School Planning - City-Wide
The Policy and Finance Committee recommends the adoption of the report (October 7, 1999) from the Acting
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services subject to:
(A)amending Recommendation No. (1) by adding thereto the following words "that such assessment include Child
Care Centres, after school and other recreational and community use", so that Recommendation No. (1) shall now
read as follows:
"(1)the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board be requested to undertake
an assessment of the broader community's use of schools, specifically in the communities currently facing closures;
that such assessment include Child Care Centres, after school and other recreational and community use;" ; and
(B)amending Recommendation No. (2) by adding thereto the following words "and that these recommendations
and any community meetings concerning school closures be sent to affected Councillors, City staff and users", so
that Recommendation No. (2) shall now read as follows:
"(2)the Toronto District School Board be requested to provide City staff with the opportunity to review the
proposed recommendations of the school Closure Implementation Teams and provide comments for Board staff's
consideration in the preparation of their final report and that these recommendations and any community meetings
concerning school closures be sent to affected Councillors, City staff and users;".
The Policy and Finance Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred the communication (September
27, 1999) from the City Clerk, containing the Recommendations of the School Tax Sub-Committee entitled "School
Closings", to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of
Community and Neighbourhood Services for further consideration and report thereon, in an expeditious manner, to the
Policy and Finance Committee.
The Policy and Finance Committee submits the following report (October7, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To provide a preliminary assessment of the impact of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) Phase I school closures
on the local delivery of municipal services and programs. To provide the information and background in a report format,
for the recommendations approved at the September27, 1999, meeting of the School Tax Sub-Committee.
Financial Implications:
Potential financial impacts for the City will be reported on separately once additional information is provided by the
Toronto District School Board with respect to the issues raised in this report.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board be requested to undertake an
assessment of the broader community's use of schools, specifically in the communities currently facing closures;
(2)the Toronto District School Board be requested to provide City staff with the opportunity to review the proposed
recommendations of the school Closure Implementation Teams and provide comments for Board staff's consideration in
the preparation of their final report;
(3)the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services develop principles for the reuse of surplus
school facilities jointly with Toronto District School Board staff, in consultation with the Commissioners of Community
Services and Corporate Services, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism approved by both the Toronto District
School Board and City Council; and
(4)this report be forwarded to the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board for
information.
Executive Summary:
Despite revisions to the Provincial funding formula for the operation and maintenance of schools, the Toronto District
School Board has 2 million square feet of unfunded facility space. In order to bring expenditures in line with Provincial
funding, the TDSB has embarked on a school closure process which will result in the closure of an estimated 30 schools
over a three year period.
The City has made extensive use of school facilities primarily for the delivery of recreation, licensed child care and public
health programs. Within the 10 schools identified for closure in June 2000, the following municipal programs are offered:
(i)3,937 hours of recreation programming ranging from aquatics programs to after school programs, for a total of 9,764
participants;
(ii)27.7 acres of open space is available for outdoor recreation programming and use by local residents;
(iii)6 licensed child care programs offering a total of 325 spaces for children aged 18 months to 12 years; and
(iv)dental screening, immunization and prenatal support offered by Public Health.
An eleventh school is undergoing further review (Cordella), and could also be approved for closure in June 2000.
The broader community's use of school facilities has not been inventoried, however staff are recommending the
development of principles for reuse, which would protect use of these publicly funded facilities.
The City will be invited to express its interest in these sites, in addition to a number of other public bodies, through a
Provincially regulated (regulation 446) "Proposal Call" process. The inter-departmental staff team will undertake further
analysis to review the ability of these sites to further City service priorities and objectives, this will also include an
assessment of the financial implications. The staff response to the Proposal Call will then be brought forward to Council
for their consideration.
Background:
At its meeting held on October 30, 1998, Members of Council adopted a report originating from the Urban Environment
and Development Committee regarding potential school closures throughout the City. Changes in Provincial funding for
the operation and maintenance of school facilities proposed at that time would have resulted in the closure of up to 160
schools. As a consequence, City staff were authorized to work with officials from both the Toronto Catholic District
School Board (TCDSB) and the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) to ameliorate the impacts of insufficient Provincial
funding for the operation and maintenance of Toronto schools.
