The Future of VSB Schools: Funding Schools During Declining and Uneven Enrollment

The future of VSB schools: funding schools during declining and uneven enrollment

by Peter Lunka

MSc, Bangor University, 2014 B.A., University of British Columbia, 2007

Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Public Policy

in the School of Public Policy Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

Copyright in this work rests with the author. Please ensure that any reproduction or re-use is done in accordance with the relevant national copyright legislation. Approval

Name: Peter Lunka Degree: Master of Public Policy Title: The future of VSB schools: funding schools during declining and uneven enrollment Examining Committee: Chair: Dominique Gross Professor, School of Public Policy, SFU Josh Gordon Senior Supervisor Assistant Professor Nancy Olewiler Supervisor Professor John Richards Internal Examiner Professor

Date Defended/Approved: April 10, 2019

ii Ethics Statement

iii Abstract

In recent years the management of Vancouver School Board (VSB) schools has generated significant public and media attention. VSB district enrollment has declined significantly over the past 20 years while Vancouver’s population has increased. Further, enrollment has increased in areas of urban development creating planning challenges where there are too many students in some schools and too few elsewhere. The Province expects the VSB to effectively manage their enrollment and have prioritized seismic upgrades for schools with high enrollment. This has led to potential school closures, catchment boundary changes, and 43 schools are listed as future priorities for seismic upgrades. This capstone investigates solutions to the VSB’s uneven enrollment challenges and related capital funding shortfalls through a jurisdictional scan, interviews, and a mapping study using VSB enrollment data. A recommendation is made for the VSB to consult the public on partial land leases and implement School Site Acquisition Charges.

Keywords: Capital funding; VSB; Leases; Enrollment; Seismic; Schools

iv Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Vancouver School Board (VSB) for providing me with the cross boundary data and enrollment projections that made the mapping analysis possible. VSB staff graciously met with me multiple times and provided practical insights into the VSB’s operational challenges. I would also like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Josh Gordon, for his high level guidance on the project. I thank my wife, Megan Lievesley, for her nearly endless patience and feedback. Lastly, I thank my interviewees for committing time to this project and sharing their unique expertise.

v Table of Contents

Approval ...... ii Ethics Statement ...... iii Abstract ...... iv Acknowledgements ...... v Table of Contents ...... vi List of Tables ...... ix List of Figures...... x List of Acronyms ...... xi Glossary ...... xii Executive Summary ...... xiii

Chapter 1. Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 2. Background ...... 4 2.1. Education funding delivery ...... 4 2.1.1. Role of Ministry of education ...... 4 2.1.2. Capital planning ...... 5 2.1.3. Revenue generation ...... 6 School Site Acquisition Charges ...... 6 2.1.4. Role of board of education and district school board...... 7 2.2. Uneven enrollment and urban growth ...... 9 2.3. NDP-Green education funding ...... 13 2.3.1. Capital funding...... 16 2.4. VSB catchment boundary review ...... 17 2.5. Disposition of school properties ...... 17 2.6. Summary ...... 19

Chapter 3. Methodology ...... 20 3.1. Methodological justification ...... 20 3.2. Literature review ...... 20 3.2.1. Jurisdictional scan ...... 20 3.3. Funding review ...... 21 3.4. Mapping study ...... 21 3.4.1. Cross boundary and international enrollment data ...... 25 3.5. Semi-structured interviews ...... 25 3.6. Policy analysis ...... 26

Chapter 4. Mapping Study ...... 27 4.1. Mapping study background ...... 27 4.2. Results ...... 27 4.2.1. Four part criteria ...... 33 4.3. Summary ...... 42

vi Chapter 5. Criteria for evaluation ...... 43 5.1. Building new schools ...... 43 5.2. Reducing surplus seats ...... 44 5.3. Balanced Enrollment ...... 45 5.4. Government Objectives ...... 46 5.4.1. Public/media acceptance ...... 46 5.4.2. Minimized cost to government ...... 46 5.4.3. Intergovernmental issues ...... 46 5.5. Summary Matrix ...... 47

Chapter 6. Policy options and analysis ...... 48 6.1. Option 1: Implement Catchment Boundary Changes ...... 48 6.1.1. Building new schools ...... 49 6.1.2. Reducing surplus seats ...... 49 6.1.3. Balanced enrollment ...... 49 6.1.4. Public/media acceptance ...... 50 6.1.5. Minimized cost to government ...... 50 6.1.6. Intergovernmental issues ...... 50 6.2. Option 2: Partial land leases ...... 51 6.2.1. Building new schools ...... 51 6.2.2. Reducing surplus seats ...... 53 6.2.3. Balanced Enrollment...... 54 6.2.4. Public/media acceptance ...... 54 6.2.5. Minimized cost to government ...... 55 6.2.6. Intergovernmental Issues ...... 56 6.3. Option 3: School Site Acquisition Charges...... 56 6.3.1. Building new schools ...... 56 6.3.2. Reducing surplus seats ...... 57 6.3.3. Balanced enrollment ...... 57 6.3.4. Public/media acceptance ...... 57 6.3.5. Minimized cost to government ...... 58 6.3.6. Intergovernmental issues ...... 58 6.4. Policy Matrix ...... 59 6.5. School consolidation ...... 59

Chapter 7. Land lease top examples ...... 63

Chapter 8. Recommendation ...... 67

Chapter 9. Limitations and first steps ...... 69

References ...... 71

Appendix A: Funding analysis ...... 76

Appendix B: Supplemental maps and tables ...... 82

vii Appendix C: Supplemental partial land lease case studies ...... 86

Appendix D: Interview summaries ...... 89

Appendix E: Jurisdictional Review ...... 93 North Vancouver School District ...... 93 Vancouver School District ...... 95 Toronto School District ...... 96 Bloor Dufferin development ...... 96 TDSB and City of Toronto collaboration ...... 98 School site acquisition charges ...... 99 Literature review summary ...... 99

