Anna Basile, Division Manager, Corporate Services and Megan Birchfield, Program Manager, Facilities Development provided a presentation regarding the Facilities Framework Gap Analysis, including the Prioritization Criteria. (Held on file with the Chief Librarian/CEO). The presentation focused on an overview of the Facilities Master Plan work to-date, the results of the neighbourhood assessment based on the gateway and prioritization criteria, staff’s recommended changes to the criteria based on the prioritization exercise, and a summary of the recommended next steps. To assist trustees in visualizing the priority neighbourhoods, staff presented a map of the areas (Held on file with the Chief Librarian/CEO).
Prior to questions, Ms. Basile referenced one of the Information Previously Distributed items on the Agenda (“Letter - Improving Public Transit Access to OPL branches”). This letter from the Chief Librarian and CEO, asked Renée Amilcar, General Manager, Transit Services Department to consider library branches during the OC Transpo Bus Route Review, as a direct result of public feedback received through the OPL Facilities Master Plan (FMP) public engagement consultation process.
Prior to questions from trustees, the Board heard from the following delegations:
Mateusz Trybowski, a Carlington community member, spoke regarding the equity impacts of using the distance metric as currently defined, noting that it disqualifies communities such as Carlington for facilities investment. Noting the importance of libraries in the community survey, and his appreciation for OPL, he commented that he was disappointed in the reallocation of funds set aside for planning for a branch space in the Carlington community, with a potential site at the Alexander Community Centre. Mr. Trybowski noted that a Carlington Community Association survey regarding library services had 200 respondents, and respondents overwhelmingly supported prioritizing a branch in the community. He said the key themes among the feedback were the barriers faced by community members currently accessing library services outside their neighbourhood, and the transformative impacts that a branch could have in addressing equity gaps. Mr. Trybowski noted that Carlington scores comparatively low on equity indexes in the Ottawa Neighbourhood Study, including that 46.6% of children in the neighbourhood are living in poverty. He observed that there was considerable research on the importance of library services as a driver for poverty reduction and improved school performance. He was disappointed that Carlington was disqualified based on such a small margin in the distance criteria at the gateway stage. Mr. Trybowski urged the Board to apply an intersectional approach and reconsider the distribution based on equity hardships across neighbourhoods.
Christine Johnson, a representative of the Hunt Club Community Association (Chair, Library Services Matter Committee), voiced her objections to the Board approving the prioritization list in Document 2, Table 2. She urged the Board to defer document 2, table 2 until the following information has been shared:
- How the equity lens was applied to the Hunt Club population, using the latest data from the Ottawa Neighbourhood Study;
- How public transit travel times to a branch factored into the equity weighting score (not distance travel time); and,
- How next steps will aim to establish a balance (with underserved neighbourhoods with those with one or more library services, within three kilometers distance).
In addition, Ms. Johnson said the report does not speak to any potential alternatives, for instance, library services that could be delivered in existing community centers. As such, she felt the report did not merit the Board’s approval.
Riley Brockington, Councillor, Ward 16 River, said many residents from River Ward, particularly in the Carlington neighbourhood, have lived in the community since it was built eighty years ago. He noted that these residents have paid taxes and therefore contributed to building and operating library branches across the city, which builds stronger, healthier, more vibrant communities because of that investment. Councillor Brockington highlighted that the average distance in Carlington to a library branch is 2.94 kilometers, when in practice, based on his mapping various addresses, the closest branch is well over three kilometers away. Councillor Brockington reiterated the potential of the gymnasium space within the Alexander Community Center (ACC). He felt that with modified hours and some staffless hours, this location could be an excellent opportunity for innovative library service. Councillor Brockington reiterated the strong community interest in library services, and that Carlington has been ranked as one of the top three most at-risk communities in the city. Noting that in the previous term, the OPL Board approved a motion that set aside funds to explore the feasibility of a Carlington community branch in the community center, the Councillor expressed his disappointment that the report this evening was released before he was able to engage residents and community leaders. Commenting that the OPL decision-making process was “paternalistic” towards Carlington, he urged the Board to table the report and defer the item to October to allow the community time to review the document and discuss potential options with staff. He added that he received correspondence from one community member stating they felt that the publication of the report was “short notice.”
Written correspondence was submitted to the Board prior to the start of the meeting, from John D. Reid (request to defer approving the prioritization list in Document 2 – Table 2).
Chair Luloff thanked the delegations for attending the meeting. He addressed a few comments made by the third delegation with respect to releasing the document in advance of the meeting, advising that information is released five calendar days before the meeting, and is not released publicly before the Board has received it, as per the OPL Board Bylaw. He reminded his Council colleague that the Board is a body independent of City Council .
With respect to the ACC opportunity, Chair Luloff said the Board cannot conduct a feasibility study on a building that does not meet the criteria that was set out by the Board. The Chair said he understands the views of the Carlington community, as a former resident of that neighbourhood, but added that criteria must be set and adhered to in order to determine where new branches will go. Areas within River Ward have been identified as gaps and will be addressed. Chair Luloff also noted that staff have gone to great lengths to increase the library’s presence in River Ward, including increasing the amount of programming and community development. As Chair of the Board, he noted his commitment to ensuring that the Board continue to respond to the gaps identified in the report, noting the same resource constraints as other organizations, including Council. He thanked Councillor Brockington for supporting delegations to the Board by members of his community, and reiterated that he, his fellow trustees, and OPL are committed meeting the needs of the community.