Since the adoption of the aforementioned report, a number of revisions have been made to the Provincial funding formulae
for the operation and maintenance of school facilities including:
(i)one year delay in the implementation of funding reforms, and an assurance that no school board will receive less
money in 1999 than it did in 1998;
(ii)top-up of up to 20percent for the operation and maintenance of school facilities at less than full capacity to be
calculated annually;
(iii)recognition of unique design features of older school facilities;
(iv)additional funds for the renewal of aging school facilities; and
(v)annual review and adjustment of capacity and enrolment figures.
These changes have resulted in a reduction in unfunded space within TDSB schools from 11million square feet to 2
million, and an additional $54 M for facility operations and renewal.
Despite these funding reforms the TDSB has an annual budget shortfall of $73 M for these line expenditures. The shortfall
is largely attributable to the TDSB's outstanding capital funding requirements for aging school facilities and the
discrepancy between the actual operating costs of $5.95 per square foot and the Provincial allocation of $5.20 per square
foot.
In order to bring expenditures in line with Provincial funding, the TDSB has approved the closure of 10 school facilities for
educational purposes, effective June, 2000. Plans to close an eleventh school will undergo further review, and a decision to
close this school in June, 2000 will be made in the New Year. This is the first phase of a 3 year process expected to result
in the closure of up to 30 public schools throughout the City.
The preparation of all of the staff reports have required an inter-departmental team approach, consisting of staff from:
Community and Neighbourhoods Services, Children's Services Division; Economic Development, Culture and Tourism,
Parks and Recreation Division; Finance; Corporate Services, Property and Realty Division, City Legal; and Urban Planning
and Development Services, Planning Division. The CAO and the Senior Management Team, formalized this successful
working arrangement through the creation of the Inter-departmental Staff Working Group on School Matters. The Acting
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, serves as the coordinator of this group. This report was
prepared in coordination with the staff team.
The School Tax Sub-Committee met on September 27, 1999, to consider the matter of school closures and made the
following recommendations:
(1)there be approval, in principle, for the City of Toronto to develop a response to the Toronto District School Board
Proposal Call to identify City interests (costs and opportunities) with the final document to be approved by City Council;
(2)Toronto District School Board staff work with City staff to review implementation options developed by the
Community Implementation Teams to identify any costs to the City or community users and that notification of all
meetings be sent to affected Councillors, City staff and users;
(3)the Toronto District School Board immediately provide existing child care centres with leases to remain in closed
facilities until 2000/2001;
(4)the City and the Toronto District School Board develop principles and protocols for the reuse of school sites including
community outreach and participation, exploring opportunities to meet mutual service objectives (e.g., Child care facilities)
existing services being provided first option to lease, open space access being retained, compatibility being ensured, etc.;
(5)principles and protocols be adopted by both the City and the Toronto District School Board; and
(6)given school closings have a dramatic impact on all services affecting children, families and their communities in the
City of Toronto, the Toronto District School Board be urged to fully examine this issue, particularly as it relates to affected
programs and schools, including feeder schools.
These recommendations were forwarded to the Policy and Finance Committee for its consideration.
Comments:
(A)City Impacts:
Toronto is often described as one of the best cities in which to live. The relative safety of our neighbourhoods, the quality
of our health care and educational systems, and the City's racial and cultural diversity are what help make our communities
strong and healthy. Yet, the community and social supports which make this quality of life possible have been slowly
eroding.
Cuts in government funding have had far-reaching impacts on some of our most vulnerable residents. The cuts to welfare
payments and funding for social housing, immigrant services and health care were amongst the first impacts to be felt by
Toronto residents. The recent announcement of the closure of 10 public schools is yet another indication of the "stress"
placed on the social fabric of our neighbourhoods.
Local residents identify strongly with their local schools, and often describe them as the "heart" of their neighbourhoods.
For residents with children enrolled in the local school, it provides a venue to meet other parents and participate in a
number of formal and informal social networks. In many instances schools also serve as hubs for local service delivery, and
play yards are used extensively as local open space.
