Anna Basile, Division Manager, Corporate Services and Megan Birchfield, Program Manager, Facilities Development provided a presentation regarding the Facilities Framework (“the Framework”), including the recent public engagement. They began by providing an overview of the project, which began in 2019. Noting that staff provided regular updates to the Board, Ms. Basile thanked the Board for their patience with delays in the project during the pandemic. Ms. Basile also acknowledged the work of the Ad hoc Committee composed of Trustees Begg and Higdon, and Chair Luloff. She also thanked Ottawa residents who provided feedback on the draft Framework during the recent public engagement process. Ms. Birchfield outlined this public engagement process, which was completed in the summer, and reviewed key findings from the process and subsequent amendments to the Framework. Ms. Basile concluded the presentation by reviewing the next steps, including details on the analysis to determine gaps using the approved Gateway and Prioritization criteria, and reporting back to the Board in Q3 2023.
Prior to leaving the meeting at 5:55 pm, Trustee Begg provided his support for the report. He expressed his appreciation for the thorough analysis by staff during the project, as well as the thoughtful analysis of public input. He thanked Mses. Basile and Birchfield and the public who participated in the public engagement.
The Board heard from the following delegations. Those marked with an asterisk (*) below denote delegations for which a written submission or presentation is held on file with the Chief Librarian and Chief Executive Officer.
Christine Johnson, Hunt Club Community Association (HCCA)* was concerned that the Facilities Framework will not remedy legacy gaps for library services, notably for residents of the Hunt Club community. She referenced that 60% of the Framework public consultation respondents only occasionally leave their neighbourhood to visit a library, reminding the Board that Hunt Club residents must leave their neighbourhood to attend library programs or consult materials that they cannot place on hold. Ms. Johnson noted that in these cases, the time it takes to travel to the nearest branch to attend a library program is often longer than the actual program itself. She described her recent visit to Elmvale Acres branch, where she described luxuriating in the community engagement in the library. Ms. Johnson described how during the power outage earlier this year, many members of the community sought refuge in the Hunt Club Riverside Park Community Centre and that it “felt like a library, with everyone working together and reading.” She presented images of locations in the Hunt Club Mall that are vacant (and have been for such time), which she expressed are ideal for a library. She commented that OPL finds funds for other things but not for a branch in the Hunt Club area. She underlined how Hunt Club remains underserved and urged the Board to correct that gap.
Chair Luloff explained that the Framework and report before the Board this evening for approval does not consider specific locations for areas that may be gaps, stating that the next piece of work is to identify the gaps(the gap analysis).
Responding to this comment, Trustee Brockington said that in his opinion, policy changes proposed in this report and the Framework would directly and negatively impact neighbourhoods now. He asked Ms. Johnson if she could provide information regarding how far the nearest library is, and whether the distance criteria proposed by staff is good, in her opinion, or should the Board reconsider this criterion? Ms. Johnson said she is not certain of the exact distance to the closest library [from the Hunt Club neighbourhood] but reiterated that a trip using public transit to Greenboro or Alta Vista branches, for example, takes longer than the length of a library program.
John D. Reid * provided a presentation that highlighted the response rate to the public consultation regarding the Framework, specifically the response rate for non-cardholders. Noting that this rate was less than 1%, he suggested that residents were less likely to become a cardholder if the distance to their local branch was significant, which in turn suggested that the responses were not representative of the views of Ottawans in a statistically significant way. Calling the survey “an insult to those who advocate for library services and the public in vulnerable communities,” Mr. Reid urged for more public engagement, focused on reaching non-cardholders, perhaps soliciting the help of community groups. Mr. Reid referenced the Kingston Frontenac Public Library’s “Library Facilities Plan,” noting the value of their professionally done survey, as well as the recent OPL Hours of Operation survey conducted by Nanos Research. He felt that the views of non-cardholders are necessary to assist in achieving the Board’s objective to increase the number of OPL cardholders by 25%. As a result, he recommended that the Board receive the Framework and accompanying report rather than approve it this evening.
Trustee Brockington asked whether Mr. Reid would agree that receiving more input into the Framework from non-cardholders would be beneficial prior to the Board deciding on this matter? Mr. Reid responded in the affirmative.
Trustee Brockington asked Mr. Reid to clarify what would the benefit be, in the delegation’s opinion, to conducting additional outreach to non-cardholders? Mr. Reid replied that if the Framework is shaped by those who are living closer to existing branches, their concerns will be reflected: these might be more about hours of operation, or a nice environment in branches, rather than concerns regarding those who lack library services altogether.
