Toronto Catholic District School Board · 1.2 Toronto Catholic District School Board EDC By-law ... The dwelling unit and phasing of development forecast derived as the basis for

Toronto Catholic District School Board

Education Development Charges Background Study

and Review of Education Development Charges

Policies

Submitted by: Quadrant Advisory Group Limited

Date: March 25, 2013

31

S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Report\TCDSB EDC Background Study and Policies Review Report _Final.docx

i

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

FOREWORD

T h e f o l l o w i n g d o cu m e n t f u l f i l l s s e c t i o n 2 5 7 . 6 1 o f t h e Ed u c a t i o n A c t w h i c h s t a t e s “ b e f o r e p a s s i n g a n e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t c h a r g e b y - l a w , t h e b o a r d s h a l l c o m p l e t e a n e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t c h a r g e s b a c k g r o u n d s t u d y ” . Th e f o l l o w i n g d o cu m e n t c o n t a i n s t h e E d u c a t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t C h a r g e ( E D C ) B a c k g r o u n d S t u d y r e p o r t f o r t h e T o r o n t o C a t h o l i c D i s t r i c t S c h o o l B o a r d ( T C D S B ) . T h e f o l l o w i n g d o cu m e n t a l s o c o n t a i n s t h e b a c k g r o u n d r e p o r t p e r t a i n i n g t o a “ r e v i e w o f t h e E d u c a t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t C h a r g e s p o l i c i e s ” o f t h e T C D S B , c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e l e g i s l a t i v e r e q u i r e m e n t s t o c o n d u c t a r e v i e w o f t h e e x i s t i n g E D C p o l i c i e s o f t h e B o a r d p r i o r t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a d o p t i o n o f a s u c c e s s o r E D C b y - l a w .

ACKNOWLEDGE MENTS

T h e c o n s u l t a n t s w i sh t o a c k n o w l e d g e , w i t h a p p r e c i a t i o n , t h e e f f o r t s o f t h e s c h o o l b o a r d s t a f f t h a t p r o v i d e d i n v a l u a b l e a s s i s t a n c e t h r o u g h o u t t h e s t u d y p r o c e s s . F u r t h e r , t h e c o n s u l t a n t s w i s h t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f M r . S t e v e O ’ M e l i a o f M i l l e r T h o m s o n L L P , l e g a l c o u n s e l f o r t h e T o r o n t o C a t h o l i c D i s t r i c t S c h o o l B o a r d o n e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t c h a r g e m a t t e r s , a s w e l l a s t h e e x p e r t i s e p r o v i d e d b y M r . M a r k P e n n e y , g s i R e a l E s t a t e & P l a n n i n g A d v i s o r s I n c . o n m a t t e r s d e a l i n g w i t h s i t e v a l u a t i o n .

COPYRIGHT NOTICE © T h e c o n t e n t s o f t h i s r e p o r t , i n c l u d i n g t h e f o r m a t s , s p r e a d s h e e t m o d e l s a n d m o d e l o u t c o m e s a r e t h e p r o p e r t y o f Q u a d r a n t A d v i s o r y G r o u p L i m i t e d . T h e c o n t e n t m a y n o t b e c o p i e d , p u b l i s h e d , d i s t r i b u t e d , d o w n l o a d e d , t r a n s m i t t e d o r c o n v e r t e d , i n a n y f o r m , o r b y a n y m e a n s , e l e c t r o n i c o r o t h e r w i s e , w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f Q u a d r a n t A d v i s o r y G r o u p L i m i t e d

31


i

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Contents

....................................................................................................................................................................

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. i

Chapter 1 -- INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Toronto Catholic District School Board EDC By-law ..................................................................... 1

1.3 Rationale for Considering Adoption of New EDC By-law ............................................................. 3

1.4 Policy Review Process and By-law Adoption Consultation Requirements ................................... 3

1.5 Legislative Requirements to Adopt a New EDC By-law ................................................................ 4

1.6 Eligibility to Impose Education Development Charges and Form A ............................................. 6

1.7 Background Study Requirements ................................................................................................. 6

1.8 EDC Study Process ........................................................................................................................ 8

Chapter 2 -- METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ............................................................................................. 11

2.1 Planning Component .................................................................................................................. 11

2.2 Financial Component: ................................................................................................................ 13

Chapter 3 – JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD ................................................................................................ 15

3.1 Legislative Provisions.................................................................................................................. 15

3.2 Analysis of Pupil Accommodation by “Review Area” ................................................................. 15

Chapter 4 – RESIDENTIAL/NON-RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST .......................................................... 21

4.1 Background................................................................................................................................. 21

4.2 Legislative Requirements ........................................................................................................... 21

4.3 Residential Growth Forecast and Forms B and C ....................................................................... 22

4.4 Non-Residential Growth Forecast and Form D .......................................................................... 33

Chapter 5 – DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND FUTURE ENROLMENT EXPECTATIONS .................................... 37

5.1 Demographic and Enrolment Trends ......................................................................................... 37

5.2 Projections of Pupil Accommodation Needs .............................................................................. 45

Chapter 6 – SITE REQUIREMENTS AND VALUATION .................................................................................. 53

6.1 Legislative Requirements ........................................................................................................... 53

6.2 Site Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 56

6.3 Site Valuation ............................................................................................................................. 56

6.4 Land Escalation over the Forecast Period .................................................................................. 60


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

ii

Chapter 7 --EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION ............................................................. 65

7.1 Growth Forecast Assumptions ................................................................................................... 65

7.2 EDC Pupil Yields .......................................................................................................................... 65

7.3 Determination of Net Growth-Related Pupil Place Requirement .............................................. 67

7.4 Approved Capital Cost Per Pupil................................................................................................. 68

7.5 Net Education Land Costs and Forms E, F and G ........................................................................ 68

7.6 EDC Accounts ............................................................................................................................. 95

7.7 Cash Flow Analysis and Forms H1 and H2 .................................................................................. 96

7.8 Non-Residential Share .............................................................................................................. 101

7.9 Education Development Charges ............................................................................................. 101

– DRAFT EDC BY-LAW............................................................................................................. A-1 Appendix A

-- BACKGROUND DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO A REVIEW OF THE EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT Appendix B

CHARGES POLICIES OF THE TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD ........................................... B-1

B.1 Existing EDC By-law in the City of Toronto ................................................................................ B-1

B.2 Overview of EDC Policies ........................................................................................................... B-1

B.3 Summary of By-law Appeals, Amendments and Complaints .................................................. B-14

-- EDC POLICIES RE OPERATING SURPLUSES AND ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION Appendix C

ARRANGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... C-1

C.1 School Sites – Operating Budget Surplus ................................................................................. C-1

C.2 Alternative Arrangements for School Facilities ......................................................................... C-3

31


i

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toronto Cathol ic Distr ict School Board – 2013 Education Development Charge Background Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY T h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s r e p o r t i s t o p r o v i d e b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e To r o n t o C a t h o l i c D i s t r i c t S c h o o l B o a r d ’ s ( T C D S B ) E d u c a t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t C h a r g e s ( E D C s ) t o b e i m p l e m e n t e d i n a n e w E D C b y -l a w . Th e B o a r d w i l l s e e k i n p u t f r o m t h e p u b l i c , h o l d c o n cu r r e n t p u b l i c m e e t i n g s o n T h u r s d a y A p r i l 2 5 , 2 0 1 3 a n d g i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e p u b l i c s u b m i s s i o n s p r i o r t o p a s s a g e o f e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t c h a r g e s p r o p o s e d f o r T h u r s d a y M a y 2 3 , 2 0 1 3 . P a r a g r a p h 2 3 o f t h e e x i s t i n g E D C b y - l a w o f t h e T C D S B i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e b y -l a w e x p i r e s o n A u g u s t 2 4 , 2 0 1 3 u n l e s s i t i s r e p e a l e d s o o n e r . Th e b y - l a w w a s a d o p t e d o n A u g u s t 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 w i t h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o n A u g u s t 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 . T h e p r i m a r y p u r p o s e o f a n y B o a r d i n i m p l e m e n t i n g e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t c h a r g e s i s t o p r o v i d e a s o u r c e o f f u n d i n g f o r g r o w t h - r e l a t e d e d u c a t i o n l a n d c o s t s w h i c h a r e n o t f u n d e d b y ca p i t a l g r a n t a l l o c a t i o n s u n d e r t h e P r o v i n c e ’ s c a p i t a l f u n d i n g m o d e l . E D C s m a y b e s e t a t a n y l e v e l , p r o v i d e d t h a t :

T h e p r o c e d u r e s s e t o u t i n t h e R e g u l a t i o n a n d r e q u i r e d b y t h e M i n i s t r y a r e f o l l o w e d a n d o n l y g r o w t h - r e l a t e d n e t e d u c a t i o n l a n d c o s t s a r e r e c o v e r e d ; a n d ,

N o m o r e t h a n 4 0 % o f t h e a p p l i ca b l e c o s t i s f i n a n c e d v i a n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t ( i n c l u d i n g n o n - e x e m p t co m m e r c i a l , i n d u s t r i a l a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t ) .

T h e E D C c a l c u l a t i o n i s b a s e d o n n e w p u p i l s g e n e r a t e d b y n e w d w e l l i n g u n i t s w i t h i n t h e C i t y o f To r o n t o f o r w h i c h :

b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s w i l l b e i s s u e d o v e r t h e f i f t e e n y e a r f o r e c a s t p e r i o d m i d - 2 0 1 3 t o m i d - 2 0 2 8 ;

a d d i t i o n a l l a n d i s r e q u i r e d t o m e e t g r o w t h - r e l a t e d a c c o m m o d a t i o n n e e d s ; a n d

e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t c h a r g e s m a y b e i m p o s e d o n t h e n e w d w e l l i n g u n i t s .


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

ii

A fo r e c a st o f n e w d w e l l i n g u n i t s i n t h e a r e a i n w h i c h E D C s a r e t o b e i m p o s e d , o v e r t h e 1 5 - ye a r fo r e c a st p e r i o d , w e r e d e r i v e d f ro m a co n s i d e ra t i o n o f :

1 . T h e C i t y ’s C o u n c i l - a p p ro v e d h o u s i n g p o p u l a t i o n a n d e m p l o y m e n t fo r e c a st s o u t l i n e d i n t h e F l a s h fo r w a r d d o cu m e n t , w i t h co n s i d e r a t i o n o f r e c e n t d e v e l o p m e n t a c t i v i t y, a n d m o r e r e c e n t c h a n g e s i n p o p u l a t i o n a n d e m p l o y m e n t s t r u c t u r e w i t h i n t h e C i t y o f To ro n t o ;

2 . T h e N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 2 G r e a t e r G o l d e n H o r s e s h o e G r o w t h F o r e ca st s t o 2 0 4 1 , p r e p a r e d b y H e m s o n C o n su l t i n g L t d , ( r e fe r r e d t o a s t h e P 2G u p d a t e ) ;

3 . P r i m a r y co n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e ‘d r a f t ’ D C fo r e ca st a v a i l a b l e o n t h e C i t y o f To r o n t o ’s w e b s i t e a s o f F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 1 3 , a l s o p r e p a r e d b y H e m s o n C o n s u l t i n g L td .

4 . A d a t a b a s e o f d e v e l o p m e n t a p p l i c a t i o n s s p e c i f y i n g d w e l l i n g u n i t t y p e , l o c a t i o n p ro v i d e d b y t h e TC D S B ’s P l a n n i n g d e p a r t m e n t .

T h e d w e l l i n g u n i t a n d p h a s i n g o f d e v e l o p m e n t fo r e c a st d e r i v e d a s t h e b a s i s fo r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o p o s e d EC D c h a r g e i s n e t o f t h e r e s i d e n t i a l s t a t u t o r y e xe m p t i o n s r e l a t e d t o d e m o l i t i o n s , c o n v e r s i o n s a n d h o u s i n g i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n . T h e fo r e c a st a l so g i v e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e To ro n t o R a i l wa y L a n d s E xe m p t i o n s p e c i f i e d i n t h e l e g i s l a t i o n .

T h e f o r e c a s t o f n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t i s b a s e d o n t h e ’ d r a f t ’ J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3 D C f o r e c a s t o f e m p l o y m e n t a n d t h e n o n - e x e m p t g r o s s f l o o r a r e a t h a t w o u l d n e e d t o b e c r e a t e d t o a cc o m m o d a t e t h e a n t i c i p a t e d e m p l o y m e n t g r o w t h i n t h e C i t y o f To r o n t o .

T h e C i t y ’ s g r o w t h f o r e c a s t s u g ge s t s t h a t a n a d d i t i o n a l 1 5 5 , 3 0 0 n e t n e w o c c u p i e d d w e l l i n g u n i t s w i l l b e a d d e d t o t h e e x i s t i n g h o u s i n g s t o c k i n t h e C i t y o f T o r o n t o o v e r t h e n e x t f i f t e e n y e a r s , a t a n a v e r a g e o f 1 0 , 3 5 0 u n i t s p e r a n n u m . O f t h e n e t a d d i t i o n a l d w e l l i n g u n i t s , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 % a r e a n t i c i p a t e d t o b e l o w d e n s i t y ( s i n g l e a n d s e m i - d e t a ch e d ) , 7 % m e d i u m d e n s i t y ( r o w h o u s e s , t o w n h o u s e s , e t c . ) , a n d t h e r e m a i n i n g 8 6 % w i l l b e h i g h d e n s i t y a p a r t m e n t u n i t s . B a c h e l o r a n d o n e - b e d r o o m u n i t s a c c o u n t f o r 3 7 % o f t h i s g r o u p , w i t h 4 9 % h a v i n g t w o b e d r o o m s o r m o r e . T h e c a p a c i t y o f t h e e l e m e n t a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y f a c i l i t i e s i n t h e B o a r d ’ s e x i s t i n g i n v e n t o r y i s r e f l e c t i v e o f t h e O n - t h e - G r o u n d ( O T G ) c a p a c i t i e s a p p r o v e d b y t h e M i n i s t r y f o r E D C p u r p o s e s , a n d t h a t , i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e B o a r d c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y b e u s e d t o a c c o m m o d a t e g r o w t h - r e l a t e d p u p i l s . T h e c a p a c i t y o f K i n d e r g a r t e n s p a c e h a s b e e n a d j u s t e d t o r e f l e c t t h e P r o v i n c e ’ s F u l l - D a y K i n d e r g a r t e n i n i t i a t i v e f o r a l l r e t r o f i t t e d s p a c e e i t h e r u n d e r c o n s t r u c t i o n o r i n t h e m i d s t o f t h e t e n d e r i n g co n st r u c t i o n p r o c e s s ( i . e . s p a c e s e x p e c t e d t o b e a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e 2 0 1 4 / 1 5 s c h o o l y e a r ) C o n s u l t a n t - p r e p a r e d 1 5 - y e a r s c h o o l e n r o l m e n t p r o j e c t i o n s a r e u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e n u m b e r o f g r o w t h - r e l a t e d s c h o o l s i t e s r e q u i r e d a s a r e su l t o f a n t i c i p a t e d e n r o l m e n t g r o w t h w i t h i n p o r t i o n s o f t h e B o a r d ’ s ju r i s d i c t i o n .

31


iii

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

T h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e s p e c t i n g b o t h p r o j e c t e d e n r o l m e n t a n d g r o w t h - r e l a t e d s i t e n e e d s w a s c o m p a r e d t o t h e B o a r d ’ s a n t i c i p a t e d c a p i t a l p r i o r i t y n e e d s . A l l e l e m e n t a r y e n r o l m e n t p r o j e c t i o n s a r e “ h e a d c o u n t e n r o l m e n t ” a s t h i s i s r e f l e c t i v e o f t h e P r o v i n c i a l i n i t i a t i v e r e sp e c t i n g fu l l - d a y k i n d e r g a r t e n . S e c o n d a r y e n r o l m e n t s a r e r e f l e c t i v e o f “ a v e r a g e d a i l y e n r o l m e n t . ” I n a d d i t i o n , f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f Ed u c a t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t C h a r g e s , t h e e n r o l m e n t p r o j e c t i o n s a r e p r e p a r e d f r o m t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f a c c o m m o d a t i n g p u p i l s i n t h e i r h o m e s c h o o l a r e a s o v e r t h e l o n g t e r m ( i . e . , h o l d i n g s i t u a t i o n s o u t s i d e o f t h e r e v i e w a r e a a r e t r a n s f e r r e d b a c k t o t h e i r r e s i d e n t a r e a ) . T h e p r o j e c t e d e n r o l m e n t f i g u r e s f o r t h e n e w h o u s i n g d e v e l o p m e n t s h o w n i n t h e E D C s u b m i s s i o n s ( C h a p t e r 7 ) a r e a c u m u l a t i v e f i f t e e n - y e a r e n r o l m e n t f o r e c a s t o f “ h e a d c o u n t e n r o l m e n t . ” T h e j u r i s d i c t i o n - w i d e m i d - 2 0 1 3 t o m i d - 2 0 2 8 p r o j e c t i o n s o f e n r o l m e n t i n d i c a t e t h a t , f o r t h e T C D S B , t h e n u m b e r o f e l e m e n t a r y p u p i l s w i l l i n c r e a s e b y 4 , 2 7 8 ( 6 4 , 9 5 7 – 6 0 , 6 7 9 ) a n d s e c o n d a r y p u p i l s w i l l i n c r e a s e b y 3 1 6 ( 3 0 , 7 7 1 – 3 1 , 0 8 7 ) s t u d e n t s . T h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f n e t g r o w t h r e l a t e d p u p i l p l a c e s ( N G R P P ) a n d a s s o c i a t e d g r o w t h - r e l a t e d s i t e n e e d s r e f l e c t :

1 ) p r o j e c t e d 2 0 1 3 t o 2 0 2 8 g r o w t h w i t h i n e a c h o f t h e 1 8 e l e m e n t a r y a n d 4 s e c o n d a r y r e v i e w a r e a s , t a k i n g i n t o co n s i d e r a t i o n h o u s i n g d e v e l o p m e n t b y c o m m u n i t y a n d t h e a s s o c i a t e d T C D S B s c h o o l s a f f e c t e d b y t h a t d e v e l o p m e n t , a s w e l l a s ;

2 ) h i s t o r i c a l 2 0 0 1 ( o r i g i n a l E D C b y - l a w i n c e p t i o n ) t o 2 0 1 1 e n r o l m e n t g r o w t h f o r w h i ch t h e T C D S B h a s n o t b e e n i n a p o s i t i o n , u n t i l n o w , t o a c q u i r e l a n d s t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h i s g r o w t h . Th i s h i s t o r i c a l g r o w t h -r e l a t e d n e e d i s f o u n d i n t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e E x i s t i n g C o m m u n i t y e n r o l m e n t p r o j e c t i o n s a n d h a s b e e n e x t r a c t e d f o r a n a l y s i s i n F o r m E , F a n d G .

S i t e c o s t s a n d s i t e p r e p a r a t i o n / d e v e l o p m e n t c o s t s r e f l e c t a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e B o a r d ’ s r e c e n t s i t e a c q u i s i t i o n e x p e r i e n c e s a n d a p p r a i s a l r e s e a r c h r e c e n t l y u n d e r t a k e n b y g s i R e a l E s t a t e & P l a n n i n g A d v i s o r s I n c . o n i t s b e h a l f . T h e p r o j e c t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l g r o s s f l o o r a r e a (G F A ) o v e r t h e f o r e c a s t p e r i o d ( 7 1 , 4 8 5 , 2 9 0 m i l l i o n a d d i t i o n a l s q . f t . o f “ n e t ” gr o s s f l o o r a r e a ) w a s b a s e d o n t h e C i t y ’ s ‘ d r a f t ’ D C f o r e c a s t o f n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l g r o s s f l o o r a r e a , p r e p a r e d b y H e m s o n C o n su l t i n g L t d . ( e x t r a p o l a t e d b e y o n d 2 0 2 2 ) a s w e l l a s h i s t o r i c a l n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g p e r m i t d a t a d e t a i l i n g b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s b y t y p e a n d d e t a i l i n g a d d i t i o n s a n d n e w co n s t r u c t i o n . A s a r e su l t o f u n d e r t a k i n g a l l o f t h e n e c e s s a r y r e s e a r c h a n d c o m p l e t i n g t h e E D C s u b m i s s i o n , t h e p r o p o s e d e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t ch a r g e f o r t h e T o r o n t o C a t h o l i c D S B , w h e r e 7 5 % o f t h e c o s t s a r e r e co v e r e d f r o m d e v e l o p m e n t , i s a s f o l l o w s :


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

iv

$ 1 , 3 0 9 p e r r e s i d e n t i a l d w e l l i n g u n i t

$0.94 p e r s q u a r e f o o t o f n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l g r o s s f l o o r a r e a

T h i s i s i n c o m p a r i s o n t o t h e $ 5 4 4 p e r r e s i d e n t i a l d w e l l i n g u n i t a n d $ 0 . 5 8 p e r s q u a r e f o o t o n n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l g r o s s f l o o r a r e a i n t h e 2 0 0 8 E D C b y - l a w . H o w e v e r , i t i s n o t e d t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d E D C b y - l a w r a t e s a r e b a s e d o n 7 5 % r e s i d e n t i a l r e c o v e r y , a n d t h e B o a r d m a y c h o o s e t o r e t a i n t h i s a p p r o a ch o r m a y e l e c t t o a l l o c a t e a d i f f e r e n t p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e c h a r g e ( a m i n i m u m o f 0 % u p t o a m a x i m u m o f 4 0 % ) t o n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e E D C f o r m s f o r t h e B o a r d w e r e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n f o r a p p r o v a l , o n Ma r c h 2 5 , 2 0 1 3 . M i n i s t e r i a l a p p r o v a l o f t h e s u b m i s s i o n i s r e q u i r e d p r i o r t o b y - l a w a d o p t i o n . I n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e S c h o o l B o a r d ch o o s e s t o e n a c t a b y - l a w l e v y i n g e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t c h a r g e s o n n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t , t h e n t h e b y -l a w w i l l t a k e s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e f o r m s e t o u t i n A p p e n d i x A . T h e r a n g e o f p o s s i b l e c h a r g e s d e p e n d s o n t h e B o a r d ’ s c h o i c e o f t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e g r o w t h - r e l a t e d n e t e d u c a t i o n l a n d c o s t t h a t i s t o b e fu n d e d b y c h a r g e s o n r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t a n d t h e p e r c e n t a g e , i f a n y , t h a t i s t o b e f u n d e d b y c h a r g e s o n n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t . Th e p e r c e n t a g e t h a t i s t o b e f u n d e d b y c h a r g e s o n n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t s h a l l n o t e x c e e d 4 0 p e r c e n t , a c c o r d i n g t o s e c t i o n 7 , p a r a g r a p h 8 o f R e g u l a t i o n 2 0 / 9 8 . T h e r a n g e o f p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r t h e B o a r d i s s e t o u t b e l o w :

% to be funded from Non-

Residential Development

Residential Education Development

Charge (Per Dwelling Unit)

Non-residential Education

Development Charge (Cost Per Sq. Ft.

of GFA)

0% $1,745 $0.00

5% $1,658 $0.19

10% $1,571 $0.38

15% $1,484 $0.56

20% $1,396 $0.75

25% $1,309 $0.94

40% $1,047 $1.50


31


1

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Chapter 1 -- INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Education development charges (EDCs) are charges which may be levied by a Board on residential,

industrial, commercial and institutional development (excluding municipal, school, specified residential

additions to existing units and replacement dwellings, as well as specific exemptions for industrial

expansions of gross floor area and replacement non-residential development) pursuant to Division E of

Part IX of the Education Act. The charges relate to the net education land cost of providing additional

land (school sites and/or site development costs) for growth-related pupils. The charges are collected at

building permit issuance by the area municipality, implementing the provisions of the Board’s education

development charge by-law.

Education development charges are the primary source of funding site acquisition needs for a school

board experiencing growth within their jurisdiction.

Section 257.54 of the Education Act allows a board to “pass by-laws for the imposition of education

development charges” if there is residential land in the jurisdiction of a board that would increase

education land costs.

However, education development charges as a means of financing site acquisition costs are only

available to boards who qualify under the legislation. To qualify, the Board’s projected enrolment over a

consecutive five year period must exceed permanent capacity at the time of by-law passage on either

the elementary or secondary panel, for the entire Board jurisdiction, or alternatively, the Board must

demonstrate that it has an existing unmet financial obligation arising from the predecessor EDC by-law.

Further, Section 257.70 of the Education Act, enables a board to “pass a by-law amending an education

development charge by-law.” A by-law amendment allows a board the opportunity to revisit the by-law

where actual expenditures exceed cost estimates, in an effort to ensure full cost recovery. If, for

instance, recent site acquisition or site development costs are higher or lower than estimated in the

existing by-law calculation, an amendment could be undertaken to incorporate these increased or

decreased costs into the EDC rate structure(s). The same is true for by-law renewal, in that the

transitional EDC account analysis determines the relationship between EDC revenue raised and site

acquisition/site development needs generated by enrolment growth over the by-law period. In addition,

a school board may pass a by-law amendment to recognize agreements approved by the board to

acquire land post by-law adoption.

1.2 Toronto Catholic District School Board EDC By-law

The Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) imposed an education development charge by-law in

2008 under the legislative authority of the Education Act, R.S.O., 1990. The existing EDC by-law applies

to the City of Toronto.

The adopted EDC rates for all Boards with in-force EDC by-laws are set out below.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

2

EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BY-LAWS IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

Board

Effective

Date of By-

law

By-law TermArea to which By-law

Applies

Type of

Charge

Res.

Charge/

Unit

Non-Res.

Charge/

Sq. Ft. of

G.F.A.

% of Charge

Attributed to

Residential

Development

% of Charge

Attributed to

Non-

Residential

Development

1Algonquin & Lakeshore Catholic

DSBOct-12 5 years City of Kingston A/S $124 $0.00 100% 0%

2Brant Haldimand Norfolk

Catholic DSBNov-08 5 years

City of Brantford,

County of Brant

A/S

J/W/r$628 $0.00 100% 0%

3

Conseil de district des écoles

publiques de langue française

n°59

Jun-09 5 years City of Ottawa J/W/r $205 $0.08 90% 10%

4

Conseil des écoles catholiques

de langue française du Centre-

Est

Jun-09 5 years City of Ottawa J/W/r $364 $0.24 85% 15%

5 Dufferin-Peel Catholic DSB Jul-09 5 years Peel Region J/W/r $551 $0.33 75% 25%

6 Durham Catholic DSB May-09 5 yearsDurham Region (excl.

Clarington)J/W $541 $0.00 100% 0%

7 Durham DSB May-09 5 yearsDurham Region (excl.

Clarington)J/W $1,423 $0.00 100% 0%

8 Greater Essex County DSB May-09 5 years City of Windsor J/W/r $591 $0.00 100% 0%

9 Greater Essex County DSB May-09 5 yearsCounty of Essex and

the Township of PeleeJ/W/r $454 $0.00 100% 0%

10 Halton Catholic DSB Jun-11 5 years Halton Region J/W $1,159 $0.32 85% 15%

11 Halton DSB Jun-11 5 years Halton Region J/W $2,506 $0.69 85% 15%

12Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic

DSBAug-09 5 years City of Hamilton J/W $739 $0.22 85% 15%

13 Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB Jul-10 5 years Clarington A/S $994 $0.38 90% 10%

14 Ottawa Catholic SB Jun-09 5 years City of Ottawa J/W $433 $0.33 83% 17%

15 Ottawa-Carleton DSB Jun-09 5 years City of Ottawa J/W $624 $0.41 85% 15%

16 Peel DSB Jul-09 5 years Peel Region J/W $1,595 $0.32 90% 10%

17

Peterborough, Victoria,

Northumberland & Clarington

Catholic DSB

Jul-10 5 years Clarington A/S $120 $0.05 90% 10%

18 Simcoe Muskoka Catholic DSB Nov-08 5 years Simcoe County J/W/r $370 $0.08 90% 10%

19 Simcoe County DSB Nov-08 5 years Simcoe County J/W $718 $0.15 90% 10%

20 Toronto Catholic DSB Aug-08 5 years City of TorontoJ/W (w ith

exempt

areas)

$544 $0.58 75% 25%

21 Upper Grand DSB Aug-09 5 years Dufferin County J/W/r $391 $0.00 100% 0%

22 Upper Grand DSB Aug-09 5 years Wellington County J/W/r $842 $0.00 100% 0%

23 Waterloo Catholic DSB May-11 5 yearsRegional Municipality

of WaterlooJ/W $425 $0.31 80% 20%

24 Waterloo Region DSB May-11 5 yearsRegional Municipality

of WaterlooJ/W $1,266 $0.92 80% 20%

25 Wellington Catholic DSB Aug-09 5 years Wellington County J/W $455 $0.00 100% 0%

26 York Catholic DSB Jul-09 5 years York Region J/W $650 $0.17 90% 10%

27 York DSB Jul-09 5 years York Region J/W $1,370 $0.35 90% 10%

Note: Updated January 2013 by Quadrant Advisory Group Limited

31


3

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

1.3 Rationale for Considering Adoption of New EDC By-law

In each of 2001, 2003 and 2008, the Toronto Catholic District School Board adopted a jurisdiction-wide

EDC by-laws. The by-law adopted in 2001 was the first EDC by-law for the Board. The existing by-law,

adopted on August 14, 2008, could remain “in force” until August 24, 2013 unless repealed or rescinded

earlier by the Board. The Board expects to adopt a successor EDC by-law on May 23, 2013, but no later

than August 24, 2013.

1.4 Policy Review Process and By-law Adoption Consultation Requirements

In order to consider the adoption of a new EDC by-law, the Board must first undertake a review of its

existing EDC policies, in accordance with the legislation.

Section 257.60 sub-section (1) of the Education Act states that:

“Before passing an education development charge by-law, the board shall conduct a review of the

education development charge policies of the board.”

Sub-section (2) goes on to state that:

“In conducting a review under subsection (1), the board shall ensure that adequate information is made

available to the public, and for this purpose shall hold at least one public meeting, notice of which shall

be given in at least one newspaper having general circulation in the area of jurisdiction of the board.”

As the Board has an existing EDC by-law in place, this section, therefore, has the effect of requiring a

minimum of two public meetings to be held as part of consideration of a new education development

charge by-law.

The purpose of the first public meeting is to ensure that adequate information is made available to the

public relative to the Board’s review of the education development charge policies of the Board. This

meeting will be held Thursday, April 25, 2013 at7:00 PM at the Catholic Education Centre Board Room

located at 80 Sheppard Avenue East. Information respecting a review of the Board’s policies is being

made available to the public as part of this document. This information is titled, “Background Document

Pertaining to a Review of the Education Development Charge Policies of The Toronto Catholic District

School Board” and is found in Appendix B of this document.

The Board will meet with interested development community stakeholders prior to the April 25th

scheduled public meeting to review in detail, the basis for the proposed charge.

The scheduling of the second public meeting requires that the proposed by-law and the new education

development charge background study are made available to the public at least two weeks prior to the

meeting, and to ensure that any person who attends the meeting “may make representations relating to

the by-law” (s.257.63(2)). This meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 9, 2013, and will also be held at

the Catholic Education Centre Board Room.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

4

Finally, the Board is expected to consider the adoption of a new education development charge by-law

on Thursday, May 23, 2013 at the same location.

A copy of the “Notice of Public Meetings” is set out on the following page.

1.5 Legislative Requirements to Adopt a New EDC By-law

Section 257.54 of the Education Act states that “if there is residential development in the area of the

jurisdiction of a board that would increase education land costs, the board may pass by-laws for the

imposition of education development charges against land in its area of jurisdiction undergoing

residential or non-residential development.”

In addition, section 257.61 requires that “before passing an education development charge by-law, the

board shall complete an education development charge background study.”

Section 257.62 stipulates that “an education development charge by-law may only be passed within the

one-year period following the completion of the education development charge background study.”

Section 10 of O. Reg 20/98 sets out “conditions that must be satisfied in order for a board to pass an

education development charge by-law.” These conditions are:

1. The Minister has approved the Board’s estimates of the total number of elementary and

secondary pupils over each of the fifteen years of the forecast period.

2. The Minister has approved the Board’s estimates of the number of elementary and secondary

school sites used by the Board to determine the net education land costs.

3. The Board has given a copy of the education development charge background study relating to

the by-law (this report) to the Minister and each Board having jurisdiction within the area to

which the by-law would apply.

4. The Board meets at least one of the following conditions:

Either the estimated average elementary or secondary enrolment over the five year by-law period exceeds the respective total capacity (OTG capacity adjusted for FDK loading where approved by the Province) that, in the Board’s opinion is available to accommodate pupils, throughout the jurisdiction, on the day that the by-law is passed, or

At the time of expiry of the Board’s last EDC by-law that applies to all or part of the area in which the charges would be imposed, the balance in the EDC account is less than the amount required to pay outstanding commitments to meet growth-related net education land costs, as calculated for the purposes of determining the EDCs imposed under that by-law.

31


5

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

6

1.6 Eligibility to Impose Education Development Charges and Form A

Form A of the EDC Submission set out on the following page, demonstrates that the head count

enrolment (i.e., includes full day kindergarten) over the proposed 5-year term of the EDC by-law

(2013/2014 to 2017/18), as measured in October and March of each academic year, is projected to

exceed the permanent capacity of the Board’s existing inventory of school facilities, on the secondary

panel. The Board’s available permanent capacity at the secondary panel isless than the average 5-year

enrolment projections over the time-period referenced above. As a result, the TCDSB meets the

legislative “trigger” on the secondary panel.

It is noted, however, that the legislation allows the Board to utilize education development charges as a

source of funding for additional site purchases due to enrolment growth on both panels (elementary

and secondary), even if the Board meets the legislative “trigger” on only one panel

The Board carries a surplus transitional EDC account balance, however the balance on the EDC account

is insufficient to fund the projected eligible net education and land costs of the Board.

For the TCDSB, the five year (2013/14 to 2017/18) average head count enrolment is 60,750 for the

elementary panel and ADE average enrolment of 29,943 on the secondary panel. When these figures

are compared to 69,275 permanent spaces in the Board’s existing inventory of elementary facilities and

24,270 permanent spaces on the secondary panel, enrolment exceeds capacity on the secondary panel.

Note that these figures reflect the entire jurisdiction of the Board, which is the City of Toronto.