Appendix F: Policy options not pursued ...... 101

Appendix G: Closed VSB annex options ...... 102

viii List of Tables

Table 1. School site acquisition charges maximum rates ...... 7 Table 2. VSB enrollment by program ...... 8 Table 3. VSB future capital costs...... 14 Table 4. Elementary school’s criteria out of 100 ...... 23 Table 5. Secondary school’s criteria out of 100 ...... 24 Table 6. VSB 2018 overview of enrollment data ...... 29 Table 7. Ranked elementary school scores per each land lease opportunity criteria ..... 34 Table 8. Ranked elementary school’s overall scores for land lease opportunities ...... 35 Table 9. Ranked secondary school scores per each land lease opportunity criteria ...... 38 Table 10. Ranked secondary school’s overall scores for land lease opportunities ...... 40 Table 11. Criteria and measures matrix ...... 47 Table 12. Estimated revenue for partial land leases for VSB schools ...... 52 Table 13. Right sizing schools identified for partial land leases ...... 53 Table 14. Policy option 2 cost to government ...... 56 Table 15. Policy Matrix ...... 59

ix List of Figures

Figure 1. VSB district enrollment & City of Vancouver population growth ...... 9 Figure 2. Vancouver’s 2016 population density per sq. kilometer ...... 10 Figure 3. 2011 to 2016 Vancouver population change by census tract ...... 11 Figure 4. 2018 VSB elementary school utilization rates ...... 12 Figure 5. 2018 VSB secondary school utilization rates ...... 12 Figure 6. Distribution of education spending in BC ...... 15 Figure 7. BC Operating expenditure summary ...... 15 Figure 8. VSB 2018 elementary school difference in standard utilization measure and utilization measure adjusted for cross boundary and international student enrollment ...... 28 Figure 9. VSB 2018 secondary school difference in standard utilization measures and utilization measures adjusted for cross boundary and international student enrollment ...... 31 Figure 10. VSB 2018 secondary school difference in standard utilization measures and utilization measures adjusted for cross boundary transfers ...... 32 Figure 11. VSB online survey ‘The Future of Our Schools’ ...... 55 Figure 12. Selected elementary schools for partial land leases ...... 61 Figure 13. Renfrew Elementary partial land lease ...... 63 Figure 14. Carleton Elementary partial land lease ...... 64 Figure 15. John Oliver Secondary partial land lease...... 65 Figure 16. Gladstone Secondary partial land lease ...... 66

x List of Acronyms

CAC Community Amenity Contributions DCL Development Cost Levy LRFP Long Range Facilities Plan MEd Ministry of Education SSAC School Site Acquisition Charges SMP Seismic Mitigation Program VBE Vancouver Board of Education VSB Vancouver School Board MIRHPP Vancouver’s Moderate Income Rental Housing Pilot Program

xi Glossary

Cross boundary transfer A student who registers at a school outside of their catchment area. In the VSB cross boundary applications will only be considered after all in-catchment students have been accommodated. District programs Alternative programs that are open to out of catchment students.

Land lease A long-term lease of land that obligates the tenant to erect commercial or residential buildings. During the term of the lease, the tenant owns the buildings and pays property taxes on the land/buildings. Long Range Facilities A framework to guide facilities planning throughout a Plan school district. Nominal Capacity Nominal capacity for schools is defined by the Ministry of Education. Nominal capacity is based on the number of enrolling classrooms in the original design of the school. Rooms that have been repurposed as non-enrolling classrooms in subsequent years are still counted as enrolling space for the purpose of determining Nominal for each school. Right Sizing To modify the size and capacity of some schools to better match the projected enrolment. In most instances, this will result in a reduction of school capacity and therefore an increase in the utilization rate School site acquisition Charges collected by municipalities on behalf of school charges district that are used to purchase new school sites, or land to add to existing school facilities. Utilization rate In VSB, calculated by dividing the number of students enrolled in a school by the operating capacity. The calculation can include international students in the enrollment total or exclude international students. Cross boundary students and students attending district programs area always included in the enrollment total. Vancouver Board of The Vancouver Board of Education is comprised of nine Education elected trustees and a student trustee.

xii Executive Summary

The future of Vancouver School Board (VSB) schools are uncertain. The 2019 Draft Long Range Facilities Plan lists 28 schools that are at risk of closure due to low enrollment and necessary seismic upgrades. The VSB faces significant challenges to convince the province to support low enrollment schools for seismic upgrades and accommodate students at over capacity schools in growth areas of Vancouver, such as near the Olympic Village and in Downtown, without reducing the VSB’s ~ 10,000 empty seats (Vancouver School Board 2019). The BC Teacher’s Federation (BCTF), past Vancouver Board of Education (VBE) trustees, and some media have attributed these problems to chronic underfunding of the education system. This report argues the root causes to the above problem are more complex than provincial funding levels. Instead, the problem is exacerbated by several factors such as declining enrollment rates, demographics, Vancouver’s transit orientated urbanization, and extreme housing unaffordability. The aim of this research is to investigate policy solutions that recognize the complexity of the problem, with a focus on policies that are not top down provincial solutions but are ‘Made in Vancouver’ solutions. Such solutions should include collaboration between the VSB, the City of Vancouver, and the Ministry of Education (MEd).

To accomplish the aim a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods are used. To better understand the current research related to managing enrollment decline and uneven enrollment a literature review is conducted. Second, a jurisdictional scan of other Canadian school districts is conducted to learn what policies and strategies other districts use and if they would be applicable to the VSB. Semi-structured interviews are used to ascertain specific information from experts as well as stakeholders. Finally, a detailed mapping study is completed using VSB’s cross boundary transfer data as well as other sources to rank school sites for their suitability for partial land leases.

Building upon the information gathered three policy options are analyzed based on a set of societal and government objectives. Societal objectives are building new schools, reducing surplus seats, and balanced enrollment. Government objectives are public media/acceptance, minimized cost to government, and intergovernmental issues. Option 1 is the VBE enact the Catchment Boundary Review recommendations involving changing catchment boundaries for several over capacity catchments and adjacent

xiii under capacity catchments. Option 2 involves leasing partial areas of school land for minimum of 75 years for a mix of market and below market rental housing using guidelines from Vancouver’s Moderate Income Rental Housing Pilot Program (MIRHPP) where 100% of the residential floor area is secured rental housing with at least 20% of the floor area available to moderate income households earning between $30,000 to $80,000 per year. Additionally, option 2 requires a minimum of 30% of the total residential floor area constructed be for family sized units. Option 3 involves the VBE passing a resolution to impose School Site Acquisition Charges (SSAC) for eligible developments. SSAC are charges that municipalities collect on behalf of school districts from residential developers to cover the cost of purchasing land for new schools required when populations increase due to development.

The trade offs between each policy option are analyzed based of relevant societal and government objectives with a recommendation for the VSB to consult the public on option 2. Option 2 provides the VSB with substantial potential to generate revenue to build new schools in growth areas and encourage the province to fund more seismic mitigation projects. Partial land leases are estimated to generate $278 million in net revenue for the VSB to use for capital projects such as new schools and school additions. Additionally, it is recommended the VBE pursue option 3 immediately without public consultation. Option 3 provides much less revenue (an estimated $148 million over 60 years) than Option 1. However, the estimate has a high degree of uncertainty and the revenue could be significantly greater considering Vancouver’s considerable development activity. It is imperative that action is taken soon as there are substantial opportunities through the ongoing seismic mitigation program and the upcoming City Wide Plan to better incorporate VSB enrollment issues and school-specific municipal revenue generation into the public discourse. Finally, improved collaboration between City and VSB staff is needed to maximize the public benefit of the VSB’s land and buildings.

xiv Chapter 1.

