School Facility Review City-Wide.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that Council:
(A)adopt the report (September 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services,
subject to:
(1)amending Recommendation No. (1) by striking out the words "strategic planning initiative" and inserting in
lieu thereof the word "plan"; so that the Recommendation now reads as follows:
"(1)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and appropriate City staff be requested to
participate in the development of a plan 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)adding thereto the following new Recommendation No. (5):
"(5)a copy of this report be forwarded to the Children's Action Committee and the School Tax Sub-Committee;
and the School Tax Sub-Committee be requested to submit its recommendations thereon to the Urban
Environment and Development Committee as soon as possible.";
(B)pledge full co-operation with the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School
Board;
(C)direct that an emergency joint meeting be convened between City Council, the Toronto District School Board
and the Toronto Catholic District School Board with respect to this matter;
(D)request the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:
(a)in developing the plan for school facilities referred to in Recommendation No.(1), embodied in the report
(September 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to consider a system
of incentives for retaining lands and space that deliver important community programs and amenities;
(b)to ensure that any public meetings held with respect to this matter include the local Councillors; and
(c)to submit to the Urban Environment and Development Committee a list of all school sites located within the
City of Toronto, and the zoning designation for each site; and
(E)request the Commissioner of Urban Environment and Development Services, in co-ordination with the
Commissioners of Community and Neighbourhood Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to
catalogue the City's capital investment in all schools and school-related properties throughout Toronto.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:
(1)requested that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:
(a)distribute to all Members of Council the Toronto District School Board's School Review Area report as soon as it is
available in order to permit Members to alert their communities of the specific nature of the problem on a timely basis;
and
(b)provide a briefing package to all Members of Council on a Ward-by-Ward basis; and
(2)directed that a copy of the report (September 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services be forwarded to the Economic Development Committee for information; and requested the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services to direct the Manager of Policy and Programs, City Planning Division, to
make a presentation thereon to the Economic Development Committee:
The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (September 17, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:
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 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 as 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; and
(4)that a copy of 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 co-operation with staff from the Children's Services, Public
Health and Recreation Divisions.
Discussion:
(1)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; and
-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.
(2)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 undergoing 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 its review policies
and identify 29 elementary schools throughout the City which meet two out of the three 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 percent 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 its own assessment
process and report its 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 1998 regarding the results of both processes and final recommendations regarding the consolidation and
ultimate disposition of its surplus assets. This ambitious time line meets 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.
(3)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 affect 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.
(4)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 (UPDS) 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 the 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; and
-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:
Ms. Ann-Marie Nasr, City Hall Office, 392-0402.
Appendix A
City Programs and Interests in Catholic Schools Identified for Review |
School |
Address |
Ward |
City Programs |
97/98 Enrolment |
Etobicoke |
|
|
|
|
Mother Cabrini |
720 Renforth Avenue |
4 |
no City programming at this site |
160 |
North York |