1.7 Background Study Requirements

The following sets out the information that must be included in an education development charge

background study and the appropriate chapter references from the enclosed report:

1. estimates of the anticipated amount, type and location of residential development for each year

of the fifteen year forecast period, as well as the anticipated non-residential forecast of gross

floor area in the City of Toronto- Chapter 4

2. the number of projected new pupil places (Chapter 5) and the number of new sites and/or site

development costs required to provide those new pupil places - Chapter 6

3. the number of existing pupil places available to accommodate the projected number of new

pupils in item #2 – Chapter 7

4. for each school in the board’s inventory, the number of existing pupil places and the number of

pupils who attend the school – Chapter 7

5. for every existing elementary and secondary pupil place in the board’s jurisdiction that the

board does not intend to use, an explanation as to why the board does not intend to do so –

Chapter 7

31


7

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

To

ro

nto

Ca

tho

lic

Dis

tric

t S

ch

oo

l B

oa

rd

Ed

uc

ati

on

De

ve

lop

me

nt

Ch

arg

es

Su

bm

iss

ion

20

13

Fo

rm

A -

Elig

ibilit

y t

o Im

po

se

an

ED

C

A.1

.1:

CA

PA

CIT

Y T

RIG

GE

R C

AL

CU

LA

TIO

N -

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

PA

NE

L

Ele

me

nta

ry

Ele

me

nta

ry

Ave

ra

ge

Ave

ra

ge

Pa

ne

lY

ea

r 1

Ye

ar 2

Ye

ar 3

Ye

ar 4

Ye

ar 5

Pro

jecte

dP

ro

jecte

d

Bo

ard

-Wid

e2013/

2014/

2015/

2016/

2017/

En

ro

lme

nt

En

ro

lme

nt

Ca

pa

cit

y2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Ove

r F

ive

less

Ye

ars

Ca

pa

cit

y

69,2

75

60,4

23

60,4

85

60,3

85

60,9

70

61,4

85

60,7

50

-8,5

25

Bo

ard

-wid

e C

ap

acity r

efle

cts

all P

urp

os

e-b

uilt K

ind

erg

art

en

ro

om

s e

xis

tin

g o

r a

pp

rove

d fo

r fu

nd

ing

an

d lo

ad

ed

at 2

6 p

up

ils

pe

r cla

ss

roo

m

A.1

.2:

CA

PA

CIT

Y T

RIG

GE

R C

AL

CU

LA

TIO

N -

SE

CO

ND

AR

Y P

AN

EL

Se

co

nd

ary

Ave

ra

ge

Se

co

nd

ary

Pa

ne

lY

ea

r 1

Ye

ar 2

Ye

ar 3

Ye

ar 4

Ye

ar 5

Pro

jecte

dP

ro

jecte

d

Bo

ard

-Wid

e2013/

2014/

2015/

2016/

2017/

En

ro

lme

nt

En

ro

lme

nt

Ca

pa

cit

y2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Ove

r F

ive

less

Ye

ars

Ca

pa

cit

y

24,2

70

30,3

96

30,5

42

29,9

12

29,5

33

29,3

34

29,9

43

5,6

73

A.2

: E

DC

FIN

AN

CIA

L O

BL

IGA

TIO

NS

(E

sti

mate

d t

o A

pril

2013)

A

dju

ste

d O

uts

tan

din

g P

rin

cip

al:

10

,56

7,4

33

$

L

ess A

dju

ste

d E

DC

Acco

un

t B

ala

nce

:5

1,2

09

,08

9$

T

ota

l E

DC

Fin

an

cia

l O

bli

ga

tio

ns/S

urp

lus:

40

,64

1,6

56

$

S:\

TC

DS

B 2

012

ED

C\E

DC

Sub

mis

sio

n\[T

CD

SB

ED

C S

ub

mis

sio

n 2

013

.xls

x]F

OR

M A

Pro

jecte

d E

lem

en

tary P

an

el

Ave

ra

ge

Da

ily E

nro

lme

nt

He

ad

co

un

t

Pro

jecte

d S

eco

nd

ary P

an

el

Ave

ra

ge

Da

ily E

nro

lme

nt

(AD

E)


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

8

6. estimates of the education land cost, the net education land cost, and the growth-related net

education land costs required to provide the projected new pupil places in item #2, the location

of the site needs, the acreage for new school sites, including the area that exceeds the

maximum set out in section 2 of O.Reg. 20/98, an explanation of whether the costs of the excess

land are education land costs and if so, why - Chapter 6

7. the number of pupil places the board estimates will be provided by the school to be built on the

site and the number of those pupil places that the board estimates will be used to

accommodate the new pupils in item #2 - Chapter 7

8. a statement of the board’s policy concerning possible arrangements with municipalities, school

boards or other persons or bodies in the public or private sector, including arrangements of a

long-term or co-operative nature, which would provide accommodation for the new pupils in

item #2, without imposing EDCs, or with a reduction in such charges – Appendix C

9. a statement from the board indicating that it has reviewed its operating budget for savings that

could be applied to reduce growth-related net education land costs, and the amount of any

savings which it proposes to apply, if any – Appendix C.

The TCDSB has developed assumptions in the calculations on which its EDC by-law will be based.

The legislation stipulates that an education development charge by-law may only be passed within the

one-year period following the completion of the education development charge background study. This

report, dated March 25, 2013 will be considered for approval by the Board, as part of the meeting on

May 23, 2013, which will also consider by-law adoption.

Further, this report will be forwarded to the Minister of Education and each co-terminous board, as per

legislative requirements.

1.8 EDC Study Process

Figure 1-1 provides an overview of the education development charge process to be followed when a

board considers the adoption of its second (and any subsequent) EDC by-law under the Education Act,

including the policy review process.

31


9

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Figure 1-1 -- Overview of the Education Development Charges Process and Proposed Timelines

Figu

re 1

-1

Ove

rvie

w o

f th

e E

du

cati

on

De

velo

pm

en

t C

har

ges

Pro

cess

an

d P

rop

ose

d T

ime

lin

es

PH

ASE

ON

EP

HA

SE T

WO

PH

ASE

TH

REE

PH

ASE

FO

UR

PH

ASE

FIV

EP

HA

SE S

IX

DET

ERM

ING

ELI

GIB

ILIT

YA

NA

YSI

SC

ON

SID

ERA

TIO

N O

F

OTH

ER S

OU

RC

ES T

O M

EET

THE

NEE

DS

MIN

ISTR

Y S

UB

MIS

SIO

NP

UB

LIC

PR

OC

ESS

BY

-LA

W A

DO

PTI

ON

AN

D

IMP

LEM

ENTA

TIO

N

A. C

ap

aci

ty T

rigg

er

Eva

lua

tio

n

A. F

ifte

en

Ye

ar

Esti

ma

te o

f

Am

ou

nt,

Typ

e a

nd

Lo

cati

on

of R

esi

de

nti

al a

nd

No

n-

Re

sid

en

tia

l De

velo

pm

en

t

A. B

oa

rd's

Po

licy

re

Po

ssib

le

Pu

bli

c/P

riva

te S

ect

or

Pa

rtn

ers

hip

s to

Pro

vid

e

Ad

dit

ion

al A

cco

mm

od

ati

on

an

d S

tate

me

nt

of H

ow

Po

licy

Imp

lem

en

ted

A. C

om

ple

tio

n o

f Min

istr

y

Form

s

A. I

nfo

rma

l

Sta

keh

old

er

Co

nsu

lta

tio

n

A. L

iais

on

wit

h A

rea

Mu

nic

ipa

l

Re

pre

sen

tati

ves

re

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

/ C

oll

ect

ion

Issu

es

B. E

DC

Pu

pil

Yie

lds

to

De

term

ine

Ave

rage

# o

f

Ne

w P

up

ils

B. B

oa

rd's

Po

licy

on

Op

era

tin

g

Bu

dge

t Sa

vin

gs w

hic

h c

ou

ld

be

ap

pli

ed

B. C

om

ple

te B

ack

gro

un

d S

tud

y

an

d F

orw

ard

to

Min

istr

y o

f

Edu

cati

on

, Pu

bli

c a

nd

Co

-

Term

ino

us

Bo

ard

s

B. P

ub

lic

Me

eti

ng(

s)

B. B

oa

rd C

on

sid

era

tio

n o

f Pu

bli

c

Inp

ut

an

d R

evi

sio

ns,

as

Ne

cess

ary

C. B

y-la

w S

tru

ctu

re a

nd

Re

vie

w A

rea

An

aly

sis

C.

Min

istr

y o

f Ed

uca

tio

n

Ap

pro

val

C. R

evi

ew

of P

ub

lic

Sub

mis

sio

ns

C. S

eco

nd

Pu

bli

c M

ee

tin

g a

t

Dis

cre

tio

n o

f Bo

ard

D. N

et

Gro

wth

-Re

late

d

Pu

pil

Fo

reca

st a

nd

Nu

mb

er

of N

ew

Sit

es/

Acr

es

of L

an

d

Re

qu

ire

d

D. B

y-la

w A

do

pti

on

E. E

stim

ate

d G

row

th-

Re

late

d N

et

Edu

cati

on

Lan

d C

ost

an

d L

oca

tio

n o

f

Site

(Ne

t o

f Gra

nts

, Su

rplu

s

EDC

Fu

nd

s, e

tc.)

E. B

y-la

w Im

ple

me

nta

tio

n

F. F

isca

l Im

pa

ct o

f Gro

wth

Eva

lua

tio

n

F. N

oti

ce o

f By-

law

Pa

ssa

ge/P

rep

ara

tio

n o

f ED

C

Pa

mp

hle

t

G. A

pp

ort

ion

Co

sts

Re

sid

en

tia

l to

No

n-

Re

sid

en

tia

l

31


11

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Chapter 2 -- METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

The following chapter outlines the methodology utilized to undertake the background analysis which

underlies the proposed education development charge.

There are two distinct aspects to the model. The first is the planning component, which is comprised

largely of the dwelling unit projections over a fifteen-year period, the pupil yield analysis, the

determination of the requirements of new development, enrolment projections for the existing

community, the determination of net growth-related pupil places by review area and the identification

of additional site requirements due to growth. The second component, which is the financial

component, encompasses the determination of the charge (undertaken in the form of a cashflow

analysis), including identification of the site acquisition, site development and study costs, projected

expenditure timing, determination of revenue sources and assessment of borrowing impact.

A description of each step in the calculation process is set out below.

2.1 Planning Component

Step 1 - Determine the anticipated amount, type, and location of residential development over the 15-

year period (i.e., building permits to be issued) and for which education development charges would be

imposed during the mid-2013 to mid-2028 forecast period.

A forecast of new dwelling units in the area in which EDCs are to be imposed, over the 15-year forecast

period, were derived giving consideration to:

1. The City’s Council-approved housing population and employment forecasts outlined in the

Flashforward document, with consideration of more recent development activity, and changes

in population and employment structure within the City of Toronto;

2. The November 2012 Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Forecasts to 2041, prepared by Hemson

Consulting (referred to as the P2G update);

3. The ‘draft’ housing, population and employment forecasts, as of January 2013, and prepared by

Hemson Consulting Ltd. as part of the City’s development charges by-law update process.

4. A database of development applications specifying dwelling unit type and location provided by

the TCDSB’s Planning department.

The occupied dwelling unit forecast derived as the basis for the determination of the proposed EDC

charge is net of the statutory exemptions related to demolitions and conversions. The consultants have

netted off an additional 1,506 high density units from CEO7 in consideration to the Toronto Railway

Lands Exemption specified in the legislation. A total of 943 apartment units were netted off for 511


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

12

Brenner (estimated 2014 construction), as well as an additional 563 units at the same address

(estimated 2015 construction).

The forecast of non-residential development is based on the January ‘draft’ DC update forecast of

employment and the new and additional gross floor area that would need to be created to

accommodate the anticipated employment growth in the City of Toronto.

Step 2 - The draft by-law structure is based on a jurisdiction-wide rather than an area-specific approach

to the construction of the proposed charge. The policy reasons for this choice are outlined in Appendix

B. The elementary and secondary review areas have been altered from the 2008 EDC Background Study.

The establishment of updated review area boundaries is based on where pupils are accommodated, the

hierarchy of feeder school alignments, Kindergarten to elementary, to secondary programs proposed by

Board staff, and considers recent capital expenditure strategies and approvals, introduction of Full-Day

Kindergarten (FDK) programs, man-made barriers including major arterial roads, railway crossings and

industrial areas, municipal boundaries, travel distances within the Board’s transportation policies,

program requirements, etc.

Step 3 - Utilize the School Facilities Inventory information to determine the Ministry-approved OTG (On-

the-Ground) capacities (recognizing the implementation of FDK programs) and the number of portables

and portapaks (temporary space) for each existing elementary and secondary facility. Adjust the OTG

capacity for pupil spaces, which in the opinion of the Board, are not required to meet the needs of the

existing community and to recognize the Ministry of Education’s adjustment to Kindergarten classrooms

to address the FDK initiative.

Steps 4 through 6 -- Determine the Board’s projections of enrolment, by school, by grade, over the

fifteen-year forecast period. Enrolment projections that distinguish the pupil requirements of the

existing community (elementary to secondary retention, the number of future JK subscriptions, and the

by-grade advancement of the existing student population) from the pupil requirements of new

development (the number of pupils anticipated to be generated by new development within the City

and over the next 15 years) were prepared by the consultants and reviewed by Board Planning staff.

Finally, the enrolment analyses assume that any pupils temporarily accommodated outside of their

resident attendance area are returned to their resident area.

Step 7 - Determine the number of “available” pupil places by subtracting the Year 2027/28 projected

head count enrolment (to reflect FDK) from the total capacity for the review area. The Board is entitled

to exclude any available pupil places that in the opinion of the Board, could not reasonably be used to

accommodate enrolment growth.

Step 8 - Complete Form A of the EDC Submission to determine eligibility to impose education

development charges.

Step 9 - Subtract any available and surplus pupil places in existing facilities from the requirements of

new development, to determine the net growth-related pupil place requirements, by review area.

Determine net growth-related pupil places by review area and within each review area in accordance

with the timing and location of growth.

Step 10 - Determine the number of additional school sites and/or site development costs required to

meet the net growth-related pupil place need and the timing of proposed expenditures. Where the

31


13

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

needs can be met through additions to existing facilities and where no additional land component is

required, no sites are identified. However, in the latter circumstances, there may be site development

costs incurred in order to accommodate enrolment growth. These costs will be included in the

determination of “growth-related net education land costs” where appropriate. In addition, the Board

may acquire lands adjacent to existing school sites in order to accommodate enrolment growth. Finally

the acquisition of lands may be part of redevelopment strategies and may involve the acquisition of

lands declared ‘surplus’ by other public sector land owners.

Step 11 - Determine the additional sites or acreage required and the basis upon which the TCDSB can

acquire the lands.

2.2 Financial Component:

Step 1 - Identify the land acquisition costs (on a per acre basis) in 2013 dollars. Where purchase

agreements have been finalized, incorporate the final purchase price. For the TCDSB site acquisition

strategies, some involve the purchase of new development sites; several involve the expansion of

existing sites through purchase or expropriation, and acquisitions involving the purchase of lands from

other school boards or agencies. In addition, identify the supplementary site acquisition costs for sites

only partially funded under the predecessor EDC by-law.

Step 2 - Identify site development, site preparation and applicable study costs specified under 257.53(2)

of the Education Act.

Step 3 - Apply an appropriate indexation factor to site preparation/development costs to recognize

increased labour and material costs over time. Apply an appropriate land escalation factor to

greenfields type site acquisition costs, over the last 10 years of the by-law.

Step 4 - Determine what amounts, if any, should be applied to reduce the charge as a result of the

following:

1. The Board’s policy on alternative accommodation arrangements;

2. The Board’s policy on applying any operating budget surplus to reduce net education land costs;

3. Any surplus funds in the existing EDC account which should be applied to reduce the charge;

Step 5 - Determine the quantum of the charge (both residential and non-residential if the Board intends

to have a non-residential charge), considering borrowing impact (particularly where there are significant

deficit EDC account balances) and EDC account interest earnings by undertaking a cashflow analysis of

the expenditure program over the 15-year forecast period.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

14

1

1 Available pupil places, that, in the opinion of the Board, could reasonably be used to accommodate growth (section 7.3 of O. Reg 20/98 as amended)

EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

STEP 1 Acquire Municipal Growth Forecast and

Other Planning Data/Sources to Determine Anticipated Development

STEP 7 Determine # of " Available "

Pupil Places by Review Area1

STEP 6 Determine Requirements of

New Development

STEP 4 Determine Requirements of

Existing Community

STEP 5 Undertake Pupil Yield Analysis

STEP 3 Determine OTG Capacity Under

Ministry-Approved School Facilities Inventory (SFIS)

Adjusted for Approved FDK Loading

STEP 2 Establish Elementary /

Secondary Review Areas

STEP 10 Assess Site Acquisition

Needs/Site Development Needs and Expenditure Timing

STEP 9 Determine Net Growth - Related

Pupil Place Requirements

STEP 2 Identify Site Development /

Study Costs

Determine Financial Impact

(Cash Flow Analysis) of Expenditure Program

Considering Borrowing Impact, Interest Earnings, etc.

STEP 5

STEP 1 Determine Site Acquisition

Costs

PLANNING COMPONENT :

FINANCIAL COMPONENT :

STEP 11

STEP 3 Escalate Site Acquisition / Site Development Costs

STEP 4 Determine Sources of Funding

to Reduce the Charge

STEP 8 Confirm EDC Eligibility

( Form A )

Determine Status of Sites

Owned, Under Agreement, etc.

FIGURE 0-1

31


15

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Chapter 3 – JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD

3.1 Legislative Provisions

Section 257.54(4) of the Education Act states that “an education development charge by-law may apply

to the entire area of the jurisdiction of a board or only part of it.”

Despite this, “an education development charge by-law of the board shall not apply with respect to land

in more than one region” if the regulations divide the area of the jurisdiction of the board into

prescribed regions.

Finally, “education development charges collected under an education development charge by-law that

applies to land in a region shall not, except with the prior written approval of the Minister, be used in

relation to land that is outside that region” and “money from an EDC account established under section

16(1) of O.Reg. 20/98 may be used only for growth-related net education land costs attributed to or

resulting from development in the area to which the EDC by-law applies” (as amended by O.Reg.

193/10).

Maps 3-1 and 3-2 found at the end of this chapter, outline the geographic jurisdiction analyzed in this

EDC Background report.

3.2 Analysis of Pupil Accommodation by “Review Area”

In order to attribute the number of pupil places that would be “available and accessible” to new

development, within the areas in which development occurs, the Board’s jurisdiction has been divided

into sub-areas, referred to in the EDC submission as “review areas.” Within each review area, the total

OTG capacity of all existing permanent accommodation is considered to be the total available capacity

of the Board for instructional purposes and required to meet the needs of the existing community. The

school board is entitled to remove any capacity that is not available to be used to accommodate growth-

related pupils. As such, the use of permanent accommodation spaces within a review area is based on

the following priority:

1. The needs of the existing community (at the end of the 15-year forecast period) must take

priority over the needs resulting from new development in the construction of additional pupil

places.

2. Pupils generated from new development fill any surplus available OTG capacity.

3. Pupils generated from new development within the review area must take priority over the

“holding” accommodation needs of other review areas.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

16

The remaining pupil spaces required as a result of new development within the review area, or net

growth-related pupil place requirements, are to be potentially funded through education development

charges.

The review area concept within education development charges is based on the premise that pupils

should, in the longer term, be able to be accommodated in permanent facilities within their resident

area; therefore, any existing available capacity within the review area is not accessible to

accommodation needs outside of the review area. For the purposes of the calculation of education

development charges described in this report, pupils of the Board who currently attend school facilities

outside of their resident area, have been transferred back if the holding situation is considered to be

temporary in nature.

There are four important principles to which the consultants have adhered in undertaking the EDC

calculation on a review area basis:

1. Capacity required to accommodate pupils from existing development should not be utilized to

provide “temporary” or “holding” capacity for new development over the longer term; and

2. Pupils generated by new development should not exacerbate each Board’s current

accommodation problems (i.e., an increasing portion of the student population being housed in

portables for longer periods of time); and

3. Board transportation costs should be minimized.

4. Determining where housing development has occurred, or is, expected to occur, and the specific

schools affected by this development.

The rationale for the review area boundaries for the elementary and secondary panels of the Board gave

consideration to the following criteria:

a. A desire by the Board to align feeder school patterns as students move from Kindergarten to

elementary and secondary programs; (particularly with the implementation of FDK)

b. Current school attendance boundaries;

c. Travel distances to schools consistent with the Board’s transportation policies;

d. Former municipal boundaries;

e. Manmade or natural barriers (e.g. existing or proposed major arterial roadways, expressways

such as Highway 401 and Highway 8, railway crossings, industrial areas, river valleys,

escarpments, woodlots, etc.);

f. Distance to neighbouring schools;

Secondary review areas are normally larger in size than elementary review areas due to the former

having larger school facilities and longer transportation distances. Typically, a cluster of elementary

schools are “feeder” schools for a single secondary facility.

31


17

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

For the purpose of the jurisdiction-wide approach to calculating education development charges, the

Toronto Catholic District School Board has 18 elementary review areas and 4 secondary review areas as

shown on Maps 3-1 and 3-2, at the end of the chapter.

Each review area has been further subdivided in order to determine the net growth-related pupil place

need. The detailed development application database enables the Board to specify which existing and

proposed school sites will be impacted by new housing development. The determination of net growth-

related pupil place needs is therefore concentrated on the school sites where additional site acquisition

and/or site development costs would be required to accommodate enrolment growth.

It is noted that undertaking the determination of additional site requirements using a review area and a

sub review-area approach is consistent with the way in which future capital construction needs for the

Board will be assessed over the long term.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

18

M

AP

3-1

31


19

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

MA

P 3

-2

31


21

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Chapter 4 – RESIDENTIAL/NON-RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST

4.1 Background

This section of the report deals with the forecast of residential and non-residential development over

the mid-2013 to mid-2028 fifteen-year forecast period. The parameters of the growth forecasts,

particularly with regards to the anticipated timing, location and type of residential development, are

critical components of the overall EDC process because of the inextricable link between new units and

new pupil places. The location of development is particularly important to the determination of

additional growth-related site needs. Therefore, every effort was made to consider a variety of

forecasts, planning policies, economic perspectives (short term and longer term), as well as a detailed

listing of units in the development forecast supplied by the TCDSB planning staff.

In addition, Board staff and the consultants met with staff of the City’s Planning Division – Policy and

Research in July, 2012. City staff noted that the City of Toronto is in the process of updating its

Development Charges Study; as well as undertaking an update to the Official Plan population, housing

and employment forecasts. Moreover, at that time, the Province of Ontario was in the process of

amending the Places to Grow forecast and anticipated circulating that document in the Fall of 2012. The

most recent City-approved forecast was still the June, 2002 Toronto Plan – Flashforward.1 Board staff

were advised that any updates to the Flashforward forecast would likely result in housing projections

that were closer to the ‘Maximum’ scenario than the ‘Base’ scenario given more recent development

activity and demographic trends (e.g., birth rates, immigration patterns, etc.).

In the interim the City has initiated an update to its development charges by-laws to be adopted prior to

the Fall of 2013. Updated ‘draft’ housing, population and employment forecasts were provided by the

City, to the consultants, in February 2013 and have been incorporated into this report.

4.2 Legislative Requirements

As the legislation permits school boards to collect education development charges on both residential

and non-residential development, both must be considered as part of the growth forecast as follows:

• “An EDC background study shall include estimates of the anticipated amount, type and location

of residential and non-residential development.”; (Section 257.61(2) of the Education Act)

• “Estimate the number of new dwelling units in the area in which the charges are to be imposed

for each of the 15 years immediately following the day the by-law comes into force.”; (O.Reg

20/98), Section 7(2)

1 Toronto Official Plan, Flashforward: Projecting Population and Employment to 2031 in a Mature Urban Area, June

2002


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

22

• “If charges are to be imposed on non-residential development, the board shall determine the

charges and the charges shall be expressed as either:

(a) a rate applied to the gross floor area (GFA) of the development;

(b) a rate applied to the declared value of development .” (O.Reg 20/98), Section 7(10)

• “If the board intends to impose different charges on different types of residential development,

the board shall determine the percentage of the growth-related net education land cost to be

funded by charges on residential development, and that is to be funded by each type of

residential development.” (O.Reg. 20/98), Section 9.1

• “The Board shall choose the percentage of the growth-related net education land costs that is to

be funded by charges on residential development and the percentage, if any, that is to be

funded by the charges on non-residential development. The percentage that is to be funded by

non-residential development shall not exceed 40 percent.” (O.Reg 20/98), Section 7(8))

• The EDC Guidelines state that “boards are encouraged to ensure that projections for growth are

consistent with that of municipalities.”

The Toronto Catholic District School Board is also required to consider Section 6 of O. Reg. 20/98 dealing

with the Toronto Railway Lands exemption, stating that:

“a board shall exempt an owner from education development charges on the lands to the extent

provided for in the agreement (Development Levy Agreement – Railway Lands Central and

West)”, and the lands refer to the lands described in Schedules A and B to the agreement

4.3 Residential Growth Forecast and Forms B and C

4.3.1 Historical Context

Housing Demand

The City’s Flashforward projections document dated June 2002, states that housing demand in Toronto

is projected to add 72,963 households between 2011 and 2031. Approximately 43% of the new

households are apartments, with 3% row housing and 54% singles and semi-detached. The following

table is taken from Table 5 of the City’s report.

TABLE 4-1

Single Semi-Detached Row/ Apartment Apartment Total

Toronto Housing Demand by Dwelling Type Detached & Flat in Duplex Townhouse < 5 storeys 5 + storeys Other Housing

1996 285,360 113,945 46,405 122,475 331,870 3,180 903,235

2001 305,113 120,276 49,444 127,045 348,461 3,328 953,667

2006 322,661 126,569 52,077 132,894 365,450 3,506 1,003,157

2011 340,047 133,227 54,651 139,430 383,818 3,709 1,054,882

2016 348,921 135,669 55,323 140,459 390,058 3,761 1,074,191

2021 356,779 137,482 55,625 141,046 395,733 3,797 1,090,462

2026 364,865 139,430 56,034 142,185 403,414 3,839 1,109,767

2031 371,722 141,136 56,413 143,515 411,180 3,879 1,127,845

TABLE 4-1

31


23

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

The Places to Grow update which was circulated for comments in November, 2012, provides a reference

housing forecast by dwelling unit type for the 2001 to 2041 forecast period. This updated forecast

determines that almost 86% of the additional 214,110 households over the 2011 to 2031 will be

apartment dwellings, while singles and semis account for almost 7% of the projected new households,

with only 7% row housing units. Table 38 of the report is replicated below:

TABLE 4-2

This shift to higher density development is consistent with more recent data related to building permits,

housing starts and completions. While the City’s Flashforward reference forecast recommends a viable

housing mix, the report does state that ‘the housing forecast does not replicate or predict the housing

mix that would be determined through each municipality’s Growth Plan conformity work. Planned

housing mixes will continue to be decided by municipalities through their local planning processes.’

Building Permits:

Over the 2002-2011 time period the City of Toronto issued residential building permits at an average

rate of 14,105 units per annum, or a total of 141,049 permits. More than 79% of the permits issued

were for apartment developments, with an additional 10% for townhomes (including apartments in

duplexes) and 11% for single and semi-detached homes. For the 2007 to 2011 period, the percentage of

apartment units is even higher at 83.3% as shown in Table 4-3.

Housing Starts:

The number of annual housing starts in the City of Toronto since 1999 averaged just over 14,200 units.

Since 2008, the robust high-rise condominium market has resulted in 89.5% of the total housing starts,

on average. The graph on the following page illustrates annual housing starts in Toronto relative to the

1999-2012 average.

Singles Semis Rows Apartments Total

2001 307,150 92,060 52,120 491,760 943,090

2011 275,120 72,410 60,300 640,060 1,047,890

2021 280,910 73,880 68,220 739,030 1,162,040

2031 287,100 75,390 75,460 824,050 1,262,000

2041 292,580 76,500 81,420 891,860 1,342,360

2011 - 2031 Growth 11,980 2,980 15,160 183,990 214,110

Source: Table 38, Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Forecasts to 2041, Technical Report November, 2012

HEMSON CONSULTING LTD.

Housing by Type for the City of Toronto 2001 - 2041


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

24

Table 4-3

YearSingle

Detached

Semi-

DetachedTownhomes¹ Apartments² Total

2002 1,961 892 1,610 9,446 13,909

2003 1,741 200 1,722 11,058 14,721

2004 1,662 198 1,631 9,385 12,876

2005 1,193 310 2,519 16,867 20,889

2006 1,131 131 1,216 7,724 10,202

2002-2006 Sub-Total 7,688 1,731 8,698 54,480 72,597

% of 2002-2006 Growth 10.6% 2.4% 12.0% 75.0% 100.0%

2002-2006 Annual Average 1,538 346 1,740 10,896 14,519

2007 1,251 307 1,391 8,160 11,109

2008 1,098 346 1,534 11,316 14,294

2009 749 131 581 11,883 13,344

2010 893 157 1,384 14,424 16,858

2011 992 83 534 11,238 12,847

2007-2011 Sub-Total 4,983 1,024 5,424 57,021 68,452

% of 2007-2011 Growth 7.3% 1.5% 7.9% 83.3% 100.0%

2007-2011 Annual Average 997 205 1,085 11,404 13,690

2002-2011 Sub-Total 12,671 2,755 14,122 111,501 141,049

% of 2002-2011 Growth 9.0% 2.0% 10.0% 79.1% 100.0%

2002-2011 Annual Average 1,267 276 1,412 11,150 14,105

Source: Statis tics Canada Bui lding Permits

1. Includes Townhomes and Apartments in Duplex

2. Includes Apartments with less than 5 s toreys and Apartments with 5 s toreys or more.

Table 4-3

City of Toronto

Residential Building Permits, 2002-2011

31


25

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

FIGURE 4-1

The January 2013 ‘draft’ DC forecast of occupied units is more reflective of more recent construction

experience, City planning policies and initiatives, underlying demographic trends, etc. Table 4-4

replicates the City’s ‘draft’ DC forecast. Therefore, for the purposes of meeting the legislative

requirements governing education development charges, the Table 4-4 housing forecast, along with the

Board’s development inventory data, has been used as a basis to determine the ‘anticipated amount,

type and location of residential development’, as well as the ‘number of new dwelling units in the area

in which charges are to be imposed for each of the 15 years immediately following the day the by-law

comes into force’. The ‘draft’ DC forecast determines in the order of 155,300 additional occupied

dwelling units for the mid-2013 to mid-2028 EDC forecast period, or an average of 10,350 per annum.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

26

Table 4-4

Source: Table 3 Forecast of Total Occupied Units and Population prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd

4.3.2 Methodological Approach

Municipal forecasts of residential development generally give consideration to: underlying demographic

trends, timing and location of infrastructure emplacement, local planning policies (Official Plan and

Secondary Plans), Provincial planning policies (e.g., Places to Grow, Provincial Policy Statement,

Greenbelt Plan 2005, etc.), considerations of demand (including recent and projected real estate market

conditions and recent historical construction statistics) and supply (land supply and absorption rates),

staging of units in the development approvals process, etc. Figure 4-2 illustrates a household formation

projection methodology. Figure 4-3 describes the approach taken to determine the mid-2013 to mid-

2028 housing forecast for the City of Toronto.

CITY OF TORONTO

DRAFT January, 2013 DC Forecast Total Occupied Units and Population

PeriodYear at

Mid-Year

Occupied

Units

Household

Population PPUNon-Household

Population

Census

Population

2013 1,080,000 2,649,900 2.45 40,100 2,689,900

2014 1,097,600 2,690,500 2.45 40,600 2,731,100

2015 1,111,800 2,722,700 2.45 41,100 2,763,800

2016 1,122,800 2,746,900 2.45 41,600 2,788,600

2017 1,132,600 2,764,700 2.44 42,100 2,806,800

2018 1,141,700 2,780,800 2.44 42,500 2,823,300

2019 1,151,000 2,797,400 2.43 42,900 2,840,300

2020 1,160,500 2,814,300 2.42 43,400 2,857,600

2021 1,170,100 2,831,200 2.42 43,800 2,875,000

2022 1,179,700 2,849,000 2.42 44,200 2,893,200

2023 1,189,300 2,866,800 2.41 44,600 2,911,400

2024 1,198,800 2,884,200 2.41 45,000 2,929,300

2025 1,208,200 2,901,400 2.40 45,400 2,946,800

2026 1,217,500 2,918,100 2.40 45,800 2,963,900

2027 1,226,500 2,938,100 2.40 46,200 2,984,400

2028 1,235,300- 2,957,600 2.39 46,700 3,004,200

2029 1,243,800 2,976,400 2.39 47,100 3,023,500

2030 1,252,100 2,994,700 2.39 47,500 3,042,200

2031 1,260,200 3,012,500 2.39 47,900 3,060,400

Occupied Housing Units and Population

Rem

ain

der o

f P

lan

nin

g P

erio

d

10

-Year

Fo

recast

31


27

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

FIGURE 4-2

In order to prepare 15-year projections of new occupied dwelling units in the City of Toronto, for which

education development charges are to be imposed, the following process was followed:

1. The process described on Figure 4-3, followed by consideration of; 2. Statutory residential exemptions described below.

Statutory Residential Exemptions:

Additional Dwelling Unit Exemption –

Section 257.54 (3) of the Education Act exempts, from the imposition of education development

charges, the creation of two additional dwelling units within an existing single detached dwelling (i.e.

the conversion of a single unit to a duplex or triplex), or one additional dwelling unit within a semi-

detached, row dwellings and other residential building. A reduction of 568 medium density units, or 5%

of the total medium density units has been made on the EDC dwelling unit forecast.

Figure 4-1

DEMAND SUPPLY

Historical Housing Development

(Building Permits, Completions and

Occupancy Cycles)

by Municipality

by Review Area

by School Catchment Area

Residential Units in the

Development Approvals Process

Type, phasing, location and

complexity of planning approvals

required

Designated Lands under Official Plan

and Related Secondary Plans

Opportunities for Redevelopment of

Lands

(Industrial, Brownfields, Commercial,

etc.)

Long-range Servicing Capacity,

Timing and Cost

Economic Outlook re Housing

Development, Residential Sales and

Housing Prices

Federal, Provincial, Municipal-wide

Policy Direction (P2G, PPS,

Greenbelt Plan 2005, etc.)

Residential Growth Forecast: Proposed MethodologyHousehold Formation Projection Model

RESIDENTIAL

DWELLING UNIT

FORECAST FOR

REGIONS AND

MUNICIPALITIES


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

28

Figure 4-3

STEP ONE: REVIEW BACKGROUND INFORMATION

STEP TWO: PREPARE CITY-WIDE FORECAST BY DWELLING TYPE

s:\schoolboard\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Report\Chapter 4 Methodology Schematic.xlsx

15-YEAR CITY OF TORONTO HOUSING FORECAST(ANNUALIZED FORECAST OF OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS)

STEP THREE - REVIEW CITY-WIDE FORECAST IN CONTEXT OF DC

"Draft" GROWTH FORECAST TO 2041

STEP FOUR - DISAGGREGATE HOUSING FORECAST BY EDC

REVIEW AREA AND BY SCHOOL CATCHMENT

Review of January 2013 "Draft" DC population and occupied dwelling unit forecast for mid-2013 to mid-

2028 period

Review Data Respecting Building Permits, Completions, Housing Starts and Census

Households

Review of Profile Toronto June 2011, Proposed Development by Growth Area

and Stage of Development, DevelopmentProjects in Centres, Secondary Plan areas

and Priority Neighbourhoods

Prepare mid 2013 to mid 2028 forecast of

housing units (single detached, semi

detached, row housing, apartment & multi condo) based on July, 2012 meeting with

City staff

Determine mid 2013 to mid 2028 housing

forecast net of statutory exemptions (demolitions and conversions, Railway

lands development where applicable, etc.)