Trustee Bradley asked staff to clarify the intent of the earlier Board-approved funding set aside to assess the feasibility of the ACC as a potential Library location. Ms. Basile provided context, including that there was a potential for partnership with the City as preliminary designs for an expanded and renovated community center were being explored. It was not a commitment to the project. The Board identified funding to explore the feasibility of this opportunity for partnership.
Further to a question from Trustee Bradley on whether there was a timeline around this feasibility study, Ms. Basile said there were a number of discussions regarding this between OPL and the City, as the city project was in progress and would not be paused, but that a specific timeline was not identified.
Trustee Kitts asked staff to explain what changed from the first prioritization list, as Vars dropped significantly from the first priority to the ninth. Ms. Basile indicated that the prioritization list looks at the weighted scores of equity, distance, and growth. In the approved Board Facilities Framework, some scoring elements were found to be subjective when used in practice; staff subsequently realized that these elements needed to be further refined. For instance, it would be inaccurate to say that there is a community in the city that has no equity concerns. As a result of these refinements, if approved by the Board this evening, the priorities changed.
However, as Ms. Basile observed, the most significant refinement to the prioritization criteria that affected the movement of Vars on the list was the distance criteria. The original criteria considered the distance from the closest branch “at its purest level,” without considering the differences in urban and rural distances. To better balance scoring, staff are recommending changing the distance criteria from the actual distance for the neighbourhood to the distance in excess of the respective gateway criteria. This allows for true comparison of gaps, effectively absorbing the distance represented by the gateway criteria, and results in the change for Vars.
Trustee Bradley said one of the delegates raised a question about public transit trip times to the nearest branch and asked if this was considered as part of the assessment in weighing the priority for investments in neighbourhoods, Ms. Basile indicated that was not considered in the assessment as it was not a criterion in the 2022 Facilities Framework approved by the Board. She noted that bus travel time as a criterion would be difficult to assess as transit routes are changed regularly (normally every six months). She reminded trustees that staff have spoken to and written OC Transpo directly asking them to consider library locations when assessing transit routes.
Referring to the approved motion by the former Board to explore the feasibility of a Carlington location, Trustee Bradley asked why OPL staff did not proceed with the feasibility study, particularly considering that partnering for services is a generally cost-efficient option. Ms. Basile clarified that staff did initiate the feasibility study by determining the service needs within the Facilities Framework. Service needs were considered with a holistic approach and the feasibility study for Carlington was intended to explore the actual feasibility of the specific facility available only once a need and gap was determined. Based on the gap analysis, further exploration of that facility as an option did not meet the Board’s threshold and it would not have been prudent for staff to proceed with further spending on this option.
Trustee Bradley suggested that if there was a city asset that was available and has value, would it not be worth considering even if it does not make the prioritization list? Ms. Basile noted that staff take their direction from the Board, and had previously been instructed to develop the Facilities Framework and to complete the gap analysis using the Board-approved gateway and prioritization criteria.
Trustee Bradley asked if a neighbourhood currently listed as a priority on the gap analysis would be served by a branch in Carlington? Ms. Basile said this consideration was not part of the assessment using the Ottawa Neighbourhood Study, but she would provide a response at a later time. Several minutes later, she followed up by highlighting areas on the map provided at the meeting: based on this, while there is some overlap with the Carlington neighbourhood, she is uncertain that adding a library location at the ACC would address the nearby neighbourhood gaps.
Trustee Bradley said she is struggling with the recommendation to close the capital account for the feasibility study for Carlington, as there are strong community advocates and a supportive Councillor, and the monies that were set aside would be re-allocated if the report is approved. She added that it is worthwhile to explore potential for underutilized City facilities and felt it may be premature to close the Carlington account at this time. She inquired about the impact of retaining that fund for an additional year. Sonia Bebbington, Chief Librarian/CEO suggested that the Ad hoc and staff have been applying a strategic lens to the gap analysis work to-date, noting that there are pockets of needs that exist in multiple parts of the city and staff are noting these as part of a holistic approach. She added that capital accounts are normally held for three years, and this account will exceed that time threshold. Ms. Basile confirmed this and added that should the Board consider extending this account by one year, it would require approval of the Board in form of a direction to staff.
Trustee Slack noted his support for Trustee Bradley’s suggestion to defer closing the Carlington capital account. Chair Luloff observed that there were other potential costs associated with a library location in the aging ACC facility, and Ms. Bebbington noted the costs for staffing and library resources, which are not provided for in the current capital funding set aside to explore the feasibility of the Carlington site. Ms. Basile further noted that staff have four major facilities projects underway at present, and three additional projects in the planning stages. If the Board directed staff to continue to explore the Carlington opportunity, it would include additional operating pressures.