Community access to schools is also affected by school board policies restricting after hours use. The TCDSB has already
restricted community access to over 60 schools as a means of dealing with their operational deficit. TDSB staff have
reported a considerable increase in demand for community use of their facilities as a consequence of this policy. However,
the TDSB may have to enact a similar policy in response to their funding shortfalls.
Successful city-building has to have regard for residents' access to high-quality, publicly funded education. The retention
of these assets in the public realm is important in order to respond to the demographic shifts that mature neighbourhoods
regularly undergo, as well as additional demand created as a result of residential intensification. Therefore, appropriate
reuse of these facilities, with the flexibility to reopen them when required, is an important consideration for the School
Boards, the City, local residents and business owners.
(B)School Closure Process and Timing:
TDSB staff first recommended 10 school facilities for potential closure in a report to the Board of Trustees presented at
their April 28, 1999 meeting. After consultation with representatives of the effected school communities, the staff amended
their original recommendations and the Trustees made their final decision at their Board meeting held on September 29,
1999, recommending the closure of the education programs offered in the following schools, effective June 2000:
-Brookbanks Public School, D. B. Hood Public School, Earlscourt Public School, the Shaw Street portion of
Givins/Shaw Junior and Senior Public School, Grace Street Public School, Hughes Junior Public School, McNicoll Public
School, the Old Orchard portion of Ossington/Old Orchard Public School, and Midland Avenue Collegiate Institute.
-Heydon Park Secondary School will be closed as of June 2000 and the program will be relocated to D'Arcy Street
Public School. The West End Alternative School program which is presently housed within this facility will be moved to
an appropriate site elsewhere.
-The recommendation to close Cordella Public School will be further considered to determine the viability of relocating
Grade 6 students from Rockcliffe Middle School. The decision to close Cordella as of June 2000 will be revisited by the
Trustees in the New Year.
(a)Factors in Determining Candidates for Closure:
In determining the schools to be included in the first phase of recommended closures, TDSB staff first excluded schools
which:
(i)serve developmentally handicapped students solely;
(ii)have recently undergone significant capital improvements;
(iii)are situated in areas expected to undergo residential intensification;
(iv)are located within "isolated" communities that do not have neighbouring school facilities; and
(v)will undergo review in subsequent phases of the school closure exercise, such as specialized schools and those which
are operationally inefficient.
The first phase review then focussed on schools in proximity to former municipal boundaries, and with enrolment rates of
55percent or less. Additional considerations included:
(i)overall operational efficiency;
(ii)the costs associated with accommodating students within neighbouring schools;
(iii)reduction in the use of portable classrooms;
(iv)the need for capital improvements in the near future; and
(v)projected enrolments.
(b)Public Consultation:
School Boards considering the potential closure of a school facility are required to form an Area Review Committee
(ARC), comprised of parents, community members and/or secondary school students (if applicable). The TDSB ARC's
also included Trustees and school principals, and City Councillors were invited to attend as non-voting members.
The TDSB formed ARC's for each of the 10 effected schools (on 9 sites) in early May of this year. Committee members
were given an opportunity to review the factors leading up to the decision to review the school for closure, assess the
impact of potential closure and make alternative recommendations to the Board of Trustees. This work was completed in
time for the June 21, 1999 meeting of the TDSB.
Without exception, all of the ARC's recommendations advocated for the retention of either the school facility, and/or the
specific educational program. A number of ARC's recommended further exploration of the possibility of leasing portions
of schools identified for closure, as a means of raising the revenue required to keep the school open. Most expressed
concern about the tight time lines associated with the work of the ARC's.
A summary of the ARCs' recommendations is provided in Appendix A:
The TDSB will also be asking parents and community members to provide in-put into the closure implementation process
once the Closure Implementation Teams are constituted.
(C)Municipal Use of Schools:
In an effort to estimate the impact of school closures on the provision of municipal programs, the interdepartmental staff
team has compiled information regarding each of the school sites identified for closure. Local programs offered in school
facilities are provided by a variety of entities, ranging from for-profit corporations to "grass roots" groups. However, a
complete listing of these uses is not yet available from the school boards. School board staff have indicated that this
information will not be available until 2000, and so the information described below pertains only to either directly
operated municipal programs, or those receiving extensive City funding.