Compare 15-year City-wide Forecast of

Occupied Households and Housing by Unit Type and revised as necessary

Review of Board-supplied units in the

development approvals process(phasing by unit type and by school

catchment)

Remove units completed and occupied,

projects completed and closed and adjust timing of development in order of

circulated, pending, followed by approved, consistent with the to 15-year City-wide

"Draft" DC forecast

Review detailed housing forecast and adjusted phasing with Board staff and

revise as necessary

31


29

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

Replacement Dwelling Unit Exemption –

Section 4 of O.Reg 20/98 requires that the Board exempt from the payment of education development charges,

the ‘replacement, on the same site, a dwelling unit that was destroyed by fire, demolition or otherwise, or that

was so damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise as to render it uninhabitable’, provided that the replacement

building permit is issued within two years that the dwelling unit was destroyed or became uninhabitable. No

deduction has been made for replacement dwelling units where a demolition permit is unavailable, or has

expired, as the City’s grace period practice is five years.

Toronto Railway Lands Exemption

In 1994, an agreement entitled “Development Levy Agreement – Railway Lands Central and West” (often

referred to as the Railway Lands Agreement) was entered into by the City of Toronto, the predecessor boards of

the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) and Canadian

National Railway/CN Transactions Inc. The agreement provided for development levy revenue to be collected

from all development within the Railway Lands Central and West to finance the construction of a community

centre and elementary schools for both TDSB and TCDSB. The Development Levy Trust Agreement requires that

TDSB and TCDSB each construct, within the five year period following the issuance of sufficient building permits

to achieve the threshold amount of the above-grade gross floor area, 683,000 m2, or 7,351,991 ft2 in the Railway

Lands Central and West, an elementary school. According to the City of Toronto11, the threshold level of gross

floor area is expected to be reached at the end of the year.

A 2 acre joint TDSB/TCDSB school site parcel, located south of Fort York Boulevard and West of Brunel Court,

and known as 20 Brunel Court is expected to accommodate the following community services:

Community Centre 38,000 ft2

Day Care 7,500 ft2

TDSB elementary school 55,000 ft2

TCDSB elementary school 55,000 ft2

Total 155,000 ft2

It is noted that the Railway Lands Agreement did not contemplate the provision of any secondary school pupil spaces (nor the designation of lands for a secondary school site) for either the TDSB or the TCDSB.

The TCDSB development tracking system contains the ongoing development of 19,205 additional units in the Railway Lands and Fort York Neighbourhood as follows:

1. Railway Lands East 3,959 units ( ~58% Bachelor/1 Bedroom and 42% 2 Bedrooms or more)

2. Railway Lands Central 3,318 units (~62% Bachelor/1 Bedroom and 38% 2 Bedrooms or more)

3. Railway Lands West 7,018 units (~63% Bachelor/1 Bedroom and 37% 2 Bedrooms or more)

4. Fort York 4,910 units (~62% Bachelor/1 Bedroom and 38% 2 bedroom or more)

1 City of Toronto Staff Report P;\2012\Internal Services\Re\Ec12024re – AFS 14981, dated October 22, 2012


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

30

This report assumes, and the proposed EDC by-law will state, that the TCDSB intends to apply education development charges to all future development within the Railway lands to the extent that additional density is approved by the City. A reduction of 1,506 apartment units has been made to the EDC housing forecast in respect of future development within the Railway Lands, for which building permits have not been issued to date.

FIGURE 4-4 RAILWAY LANDS CENTRAL, EAST AND WEST

FIGURE 4-5 CENTRAL WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AREA

31


31

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

4.3.3 Net New Units and Forms B and C

Table 4-5 summarizes the City of Toronto’s housing forecast by unit type for the mid-2013 to mid-2028

period. The table also provides a summary of the housing forecast by TCDSB elementary review area.

Table 4-6 which follows, summarizes Forms B and C of the EDC Submission.

TABLE 4-5

Low

Den

sity

Med

ium

Den

sity

Hig

h D

ensi

ty

(Bac

h/1

BR)

Hig

h D

ensi

ty (2

+ BR

)To

tal

Re

vie

w A

rea

Net

New

Res

. Uni

t

Fore

cast

Net

New

Res

. Uni

t

Fore

cast

Net

New

Res

. Uni

t

Fore

cast

- 4

Net

New

Res

. Uni

t

Fore

cast

Net

New

Res

. Uni

t

Fore

cast

CE01

677

712

7,84

87,

206

16,4

43

CE02

805

173

1,01

465

82,

650

CE03

278

563

886

230

1,95

7

CE04

557

646

5,63

92,

389

9,23

1

CE05

747

5184

447

32,

115

CE06

820

947

100

1,70

63,

573

CE07

152

4,47

926

,871

218

,983

350

,485

CE08

1,55

145

89,

833

5,04

616

,888

CE09

341

674

3,90

61,

834

6,75

5

CE10

1,19

053

91,

113

755

3,59

7

CE11

527

6626

623

41,

093

CE12

756

297

3,62

53,

405

8,08

3

CE13

536

384

9,79

09,

335

20,0

45

CE14

957

619

501

997

3,07

4

CE15

279

290

307

3,49

64,

372

CE16

517

135

463

1,00

82,

123

CE17

342

215

266

226

1,04

9

CE18

167

107

00

274

To

tal

11,1

98

11,3

55

73,2

72

57,9

81

153,8

06

% o

f T

ota

l7.3

%7.4

%47.6

%37.7

%100.0

%

Un

its/

Ye

ar

747

757

4,8

85

3,8

65

10,2

54

May

not

add d

ue t

o r

oundin

g

2. N

et

of

1,1

55

Ra

ilwa

y L

an

ds

de

velo

pm

en

t u

nit

s p

roje

cte

d t

o b

e c

on

str

uc

ted

in 2

01

5

3. N

et

of

35

1 R

ailw

ay

La

nd

s d

eve

lop

me

nt

un

its

pro

jec

ted

to

be

co

ns

tru

cte

d in

20

14

an

d 2

01

5

TO

RO

NT

O C

AT

HO

LIC

DIS

TR

ICT

SC

HO

OL

BO

AR

D

2013 E

DC

15 Y

ea

r N

et

Re

sid

en

tia

l U

nit

Fo

reca

st A

dju

stm

en

t D

eta

ils-

1

(Su

mm

ari

ze

d b

y E

lem

en

tary

ED

C R

evie

w A

rea

)

No

tes

: 1.

As

su

me

d t

o b

e n

et

of

de

mo

litio

ns

co

ns

iste

nt

wit

h C

ity

of

To

ron

to J

an

ua

ry, 2

01

3 'd

raft

' DC

fo

rec

as

t

S:\T

CD

SB 2

01

2 E

DC

\Re

po

rt\[

15

Ye

ar

Ne

t R

esi

de

nti

al U

nit

Fo

reca

st A

dju

stm

en

t.xl

sx]S

he

et1

4. N

et

of

56

8 u

nit

s f

or

ho

us

ing

inte

ns

ific

ati

on


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

32

TABL

E 4-

6

Toro

nto

Cath

olic

Dis

trict

Sch

ool B

oard

Educ

atio

n De

velo

pmen

t Cha

rges

Sub

mis

sion

201

3

Form

s B/

C - D

wel

ling

Unit

Sum

mar

y

PROJ

ECTI

ON O

F NE

T NE

W D

WEL

LING

UNI

TS 1

Year

1Ye

ar 2

Year

3Ye

ar 4

Year

5Ye

ar 6

Year

7Ye

ar 8

Year

9Ye

ar 1

0Ye

ar 1

1Ye

ar 1

2Ye

ar 1

3Ye

ar 1

4Ye

ar 1

5

2013

/20

14/

2015

/20

16/

2017

/20

18/

2019

/20

20/

2021

/20

22/

2023

/20

24/

2025

/20

26/

2027

/

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

Tota

l Jur

isdic

tion

- City

of T

oron

to

Sing

les &

Sem

i-det

ache

d78

180

592

396

292

676

572

466

466

466

466

466

466

466

466

411

,198

Row

Hou

sing

856

980

847

845

802

754

864

810

729

788

902

672

605

794

676

11,9

23

Less

: Int

ensti

ficat

ion

Adju

stmen

t56

8

Apar

tmen

ts - B

ach

& 1

Bedr

oom

7,08

86,

800

5,05

24,

665

4,11

94,

821

4,54

74,

871

5,08

84,

900

4,82

64,

676

4,80

04,

051

4,12

474

,427

Less

: Rai

lway

Lan

ds E

xem

pt D

evel

opm

ent

1,15

5

Apar

tmen

ts - 2

Bed

room

or m

ore

7,52

15,

769

4,38

63,

462

3,37

53,

089

3,49

63,

391

3,26

03,

295

3,33

63,

521

3,35

53,

614

3,46

258

,332

Less

: Rai

lway

Lan

ds E

xem

pt D

evel

opm

ent

351

Tota

l16

,246

14,3

5311

,209

9,93

49,

222

9,42

89,

631

9,73

69,

740

9,64

69,

728

9,53

39,

424

9,12

28,

926

153,

806

Note

s: 1

. Ass

umed

to b

e ne

t of d

emol

ition

s an

d co

nver

sion

s co

nsis

tent

with

the

City

of T

oron

to's

'dra

ft' J

anua

ry 2

013

DC fo

reca

st p

repa

red

by H

emso

n Co

nsul

ting

Ltd.

S:\T

CDSB

201

2 ED

C\ED

C Su

bmis

sion

\[TCD

SB E

DC S

ubm

issi

on 2

013.

xlsx

]FOR

MS

B &

C

Tota

l Net

New

Uni

ts in

By-

Law

Are

a15

3,80

6

Less

: Rai

lway

Lan

ds E

xem

pt D

evel

opm

ent

1,50

6Tota

l All

Units

Gran

d To

tal G

ross

New

Uni

ts in

By-

Law

Are

a15

5,88

0

Less

: Sta

tuto

rily E

xem

pt U

nits

in B

y-La

w A

rea

568

31


33

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

4.4 Non-Residential Growth Forecast and Form D

The non-residential growth forecast indicates that a total of 81,162,300 square feet of non-residential

gross floor area (GFA) space and additions is anticipated for the City of Toronto over the 15 year forecast

period. Industrial and institutional additions, municipal and school board properties, which are exempt

under the legislation, are expected to total 9,677,010 square feet of GFA over that same time period.

Therefore, an education development charge by-law can be applied against a net of 71,485,290 square

feet of net gross floor area. The non-residential growth forecast was derived from the City’s ‘draft’ DC

forecast of new construction of space and employees prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd. The historic

estimated construction of new space and additions is taken from Table 9 of the Hemson report.

The projections of non-residential gross floor area were based on the City’s ‘draft’ DC forecast of non-

residential space for the 2013 to 2022, with an assumption of 45% of this 10 year forecast as the basis

for the 2023 to 2028 forecast period as follow:

Table 4-7

Historic Estimated Construction of Space. New and Additions

Commercial Space Industrial Institutional Total

Year Office Retail Other

2000 21,200 54,500 26,900 25,500 12,400 140,400

2001 22,900 59,000 29,100 17,800 49,000 177,800

2002 29,700 76,300 37,700 14,200 89,900 247,700

2003 25,900 66,600 32,900 21,900 89,200 236,600

2004 31,500 81,000 40,000 43,200 95,200 290,800

2005 78,900 202,800 100,200 35,200 93,000 510,000

2006 86,000 221,200 109,200 55,300 59,600 531,400

2007 118,900 305,700 150,900 44,700 96,600 716,800

2008 137,900 354,600 175,100 120,300 119,200 907,000

2009 128,200 329,700 162,800 99,400 72,200 792,300

2010 118,800 305,400 150,800 214,400 148,500 937,300

2011 106,900 275,000 135,800 83,700 322,500 923,900

2012 Est. 112,200 288,400 142,400 99,200 156,100 798,300

13 Y

ear

Avera

ge

81,500 209,600 103,500 70,000 112,300 576,900

14.10% 36.30% 18.00% 12.10% 19.50% 100%

Source as Table 9 of City's January, 2013 'draft' DC fprecast perepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd.

13 - Year

Annual

Average in m 2

11-

13 Y

ear

His

tori

c

Estimated Space Construction, New and Additions (m2)

1

0 Y

ear

His

tori

c


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

34

This 15 year projection of additions non-residential gross floor area, with assumed statutory exemptions

is set out on Table 4-9 below:

Table 4-8

Toronto Non-Residential Space Forecast of Growth, 2013 to 2022

Office Retail

Other

Commercial Industrial Institutional Total

Historic Annual Average

(2000-2012) in m 2 81,500 209,600 103,500 70,000, 112,300 576,900

75,000 190,000 95,000 60,000 100,000 520,000

14.40% 36.50% 18.30% 11.50% 19.20% 100%

Total 10-Year m2

Total10-Year sq.ft.

750,000

8,073,000

1,900,000

20,452,000

950,000

10,226,000

600,000

6,459,000

1,000,000

10,764,000

5,200,000

55,974,000

Sum

mary

and S

pace F

ore

cast

Forecast New Construction of Space and Employees, New Additions ( net of demolition and conversions)

Forecast Annual in m2

TABLE 4-9

TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

Determination of Non-residential GFA (2013 - 2028)

Industrial Commercial Institutional Total

Projected Gross Floor Area (sq feet of GFA - New and Additions) 9,365,550 56,188,950 15,607,800 81,162,300

As a % of Total GFA 11.5% 69.2% 19.2% 100.0%

Less: Statutory Exemptions for industrial expansions, municipal,

school construction, hospitals, colleges and universities, GO Transit,

etc.

1,404,833 2,809,448 5,462,730 9,677,010

Total Net Projected Addditional GFA 7,960,718 53,379,503 10,145,070 71,485,290

NET ESTIMATED GROSS FLOOR AREA 7,960,718 53,379,503 10,145,070 71,485,290

Source: Projected GFA taken from Hemson Consulting Ltd. 'draft' DC Forecast of New Construction of Space and Employees, New and Additions, January 2013.

31


35

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

Table 4-10 summarizes Form D of the EDC Submission:

TABLE 4-10


Education Development Charges Submission 2013

Form D - Non-Residential Development

D1 - Non-Residential Charge Based On Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.)

Total Estimated Non-Residential Board-Determined Gross Floor

Area to be Constructed Over 15 Years From Date of By-Law

Passage:81,162,300

Less: Board-Determined Gross Floor Area From Exempt

Development:-9,677,010

Net Estimated Board-Determined Gross Floor Area:

71,485,290

S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]FORM D

31


37

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

Chapter 5 – DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND FUTURE ENROLMENT EXPECTATIONS

5.1 Demographic and Enrolment Trends

The Toronto Catholic District School Board provides education services in the City of Toronto. The

TCDSB has a 2012-13 total enrolment of 91,450 students (60,679 elementary headcount and 30,771

secondary ADE) and currently operates 170 elementary and 37 secondary schools. This chapter will

include historical demographic information for the City of Toronto and the historical enrolment for the

TCDSB with emphasis on the information gathered from Statistics Canada.

5.1.1 Overview

The consultants have been retained to prepare long term (i.e., 15-year) enrolment projections for the

Board. The analysis set out herein examines both historic demographic and enrolment trends within the

Board’s jurisdiction and uses this information (along with forecasts about how these enrolment

influences are likely to change), in order to derive by school, by grade enrolments.

The consultants acquired detailed information respecting households and population data from the

1996, 2006 and 2011 (although custom tabulations respecting 2011 Census population structure by age

of dwelling unit and type will not be available until August 2013) Census information, in order to assess

historical trends school age population by dwelling unit type and by sub geography, for the purposes of

determining appropriate pupil yield cycles to be applied to the housing forecast.

The key elements of historical trends (both demographic and enrolment) are examined below. Firstly,

demographic trends are assessed in terms of:

What has been the change in pre-school and school age population, for the jurisdiction as a whole, and

for sub-geographies within the Board’s jurisdiction? Many school boards can, and will experience areas

of school age population growth, offset by areas of decline. Further, it is possible to experience growth

in secondary school age children due to in-migration, but a decline in elementary school age population.

More importantly, what has been the change in pre-school and school age population per household?

It is possible to experience significant new housing construction and yet experience a decline in school

age population per household due to an aging population driving the demand for a portion of the new

housing.

How have migrations trends changed, as a whole and by age cohort? How has the economy affected

the in-migration and out-migration of persons between the ages of 20 to 35 (i.e., those who account for

the majority of the household births)? Has the ethnic make-up of the migrant population changed and,

if so, how might this affect projected enrolment for the Catholic board in particular? What is the

religious affiliation of the migrant population? It should be noted that religion is only asked every


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

38

second Census undertaking – this occurred in 2011 but information is unavailable at the time of

preparation of this Study. As a result, the 2004 Census information was considered.

How has the birth rate (i.e., the number of children born annually) and the fertility rate (i.e., the

number of children a female is likely to have in her lifespan) changed for particular age cohorts? For

example, in many areas, the birth rate has declined in recent years, while the fertility rate in females

over the age of 35 has been increasing. Generally the data indicates that, for the majority of the

Province, women are initiating families later on in life and, in turn, having fewer children overall.

Secondly, enrolment trends are assessed in terms of:

How has the grade structure ratio (i.e., the number of pupils entering Junior Kindergarten versus the

number of students graduating Grade 8) of the Board changed?

Have changes in program delivery affected the Board’s enrolment patterns (e.g., French Immersion)?

How has the Board’s share of elementary/secondary enrolment changed vis-à-vis the co-terminous

boards and private school/other enrolment?

5.1.2 Population and Housing

Statistics Canada released the population and dwelling unit data related to the 2011 Census

undertaking. While this data is relatively new and it does not contain cross- tabulated data of age

structure, by unit type, by age of dwelling unit, it does enable the consultants to assess changing

demographic trends at the municipal level (i.e., to get to the question of how changing demographics

will affect the school-age population of sub-geographic areas within the City of Toronto). This

information is one of the sources of the school and pre-school age population trends discussed herein as

they relate to the TCDSB’s jurisdiction.

Table 5-1 compares the pre-school and school age population between 2001-2006 and 2006-2011

Census periods, illustrating the changing trends which will impact future enrolment growth for the

Board. As shown in the table, the pre-school age population (ages 0-3) decreased by 5,355 persons or

4.7% between 2001 and 2006 and increased between 2006 and 2011 by 4,005 persons or 3.7%. This

may be partially a reflection of a less accurate Census undertaking in 2006 (ie several major Ontario

municipalities reported that the 2001 Census population plus housing occupancy to mid- 2006,

generated higher population numbers than reported).

The elementary school age population (ages 4-13) decreased by 18,945 persons or 6.5% from 2001 to

2006. This same age group continued to experience a decrease between the 2006 and 2011 Census

period when the cohort decreased by 12,695 persons.

31


39

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

Pre-

Scho

ol Ag

e (0-

3)

Actu

al Po

pulat

ion

Num

ber o

f Occ

upie

d Hou

seho

lds

Popu

latio

n per

Hou

seho

ld (P

opula

tion/

Num

ber o

f occ

upied

hous

ehold

s)

1996

2001

2006

2011

Abso

lute

Chan

ge%

Chan

geAb

solu

te

Chan

ge%

Chan

geAb

solu

te

Chan

ge%

Chan

ge19

9620

0120

0620

1119

9620

0120

0620

11Ab

solu

te

Chan

ge%

Chan

geAb

solu

te

Chan

ge%

Chan

geAb

solu

te

Chan

ge%

Chan

ge

Toro

nto

126,6

85

114,2

95

108,9

40

112,9

45

(12,3

90)

-9.8%

(5,35

5)

-4

.7%4,0

05

3.7%

903,5

85

943,0

75

979,4

45

1,047

,880

To

ront

o0.1

40

0.121

0.1

11

0.108

(0

.019)

-13.6

%(0

.010)

-8.2%

(0.00

3)

-3

.1%

Elem

enta

ry Sc

hool

Age (

4-13

)

Actu

al Po

pulat

ion

Num

ber o

f Occ

upie

d Hou

seho

lds

Popu

latio

n per

Hou

seho

ld (P

opula

tion/

Num

ber o

f occ

upied

hous

ehold

s)

1996

2001

2006

2011

Abso

lute

Chan

ge%

Chan

geAb

solu

te

Chan

ge%

Chan

geAb

solu

te

Chan

ge%

Chan

ge19

9620

0120

0620

1119

9620

0120

0620

11Ab

solu

te

Chan

ge%

Chan

geAb

solu

te

Chan

ge%

Chan

geAb

solu

te

Chan

ge%

Chan

ge

Toro

nto

272,9

10

291,9

90

273,0

45

260,3

50

19,08

0

7.0

%(1

8,945

)

-6

.5%(1

2,695

)

-4

.6%90

3,585

94

3,075

97

9,445

1,0

47,88

0

Toro

nto

0.302

0.3

10

0.279

0.2

48

0.008

2.5

%(0

.031)

-10.0

%(0

.030)

-10.9

%

Seco

ndar

y Sch

ool A

ge (1

4-17

)

Actu

al Po

pulat

ion

Num

ber o

f Occ

upie

d Hou

seho

lds

Popu

latio

n per

Hou

seho

ld (P

opula

tion/

Num

ber o

f occ

upied

hous

ehold

s)

1996

2001

2006

2011

Abso

lute

Chan

ge%

Chan

geAb

solu

te

Chan

ge%

Chan

geAb

solu

te

Chan

ge%

Chan

ge19

9620

0120

0620

1119

9620

0120

0620

11Ab

solu

te

Chan

ge%

Chan

geAb

solu

te

Chan

ge%

Chan

geAb

solu

te

Chan

ge%

Chan

ge

Toro

nto

104,8

25

112,3

10

114,7

25

115,4

75

7,485

7.1

%2,4

15

2.2%

750

0.7

%90

3,585

94

3,075

97

9,445

1,0

47,88

0

Toro

nto

0.116

0.1

19

0.117

0.1

10

0.003

2.7

%(0

.002)

-1.6%

(0.00

7)

-5

.9%

Sour

ce: S

tatis

tics C

anad

a 199

6, 20

01, 2

006 a

nd 20

11 Ce

nsus

Prof

ile D

ata &

Sing

le Ye

ar of

Age P

opul

atio

n Dat

a

Note

: Figu

res d

o not

inclu

de th

e Cen

sus U

nder

coun

t

S:\TC

DSB 2

012 E

DC\C

ensu

s\[T

CDSB

Cens

us In

form

atio

n.xls

x]5-

1 PPU

by A

ge G

roup

2006

-201

1Nu

mbe

r of O

ccup

ied H

ouse

hold

s

Cens

us Pe

riod

1996

-200

120

01-2

006

2006

-201

1Nu

mbe

r of O

ccup

ied H

ouse

hold

sCe

nsus

Perio

d19

96-2

001

Cens

us Pe

riod

1996

-200

120

01-2

006

2006

-201

1Ce

nsus

Perio

d19

96-2

001

Num

ber o

f Occ

upie

d Hou

seho

lds

Cens

us Pe

riod

1996

-200

120

01-2

006

2001

-200

6

TABL

E 5-1

TORO

NTO

CATH

OLIC

DIST

RICT

SCHO

OL BO

ARD

Chan

ges t

o Pre

-Sch

ool a

nd Sc

hool

Age

Popu

latio

n, 19

96-2

011 C

ensu

s Per

iods

2006

-201

1

2001

-200

620

06-2

011

Cens

us Pe

riod

1996

-200

120

01-2

006

2006

-201

1


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

40

From 2001 to 2006 the secondary school age population (ages 14-17) increased by 2,415 persons or

2.2%. This increase was spread out over the entire City of Toronto. During the 2006 to 2011 Census

period, secondary school age population continued to increase by 750 persons or 0.7%. This increase

was experienced across the City.

Table 5-1 also calculates the school age population per household. It is important to evaluate the

change in the school age population measured against the change in the number of occupied

households. Significant housing development may not translate into a proportionate increase in school

age population, especially if a significant portion of the development is higher priced condo/high-rise

apartments. Analysis of the population by household indicates that during the 2001 to 2006 Census

period, the total pre-school age population (ages 0-3) per household within the City of Toronto declined

by 8.2%, followed by a 3.1% continued decline between 2006 to 2011.

Between the 2001 and 2006 Census periods, the number of elementary students (ages 4-13) per

household decreased by 10% followed by a further decline of 10.9% between the 2006 and 20011

Census periods. The decline in the 4-13 year old cohort per household is not concentrated in one

particular area but instead it is distributed across the City.

Population per household for the 14-17 year old age cohort decreased during both Census periods by

1.6% and 5.9% respectively.

5.1.3 Births and Fertility Rates

According to the Office of the Registrar General, the total number of children born annually in the City of

Toronto decreased from 31,005 in 2001 to 28,493 in 2010 as shown in Table 5-2. This represents an 8%

overall decrease in the number of live births over this same time frame.

Table 5-3 shows fertility rates across the jurisdiction of the Board between 2001 and 2010 and an

decrease from a level of 1.440 births per 1,000 females to 1.289 births per 1,000 females.

Year Total 0-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 Unknown

2001 31,005 924 3,790 8,053 10,630 6,201 1,341 66 -

2002 29,912 819 3,535 7,569 10,341 6,288 1,299 61 -

2003 29,739 787 3,487 7,519 10,261 6,207 1,411 56 11

2004 29,786 680 3,550 7,498 10,468 6,093 1,406 75 16

2005 29,321 677 3,346 7,376 10,233 6,272 1,384 33 -

2006 29,522 639 3,367 7,370 10,294 6,355 1,466 31 -

2007 29,910 618 3,300 7,295 10,367 6,792 1,495 43 -

2008 29,660 616 3,127 7,419 10,150 6,791 1,495 62 -

2009 28,158 530 2,794 6,890 9,896 6,417 1,579 52 -

2010 28,493 524 2,727 6,824 10,070 6,677 1,616 55 -

2001-2010 295,506 6,814 33,023 73,813 102,710 64,093 14,492 534 27

Source: Statistics Canada, Births by Age of Mother

S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Census\[TCDSB Census Information.xlsx]5-2 Births by Age of Mother

TABLE 5-2


Births by Age of Mother, 2001-2010

31


41

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

5.1.4 Migration Patterns

Table 5-4 compares the migration patterns between the International, Interprovincial and

Intraprovincial population from mid-2000 to mid-2010. As indicated in Table 5-4, total net migration in

the area has increased over the past five years by 64,112 persons from 2005 to 2010. The natural

population increase (difference between the number of births and deaths) has decreased by 137 for the

same time period.

Year 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 Total

2001 0.013 0.042 0.075 0.092 0.053 0.013 0.001 1.440

2002 0.011 0.040 0.070 0.089 0.054 0.012 0.001 1.381

2003 0.011 0.038 0.071 0.089 0.055 0.013 0.001 1.391

2004 0.009 0.039 0.071 0.093 0.055 0.013 0.001 1.406

2005 0.009 0.036 0.070 0.093 0.058 0.013 0.000 1.393

2006 0.009 0.036 0.068 0.095 0.060 0.013 0.000 1.400

2007 0.008 0.035 0.065 0.095 0.063 0.014 0.000 1.407

2008 0.008 0.033 0.065 0.092 0.063 0.014 0.001 1.380

2009 0.007 0.029 0.060 0.088 0.060 0.015 0.000 1.292

2010 0.007 0.028 0.058 0.087 0.062 0.015 0.001 1.289

Source: Statis tics Canada

S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Census\[TCDSB Census Information.xlsx]5-3 Ferti l i ty Rates


Historical Age Specific Fertility Rate

TABLE 5-3

Births per Population, 2001-2010

2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

International Migration 87,435 85,514 60,442 61,208 58,272 59,345 48,805 48,980 46,466 49,185

Interprovincial Migration 3,569 776 -572 -1,514 -1,165 -3,218 -3,262 -2,333 -1,948 -51

Intraprovincial Migration -57,804 -75,000 -74,653 -69,539 -58,804 -48,816 -39,962 -35,605 -26,737 -26,737

Total Net Migration 33,200 11,290 -14,783 -9,845 -1,697 7,311 5,581 11,042 17,781 22,397

Births 30,990 30,150 29,909 29,814 29,870 30,001 29,852 30,297 30,592 30,896

Deaths 17,358 16,551 16,928 16,664 17,321 16,859 16,411 16,760 17,314 17,891

Natural Increase 13,632 13,599 12,981 13,150 12,549 13,142 13,441 13,537 13,278 13,005

Source: Statis tics Canada

S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Census\[TCDSB Census Information.xlsx]5-4 Migration Summary


Migration Patterns by Total Population

TABLE 5-4


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

42

5.1.5 Enrolment Overview

Historical elementary and secondary enrolments (2008/09 to 2011/12) for the TCDSB have been

summarized in Tables 5-5 and 5-6.

Table 5-5 outlines the total elementary enrolment for the TCDSB within its jurisdiction. Between

2008/09 and 2011/12, the elementary panel has decreased by 805 students or 1.31%.

Enrolment at the secondary panel in Table 5-6 has increased by 964 ADE students or 3.24% between

2008/09 and 2011/12. In part, this reflects the increased apportionment share of the TCDSB over that

time period. Without an apportionment shift, the TCDSB’s historical decline in elementary enrolment

would negatively impact on future secondary enrolment as a result of smaller graduating elementary

classes moving into the secondary school environment.

5.1.6 Grade Structure Ratio (GSR)

In Table 5-5, the change in Grade Structure Ratio (GSR) is shown in each year between 2008/09 and

2012/13. GSR measures the number of pupils entering the elementary system (JK-1) versus the number

leaving the elementary system (Grades 6-8). A ratio of 1.0 is indicative of an equal number of pupils

entering the system as those leaving the system (i.e., when the information is expressed as average daily

enrolment including full-day kindergarten). Further, a ratio of 1.0 in each year is an indicator of stable

enrolment, whereas a value less than 1.0 is indicative of a decline in enrolment moving into the

secondary panel. Increasing births or net migration, as well as the introduction of programs like full day

Kindergarten can alter the GSR.

Hist Hist Hist Hist Current

2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

JK 5,130 5,366 5,310 5,421 5,451

SK 5,430 5,410 5,559 5,568 5,700

1 5,595 5,845 5,684 5,908 5,890

2 6,112 5,740 5,933 5,814 5,984

3 5,924 6,263 5,838 6,045 5,879

4 6,339 6,045 6,344 5,918 6,094

5 6,311 6,487 6,165 6,415 5,958

6 6,724 6,489 6,646 6,341 6,505

7 6,735 6,830 6,619 6,731 6,437

8 7,187 6,851 6,933 6,718 6,781

SE - - - - -

Other - - - - -

Total 61,484 61,323 61,029 60,877 60,679

GSR 0.782 0.824 0.820 0.854 0.864

Source: Toronto Catholic District School Board

S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Census\[TCDSB Census Information.xlsx]Table 5-5 Hist Enrol Elem

Grade

TABLE 5-5


Historical Elementary Enrolment, 2008/09 to 2012/13

31


43

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

5.1.7 Apportionment

Tables 5-7 outlines the apportionment between primary elementary and secondary service providers in

the City of Toronto (i.e., includes English language public boards and excludes French language schools,

home schooling, institutional, instructional settings, etc.).

Table 5-7 illustrates the historic elementary patterns of the TCDSB between 2007/08 and 2011/12 as

reported to the Ministry of Education. Over this time frame, TCDSB increased its apportionment share

by 0.25%. Similarly, the Board’s apportionment share has increased at the secondary panel over the

same timeframe by 1.36% which is significant.

Hist Hist Hist Hist Current

2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

9 7,353 7,467 6,991 7,179 6,955

10 7,116 7,328 7,462 7,088 7,246

11 6,935 7,063 7,303 7,510 7,158

12 8,403 8,551 8,762 8,892 9,412

SE - - - - -

Other - - - - -

Total 29,806 30,408 30,518 30,668 30,771

Source: Toronto Cathol ic Dis trict School Board

S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Census\[TCDSB Census Information.xlsx]Table 5-6 Hist Enrol Sec

TABLE 5-6


Historical Secondary Enrolment, 2008/09 to 2012/13

Grade


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

44

Elementary Panel

2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

61,484 61,323 61,029 60,877 60,679

25.8% 26.1% 26.1% 26.2% 26.0%

2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

177,187 174,073 172,568 171,862 172,609

74.2% 73.9% 73.9% 73.8% 74.0%

Secondary Panel

2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

28,186 28,477 28,703 29,535 29,806

24.5% 24.8% 24.8% 25.4% 25.8%

2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

86,975 86,366 86,821 86,886 85,557

75.5% 75.2% 75.2% 74.6% 74.2%

Source: Toronto Cathol ic Dis trict School Board

S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Census\[TCDSB Census Information.xlsx]Table 5-7 - Apport ionment

TCDSB

TDSB

TABLE 5-7


Historic Annual Enrolment (ADE), 2007/08 to 2011/12

TDSB

TCDSB

31


45

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

5.2 Projections of Pupil Accommodation Needs

The end of this chapter summarizes the elementary and secondary enrolment projections for the TCDSB.

5.2.1 Methodology

The derivation of by-school and by-grade enrolment projections consists of two distinct methodological

elements. The first is based on a retention rate approach to determine how the existing pupils of the

Board (i.e., pupils resident in existing housing within the Board’s jurisdiction, as well as any pupils who

reside outside of the Board’s jurisdiction but attending schools of the Board) would move through each

grade and transition from the elementary to the secondary panel, including changes in apportionment.

This element of the enrolment projection methodology is known as the “Requirements of the Existing

Community.” The second part of the projection exercise is to determine how many pupils would be

generated by new housing development over the forecast period, and what portion of these pupils

would potentially choose to attend schools of the Board. This element of the forecasting exercise is

known as the “Requirements of New Development.” The EDC Guidelines require that each projection

element be examined separately. The methodological approach to each element is examined in depth

below.

Requirements of the Existing Community

The enrolment projections of the existing community are intended to reflect the predicted change in

enrolment pertaining to housing units that have previously been constructed and occupied within the

Board’s jurisdiction. This differs from the pupil place requirements of new development, which reflect

the anticipated enrolment to be generated from new housing units to be constructed over the next 15

years. Existing community projections may also include some pupils who live outside of the Board’s

jurisdiction, but attend schools of the Board.