Chair Luloff mentioned that if the Framework is approved, and the gap analysis subsequently conducted, Hunt Club might be on the list of gaps. He asked if Mr. Reid was prepared to forego this process or extend the timeline, and whether the end goal of the delegation’s recommendations was to identify gaps or not? Mr. Reid replied that this additional engagement is necessary not only for Hunt Club, but also other areas of the city that are underserved. He said it was important to have a survey that represents the city as a whole.
Trustee Brockington asked staff to clarify how the lack of participation from non-cardholders affects the results of the consultation. Ms. Basile replied that cardholders represent all areas of the City, including those that might be deemed over/well-represented and those that might be deemed to be underserved. She also added that cardholders include some who “make the extra trek” to a branch that is not in their neighbourhoods, and that the consultation did include a good representation of people who travelled a variety of distances to visit a branch. She further stated that in response to Trustee Brockington’s question, it is difficult to determine whether additional consultation would change the results or reinforce what was heard in consultations to-date.
Trustee Brockington commented that he felt it was important to understand why people don’t visit a branch. He then asked staff to provide details regarding socio-economic factors (such as graduation rates, single-parent families, or bus routes, or the availability of retail opportunities) and how they are factored into facilities decisions. Ms. Basile indicated that the Framework does incorporate a third-party assessment tool (the Ottawa Neighbourhood Equity Index), which contains assessments of each neighbourhood on five different factors, representing socio-economic considerations. With respect to transit, she stated that it is the location of transit “hubs” rather than specific routes (which change frequently) that was factored into the site criteria.
Trustee Brockington was concerned that the framework will discount or eliminate neighbourhoods within his ward that have a demonstrated need for library services that do not exist currently. He did not want to approve anything that would make it harder for them to get service.
Ms. Bebbington reminded the Board that decisions regarding gaps are not being made this evening, and that the framework under consideration this evening is one piece of the puzzle. She also noted the hard work of staff on this file to-date.
Ms. Basile further clarified that in conducting the gap analysis, which is step 1 should the Framework be approved, the gateway criteria will be the first priority: this criterion would determine if a neighbourhood is farther from the nearest service point than the average. Once staff have a list of these neighbourhoods, the prioritization criteria will be used to generate a list to the Board based on three factors: equity, distance, and growth (this is step 2). Once this is completed, the priorities, if approved by the Board, are investigated further by staff, including using the building and site criteria.
Trustee Kitts commented that she was pleased to see amendments related to rural services and looked forward to the gap analysis report. She inquired regarding the average distance for rural residents to their nearest branch(es). Ms. Basile indicated she will provide that information to the Trustee (and all the Board) following the meeting. Trustee Kits asked that staff also provide the breakdown of respondents by geographical area, in order to assess whether there were underrepresented areas, noting that the top five branch locations used by respondents were in the centre or west end. Ms. Basile confirmed this information would be provided to the Board, stating that the current urban average distance is approximately 2.3kms, and reminded the Board that many customers use branches that are not necessarily in their neighbourhood.
Trustee Brockington underscored three points in the staff report: he highlighted that 50% of respondents would go to their library more often if it were closer, 69% are only willing to leave their area occasionally or rarely, and 78% agreed with a process to address legacy gaps.
Trustee Brockington further inquired whether three kilometers was an adequate benchmark for urban residents to travel to the nearest branch, commenting that while this may be an acceptable driving distance for example in a rural area, it may be an unpleasant distance to walk in the winter, or to access via transit when there is no direct bus service. He further inquired whether the gap analysis currently scheduled to be completed by the third quarter in 2023 could be moved up to the second quarter, given the importance of the matter? Ms. Bebbington understood the urgency in seeing the results of the analysis but indicated that there may be a capacity issue in accelerating the timeline with existing resources. Ms. Basile said staff aim to bring a report earlier when possible, noting that the engagement of a consultant for the gap analysis must follow the City’s procurement process.
Trustee Brockington inquired whether the gap analysis will include equity and socio-economic considerations? Ms. Basile confirmed in the affirmative. Trustee Brockington also inquired whether staff were confident that the gap analysis would be delivered in Q3 2023, to which Ms. Basile responded in the affirmative.
Picking up on an earlier comment by Trustee Brockington, Chair Luloff agreed that OC Transpo service in some neighbourhoods makes it difficult for residents to access community hubs such as libraries. Noting that he had done some earlier advocacy work regarding transit access for veterans, he offered to work with Trustee Brockington to engage in similar advocacy with the City’s Transit services, for library access if desired.
There being no further comments or questions, the report was RECEIVED and CARRIED as presented.
MOTION OPL 20221108/4
That the Ottawa Public Library Board:
- Receive the summary report on the outcome of public engagement;
- Receive the revised Facilities Framework;
- Approve the final Facilities Framework; and,
- Direct staff to complete an assessment of library facility gaps and to report back to the Board no later than Q3 2023.
Results: Received and Carried
Dissent: Trustee Riley Brockington