Licensed Child Care:
School closures will have a significant impact on the provision of child care and family resource programs. System-wide,
there are currently 325 child care centres providing licensed care for 17,241children and 18 family resource centres located
in schools operated by the TDSB, TCDSB, the French Public and French Catholic boards. The TDSB houses 87percent of
these programs within their facilities, including 285 child care centres and 14 family resource programs.
The TCDSB houses 32 child care centres and 4 family resource programs. Five of the 28 TCDSB schools identified as
candidates for closure contain child care centres. Potential TCDSB closures will impact the care of 235 children enrolled in
the child care centres housed within candidates for closure.
Finally, the French Public Board and French Catholic School Board house 4 child care programs each.
The 6 child care centres located within TDSB facilities due to close in June 2000 serve 325 children, of which 10 are
toddler age, 186 preschool age and 129 are school age. Whereas the closures of the 6 TDSB schools have the most impact
on the child care services located within them, there will also be significant pressure on recipient schools and the child care
programs they house. The majority of students displaced from the closed TDSB schools will enroll in recipient schools.
There are 20 TDSB feeder schools that will be affected by the initial school closures, which also contain child care
programs. To make room for the swelling enrollment in these schools the child care centres could also face displacement or
downsizing of their space. This group of centres offers care to an additional 1,128 children, of which 10 are infants, 70 are
toddlers, 603 are preschool age and 445 are school age.
The closure of the 10 schools and the subsequent impact on the child care programs also affects service to younger aged
children as more than half of the children are infant, toddler and preschool aged. Even if the child care programs in
recipient schools are not negatively affected by school enrollment pressures, they may not have sufficient licensed
vacancies to accommodate the children from the centres in the closed schools. While it may be possible to negotiate shared
use of school space for some of the displaced programs for school aged children, this is not an option for the younger
children who require dedicated space. Increasingly schools are reluctant to allow the shared use of their classroom space
with child care.
Child care programs facing displacement do not always have the option of relocating their programs to other locations.
Because child care programs must meet the requirements of the Day Nurseries Act, finding suitable alternative space in the
surrounding communities affected by school closures will be difficult if not impossible. In addition to the difficulty in
funding suitable space, the capital costs associated may prove prohibitive. A conservative estimate of the capital costs
associated with relocating child care for the youngest children expected to be displaced by TDSB school closure in 2000 is
$2.4 million. The estimate assumes a per space relocation and renovation cost of $12,300.00. To meet the child care need
created over the full three year phased closure of schools, an estimated $10.8 million would be required. These figures do
not include the impact of potential TCDSB closures.
The current Child Care Capital Reserve of $900,000.00 is insufficient to address the combined impact of forced relocation
of child care centres as a result of school closures and changing school enrollment patterns. The Child Care Capital
Reserve was originally established as an emergency response to a handful of child care centres whose future was threatened
first by school renovations. In addition to the pressure for capital funds there will be increased operating costs resulting
from relocation of child care programs into community space. Escalating per diem costs will result in on-going pressures
on operating funds.
However, the TDSB has indicated that in some instances it may be appropriate for the child care operators to remain in the
closed school, and share the facility with a new tenant. Care would have to be taken to ensure that any reuse of closed
schools is compatible with child care, and any other service provider. This could substantially reduce the need for capital
funding for the relocation of programs for younger children. However, the ultimate decision rests with the centre operators
and their respective parents. In some cases, the program is directly dependent on the physical location and would therefore
want to remain in the facility. In other cases the program is more strongly connected with the school community and would
more than likely want to re-locate to the "recipient" school. Each case must be assessed individually, within its local and
programmatic context.
In addition, service providers located within the surplus schools report being adversely affected by the announcement of the
closure of their host school. Some parents are opting to enroll their children in other programs in order to avoid the
possibility of a disruption of service later on. This creates a drain on limited financial resources which may be required in
the event that the program is relocated. Staff are therefore recommending a minimum security of tenure for these programs
until at least the end of the 2000/2001 academic year. This will provide an appropriate and important "safety net" for these
facilities, as well time to plan for any potential relocation.