The key components of the existing community projection model are outlined in Figure 1.

1. Enrolment projections disaggregated by sub-geography (i.e., review areas).

2. Historic average daily enrolment by school and by grade. This information is verified against the

Board’s Financial Statements. The enrolment summaries are used to determine how changes in

the provision of facilities and programs, as well as school choice, have affected student

enrolment to date. This information also provides perspectives on how board apportionment

has changed throughout the jurisdiction and by sub-area. This information provides an

indication of holding situations where pupils are provided with temporary accommodation

awaiting the construction of additional pupil spaces ( e.g. the Sheppard Avenue Concord Adex

site).


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

46

3. Historic retention rates by school, by grade and by program -- has the number of students

moving through from grade to grade been more or less than previous years? Have changes to

program offering affected the Boards’ share of enrolment at any particular school?

4. Apportionment by sub-area -- boards are asked to provide several years of data indicating

student enrolment by school and by program, based on where pupils reside. This data provides

the most accurate assessment of the Board’s apportionment share by sub-geography. There are

five (5) education service providers in this jurisdiction (i.e., two English - language, two French-

language, plus private school, home school, etc.). The cumulative apportionment share of each

service provider must equal 100%.

5. Feeder school retentions for each elementary and secondary school -- this includes pupils

feeding into specialized programs (e.g., French Immersion, Extended French, Gifted, etc.) and

from elementary schools into secondary schools. The secondary enrolment projections are a

direct function of the elementary enrolment projections where Grade 8 pupils feed into

secondary schools. Typically Grade 8 students are directed to a preferred secondary school

based on a board’s attendance boundaries. However, “open access” policies at the secondary

level often permit students to attend their school of choice (which could include a co-terminous

board’s secondary school).

FIGURE 1

PUPIL REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXISTING COMMUNITY

B.

Aggregate Data

A.

Import Data

Sources

D.

Panel Allocations

E.

Review Results

C.

Data Synthesis

Determine

Grade to

Grade

Retention

Rates

JK Entry taken

From MoF

Trends of

Projected

4Yr. Olds

Feeder School

Matrix Applied

Retention

Elementary or

Elementary to

Secondary

Aggregate

Facility

Projection

by Review

Area

Retention

Rate Model

(10-15 Yr.)

By School

By Grade

By Program

Historic ADE

Enrolment

by Facility &

Grade

Elementary

Panel

Projections

(headcount

includes FDK)

Secondary

Panel

Projections

(ADE)

Review School

and Grade

Projections

With Board

Staff

and Adjust as

necessary

31


47

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

6. Historical enrolment anomalies and the ability to document unusual shifts in enrolment at any

individual school due to changes in program, staffing, transportation, policies etc.

Long term enrolment projections for each elementary and secondary school were subsequently

reviewed with Board staff and refined as necessary.

Requirements of New Development

The projected enrolment supporting the “requirements of new development” is intended to determine

the number of pupils that would occupy new housing development, and the percentage of these pupils

that are likely to attend schools of the Board. Some of these pupils may be held in existing schools of

the Board, awaiting the opening of new neighbourhood schools.

The key components of the new development projection model are outlined in Figure 2.

1. Units in the development approvals process -- this information was provided by the TCDSB, and

is used as one of the considerations in deriving the detailed fifteen-year housing forecast by

location and by unit type. Development applications information was made available to the

consultants at a school level. Finally, the development information was provided by dwelling

unit type (e.g., low, medium and high density) which is critical to determining appropriate

student yields to be generated by the development.

2. Municipal growth forecast –City of Toronto was contacted and asked to provide information

respecting the most council -approved recent housing and population forecasts, secondary

plans, etc., as well as a copy of the relevant approved forecast targets in the Official Plan.

3. Other housing and population forecasts prepared by a Hemson Consulting Ltd. were used to

determine City- wide housing forecasts, both timing and housing type.

4. Both the units in the development approvals process and the 15-year municipal housing

forecasts (i.e., by type, where available) are used to determine the number of new dwelling

units to be constructed by review area and by school district.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

48

The 15-year housing projections typically do not match on an annual basis (i.e., phasing of

approved development may differ from projected timing of development). However, they are

matched by dwelling unit type and total number of units for each 5-year increment, where

feasible, and always match to the 15-year projection totals.

5. Custom tabulated Statistics Canada data provides detailed information respecting the number

of occupied households and the period constructed, household density, the number of

bedrooms and the age of the occupants. This information is used to determine historic pupil

generation factors (i.e., the total number of school-age children occupying a given household

unit) by density and period of construction, as well as headship rates (i.e. the age of the

household maintainers) by sub-geography. Pupil yield (i.e. the number of school- age children of

the board occupying a given household unit) and pupil yield curves are derived over the fifteen-

year forecast period, giving consideration to density type, declining ppu’s, age of the dwelling

unit and the occupancy cycle of the dwelling unit. A more detailed discussion is set out below.

FIGURE 2

PUPIL PLACE REQUIREMENTS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT: CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATIC

A.

External Data

Sources

C.

Panel

Allocations

B.

Pupil Projection

Calculations

D.

Board

Apportionments

E.

Pupil

Requirements of

New

Development

Growth

Forecasts by

Municipality

Units in the

Development

Approvals

Process, where

available

Residential

Growth

Forecast

15 Years

Disaggregate

Growth by

Review Area

Net Units

Disaggregate

Growth

by School,

by Program,

by Grade

Public

Elementary

Pupil Headcount

Projection

Population

Over 55

Determining

Headship Rates

Statistics

Canada

Census

Data

Import Pre-

school and

School Age

Population

Import

Dwellings by

Age, Density

and Number of

Bedrooms

Determine

School Age

Population per

Household

Adjustments to

School Age

Population per

Household re

Data Anomalies

Develop Pupil

Yield Curve by

Sub-geography

Elementary

Pupil

Projections

(yld. X units)

Secondary

Pupil

Projections

(yld. X units)

Apportionment

Calculations

Catholic

Elementary

Pupil Headcount

Projection

Public

Secondary

Pupil

Projection ADE

Catholic

Secondary

Pupil

Projection ADE Historical

Enrolment by

School or Place

of ResidencePrivate School

and All Other

Projections

31


49

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

The New Unit Pupil Yield Cycle

Figure 3 translates the impact of the single detached unit occupancy trend to a conceptual

representation of the pupil yield cycle for these types of dwelling units. This figure illustrates a typical

yield cycle for a new single detached dwelling unit, commencing at initial occupancy of the unit. In

reality, there are several variables that affect the overall pupil yield cycle. Firstly, most new

communities are constructed over periods of 5 to 15 years, so that the aggregated overall pupil yield of

even a community comprised entirely of single detached units will represent an amalgamation of units

at different points on the pupil yield cycle. It should be noted that new communities are generally

comprised of:

• Units constructed and occupied at different times;

• Development of varying densities (low, medium or high);

• There are particular types of units with low “initial” yield occupancies (e.g., adult lifestyle,

recreational, granny flats, etc.).

The second variable is that there are basically two pupil yield cycles that have historically affected single

detached units in newer communities: the primary cycle, which occurs over the (approximate) first 15-

20 years of community development; and the sustainable cycle, which occurs after that point.

The primary yield cycle for elementary pupil yields in new single detached units generally peaks within

the first 7 to 10 years of community development, depending on the timing of occupancy of the units.

Recent demographic and occupancy trends, however, suggest that the family creation process is being

delayed as many families are postponing having children and also having less children (as witnessed by

declining fertility rates). Also, lower mortgage interest rates over the past few years have allowed

buyers to purchase homes in advance of the intention to create families.

“Peak” yields may remain relatively constant over several years, particularly in periods of sustained

economic growth. Eventually, however, the elementary yield would gradually decline until it reaches

the end of the initial yield cycle and moves to the first stage of the sustainable yield cycle. The initial

yield cycle of secondary pupils peaks in approximately year 12 to 15 of new community development

(depending on the timing of occupancy of the units), and experiences a lower rate of decline than the

elementary panel, before reaching the sustainable yield cycle.

The second phase, the sustainable yield cycle for both the elementary and secondary panels appears to

maintain the same peaks and valleys. However, the peak of the sustainable cycle is considerably lower

than the primary peak for the community.

Accordingly, the overall blended pupil yield for a single community will incorporate the combination of

these factors. Pupil yields applicable to different communities will vary based on these (and other)

demographic factors. Pupil generation in the re-occupancy of existing dwelling units can vary from its

initial occupancy. For these reasons, an overall pupil yield generally reflects a weighting (i.e. the

proportion of low, medium and high density units constructed each year) and blending of these

variables.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

50

Calculation of Pupils Generated from Requirements of New Development

1. Statutorily-exempt units are removed from the gross. The resultant projection of dwelling units

is known as the “net units.”

2. Historical enrolment by place of residence is requested from each co-terminous board. This

information, along with the Census data, is used to determine apportionment applicable to the

Board in each review area.

3. The pupil yields are adjusted to account for the apportionment share for the Board by density

type. The yields are multiplied by the forecast of new dwelling units by type, by year, in order to

derive enrolment projections from new development for the Board.

Total Student Enrolment Projections

The projected “requirements of the existing community” are added to the total “requirements of new

development” by school and by grade, to determine total projected enrolment over the forecast period,

as shown in Figure 4.

This information is reviewed in detail with Board staff. The enrolments are adjusted, where necessary.

Figure 3

Conceptual Representation of the Pupil Yield Cycle

for A New Single Detached Dwelling

Years

C. Sustainable

Secondary

C. Sustainable

Elementary

6-10 Years 11-15 Years Approximately

20 Years

A. Initial

Elementary

A. Initial

Secondary

B. Peak

Elementary

B. Peak

Secondary

ELEMENTARY

SECONDARY

PRIMARY

CYCLESUSTAINABLE

CYCLE

Unit

OccupiedApproximate Age of Dwelling

Pupil Yield

31


51

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

5.2.2 Summary of Board Enrolment Projections

Summaries of the total enrolment, based on the provision of full-day learning for 4- and 5- year olds

(based on FDK capital projects approval for 2014) for the TCDSB, are provided in Table 5-8 and for the

elementary and secondary panels. The total EDC elementary enrolment projections indicate that by the

end of the 15-year forecast period, the Board will have a total enrolment of 64,957 students for an

increase of 4,278 students from the 2012/13 enrolment of 60,679. The Board is expected to experience

a decrease of about 935 students in the existing community, which is projected to be enhanced by an

additional 5,213 pupils from new housing development, which is an overall pupil yield of 0.03.

On the secondary panel, TCDSB forecasts a decrease of 2,673 students in the existing community and

2,988 additional students to come from new development over the next 15 years. This results in total

projected year 15 enrolment of 31,087 students on the secondary panel, increase of about 316 students

from the 2012/13 enrolment.

FIGURE 4

A. B. C. D.

Existing Community New Development Data Testing Final Results

Final Exis ting

Community

Enrolment

Projections Total

Board

+

Requirements of

New Development

Enrolment

Projections Total

Board

Compare to other

Source Population

Trends

Total Enrolment

Projections by

Panel, by School,

by Grade


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

52

Tabl

e 5-

8

Curre

ntYe

ar 1

Year

2Ye

ar 3

Year

4Ye

ar 5

Year

6Ye

ar 7

Year

8Ye

ar 9

Year

10Ye

ar 11

Year

12Ye

ar 13

Year

14Ye

ar 15

2012

/20

13/

2014

/20

15/

2016

/20

17/

2018

/20

19/

2020

/20

21/

2022

/20

23/

2024

/20

25/

2026

/20

27/

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

Exist

ing

60,67

9

60,00

6

59,68

6

59,17

9

59,39

1

59,54

8

59,77

7

59,80

9

59,78

2

59,60

5

59,43

1

59,61

5

59,76

1

59,94

0

59,82

2

59,74

4

Requ

irem

ent o

f New

Dev

elop

men

t41

6

799

1,2

06

1,5

78

1,9

38

2,2

90

2,6

60

3,0

28

3,3

36

3,6

29

4,0

48

4,4

02

4,6

60

4,9

43

5,2

13

Tota

l60

,679

60

,423

60

,485

60

,385

60

,970

61

,485

62

,066

62

,469

62

,810

62

,941

63

,060

63

,664

64

,162

64

,600

64

,765

64

,957

Curre

ntYe

ar 1

Year

2Ye

ar 3

Year

4Ye

ar 5

Year

6Ye

ar 7

Year

8Ye

ar 9

Year

10Ye

ar 11

Year

12Ye

ar 13

Year

14Ye

ar 15

2012

/20

13/

2014

/20

15/

2016

/20

17/

2018

/20

19/

2020

/20

21/

2022

/20

23/

2024

/20

25/

2026

/20

27/

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

Exist

ing

30,77

1

30,17

4

30,12

0

29,29

0

28,73

8

28,35

1

28,03

8

28,27

9

28,50

9

28,79

8

28,56

8

28,37

3

28,00

8

27,96

2

28,00

5

28,09

8

Requ

irem

ent o

f New

Dev

elop

men

t22

2

422

62

1

795

98

4

1,203

1,400

1,602

1,769

1,947

2,209

2,438

2,619

2,811

2,988

Tota

l30

,771

30

,396

30

,542

29

,912

29

,533

29

,334

29

,241

29

,679

30

,111

30

,567

30

,514

30

,582

30

,446

30

,581

30

,816

31

,087

S:\TC

DSB 2

012 E

DC\E

DC Su

bmiss

ion\

[TCDS

B EDC

Subm

issio

n 201

3.xls

x]Enr

olm

ent P

roje

ctio

n Sum

mar

y

Elem

enta

ry Pa

nel

Seco

ndar

y Pan

el

31


53

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

Chapter 6 – SITE REQUIREMENTS AND VALUATION

6.1 Legislative Requirements

The steps set out in section 7 of O.Reg. 20/98 for the determination of an education development

charge, require the Board to “...estimate the net education land cost for the elementary/secondary

school sites required to provide pupil places for the new school pupils.”

Section 257.53(2) specifies the following as education land costs if they are incurred or proposed to be

incurred by a Board:

1. Costs to acquire land or an interest in land, including a leasehold interest, to be used by the

board to provide pupil accommodation.

2. Costs to provide services to the land or otherwise prepare the site so that a building or buildings

may be built on the land to provide pupil accommodation.

3. Costs to prepare and distribute education development charge background studies as required

under this Division.

4. Interest on money borrowed to pay for costs described in items 1 and 2.

5. Costs to undertake studies in connection with an acquisition referred to in item 1.

Only the capital component of costs to lease land or to acquire a leasehold interest is an education land

cost.

Under the same section of the Act, the following are not education land costs:

1. Costs of any building to be used to provide pupil accommodation.

2. Costs that are attributable to excess land of a site that are “not education land costs.” (section 2

subsection 1 of O.Reg. 20/98)

However, land is not excess land if it is reasonably necessary,

(a) to meet a legal requirement relating to the site; or

(b) to allow the facilities for pupil accommodation that the board intends to provide on the site to

be located there and to provide access to those facilities.

The exception to this is:

(a) land that has already been acquired by the board before February 1, 1998, or

(b) land in respect of which there is an agreement, entered into before February 1, 1998, under

which the board is required to, or has an option to, purchase the land.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

54

Finally, the Regulation specifies the following site sizes:

Elementary schools

Number of Pupils Maximum Area (acres)

1 to 400 4

401 to 500 5

501 to 600 6

601 to 700 7

701 or more 8

Secondary Schools

Number of Pupils Maximum Area (acres)

1 to 1000 12

1001 to 1100 13

1101 to 1200 14

1201 to 1300 15

1301 to 1400 16

1401 to 1500 17

1501 or more 18

Where school sites are situated adjacent to parkland that is available for school program usage, then the

foregoing site size limitations are generally reasonable. However, municipalities may be reluctant to

allow shared usage of this land. In the latter instance, Boards may require site sizes in excess of the

maximum prescribed above. In some instances, a portion of the school site may be undevelopable (e.g.

environmentally sensitive lands, woodlots, etc.). Changes to program offering often translate into larger

school buildings footprints, increased playfield space, parking spaces, site access, etc. The EDC

legislation deals with the acquisition of school sites meeting or exceeding the acreage benchmarks

outlined above.

31


55

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

The following section deals with site needs related to enrolment growth in intensified development

settings.

The definition of education land costs includes:

Costs to acquire land or an interest in land, including a leasehold interest, to be used by the Board to provide pupil accommodation;

Costs to provide services to the land or prepare the site so that a building or buildings may be built on the land to provide pupil accommodation.

Land is defined in the Assessment Act (R.S.O. 1990, Chapter A.31) as:

Land covered with water;

All trees and underwood growing upon land;

All mines, minerals, gas, oil, salt quarries and fossils in and under land;

All buildings, or any part of any building, and all structures, machinery and fixtures erected or placed upon, in, over, under or affixed to land;

All structures and fixtures erected or placed upon, in, over, under or affixed to a highway, lane or other public communication or water, but not the rolling stock of a transportation system.

In real property law, ‘to whomsoever the soil belongs, he owns also to the sky and to the depths’ (Cujus

est solum ejus est usque ad caelum et ad inferos). In other words, the ownership of land generally

includes the ground or surface rights, the air rights (with the limitation that the height of effective

(actual or reasonably potential) use of the ground occupier, the air is common property), and the

subterranean rights (with the limitation of any mineral rights, gas rights, etc. owned by others).

For the purposes of identifying growth-related net education land costs in an intensified development

setting, the following eligible site acquisition/site development costs have been considered:

1. The acquisition or expropriation of lands adjacent to an existing school site to accommodate

enrolment growth (this could include lands to accommodate facility additions, portables,

additional surface parking requirements, sufficient playfield space to accommodate increased

student enrolment and/or additional site access requirements/setbacks or other site conditions

imposed by the municipality, as land acquisition costs);

2. As a result of growth-related demands, the costs related to the provision of alternative parking

solutions that would have otherwise been incurred by the School Board if it had been in a

position to acquire the additional ground-related acreage required to accommodate the parking

standards established by the local municipality, as land acquisition costs;

3. As a result of growth-related demands, the cost of excavation and shoring for underground

parking (where no other parking solution exists) as site development costs;


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

56

4. The costs to acquire a leasehold interest in the land, where the land consists only of air rights as

described above (that is, a leasehold interest in building space required to accommodate

enrolment growth, where no surface land is available to be acquired or is cost prohibitive

relative to the leasehold interest cost).

5. The cost to acquire a co-terminous board school site declared surplus under O. Reg 444/98

The EDC Guidelines (Section 2.3.8) require that “when the area of any of the proposed sites exceeds the

site designations in this table (i.e. table above), justification as to the need for the excess land is

required.” Given that the Regulation standards have not been updated since 1992, a 15% premium is

added to the Regulation benchmark to account for changing municipal parking standards and the impact

of programs such as PCS, FDK and on-sight daycare , greater site access needs, playfield space, pens,

parking requirements, and the potential to accommodate increased portables and a larger building

footprint. An explanation is provided on individual Form E F and G’s, where appropriate.

6.2 Site Requirements

The site requirements arising from new development in each review area indicate the cumulative

number of new pupil places required by Year 15 of the forecast period. Surplus pupil spaces are those

that are “available” to meet some or all of the requirements of new development (where the permanent

capacity exceeds the Year 15 enrolment expectations of the existing community), reducing the need for

additional sites. Further, new sites may not be required where the Board intends to construct additions

to existing facilities to meet all or a portion of the requirements of new development over the forecast

period (although, in some cases the acquisition of adjacent property may be required). Even in a

greenfield situation, school additions constructed to accommodate enrolment growth may require

additional site development (e.g. grading, soil remediation, upgrading hydro services, removal of

portables, etc.).

Boards generally acquire sites a minimum of two years in advance of opening a new school facility, in

order to ensure that there is sufficient time allowed for site servicing and preparation, facility design,

contract tendering, building construction and the capital allocation process. The length of time required

to approve development plans, acquire land for school sites, assess site preparation needs, and

commence school construction can consume a decade or more, particularly where multi-use

developments or redevelopment of lands are proposed.

The permanent capacity of each new school to be constructed, proposed additions to meet growth-

related needs, the number of eligible pupil places to be funded, and associated land needs under the

jurisdiction-wide by-law scenario is set out in Chapter 7.

6.3 Site Valuation

The TCDSB retained the services of the firm gsi Real Estate & Planning Advisors Inc. to undertake an

analysis of the growth-related land acquisition costs “proposed to be incurred” (section 257.53(2) of the

31


57

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

Education Act) by the Board over the fifteen-year forecast period. Specifically the appraisers were

requested to provide an opinion as to:

(a) the appropriate land acreage value for school site acquisitions by the Board, for expected sites

within the Board’s jurisdiction through available land acquisition and through friendly or non-friendly

expropriations;

(b) the appropriate annual escalation factor to apply to the (current) school site value in order to

sustain the likely acquisition cost over the 15-year period.

The following is an excerpt from the gsi Report:

“The valuations provided in this study were completed for the purpose of EDC rate setting. In those instances

where the required site is comprised of several specific (smaller) parcels - as is the case with the expansion lands – it

is important to recognize that for the purpose of EDC rate setting the value of the whole is more important than the

specific value assigned to each of the parts (i.e. the smaller parcels or properties that combine to form the Board’s

requirements). As such, while the values contained in this report are suitable and defensible for the purpose of EDC

rate setting, it is not appropriate to rely exclusively on the specific values assigned to each of the smaller parcels for

the purpose of acquiring or expropriating said parcels.

For those sites to be acquired in the short to mid-term, where specific lands have been identified by the Board, we

have provided an estimate regarding the total cost of acquisition in order to account for costs related to landowner

entitlements provided for under the Expropriations Act. Given the overriding potential for an expropriation in

relation to public sector property acquisition, the estimated cost of acquisition also accounts for additional costs

incurred by the Board in an effort to avoid a formal and costly expropriation (i.e. disposition incentive allowance).

Depending on the type of property and quantum of market value, the estimated cost of acquisition may be 5 to 15

percent greater than the property’s estimated market value.

For those sites improved with a residential dwelling, we were unable to inspect the interior of the dwelling, as well

as the interior of any other site improvements. Instead, we have relied on an exterior inspection (from the

roadway) and property information available from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

Valuation Approach

The valuations pertaining to the new school sites assume a relatively level, clear site with full municipal services

available to the lot line and a site where there is sufficient soil depth to allow for construction of laterals to the

building with blasting, or the use of a hoe ram or the importation of substantial amounts of fill.

The values are predicated upon the “Highest and Best Use” of each site. A property’s highest and best use is

defined as:

“…that use which is most likely to produce the greatest net return, in income or amenities, over a given period of

time. Alternatively, Highest and Best Use may also be defined as the reasonable and probable use that will support

the highest land value as of the effective date of appraisal.”

The following criteria are considered when estimating Highest and Best Use:

The use must be legal and in compliance with zoning and building restrictions (or have the potential to receive and

amendment or variance to the in force land use controls).

The use must be within the realm of probability, a likely one not speculative or conjectural.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

58

A demand for such a use must exist.

The use must be profitable.

Our value estimates are predicated upon the concept of “Market Value”, which is defined as:

“The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market as of the specific date

under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and

assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.”

Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to

buyer under conditions whereby:

1. buyer and seller are typically motivated;

2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider

their best interests;

3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;

4. payment is made in terms of cash in Canadian Dollars or in terms of financial

arrangements comparable thereto; and

5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or

creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. [1]

[1] Canadian Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Appraisal Institute of Canada, 2004.

We have applied the Direct Comparison Approach in forming our estimates of market value for the subject

properties

The Direct Comparison Approach provides a basis for value through a process of adjustments for differences

between comparable sales and the subject property. In this method, similar land recently sold or offered for sale is

analyzed and comparisons are made for variations in such factors as time, location, size, motivation, corner

influence, zoning and prospective use. This is the most commonly used approach to value as it reflects typical buyer

and seller reactions.

The Direct Comparison Approach extracts its supporting data directly from the market. It contemplates the

comparison of the subject property with comparable properties that have recently sold or are currently listed for

sale and is an application of the Principal of Substitution. The analysis of completed sales, current listings and other

information of properties with similar utility reflect, as of the effective date, the actions of buyers and sellers in the

prevailing economic climate, and estimated market value of the subject properties.

In forming our estimates of market value, we have also considered the assessed value assigned to the subject

properties by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). We recognize that assessments are typically

lower than current market value due to the retrospective date of assessment (being January 1, 2012) and the likely

application of a discount to market value in order to avoid administratively cumbersome and costly appeals, as well

as political unrest.”

31


59

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

6.3.1 Approach

In a greenfield development setting, assumed site acquisition costs underlying the calculation of the

education development charge may fall into categories:

1. sites previously purchased by the Board;

2. future site acquisitions specified under option agreement between the Board and a landowner;

3. future site requirements either reserved or designated in a secondary plan, or whose location is,

as yet, undetermined;

4. future site requirements where requirement to address identified need would result in friendly

or non-friendly expropriations.

5. future sites, identified by a municipality as part of a secondary plan or other planning process;

6. future land purchases proposed to be incurred by a board (section 257.53(2)), where the

acquisition of said land is delayed due to land servicing or the planning approvals process (with

the proviso that the land be sold at a future date if it becomes clear that the affected lands will

not be developed. In this case the value of the EDC funds used to acquire the land, must be

returned to the EDC account. Any additional land proceeds are to be added to a board’s

Proceeds of Disposition account and used to fund capital expenditure needs (Section 16.1 of O.

Reg 20/98).

In undertaking the required appraisal report, gsi Real Estate & Planning Advisors Inc. note the following:

For a new school site, the unit(s) of comparison utilized in the analysis process includes the sale price per area, sale

price per square foot of buildable gross floor area (proposed or anticipated) and/or sale price per buildable dwelling

unit (proposed or anticipated).

Sites previously acquired by the Board are included at their original purchase price. Site purchase prices

specified under option agreements and typically incorporating an annual escalation factor, have been

inflated to Year 2013 dollars.

The third and fourth categories, future site acquisitions, where no existing option agreement is in place

or where expropriation may be needed, are costed on the basis of the research undertaken by the

Board’s appraiser, and more recent site acquisitions negotiations. The costs are based on valuation

estimates of average acreage rates as of March, 2013.

The fifth category, the acquisition of lands from a co-terminous school board, is based on the cost

benchmarks outlined in the Education Act.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

60

6.3.2 Preliminary Valuation Report

Using the methodology described above, gsi Real Estate & Planning Advisors Inc. provided the following

values for the identified review areas in Table 6-1.

Landowners’ views of “fair market value” are, in several cases, considerably higher than an expert land

valuation appraisal would reasonably suggest. While the Board has the opportunity under the

legislation to revisit the quantum of the education development charge to account for higher than

estimated land prices, it may only do so once every 12-month period. Constant amendments to the by-

law are both costly and time consuming. During the 2008-2012 period, the Board continued to

negotiate a complete settlement for the acquisition of one of its growth-related sites with significant

additional costs being incurred.

6.4 Land Escalation over the Forecast Period

The Appraiser’s Report also estimates an annual land escalation rate to be applied to the acreage values

in order to sustain the likely site acquisition costs over the next 5 years. In arriving at an escalation factor

to be applied to the next 5-year horizon, the Appraisers considered the recent historical general

economic conditions and land value trends over the past 10 years. While averages have been at

approximately 8% over this time period, the Appraisers concluded that slow economic growth and

uncertainties regarding the future of the market, particularly as interest rates begin to rise should be

factors in the consideration of the application of an escalator. As such, the appraisers recommended an

escalation factor of between 3% and 5% per annum for the purposes of projecting the land values over

the five-year by-law period. The Consultants have taken these observations into consideration and

applied an escalation factor of 4.25% to site acquisition needs in review areas where specific sites have

not as yet been identified. As a result, an escalation rate has only been applied to 2 of the identified

growth-related site needs to be acquired during the proposed 5-year by-law term. No escalation factor

has been applied to any other identified growth-related site need.

S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Report\TCDSB EDC Background Study and Policies Review Report _Final2.docx

61

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

licD

istr

ict

Sch

oo

lBo

ard

–2

01

3Ed

uca

tio

nD

eve

lop

me

nt

Ch

arge

TABLE 6-1


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

62

6.5 Site Preparation/Development Costs

Site preparation/development costs are “costs to provide services to the land or otherwise prepare the

site so that a building or buildings may be built on the land to provide pupil accommodation.”

Site preparation/development costs are funded through three different sources. First, there is an

expectation that the owner of the designated school site will provide:

• site services to the edge of the property’s limit;

• rough grading and compaction; and

• a site cleared of debris;

in consideration of being paid “fair market value” for the land. Where unserviced land is acquired by the

board, the cost to “provide services to the land” is properly included in the education development

charge.

Prior to 2009, a board who qualified for pupil accommodation grants received $4.50 per square foot to

provide a cost allowance for: landscaping, seeding and sodding (which includes rough grade and

spreading stock-piled top soil), fencing and screening, asphalt and concrete (play areas, parking and

curbs), as well as some excavation and backfilling. However, the current capital funding model requires

that a school board submit a capital priorities business case for funding approval once such an initiative

is announced by the Ministry. The Ministry’s “Leading Practices Manual for School Construction” states

that, “Ministry funding for capital construction assumes soil conditions that would result in strip

foundations or similar and other routine site costs, such as final grading, back-filling, landscaping,

parking and curbs, hard and soft play areas, and on-site services.”

It is no longer clear if the Province is funding all the same site servicing costs as it did previously through

pupil accommodation grants. The third and final source of financing site preparation/ development

costs is education development charges (i.e. for ‘eligible’ school boards). Through discussion with the

development community, the boards and the Ministry, a list (although by no means an exhaustive list)

of EDC “eligible” site preparation/ development costs in a greenfields situation has been determined.

6.5.1 Eligible Site Preparation/Development Costs

EDC eligible site preparation/development costs in a greenfields development area include:

• an agent or commission fee paid to acquire a site or to assist in negotiations to acquire a site;

• costs to fulfill municipal requirements to properly maintain the school site prior to construction

of the school facility;

• land appraisal reports and legal fees;

• transportation studies related to site accessibility;

31


63

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

• soils tests;

• environmental studies related to the condition of the school site;

• preliminary site plan/fit studies;

• stormwater management studies related to the site;

• archaeological studies precedent to site plan approval of the site;

• planning studies aimed at ensuring municipal approval of the site plan;

• expropriation costs;

• site option agreement costs;

• rough grading, removal of dirt and rubble, engineered fill;

• removal of buildings on the site;

• land transfer taxes.

Finally, as noted above, in situations where a Board is acquiring raw land, or land on the fringe of the

urban service boundary for the purposes of siting a school facility, eligible costs could additionally

include:

• site servicing costs;

• temporary or permanent road access to the site;

• power, sanitary, storm and water services to the site;

• off-site services required by the municipality (e.g. sidewalks).

As noted earlier in this Chapter, site preparation costs in intensified development situations could

include the costs of excavation and shoring for underground parking under certain circumstances.

6.5.2 Conclusions on Site Preparation/Development Costs

The Board concluded that an average of $80,150 per acre (based on the expenditure details set out

below) for both elementary and secondary school sites is reasonable based on the Board’s experiences

over the previous and current by-law terms. This average site preparation cost per acre is a 4.75%

increase over the amount applied under the 2008 by-law.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

64

The 2008-2012 average annual change in the StatsCan Non-Res. Price Index for Institutional Structures

(Toronto Series) is 0.9%. While this average price index change is nominal, given the Board’s higher than

anticipated site preparation costs, it is reasonable to apply an escalator of 3% per annum. Site

preparation/development costs are escalated annually over the fifteen-year forecast period.

The Form Gs of the EDC Submission, set out in Chapter 7, outline the assumed cost per acre (expressed

in 2013 dollars), the assumed total land costs escalated to the year of site acquisition, or the end of the

proposed by-law period, whichever is sooner, the site development costs and associated financing costs

for each site required to meet the needs of the net growth-related pupil places.

Average Site Preparation Costs per Acre

Site Acres Site Prep Costs Site Prep Costs/Acre

Father Serra (Green Meadows) 5.9 142,074.00$ 24,080.34$

St. Andre (Yvonne) 5.1 552,166.67$ 108,267.97$

Replacement St. Edward (Botham Road) 11.91 2,999,593.00$ 251,855.00$

St. Kevin site expansion 1.32 37,900.00$ 28,712.12$

Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati - Morningside Heights 3 77,620.45$ 25,873.48$

McAsphalt secondary 10.84 456,474.73$ 42,110.22$

38.07 4,265,828.86$ 112,052.24$

Average --> 80,150.00$

31


65

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

Chapter 7 --EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION

The basis for the calculation of the jurisdiction-wide schedule of education development charges for the

Toronto Catholic District School Board is documented in the Board’s Education Development Charges

Submission to the Ministry of Education and found in this Chapter.

7.1 Growth Forecast Assumptions

The net education land costs and EDC calculations for the Board were based on the following forecast of

net new dwelling units for the mid-2013 to mid-2028 period, as detailed in Chapter 4 of this report:

RESIDENTIAL:

Net New Units 153,806

Average units per annum 10,254

The forecast of non-residential (includes commercial, industrial and institutional development) building

permit value over the mid-2013 to mid-2028 period, as detailed in Chapter 4 of this report, is

summarized as follows:

NON-RESIDENTIAL:

Net Gross Floor Area (GFA) 71,485,290 sq.ft.

Average annual GFA 4,765,686 sq.ft.

7.2 EDC Pupil Yields

In addition, the Board’s education development charge calculations were based on assumptions

respecting the number of pupils generated, per dwelling unit type (with separate pupil yields applied to

each type), by municipality, and by panel (elementary versus secondary) from new development, as set

out in Forms E, F and G included in this Chapter and described in detail in Chapter 5 of this report.

