Toronto City Hall

100 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario

Canada M5H 2N2

www.city.toronto.on.ca

Tel: 416-392-7185

Fax: 416-392-0071

File No./098039

Urban Planning and Development Services

September 28, 1998

To:Urban Environment & Development Committee

From:Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

Subject:School Facility Reviews, City-Wide

Purpose:

To update members of City Council on the status of the school boards' review of their existing school facilities and revisions to school closure policies in response to provincial regulation and funding changes.

To seek Council authority to participate in a strategic planning initiative for school facilities with the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board that ensures the best use of public facilities and amenities.

Source of Funds:

There are no funding implications at this point in time.

Recommendations:

1. That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and appropriate City staff be requested to participate in the development of a strategic planning initiative for school facilities with representatives of the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board. The objective of this strategy would be to identify ways to maximize the use of public resources, minimize the impact on local communities and ultimately to ensure that the present and future needs of the City's residents are adequately addressed.

2.That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and senior staff from the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board request a meeting with representatives of the Ministry of Education and Training to be held as soon possible, in order to apprise them of the proposed school strategic planning initiative and obtain their support.

3. That appropriate City staff be instructed to give effect thereto.

4.That this report be forwarded to the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board, for their consideration.

Background:

At its meeting held on May 19, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee adopted a report regarding school planning matters. At that time, I was instructed to prepare a further report on plans to close and/or dispose of school sites declared surplus by the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) and the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB).

The passage of Bill 160 (the Education Quality Improvement Act) by the provincial legislature set the framework for wide-sweeping changes to educational practices, funding and facility management, to be implemented by local school boards across the Province. Provincial revisions to school capacities and the funding formulae for the operation and maintenance of school facilities leave a considerable amount of school facility space within the City unfunded and designated surplus to requirements. As a result of these anticipated budget shortfalls, school boards are faced with the prospect of consolidating a number of school facilities in order to reflect these new provincial standards and funding levels.

In the spring of this year, the TDSB indicated that approximately 11 million square feet may be divested in order to bring expenditures in line with anticipated levels of provincial funding. The TCDSB has approximately 600,000 square feet of unfunded facility space across the system. The loss of these important community resources will have a significant impact on residents' access to community service programs and open space, as well as the future role of schools as neighbourhood hubs.

Many aspects of the facility review process and its impacts are still unknown, however a preliminary overview of the general implications and City interests have been prepared in cooperation with staff from the Children's Services, Public Health and Recreation Divisions.

Discussion:

4. Ministry of Education and Training Requirements for School Consolidations

As part of the new responsibilities for education conferred to the Province through Bill 160, the Ministry of Education and Training (MET) has reviewed the capacities for each school facility within the City. The new provincially determined capacities are not yet available, but in the interim the MET has developed square footage entitlements for each Board so that preliminary estimates of surplus space can be determined. These interim figures are based on a gross space requirement of 130 square feet per secondary student and 100 square feet per elementary student.

School board officials are advocating for provincial recognition of specific facility elements typical in more recently constructed schools, such as libraries, lunchrooms, gymnasiums, science labs, etc. within the more detailed capacities yet to be released. Capacities also need to reflect the small sites where many urban schools are situated, resulting in inadequate playing fields and playgrounds within many of the City's schools. The City's aging school infrastructure, coupled with the realities of securing school sites within urban settings, has resulted in inequitable access to these important facility components (and the learning opportunities they offer) that are available to students in newer communities throughout the Province.

The MET has established implementation time lines with respect to the consolidation of surplus capital assets which local boards must comply with. School boards must have:

• adopted a pupil accommodation review policy by September 30, 1998.
• completed the review and the public consultation process by December 31, 1998.
• closed surplus schools by June 30, 1999.

Once these time lines have expired, system-wide capacities will be set. School boards with excess capacity anywhere within their jurisdiction will not be eligible to receive funding for new school construction in the future, either through the allocation of provincial grants or through the passage of Education Development Charges by-laws. The legislation appears to apply this penalty in perpetuity, thereby creating a strong incentive for local boards to comply.

5. Pupil Accommodation Review Policies

The school boards within the City have taken somewhat different approaches to the issue of school closures due mainly to the amalgamation process the public board is under-going and the difference in the estimated amount of surplus space each has to divest. Each of the City's boards of education have adopted pupil accommodation review policies (formerly referred to as school closure policies), which establish criteria for determining if a facility warrants review and a community consultation process. They are summarized below.

A) Toronto Catholic District School Board

The TCDSB has comparatively less surplus space to rationalize, and has therefore been able to develop their review policies and identify 29 elementary schools throughout the City which meet 2 out of the 3 criteria approved by the board of trustees. The map appended to this report shows the location of each site and Appendix B provides five year pupil projections for each of the review schools. A school will be reviewed if:

• it had fewer than 200 students enrolled on March 31, 1998
• the average daily enrolment was 50% or less than the Ministry approved capacities for each facility as of March 1, 1998; and/or
• the facility is leased and there are under-utilized facilities nearby.

The public consultation set out in the TCDSB report requires each individual school to undertake their own assessment process and report their findings to Board staff by November 15, 1998. At the same time, Board staff are attempting to undertake a strategic review of their facilities, with a view to submitting a report to the Board of Trustees meeting in December regarding the results of both processes and final recommendations regarding the consolidation and ultimate disposition of their surplus assets. This ambitious time line meets to the Ministry's implementation framework.

However, the provincial funding formula allows for additional secondary school space within the TCDSB, which the Board will be seeking in order to redress this shortage.