School closures and the resulting loss of child care space may also threaten the City's ability to realize their service targets.
The City maintains a service agreement with the Ministry of Community and Social Services which outlines service level
expectations. School-based programs provide a significant proportion of the total service capacity, and the ability to meet
the service levels required is dependent upon having sufficient licensed child care space available for families.
With over 12,745 children currently waiting for subsidized child care space in Toronto, it is apparent that the current needs
for child care are not being met. Further loss of licensed child care space will extend the time families and children wait for
child care service. Estimating dollar costs alone does not adequately reflect the impact of lost community-based services to
children and families.
A description of child care programs in TDSB schools identified for closure is contained in Appendix B.
Parks and Recreation Programs:
Parks and Recreation operates many programs in school facilities throughout the City, largely through the permitting of
space during after-school hours and during the summer months, but also through the terms and conditions of various
agreements with the TDSB. This includes programs utilizing both indoor and outdoor facilities and amenities. In a number
of cases, the City has also contributed capital dollars toward the development or enhancement of recreational facilities on
TDSB property.
Parks and Recreation also recognizes that the community at large makes extensive use of TDSB facilities for numerous
recreational pursuits. Both indoor and outdoor facilities are used year round for activities such as socials, fitness programs,
as well as numerous sports and community events.
(a)Recreation:
With reference to the ten closures slated for June 2000, Parks and Recreation provides programs in six of those schools,
involving almost 10,000 participants annually. Appendix D summarizes current programming of those facilities and
illustrates the City's capital investment in those sites. Parks and Recreation staff have reviewed each school to be closed
and identified alternative locations to deliver the majority of the current programs. Their analysis and options for each are
as follows:
(1)Brookbanks Public School:
Parks and Recreation currently operates an Afterschool Arts Studio for children (34 participants) and Special Needs
programs for youth and for adults (120 participants) during the winter months.
The Afterschool program can be relocated to nearby Fenside Public School at minimal cost.
Relocation of the Special Needs programs is problematic due to the lack of permit availability in nearby schools and the
need for an accessible facility of sufficient size and suitable layout for the program. Alternatives are still being investigated
at this time.
No specific agreement exists and no capital improvements have been made to this site.
(2)Cordella Public School:
Parks and Recreation does not offer programs at this location. No specific agreement exists and no capital improvements
have been made at this site.
(3)D.B. Hood Community School:
Parks and Recreation does not offer programs at this location. No specific agreement exists and no capital improvements
have been made at this site.
(4)Earlscourt Junior Public School:
A summer Playschool Program for preschoolers (65 participants annually) and summer Sports Programs for children and
youth (165 participants annually) are offered at this site. As Stella Maris Catholic Secondary School shares this site and is
suitable for both programs and is not affected by the closing of Earlscourt, no implications for these programs are
anticipated.
No specific agreement exists and no capital improvements have been made to this site.
(5)Givins/Shaw Junior and Senior Public School:
A Youth Gym Night (18 participants annually) operates in the Shaw facility during the winter months and a children's
T-Ball League (118 participants annually) functions at this site during the summer. As only the Givins facility is slate to
close, no effect on either program is foreseen.
A 1981 shared use agreement exists at this site and the City invested $177,150.00 into schoolyard improvements including
sports field. construction and landscaping up-grades.
(6)Grace Public School:
Parks and Recreation does not offer programs at this location.
A 1985 shared use agreement exists at this site and the City invested $176,000.00 into schoolyard improvements.
(7)Heydon Park Secondary School:
Parks and Recreation does not offer programs at this location. No specific agreement exists and no capital improvements
have been made at this site.
(8)Hughes Junior Public School:
A Playschool Program for preschoolers (96 participants annually) and Sports Camps (128participants annually) for both
children and youth operate out of this school during the summer months. During the winter months, programs include
children's Jazz (40 participants annually) and Tae-kwondo (68 participants annually). Proximity to the TCDSB's St.
Nicholas of Bari Secondary School allows for relocation of all programs. These programs can be relocated at minimal cost.