Introduction

In the City of Vancouver, there has been considerable controversy surrounding the funding of public education by British Columbia’s (BC) Ministry of Education (MEd). In 2016, the BC Liberals fired all 9 Vancouver Board of Education (VBE) trustees for refusing to pass a balanced budget as required by the School Act (Johnson 2016). The trustees initially refused to implement budget cuts required to pass a balanced budget and opposed the proposed closure of 12 schools (Johnson 2016). The key issue to the conflict was the MEd wanted the VBE to work towards 95% district wide utilization through potential closures of low enrollment schools and possible land sales. Conversely, the majority of trustees argued low district enrollment levels were not the key problem; instead the BC education system was poorly funded and school closures and land sales were not the appropriate current and future use of public assets.

The root causes of the 2016 VBE budget shortfall is more complex than funding levels. The City of Vancouver is experiencing a complex situation of a growing population combined with declining Vancouver School Board (VSB) enrollment rates. Between 1996 and 2016 the City of Vancouver’s population increased by 23%, whereas VSB enrollment decreased by 14% (Vancouver School Board 2016b). Additionally, some areas of the City have seen rapid enrollment growth, while others have seen enrollment declines. The VSB’s Long Range Facilities Plan acknowledges the uneven population growth in certain areas of Vancouver, such as along rapid transit routes, (Vancouver School Board 2016b) has likely contributed to overcapacity in some schools and under capacity in others. Therefore, the VSB is facing the problem of too many students in some schools and too few in others, leading to registration waitlists in some schools and underutilized seismically unsafe schools at risk of closure elsewhere. Additionally, the VSB lacks the capacity to build adequate school capacity in high growth areas in a timely manner to ensure schools in high growth areas are not chronically over utilized.

1 The VSB currently faces substantial pressure from the MEd to manage enrollment decline (Vancouver School Board 2018c). The VSB response was a proposal to redraw catchment boundaries to move students from overcapacity catchments to lower enrollment catchments (Vancouver School Board 2018c). The VSB stated in their Catchment Boundary Review “It is difficult to receive capital funding if there is surplus capacity and catchment area boundaries are not adjusted to match the school capacity”– hence the review (Vancouver School Board 2018c). The proposal has been criticized as reactive to the problem and does not address the capital shortfalls that prevented schools being built in high growth areas (Anthony 2018) or the back log of deferred maintenance.

Vancouver faces a unique combination of rapid urbanization and extreme housing unaffordability. Therefore, a focus will be placed on policies that are not top- down provincial solutions but are ‘Made in Vancouver’ solutions that include collaboration between the VBE, the City of Vancouver, and the MEd. To accomplish the aim a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods are used. To better understand the current research related to managing enrollment decline and uneven enrollment a literature review is conducted. Second, a jurisdictional scan of other Canadian school districts is conducted to learn what policies and strategies other districts use and if they would be applicable to the VSB. Semi-structured interviews are used to ascertain specific information from experts and stakeholders and their views on the proposed policy options. Finally, a detailed mapping study is completed using VSB data1 as well as other sources to rank school sites for their suitability for partial land leases.

Building upon the information gathered three policy options are analyzed based on a set of criteria. Option 1 is the VBE enact the Catchment Boundary Review recommendations involving changing catchment boundaries for several over capacity catchments and adjacent under capacity catchments. Option 2 involves leasing partial areas of school land for minimum of 75 years for a mix of market and below market rentals using guidelines from Vancouver’s Moderate Income Rental Housing Pilot Program (MIRHPP) where 100% of the residential floor area is secured rental housing with least 20% of the floor area is available to moderate income households earning

1 Attained through the disclosure of personal information for research or statistical purposes procedure

2 between $30,000 to $80,000 per year. Additionally, option 2 requires a minimum of 30% of the total residential floor area is for family sized units. Option 3 involves the VBE passing a resolution to enact School Site Acquisition Charges (SSAC) for eligible developments. SSAC are charges that municipalities collect on behalf of school districts from residential developers to cover the cost of purchasing land for new schools required from population increases due to development.

The trade offs between each policy option are analyzed based of relevant societal and government objectives with a recommendation for the VSB to consult the public on option 2. Additionally, it is recommended the VBE pursue option 3 immediately without public consultation. It is imperative that action is taken soon as there is a substantial opportunity through the ongoing seismic mitigation program and the upcoming City Wide Plan to rethink VSB land management policies, school specific municipal revenue generation, and better collaboration between City and VSB staff.

3 Chapter 2.

Background

2.1. Education funding delivery

This sub section will outline how education is funded and delivered with a focus on the institutional structure of education in BC. There are three principal institutions relevant to this project: the BC Provincial Ministry of Education (MEd), the Vancouver Board of Education (VBE), and the Vancouver School Board (VSB). Each institution interacts with each other and operate in a hierarchical structure with the MEd providing direction to the VBE, and the VBE providing direction to the VSB. The School Act is the primary legislative act guiding how public education is delivered in BC: the School Act includes regulations on class size and composition, funding formulas, area standards2, governance structures etc.

The governance structure of education in BC is clearly outlined within in the School Act. There are currently 60 school districts in BC and Part 4 Division 1 of the School Act states that each district requires a board of education composed of 3 to 9 trustees. Under Part 4 Division 3 of the School Act states trustees are elected every 4 years on the general school election. The governance structure functions with the MEd as the central agency, and each district’s Board of Education representing the districts local interest with support from district school board staff.

2.1.1. Role of Ministry of education

The Ministry of Education’s jurisdiction for the delivery of education in BC is considerable comprising curriculum, funding, taxation and other powers. The current minister of the MEd is the Honorable Rob Fleming. Under Part 9 Division 1 of the School Act the ministry is responsible for the maintenance and management of provincial schools, class size and composition, and other powers. Under Part 8 Division 1 of the School Act states the MEd is responsible for funding provincial education; funding is

2 Area standards set out instructions for calculating nominal and operating capacity as well as school site areas (Ministry of Education 2012).

4 calculated using a per student formula as approved by the minister. Operating funds from the province are provided through operating grants and are based upon the per student formula with supplementary grants for educational boards different requirement such as school districts with special instructional programs like English Language Learning (ESL), enrollment decline, teacher salary differentials, unique geographic factors etc. (Resource Management and Executive Financial Office 2018).