Chair Luloff reiterated the importance of the Board making informed decisions and noted that while the Facilities Framework as well as the service strategies and frameworks associated with the Service Delivery Framework were underway, it was perhaps not the best time.
Trustee Bradley reiterated that without all the information available, as the Chair put it, it might be advisable to continue to explore whether a branch in Carlington might be a feasible way to serve several gap areas. Noting that there will be operational costs for any new location, she asked whether staff were prepared to receive direction to defer a decision regarding the report for one month to explore opportunities in River Ward further.
Ms. Basile Indicated that a deferral would only apply to the recommendations before the Board in the report, and noted that staff would require a specific direction from the Board to include and assess a community not included in the gateway criteria. She further added that it was the understanding of staff that the City would need immediate confirmation from OPL regarding whether it wished to proceed with exploring a library space in ACC.
Taking a long-term view, Ms. Bebbington reminded trustees that the goal of the work underway at present is to ensure that branch locations are optimized to cover as many gaps and priority neighbourhoods as possible. Drawing the Board’s attention to the first delegation, who spoke eloquently about equity, she noted that the criteria before the Board consider equity, distance, and growth in a way that is reasonable city-wide, and that where there are equity concerns, the community development work undertaken by OPL also helps reduce additional barriers to library services.
In response to questions from Trustee Smith regarding the renovation of ACC, Chair Luloff said that similar to Ms. Basile’s earlier comment, it was his understanding that the City would require a decision by the Board imminently regarding whether OPL wished to be involved in the renovations by including a branch in the ACC or not. Trustee Smith further inquired whether OPL will be providing programming in the space, should there be a future need. Chair Luloff reiterated earlier remarks by both him and the Chief Librarian/CEO regarding programming and community development.
Trustee Smith asked whether staff have an estimate regarding operational costs for a branch at ACC; Ms. Basile replied that this costing had not been done.
Chair Luloff commented that he did not think it was advisable for the Board to direct staff to explore opportunities that did not align with the criteria that the Board had previously asked staff to develop, and supported, feeling this would undermine the work to date.
Chair Luloff inquired whether there was sufficient capacity, and adequate resources given the City’s financial situation, to undertake another development project at this time. Ms. Basile indicated it would require an additional full-time equivalent (FTE) employee, and the capital costs would have to be estimated after a review of the state of the ACC facility, considering the City’s new criteria regarding greening and climate resiliency. Ms. Basile said without further analysis, she could not speak to the exact costs at this time.
Chair Luloff reiterated there would be many hidden costs, for elements such as floor loading, and that while ACC may seem like a good opportunity, it may have additional considerations and unplanned expenses. Ms. Basile commented that as a rough estimate, the costs could be several million dollars, similar to the renovation of the Rosemount branch.
Trustee Crawford indicated she would be voting to approve the report recommendations, noting the work undertaken by the previous Board and the other ongoing projects.
Trustee Bradley reiterated that her questions were to ensure the Board is making the best decision with the information available. She re-stated her position that there was value in considering the ACC as a fiscally prudent option for a location, as it was not a new build requiring a land purchase. In closing, she stated that she would approve the recommendations in the report with the exception of Recommendation #5, on which she would dissent.
Trustee Slack removed his request for deferral based on the Board’s discussion this evening.
In response to a question from Trustee Kitts regarding certain growth scores, Ms. Basile indicated the growth scores were identified as 25% growth over a period of time, in alignment with the Board’s intent to weigh equity and distance more than growth. Ms. Basile indicated she would follow up regarding the specific numbers to which Trustee Kitts was referring.
Trustee Kitts asked whether there would be an opportunity to consider a branch location that might bring multiple neighbourhoods closer to library services. Ms. Basile indicated that one of the things staff will do over the course of the next year is to look for those synergies in addition to looking at the asset management results, in order to take a holistic approach considering the cost to invest or to rehabilitate existing facilities. She added that there was a significant amount of work to be completed in order to return with a complete Facilities Master Plan.
In closing, Ms. Basile thanked the many individuals who were involved in this work including OPL employees, City employees, and external supports. In addition, she thanked the Finance and Facilities Ad hoc Committee members: Vice-Chair Kathy Fisher, Trustee Rawlson King and ex-officio and Chair Matthew Luloff.
There being no further comments or questions, the report was RECEIVED and CARRIED as presented.
MOTION OPL 20230912/5
Report Recommendations:
That the Ottawa Public Library Board:
- Receive the gap analysis, as attached in Document 1, and further described in this report;
- Approve changes to the Equity scoring matrix, as further described in this report;
- Approve changes to the Distance scoring matrix, as further described in this report;
- Approve the prioritization list, as attached in Document 2 – Table 2, as further described in this report;
- Direct staff to reassess the prioritization list with new data provided by the Neighbourhood Equity Index, and to report back if there are significant differences;
- Approve the closure of capital order # 910218 Carlington Community Branch and direct staff to return the remaining balance to the Library Reserve; and,
- Direct staff to deliver the complete Facilities Master Plan to the Board in Q1 of 2025.
Results: Received and Carried
Dissent on Recommendation #5 (Trustee Jessica Bradley)