A 1991 shared use agreement exists at this site and the City invested $132,000.00 into schoolyard improvements including
the construction of a soccer field, a ball diamond, a bocce court, a ball hockey enclosure, a hard surface court and a play
structure.
(9)McNicoll Public School:
A children's Summer Fun Centre (240 participants annually) operates out of this facility. Nearby Hillmount Public School
is a viable relocation alternative. This program can be relocated at minimal cost.
No specific agreement exists and no capital improvements have been made at this site.
(10)Midland Avenue Collegiate Institute:
Parks and Recreation operates a large number of fitness and sports programs at this facility (505participants annually)
primarily for children and youth. The Midland facility contains a swimming pool and a full aquatic program including
Learn to Swim and Leisure Swimming opportunities (8,167 participants annually) is offered at this location.
Fitness and Aerobic programs, which draw participants from the community at large, can be relocated to McGregor Park
Community Centre. The entire aquatic program can be relocated to R.H. King Academy which Parks and Recreation
currently does not program. These programs be relocated at minimal cost.
However, the sports programs service primarily local children and youth and no suitable facility to continue these programs
currently exists.
Although the City does not have all the specifics, it should be noted that the community at large makes extensive use of
this facility, both indoors and outdoors, for a variety of purposes including sports, aquatics and social events.
A partnership agreement concerning the permitting and use of secondary school gymnasiums and an agreement concerning
shared use of pools exists between the TDSB and the former City of Scarborough. In 1965, the City paid for 50percent of
the construction cost of the Midland pool ($122,500.00).
(11)Ossington/Old Orchard Junior Public School:
Parks and Recreation does not offer programs at this location. No specific agreement exists and no capital improvements
have been made at this site.
(b)Open Space:
Parks and Recreation utilizes TDSB open space and the facilities contained thereon predominantly during the summer
months to operate a variety of programs primarily for children and youth. As school sites are generally available to the
public, it is recognized that schoolyards, with their various facilities and amenities, play a role in providing both active and
passive recreational opportunities for the local and in some cases the larger community.
With reference to the eleven schools slated to be closed in June 2000, a total of approximately 11.2hectares, or 27.7 acres
of open space exist at these sites. A specific breakdown including facilities and amenities at each site is contained in
Appendix C.
It should be noted that the Department of Economic Development and Tourism, with the assistance of Urban Planning and
Development Services, is currently undertaking a City-wide study of how Toronto's parks and open spaces are distributed
throughout the City as part of the Official Plan process. This study will include an inventory of current City owned parks
and open spaces and an assessment of which areas of the City require additional parkland. This study will also examine the
role that schoolyards play in the provision of publicly accessible open space.
Generally speaking however, should these sites cease to be available to Parks and Recreation and the community at large
for recreational use, the impact would be significant.
Public Health Programs:
The City's Public Health Department's emphasis on prevention and early intervention has resulted in extensive use of
virtually every school for programs such as dental screening, immunization and prenatal support. The majority of these
programs do not require dedicated space and tend to be quite portable. Public Health staff have indicated that these
programs will re-locate with the students, at minimal cost.
(D)Implications for Municipally Delivered Services:
In summary, many of the Recreation and Public Health programs offered at these 10 facilities serve the children attending
these schools, and can be relocated at minimal cost. The only exceptions are Recreation's youth basketball program
currently being offered at Midland Avenue Collegiate and the programs for the physically and developmentally
handicapped being provided at Brookbanks Public School. Economic Development, Culture and Tourism staff continue to
look for appropriate accommodation for these programs within the area of their present locations.
The potential impacts for child care are less straightforward. The boards of directors operating each of these programs must
first decide if they want to relocate to one of the recipient schools. In some instances, if a compatible tenant is found for the
rest of the facility, it may not be necessary or desirable for the program to move. In any event, funding for any capital
improvements required to meet licensing standards has not been identified.
(E)Costs to the City for Use of School Facilities:
Negotiations with both the TDSB and TCDSB are still on-going, however, the bulk of municipal programming occurs in
TDSB facilities. At its meeting held on April 14 and 15, 1999, Council adopted a number of motions regarding school
lands, which included a directive to staff to explore the possibility of off-setting occupancy costs associated with the City's
use of school facilities with the provision of municipal services such as water and garbage collection. Efforts are being
made to ensure that previous agreements in force in some of the former municipalities which provided for exchanges of
in-kind services, are strengthened and expanded in an effort to minimize the impact on the City's budget.