Table 7-1 sets out the EDC pupil yields utilized to determine the number of pupils generated from new

development and the yields attributable to the TCDSB based on historical apportionment shares.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

66

TABLE 7-1 -- TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

Review Area Low Med

High - Bachelor

+ 1 Bedroom

High -- 2 Bedrooms

or More Total

CE01 0.1403 0.0534 0.0166 0.0365 0.0320

CE02 0.2187 0.1156 0.0227 0.0684 0.0996

CE03 0.1331 0.1741 0.0542 0.1391 0.1099

CE04 0.1077 0.1037 0.0216 0.1042 0.0539

CE05 0.0715 0.0784 0.0486 0.1253 0.0745

CE06 0.1889 0.1373 0.0600 0.2157 0.1844

CE07 0.1912 0.0067 0.0044 0.0200 0.0110

CE08 0.1187 0.0459 0.0118 0.0212 0.0253

CE09 0.0440 0.0430 0.0233 0.0540 0.0346

CE10 0.0487 0.0668 0.0350 0.0252 0.0423

CE11 0.0968 0.0455 0.0150 0.0598 0.0659

CE12 0.0503 0.0774 0.0083 0.0634 0.0380

CE13 0.1305 0.0573 0.0187 0.0229 0.0244

CE14 0.1358 0.0824 0.0279 0.0843 0.0908

CE15 0.0359 0.0690 0.0228 0.0269 0.0300

CE16 0.0561 0.0963 0.0324 0.0694 0.0598

CE17 0.1317 0.1395 0.0489 0.0885 0.1030

CE18 0.0480 0.0093 - - 0.0329

Total 0.1110 0.0560 0.0137 0.0402 0.0339

Review Area Low Med

High - Bachelor

+ 1 Bedroom

High -- 2 Bedrooms

or More Total

CS01 0.1165 0.0718 0.0144 0.0458 0.0390

CS02 0.0386 0.0160 0.0028 0.0100 0.0081

CS03 0.0410 0.0470 0.0161 0.0257 0.0238

CS04 0.0801 0.0878 0.0462 0.0334 0.0517

Total 0.0599 0.0382 0.0085 0.0218 0.0194

S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]Res Non-Res Table for Ex Sum

Summary of Weighted/Blended Pupil Yields -- Elementary

Summary of Weighted/Blended Pupil Yields -- Secondary

31


67

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

7.3 Determination of Net Growth-Related Pupil Place Requirement

The determination of the number of growth-related pupil places eligible for EDC funding involves three

key steps. The analysis required to complete each of these steps was undertaken for each of the growth

forecast sub-areas, or review areas, discussed in Chapter 3. Generally, the steps required to determine

the number of net growth-related pupil places by review area, are as follows:

1. Determine the requirements of the existing community which is total permanent capacity (net

of any leased or non-operational capacity) of all school facilities in the Board’s inventory

measured against the projected enrolment (i.e .,headcount enrolment for the elementary panel

and ADE enrolment for the secondary panel) from the existing community at the end of the

fifteen-year forecast period. This determines whether there are any surplus pupil places

available and accessible for pupils generated by new development.

2. Determine the requirements of new development, which is the number of pupils generated

from the dwelling units forecasted to be constructed over the forecast period and the number

of pupils generated from new development in previous EDC by-law periods that continues to be

temporarily accommodated in existing schools until new school sites are acquired and the

schools and/or additions constructed.

3. Determine Net Growth-related Pupil Place Requirements which is the requirements of new

development less the number of available pupil places in existing facilities.

4. Determine the number of new occupied housing units and associated enrolment growth

generated during the 2001 to 2011 Census period, and for which the TCDSB has been unable to

pursue appropriate accommodation strategy until now.

It is noted that the Board may apportion the OTG capacity for recently approved projects between the

requirements of the existing community and the requirements of new development, provided that the

needs of the existing community are first met. The Board is also entitled to remove any OTG capacity

that is not considered to be available to serve new development (e.g., leased space, closed non-

operation space, temporary holding space, etc.).

Table 7-2 sets out the projected net growth-related pupil place requirements (assuming a jurisdiction-

wide approach to the calculation), including the determination of the requirements of the new

development and the requirements of the existing community, by panel for the Toronto Catholic District

School Board.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

68

TABLE 7-2

7.4 Approved Capital Cost Per Pupil

Paragraphs 4-10 of Section 7 of O. Reg. 20/98 set out the steps involved in moving from growth-related

new school pupils to obtain “the growth-related net education land costs.” Generally, these steps are as

follows:

1. Estimate the net education land cost for the elementary and secondary school sites required to

provide new pupil places.

2. Estimate the balance of the existing EDC account, on the day prior to inception of the new EDC

by-law, if any. If the balance is positive, subtract the balance from the net education land costs.

If the balance is negative, add the balance (in a positive form) to the net education land costs.

3. Determine the portion of the charges related to residential development and to non-residential

development if the Board intends to impose a non-residential charge.

4. Differentiate the residential development charge by unit type if the Board intends to impose a

variable residential rate. Instructions setting out the methodological approach to differentiate

the residential charge can be found in the Education Development Charge Guidelines (Spring

2002) prepared by the Ministry of Education.

7.5 Net Education Land Costs and Forms E, F and G

The total net education land costs for the Toronto Catholic District School Board including escalation of

land over the term of the by-law (five years), site acquisition costs, site development costs, associated

Schools with Limited

Impact from New

Development

Schools Impacted by

Housing Growth

Schools with Limited

Impact on New

Development

Schools Impacted by

Housing Growth

OTG Capacity 47,352 21,923 18,213 6,057

Projected 2013/14 to 2027/28 Enrolment

(Existing Community)34,014 25,730 21,645 6,453

Requirements of New Development

2013/14 to 2027/28 (Headcount)1,939 3,265 1,130 1,858

Less: Available and Accessible Pupil

Places on a Review Area Basis13,338 0 0 0

Equals: Net Growth-Related Pupil Place

(NGRPP) Requirement3,265 1,858

Historical NGRPP 2001 to 2011 2,481 -

# of NGRPP Included in EDC Rate 5,746 437

S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]Table 7-2

Elementary Secondary

Toronto Catholic District School Board -- Determination of Net Growth-Related Pupil Places

31


69

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

financing costs and study costs, less any EDC account balances, are $268,442,739 to be recovered from

153,806 “net” new units.

The Board does not anticipate being in a position to designate 2013-14 operating budget funds for the

purpose of acquiring school sites. On February 14, 2013, the Toronto Catholic District School Board

Trustees approved the recommendation that “with respect to its School Sites – Operating Budget

Surplus Policy (R.10), it is not anticipated that the Toronto Catholic District School Board will realize a

surplus in its non-classroom operating budget.” A copy of the Board’s policy is found in Appendix C of

this document.

In addition, the Board has not been presented with any viable alternative accommodation arrangements

that would serve to reduce the charge. On February 14, 2013, the Toronto Catholic District School

Board Trustees approved the recommendation that “with respect to its Alternative Arrangements for

School Facilities Policy (R.09), the Toronto Catholic District School Board has been, and will continue to

be, open to discussion and prepared to consider joint venture developments (where necessary), among

other creative and fiscally responsible solutions, to address its accommodation needs” A copy of the

Board’s policy is found in Appendix C of this document.

EDC Submission (Forms E, F and G):

The following sheets detail for each elementary and secondary panel:

• the cumulative number of forecasted new dwelling units by type;

• the weighted/blended pupil yield by unit type and the number of growth-related pupil places

generated by the 15-year housing forecast;

• the existing schools within each review area, the SFIS # and the OTG capacity for EDC purposes;

• the projected existing community enrolment;

• the cumulative requirements of new development and the determination of the number of

available and surplus pupil places;

• the number of net growth-related pupil places (i.e. the number of eligible pupil places);

• comments detailing each Board’s capital priorities, and the determination of the number of

historical NGRPP.

• a description of the growth-related site acquisition needs, the number of eligible acres, the

anticipated cost per acre, the site preparation costs, financing costs and total education land costs.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

71


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

72


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

73

Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and GEDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013

Review Area: CE01 Weighted/Blended Total Net Total Yr. 15

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary New Units Growth-related

Projected Housing Growth 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils

Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 0.1403 677 95

Medium Density - Row Housing, etc. 2 124 44 142 142 114 68 9 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0.0534 712 38

High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 339 367 354 670 562 461 565 595 667 634 634 661 446 446 447 0.0166 7,848 130

High Density - Two Bedrooms or More 417 497 474 624 493 465 573 551 619 358 441 441 371 440 442 0.0365 7,206 263

A Total Gross Dwelling Units 803 1,033 917 1,481 1,242 1,085 1,251 1,200 1,331 1,104 1,120 1,147 862 931 934 0.0320 16,443 526

Requirements of Existing Community:

Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of

From New Development Capacity 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 ROND Temp. Facilities

B1 Christ the King 323 261 261 263 256 254 258 263 267 263 260 256 261 263 266 267 268 0 0

B2 Our Lady of Peace (FI) 527 616 605 579 558 545 535 519 509 501 491 487 495 499 504 506 508 39 3

B3 St. Leo 459 266 254 244 225 217 206 205 202 187 183 189 192 194 196 197 198 67 0

B4 St. Louis 358 200 189 182 182 172 169 166 164 160 163 163 165 167 168 169 170 38 0

B5 St. Teresa 291 210 208 205 200 212 216 214 217 212 215 216 219 221 223 224 225 0 0

B6 St. Ambrose 404 228 208 192 181 161 156 149 145 139 144 145 147 148 150 151 151 91 0

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 2,362 1,781 1,724 1,666 1,602 1,561 1,539 1,516 1,504 1,462 1,456 1,456 1,480 1,491 1,507 1,514 1,521 235 3

Requirements of New Development for

Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) 10 22 33 48 60 71 81 92 104 116 139 164 185 212 235

Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of

Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 ROND Temp. Facilities

C1 St. Elizabeth 165 238 234 226 218 210 194 182 174 168 163 166 169 170 172 172 173 48 6

C2 Our Lady of Sorrows 548 733 717 714 710 716 700 703 685 698 676 666 678 683 691 694 697 44 5

C3 Holy Angels 300 381 365 363 353 352 351 347 343 335 334 332 337 340 344 345 347 37 0

C4 St. Mark 266 193 188 190 191 192 194 201 203 202 197 203 206 208 210 211 212 111 0

C5 Christ the King (ROND Component) 39

C6 St. Teresa (ROND Component) 12

C7

C8

Totals 1,279 1,545 1,505 1,494 1,472 1,469 1,439 1,433 1,405 1,404 1,371 1,367 1,390 1,401 1,415 1,422 1,429 291 11

Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate

Growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 291

D13 29 43 64 82 98 114 130 147 165 193 220 244 268 291

E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0

F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 291

Description of Growth-related Need:

Map of Review Area

TCDSB is also exploring options to acquire 6.9 acres of land in the northeast portion of South Etobicoke, to serve development in the Bloor Dundas development area. The NGRPP are based on 2001 to 2011 evidence of occupied housing (6,480 according to 2001 to 2011 Census of occupied dwelling units) and enrolment

growth for Holy Angels and Our Lady of Sorrows equal to 355 pupil places, plus the 2013 to 2028 projected increase in the Requirements of New Development for St. Elizabeth, Our Lady of Sorrows, Holy Angels and St. Mark equal to an

additional 240 pupil places, for a total of 595 additional pupil places to be accommodated as a result of enrolment growth. The acreage is based on 6.0 acres plus 15% to account for PCS, FDK and daycare, parking, pens, portables, set backs, playfield space and access

for a total of 6.9 acres.

% of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously

Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total

Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education

Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition

Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs CostsPredecessor By-law

Costs Land Costs

1

Lakeshore Grounds elementary school (2.16 acre

site) (site leased from City of Toronto for $1 per

annum in perpetuity) leased 51 536 9.5% 2.16 6.0 $0 $0 $1,909,035 $0 $0 $0 $1,889,000

2

New school site in NE portion of South Etobicoke to

serve Bloor Dundas development 2015 595 525 100.0% 6.90 6.90 $2,300,000 $15,870,000 $553,035 $0 $69,411 $0 $16,492,446

3

Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE01 FORMS E, F & G

Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas

(Cumulative):

B

C

$20,035

$0

The TCDSB is proposing to construct a new 536 pupil place school on the Lakeshore Grounds (a 2.16 acres site leased from the City of Toronto). There will be an opportunity to accommodate an additional 51 of the 291 elementary pupils generated by new development. Underground parking costs are included as site

development costs due to the size of the school site.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

74








High Density - Two Bedrooms or More 0 0 0 73 160 160 0 265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0684 658 45

A Total Gross Dwelling Units 52 74 72 138 226 451 357 350 226 52 83 388 83 52 52 0.0996 2,650 264




B1 Father Serra 507 480 482 480 489 486 500 514 513 524 525 517 516 521 527 528 529 0 0

B2 Josyf Cardinal Slipyj 564 599 597 596 594 593 588 583 590 571 569 566 565 569 575 577 578 0 5

B3 Mother Cabrini 219 175 171 168 161 154 148 143 144 138 139 135 135 136 137 138 138 0 2

B4 St. Maurice 419 313 316 312 311 314 310 306 300 290 297 294 294 296 299 300 301 0 0

B5 Transfiguration 307 384 368 363 347 334 327 321 316 315 310 308 307 310 314 315 315 0 2

B6 St. Demetrius 245 222 207 198 196 196 191 189 187 187 187 186 185 185 185 184 183 0 0

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 2,261 2,173 2,141 2,117 2,098 2,077 2,063 2,055 2,050 2,025 2,027 2,007 2,002 2,017 2,037 2,042 2,045 0 9

Requirements of New Development for Limited

Growth Areas (Cumulative) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



C1 Nativity of Our Lord (EF) 510 461 465 451 440 442 434 444 450 465 470 460 458 462 468 469 470 81 4

C2 St. Clement 320 416 403 408 393 401 396 407 402 398 399 395 394 398 402 403 404 72 6

C3

C4 St. Gregory (EF) 577 645 661 678 683 690 697 695 700 699 695 692 690 697 705 707 708 43 0

C5 All Saints (EF) 648 860 887 922 943 964 986 1,017 1,005 1,016 1,034 1,019 1,020 1,025 1,026 1,020 1,014 11 16

C6 St. Marcellus 407 396 395 390 386 392 402 403 409 412 418 409 409 412 415 416 417 57 2

C7

C8

Totals 2,462 2,778 2,811 2,849 2,845 2,887 2,915 2,966 2,966 2,990 3,016 2,974 2,973 2,993 3,015 3,016 3,014 264 28


Growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D22 46 71 98 132 161 183 213 224 234 244 258 266 266 264




TCDSB is exploring options to acquire 5.75 acres of land in the central portion of Central Etobicoke, to serve development primarily along the Highway 427 corridor. The NGRPP is based on 2001 to 2011 evidence of occupied housing and enrolment growth (256 pupils at Nativity of Our Lord, St. Clement, St. Gregory and All Saints) .

In addition, 2013 to 2028 projected enrolment growth is projected to add an additional 264 pupils as a result of enrolment growth.Therefore, total growth-related needs are 520 NGRPP. Map of Review Area

The acreage is based on 5.0 acres plus 15% for PCS, FDK and daycare pens, parking, access and additional GFA requirements, or a total of 5.75 acres.






Costs Land Costs

1 New site in central portion of Central Etobicoke 2016 520 475 100.0% 5.75 5.8 $2,300,000 $13,225,000 $460,863 $0 $73,404 $0 $13,759,266

2

3

4

5



(Cumulative):

B

C


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

75







High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 0 56 166 0 0 0 0 0 0 166 166 166 0 166 0 0.0542 886 48






B1 Msgr John Corrigan 268 165 183 194 212 229 246 255 269 267 265 249 244 237 233 231 229 0 0

B2 St. Angela 583 450 467 492 504 522 524 527 535 523 527 501 490 477 470 465 463 0 0

B3 St. Benedict (EF) 543 636 622 622 622 617 595 572 539 532 512 510 499 485 478 472 470 35 4

B4 St. Dorothy 671 348 339 347 339 339 327 326 317 315 309 305 299 292 289 287 286 0 0

B5 St. John Vianney 478 354 339 338 336 328 316 315 303 292 281 275 270 263 260 258 257 0 0

B6 St. Stephen 678 429 432 443 454 458 445 452 453 437 428 419 411 400 395 391 389 0 0

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 3,221 2,382 2,382 2,436 2,465 2,492 2,453 2,447 2,417 2,364 2,322 2,261 2,211 2,155 2,124 2,104 2,094 35 4





C1 Holy Child Jesus 475 321 309 314 316 321 320 310 297 295 287 282 276 269 265 263 262 154 0

C2 St. Andrew 605 661 684 720 748 748 780 768 768 737 721 723 707 687 676 669 665 26 7

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

Totals 1,080 982 994 1,034 1,064 1,069 1,100 1,078 1,065 1,033 1,008 1,005 983 956 942 932 927 180


Growth 98 86 46 16 11 0 2 15 47 72 75 97 124 138 148 153 7

D1 10 36 42 56 71 86 107 109 136 164 179 173 182 180

E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth (153)



Map of Review Area






Costs Land Costs

1 No growth-related needs in CE03 $0

2

3

4

5


B

C

The 180 net growth-related pupils generated from new development can be accommodated in existing facilities with future attendance boundary adjustments.


(Cumulative):


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

76









A Total Gross Dwelling Units 1,451 859 1,031 514 611 661 899 832 653 394 714 37 374 162 37 0.0539 9,231 498




B1 Holy Family 682 325 307 284 271 269 267 273 270 271 270 271 270 269 267 265 262 77 0

B2 Pope Paul VI 418 357 337 335 322 312 316 311 309 308 312 308 307 306 304 301 299 8 0

B3 Senhor Santo Cristo 527 98 88 84 82 80 77 77 76 75 74 74 74 73 73 72 72 97 0

B4 St. Anthony 485 368 363 351 340 343 337 324 319 310 307 308 307 306 305 302 300 8 0

B5 St. Bruno 380 109 98 94 90 93 90 84 87 87 86 86 85 85 84 84 83 8 0

B6 St. Clare (EF) 595 483 469 465 449 441 449 436 428 423 420 429 428 427 425 421 418 0 0

B7 St. Francis of Assisi (formerly St. Lucy site) 311 160 161 164 160 163 155 162 160 161 165 161 161 161 161 159 158 24 0

B8 St. Helen 858 521 521 509 512 508 515 509 500 510 503 506 506 505 503 498 493 61 0

B9 St. Josaphat (formerly Brother Edmund Rice site) 279 153 152 150 154 153 154 151 145 149 148 150 150 149 148 147 146 0 0

B10 St. Luigi 430 246 233 202 185 177 172 170 168 166 171 168 168 167 166 164 163 55 0

B11 St. Luke 571 273 252 239 225 207 198 188 185 180 180 180 180 179 178 176 175 10 0

B12 St. Mary of the Angels 480 258 251 235 228 230 234 233 239 235 235 234 233 232 231 229 227 22 0

B13 St. Pius X 449 468 453 446 429 425 416 417 418 413 406 395 394 392 389 386 382 75 0

B14 St. Rita 421 138 139 149 158 163 175 176 177 187 190 187 188 187 186 184 182 34 0

B15 St. Sebastian 496 294 280 266 262 265 262 265 272 275 278 278 278 277 275 273 270 0 0

B16 St. Vincent de Paul (EF) 544 304 310 325 331 321 300 310 316 322 328 324 324 324 323 319 316 15 0

B17 Stella Maris 675 393 379 374 363 367 367 353 351 356 349 345 344 343 342 338 336 4 0

Totals 8,601 4,948 4,793 4,672 4,559 4,518 4,485 4,441 4,419 4,430 4,422 4,402 4,397 4,382 4,360 4,318 4,283 498 0





C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

Totals - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0


Growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




While housing development in this review area is expected to generate 498 additional pupils, there is sufficient surplus capacity to accommodate this enrolment growth. Map of Review Area






Costs Land Costs

1 No growth-related needs in CE04

2

3

4

5



(Cumulative):

B

C


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

77


Review Area: CE05 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary Total Net New Units Growth-related








Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Number of

From New Development Capacity 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 Temp. Facilities

B1 Immaculate Conception 547 430 418 414 398 387 395 387 379 371 360 366 367 368 368 366 364 0 0

B2 James Culnan (EF) 565 344 342 348 348 348 365 374 392 398 394 394 395 396 396 394 392 10 0

B3 Our Lady of Victory 718 707 692 690 681 672 658 651 655 656 644 642 642 644 645 641 638 15 0

B4 Santa Maria 280 212 206 199 209 211 218 227 224 225 225 224 224 224 224 223 222 0 0

B5

B6 St. James 300 252 251 236 231 222 220 217 209 208 206 208 207 208 208 207 206 0 0

B7 St. Matthew 423 599 575 571 557 563 554 554 553 536 534 536 536 537 537 534 532 0 2

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 2,833 2,544 2,483 2,458 2,424 2,402 2,410 2,409 2,413 2,394 2,363 2,370 2,371 2,377 2,378 2,365 2,354 25 2



Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Number of

Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 Temp. Facilities

C1 St. Bernard 691 655 660 676 667 689 692 712 719 725 721 714 715 717 717 714 710 0 0

C2 St. John the Evangelist 278 405 384 379 372 380 386 405 422 441 459 453 453 454 453 451 449 48 9

C3 St. Cecilia (FI) 576 602 644 670 692 726 740 738 742 736 731 731 730 732 731 727 724 73 0

C4 St. Eugene 208 272 259 255 244 242 235 245 253 255 256 253 252 253 253 251 250 12 6

C5

C6

C7

C8

Totals 1,753 1,934 1,948 1,980 1,976 2,037 2,053 2,099 2,135 2,157 2,168 2,150 2,150 2,155 2,154 2,143 2,133 133 15


Growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D7 27 40 55 58 63 79 92 116 118 121 122 123 132 133




TCDSB proposes an expansion of the St. John the Evangelist (existing OTG 278 pp) school site to accommodate growth. The ROND attributed to the EDC growth strategy includes St. Cecilia's FI program recognizing that there is continued potential for enrolment growth due to this program.

During the 2001 to 2011 Census period, there were an additional 1,280 dwellings added to the number of occupied dwellings, and in the catchment area for Our Lady of Victory and St. Bernard. This development generated enrolment growth of 102 pupils over that same time. Map of Review Area

above, or 102 pupil places. In addition, the 2013 to 2028 projected increase in the Requirements of New Development for these schools is equal to an additional 133 pupils, or a total of 235 pupil places

to be accommodated as a result of enrolment growth. The acreage is based on 1 acre per 100 pupils, plus a 15% premium for PCS, FDK and daycare pens, parking, site access and additional GFA requirements,

or a total of 2.7 acres.






Costs Land Costs

1

Expansion of St. John The Evangelist ( temporarily

relocated pupils to St. Josaphat in anticipation of

this strategy) 2013 235 100.0% 2.70 2.7 $3,853,684 $10,414,581 $216,605 $0 $13,192 $0 $10,623,104

2

3



(Cumulative):

B

C

$21,274

Year 15

ROND

Year 15

ROND


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

78













B1 Blessed Margherita of Citta Castello 337 321 338 353 366 376 387 406 408 420 424 416 422 424 429 430 431 0 0

B2 St. Andre (December 2013) 546 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B3 St. Augustine of Canterbury 344 552 558 547 550 539 536 532 538 546 544 546 553 556 562 564 565 0 10

B4 St. Charles Garnier 511 443 449 447 444 449 442 454 464 469 460 465 470 473 477 478 480 0 0

B5 St. Conrad 588 387 385 383 376 374 375 369 367 374 363 366 371 373 377 378 379 117 0

B6 St. Francis de Sales 502 419 419 403 411 408 421 430 439 438 445 443 448 451 455 456 457 0 0

B7 St. Gerard Majella (scheduled to close) 0 141 130 121 110 107 105 104 103 105 104 105 106 106 107 107 108 0 0

B8 St. Jane Frances 715 786 747 731 700 680 670 672 667 673 660 667 675 680 687 689 690 0 7

B9 St. Martha 263 245 253 253 257 267 273 279 282 282 295 286 290 292 295 296 297 0 0

B10 St. Philip Neri (scheduled to close) 0 392 404 408 399 405 418 430 443 433 431 431 437 440 445 447 448 42 0

B11 St. Roch 361 384 373 376 361 353 353 355 359 359 360 360 364 366 369 370 371 0 2

B12 St. Wilfrid 709 619 616 617 622 628 632 646 664 659 654 651 659 663 670 672 674 11 0

B13 Venerable John Merlini 337 330 312 310 293 286 294 297 290 291 294 293 296 298 301 302 302 0 0

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 5,213 5,019 4,984 4,949 4,889 4,872 4,907 4,973 5,023 5,051 5,034 5,030 5,091 5,122 5,175 5,191 5,202 170 19





C1 St. Jerome 438 442 422 409 395 393 398 399 403 415 417 420 425 427 431 433 434 304 1

C2 St. Raphael 395 610 601 589 560 557 550 554 527 528 522 523 530 533 538 540 541 17 8

C3

C4

C5

C6 St. Jude 681 643 638 642 639 640 653 665 671 674 670 674 683 687 695 697 699 55 0

C7 St. Simon 249 440 434 438 416 421 414 409 401 391 378 387 392 394 398 400 400 113 6

C8

Totals 1,763 2,135 2,096 2,077 2,010 2,011 2,015 2,026 2,002 2,008 1,987 2,005 2,029 2,042 2,063 2,069 2,073 489 15


Growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D9 27 61 115 159 194 234 296 335 362 392 412 415 450 489




The TCDSB is proposing the construction of a new 425 pupil place elementary school east of Keele Street. The net education land costs and EDC eligible acres are based on a 5.0 acre site with a 15% premium.

for PCS, FDK and daycare parking, site access and pens, or a total of 5.75 acres. The NGRPP is based on 321 ROND for St. Jerome and St. Raphael, based on 2013 to 2028 projected enrolment growth, plus evidence of historical dwelling unit and enrolment

growth at St. Conjrad, St. Jerome and St. Raphael (980 new units and 137 additional pupils for the 2001 to 2011 period), for a total of 458 NGRPP. Map of Review Area

TCDSB is also proposing to construct a replacement St. Simon school on TDSB's former Melody site (3.5 acres). The NGRPP total is 237, or 43.6% of the 544 pp replacement school. The number of growth-related

pupils is made up of 2001 to 2011 occupied housing and enrolment growth at St. Simon (69 pupil places) plus the 2013 to 2028 ROND of 168 pp. The acreage is based on 43.6% of 3.5 acres, or 1.52

acres. Cost has already been included in 2008-2013 EDC account reconciliation.






Costs Land Costs

1

New elementary school to serve Downsview and

York University south development 2018 454 425 100.0% 5.75 5.8 $1,750,000 $10,062,500 $460,863 $2,327,925 $105,941 $1,735,395 $14,692,623

2

3 St. Simon (included in EDC account reconciliation)

4

5



(Cumulative):

B

C

Year 15

ROND

Year 15

ROND


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

79





Medium Density - Row Housing, etc. 138 17 55 58 60 231 354 403 392 354 365 365 287 756 644 0.0067 4,479 30

High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 3,825 3,304 2,033 1,208 666 876 308 1,462 1,630 2,074 1,572 1,833 2,314 1,514 2,252 0.0044 26,871 119

High Density - Two Bedrooms or More 3,131 2,248 1,326 843 639 562 934 1,043 1,010 1,291 985 1,061 1,045 1,421 1,444 0.0200 18,983 379

A Total Gross Dwelling Units 7,104 5,579 3,424 2,119 1,375 1,679 1,606 2,918 3,042 3,729 2,932 3,269 3,656 3,701 4,350 0.0110 50,485 557




B1 St. Mary 494 240 251 258 267 291 312 339 364 386 405 411 423 433 438 439 440 188 0

B2 St. Michael's Choir Jr. (EF) 0 174 174 171 169 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 0 0

B3 St. Raymond 584 180 171 163 161 158 162 156 149 141 144 147 152 156 157 158 158 2 0

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 1,078 594 595 593 597 617 642 664 681 695 717 726 744 757 764 766 767 190 0

Requirements of New Development for

Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) 12 21 25 28 30 46 59 69 78 86 116 139 158 174 190



C1 Our Lady of Lourdes 683 634 626 630 624 654 669 679 713 738 758 779 803 822 830 833 836 145 0

C2 St. Michael 90 169 171 173 187 207 231 250 266 285 295 305 314 321 325 326 327 106 0

C3 St. Paul 447 207 213 236 260 292 331 361 400 427 441 466 482 494 499 501 503 81 0

C4 Our Lady of Perpetual Help 257 385 391 405 399 404 387 386 374 370 372 372 376 379 381 382 383 35 0

C5

C6

C7

C8

Totals 1,477 1,395 1,400 1,443 1,469 1,557 1,619 1,676 1,754 1,821 1,866 1,922 1,976 2,016 2,036 2,042 2,048 367 0


Growth 82 77 34 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D22 39 47 54 60 88 111 130 147 163 220 264 301 333 367




Note: The determination of ROND is exclusive of development applications that are subject to the Railway Lands agreement.

TCDSB expects to acquire a new school site in the West Donlands development area. The NGRPP are based on 2001 to 2011 occupied housing and enrolment growth for Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Perpetual Help

(3,980 new units and 267 new pupils). In addition, the 2013 to 2028 ROND equates to 367 additional pupil places, for a total of 634 NGRPP. Map of Review Area

The EDC eligible acreage is based on 6 acres for a 550 pp school, with an 15% premium for PCS, FDK and daycare parking, site access and pen space, or a total of 6.9 acres.






Costs Land Costs

1 New school site in West Donlands designated 2017 619 550 100.0% 6.90 6.9 $5,300,000 $36,570,000 $553,035 $0 $0 $0 $37,123,035

2

3

4

5

Notes: 1. X:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G


(Cumulative):

B

C

Year 15

ROND

Year 15

ROND


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

80





Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached 103 102 102 102 106 106 111 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 0.1187 1,551 184




A Total Gross Dwelling Units 1,118 1,044 321 960 1,146 1,150 1,250 1,211 1,266 1,000 1,191 1,161 1,531 1,443 1,093 0.0253 16,888 428




B1 D'Arcy McGee (EF) 751 348 321 307 296 285 277 274 269 262 260 260 263 265 267 267 268 0 0

B2 Holy Rosary 303 253 219 206 207 206 204 200 198 196 196 198 200 202 203 203 204 50 0

B3 St. Alphonsus 525 270 253 231 217 199 195 181 179 168 168 170 172 173 174 175 175 20 0

B4 St. Charles 369 245 239 241 234 233 227 215 206 205 206 206 209 211 212 213 213 49 0

B5 St. John Bosco 381 271 283 300 313 312 317 319 317 312 312 316 320 323 323 323 325 0 0

B6 St. Nicholas of Bari 617 614 603 576 553 559 560 558 546 528 536 530 537 542 546 547 548 0 0

B7 St. Thomas Aquinas 553 667 636 608 590 582 572 592 592 607 605 605 613 620 624 625 626 28 0

B8 St. Francis Xavier 548 503 500 497 503 525 544 560 576 569 571 553 554 556 557 554 551 0 1

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 4,047 3,171 3,055 2,965 2,912 2,901 2,897 2,900 2,882 2,847 2,854 2,839 2,868 2,892 2,906 2,907 2,910 147 1





C1 Blessed Sacrament (EF) 504 550 545 535 524 510 511 507 502 504 502 507 513 517 520 521 522 30 0

C2 St. Margaret (EF) 312 611 614 610 619 637 656 676 682 698 703 704 713 721 727 728 729 41 12

C3 St. Monica 294 233 218 194 175 160 151 145 128 112 116 121 123 124 125 125 125 99 0

C4 170

C5 Our Lady of the Assumption 188 362 376 377 397 383 398 386 394 395 392 394 400 405 409 409 410 69 9

C6 Sts Cosmas and Damian 416 383 391 397 402 410 411 416 421 420 419 416 421 426 429 430 431 20 2

C7 Regina Mundi 341 470 434 421 401 399 386 385 386 385 377 381 385 388 391 392 393 0 2

C8 St. Fidelis 393 602 614 628 646 660 676 690 692 704 711 707 708 709 709 705 702 23 111 6

Totals 2,448 3,211 3,192 3,161 3,164 3,160 3,189 3,206 3,204 3,218 3,221 3,230 3,263 3,291 3,310 3,310 3,312 281 281 31


Growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D20 43 55 72 90 109 126 145 167 180 200 219 239 259 281




TCDSB is looking to acquire a new elementary school site to serve long term development along the Yonge Street corridor. The EDC eligible site needs are based on the assumption of the acquisition of

an existing school site of 7.8 acres. The EDC eligible portion is based on a 425 pp school, 89.2% of which is an EDC eligible cost.

The determination of NGRPP is based on 2013 to 2028 ROND of 170 pp plus 209 pupil places resulting from occupied housing(i.e. 860 additional dwelling units) and enrolment growth at Blessed Sacrament and St. Margaret.

The per acre site cost is based on the Regulation benchmarks for acquisition of a school site from a co-terminous board. Map of Review Area

The Lawrence Heights secondary plan will generate the need for a new elementary school site for the TCDSB. The EDC eligible site size is based on 112 ROND for the 2013 to 2028 period plus 261 pupils

related to occupied housing and enrolment growth for Our Lady of the Assumption, St. Charles and Sts. Cosmos and Damian (on the basis of 715 new dwelling units added between 2001 and 2011), for a total of 373 NGRPP.

Site size is 5.0 acres plus 15% premium (5.75 acres x 87.8% eligible growth-related share) for PCS, FDK, and daycare, parking, pens, site access to accommodate a 425 pp school facility.






Costs Land Costs

1 Yonge corridor south of Hwy 401 site 2024 379 425 89.2% 7.80 6.96 $2,431,364 $16,911,996 $557,505 $0 $107,318 $0 $17,576,818

2 $0

3 New Lawrence Heights elementary school 2024 373 425 87.8% 5.75 5.05 $3,000,000 $15,139,412 $404,475 $0 $261,209 $2,374,720 $18,179,816

4

5



(Cumulative):

B

C

Year 15

ROND

Year 15

ROND


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

81













B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0





C1 St. Norbert 314 331 330 330 332 324 323 320 318 322 328 325 327 327 331 332 333 38 2

C2 St. Robert 501 608 592 583 570 578 553 550 560 536 530 535 538 539 545 546 548 196 2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

Totals 815 939 922 914 902 902 876 870 878 859 858 859 865 866 876 878 880 234 4


Growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D1 13 21 47 70 81 97 106 124 138 147 175 193 211 234




The Board is proposing to expand the existing St. Norbert school site to accommodate enrolment growth. The total NGRPP is based on 2001 to 2011 occupied housing and enrolment growth at St. Norbert and St. Robert (1,185 pupils and enrolment growth of 125 pupils

between 2001 and 2011), for a total of 359 NGRPP. The addiitonal land to accommodate growth is based on Regulation size sizes of 1 acre per 100 pupils plus 15% premium for PCS, FDK, parking, pens, site access, portables, playfileds, etc. Map of Review Area

Site size is based on the acquisiiton of 2.85 acres and 100% EDC eligibility.



Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Predecessor By-law Financing Education


Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs

1 Expansion of St. Norbert site owned 2013 359 359 100.0% 2.85 2.85 $4,485,000 $12,782,250 $228,428 $0 $189,510 $2,107,215 $15,275,755

2

3

4

5



(Cumulative):

B

C

Year 15

ROND

Year 15

ROND

$31,648


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

82













B1 Holy Name 542 317 322 328 342 355 367 380 383 392 392 392 396 399 400 401 401 20 0

B2 Immaculate Heart of Mary 274 205 196 182 173 173 165 167 161 159 160 162 163 165 165 165 165 7 0

B3 St. Brigid 718 516 492 487 476 472 463 469 457 456 459 466 471 475 476 477 477 16 0

B4 St. Joachim 392 246 259 259 266 282 294 305 319 333 338 335 339 342 344 344 344 27 0

B5 St. Maria Goretti (EF) 758 1,027 1,023 1,020 1,015 1,004 1,033 1,053 1,067 1,075 1,098 1,100 1,114 1,122 1,126 1,127 1,127 25 9

B6 St. John (EF) 712 484 440 420 406 391 382 373 369 366 366 370 374 376 377 377 377 10 0

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 3,396 2,795 2,731 2,695 2,677 2,677 2,704 2,747 2,756 2,781 2,813 2,824 2,857 2,879 2,889 2,890 2,890 105 9





C1 St. Denis 268 308 310 306 303 306 299 297 305 311 315 316 319 322 323 323 322 12 0

C2 St. Joseph 325 172 189 214 233 252 263 282 306 320 335 331 335 338 340 340 340 27 0

C3 St. Dunstan 364 280 275 277 278 280 280 280 288 286 288 291 294 297 298 298 298 9 0

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

Totals 957 760 774 797 815 838 842 859 899 917 938 938 949 957 960 961 960 47 0


Growth 197 183 160 142 119 115 98 58 40 19 19 8 0 0 0 0

D3 8 12 16 21 25 30 36 37 40 42 44 45 47 47




The TCDSB is looking to acquire lands adjacent to St. John to accommodate housing and enrolment growth in the area. The NGRPP are based on 2001 to 2011 evidence of housing and enrolment growth equal to 174

NGRPP arising from 1,920 new dwelling units and 174 additional pupils at St. Denis, St. John and St. Joseph. In addition, the 2013 to 2028 preojected ROND adds 47 NGRPP, for a total of 222 NGRPP. Map of Review Area

Eligible for 2.55 acres, based on 1 acre per 100 pupils plus the 15% premium.



Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Predecessor By-law Financing Education


Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs

1 Expansion of St. John site 2013 222 222 100.0% 2.55 2.55 $4,225,000 $10,786,425 $1,674,623 $0 $13,912 $0 $12,474,959

2

3

4

5



(Cumulative):

B

C

Year 15

ROND

Year 15

ROND


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

83













B1 Canadian Martyrs 401 303 290 281 260 247 238 233 230 227 225 224 223 222 222 221 221 0 0

B2 Holy Cross 465 402 406 413 418 430 438 445 439 443 443 436 434 431 432 430 429 20 0

B3 Our Lady of Fatima (EF) 666 720 732 731 726 754 767 769 754 731 717 722 718 714 714 711 709 25 2

B4 St. Anselm 337 322 311 308 293 289 288 282 270 256 258 257 256 255 255 254 254 27 0

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 1,869 1,747 1,740 1,733 1,698 1,719 1,731 1,730 1,693 1,657 1,643 1,639 1,631 1,622 1,623 1,617 1,613 72 2





C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

Totals - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0


Growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




There are sufficient available and surplus pupil places to accommodate the 72 pupils projected as ROND. Map of Review Area






Costs Land Costs


2

3

4

5



(Cumulative):

B

C

Year 15

ROND

Year 15

ROND


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

84













B1 St. Catherine 141 106 99 98 97 97 98 99 102 101 98 100 100 101 101 101 100 0 0

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 141 106 99 98 97 97 98 99 102 101 98 100 100 101 101 101 100 0 0





C1 Annunciation (EF) 309 331 325 329 314 317 303 290 289 290 292 296 297 300 301 301 300 68 2

C2 Our Lady of Wisdom(FI) 294 405 400 387 380 383 384 385 378 381 379 382 383 384 385 384 384 0 7

C3 Precious Blood 508 458 450 421 416 417 417 420 420 424 409 405 406 409 411 410 409 56 0

C4 St. Isaac Jogues 314 304 294 275 275 278 275 280 272 275 275 275 275 277 279 279 278 33 1

C5 St. Kevin 234 250 250 255 237 241 237 244 244 247 243 247 247 249 250 250 250 30 187 6

C6

C7 Blessed John XXIII Catholic School 488 450 446 441 439 440 444 455 470 476 479 476 477 480 482 481 480 39 0

C8 St. Bonaventure (EF) 469 436 422 418 417 418 415 405 402 399 394 388 390 394 397 397 396 82 121 3

Totals 2,616 2,634 2,588 2,526 2,479 2,495 2,476 2,478 2,474 2,492 2,470 2,469 2,473 2,493 2,505 2,502 2,497 307 307 19


Growth 0 28 90 137 121 140 138 142 124 146 147 143 123 111 114 119

D7 30 59 86 104 124 153 186 215 233 242 258 272 284 307




Board is proposing to acquire a new school site and undertake capacity reductions/re-alignment of school boundaries in this review area. The NGRPP is based on the 2013 to 2028 net ROND of 188 pupil places, plus

360 pupil places generated by occupied housing (3,205 additional dwelling units) and enrolment growth (360 additional pupils) for the period 2001 to 2011, for a total of 549 pupil places. The EDC eligible acreage is based on a 525 pupil place facility on 6 acres of land, with a

15% premium for PCS, FDK, parking, daycare, site access, pens, portables, setbacks and playfield spaces, for a total of 6.9 acres. Map of Review Area






Costs Land Costs

1 New school site in central portion of review area 2015 549 525 100.0% 6.90 6.9 $3,750,000 $25,875,000 $553,035 $0 $0 $0 $26,428,035

2

3

4

5



(Cumulative):

B

C

Year 15

ROND

Year 15

ROND


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

85







High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 1,374 908 769 770 322 639 716 438 332 584 669 652 632 668 317 0.0187 9,790 183

High Density - Two Bedrooms or More 1,241 1,121 519 430 320 577 948 581 487 445 586 554 626 470 430 0.0229 9,335 214

A Total Gross Dwelling Units 2,684 2,108 1,344 1,256 681 1,255 1,738 1,093 900 1,064 1,337 1,288 1,343 1,173 782 0.0244 20,045 489




B1 St. Edward 245 269 294 318 353 381 405 442 470 486 499 486 494 501 507 510 513 60 4

B2 Botham Site (New St. Edward)(Open 2013) 437 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B3 Cardinal Carter Academy for the Arts 92 124 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 0 0

B4 Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha 194 230 232 245 251 253 260 275 279 281 273 276 280 283 286 288 290 0 1

B5 Epiphany of Our Lord 208 161 161 157 160 165 171 175 184 186 190 189 192 194 196 197 199 17 0

B6 Holy Redeemer 219 84 81 82 87 90 93 94 94 98 97 97 99 100 100 101 102 0 0

B7 Blessed Trinity 375 151 142 132 125 121 118 119 120 121 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 8 1

B8 Our Lady of Guadalupe 162 146 140 136 136 142 139 139 136 134 131 133 135 137 138 139 140 23 2

B9 St. Matthias 225 194 188 182 181 177 175 170 168 167 173 170 173 175 177 178 179 0 0

B10 St. Gerald 378 224 224 217 219 219 221 225 230 236 239 241 244 247 250 251 253 47 0

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 2,535 1,583 1,586 1,595 1,636 1,672 1,707 1,763 1,804 1,833 1,849 1,843 1,866 1,889 1,908 1,918 1,930 155 8




Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 ROND Sub Totals Temp. Facilities

C1 St. Antoine Daniel 216 359 358 358 355 357 367 384 385 389 397 396 399 400 404 405 406 9 8

C2 St. Paschal Baylon 329 594 617 660 691 709 724 734 752 759 734 751 755 757 768 772 773 19 16

C3 St. Agnes 216 259 267 273 282 285 284 275 275 274 266 274 278 282 285 286 288 10 38 4

C4

C5 St. Cyril (FI) 283 354 341 329 318 314 309 314 312 311 313 317 321 325 328 330 333 78 78 5

C6

C7 St. Timothy (EF) 556 595 588 581 592 613 614 645 666 689 685 691 693 699 703 701 700 7 0

C8 St. Gabriel 438 392 377 374 351 354 347 337 335 338 344 344 349 354 358 359 362 211 217 1

Totals 2,038 2,553 2,548 2,575 2,590 2,632 2,645 2,688 2,724 2,760 2,739 2,774 2,795 2,816 2,845 2,854 2,861 333 333 34

Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D33 60 75 93 105 136 170 195 218 238 260 279 301 319 333




TCDSB is seeking a new site on which to construct a replacement St. Cyril school, of sufficient size to accommodate Yonge corridor growth north of Park Home Ave. The NGRPP are based on 2001 to 2011 occupied housing

growth equivalent to 3,260 new dwelling units and 106 pupil places, plus projected 2013 to 2028 ROND of 78 pupil places, for a total of 184 pupil places. The EDC eligible site size is based on Year 15 anticpated enrolment of 411 pupils (333 + 78 ROND)

at 5.0 Regulation acreage plus 15% premium for PCS, FDK, pens, parking, daycare, site access, playfields, portables and setbacks, etc., less the existing site size of 2.97 acres (5.75 acres minus 2.97 acres = 2.78 acres).

Map of Review Area

2001 to 2011 dwelling unit growth (3,305 new units) and enrolment growth at St. Antoine Daniel and St. Pascal Baylon equivalent to 381 pupil places, plus 2013 to 2028 projected ROND of 38 pupil places, or a total of 419 pupil places.

The acquisition of 2.12 acres is proposed based on Year 15 total projected enrolment of 630 pupils (with some redirection of St. Pascal Baylon oversubscription) = 7.0 acres plus 15% less 4.88 existing acres = 2.12 acres.

The TCDSB has been negotiating the acquisition of 1.8 acres of land on the former Canadian Tire lands. The Concord Adex property is currently valued at $8.0 million per acre. The NGRPP are based on projected ROND growth

for the 2013 to 2028 period of 217 pupil places, plus 2001 to 2011 evidence of housing and enrolment growth equivalent to 76 pupil places, for a total of 294 pupil places.




Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs CostsPredecessor By-law

Costs Land Costs

1 New St. Cyril site 2019 184 425 43.3% 5.75 2.78 $2,547,573 $7,082,253 $222,817 $0 $69,411 $0 $7,374,481

2 Expansion of St. Antoine Daniel site 2016 419 419 100.0% 2.12 2.12 $4,106,347 $8,705,456 $162,220 $0 $59,441 $986,348 $9,913,465

3 Concord Adex (Cdn Tire) site 2014 294 294 100.0% 1.80 1.80 $8,083,571 $14,550,428 $1,614,270 $0 $25,838 $0 $16,189,234

4

5



(Cumulative):

B

C

$1,302

Year 15

ROND

Year 15

ROND


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

86













B1 Cardinal Leger 533 409 390 388 367 362 347 337 328 325 324 314 311 310 308 305 303 23 0

B2 St. Agatha (FI) 467 459 477 479 488 491 496 493 495 494 482 477 472 470 468 464 460 0 2

B3 St. Albert 625 451 445 438 444 447 451 447 444 440 435 425 420 419 417 413 410 24 0

B4 St. Barbara 355 319 324 326 318 316 314 309 308 305 301 302 298 297 296 293 291 12 1

B5 St. Edmund Campion 211 228 223 215 203 200 195 194 192 191 190 184 182 181 180 178 177 14 5

B6 St. Nicholas 456 267 252 238 225 214 203 202 197 184 186 183 181 180 179 178 176 0 0

B7 St. Rose of Lima 427 449 448 446 439 434 420 419 416 415 415 401 396 394 393 389 387 0 4

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 3,074 2,582 2,559 2,530 2,485 2,464 2,426 2,401 2,381 2,355 2,334 2,286 2,261 2,251 2,241 2,221 2,203 72 12





C1 St. Boniface 300 410 398 413 419 432 443 445 443 447 450 435 430 428 426 422 419 55 7

C2 St. Ursula 168 240 232 222 222 223 220 220 222 217 216 213 211 210 209 207 205 37 5

C3 St. Theresa Shrine 369 230 223 218 223 225 226 231 236 246 243 239 237 236 235 233 231 59 152 0

C4

C5

C6 St. Brendan 444 558 561 554 542 538 542 533 531 532 534 521 516 513 511 506 502 19 3

C7 St. Malachy 203 297 301 314 320 324 350 366 375 382 365 371 367 365 364 360 357 24 4

C8 St. Martin de Porres (EF) 300 312 311 314 310 306 314 314 316 308 304 296 293 292 291 288 286 13 55 3

Totals 1,784 2,047 2,026 2,034 2,035 2,048 2,095 2,109 2,122 2,133 2,111 2,076 2,053 2,044 2,035 2,016 1,999 207 207 22


Growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D37 61 85 104 131 140 142 145 145 173 188 204 204 208 207




TCDSB is proposing to expand the St. Boniface site to accommodate housing and enrolment growth in the SW portion of the review area. The NGRPP are based on projected 2013 to 2028 ROND of 152 pupil places as shown

above. The Board is seeking to acquire 2.89 acres of land to the west of the St. Boniface site. The projected Year 15 enrolment of 419 + 152 pupils equates to a site size of 5.75 (with the 15% premium), less the existing site size of 2.86 acre, for a net site expansion of 2.89 acres.

Map of Review Area

TCDSB acquired the Port Union site to serve housing and enrolment growth in the SE corner of the review area (are served by St. Brendan, St. Malachy and St. Martin de Porres). It is noted that the TCDSB expects an additional 55 ROND as a result of 2013 to 2028 houisng development.






Costs Land Costs

1 Expansion of St. Boniface site owned 2014 152 152 100.0% 2.89 2.89 $4,330,677 $12,515,657 $231,634 $0 $149,686 $0 $12,896,976

2

3 Port Union site (included in EDC account analysis)

4

5



(Cumulative):

B

C

Year 15

ROND

Year 15

ROND


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

87













B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0





C1 St. Lawrence 387 439 439 451 452 454 452 453 450 453 448 449 449 447 446 443 441 17 3

C2 St. Richard (EF) 323 392 399 402 419 423 437 432 442 442 431 433 434 431 430 426 424 52 4

C3 St. Thomas More 510 356 369 391 404 414 420 429 426 409 409 411 412 409 408 405 403 26 0

C4 St. Victor 231 319 319 322 324 327 336 338 338 342 340 336 336 334 333 331 330 36 5

C5

C6

C7

C8

Totals 1,451 1,506 1,527 1,565 1,600 1,617 1,645 1,652 1,655 1,645 1,627 1,629 1,631 1,622 1,617 1,605 1,597 131 0 12


Growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D24 38 60 68 81 90 91 91 93 93 102 111 121 124 131




TCDSB is looking to acquire an elementary school site to serve housing and enrolment growth in the Scarborough Town Centre development area. The NGRPP are based on 2001 to 2011 occupied housing and enrolment

growth equivalent to 210 pupil places, plus the projected ROND of 131 pupil places for the period 2013 to 2028 (as shown in Section C above), for a total of 341 additional pupil places. The EDC eligible acreage is based on

a 425 pp. school, 80.2% eligibility and 5.0 acres with a 15% premium for PCS, FDK, daycare, site access, parking and pens. Map of Review Area



Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing EducationDescription of Growth-related Site Acquisition


Costs Land Costs

1

New site to serve Scarborough Town Centre

development 2022 341 425 80.2% 5.75 4.6 $3,750,000 $17,300,735 $1,839,774 $0 $21,479 $0 $19,161,988

2

3

4

5



(Cumulative):

B

C

Year 15

ROND

Year 15

ROND


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

88













B1 Francis Liberman Jr. 23 25 21 24 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 0 0

B2 Holy Spirit 384 426 436 436 442 450 466 462 454 444 444 433 427 425 422 418 415 50 6

B3 Our Lady of Grace (EF) 294 256 255 251 241 237 219 204 189 172 165 167 165 164 163 161 160 7 2

B4 Prince of Peace 323 339 344 353 360 363 370 371 376 380 376 368 363 361 359 356 354 8 0

B5 St. Aidan 406 244 249 242 244 252 257 258 259 262 254 255 252 250 249 247 246 18 0

B6 St. Bartholomew 150 130 128 126 122 121 126 122 121 127 123 121 119 118 118 117 116 36 0

B7 St. Henry 383 348 352 333 316 317 307 299 296 288 291 281 277 275 273 271 270 9 1

B8 St. Ignatius of Loyola 194 165 166 170 158 163 167 165 159 163 159 165 162 161 160 159 158 0 0

B9 St. Marguerite Bourgeoys 205 126 121 119 118 115 116 117 117 116 110 112 111 110 109 108 108 0 0

B10 St. Maximilian Kolbe 219 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B11 St. Rene Goupil 251 148 149 143 147 146 143 148 149 152 153 149 148 147 146 145 145 0 0

B12 St. Sylvester 136 157 157 152 139 140 141 139 133 134 132 130 129 128 127 127 126 0 2

B13 The Divine Infant 312 167 155 149 139 133 122 112 103 102 96 98 97 97 96 96 95 0 0

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 3,280 2,531 2,532 2,498 2,448 2,459 2,456 2,420 2,380 2,362 2,326 2,302 2,272 2,260 2,247 2,227 2,216 127 11





C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8


Growth - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

D0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




The 127 additional pupil places attributable to 2013 to 2028 housing growth can be accommodated within the surplus and available capacity. Therefore, there are no growth-related needs at this time. Map of Review Area






Costs Land Costs


2

3

4

5



(Cumulative):

B

C

Year 15

ROND

Year 15

ROND


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

89













B1 Sacred Heart 396 242 241 230 218 204 195 192 189 171 166 167 166 164 163 161 160 21 0

B2 St. Barnabas 418 369 366 370 354 348 351 346 339 323 309 311 309 304 303 300 299 47 1

B3 St. Columba 415 228 231 232 234 220 217 217 221 221 222 222 220 217 216 214 213 0 0

B4 St. Dominic Savio 369 271 268 267 269 271 258 251 244 245 236 239 237 234 233 230 229 9 0

B5 St. Elizabeth Seton 260 161 144 139 128 124 114 109 96 87 86 83 82 81 81 80 80 11 0

B6 St. Florence 242 198 196 183 174 177 181 175 169 173 175 167 165 163 162 161 160 0 0

B7 St. Gabriel Lalemant 196 252 243 230 223 221 217 207 203 205 197 194 193 190 189 188 187 0 5

B8 St. Jean de Brebeuf 222 261 263 267 264 271 269 258 245 242 243 241 239 236 235 233 231 21 3

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 2,518 1,982 1,951 1,918 1,863 1,836 1,802 1,754 1,705 1,667 1,634 1,624 1,612 1,590 1,581 1,567 1,559 108 9





C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8


Growth - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

D0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




There is sufficient available and surplus capacity to accommodate the 108 ROND arising from 2013 to 2028 proposed housing development. Map of Review Area






Costs Land Costs


2

3

4

5



(Cumulative):

B

C

Year 15

ROND

Year 15

ROND


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

90







High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0000 - -

High Density - Two Bedrooms or More 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0000 - -

A Total Gross Dwelling Units 24 6 7 49 52 52 53 1 1 1 10 10 11 1 1 0.0329 274 9




B1 Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati (Open 2013) 477 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B2 St. Bede 446 322 318 314 310 305 319 319 315 322 332 323 324 325 326 327 327 9 0

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

Totals 923 322 318 314 310 305 319 319 315 322 332 323 324 325 326 327 327 0





C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8


Growth - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

D0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




Map of Review Area






Costs Land Costs


2

3

4

5



(Cumulative):

B

C

Year 15

ROND

Year 15

ROND


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

91


Review Area: CS01 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Secondary Total Net New Units Growth-related




High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 339 423 520 670 562 691 870 595 841 800 800 1,132 446 612 447 0.0144 9,748 140


A Total Gross Dwelling Units 871 1,248 1,364 1,657 1,589 1,661 1,706 1,650 1,572 1,420 1,467 1,716 960 1,164 1,001 0.0390 21,050 820



B From New Development Capacity 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 Temp. Facilities

B1 Bishop Allen Academy (FI, EF) 717 1,497 1,490 1,502 1,514 1,543 1,542 1,564 1,558 1,568 1,587 1,521 1,500 1,443 1,423 1,465 1,510 20

B2 Don Bosco 840 569 527 523 502 532 517 513 555 516 526 519 472 495 477 464 487 0

B3 Father Henry Carr (formerly Marian Academy Site) 834 914 917 923 907 854 925 949 992 1,055 1,060 1,111 1,089 1,086 1,069 1,038 971 0

B4 Michael Power/St Joseph (EF) 1,644 2,062 2,010 1,985 1,951 1,918 1,911 1,898 1,916 1,899 1,973 1,964 1,930 1,908 1,848 1,835 1,870 6

B5 Monsignor Percy Johnson (EF) 909 1,026 953 950 950 971 1,007 1,045 1,091 1,094 1,101 1,102 1,105 1,085 1,065 1,035 1,021 0

B6

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

Totals 4,944 6,068 5,897 5,882 5,823 5,817 5,902 5,970 6,112 6,131 6,247 6,217 6,096 6,018 5,882 5,837 5,859 26

Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas

(Cumulative) 18 44 75 106 142 179 212 255 283 313 345 376 406 431 460

Review Area Schools Impacted by Housing OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Number of

C Growth: Capacity 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 Temp. Facilities

C1 Father John Redmond 999 1105 1078 1078 1032 957 932 863 880 848 848 826 761 750 748 805 842 0

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

Totals 999 1,105 1,078 1,078 1,032 957 932 863 880 848 848 826 761 750 748 805 842

Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth 0 0 0 0 42 67 136 119 151 151 173 238 249 251 194 157 0 0 0

D Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas (Cumulative): 14 35 59 83 111 140 166 200 221 245 270 294 318 337 360




The 192 net growth-related pupil places is partially allocated to Father John Redmond, which has previously been funded from the EDC account, therefore there are no additional growth-related site needs at this time.

Map of Review Area



Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Predecessor Financing Education

Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs By-law Costs Land Costs

1 Father John Redmond (previously funded from EDCs) $0

2

3

4

5



Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

92







High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 5,101 4,590 2,938 1,931 1,709 2,226 1,783 2,921 2,997 2,983 2,981 2,819 3,648 2,708 2,965 0.0028 44,300 125

High Density - Two Bedrooms or More 4,293 2,964 1,889 1,665 1,363 1,164 1,564 1,605 1,641 1,659 1,437 1,348 1,545 1,787 1,722 0.0100 27,646 277





B1 Archbishop Romero 945 739 729 694 675 675 653 647 641 645 651 638 624 623 619 632 639 0

B2 Bishop Marrocco/Thomas Merton 1158 935 948 929 886 809 744 725 699 682 665 632 632 641 651 680 696 0

B3 Chaminade College (M) 531 916 915 927 918 873 870 875 883 908 928 894 891 869 862 860 857 5

B4 Loretto Abbey (EF) (F) 0 930 935 942 925 917 930 938 959 970 967 952 942 935 935 928 926 0

B5 Loretto College (F) (formerly R. W. Scott site) 567 555 546 553 542 520 511 489 477 459 432 423 418 415 415 436 458 0

B6 Marshall McLuhan (EF) 969 1,068 1,065 1,054 1,059 1,061 1,014 1,017 1,003 1,010 1,007 972 953 946 959 998 1,002 0

B7 Monsignor Fraser College ( Isabella Campus) 0 259 247 238 248 244 243 245 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 8

B8 Monsignor Fraser College (Orientation Centre) 105 10 5 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0

B9 Monsignor Fraser College (Alternative Campus) 0 201 211 207 206 208 207 207 208 207 207 207 207 207 207 207 207 0

B10 Neil McNeil (M) 0 871 871 889 871 856 849 839 847 821 833 822 825 828 825 828 849 5

B11 Notre Dame (F) 441 681 676 692 677 653 626 615 633 625 631 619 607 602 609 606 618 0

B12 St. Michael Choir (EF) (M) 0 104 93 88 85 86 83 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 0

B13 St. Patrick 1152 548 537 549 453 289 269 247 267 355 381 456 531 551 622 578 506 0

B14

B15

B16

Totals 5,868 7,817 7,778 7,770 7,552 7,198 7,007 6,934 6,948 7,015 7,036 6,950 6,963 6,951 7,036 7,087 7,092 18


(Cumulative)



C1 Dante Alighieri 651 1,188 1,136 1,171 1,147 1,185 1,161 1,137 1,182 1,189 1,209 1,170 1,128 1,111 1,105 1,102 1,115 20

C2 St. Joseph College (F) 714 847 840 838 762 713 695 654 657 658 656 662 678 704 734 731 723 0

C3 St. Mary 714 742 739 691 665 639 571 540 530 528 538 527 556 564 580 587 587 0

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

Totals 2,079 2,777 2,715 2,700 2,574 2,537 2,426 2,331 2,369 2,375 2,403 2,360 2,362 2,379 2,418 2,420 2,426






Dante Alighieri is proposed for redevelopment/replacement school construction to accommodate 437 of the 663 net growth-related pupil places, plus 2001 to 2011 housing growth of 715 units and enrolment growth of 115 pupils. The Board's net education land costs

reflect the construction of a 1,300 pp secondary school for a total of 552 additional NGRPP plus existing community enrolment of 1,115 pupils. The EDC eligible acres are based on the Regulation standard of 1.2 acres per 100 pupils, or 5.52 x 1.2 = 6.62 acres Map of Review Area

A waterfront secondary school is proposed to accommodate 226 of the 663 net growth-related pupil places. This would be in addition to the 14,300 units constructed within the Railway Lands and exempted from the payment of EDCs.

The TCDSB net education land costs are based on 2.71 acres (226/1,000 pupil place secondary school, or 22.6% of a 12 acre site as prescribed in O.Reg 20/98). In the event the Board is not able to secure a ground surface site to

construct a secondary school, then the Board would seek to acquire leased facilities. The Board's appraisers have determined a cost of $25.00 PSF 'net rent' ($31.50 per sq ft NPV for a 20 year lease) x 130,000 sq. ft., with a 20 year lease at a cost of $4,640,000 plus

below-grade parking at $3,062,500 for 70 spaces.





1 Dante Alighieri replacement with enrolment growth

subject of

on-going

land

assembly

strategy 2022 437 1,300 100.0% 6.62 6.62 4,640,000$ $30,735,360 $530,914 $0 $0 $0 $31,263,008

2

Waterfront secondary school (assumed above grade leasehold of 130,000

sq. ft.) based on the NPV of a 20-year lease at $25.00 per sq ft 2025 226 1,000 22.6% 2.71 2.71 $0 $926,396 $3,279,867 $0 $0 $0 $4,206,263

3

4

5


$0

$3,266


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

93







High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 1,374 1,604 1,257 1,913 1,346 1,445 1,687 1,279 1,171 1,041 970 652 632 668 648 0.0161 17,687 284

High Density - Two Bedrooms or More 1,361 1,630 1,132 1,079 864 946 1,338 950 855 957 892 1,290 1,175 1,041 1,004 0.0257 16,514 424





B1 Cardinal Carter Academy for the Arts 261 690 697 716 713 707 707 707 707 707 707 707 707 707 707 707 707 0

B2 Madonna (F) 690 532 506 538 509 502 487 460 450 456 472 465 475 457 452 465 465 0

B3 Monsignor Fraser College (Northwest Campus - formerly Regina Pacis) 705 253 264 277 265 269 270 268 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 0

B4 Senator O'Connor College (FI, EF) 1,020 1,215 1,205 1,214 1,162 1,144 1,095 1,066 1,094 1,102 1,097 1,071 1,064 1,016 1,026 1,002 1,039 0

B5 St. Basil-The-Great 984 1,248 1,200 1,235 1,232 1,216 1,192 1,156 1,162 1,181 1,219 1,199 1,194 1,162 1,157 1,173 1,173 0

B6

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

Totals 3,660 3,938 3,873 3,981 3,880 3,837 3,750 3,657 3,681 3,714 3,765 3,711 3,708 3,611 3,611 3,615 3,652 0


(Cumulative) 13 28 42 55 66 85 107 124 145 161 183 209 230 253 273



C1 St. Joseph's Morrow Park (F) - 537 527 530 572 615 643 676 686 730 738 743 752 710 727 715 704 8

C2 James Cardinal McGuigan 987 880 899 913 926 966 898 886 873 882 909 932 938 905 899 923 926 0

C3 Brebeuf College (EF)(M) 1,008 1,045 1,015 1,011 972 1,000 991 1,003 1,037 1,059 1,100 1,120 1,128 1,094 1,107 1,076 1,078 0

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

Totals 1,995 2,462 2,442 2,453 2,471 2,580 2,532 2,564 2,596 2,671 2,747 2,795 2,818 2,708 2,733 2,714 2,709






The net education land costs are based on the acquisition of an existing 4.9 acre school site from TDSB (located on SW corner of Cummer Avenue and Bayview Avenue) and additional land assembly of up to 3.1 acres, for a

total of 8.0 acres. The determination of the number of EDC eligible acres is based on 669 pupils plus 704 Year 15 existing community = 1,373 total enrolment. EDC eligible acreage is determined to be (669/1,350 x 16 acres = 7.93 acres).

Map of Review Area

In addition, the Board has determined the need to construct 70 underground parking spaces at a cost of $2,450,000.





1 Permanent location for St. Joseph Morrow Park

P&S

agreement

in place 2013 669 1,350 49.5% 7.93 7.93 $1,531,624 $9,894,291 $3,085,210 $0 $203,995 $4,214,895 $17,385,561

2

3

4

5


$12,830


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

94








High Density - Two Bedrooms or More 1,405 573 705 0 475 335 0 0 125 301 546 421 244 324 273 0.0334 5,727 191

A Total Gross Dwelling Units 1,980 952 1,289 488 1,265 953 313 114 239 540 871 618 447 438 387 0.0517 10,891 563




B1 Blessed Cardinal Newman (EF) - 1,310 1,247 1,208 1,168 1,107 1,099 1,094 1,100 1,131 1,158 1,176 1,177 1,155 1,136 1,137 1,144 20

B2 Francis Libermann 648 877 826 820 784 740 745 729 733 756 734 714 705 682 688 685 679 6

B3 Jean Vanier 909 1,016 955 937 884 899 903 904 890 890 912 907 899 907 886 893 902 3

B4 Mary Ward (EF) 861 1,124 1,139 1,149 1,102 1,112 1,099 1,076 1,078 1,089 1,072 1,059 1,061 1,039 1,038 1,029 1,027 0

B5 Monsignor Fraser College (Midland Campus) 249 210 213 217 213 214 215 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 8

B6 Blessed Pope John Paul II (EF) 1,074 1,436 1,358 1,304 1,186 1,111 1,143 1,127 1,143 1,154 1,154 1,125 1,116 1,105 1,085 1,083 1,076 13

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

Totals 3,741 5,973 5,737 5,636 5,336 5,183 5,204 5,144 5,157 5,235 5,245 5,194 5,173 5,102 5,048 5,041 5,042 0 50


(Cumulative) 61 96 138 169 210 240 254 270 274 301 347 367 372 388 397



C1 Blessed Mother Teresa 984 630 656 619 623 627 596 576 535 520 508 514 492 488 486 486 476 0

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

Totals 984 630 656 619 623 627 596 576 535 520 508 514 492 488 486 486 476


(Cumulative) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0





Map of Review Area





1 No Growth-related needs in CS04 $0

2

3

4

5



95

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

95

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

7.6 EDC Accounts

Section 7(5) of O.Reg. 20/98 (as amended by 473/98 and O.Reg. 193/10) states that

“The Board shall estimate the balance of the education development charge reserve fund, if any,

relating to the area in which the charges are to be imposed. The estimate shall be an estimate of the

balance immediately before the day the board intends to have the by-law come into force.”

“The Board shall adjust the net education land cost with respect to any balance estimated. If the

balance is positive, the balance shall be subtracted from the cost. If the balance is negative, the

balance shall be converted to a positive number and added to the cost.”

Table 7-3 summarizes the EDC account collections to October 2012 for the Toronto Catholic District

School Board. The collections cover the period which corresponds to implementation of the EDC by-

law to the aforementioned reconciliation date and includes collections from residential and non-

residential development, as well as any proceeds from the disposition of surplus properties (i.e., to the

extent that the disposed of site was previously funded through education development charges), any

interest earned on the account to date, any interest expense on account deficits to date and any

refunds or overpayments during this time period.

TABLE 7-3 TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

Section 7(5) of O.Reg 20/98 requires that a board estimate the EDC account collections and eligible

expenditures on the day immediately before the day the board intends to have the new by-law come

into force. This “estimate” is typically undertaken several months in advance of the implementation of

the new by-law. The EDC account reconciliation undertaken herein, dates back to the original EDC by-

law in order to ensure that “actual,” rather than “estimated” revenues and expenditures have been

taken into account on a go forward basis.

Table 7-4 calculates the “estimated” EDC account balance as of May 27, 2013 which is the day before

the in-force date of the proposed by-law. The estimate of revenue for the November 1, 2012 to May

27, 2013 is based on monthly collections data for this time period during 2011.

REVENUE COLLECTIONS SUMMARY -- AUGUST 25, 2008 TO October 31, 2012

1 2 3 5 6 7

EDC Collection PeriodTotal Actual

Collections

Plus: Proceeds from

Dispositions (EDC

Share)

Plus: Interest Earned Less: Refunds Net Collections

1 August 25, 2008 to August 24, 2009 (incl. accrued interest) $6,516,473 $75,279 -$1,470 $6,590,282




5 August 25, 2012 to October 31, 2012 $1,712,789 $1,712,789

Total Remitted from City of Toronto $39,588,452 $39,588,452

Total Interest Earned $669,823 $669,823

Total Refunds -$539,106 -$539,106

Total: $39,719,169

S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Revenues\[Revenue Summary.Final.xlsx]Table 7-3 Revenue


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

96

Table 7-4 also determines the eligible EDC expenditures for the Board and details site acquisition costs,

“net” site preparation and development costs, study costs, and interest costs. Finally, the portion of

the expenditures eligible to be funded through education development charges is shown and a

cumulative EDC account balance is determined. For the TCDSB, there is an account surplus in the

order of $40,641,656. It is noted that any additional costs related to these EDC eligible sites, and

expended after the account reconciliation undertaken as of February, 2013, will be included in the

reconciliation of the next EDC by-law.

7.7 Cash Flow Analysis and Forms H1 and H2

Table 7-5 set outs a fifteen-year cashflow analysis of the proposed capital expenditure program for

school sites. Immediately following this table is the Form H1 that identifies the Residential and Non-

Residential EDC as reflected in Table 7-5.

The quantum of the charge is determined on the basis of a 75% / 25% residential/non-residential

share, for the Board. As well, a sensitivity analysis is provided, for various non-residential ratios

ranging between 0% and 40%.

Where EDC collections in any given year are insufficient to cover the cost of EDC expenditures, then

interim financing in the form of the issuance of long term financing for amounts over $1.0 million and

short term financing for amounts less than $1.0 million has been applied. It should be noted that the

Board has identified sites for acquisition within the 5-year by-law term for which negotiated

acquisition costs will apply. As such, financing has not been included in the cost of these sites.

