest.

4. The intention to sell the property at a 'nominal price' is concerning, given the significant taxpayer investment to date (estimated at five million dollars). Shouldn't the process seek the best price possible or prioritize long-term local community benefit over a direct sale to private hands?

The City of Guelph should thoroughly explore all options to ensure the protection and future cultural restoration of the Drill Hall.

The drill hall has waited many decades; a few more months to determine its best and highest purpose is reasonable.

Ann Pappert
Guelph