(F)Zoning and Permitted Uses of Surplus School Facilities:
With the exception of Midland Avenue Collegiate, all of the sites declared surplus have some form of residential
permission. Midland permits Institutional uses only, such as schools, day nurseries and homes for the aged, etc. Zoning and
Official Plan designations are described in Appendix E.
Council has previously requested the City Solicitor to explore the legal remedies available to the City in dealing with
surplus school sites. In particular, the possibility of re-zoning closed school sites as open space was raised.
Any amendment to a zoning by-law must be supportable on land use planning grounds. The burden is particularly heavy
when the proposal is to reduce the uses to which land can be put, especially if these uses are generally permitted in the
surrounding lands. The OMB has a long standing tendency to ensure that lands not owned by the City not be transformed
to public purposes, such as open space, by zoning instruments unless there is a commitment on the part of the municipality
to acquire the lands.
However, TDSB staff have recommended that each of the closed facilities be retained by the Board, and leased to
compatible organizations which are in compliance with the relevant Zoning By-law. Leasing is seen as a steady source of
revenue from properties already owned by the TDSB.
In order to ensure continued public access to the outdoor playing fields and other public amenities within surplus school
facilities, staff are recommending the adoption of a set of guiding principles for the re-use of these important community
assets, which would address:
(i)leasing as the first option in dealing with closed schools;
(ii)community in-put into the reuse of surplus schools;
(iii)appropriate maintenance standards for subsequent tenants;
(iv)on-going community use of closed facilities and the associated play yards; and
(v)appropriate security of tenure provisions for service providers which decide to continue to provide programs in closed
schools.
These principles would be adopted by both City Council and the TDSB and would provide a framework for staff in
determining appropriate alternate uses of surplus sites, and the required safeguards to ensure public access.
(G)City's Response to Proposals to Lease Received from School Boards:
The sale or long term lease of surplus school sites is subject to Provincial regulation 446, contained within the Education
Act which stipulate the various public bodies which must receive proposals to lease, sell or jointly-use school facilities. The
ranking of priorities are as follows:
(i)the French Public Board;
(ii)the TCDSB;
(iii)the French Catholic Board;
(iv)local universities and colleges;
(v)the City;
(vi)the Province of Ontario and its agencies;
(vii)the Government of Canada and its agencies; and
(viii)the Ontario Realty Corporation.
All of these public bodies will receive the proposals to lease simultaneously and will be given 90days to respond.
Expressions of interest will be prioritized in according to the above priorities. The regulation further dictates that the lease
or sale of the lands must be at fair market value.
In some instances, the availability of surplus school facilities may present an opportunity to meet Council objectives and
priorities. In order to respond within the 90 day time frame set out in the Provincial regulation, City staff will need to
assess local service and open space priorities, determine capital and annual operating costs and make recommendations to
Council regarding the advisability of leasing any of the surplus school sites within this phase of school closures, if any.
The Provincial regulations also stipulate that any revenues generated through the leasing of surplus educational facilities
must be placed in a Pupil Accommodation Reserve Fund, which can only be used for capital improvements to the
remaining operational schools. The TDSB views leasing as an important strategy in making up the budget shortfall of
almost $35 M/annum, for the renewal of older schools.
Staff are therefore proposing the preparation of an interdepartmental report, identifying the most appropriate sites from the
City's perspective, the costs associated with leasing them and seeking Council authority to proceed.
(H)Next Steps:
TDSB Implementation Process:
Parental in-put into the implementation process will be provided through Closure Implementation Teams (CIT's), with
representation from both the closed facility as well as the receiving schools. Former ARC members are encouraged to
participate, as well as the groups and agencies housed within the schools identified for closure as well as the receiving
schools. It is anticipated that this will include representatives from child care programs of both the closed and feeder
schools. City representatives may attend as observers.