The cash flow methodology is consistent with that undertaken by municipalities and is described as

follows:

Cash Flow Assumptions:

• site acquisition and costs are assumed to escalate by 4.25% where the site is greenfields in nature. If not, no escalation on site acquisition is applied. Site development costs are assumed to escalate at 3% perannum.

• site acquisition costs are inflated only over the term of the by-law period (five years); site

development costs escalate over the full fifteen year forecast period;

• the Education Development Charge account accrues 1.65% interest earnings per annum;

• all interim financing is assumed to be undertaken on a short term basis for a five-year term at a cost of 3%; any long term financing carries a 10 year term at a cost of 4%, consistent with recent Bank of Canada prime business rates.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

97

1 Estimated EDC Account Collections January 1, 2008 - August 25, 2008 (including accrued interest) 1,464,704$

Actual EDC Account Collections January 1, 2008 - August 25, 2008 (including accrued interest) 2,257,626$

Adjustment to Estimated EDC Account Collections January 1, 2008 - August 25, 2008 (including accrued interest) 792,922$

2 Collections

Adjusted 2008 EDC Reserve Fund Deficit to recognize Actual EDC Account Collections January 1, 2008 - August 25, 2008 792,922$

August 25, 2008 to August 24, 2009 (incl. accrued interest) 6,590,282$




August 25, 2012 to October 31, 2012 1,712,789$

3 Adjustment for reduction in St. Andre growth share from 60.6% to 28.2% (funded in 2003 EDC submission account reconciliation) 1,459,326$

4 Estimated EDC Account Collections November 1, 2012 - May 27, 2013 9,237,672$

5 Total Estimated EDC Account Collections as Proposed By-law Implementation 51,209,089$

EDC Expenditures to Date:

2013

Review

Area

Expenditures Former Name Year Site

Acquired

Site Size

in acres

Site

Acquisition

Costs

Incurred -

Sept. 2008 to

April XX,

2013

Net Site

Preparation

Costs

Incurred -

Sept. 2008 to

April XX,

2013

Total Costs to

Date - 2008 to

2013

Non- Growth

Related Share of

Expenditure

Growth-related

Share of

Expenditure

Funded Under a

Previous EDC By-

law

Eligible to be

financed from

Existing EDC

Reserve

EDC Reserve Fund

Balance

CE01

Kipling/Lakeshore

Elementary Lakeshore Grounds 2.16 20,035$ 20,035$ 0.0% 100.0% -$ 20,035$ 51,189,054$

CE02

Father Serra (former

Green Meadows (TDSB) Father Serra 2004 5.95 96,147$ 44,445$ 140,592$ 0.0% 100.0% 5,001,482$ 140,592$ 51,048,462$

CE05 St. John the Evangelist 2013 2.7 21,274$ 21,274$ 0.0% 100.0% 21,274$ 51,027,188$

CE06

St. Andre (former Yvonne

PS (TDSB)) Yvonne PS 2005 5.12 585,281$ 585,281$ 71.8% 28.2% 1,270,153$ 165,049$ 50,862,138$

CE06

St. Simon (former

Melody PS (TDSB) Melody PS 2010 3.38 3,402,068$ 8,400$ 3,410,468$ 56.4% 43.6% -$ 1,486,964$ 49,375,174$

CE09 St. Norbert Addition 2013 2.8 31,648$ 31,648$ 0.0% 100.0% 31,648$ 49,343,527$

CE12

St. Kevin Site Expansion

(formerly Gooderham

Learning Centre (TDSB)) St. Kevin site expansion 2004 1.32 137,899$ 137,899$ 72.0% 28.0% 233,701$ 38,612$ 49,304,915$

CE13

St. Edward (Botham

Road) Sheppard Ave Corridor 2006 11.90 4,854,784$ 1,628,001$ 6,482,785$ 0.0% 100.0% 23,013,744$ 6,482,785$ 42,822,130$

CE13 Concord Adex Site 2014 1.8 1,302$ 1,302$ 0.0% 100.0% 1,302$ 42,820,828$

CE17

Port Union Village

(Yellow Moon Homes) Port Union 2006 0.3 278,001$ 278,001$ 0.0% 100.0% 284,999$ 278,001$ 42,542,827$

CE18

Blessed Pier Giorgio

Frassati (Formerly

Morningside Heights) Morningside Heights 2006 3.00 1,350,664$ 9,147$ 1,359,811$ 12.0% 88.0% 1,187,996$ 1,196,633$ 41,346,194$

CS02 Dante Alighieri 2022 5.4 3,266$ 3,266$ 0.0% 100.0% 3,266$ 41,342,928$

CS03

St. Joseph Morrow Park

(Blessed Trinity Option

now with Bayview &

Cummer (TDSB)) 2013 17.0 12,830$ 12,830$ 0.0% 100.0% 12,830$ 41,330,098$

CS04 McAsphalt/Mattamy McAsphalt (Morningside Ave) 2005 10.84 110,443$ 110,443$ 24.8% 75.2% 7,246,792$ 83,064$ 41,247,033$

Study Costs 605,378$ 605,378$ 40,641,656$

Totals 13,180,977$ 38,238,868$ 10,567,433$

Cost of Interim Financing

Estimated EDC Reserve Fund Surplus as at Proposed By-law Implementation 40,641,656$

S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Revenues\[Revenue Summary.Final.xlsx]Table 7-4 Rev compared to Exp

TABLE 7-4


EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BY-LAW

EDC Account Reconciliation - Revenues less Expenditures

EDC By-law Period August 25, 2008 to May 27, 2013


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

98

Scenario Comments:

Toronto Catholic District School Board Toronto Catholic District School Board Sensitivity Analysis

BOTH PANELS Cashflow Analysis for Both Panels (Total Jurisdiction) Non-res Res Non-Res

Current (2013) $ Share Rate Rate

0% $1,745 $0.00

Cashflow Assumptions 5% $1,658 $0.19

A. EDC Account interest earnings (per annum): 1.65% 10% $1,571 $0.38

B. L/T Debenture Rate 4.00% 15% $1,484 $0.56

C. S/T Borrowing Rate 3.00% 23,157 11,705 20% $1,396 $0.75

D. L/T Debenture Term (years) 10 12,626 2,867 25% $1,309 $0.94

E. S/T Borrowing Term (years) 1 28,095 2,543 40% $1,047 $1.50

Previously Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15

Financed 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ 2019/ 2020/ 2021/ 2022/ 2023/ 2024/ 2025/ 2026/ 2027/

2008 By-law¹ 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

Revenues:

1 Alternative Accommodation Arrangements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2 Operating Budget Surplus $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

3 Assumed Debenture Financing $0 $0 $11,790,000 $8,000,000 $23,650,000 $1,850,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,700,000 $0 $15,700,000 $0 $0 $0

4 S/T Borrowing Requirement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

5 Subtotal (1 through 4) $0 $0 $11,790,000 $8,000,000 $23,650,000 $1,850,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,700,000 $0 $15,700,000 $0 $0 $0

6 EDC Revenue (Residential) 1,309 per unit $21,009,450 $18,543,294 $14,482,776 $12,829,509 $11,911,900 $12,172,391 $12,432,882 $12,567,709 $12,575,563 $12,452,517 $12,553,310 $12,313,763 $12,175,009 $11,781,000 $11,530,981

7 EDC Revenue (Non-residential) 0.94 per sq.ft $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,165,491 $4,165,491 $4,165,491 $4,165,491 $4,165,491

8 Subtotal EDC Revenue (6 + 7) $25,637,773 $23,171,617 $19,111,099 $17,457,832 $16,540,223 $16,800,714 $17,061,205 $17,196,032 $17,203,886 $17,080,840 $16,718,801 $16,479,254 $16,340,500 $15,946,491 $15,696,472

9 Total Revenue (5 + 8) 19,904,767 $25,637,773 $23,171,617 $30,901,099 $25,457,832 $40,190,223 $18,650,714 $17,061,205 $17,196,032 $17,203,886 $26,780,840 $16,718,801 $32,179,254 $16,340,500 $15,946,491 $15,696,472

0 19,757,374

Expenditures:

10 $46,100,512 $27,066,085 $41,745,000 $21,930,456 $36,570,000 $12,390,425 $7,082,253 $0 $0 $48,036,095 $0 $32,051,408 $0 $0 $0

11 Site preparation costs (escalated at 3% per annum to date of acquisition) ² $0 $0 $5,521,842 $2,017,068 $1,244,892 $722,324 $660,353 $566,803 $282,258 $0 $0 $3,281,587 $0 $1,412,699 $4,961,093

12 Deficit Recovery $0 $0 $0 $0

13 Study Costs $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 $175,000

14 Debenture Carrying Costs $0 $0 $0 $1,453,600 $2,439,928 $5,355,759 $5,583,847 $5,583,847 $5,583,847 $5,583,847 $6,779,769 $6,779,769 $8,715,437 $7,261,837 $6,275,509

15 Short Term Borrowing Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

16 Total Expenditures (10 through 15) $0 $46,275,512 $27,066,085 $47,266,842 $25,401,124 $40,254,820 $18,643,508 $13,326,453 $6,150,650 $5,866,105 $53,619,942 $6,954,769 $42,112,764 $8,715,437 $8,674,536 $11,411,602

Cashflow Analysis:

17 Revenues Minus Expenditures (9 - 16) -$20,637,739 -$3,894,468 -$16,365,743 $56,708 -$64,597 $7,206 $3,734,752 $11,045,382 $11,337,781 -$26,839,102 $9,764,032 -$9,933,510 $7,625,063 $7,271,955 $4,284,870

18 Opening Balance $40,641,656 $40,641,656 $20,003,917 $16,375,255 $9,669 $67,472 $2,923 $10,296 $3,806,842 $15,097,286 $26,871,246 $32,674 $9,958,352 $25,251 $7,776,544 $15,296,800

19 Sub total (17 + 18) $40,641,656 $20,003,917 $16,109,449 $9,512 $66,377 $2,875 $10,129 $3,745,049 $14,852,224 $26,435,067 $32,144 $9,796,706 $24,841 $7,650,314 $15,048,499 $19,581,669

20 Interest Earnings (12 months on Sub-total) $0 $265,806 $157 $1,095 $47 $167 $61,793 $245,062 $436,179 $530 $161,646 $410 $126,230 $248,300 $323,098

21 Closing Balance ³ (19 + 20) $40,641,656 $20,003,917 $16,375,255 $9,669 $67,472 $2,923 $10,296 $3,806,842 $15,097,286 $26,871,246 $32,674 $9,958,352 $25,251 $7,776,544 $15,296,800 $19,904,767

1 Previously financed from predecessor by-law Total L/T debt issued: $70,690,000

2 No escalation applied beyond the 15-year timeframe. Total short term borrowing: $0

3 Includes any EDC Account surplus/deficit accruing from the Board's existing EDC by-law. Total debenture payments (current $): $87,154,369

Residual debt payment as of end of forecast period: $19,757,374

Year in which outstanding debt is fully funded: 2034

S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013 Valued.March 26 2013.xlsx]FORM H1

TABLE 7-5

Site acquistion costs (escalated at 4.25% per annum for 5 years)

137,689,417$

33,724,888$

29,917,750$ 1,065$

5,946$

2,671$

High Density

Distribution Factor

68%

17%

15%

Form H2

Low Density

Medium Density

Differentiated Residential

EDC Per Unit

Net Education Land Cost

by Development Type

Net New

Units

Total

ROND

Type of Development

(Form B/C)


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

99

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Edu

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

99

To

ro

nto

Cath

olic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l B

oard

Ed

ucati

on

Develo

pm

en

t C

harg

es S

ub

mis

sio

n 2

013

Fo

rm

H1 -

ED

C C

alc

ula

tio

n -

Un

ifo

rm

Resid

en

tial an

d N

on

-Resid

en

tial

De

term

ina

tio

n o

f T

ota

l G

row

th-R

ela

ted

Ne

t E

du

ca

tio

n L

an

d C

os

ts

Tota

l:E

ducation L

and C

osts

(F

orm

G)

308,3

84,3

94

$

Add:

ED

C F

inancia

l O

bligations (

Form

A2)

Su

bto

tal:

Ne

t E

du

cati

on

Lan

d C

osts

308,3

84,3

94

$

Opera

ting B

udget S

avin

gs

-$

Positiv

e E

DC

Account B

ala

nce

40,6

41,6

56

$

Su

bto

tal:

Gro

wth

-Re

late

d N

et

Ed

ucati

on

Lan

d C

osts

267,7

42,7

39

$

Add:

ED

C S

tudy C

osts

700,0

00

$

To

tal:

Gro

wth

-Re

late

d N

et

Ed

ucati

on

Lan

d C

osts

268,4

42,7

39

$

Ap

po

rtio

nm

en

t o

f T

ota

l G

row

th-R

ela

ted

Ne

t E

du

ca

tio

n L

an

d C

os

ts

Ca

lcu

lati

on

of

Un

ifo

rm R

es

ide

nti

al C

ha

rge

Ca

lcu

lati

on

of

No

n-R

es

ide

nti

al C

ha

rge

- U

se

Eit

he

r B

oa

rd D

ete

rmin

ed

GF

A o

r D

ec

lare

d V

alu

e

71,4

85,2

90

0.9

4$

S:\TC

DS

B 2

012 E

DC

\ED

C S

ubm

issio

n\[TC

DS

B E

DC

Subm

issio

n 2

013.x

lsx]F

OR

M H

1

Less:

To

tal G

ro

wth

-Re

late

d N

et

Ed

ucati

on

Lan

d C

osts

to

be

Att

rib

ute

d

to N

on

-Re

sid

en

tial D

ev

elo

pm

en

t (M

axim

um

40%

)25%

67,1

10,6

85

$

To

tal G

ro

wth

-Re

late

d N

et

Ed

ucati

on

Lan

d C

osts

to

be

Att

rib

ute

d

to R

esid

en

tial D

ev

elo

pm

en

t75%

201,3

32,0

54

$

Re

sid

en

tial G

ro

wth

-Re

late

d N

et

Ed

ucati

on

Lan

d C

osts

201,3

32,0

54

$

Ne

t N

ew

Dw

ellin

g U

nit

s (

Fo

rm

C)

153,8

06

Un

ifo

rm

Re

sid

en

tial E

DC

pe

r D

we

llin

g U

nit

1,3

09

$

No

n-R

esid

en

tial G

ro

wth

-Re

late

d N

et

Ed

ucati

on

Lan

d C

osts

67,1

10,6

85

$

GF

A M

eth

od

:

No

n-E

xe

mp

t B

oard

-De

term

ine

d G

FA

(F

orm

D)

No

n-R

esid

en

tial E

DC

pe

r S

qu

are

Fo

ot

of

GF

A


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

013

Ed

uca

tio

n D

evel

op

men

t C

har

ge

100

Explanation of the Cash Flow Analysis:

A. Revenues

Line 1 incorporates any offsetting reduction to the charge resulting from alternative

accommodation arrangements the Board has entered into, or proposes to enter into.

Line 2 incorporates any operating budget surplus that the Board has designated for site

acquisition purposes.

Line 3 incorporates the long term (ten-year term) debenture requirements.

Line 4 incorporates the short term borrowing requirement. Lines 3 and 4 involve an

iterative process wherein interim (debenture) financing is incorporated in order to

ensure that the “closing balance” on Line 22 is positive in each year and that there is

sufficient residual at the end of 15 years to pay off the outstanding residual debt.

Line 5 subtotals lines 1 through 4.

Line 6 determines the EDC revenue to be generated by residential building permits to be

issued over the forecast period.

Line 7 determines the EDC revenue to be generated by non-residential building permits

to be issued over the forecast period.

Line 8 subtotals the residential EDC revenue (Line 6) and the non-residential EDC

revenue (Line 7).

Line 9 totals all anticipated revenue sources (Lines 5 and 8).

B. Expenditures

Line 10 brings forward into the calculation the annual site acquisition costs. The timing

of the capital expenditures generally determines the point at which the escalation factor

of 4.25% per annum is applied. However, this escalation factor, for sites to be acquired

by the TCDSB is only being applied to growth-related site needs in Review Areas where

specific sites have not already been identified.

Line 11 incorporates the site preparation/development costs, and escalates these costs

at 3% per annum.

Line 12 calculates the expected recovery, if applicable, of the current deficit, distributed

equally over the first 4 years of the forecast period. The intention is to clear the pre-

2013 deficit prior to by-law renewal in 2018.

Line 13 incorporates the study costs specified under section 257.53(2) at the beginning

of each new by-law period, and over the 15-year forecast period.

Line 14 calculates the debenture carrying costs where longer term financing is

appropriate. A 4% interest rate is assumed over the 10 year financing period. Interest is

accrued beginning in the year following the issuance of the debt.

Line 15 calculates the short term borrowing costs. An interest rate of 3% has been

assumed over a five year term of borrowing.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

101 101

Line 16 calculates total anticipated expenditures by totaling Lines 10 through 15.

C. Cash Flow Analysis

Line 17 calculates total revenues minus total expenditures (Line 9 minus Line 16).

Line 18 extracts the “closing balance” from the previous year and describes it as the

“opening balance.”

Line 19 calculates a sub-total of Lines 17 and 18.

Line 20 accrues EDC account interest earnings at 1.65% on the sub-total (Line 20).

Line 21 is the “closing balance” (Line 19 plus Line 20).

7.8 Non-Residential Share

One of the key policy decisions to be made by the Board in advance of adopting the by-law, is the

percentage of net education land costs to be recovered from residential and non-residential

development (or residential only).

The apportionment of net education capital costs to determine the residential education development

charge per unit and the non-residential rate per square foot of gross floor area was based on the

residential/non-residential share underlying the Board’s existing EDC by-law (i.e., 75% residential and

25% non-residential share). However, it is noted that the determination of the EDC charge based on any

assumed share non-statutory exempt residential development over the term of the by-law, and any

proportionate share from non-residential (industrial, institutional and commercial) development, does

not prejudice the Board’s final policy decision on this matter.

A sensitivity analysis outlining a range of possible residential EDC rates and comparable non-residential

rates is set out in the top right-hand corner of the cashflow analysis. Non-residential shares ranging

from 0% to 40% are determined for this purpose.

7.9 Education Development Charges

Finally, Table 7-6 summarizes the calculation of the jurisdiction-wide residential and non-residential

education development charges for the Board.


102

This information is consistent with the EDC submission, approval of which is required to be given by the

Ministry of Education prior to consideration of by-law adoption.

TABLE 7-6


CALCULATION OF RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGE

Total Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs (over 15-year forecast period including associated financing and study costs) $ 268,442,739

Costs Financed in the Previous 2008 By-law $ 90,354

Site Acquisition Costs $ 270,665,583

Land Escalation Costs $ 2,327,925

Site Preparation Costs $ 15,432,961

Site Preparation Escalation Costs $ 4,041,748

Debenture Interest Payments $ 14,741,241

Short Term Debt Interest Payments $ -

Study Costs $ 700,000

Financial Obligations/Surplus (projected EDC Account Balance as of May 27, 2013) $ 40,641,656

Interest Earnings $ 1,870,520

Closing Account Balance1 $ 19,904,767

Total Net New Units 153,806

Total Non-Residential, Non-Exempt Board-Determined GFA 71,485,290

Residential Education Development Charge Per Unit based on 75% of Total Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs $ 1,309

Non-Residential Education Development Charge Per Sq. Ft. of GFA based on 25% of Total Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs $ 0.94 [1]Reflects the EDC account balance in Year 15 (2027/28) which would be required to fund the residual debt requirement of $19,757,374 for the Board.

S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]Table 7-6


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

A-1 1

– DRAFT EDC BY-LAW Appendix A


EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW 2013 NO. ____

PREAMBLE

1. Section 257.54(1) of the Education Act (the “Act”) enables a district school board to

pass by-laws for the imposition of education development charges against land if there

is residential development in its area of jurisdiction that would increase education land

costs and the residential development requires one or more of the actions identified in

section 257.54(2) of the Act.

2. The Toronto Catholic District School Board (the “Board”) has determined that the

residential development of land to which this by-law applies increases education land

costs.

3. The Board will experience enrolment growth in the areas of the City of Toronto where

it has no sites for new schools or where its existing sites cannot accommodate more

students without an addition for which it will require land. The only available funding

source for the acquisition of land is education development charges.

The Board regrets that it has no choice but to impose education development charges.

The Board also regrets that it is unable to provide exemptions for affordable housing

because doing so would leave the Board without sufficient funds to acquire the land it

needs to accommodate enrolment growth.

4. Section 257.54(4) of the Act provides that an education development charge by-law

may apply to the entire area of jurisdiction of a board or only part of it.

5. The Board has referred its estimates of the total number of new elementary and

secondary pupils and its estimates of the number of elementary and secondary school

sites to the Ministry of Education for approval, and such approval was given on

__________, 2013 under section 10 of Regulation 20/98.

6. The Board has conducted a review of its education development charge policies and

held a public meeting on __________, 2013, in accordance with section 257.60 of the

Act.

7. The estimated average number of secondary school pupils of the Board over the five

years immediately following the day this by-law comes into force will exceed the total

capacity of the Board to accommodate secondary school pupils throughout its

jurisdiction on the day this by-law is passed.

1. The Board has given a copy of the education development charges background study

relating to this by-law to the Minister of Education and to each school board having

jurisdiction within the area to which this by-law applies in accordance with section 10

of Ont. Reg. 20/98.

2. The Board has therefore complied with conditions prescribed by section 10 of

Regulation 20/98.


A-2

3. The Board has given notice and held a public meeting on __________, 2013, in

accordance with section 257.63(1) of the Education Act and permitted any person who

attended the public meeting to make representations in respect of the proposed

education development charges.

4. The Board has determined in accordance with section 257.63(3) of the Act that no

additional public meeting is necessary in respect of this by-law.

NOW THEREFORE THE TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

PART 1 - APPLICATION

Defined Terms

1. In this by-law,

(a) “Act” means the Education Act,

(b) “area of the by-law” means the City of Toronto resulting from the amalgamation

effected on January 1, 1998 under the City of Toronto Act, 1997 S.O. 1997, c.2;

(c) “Board” means the Toronto Catholic District School Board;

(d) “development” means any activity or proposed activity in respect of land that

requires one or more of the actions referred to in Sections 5 and 6 of this by-law,

and includes redevelopment, expansion, extension or alteration, or any two or

more of them, of a use, building or structure, except interior alternations to an

existing building or structure which do not intensify the use of the building;

(e) “dwelling unit” means a room or suite of rooms used, or designed or intended for

use by one person or persons living together in which culinary and sanitary

facilities are provided for the exclusive use of such person or persons, and shall

include, but is not limited to, a dwelling unit or units in an apartment, group

home, mobile home, duplex, triplex, semi-detached dwelling, single detached

dwelling, stacked townhouse and townhouse;

(f) “education development charge” means charges imposed pursuant to this by-law

in accordance with the Act;

(g) “education land costs” means costs incurred or proposed to be incurred by the

Board,

(i) to acquire land or an interest in land, including a leasehold interest, to be

used by the Board to provide pupil accommodation;

(ii) to provide services to the land or otherwise prepare the site so that a

building or buildings may be built on the land to provide pupil

accommodation;

(iii) to prepare and distribute education development charge background

studies as required under the Act;


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

A-3 3

(iv) as interest on money borrowed to pay for costs described in paragraphs (i)

and (ii); and

(v) to undertake studies in connection with an acquisition referred to in

paragraph (i).

(h) “existing industrial building” means a building used for or in connection with,

(i) manufacturing, producing, processing, storing or distributing something,

(ii) research or development in connection with manufacturing, producing or

processing something,

(iii) retail sales by a manufacturer, producer or processor of something they

manufactured, produced, if the retail sales are at the site where the

manufacturing, production or processing takes place,

(iv) office or administrative purposes, if they are,

(A) carried out with respect to manufacturing, producing, processing,

storage or distributing of something, and

(B) in or attached to the building or structure used for that

manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution;

(i) “gross floor area” means the total floor area, measured between the outside of

exterior walls or between the outside of exterior walls and the centre line of party

walls dividing the building from another building, of all floors above the average

level of finished ground adjoining the building at its exterior walls and, for the

purpose of this definition, the non-residential portion of a mixed-use building is

deemed to include one-half of any area common to the residential and non-

residential portions of such mixed-use building or structure;

(j) “local board” means a local board as defined in the Municipal Affairs Act, other

than a district school board;

(k) “mixed use” means land, buildings or structures used, or designed or intended for

use, for a combination of non-residential and residential uses;

(l) “non-residential use” means lands, buildings or structures or portions thereof

used, or designed or intended for all uses other than residential use, and includes,

but is not limited to, an office, retail, industrial or institutional use;

(m) “residential development” means lands, buildings or structures developed or to be

developed for residential use;

(n) “residential use” means lands, buildings or structures used, or designed or

intended for use as a dwelling unit or units, and shall include a residential use

accessory to a non-residential use and the residential component of a mixed use or

of an agricultural use.

2. Unless otherwise expressly provided in this by-law, the definitions contained in the Act

or the regulations under the Act shall have the same meanings in this by-law.


A-4

In this by-law where reference is made to a statute, a section of a statute, or a regulation, such

reference will be deemed to be a reference to any successor statute, section or regulation.

Lands Affected

4.

(a) Subject to section 4(b), this by-law applies to all lands in the area of the by-law;

(b) This by-law shall not apply to lands that are owned by and are used for the

purpose of:

(i) a municipality or a local board thereof;

(ii) a district school board;

(iii) a public hospital receiving aid under the Public Hospitals Act;

(iv) a publicly-funded university, community college or a college of applied

arts and technology established under the Ministry of Colleges and

Universities Act, or a predecessor statute;

(v) The Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority ("GO Transit");

(vi) a cemetery or burying ground that is exempt from taxation under section 3

of the Assessment Act;

(vii) non-residential uses permitted under s. 39 of the Planning Act.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

A-5 5

Part II - Education Development Charges

5.

(1) In accordance with the Act and this by-law, and subject to sections 9 and 10, the Board

hereby imposes an education development charge against land undergoing residential

development or redevelopment in the area of the by-law if the residential development or

redevelopment requires any one of those actions set out in subsection 257.54(2) of the

Act, namely:

(a) the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment to zoning by-law under

section 34 of the Planning Act;

(b) the approval of a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act;

(c) a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under subsection 50(7) of the

Planning Act applies;

(d) the approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act;

(e) a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act;

(f) the approval of a description under section 50 of the Condominium Act; or

(g) the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 in relation to a building

or structure,

where the first building permit issued in relation to a building or structure for above ground

construction is issued on or after the date the by-law comes into force.

(2) In respect of a particular development or redevelopment an education development

charge will be collected once, but this does not prevent the application of this by-law to future

development or redevelopment on the same property.

6.

(1) In accordance with the Act and this by-law, and subject to sections 12 and 13 the Board

hereby imposes an education development charge against land undergoing non-

residential development or redevelopment in the area of the by-law which has the effect

of increasing existing gross floor area of such development if the non-residential

development or redevelopment requires any one of those actions set out in subsection

257.54(2) of the Act, namely:

(a) the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment to a zoning by-law under

section 34 of the Planning Act;

(b) the approval of a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act;

(c) a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under subsection 50(7) of the

Planning Act applies;

(d) the approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act;


A-6

(e) a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act;

(f) the approval of a description under section 50 of the Condominium Act; or

(g) the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 in relation to a building

or structure.

where the first building permit issued in relation to a building or structure for above around

construction is issued on or after the date the by-law comes into force.

(2) In respect of a particular development or redevelopment an education development

charge will be collected once, but this does not prevent the application of this by-law to

future development or redevelopment on the same property.

7. Subject to the provisions of this by-law, the Board hereby designates all categories of

residential development and non-residential development and all residential and non-

residential uses of land, buildings or structures as those upon which education

development charges shall be imposed.

Residential Education Development Charges

8. Subject to the provisions of this by-law, the Board hereby imposes an education

development charge of $____.00 per dwelling unit upon the designated categories of

residential development and the designated residential uses of lands, buildings or

structures, including a dwelling unit accessory to a non-residential use, and, in the case of

a mixed-use building or structure, upon the dwelling units in the mixed-use building or

structure.

Exemptions from Residential Education Development Charges

9. As required by subsection 257.54(3) of the Act, an education development charge shall

not be imposed with respect to:

(a) the enlargement of an existing dwelling unit or;

(b) the creation of one or two additional dwelling units as prescribed in section 3 of

Regulation 20/98 as follows:


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

A-7 7

NAME OF

CLASS OF

RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING

DESCRIPTION OF

CLASS OF

RESIDENTIAL

BUILDINGS

MAXIMUM

NUMBER OF

ADDITIONAL

DWELLING UNITS

RESTRICTIONS

Single detached

dwellings

Residential buildings, each

of which contains a single

dwelling unit, that are not

attached to other buildings

Two The total gross floor area of

the additional dwelling unit

or units must be less than or

equal to the gross floor area

of the dwelling unit already

in the building

Semi-detached

dwellings or row

dwellings

Residential buildings, each

of which contains a single

dwelling unit, that have one

or two vertical walls, but no

other parts, attached to

other buildings

One The gross floor area of the

additional dwelling unit

must be less than or equal

to the gross floor area of the

dwelling unit already in the

building

Other residential

buildings

A residential building not in

another class of residential

building described in this

table

One The gross floor area of the

additional dwelling unit

must be less than or equal

to the gross floor area of the

smallest dwelling unit

already in the building

10.

(1) An education development charge under section 8 shall not be imposed with respect to

the replacement, on the same site, of a dwelling unit that was destroyed by fire,

demolition or otherwise, or that was so damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise as to

render it uninhabitable.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), education development charges shall be imposed under

section 8 if the building permit for the replacement dwelling unit is issued more than 3

years after,

(a) the date the former dwelling unit was destroyed or became uninhabitable; or

(b) if the former dwelling unit was demolished pursuant to a demolition permit issued

before the former dwelling unit was destroyed or became uninhabitable, the date

the demolition permit was issued.

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), education development charges shall be imposed under

section 8 against any dwelling unit or units on the same site in addition to the dwelling

unit or units being replaced. The onus is on the applicant to produce evidence to the

satisfaction of the Board, acting reasonably, to establish the number of dwelling units

being replaced.


A-8

(4) Subject to section 13, an education development charge shall be imposed under section 8

where a non-residential building or structure is replaced by or converted to, in whole or in

part, a residential building or structure.

Non-Residential Education Development Charges

11. Subject to the provisions of this by-law, the Board hereby imposes an education

development charge of $_____ per square foot of gross floor area of non-residential

development upon the designated categories of non-residential development and the

designated non-residential uses of land, buildings or structures and, in the case of a mixed

use building or structure, upon the non-residential uses in the mixed-use building or

structure.

Exemptions from Non-Residential Education Development Charges

12. As required by section 257.55 of the Act, if a development includes the enlargement of a

gross floor area of an existing industrial building, the amount of the education

development charge that is payable in respect of the enlargement is determined in

accordance with the following rules:

(a) if the gross floor area is enlarged by 50 per cent or less, the amount of the

education development charge in respect of the enlargement is zero;

(b) If the gross floor area is enlarged by more than 50 per cent the amount of the

education development charge in respect of the enlargement is the amount of the

education development charge that would otherwise be payable multiplied by the

fraction determined as follows:

(i) Determine the amount by which the enlargement exceeds 50 per cent of

the gross floor area before the enlargement;

(ii) Divide the amount determined under paragraph 1 by the amount of the

enlargement.

13.

(a) As required by section 5 of Regulation 20/98, subject to paragraphs (b) and (c), an

education development charge under s. 11 shall not be imposed with respect to the

replacement, on the same site, of a non-residential building that was destroyed by

fire, demolition or otherwise, or that was so damaged by fire, demolition or

otherwise as to render it unusable.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), an education development charge shall be

imposed under section 11 against any additional gross floor area of any non-

residential development on the same site in excess of the gross floor area of the

non-residential building or structure being replaced, subject to the following

calculation:

If the gross floor area of the non-residential part of the replacement building

exceeds the gross floor area of the non-residential part of the building being

replaced, the exemption applies with respect to the portion of the education

development charge calculated in accordance with the following formula:


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

A-9 9

Exempted portion = GFA (old) x EDC

GFA (new)

where,

"Exempted portion" means the portion of the education development charge

that the board is required to exempt;

"GFA (old)" means the gross floor area of the non-residential part of the

building being replaced;

"GFA (new)" means the gross floor area of the non-residential part of the

replacement building;

"EDC" means the education development charge that would be payable in the

absence of the exemption;

(c) The exemption in paragraph (a) does not apply if the building permit for the

replacement building is issued more than 5 years after,

(i) the date the former building was destroyed or became unusable; or

(ii) if the former building was demolished pursuant to a demolition permit

issued before the former building was destroyed or became unusable, the

date the demolition permit was issued;

(d) Subject to section 16, an education development charge shall be imposed under

section 11 where a residential building or structure is replaced by or converted to,

in whole or in part, a non-residential building or structure.

14. The education development charge to be imposed in respect of mixed use development

shall be the aggregate of the amount applicable to the residential development component

and the amount applicable to the non-residential development component.

15.

(a) Where it appears to the Board that the land values underlying the education

development charge calculation are predicting higher costs than the Board is

generally experiencing over a period of time sufficient to show the discrepancy

with a reasonable degree of assurance, the Board shall consider a motion to study

amending the By-law to reduce the charge.

(b) Where it appears to the Board that the land values underlying the education

development charge calculation are predicting lower costs that the Board is

generally experiencing over a period of time sufficient to show the discrepancy

with a reasonable degree of assurance, the Board shall consider a motion to study

amending the By-law to increase the charge.


A-10

Credits

16. This section applies where an education development charge has previously been paid in

respect of development on land and the land is being redeveloped, except where sections

9 and 10, and/or section 12 and 13 apply:

(a) The education development charge payable in respect of the redevelopment will

be calculated under this by-law;

(b) The education development charge determined under paragraph (a) will be

reduced by a credit equivalent to the education development charge previously

paid in respect of the land, provided that the credit shall not exceed the education

development charge determined under paragraph (a);

(c) Where the redevelopment applies to part of the land the amount of the credit shall

be calculated on a proportionate basis having regard to the development

permissions being displaced by the new development. For example, if 10% of

non-residential gross floor area of a non-residential building is being displaced by

residential development through conversion, the residential education

development charge on the applicable number of units will be calculated under

section 8 of the by-law, and the credit will be the education development charge

originally paid on the gross floor area being converted subject to the limit in

paragraph (b).

PART III - ADMINISTRATION

Payment of Education Development Charges

17. The education development charge in respect of a development is payable to the City of

Toronto on the date that the first building permit for above ground construction is issued

in relation to a building or structure on land to which the education development charge

applies.

18. Education development charges shall be paid by cash, by certified cheque or by bank

draft.

19. The Treasurer of the Board shall establish and maintain an education development charge

reserve fund in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and this By-law.

