School Board Contributions and

the Development Industry.

 The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 12, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Transportation Services:

 Purpose:

 This report has been prepared in response to a request for information regarding the potential impact of the recent changes in educational funding on the land use approval process and how the City intends to ensure that school needs are addressed in relation to development applications in a consistent manner.

 Recommendations:

 (1)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to convene a meeting with appropriate Toronto District School Board and Toronto Catholic School Board officials to:

 (a)develop a protocol for addressing new residential development applications;

 (b)review the impacts of the new education funding approach on the existing school infrastructure;

 (c)review any proposed plan to close and/or dispose of school sites by the respective Boards; and

 (d)consider facility requirements with respect to services that may be displaced as a result of the changes in education funding;

 and that reports on the above matters be forwarded, as required, to the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

 (2)that this report be forwarded to the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board for their consideration.

 Council Reference/Background/History:

 The ability of school facilities to accommodate the additional demand generated by residential development has been a long-standing issue for the development industry, municipalities and School Boards. The former municipalities and School Boards have developed different approaches for addressing the issue of school capacity as it relates to residential development.

 At its meeting on April 1, 1998, the Etobicoke Community Council had before it a development application for two condominium apartment buildings with a total of 219 units. The Etobicoke Community Council instructed Urban Planning and Development Services staff to inform School Board officials that until the School Boards have enacted an education development charges by-law, the Council will no longer be including the Boards' requests for capital cost contributions as a condition of approval of residential development. The Council also adopted the following motion:

 "The Etobicoke Community Council on April 1, 1998, referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee the whole issue of School Board contributions, for discussion, review and recommendation with a view to achieving equity and fairness across the City of Toronto for the School Boards and the development industry."

 In addition Councillor Adams moved the following motion at the April 20 and 21, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

 "That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Service be requested to include in the 1998 City Planning Work Program, the start of a planning review to determine:

 (i)an appropriate redevelopment strategy for those lands and buildings which may become available as a result of school closures within the City of Toronto; and

 (ii)whether it is necessary to acquire some of these sites, in whole or in part, for municipal purposes;

 having regard for community requirements such as parks and recreation, and noting that most school yards are used by neighbours as a form of open, public space, in some instances acting as an extension of an adjacent public park."

 In the preparation of this report City staff have had some preliminary discussions with staff from both the Public and Catholic School Boards. They have indicated their interest in having further discussions to address the issue of the implications of the new funding arrangement on schools in the City, a protocol for dealing with new residential development applications, as well as the potential "disposition" of existing school sites.

 This report provides an overview of the issues facing both the School Boards and the new City. It recommends that a joint committee of appropriate staff from the two School Boards meet with City planning staff to address the above recommendations.

 Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

 Impacts of the Changes in Education Funding:

 The relationship between the former municipal planning departments and their respective School Boards varied considerably. With the advent of the new City we have a critical opportunity to forge a strong and mutually supportive working relationship with both district School Boards. This is a critical time for both the School Boards and the City, as the Province launches a new funding relationship with each. Co-ordinating our planning efforts will assist us in recognizing and, where appropriate, preserving the valued resource that our schools play in our communities.

 In response to the motion recently approved by the Urban Environment and Development Committee respecting school sites, planning staff have had preliminary discussions with staff from both School Boards. We have proposed that we begin meeting immediately to clarify the overall issues affecting the School Boards and how this will impact on the current school infrastructure. Schools are a critical element of neighbourhoods. At a very basic level they serve to: enhance community lifestyle and identification with a neighbourhood structure; provide a community resource for activities outside of the school day - internal and external play/open space; enhance a municipality's ability to attract and support growth; and enhance marketability of housing development.

 At this point the work program is aimed at answering some critical questions. We will need to define what the impact of the Province's Student Focussed Funding Model will have on the community school environment over the long term. How can the School Boards ensure that they will be in a position to provide additional accommodation where and when it is needed over the long term? What will the Boards' strategy be around addressing excess "unfunded" school facilities? Which communities will be affected by the potential closure of schools? How will the open space/parks need of communities be impacted by a potential ownership change for a school site? How will supportive services such as daycares and parent resource centres be accommodated in the community, if displaced from the school facilities?

 The disposition of school sites by School Boards was governed by Section 194 of the Education Act. That section was amended substantially by Bill 160 with the result that the Minister's control over the sale or disposition of school property has been expanded. The provisions in Bill 160 and the supporting legislation make the policy direction of the Province quite clear. Its intention is to require that School Boards dispose of space where there is excess pupil capacity. Any excess of pupil capacity over needs will receive neither operating grants for maintenance purposes, nor renewal grants for capital purposes. In addition, there will be no general capital funding available for new pupil places for a Board retaining excess pupil spaces, which will also result in a Board not being eligible to pass an education development charges by-law.