CIT's will be asked to make recommendations regarding:
(i)the appropriate placement of displaced students;
(ii)distribution of specialized educational programs;
(iii)the placement of tenants with exclusive use of school space, such as child care; and
(iv)the safety of students required to walk longer distances to school.
The CIT's will begin to meet in October, 1999 and their findings and recommendations will be reported to the Board of
Trustees for their consideration. The staff of the TDSB will be reporting on the role of the CIT's at the October, 14, Board
meeting. The task the CIT's face is enormous. Given the significant impact on city operated and supported programs, City
staff would like to review both proposed and final recommendations developed by the CIT's to offer an assessment of the
implications for both the impacted communities, agencies and Board staff consideration.
Future Closures:
A staff report identifying candidates for closure in Phase 2 will be presented to the TDSB's Trustees in January/February,
2000, with a decision of the Board of Trustees expected in May, 2000. Phase II will effect up to 10 additional school
facilities and will focus on:
(i)operational efficiencies system-wide;
(ii)facility condition;
(iii)continuation of boundary adjustments/rationalization; and
(iv)limited program rationalization.
Closures of Phase 2 schools are expected to occur in June 2001.
It is assumed that Phase 3 will also effect up to 10 schools, however the benefits of operational efficiencies attained in the
interim may result in fewer schools being identified for closure. The focus of this phase of the school closure exercise will
be the completion of the program rationalization process. Efficiencies will be gained through a redistribution of specialized
programs, such as schools for the performing arts, alternative schools, etc., on an equitable basis.
Contact Name:
Ann-Marie Nasr, Manager, Policy and Programs, Tel: 392-0402.
--------
Appendix A
Summary of Area Review Committee Recommendations
The School Tax Sub-Committee recommends to the Policy and Finance Committee and City Council that:
(1)there be approval, in principle, for the City of Toronto to develop a response to the Toronto District School Board
Proposal Call to identify City interests (costs and opportunities) with the final document to be approved by City Council;
(2)the Toronto District School Board staff work with City staff to review implementation options developed by the
Community Implementation Teams to identify any costs to the City or community users and that notification of all
meetings be sent to affected Councillors, City staff and users;
(3)the Toronto District School Board immediately provide existing child care centers with leases to remain in closed
facilities until 2000/2001;
(4)the City and the Toronto District School Board develop principles and protocol for the re-use of school sites including
community outreach and participation, exploring opportunities to meet mutual service objectives (e.g. Child care facilities)
existing services being provided first option to lease, open space access being retained, compatibility being ensured, etc.;
(5)principles and protocols be adopted by both the City and Toronto District School Board; and
(6)given school closings have a dramatic impact on all services affecting children, families and their communities in the
City of Toronto, the Toronto District School Board be urged to fully examine this issue, particularly as it relates to affected
programs and schools including feeder schools.
The School Tax Sub-Committee reports, for the information of the Policy and Finance Committee and City Council,
having received a presentation from Ms. Anne-Marie Nasr, Manager, Policy and Programs, City Planning Division, Urban
Planning and Development Services, respecting the Toronto District School Board report on the first phase of school
closures released on September 14, 1999.
The School Tax Sub-Committee at its meeting held on September 27, 1999, had before it the following:
(1)Toronto District School Board report on the first phase of school closures released on September 14, 1999 (copy of
which was distributed to all Members of Council); and
(2)Communication (September 23, 1999) from the Children and Youth Action Committee, recommending to the School
Tax Sub-Committee and City Council, that given school closings have a dramatic impact on all services affecting children,
families and their communities in the City of Toronto, the Toronto District School Board be urged to fully examine this
issue, particularly as it relates to affected programs and schools, including feeder schools.
The following persons addressed the School Tax Sub-Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Councillor B. Disero, Davenport;
-Councillor J. King, Seneca Heights;
The Policy and Finance Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication
dated September 23, 1999, addressed to the School Tax Sub-Committee from the City Clerk, Children and Youth Action
Committee, respecting school closings, which was forwarded to all Members of Council with the October 14, 1999, agenda
of the Policy and Finance Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.
The following Members of Council appeared before the Policy and Finance Committee in connection with the foregoing
matter:
-Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River.