Payment by Land

20. Subject to the requirements of the Act, the Board may by agreement permit an owner to

provide land in lieu of the payment of all or any portion of an education development

charge. In such event, the Treasurer of the Board shall advise the Treasurer of the City of

Toronto of the amount of the credit to be applied to the education development charge.

Collection of Unpaid Education Development Charges

21. In accordance with section 257.96 of the Act, section 349 of the Municipal Act, S.O.

2001, c. 25, applies with necessary modifications with respect to an education

development charge or any part of it that remains unpaid after it is payable.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

A-11 11

Date By-law In Force

22. This by-law shall come into force on __________, 2013.

Date By-law Expires

23. This by-law shall expire on __________, 2018, unless it is repealed at an earlier date.

Severability

24. Each of the provisions of this by-law are severable and if any provision hereof should for

any reason be declared invalid by a court or tribunal, the remaining provisions shall

remain in full force and effect.

Interpretation

25. Nothing in this by-law shall be construed so as to commit or require the Board to

authorize or proceed with any particular capital project at any time.

Short Title

26. This by-law may be cited as the Toronto Catholic District School Board Education

Development Charges, 2013 By-law No. ____.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , 2013.

Chair Director of Education and Secretary


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

B-1 1

Appendix B -- BACKGROUND DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO A REVIEW OF THE EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES POLICIES OF THE TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

The policy review document outlined herein is intended to provide the reader with an overview of the

education development charge policies underlying the existing (i.e., August 2008) EDC by-law of the

Toronto Catholic District School Board pursuant to Section 257.60, Division E, of the Education Act, as

follows:

“Before passing an education development charge by-law, the board shall conduct a review of the

education development charge policies of the board.”

Moreover, each Board is required to:

1. Ensure that adequate information is made available to the public (i.e. this document); and

2. Hold at least one public meeting, with appropriate notification of the meeting.

B.1 Existing EDC By-law in the City of Toronto

The Toronto Catholic District School Board adopted and implemented EDC by-laws governing the entire

City of Toronto in 2001, 2003 and again in 2008. The Toronto Catholic DSB’s existing by-law was

adopted on August 14, 2008 with implementation of the approved charges on August 25, 2008. The

Board held two public meetings (including consideration of by-law adoption) and held two stakeholder

sessions as part of the 2008 EDC consultation process.

In accordance with the legislation, TCDSB EDC by-law may be in effect for no more than 5 years and will

expire no later than August 24, 2013.

B.2 Overview of EDC Policies

This section of the report provides an overview of the key education development charge policy issues

that will be dealt with under the Toronto Catholic DSB’s proposed EDC by-law. The Board of Trustees,

after consideration of public input, will make decisions on each of these policy issues prior to passage of

the new EDC by-law anticipated to occur on May 23, 2013.

The policy decisions to be considered by the Board of Trustees, prior to by-law adoption, are as follows:

1. What portion of the net education land costs are to be recovered from residential and non-

residential (e.g. industrial, commercial and institutional) development?

2. Are the charges to be applied on an area-specific or jurisdiction-wide basis?


B-2

3. Does the Board wish to exempt any residential or non-residential development? If so, how does

the Board propose to fund the shortfall?

4. Does the Board wish to provide any demolition or conversion credits beyond that specified in

the legislation?

5. What by-law term is proposed by the Board; five years, or something less?

6. Does the Board wish to apply surplus operating funds, if any, to reduce the charge?

7. Are there any possible accommodation arrangements with private or public sector agencies that

would effectively reduce the charge?

Policy discussions and decisions that are specific to the Toronto Catholic District School Board would

also include:

1. Whether or not to exempt any affordable housing development within the City of Toronto 2. Whether or not to exempt a variety of land uses and developments exempted by the City of

Toronto and outlined in the City of Toronto Dc By-law No. 275-2009 3. Aligning by-law definitions with the City of Toronto DC by-law where appropriate

B.2.1 Percentage of Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs to be Borne through EDCs

Legislative Provisions:

O.Reg. 20/98 section 7 paragraphs 9 (iii) and 10 (vi) restrict a board to a maximum of 100% recovery of

the “net” growth-related education land costs from residential and non-residential development.

Under the existing capital funding model, education development charges are the only revenue source

available to fund growth-related site acquisition and development costs where a school board qualifies

to impose education development charges. However, in deriving “net” growth-related education land

costs, there are several impediments to full cost recovery:

• non-statutory exemptions granted by a school board, restrict full cost recovery;

• the cost to provide land for pupils generated by statutorily-exempt residential development has

no funding source;

• there are restrictions on the number of acres of land that a board can fund through an EDC by-

law, which in turn results in less flexibility to the board in accommodating “peak” enrolment

needs;

• the determination of growth-related site needs is based on On-the-Ground (OTG) capacity which

is an assessment of classroom loading, which may not the functional capacity of classroom use

from a program perspective.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

B-3 3

All Boards with EDC by-laws in place, have calculated their EDC rates to derive 100% cost recovery of the

“net” education land costs, however, some have reduced this level by granting at least some limited

non-statutory exemptions (i.e., primarily non-residential exemptions), through negotiations with

development community interests, and in response to policy positions put forth by the jurisdictional

municipalities and other interested stakeholders.

Considerations:

One of the most significant considerations in the legislative treatment of education development

charges is that there is no tax-based funding source to make up the shortfall where full cost recovery is

not achieved. At the time the 2008 EDC by-law was adopted by TCDSB the Board’s legal advisors were

of the opinion that the granting of non-statutory exemptions during by-law adoption forces the board to

absorb the loss of revenue associated with granting the exemptions. Many of the revenue sources

under the existing education capital funding model are “enveloped” and are therefore not available to

be used for purposes other than that for which they were legislatively intended.

The Toronto Catholic District School Board’s 2008 EDC by-law recovers net education land costs from

residential development (75%) and non-residential development (25%) within the City of Toronto. That

is, no areas are exempted from the charge, with the exception of the Railway Lands (see section 6 of

O.Reg 20/98). Only statutorily-exempt residential uses have been exempted from the imposition of

education development charges in the City of Toronto. Therefore, the existing EDC by-law is designed to

recover as much of the net education land cost needs as the legislation will allow.

B.2.2 Jurisdiction-wide vs. Area Municipal (or Sub-area) Charges

Existing EDC By-law Provisions:

The existing “in force” EDC by-law is applied on a City-wide uniform basis (with the exception of the

Railway Lands as noted above). The rationale for this decision is primarily based on the premise that:

1. A jurisdiction-wide approach is more consistent with the way in which education services are

provided by the Board;

2. A jurisdiction-wide charge affords more flexibility to the Board to meet its long-term

accommodation needs;

3. Uniform application of education development charges is more congruent with the education

funding model as a whole.

4. Money from an education development charges account may be used only for growth-related net education land costs attributed to or resulting from development in the area to which the education development charge by-law applies (section 16 of O.Reg 20/98). Therefore monies collected in one by-law area could not be spend outside of that by-law area and this is particularly problematic given school choice at the secondary level.


B-4

Public Input Received with Respect to this Policy:

The City of Toronto requested that the Board consider exempting affordable housing development from

the education development charge proposed in 2008. The Board considered but was unable to

accommodate this request as to do so would leave the Board without sufficient funds to acquire the

land needed to accommodate enrolment growth.


Section 257.54 sub section (4) allows for area specific EDC by-laws by providing that “an education

development charge by-law may apply to the entire area of jurisdiction of a board or only part of it.”

Further, the Education Act permits a board to have more than one EDC by-law under section 257.54

subsection (1) in that “If there is residential development in the area of jurisdiction of a board that

would increase education land costs, the board may pass by-laws for the imposition of education

development charges against land in its area of jurisdiction undergoing residential or non-residential

development.”

Finally, section 257.59(c) of the Education Act requires that “an education development charge by-law

shall...designate those areas in which an education development charge shall be imposed”.

Considerations:

Under the Regulatory framework, a board must establish a separate EDC account for each by-law that it

enacts and may only use the funds to pay for growth-related net education land costs (and the other

“eligible” land costs defined under the Act) in that area (which may comprise a region of a board as

defined under O.Reg. 20/98). The entire approach outlined in the legislation, and governing the

determination of education development charges, requires that the calculation of the charge, the

preparation of background studies, the establishment of EDC accounts and the expenditure of those

funds, etc., is to be done on an individual by-law basis.

From a methodological perspective, an EDC-eligible board is required to make assumptions respecting

the geographic structure of the by-law or by-laws from the onset of the calculation process. Discussions

respecting the number of potential by-laws and the subdivision of the Board’s jurisdictions into review

areas are held with the Board at the commencement of the study process. If, as a result of the

consultation process undertaken in contemplation of the adoption of an EDC by-law or by-laws, the

Board chooses a different policy direction, it is usually advised by legal counsel that a new background

study is required, and the calculation/public consultation process begins anew.

Several of the key considerations in assessing the appropriateness of area specific versus uniform

application of education development charges are as follows:

• The use of a uniform jurisdiction-wide EDC is consistent with the approach used to fund

education costs under the Provincial funding model (i.e., the same per pupil funding throughout

the Province), with a single tax rate for residential development (throughout the Province) and

uniform Region-wide tax rates for non-residential development (by type), and is consistent with

the approach taken by the Board to make decisions with respect to capital expenditures;


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

B-5 5

• Uniform by-law structures are more consistent with the implementation of a board’s capital

program (i.e., school facilities where and when needed) and are more consistent with board

philosophies of equal access to all school facilities for pupils;

• School attendance boundaries have, and will continue to shift over time, as boards deal with a

dynamic accommodation environment and the need to make efficient use of limited capital

resources, particularly given that they are dealing with ageing infrastructure, demographic shifts

and continually changing curriculum and program requirements;

• Where the pace of housing development generates the need for a school site over a longer

period of time, there is a need to temporarily house pupils in alternate accommodation; which

consumes the asset lifecycle of the “hosting” facility, even if pupils are accommodated in

portable structures;

• District school boards have a statutory obligation to accommodate all resident pupils and as

such, pay less attention to municipal boundaries as the basis for determining by-law structure;

• A board must establish a separate EDC account for each by-law and may only use the funds to

pay for growth-related net education land costs in that by-law area;

• In a situation where pupils are accommodated in a by-law area other than their place of

residence, there is the potential for stranded funds and the Education Act does not address this

type of circumstance.

Jurisdiction-wide application of the charge assists in minimizing the risk of less-than-full cost

recovery, especially where attendance boundaries and accommodation strategies change over

time.

Where it is determined that stranding of EDC funds is not likely to occur over the by-law term,

and an area specific by-law is adopted by the board, careful monitoring would be required on an

on-going basis to ensure that the board does not subsequently find itself in a position where it

was unable to fully fund growth-related site needs over the longer term. Where this situation

has the potential to occur, a new by-law structure should be considered by the board as soon as

possible, because there is no ability to make up the funding shortfall once building permits are

issued;

• The ability to utilize EDC funds for capital borrowing purposes under an area specific by-law

scheme is limited to borrowing for cash flow purposes only (i.e., revenue shortfalls), due to the

inability, under the existing legislation, to recover net education land costs sufficient to repay

the “borrowed” area;

• Multiple EDC accounts under a multiple by-law approach restrict the flexibility required to

match the timing and location of site needs to available revenue sources and may compromise

the timing of new school construction and increase financing costs;

• Multiple by-laws can give consideration to different patterns and levels of development

(including composition of dwelling units) in that they incorporate variable rates throughout the

region. The appropriateness of utilizing area specific by-laws to reflect economic diversity


B-6

within a jurisdiction, should, however, be measured in the context of measurable potential

market or development impact;

• The precedent for levying uniform municipal development charges for “soft services” (e.g.,

recreation, library) is well established, and is currently used in existing DC by-laws by virtually all

municipalities. As well, infill dwelling units pay the same development charge for these services

as new units in the major growth areas, despite the availability of existing facilities;

• While today there are few area specific EDC by-laws in the Province of Ontario, those that have

been adopted or proposed, reflect areas where there is little or no expectation of cross-

boundary attendance.

B.2.3 Non-Statutory Residential Exemptions


Under the legislation, residential statutory exemptions include:

• The enlargement of an existing dwelling unit (s.257.54(3)(a)).

• The addition of one or two units to an existing residential building where the addition is within

prescribed limits (s.257.54(3)(b), O.Reg. 20/98 s.3).

• The replacement dwelling on the same site as a dwelling unit that was destroyed (or rendered

uninhabitable) by fire, demolition or otherwise, where the building permit for the replacement

dwelling is issued two years or less after the later of the date on which the former dwelling unit

was destroyed or became uninhabitable, or a demolition permit was issued (O.Reg. 20/98

Section (4)).

In addition, Part III, s.7.1 of O.Reg. 20/98 provides that, “The board shall estimate the number of new

dwelling units in the area in which the charges are to be imposed for each of the 15 years immediately

following the day the board intends to have the by-law come into force. The board’s estimate shall

include only new dwelling units in respect of which education development charges may be imposed.”

Accordingly, any costs related to students generated from units which are statutorily exempt (in housing

intensification) are not recoverable from EDCs.

Finally, an amendment to O.Reg. 20/98 enables a board to vary the EDC rates to consider differences in

size (e.g. number of bedrooms, square footage) of dwelling units or occupancy (permanent or seasonal,

non-family households or family households) although the latter (i.e. occupancy) could change over

time.

Section 7 paragraph (9) of O.Reg. 20/98 states that, “the board shall determine charges on residential

development subject to the following,

i) the charges shall be expressed as a rate per new dwelling unit,


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

B-7 7

ii) the rate shall be the same throughout the area in which charges are to be imposed

under the by-law, ...”

Despite this, a board may impose different charges on different types of residential development, based

on the percentage of the growth-related net education land costs to be applied to residential

development that is to be funded by each type. The restrictions noted above would also apply in the

case of differentiated residential EDC rates.

Considerations:

Some types of units may initially generate limited (if any) pupils (e.g., bungalow townhouses, small

apartments, adult lifestyle, recreational units), although "need for service" is not a requirement of

education development charges under Division E of the Education Act. There is precedent to levy

education costs on these types of units, since residential taxpayers contribute to education costs

whether or not they use education services. Further, there is no legislative ability under the Building

Code Act to restrict the number of occupants in a dwelling unit either at the time of initial occupancy, or

subsequent re-occupation.

There would appear to be two options under the EDC legislation for dealing with variations in school age

population per household, over time. However, neither solution is simple in real practice.

The first alternative is to provide an exemption for a particular type of dwelling unit. However, any

exempt category must be definable such that a reasonable 15-year projection can be made, and a

physical description can be included in the EDC by-law, such that building officials can readily define

exempt units (e.g., seniors' housing receiving Provincial assistance would be definable, whereas market

housing being marketed to seniors would be very difficult to project and define, since it could be

claimed by any development). Also, occupancy status could change over time. In addition, school

boards deal with a variety of municipal zoning definitions within their jurisdiction and it is extremely

difficult to be consistent with all municipal DC by-law implementation practices concurrently.

The second alternative would be to differentiate the residential charge by type in order to establish a

lower EDC rate for dwelling units that would typically be occupied by fewer school age children per

household. However, the same unit type (e.g., single detached), with the same number of bedrooms, or

square footage, could exhibit vastly different school age occupancies. The same difficulties prevail in

trying to define a unit type that segregates various levels of school occupancy that is definable and can

be easily implemented under by-law application. Finally, as noted earlier, there is no legislative ability to

restrict the level of occupancy, and occupancy status could change over time.

However, even where the policy decision is not to differentiate the residential charge, the projections of

enrolment are usually designed to consider the lower pupil generation of these units, which is applied to

the number of units in the dwelling unit forecast expected to be non-children households. Therefore,

non-differentiated residential rates represent averages for all types of units which give consideration to

the variation in school age population per household.

To date, no board has exempted any form of non-statutory residential unit in an in-force EDC by-law.


B-8

Existing EDC by-law Provisions:

Currently, there are no by-law exemptions given for units that are marketed as “adult lifestyle” or for

affordable housing projects. The determination of pupils generated by new development does,

however, take into consideration the minimal occupancy of adult lifestyle units by school age children.

1. Under the Education Act, approximately 0.6% of the forecasted medium density dwelling units

are currently estimated to be exempt from the payment of EDCs under the legislative provisions

dealing with housing intensification. It is assumed that the occupancy of these “intensified”

units is predominantly made up of non-children households.

2. Historical data regarding school age children per household, which represents an “average” of

all household occupancies, is a significant component of the projected elementary and

secondary enrolment.

3. The EDC pupil yield analysis assesses changing headship rates and uses this information to

modify the future expectations of the number of school age children per household.

B.2.4 Non-Statutory Non-residential Exemptions


Non-residential statutory exemptions include:

• land owned by, and used for the purposes of, a board or a municipality

• expansions to industrial buildings (gross floor area)

• replacement, on the same site, of a non-residential building that was destroyed by fire,

demolition or otherwise, so as to render it unusable and provided that the building permit for

the replacement building was issued less than 5 years after the date the building became

unusable or the date the demolition permit was issued

Section 7 paragraph (10) of O.Reg. 20/98 states that “if charges are to be imposed on non-residential

development ... the charges shall be expressed as ...”

a) a rate to be applied to the board-determined gross floor area of the development, or

b) a rate to be applied to the declared value of the development.

Considerations:

If a board elects not to have a non-residential charge, then non-statutory non-residential exemptions is

not an issue.

However, there is no funding source currently available under the new funding model to absorb the cost

of providing non-statutory exemptions. In addition, by-law administration and collection of the charge,


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

B-9 9

and the ability to treat all development applications in a fair and equitable manner, are complicated by

the granting of non-statutory exemptions.

A 2007 legal opinion, sought on this matter by the consultant, suggests that a school board must absorb

the cost of exemptions voluntarily granted by the board to any non-statutory non-residential

development (i.e., the board would not be in a position to make up the lost revenue by increasing the

charge on the other non-exempt non-residential development under the legislation).

Existing EDC By-law Provisions:

The Toronto Catholic District School Board’s existing “in-force” EDC by-law applies to both residential

and non-residential development. The Board has the ability to revisit this policy decision for the 2013

by-law.

B.2.5 Demolition and Conversion Credits


Section 4 of O.Reg 20/98 prescribes a replacement dwelling unit exemption.

Section 4 states that “a board shall exempt an owner with respect to the replacement, on the same site,

of a dwelling unit that was destroyed by fire, demolition or otherwise, or that was so damaged by fire,

demolition or otherwise as to render it uninhabitable.”

However, “a board is not required to exempt an owner if the building permit for the replacement

dwelling unit is issued more than two years after,

a) the date the former dwelling unit was destroyed or became uninhabitable; or

b) if the former dwelling unit was demolished pursuant to a demolition permit issued before the

former dwelling unit was destroyed or became uninhabitable, the date the demolition permit

was issued.”

The Board’s EDC by-law extends the exemption period to three years instead of the required two years.

Section 5 of O.Reg. 28/98 deals with exemptions for the replacement of non-residential buildings.

Similar provisions apply with respect to the replacement of non-residential gross floor area (GFA),

except that the credit is only applied to the extent that the amount of new floor space is equivalent to

the GFA of the floor space being replaced. The grace period for the replacement of non-residential GFA

is five years.

There are no legislative provisions specifically dealing with conversion of use. However, the EDC

Guidelines, section 4.1, states that, “Board by-laws may include provisions for credits for land use

conversion. Typically, this situation would arise if an EDC is paid for one type of development and

shortly thereafter (the period of time defined in the board’s EDC by-law), the land is rezoned and a new

building permit issued for redevelopment (to an alternate land use). EDC by-laws may include

provisions for providing credits in this situation to take into account the EDC amount paid on the original


B-10

development (generally by offsetting the EDC amount payable on the redevelopment).” The 2008

TCDSB EDC by-law provides a credit equal to the amount of the charge originally paid on the space that

is being converted.

B.2.6 % of Net Education Land Costs to be borne by Residential and Non-residential Development


Section 257.54(1) of the Education Act provides that a board may pass an EDC by-law “against land in its

area of jurisdiction undergoing residential or non-residential development,” if residential development

in the board’s jurisdiction would increase education land costs.

Section 7 paragraph 8 of O.Reg. 20/98 requires that, “the board shall choose the percentage of the

growth-related net education land cost that is to be funded by charges on residential development and

the percentage, if any, that is to be funded by charges on non-residential development.” “The

percentage that is to be funded by charges on non-residential development shall not exceed 40

percent.”

A board has the choice under the Education Act, of levying an EDC only on residential development (for

partial or full eligible cost recovery), or levying a charge on both residential and non-residential

development (up to a maximum of 40% of costs allocated to non-residential development). Under the

previous DCA legislation, a charge on non-residential development (then termed “commercial”

development) was required.

Considerations:

For most of the current EDC by-laws, 10-15% of net growth-related education costs were funded by non-

residential development. This percentage was specifically requested by a majority of the development

organizations during the public consultation process, particularly where the quantum of the residential

charge is higher than the norm.

There are limited options for funding education land costs under the Province’s new capital funding

model. All boards eligible to impose education development charges are likely to seek full eligible cost

recovery (100%) under EDCs. However, the requirement for an EDC non-residential charge is not part of

the Education Act and therefore boards may elect to recover 100% of costs from residential

development or up to 40% from non-residential development (with the remainder to be recovered from

residential development).

The major advantages of allocating 100% of net education land costs to residential development are as

follows:

• Reduction of risk to the board in not achieving full revenue recovery, as demand for new pupil

places will increase directly with the level of residential growth; non-residential floor area (or

building permit declared value) is difficult to forecast over 15 years (particularly on an area-

specific basis), and a downturn in non-residential growth would leave the board with an EDC

revenue shortfall (with limited available funding sources to make up the differential);


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

B-11 11

• Simplified EDC process and by-law, eliminating the need to deal with a range of requests for

exemptions, and redevelopment credits;

• Establishment of a more direct linkage to the need for the service (i.e., pupils generated by new

residential development) and the funding of that service, similar to municipal development

charges (although not legislatively required by the Education Act), although it is widely accepted

by planning practitioners that employment growth leads housing growth;

• The difficulties in administering/collecting even a nominal non-residential charge and

interpretation of by-law applicability vis-a-vis municipal DC by-law definitions of gross floor area,

zoning provisions, etc.

The major disadvantages of allocating 100% of net education land costs to residential development are

as follows:

• Increases the residential charge;

• A downturn in residential growth due to changing economic conditions will have a negative

impact on EDC cash flow and the ability to contain account deficits;

• Potential impact on the residential development market, due to a higher residential EDC bearing

100% of the net education land costs;

• May be opposed by the development community which strongly supported the 85-90%

residential and 10-15% non-residential division of costs under the current EDC by-laws;

• The precedent of eliminating the non-residential charge in one by-law period may make it

difficult to reverse the decision and have a non-residential charge in a subsequent by-law

period;

• Eliminating the non-residential charge reduces the breadth of the board’s overall EDC funding

base, which may be particularly significant if there are large commercial/industrial

developments in future.

B.2.7 By-law Term


The Education Act permits a school board to pass an EDC by-law with a maximum term of five years

(s.257.58 (1)).

A board with an EDC by-law in force, may pass a new EDC by-law at any time, after preparing a new

education development charge study, securing the Minister of Education’s approval, and undertaking

the required public process (s.257.58(2)).

A board may amend an EDC by-law once in each one-year period following by-law enactment, to do any

of the following:


B-12

“1. Increase the amount of an education development charge that will be payable in any particular

case.

2. Remove, or reduce the scope of, an exemption.

3. Extend the term of the by-law.” (s.257.70(2) and subject to s.257.58(1))

A public meeting is not required for a by-law amendment; however, the board must give notice of the

proposed amendment, in accordance with the regulations, and make available to the public, the EDC

background study for the by-law being amended, and “sufficient information to allow the public to

generally understand the proposed amendment.” (s.257.72)

Considerations:

A five-year term provides the maximum flexibility since a board has the power to amend the by-law or

pass a new by-law at an earlier point, if necessary.

The level of effort required to emplace a new by-law (e.g., production of an EDC background study,

involvement in an extensive consultation process with the public and liaison process with municipalities)

would suggest that a longer term (maximum five years) by-law is more desirable.

B.2.8 Application of Operating Surpluses to Capital Needs


The education development charge background study must include “a statement from the board stating

that it has reviewed its operating budget for savings that could be applied to reduce growth-related net

education land costs, and the amount of any savings which it proposes to apply, if any.”

Considerations:

The Regulation requires that this issue be addressed by the board.

The use of the expression, “if any,” recognizes that even if there is a surplus, the board may not choose

to direct it to this particular form of expenditure.

The Provincial Funding Model prescribes “envelopes” which impact on the direction of budgetary

surpluses, including the requirement that funds may not be moved from the classroom to non-

classroom category; funds generated by special education needs cannot be used for other purposes;

funds generated from grants for new pupil places or facilities renewal must be used for this purpose or

placed in an account for future use. Only funds generated from the School Board Administration and

Governance, Transportation and School Operations grants may be directed elsewhere (and therefore

could be potentially used for education land costs).

The Board reviewed its existing policy and on February 14, 2013 determined that there are no surplus

operating funds to offset EDC-related expenditures. A copy of the Board’s policy is found in Appendix C.


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

B-13 13

B.2.9 Policy on Alternative Accommodation Arrangements


Information which must be included in the education development charge background study includes “A

statement of the board’s policy concerning possible arrangements with municipalities, school boards or

other persons or bodies in the public or private sector, including arrangements of a long-term or co-

operative nature, which would provide accommodation for the new elementary school pupils and new

secondary school pupils...without imposing education development charges or with a reduction in such

charges.” (section 9(1) paragraph 6 of O.Reg 20/98)

For a subsequent EDC by-law period, the board is further required to provide a “statement of how the

policy...was implemented and, if it was not implemented, an explanation of why it was not

implemented.”

Considerations:

The legislation would appear to contemplate situations where the “arrangements” include consideration

for both land and buildings.

The impact on the Board’s permanent capacity (particularly in the situation of a long-term leasing

arrangement) would have to be considered as part of the needs assessment inherent in the EDC

calculation.

If “other persons” were to enter into these arrangements with school boards, they would be potentially

spreading the benefit of the arrangement across all development, as opposed to a land owner entering

into a services-in-lieu agreement that would provide the applicant with a credit against EDCs payable.

The pupil accommodation account can be utilized to enter into long and short term lease arrangements

with the private sector, or to enter into multi-use partnership agreements with other school boards,

municipalities or the private sector.

Section 210.1(12) of the Municipal Act permits school boards to provide limited exemptions from

municipal and school taxes and education development charges in exchange for the provision of school

capital facilities, under certain circumstances.

The Board reviewed its existing policy and on February 14, 2013 determined that it will continue to

explore accommodation arrangements which may result in accommodation efficiencies; however, at

this time there are no savings under this policy to offset EDC-related expenditures. A copy of the

Board’s policy is found in Appendix C.


B-14

B.3 Summary of By-law Appeals, Amendments and Complaints

B.3.1 Appeals

Under Section 257.65 of the Education Act, “any person or organization may appeal an education

development charge by-law to the Ontario Municipal Board by filing with the secretary of the board that

passed the by-law, a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the by-law and the reasons supporting

the objection.”

There were no appeals of the 2008 TCDSB EDC by-law.

B.3.2 Amendments


Section 257.70 subsection (1) states that “subject to subsection (2), a board may pass a by-law

amending an education development charge by-law.” Subsection (2) goes on to say that, “a board may

not amend an education development charge by-law so as to do any one of the following more than

once in the one-year period immediately following the coming into force of the by-law or in any

succeeding one year period:

1. Increase the amount of an education development charge that will be payable in any particular

case.

2. Remove, or reduce the scope of, an exemption.

3. Extend the term of the by-law.”

Section 257.71 states that “A by-law amending an education development charge by-law comes into

force on the fifth day after it is passed.” Finally, “before passing a by-law amending an education

development charge by-law, the board shall,

a) give notice of the proposed amendment in accordance with the regulations; and

b) ensure that the following are made available to the public,

(i) the education development charge background study for the by-law being

amended, and

(ii) sufficient information to allow the public to understand the proposed

amendment.”


Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

B-15 15

No amendments have been made to the EDC by-law in place today.

B.3.3 Complaints

Under Section 257.85 of the Education Act, “an owner, the owner’s agent or a board, may complain to

the council of the municipality to which an education development charge is payable that,

a) the amount of the education development charge was incorrectly determined;

b) a credit is or is not available to be used against the education development charge, or

that the amount of a credit was incorrectly determined;

c) there was an error in the application of the education development charge by-law.”

In addition,

“A complaint may not be made...later than 90 days after the day the education development charge, or

any part of it, is payable.”

No complaints have been filed to date with respect to the Toronto Catholic District School Board EDC by-

law.


C-1 1

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Appendix C-- EDC POLICIES RE OPERATING SURPLUSES AND ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION ARRANGEMENTS

C.1 School Sites – Operating Budget Surplus

Policy Section: Real Property

Sub-Section:

Policy Name: School Sites – Operating Budget Surplus

Policy No: R.10

Date Approved: January 20, 2000 – Board Meeting

Background

(1) Section 9(1) paragraph 8 of O. Reg 20/98 (Education Development Charges - General) provides that an education development background charge study must contain:

8. A statement from the board stating that it has reviewed its operating budget for savings that could be applied to reduce growth-related net education land costs, and the amount of any savings which it proposes to apply, if any.

(2) It is therefore necessary that the review referred to in section 9(1) paragraph 8 be conducted annually as part of the process of setting the estimates.

(3) Under the General Legislative Grant Regulation, only a surplus from the non-classroom part of the estimates is eligible to be used to acquire school sites, thereby reducing the “growth related net education land cost” and the education development charge that may be levied by the TCDSB.

Policy

Where there has been or it appears that there will be surplus in the non-classroom part of the estimates of the TCDSB in a fiscal year, the Board shall determine whether all, part, or none of the surplus will be designated as available for the purpose of acquiring school sites by purchase, lease or otherwise.

Regulations

(1) If there is, or it appears that there will be a surplus in the operating budget, the Board shall pass a motion substantially as follows:

Whereas it appears that there has been or that there will be a surplus in the non-classroom part of the budget;

Moved that:

(i) The Board may designate an amount as available for the purpose of acquiring school sites by purchase, lease or otherwise;


C-2

(ii) The Board’s reasons for so deciding are as follows:

[The Board may choose to direct some funds to the purchase of school sites or may decline to do so. Reasons for the decision should be included which indicate where the board will be directing the funds and its basic reasons for doing so. The purpose for this part of the motion is to ensure that a clear record of the board’s decision and its reasons are available as part of the public record for inclusion in the education development charge background study. This is particularly necessary as evidence for the Ontario Municipal Board in the event of an appeal of the by-law.]

(2) If there is no surplus, or it appears that there will not be a surplus in the operating budget, no further action is required with respect to this Policy.”


C-3 3

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

C.2 Alternative Arrangements for School Facilities

Policy Section: Real Property

Sub-Section:

Policy Name: Alternative Arrangements for School Facilities

Policy No: R.09

Date Approved: January 20, 2000 – Board Meeting

Background

(1) A number of legislative provisions encourage school boards to consider alternate arrangements for the accommodation of elementary and secondary school pupils to the usual arrangement under which a school site is acquired and a stand-alone school is built on it.

(2) Ontario Regulation 20/98 provides that the education development charge background study contain:

6. A statement of the board’s policy concerning possible arrangements with municipalities,

school boards or other persons or bodies in the public or private sector, including

arrangements of a long-term or co-operative nature, which would provide

accommodation for the new elementary school pupils and new secondary school pupils

estimated under paragraph 3 of section 7, without imposing education development

charges, or with a reduction in such charges.

7. If a previous education development charge background study completed by the board

included a statement under paragraph 6, a statement of how the policy referred to in

the statement was implemented and, if it was not implemented, an explanation of why

it was not implemented.

(3) Regulation 446/98 (Reserve Funds) permits a school board to utilize proceeds in the Pupil Accommodation Allocation Reserve Fund for the acquisition of “school sites that are acquired as part of transactions under which the board also acquires school buildings on the school sites”.

(4) Section 210.1 of the Municipal Act authorizes municipalities and school boards to enter into arrangements under which they can provide for exemptions from taxation for municipal and school purposes of land or a portion of it that is “entirely occupied and used or intended for use for a service or function that may be provided by a “school board” or municipality”. It also authorizes an exemption to be given from municipal and education development charges in certain circumstances.


C-4

(5) The TCDSB recognizes that alternative arrangements can provide an opportunity to improve service delivery and peak enrolment capacity, reduce duplication of public facilities, maximize the effective use of available dollars, and reduce site size requirements. These include a variety of acquisition strategies such as forward buying, options, purchases, lease buy-back, sites exchanges and joint venture partnerships.

(6) The TCDSB’s record demonstrates this commitment:

AGENCIES INVOLVED

Humberwood Centre TCDSB(elementary school)

TDSB (elementary school)

City of Toronto (community centre)

Library Board (library branch)

Mary Ward Catholic Secondary School TCDSB (secondary school)

City of Toronto (community centre)

Lakeshore Grounds Campus (future school(s)/recreation

centre/park campus)

TCDSB (secondary & if necessary, elementary school)

Humber College (Lakeshore Campus)

City of Toronto (recreation centre and park)

Railway Lands (future schools/park/

community centre campus)

Port Union Village (future schools/park campus)

TCDSB (elementary school)

TDSB (elementary school)

City of Toronto (community centre and park)

- TCDSB (elementary school) - TDSB (elementary school) - City of Toronto (park)

Policy

The TCDSB will consider possible arrangements with municipalities, school boards or other persons or

bodies in the public or private sector, including arrangements of a long-term or cooperative nature,

which would provide accommodation for the new elementary school pupils and new secondary school

pupils who are resident pupils of the Board, subject to the Regulations set out below.


C-5 5

Toro

nto

Cat

ho

lic D

istr

ict

Sch

oo

l Bo

ard

– 2

01

3 E

du

cati

on

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ch

arge

Regulations

(1) The arrangement must be cost effective and advantageous for the TCDSB compared to other

possible arrangements including an acquisition of a school site and the construction of a free

standing building.

(2) The arrangement shall comply with any guidelines issued by the Ministry of Education and

Training.

(3) The TCDSB may enter into lease arrangements respecting school facilities intended to be used to

accommodate peak enrolment, but shall not enter into such arrangements respecting school

facilities that are necessary to accommodate long-term enrolment unless the arrangements

could result in ownership at the Board’s discretion.

(4) The TCDSB shall retain sufficient governance authority over the facility to ensure that it is able to

deliver the appropriate educational program to its pupils, and to ensure that its identity,

ambience and integrity are preserved.

(5) The facility shall have a separate entrance with the school name on the exterior of the school

easily visible from the street.”

Documents

Toronto Catholic District School Board · 1.2 Toronto Catholic District School Board EDC By-law ... The dwelling unit and phasing of development forecast derived as the basis for