2.1.2. Capital planning

The Ministry of Education authority also extends to capital planning and capital funding which includes school replacements, renovations, land acquisitions, seismic mitigation etc. (Ministry of Education 2018a). Under the School Act Part 8 Division 6 each district board of education must submit a capital plan, usually for 5 years, to the minister for approval, amendment, or rejection. If a capital plan is approved a capital by law needs to be drafted pursuant to section 143 of the School Act that guide the implementation of the capital plan. Capital funding is approved on an individual project basis (Vancouver School Board 2016b).

District enrollment utilization rates have considerably affected how capital funds are disbursed by the MEd. Schools are not eligible for capital spending on replacement schools if acceptable space is available at neighboring schools to accommodate its’ current student enrolment, as well as forecasted student enrolment growth (Ministry of Education 2018b). For the expansion of new schools, additions, or site acquisitions the MEd criteria for selecting school sites includes school boards that are working to achieve optimal district wide utilization and sites considered for new schools should have a 5 year history of increased enrollment and forecasted enrollment to increase for the next 10 years (Ministry of Education 2018b). Additionally, the MEd requires school boards to commit up to 50% cost share on available capital funding for the project; for school replacements a 50% cost share is not a requirement but the MEd is more likely to fund a replacement if a school board contributes funds. (Ministry of Education 2018b).The MEd will fund 100% of the cost for approved seismic mitigation projects for the lowest cost of three studied options: upgrade of the existing building, partial replacement of the existing building, and full replacement. (Vancouver School Board 2019).

5 2.1.3. Revenue generation

The MEd has considerable jurisdiction on raising funds for education through taxation, leaving minimal power to school boards to raise taxes for educational requirements. Part 8 Division 4 of the School Act describes how a portion of municipal/rural property taxes are collected as a school tax. The school tax comprises 35%3 of the MEd 2015/16 $5.498 billion in total expenditures (BC Government 2018b). The remainder of MEd funding comes from other sources of BC Government revenue such as income taxes. School boards occasionally raise taxes for education cost within their municipality in specific situations when the MEd requires school boards to raise a portion of the funding for capital projects or the MEd will not fund projects the school board desire. Typically, these projects will be for new schools, school replacements, or more expensive seismic mitigation options discussed in section 2.1.2. School boards have been given authority to levy charges on developers when populations increase requiring land to be purchased for a new school.

School Site Acquisition Charges

School districts have the authority to collect school site acquisition charges (SSAC) to partially fund the acquisition of school sites in areas of new residential development with municipalities collecting the charges on behalf of the local Board of Education. SSAC are governed by the Local Government Act Part 14 Division 20 and the MEd requires SSAC to be in place before the MEd will support a site request (Ministry of Education 2018b). The implementation of SSAC are based upon negotiations between a school district and all municipalities within the school district (BC Legislative Assembly 2015). The process involves the Board of Education and the municipalities within the school district to agree on the new demands for school space caused by a new developments4 (BC Legislative Assembly 2015). If the above is agreed on, the Board of Education passes a resolution and submits a proposal to the municipality(s) within the school district; if the municipality(s) do not agree a mediator is appointed by the minister responsible for the School Act (BC Legislative Assembly

3 Of note, the BC New Democrat Party (NDP) legislated an additional school tax of 0.2% of the assessed value of a dwelling property greater than $3 million, and 0.4% of the assessed value greater than $4 million, per line 120.1 of the School Act. 4 Aw well as the approximate location and value of a new school site

6 2015). SSAC rates are set by the Board of Education within 60 days after receiving and approved capital plan from the Minister of Education based on a formula displayed in the Local Government Act, maximum rates may not exceed:

Table 1. School site acquisition charges maximum rates Category of Eligible Development Maximum Charge per unit ($) Low density 1,000 Medium low density 900 Medium density 800 Medium high density 700 High density 600 Source: BC Reg 118/2015 section 5

The City of Vancouver, on behalf of the VSB, does not collect SSAC while many neighboring municipalities do. Currently, Burnaby, Richmond, Delta, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey, Maple Ridge and Mission collect SSAC. Rates for SSAC are generally based upon land cost, enrollment requirements, and amounts of unused capacity within a school district (City of Surrey Staff 2003). There appears to be no legislative barrier for the VSB to charge SSAC as other school districts5 charge SSACs that have similar enrollment conditions. The City of Vancouver collects a number of development charges to fund parks, affordable housing, community services, heritage, public art, and infrastructure through Development Cost Levy (DCL), Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) and Density Bonus Zoning; however, none of the charges fund public school capital costs (City of Vancouver 2017). The operational management of Vancouver School District schools is done by the Vancouver School Board under the direction of the Vancouver Board of Education.

2.1.4. Role of board of education and district school board

The role of each district’s board of education varies, but the boards’ general purpose is to represent the interests of the residents in their jurisdiction and board’s powers are bound by the School Act. Part 6 Division 1 of the School Act states that all boards in British Columbia operate as corporations and are responsible for student

5 The Richmond School District (sd38) has experienced very similar enrollment issues to Vancouver with declining district wide enrollment and low district utilization, at 80%, (Ministry of Education 2018e) combined with enrollment pressures in Richmond’s urban core (Wood 2018).

7 achievement and the boards may establish committees, district advisory councils, and can delegate administration and management duties to their employees, usually district school board staff. Boards of education have the power (subject to the orders of the minister of MEd) to establish and close schools, management of school property, and boards may amend catchment areas without the order of the minister as outlined in Part 6 Division 1 of the School Act. Boards of education must pass balanced draft budget with estimated expenses not exceeding estimated revenues by March 15 of each year as stated on 110 and 111 of the School Act. However, the board may submit an unbalanced draft budget, section 111 and 112 of the School Act, if they hold a referendum to generate funds through district taxation to fund new programs, additional activities for students, and capital initiatives not recognized by the MEd.

The Vancouver School Board is the administrative organization in charge of direct education delivery in Vancouver. The VSB is a large school district with considerable operating expenses of $491 million in 2017 and total expenses of $591 million in the same year (Jones 2017). 2017/18 school year enrollment included 48,634 (excludes international students) students in 113 public school buildings (Vancouver School Board 2019), refer to Table 2 for a breakdown on VSB enrollment. To manage the district the VSB is split into eight departments including: employee services, facilities, finance, learning and information technology, learning services, office of the secretary treasurer, office of the superintendent, and purchasing and administrative services (Vancouver School Board 2018b). A critical planning tool the VSB uses to plan for future operating and capital expenses is the Long Range Facilities Plan, which forecasts future enrollment and capital needs for the next 10 years (Vancouver School Board 2016b).