 The Province has taken over the funding for education. Funding is now provided as an annual per pupil grant allocation, determined by the Province and provided to each School Board. The grant will fund the costs of operating, maintaining, constructing (excluding land costs which are to be covered by the Educational Development Charge) school facilities and debt service costs for prior capital projects. The funding corresponds to the number of students not the existing infrastructure. The funding model recognizes 100 square feet/child of gross space (includes corridors, offices, etc.). For the Toronto District School Board the preliminary figures associated with this funding model result in the new funding formula recognizing and supporting (heat, light electricity and maintenance) 33 million square feet of school space. The current portfolio of the public board is 44 million square feet of school infrastructure, thereby resulting in an 11 million square foot discrepancy. These are preliminary figures and, given the complexity of the funding arrangements as well as the fact that this is unchartered territory, School Board staff are carefully reviewing their options. However, once the School Boards have determined what the funding will support, in terms of both the program as well as the physical infrastructure, it will be critical for the City to work with the Boards to assess appropriate responses. Based on the Provincial time-lines, School Boards must determine their "surplus" by September 1998.

 Toronto District School Board staff have indicated that they are in the process of completing the review of all school facilities within the newly amalgamated School Board. Specifically, the review will detail the age and state of repair of facilities, their proximity to neighbouring schools and each site's development potential.

 The Toronto District Catholic School Board is also subject to the same funding restrictions, and staff have indicated that a review of school facilities within this Board may be conducted at some future point in time.

 There is a recognition of the City's interest in these matters and the need for consultation. A number of elementary schools house licensed daycare and nursery school programs, parent resource centres, and recreational facilities and programs. The potential impact on the delivery of municipal programs is difficult to ascertain at this point in time, without more detailed information about the communities which will be effected. However, it is critical that this open dialogue be strengthened and continued throughout the decision-making process. I am therefore recommending that discussions be initiated between City planning staff and staff from both the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto District Catholic School Board with a view to ensuring that any consolidation of capital assets is carried out in a co-ordinated manner.

 Education Development Charges:

 The new Educational Development Charge (EDC) legislation is contained in the provisions of the Education Quality Improvement Act, S.O. 1997 c. 31. The EDCs will fund only the acquisition of new school sites required as the result of residential growth. The Provincial Government will fund the construction costs of the school facilities through its pupil accommodation grants (which fund three components: school operation, school renewal and new pupil places). Only Boards in growth areas where enrolment exceeds the capacity of all of their school facilities will be permitted to impose an EDC by-law. From a legislative standpoint, a Board is eligible to impose EDCs if the average total enrolment over the term of the by-law exceeds capacity for either the elementary or the secondary schools. The enrolment figures for the entire school district area must be used, which for Toronto would be the entire City. Therefore, if one community within the City suffers from over-enrolment, this may be offset by the number of "vacant" pupil places available in other areas of the City. The Ministry will also be determining the capacity of schools and will not rely on the current individual School Board figures. This has raised concerns around the possibility that the Ministry would not recognize programs such as daycare centres located in schools and would view this as surplus space and thereby "excess" capacity. The grant structure essentially encourages the Boards to dispose of surplus space or face a reduction in their grant. The clear intent of Bill 160 is to limit the ability of School Boards to charge EDCs.

 The education development charge does not address the needs of a built-up urban environment such as the City of Toronto. The clear focus of the new legislation is on areas facing a substantial amount of new growth (as found in the '905' districts). It does not recognize the complexity of dealing with incremental growth in a mature urban structure which creates problems when the City needs to consider addressing the service requirements of large new Ain-fill@ residential projects in areas which were historically commercial/industrial. While some areas of the City do have the "capacity" to address additional growth, other areas do not. In addition, the condition of the aging stock of many of the existing schools in the City is not factored into the EDC approach.

 The EDC is a tool that School Boards can consider using (if they meet the fairly stringent criteria). However, School Boards continue to have the legislated mandate to address school accommodation concerns. The following section outlines the current planning provisions that enable School Boards to come forward with their concerns around accommodating pupils generated from new development. However, the challenge facing the School Boards, the City and the development industry is defining how the City=s School Boards intend to address the impacts of incremental growth in the absence of an EDC.

 Planning Act:

 Another issue that has come forward in response to the Province taking over the funding of education is what role the School Boards have in the approval of new development. Mayor McCallion of Mississauga forwarded a letter to the Honourable Al Leach asking for clarification on this matter. The Ministry response focused on three areas: the Education Development Charge provisions granted under the Education Quality Improvement Act; the new funding model for Education; and the provisions contained in the Planning Act. The letter identified that School Boards do have the right to review development applications (particularly plans of subdivision). The letter also re-stated that the boards, along with municipal councils and the OMB, in carrying out their responsibilities under the Planning Act, shall have regard to the adequate provision and distribution of educational facilities. The Ministry also made reference to section 1.1.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement which provides that a municipality in considering development proposals, shall have regard to supporting long-term economic prosperity by making provisions such that public service facilities will be available to accommodate the projected growth.