|
|
|
|
St. Camillo de Lellis |
77 Stanley Road |
6 |
outdoor pool & community centre at
adjacent Stanley Park; Recreation
programs offered for children in gym and
playing field 2 nights a week; fall fitness
programs on Saturdays; no capital
funding; parks deficient area |
192 |
St. Gaspar |
135 Plunkett Road |
6 |
tiny tots program offered by Recreation
year round in classroom and gym; no
capital funding;
parks deficient area |
182 |
Venerable John Merlini |
123 Whitfield Avenue |
6 |
adjacent to Apted Park; tiny tots program
offered year round in tutorial room,
classroom, gym and playing field; no
capital funding;
parks deficient area |
221 |
St. Robert |
819 Sheppard Avenue West |
10 |
Recreation summer camp program
offered in gym, 2classrooms and playing
fields; no capital funding;
parks deficient area |
459 |
St. Leonard |
100 Ravel Road |
12 |
MTHA-run youth programs offered in
gym; North York General Hospital
operates the "Friendship Village"
program in summer;
no parks deficiency |
147 |
Blessed Kateri Tekawitha |
70 Margaret Avenue |
12 |
adjacent to Van Horne Park; no
Recreation programming;
daycare licensed for 31 children aged 2 ½
to 9 years;
parks deficient area |
185 |
Our Lady of Mount Carmel |
270 Cherokee Blvd |
12 |
Recreation Summer Fun Program offered
in two classrooms & gym; adjacent to
Shawnee Park;
parks deficient area |
160 |
Holy Redeemer |
111 Aspenwood Dr. |
12 |
no City programming;
no parks deficiency |
169 |
York |
|
|
|
|
St. Alphonsus |
60 Atlas Avenue |
28 |
5 hours of programming for adults and
children on a permit basis; City-funded
capital expenditures contemplated for
1999;
parks deficient area |
255 |
Scarborough |
|
|
|
|
Our Lady of Good Counsel |
2900 Midland Ave |
17 |
no City programming |
168 |
St. Cyprian |
3150 Pharmacy Avenue |
17 |
no City programming; parks deficient
area |
144 |
St. John Fisher |
44 Kelvinway Dr |
14 |
no City programming; adjacent to Chester
Park;
parks deficient area |
155 |
St. Gabriel Lalemant |
160 Crow Trail |
18 |
no City programming |
478 |
St. Ignatius of Loyola |
2350 McCowan Road |
18 |
no City programming; adjacent to
Iroquois Park |
204 |
Toronto |
|
|
|
|
Richard W. Scott |
151 Rosemount Avenue |
21 |
daycare licensed for 15developmentally
handicapped children aged 6 to 12 years;
recreation summer programming for
children and youth; $200,000 City-funded
capital improvements to wading pool,
play structure, greening, soccer/baseball
field. |
351 |
St. Peter |
700 Markham Street |
23 |
no City programming; nocapital
improvements;
no parks deficiency |
164 |
St. Raymond |
1270 Barton Avenue |
21 |
Community use of school yard after
hours; City-funded capital improvements
to basketball/volleyball courts,
playground equipment, greening &
community mural; no parks deficiency |
329 |
St. Rita |
178 Edwin Avenue |
21 |
no City programming; nocapital
improvements; noparks deficiency |
233 |
St. Josaphat |
160 Franklin Avenue |
21 |
no City programming; nocapital
improvements; noparks deficiency |
273 |
St. Lucy |
80 Clinton Avenue |
20 |
no City programming; no capital
improvements; parks deficient area |
144 |
St. Francis of Assisi |
250 Manning Avenue |
20 |
no City programming; no capital
improvements; parks deficient area |
302 |
St. Ann |
55 Howie Avenue |
25 |
daycare licensed for 61 children aged 2 ½
to 12 years; breakfast program; no
Recreation programming; City-funded
capital improvement to playground;
no parks deficiency |
112 |
St. William |
343 Jones Avenue |
26 |
daycare licensed for 30 school aged
children; no Recreation programming; no
capital improvements;
parks deficient area |
140 |
Holy Name |
690 Carlaw Avenue |
25 |
daycare licensed for 51 children aged 2 ½
to 9 years; community use of school yard
after hours; $50,000 City-funded capital
improvements to multi-purpose facilities;
noparks deficiencies |
197 |
St. Michael Annex |
27 Lower Jarvis Street |
24 |
no City programming; nocapital
improvements;
no parks deficiency |
---- |
St. Paul |
80 Sackville Street |
25 |
parent-child drop-in; breakfast program;
$40,000City-funded greening initiative
for play yard about to commence;
no parks deficiency |
282 |
Corpus Christi |
42 Edgewood Avenue |
26 |
parent-child drop-in; multi-phased capital
improvement agreement with City's
contribution not to exceed $75,000 |
180 |
East York |
|
|
|
|
Canadian Martyrs |
520 Plains Road |
1 |
54-child daycare;
no recreation programming;
no capital funding;
parks deficient area |
194 |
Ms. Ann-Marie Nasr, Manager, Policy and Programs, City Planning Division, Urban Planning and Development Services
Department, made an overhead presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with
the foregoing matter.
(A copy of the map, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the
agenda of the October 5, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is
also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)