Table 2. VSB enrollment by program All Schools Programs Percent of Total Enrollment Regular: 74.7 French Immersion - Early: 9.9 Mini Schools: 4.3 Funding - International: 3.5 Special Education: 2.0 Montessori: 1.0 All other District Programs 4.6 Source: Calculations by author, data source VSB 2019-2019 Badgar enrollment projections

8 All three institutions discussed in this sub section work together to operate the complex BC public education system. The MEd mandate is substantial, and problems can exist with complex interactions between large institutions. The situation in one school district is often different from another, creating considerable challenges for the MEd to distribute funding across all school districts. Some school districts are experiencing enrollment growth whereas other are in decline.

2.2. Uneven enrollment and urban growth

In recent years school capacities have not matched demand in Vancouver’s high growth areas even though long term VSB student enrollment is declining. The uneven enrollment trends have contributed to past tensions between the VBE and the MEd on how to manage the VBE budget. Vancouver has seen a 23% population increase from 1996 to 2016, whereas VSB school enrollment over the same time period decreased by approximately 14% (Vancouver School Board 2016b) as seen in Figure 1 (interpolated between 1996 and 2016). Current district utilization is 83% with over 10,000 surplus seats; district utilization increases to 85% when including international students(Vancouver School Board 2019). The VSB forecasts enrollment to flatten and gradually increase by 1%, 550 students, by 2030 (Vancouver School Board 2016b).

58,000 640,000 56,000 620,000 54,000 600,000 52,000 50,000 580,000

48,000 560,000 46,000

VSB Enrollment VSB 540,000

44,000 VancouverPopulation 520,000 42,000 40,000 500,000

VSB Enrollment Vancouver Population

Figure 1. VSB district enrollment & City of Vancouver population growth Source: Data from VSB Long Range Facilities Plan and Canada Census 1996 and 2016

9 The lack of school capacity in certain areas of Vancouver are exacerbated by two factors: uneven urban development and unaffordable housing in many neighborhoods zoned ‘single family’. Vancouver’s uneven urban development is characterized by residential density along rapid transit routes (Vancouver School Board 2016b) and in the urban core surrounded by large areas of low density single family zoning, refer to Figure 2.

Figure 2. Vancouver’s 2016 population density per sq. kilometer Source: Canada Census 2016

The spatial distribution of Vancouver’s population density shown in Figure 2 is clearly displayed in the population data with 65% of Vancouver’s population living on 19% of the residential land base (Bergmann 2016). Unaffordable housing in Vancouver’s expensive Westside single family neighborhoods have experienced the highest drop in census tract populations between 2011 and 2016 census, refer to Figure 36. The demographics of older generations remaining in their homes after their children leave likely explain some of the decline; however, the high cost of housing likely discourage families from

6 Figures and tables will be hyperlinked only when figure or table is not on same page as the reference to the figure or table.

10 purchasing homes in the Westside instead choosing suburbs further from Vancouver (Penner 2017).

Figure 3. 2011 to 2016 Vancouver population change by census tract Source: 2011 and 2016 Canada Census

The rapid population growth seen in the downtown peninsula, Broadway Corridor, University of British Columbia, and along major transit lines has put substantial pressure on school capacities in those areas. In the next 15 years the VSB estimates 6 new school, with a total t capacity of 3,700, will be required in areas of rapid urban growth (Vancouver School Board 2016b). The elementary schools that are over capacity, refer to Figure 4, are generally in areas that have the highest population densities and have experienced the largest population growth. Additionally, Figure 4 displays 2018 VSB elementary schools with waitlists for Kindergarten, highlighted in turquoise, also matches areas with the highest population densities and population growth. Secondary school’s 2018 utilization rates, displayed in Figure 5, generally follow the same pattern.

Figure 4. 2018 VSB elementary school utilization rates Source: Data from Vancouver School Board

Figure 5. 2018 VSB secondary school utilization rates Source: Data from Vancouver School Board

12 2.3. NDP-Green education funding

The current BC NDP-Green coalition government has twice increased forecasted capital funding for K-12 education, but the spending is not targeted at solving the VSB’s uneven enrollment patterns and may not be enough to fund VSB seismic upgrade costs. The BC NDP-Green coalition increased BC wide capital spending on K-12 schools from $477 million/year (average 2011-2017) to a planned $892 million/year for 2019-2021 in Budget 2019 (Ministry of Finance 2019). The increased capital spending is targeted at increasing new school space in districts with enrollment growth and seismic upgrades (Ministry of Finance 2019) such as in the Surrey School District. The Vancouver School District (SD39) will likely have difficulties competing for capital funds against school districts like Surrey with higher district utilization rates and enrollment growth. Additionally, the VSB’s capital expenditures are greater than what can be covered by the current MEd capital funding increases. Assuming the VSB received their share of capital funding based on the provincial student population the district would receive $80 million/year. Table 1 shows the VSB estimated capital costs are over $2.8 billion; $80 million a year in provincial funding is insufficient to complete capital projects within twenty-five years.

The Vancouver School District has substantial current and future capital funding costs. In 2018, the VSB has greater than $750 million in deferred maintenance (Vancouver School Board 2018a) which could rise to $1.4 billion by 2030 without better maintenance funding through enhanced maintenance grants (Vancouver School Board 2016b). The cost to seismically upgrade the VSB’s 60 remaining schools, (BC Government 2018c) that have not started construction, will likely be well over $1.3 billion.7 For example, the VSB’s 5 Year Capital Plan Summary estimates a cost to seismically mitigate 37 schools at over $1.7 billion (Vancouve School Board 2018). Additionally, the Capital Plan budgets $203 million for four new schools and four school auditions (Vancouve School Board 2018).

7 Estimate based on average cost of SD 39 seismic upgrade projects from 2008-2018, shown in BC SD Profile, multiplied by 60 remaining projects that have not started construction.

13 Table 3. VSB future capital costs Expense Estimated Expense Amount

37 SMP Projects $ 1,717,300,000 New Schools/Additions $ 203,100,000 Building Envelope Projects $ 660,000 School Enhancements $ 2,660,000

Carbon Neutral 8 $ 987,500 Playground Equipment $ 315,000

Remaining 23 SMP Projects $ 854,008,0009

2 Additional New Schools $ 53,720,00010 Total $ 2,832,750,000 Source: Draft 2019 Long Range Facilities Plan Appendix E

Total capital costs are estimated at $2.8 billion as seen in Table 3 with uncertainties due to possible inflating construction and land costs. The substantial future capital costs, uneven population growth, and low district wide utilization highlights the VSB’s lack of capacity to increase school capacity in high growth areas and to encourage the MEd to seismically upgrade low enrollment schools quickly.