 As noted previously, it is timely for the new City to forge a strong working relationship with both boards of education. While the references in the provincial letter pertaining to the Planning Act and policy provisions do not in themselves require new consideration on the part of the municipality, they support the need to share information and to develop an enhanced awareness of what the situation will be for schools in the new City. The connections between the new funding formula, the provisions contained in the new Education Act, as well as the current provisions of the Planning Act, necessitate that we view them together as a combined legislative/policy package. This package will impact on both the existing infrastructure as well as how School Boards will respond to and manage growth within the various neighbourhoods of the new City.

 Ultimately, we will need to develop a protocol around how to address new residential planning applications. Clearly, it is in our interests to develop this in co-operation with the School Boards, to preempt the potential for appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board. This is not new ground for some of the former municipalities which did work co-operatively with their School Boards. In Etobicoke the planning department included the Board's request for capital cost contributions as a condition to approval for certain developments.

 Within the former City of Toronto there was a fairly strong and co-operative relationship between the planning functions of the Board and the municipality. This relationship was forged in response to the Board's earlier appeal of a number of planning applications to the OMB. It was not in either the City's, the Board's or the developer's interest to have this adversarial environment continue. The outcome was a two-prong policy response. For minor/small site applications the Public Board passed a policy direction that would not result in the Board appealing a development if it resulted in ten or less additional pupils. For large site redevelopments the City agreed to support the Board's interests in addressing the need for school space. This resulted in the City bringing the School Board to the table in our negotiations with the respective developers. From this approach a number of agreements were entered into which ensured that the capital requirements for schools (construction costs and, in one case, a site) were addressed prior to City Council approving the redevelopment (Railway Lands and Bathurst-Strachan). Using the Abest practices@ from our combined previous experience we will develop a new protocol to address new residential development applications. We hope to undertake this effort in full co-operation with both School Boards.

 Interim Development Application Review Process:

 Toronto District School Board staff have indicated that the interim procedure for dealing with development applications requires all former area boards of education to forward a list of applications received to the Superintendent of Capital and Planning on a monthly basis. The information will then be compiled and submitted to the Toronto District School Board for its consideration.

 If a particular neighbourhood school is over-capacity, the City will be advised that any pupils generated by the new development may not be accommodated within their communities, and may be bussed to schools which have capacity. If the neighbourhood school has capacity, the City will be advised that at the present time the pupils may be accommodated within the local school, but should enrolment change, they may be bussed to another school.

 A report which establishes a formal review procedure is being prepared by Toronto District School Board staff and will be before the Board within the next few months. Prior to finalizing this report, staff are interested in obtaining our input to ensure that the "protocol" works in both the Board and City's interests.

 The Toronto District Catholic School Board's practices remain unchanged. Development applications are reviewed centrally, and the Board's comments and recommendations are forwarded to the relevant Urban Planning and Development Services staff.

 Conclusions:

 School Boards have often felt in the past that their issues are over-looked in the municipal planning and zoning process. Each of the former municipalities had developed different working relationships with their respective former School Boards, which now should be standardized. The need to do this is complicated by the amalgamation of the seven former public Boards of Education into a single entity, the changes which the City is currently undergoing as well as changes in the Provincial funding formulas. However, in discussions staff have indicated a willingness to forge a stronger relationship between the planning functions of the Toronto District School Board and the City. In addition, staff of the Toronto Catholic District School Board are also very interested in establishing a strong relationship with the new City. This is a critical step in ensuring that we develop a co-operative and supportive relationship between the City and both School Boards.

 With respect to the proposed closure of school facilities, it is important to recognize that as public bodies with service delivery obligations, the issues facing School Boards and municipalities are naturally intertwined. In the present climate of administrative and budgetary change, it is crucial that information is collected and shared in an open and collaborative fashion. Elected officials at all levels of local government will be making decisions that will effect the well-being of the City's residents in the months to come, and the establishment of mechanisms for co-ordinated action and dialogue will greatly assist in the protection of public services and amenities.

 Contact Name:

 Mr. John Gladki, Director of Programs Division, City Hall Office, 392-7186.

 The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following Committee Transmittal (April 16, 1998) from the City Clerk:

 Recommendation:

 The Etobicoke Community Council on April 1, 1998, referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee the whole issue of School Board contributions, for discussion, review and recommendation with a view to achieving equity and fairness across the City of Toronto for the School Boards and the development industry.

 Background:

 The Etobicoke Community Council had before it a report dated April 1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, with respect to an application for amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit the development of two condominium apartment buildings, ten and 15 storeys in height, containing a total of 219 units, to be development in conjunction with an existing 12-storey rental apartment building located at the south-east corner of Royal York Road and LaRose Avenue.

 In referring this application to a public meeting on May 6, 1998, the Etobicoke Community Council also requested staff of the Urban Development Department to advise the School Boards that until such time as a development charges by-law is passed by the Boards, the Etobicoke Community Council will no longer be including the Boards= request for capital cost contributions as a condition to approval for residential development.

 The Etobicoke Community Council referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee the whole issue of School Board contributions, for discussion, review and recommendation with a view to achieving equity and fairness across the City of Toronto for the School Boards and the development industry.