B) Toronto District School Board

The TDSB must undertake a much more comprehensive review process in light of the number of potential school closures and the anticipated impact on the communities affected. The review policy reiterates a commitment to providing educational programs as close as possible to where pupils live, wherever feasible. In order to achieve this objective, review areas which reflect existing geographic communities will be defined and all schools falling within these areas will be reviewed. The ability of each facility to meet pupil accommodation requirements will be evaluated on the basis of student enrolment patterns and projections, transportation issues, the age and condition of the building, operating costs and community usage.

Board staff are preparing a report for late October that will highlight "priority" service review areas. Staff anticipate that the community consultation process and the need to develop a major strategic response will result in their reports on potential closures coming forward in the spring of 1999.

6. Implications for City Services

In an effort to maximize public resources, a number of the former municipalities delivered programs within local school facilities, and funded capital improvements to these facilities for the use of the broader community. The closure of school facilities will have a significant impact on the ability to access locally delivered services and public amenities for many City residents.

A) Municipally Funded and Delivered Services

School closures will undoubtedly effect the delivery of municipal recreation and public health programs, as well as parent-child drop-in and licensed daycare programs operated by community agencies. All of these community uses have been factored into each Boards' review policy as one of the matters that must be considered. A preliminary examination of the extent of existing municipal interests in the sites identified for review by the TCDSB has been provided in Appendix A.

In many instances, programs are offered after school hours and would not require exclusive use of space or capital improvements if the programs were forced to re-locate to another school within the neighbourhood. In other cases, such as licensed daycare, extensive capital improvements were required to locate the program within the host school, and would require additional expenditures if the program were to be re-located. Many of the current program delivery issues are being dealt with in the context of the Mutual Services Master Agreement process being undertaken by the Chief Financial Officer and representatives of the service-related Departments. All efforts are being made to ensure that the school review process and the development of appropriate space use agreements between the City and the Boards proceed in a collaborative fashion.

B) Parks and Open Space

School yards are an important component of open space systems within mature urban environments where available land for these purposes is scarce and costly. A number of the former municipalities encouraged the co-location of schools and parks within Official Plans and other municipal policies in order to maximize the use of school sites and increase children's access to high quality, multi-functional outdoor play space. Conversely, boards of education have been issued long term permits allowing them daytime usage of a number of local parks as a means of enlarging school playgrounds and providing more varied outdoor activities. The natural linkage of these public amenities occurs throughout the new City, and requires decision-makers to take a more holistic view of the changes being brought about by Bill 160.

C) Land Use

The Official Plan and zoning designations for each of the Catholic school sites identified for review are outlined in the land use descriptions contained within Appendix C of this report. If the other public bodies identified for first right of refusal do not exercise their option to purchase surplus sites, the Ontario Realty Corporation will be authorized to sell them to private sector interests. In instances where the approved land use permissions contemplate uses beyond school facilities, the majority of sites permit low density residential development, in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhoods.

As a means of gaining an understanding of future population growth, information about development applications in the vicinity of the review schools has also been compiled. There is the potential for an additional 3,878 residential units in the areas surrounding these sites. These new developments, along with any residential intensification which may occur as a result of the redevelopment of surplus school sites, must be factored into any consideration of future school facility needs.

7. Joint Strategic Planning Initiative

The magnitude of the amount of unfunded school facility space, the important role that schools play in the delivery of local services and the difficulty of acquiring appropriate sites in mature urban settings for future educational needs, requires a broader planning initiative. In discussions with staff from the respective school boards, it has become clear that the public interest in these sites extends well beyond traditional areas of education services, to encompass a number of local community objectives.

Staff from Urban Planning and Development Services have met with school board staff regarding a number of issues in the past that have resulted in information-sharing, collaboration and issue resolution. City staff can play a critical role in the current process. Staff from UPDS can make a strategic contribution to understanding the present and future characteristics of the communities across the City that may be impacted by school closures. The work being undertaken within my Department on development charges, the Official Plan and the identification of vulnerable communities across the City will be useful in assisting school trustees to develop a strategic planning initiative for school facilities.

In order to ensure that the public assets recommended for retention best meet the needs of the City's residents, staff from the City, TDSB and TCDSB have identified a need to undertake:

• a comprehensive assessment of facility requirements and existing assets
• an inventory of cross-jurisdictional investment within the school facilities under review
• identification of appropriate geographic areas of study and the preparation of community profiles for each
• an estimation of the impact on residents' access to programs and local amenities in the context of school closures
• identification of areas likely to experience residential intensification and the estimated facility requirements to meet residential growth
• the preparation of recommendations to City Council and the Boards of Trustees for both school boards, for their consideration

A planning initiative of this scope will require the agreement of the Ministry of Education and Training to revise the implementation time lines, in order for the results of the strategic plan to be used to their fullest extent. I am therefore proposing that a meeting be convened between appropriate senior staff to discuss the nature of the proposal and the associated time lines.

Conclusions:

The implications of Bill 160 for City of Toronto residents are significant in their magnitude and scope, and it is critical that decision-makers at all levels of government understand and respect the unique relationships between social infrastructure and the broader community in which it is located.

City staff can make a valuable contribution toward strengthening the case for City residents' access to the kinds of educational facilities that exist in other parts of the Province. The strategic planning initiative being proposed is an important first step.

Contact Name:

Ann-Marie Nasr

Toronto City Hall Office (392-0402)

Reviewed by:

Paul J. BedfordVirginia M. West

Executive Director and Chief PlannerCommissioner of

City Planning DivisionUrban Planning and Development Services

[p:\1998\ug\uds\pln\ud981710)cc]