Education operation funding grants comprise the vast majority of education spending in BC, refer to Figure 6, with the majority of operating funding covering the cost of teacher salaries. The MEd recently completed a review on the funding formula for operating grants.

8 Refers to energy efficiency and other carbon saving programs 9 Estimate based on 75% of average cost of 37 SMP projects in 2019-2020 5 Year Capital Plan. Used conservative estimate using 75% of average cost because large uncertainty around cost of remaining 23 SMP projects. 10 Based on average cost of 4 new schools in 2019-2020 5 Year Capital Plan: requirement for 6 new schools identified in 2016 LRFP

14 14% 8%

78%

Operational Capital Other

Figure 6. Distribution of education spending in BC Source: Calculations by authors, data source BC Budget 2018/2019 and BC school district profile

The funding formula review’s principal goals were to provide more equitable and predictable forms of funding to Boards of Education (Ministry of Education 2018c). It is possible Vancouver’s funding per student operating funding could increase as 2017/18 funding per student was $8,586 (Ministry of Education 2018f) and the province average was $9,104 (Ministry of Education 2018d) . However, the vast majority of operation funding goes towards instruction cost, which is principally teacher salaries. Refer to Figure 7.

4% 12%

83%

Instruction District Administration Operation and Maintenance Transportation & Housing

Figure 7. BC Operating expenditure summary Source: Calculations by authors, data 2018/19 Annual Budget, incudes school age, adult, and other FTEs

Future pressure on both capital and operating funding is likely with the BC Teachers Federation (BCTF) collective bargaining agreement expiring at the end of the 2018/19 school year, and ongoing costs associated with the 2016 Supreme Court of

15 Canada decision on class size and composition. In Budget 2019, school district spending is forecasted to increase from $6.7 billion in 2018/2019 to $6.9 billion in 2021/2022, or 3.7% over three years to fund increased instructional costs due to enrollment growth (Ministry of Finance 2019). Operational education spending is forecasted to increase by $550 million over three years, 2019/20 to 2021/22, with $58 of the $550 million, to contribute to the Classroom Enhancement Fund, $432 million annually, to reflect the 2016 Supreme Court of Canada decision on class size and composition (Ministry of Finance 2019). Given instructional expenses account for 83% of operating funding and the BCTF contract will expire at the end of the 2018/19 school year, there could be budgetary pressures on education funding if BC teacher’s salaries are increased to near the Canadian average. Refer to Appendix A for more information on teacher salaries. The government would likely have to make difficult trade-offs on what K-12 capital projects to fund given substantially increased educational operation costs and the government’s competing priorities on housing and healthcare.

2.3.1. Capital funding

It is difficult to receive capital funding from the MEd for new and replacement schools when surplus capacity is available (Vancouver School Board 2018c), and past seismic upgrade capital funding have prioritized schools with high utilization (Sherlock 2015). This has resulted in too little capacity in high growth areas and too slow upgrades/replacement for especially high risk low utilized schools. 43 high risk schools are listed as future priorities and 60 schools have not started construction (BC Government 2018c) With 2016/17 enrollment utilization at 81% (Ministry of Education 2018g) the MEd has been reluctant to provide funding for new schools in high growth areas like the Olympic Village. The MEd current policy for capital funding for new schools includes criteria based on optimal catchment-wide utilization and up to 50% capital cost sharing between the province and the VSB (Ministry of Education 2018b). Clearly, the current financial resources for the VSB to build new schools and seismically upgrade/replace existing schools are inadequate and do not allow the flexibility to adapt to changing population distributions. The VSB recently responded to the problem of uneven enrollment was to change targeted catchment boundaries.

16 2.4. VSB catchment boundary review

The VSB response to the problem of too many students in areas of high growth and too few students elsewhere was a proposal to redraw catchment boundaries to move students from full catchments to lower enrollment catchments (Vancouver School Board 2018c). The VSB clearly states in their Catchment Boundary Review “It is difficult to receive capital funding if there is surplus capacity and catchment area boundaries are not adjusted to match the school capacity”, hence the review (Vancouver School Board 2018c). However, opponents to the proposal considered the review reactive to the problem by not addressing the long term capital shortfalls that prevent schools being built in high growth areas previously (Anthony 2018). Additionally, the proposal creates catchments that are far from ideal with students that were across the street from their old school, in this case Emily Carr, now required to walk 20 minutes to Shaughnessy Elementary (Vancouver School Board 2018c). There were other examples of elementary students with less than 5-minute walks lengthened to 25 minutes, specifically for students affected by the General Gordon and Henry Hudson catchment changes. The policy had strong stakeholder opposition and the VSB postponed their decision for the catchment changes. Despite the issues with the policy, catchment changes are within a Board of Education’s authority and Boards are required to manage district enrollment. If the VSB does not address the problem on low district utilization and limited district capital funds, school closures and sale or lease of school properties may be required.

2.5. Disposition of school properties

The disposition and lease of school properties 10 years or longer is governed by Ministerial Order M193/08, the School Act, and VBE Policy 20 and related regulations. Ministerial Order M193/08 is the key governance document for the disposition and long term lease of school property. The order states that if school property and/or portions of school property are deemed surplus, disposition through sale or lease can occur. For leases 10 years or longer and property sales ministerial approval is required; however, a Board of Education may lease property for less than 10 years without ministerial approval for alternative community use. Boards are not required to sell or lease properties to other Boards or independent schools (Ministry of Education 2009). Lastly,

17 the Minister has the authority to approve any type of sale or lease, such as to a private company or another public agency.

The School Act provides high level guidance for the disposition and lease of school properties but has less detail than Policy 20 and Ministerial Order M193/08. The most relevant section discusses how proceeds from sale or lease of Board assets can be used. Part 7, Division 1 of the School Act states that proceeds from sale or leases longer than 5 years must only be used for capital projects (BC Government 2018a). Proceeds can be used for operating costs only if leases are 5 years or less.

The VBE Policy 20 (Vancouver School Board 2015) outlines the disposition of school properties in detail. There is a seven step process based upon the School Act, Ministerial Orders, and Board regulations. Key aspects of the process involve determining ownership11: Following determination of ownership, a consultation with the public and stakeholders is required. Following the consultations, the Board must pass a resolution to declare the property surplus and initiate the public request for proposals with priority for not for profit and public authorities; if there are no acceptable proposals, the Board may accept requests for proposals from other parties. The final steps involve applying to the Minister for approval of disposition, passing a Board by-law authorizing the disposition, and completing the process with a transfer of title.

The VBE has the authority to pass their own regulations. Of substantial importance to this paper is the following VBE motion adopted on October 13, 2015: That the VBE commit to not sell school lands but maintain or increase our current number of school sites to preserve neighborhood sites for current and future educational and community use. This would not preclude land swaps or the sale of portion of school sites provided that educational programs could still be offered (Vancouver School Board 2015). The above statement makes it clear that partial land leases are permitted per the VBE motion because sections of school property could be leased with limited impact on the provision of educational programs.

11 Generally, all school property is owned by the School District unless the property is held in trust by a grant from the crown, a title search can be conducted to determine this.

18 2.6. Summary

Vancouver is a rapidly changing city. It is extremely challenging for the MEd to predict how Vancouver will develop as each rezoning is voted on by Vancouver City Council and current City of Vancouver politics are more divided then with past councils. It is clear that the status quo for the operational relationship between MEd and VSB is not able to respond quickly enough to build new schools and effectively use surplus space. Finally, seismic upgrading/replacement is intertwined into this problem as many of the schools with no agreements for upgrading are under utilized schools.

19 Chapter 3.

Methodology

3.1. Methodological justification

This is a multi-method study that incorporates qualitative and quantitative methods. Multiple methods were necessary as the causes of the VSB’s uneven enrollment problems are multifaceted and encompass school district, municipal, and provincial jurisdiction. The methods used in this study are explained below and include a literature review, jurisdictional scan, a comparative review of provincial education funding in Canada, a mapping study, and semi-structured interviews.

3.2. Literature review

A literature review was conducted examining peer reviewed academic journals, government reports, news articles, books, and online content. SFU Library database and Google Scholar were used to search for Journal articles, and key word Google searches were used for all other content. As the policy problem is geographically specific academic articles discussing the topic were limited; nevertheless, the following related topics were researched:

• sale of closed schools, • adaptive reuse of closed schools, • over capacity of urban schools in other jurisdictions, • seminal literature on the politics of school closures, • literature on property values (lease versus freehold) • and forms of municipal taxation for denser urban development

3.2.1. Jurisdictional scan

A review of other Canadian jurisdiction’s school board land management policies, stakeholder engagement, municipal taxation for new school development, and the nature of school board and municipal working relationships was conducted. This paper

20 only reviews other Canadian jurisdictions due to similarities with the structure of education financing in Canada’s provinces12. In the United States K-12 public education funding generally consists of approximately equal share of state and local government funding, with the federal government contributing less than 10% (Matthew, 2017). The difference in funding structure confounds comparisons with the United States. Jurisdictions further afield, such as Europe, were not included in the review due to the difficulty of comparing jurisdictions with different political economies. The jurisdictional scan can be seen in Appendix E.

Other Canadian jurisdiction to review were chosen based on three factors.

1. School districts that have uneven enrollment issues and rapid urban development 2. Metro Vancouver school districts that have surplus land management plans and recent experience with land sales 3. Metro Vancouver school districts that have enacted School Site Acquisition Charges

3.3. Funding review

A review of how British Columbia education spending compares to the rest of Canada was conducted. The provincial funding comparisons used data from two of Statistics Canada’s national education surveys: the Elementary-Secondary Education Survey (ESES) and the Survey of Uniform Financial Systems - School Boards (SUFSB). Statistics Canada data was chosen as the surveys are uniform across jurisdictions with standard classification systems. Both surveys use cross sectional designs and collect data from the entire target population. The funding review can be seen in Appendix A.

3.4. Mapping study

A mapping study was conducted analyzing enrollment rates in VSB elementary and secondary school catchments. The purpose of the analysis was to assist with identifying ideal school sites for partial land leases. The mapping study used VSB data shared with the primary researcher through a data request and subsequent data sharing

12 Specifically, in Canada most of the provinces have adopted an education funding model where a provincial ministry of education funds nearly all of the education costs (Center on International Education Benchmarking 2018).

21 agreement. The VSB provided data on elementary and secondary enrollment rates, school’s nominal capacities, enrollment forecasts, international student enrollment rates, and regular program cross-boundary transfer rates. A series of maps displaying secondary and elementary school catchments boundaries were created with Arc GIS Desktop 10.6. Maps generated for both VSB Elementary and Secondary catchments included 2018 enrollment rates, enrollment adjusted for cross boundary transfers, and enrollment adjusted for cross boundary transfers and international students. Maps were generated displaying the difference between normal utilization rates and utilization rates adjusted for cross boundary and international students. Finally, a buffer analysis, for both elementary and secondary catchments, was done within 800 meters from existing rapid transit lines and the proposed Broadway Line to UBC. The purpose of the buffer analysis was to determine which school catchments have at least 50% of their catchment within 800 meters of rapid transit as an indication of future urban growth potential.

To identify schools best suited for partial land leases, a four-part criterion was constructed to evaluate VSB elementary and secondary school catchments. All VSB schools with regular programs were initially included in the analysis; schools with only district programs such as Xprey’s Aboriginal Focus program and French intensive schools were not included. Schools were further excluded through a 3-step filtering process:

1. >85% utilization = not included 2. Rated high risk level 3; moderate, or low risk = not included 3. Completed or started seismic mitigation process = not included

The criteria varied slightly between elementary and secondary catchments due to variations between elementary and secondary schools’ international student enrollment rates and how schools were used by the community. However, both criteria used four principal categories: low utilization metrics, school site and building characteristics, low future growth potential, limited community assets. All four categories added together = 100. Refer to Table 4 and 5 describing how the scoring is calculated.

22 Table 4. Elementary school’s criteria out of 100 Low Utilization Metrics (40) *High score = School Site and Building Characteristics (25) schools poorly utilized *High score = school land ideal for partial land leases 2018 utilization rate (15) 2018 utilization rate cross boundary adjusted Seismic Rating and current status (5) (12.5) Seismic rating (2.5) 2018 utilization rate cross boundary and Seismic upgrade status (2.5) international students adjusted (2.5) School site characteristics: (15) 2028 utilization rate (10) School has two playing fields (10) Adjacent to COV undeveloped Park (i.e. no improvements) (5) Proximity to arterial streets (5)

Low Future Growth Potential (25) *High score = Limited Community Assets (10) *High score = catchment has low growth potential schools not effectively used as community assets 800 meters from existing frequent transit stops or Community school? (2) >50% of catchment within 800 meters (10) Strong Start onsite (2) Identified frequent transit development areas Daycare and/or preschool on site (3) (FTDA) (2.5) Utilization of open space by the community (3) Urban Centre (5) 800 Meter from major development area (5) Majority of catchment within 800 m of proposed Arbutus Line (2.5)

The four categories received different weighting based on their relative importance. Utilization received the highest weighting (40 points) due to low district utilization being the principal reason the MEd limits approving VSB capital funding requests and seismic mitigation projects. School site and building characteristics and low future growth potential received equal weighting at (25 points each) because land leases requires certain school site characteristics and future urban growth implications could affect schools’ future utilizations not accounted for in VSB enrollment forecasts. For example, a land lease would be suboptimal if the catchment’s population substantially increased in the near future. Finally, limited community assets received the lowest weighting as the community use of schools has minimal impact on MEd capital funding decisions; however, schools are parts of communities and community use should be considered.

23 Table 5. Secondary school’s criteria out of 100 Low Utilization Metrics (40) *High score = School Site and Building Characteristics (25) schools poorly utilized *High score = school land ideal for partial land leases 2018 utilization rate (15) 2018 utilization rate cross boundary adjusted (7.5) Seismic Rating and current status (5) 2018 utilization rate cross boundary and Seismic Rating (2.5) international students adjusted (7.5) Seismic upgrade status (2.5) 2028 utilization rate (10) School site characteristics: (15) School has two playing fields (10) Adjacent to COV undeveloped Park (i.e. no improvements) (5) Proximity to arterial streets (5)

Low Future Growth Potential (25) *High score = Limited Community Assets (10) *High score = catchment has low high growth potential schools not effectively used as community assets 800 meters from existing frequent transit stops or Community school (1.5) >50% of catchment within 800 meters (10) Adult education (1) Identified frequent transit development areas Existing City of Vancouver recreation services (FTDA) (2.5) adjacent to school (3.5) Urban Centre (5) Utilization of open space by the community (4) 800 Meter from major development area (5) Majority of catchment within 800 m of proposed Arbutus Line (2.5)

Sub categories were created to facilitate a more in depth analysis of each category. Utilization of VSB schools can be measured in a variety of ways. Standard utilization (utilization rate) is the number of students attending a school divided by the operational capacity. The measure received 15 points as it is a simple and well used measure. However, the utilization rate does not include cross boundary transfer students and, often, international students within the enrollment totals. Utilization rates corrected for cross boundary and international students received 7.5 points each. Land leases are long term planning decisions and cross boundary and international enrollment rates may change in the future; only using the utilization rate may over or under estimate the amount of in catchment students. Finally, projected utilization rates (10) were considered to account for the VSB’s projected enrollment. The projections do not consider the impact of urban development. That is partly why future growth potential received an entire category. The other three categories also used sub categories. Sub categories that were easily measured with significant impact receiving high weightings.

24 3.4.1. Cross boundary and international enrollment data

Cross boundary and international student enrollment data provided by the VSB was used in the criteria displayed in Tables 4 and 5. The adjustment of utilization rates for elementary schools were calculated using a specific process. Only regular program cross boundary transfers were considered; district wide programs were not included as this data was not provided by the VSB. All data on annex and secondary transfers were excluded from the elementary cross boundary analysis13. Including the annex and secondary data in the analysis of elementary cross boundary rates would produce incorrect results because in catchment students graduating from annex to elementary, and elementary to secondary, would be classified as net losses to the home catchment. An accuracy check was done by calculating the district’s net gain/loss from cross boundary transfers: as cross boundary transfers are restricted to VSB students, the net gain/loss district wide should be 0.

The adjustment of cross boundary students for secondary schools was more complicated. The cross boundary transfer rates calculated how many students did not attend their in catchment secondary schools. This was accomplished by determining how many students attended in catchment versus how many students attended out of catchment. All elementary school catchments that shared two secondary school catchments, such as Carnarvon Elementary students go to either Prince of Wales or Kitsilano, were excluded from the analysis. An accuracy check was done like with the elementary schools.

3.5. Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted using a snowball sample. A range of stakeholders, government representatives, academics, and industry experts were initially targeted. The interviews were semi-structured as the principal researcher had knowledge of the subject but intended to learn more from the interviews. Therefore, the interviews were semi-structured to allow for discussion of unforeseen topics.

13 The rational being all students transferring from an annex to a main elementary school, and from a main elementary school to a secondary school, were recorded as a net loss in the VSB data sets.

25 3.6. Policy analysis

A policy analysis was conducted by selecting relevant societal and government management objectives. Societal objectives refer to what types of outcomes society wants from a policy option. For example, the key societal objective for seismic upgrades is protection and security: society wants the buildings upgraded for the safety of the children and staff that attend the school. Government management objectives refer to the objectives of government. For seismic upgrades, minimizing the cost to government would be an important objective. Government would likely want to provide safe buildings at the lowest cost possible.

Once the societal and government objectives were selected each objective received a criteria and measure to evaluate the objectives. Objectives were a mix of quantitative and qualitative measures. Further each objective was rated high, medium, and low. Lastly, each policy option was compared against each other using the selected societal and government objectives and their associated measures.

26 Chapter 4.

Mapping Study

4.1. Mapping study background

A mapping study was conducted to spatially identify school sites that would be ideal for partial land leases. Given the Vancouver School District has uneven enrollment and $8 billion land holdings (Gangdev 2019), a substantial opportunity exists to objectively evaluate the VSB’s elementary and secondary school properties suitability for partial land leases. The ongoing seismic mitigation process provides an opportunity to implement land leases into school replacement designs. Ideal school properties have low utilization, flat or declining projected enrollment, substantial open space, low potential for urban growth14, and provide few community benefits beyond education. Further, should a land lease occur, an ideal site would have sufficient space for additions should enrollment increase in the future. The results of this sub-study provide a solid starting point for the VSB to conduct more detailed analysis on high scoring sites and engage stakeholders and the public on partial land leases.

4.2. Results

As discussed in Section 3.4 a four-part criteria was used to objectively identify sites with the greatest potential for partial land leases which include: low utilization metrics, school site and building characteristics, low future growth potential, and limited community assets. An important part of the criteria is adjusting utilization rates for cross boundary transfers and international students. Figure 8 displays the difference between the VSB’s utilization measures and the utilization rate if enrollment is adjusted for cross boundary transfers and international students15. Adjusted utilizations account for in catchment public school students attending regular programs and students attending district programs. Figure 8 illustrates some school have a net loss of students due to more students leaving their home catchment then students transferring in from other

14 Growth potential is measured relative to other areas in Vancouver and UBC. 15 VSB 2019 LRFP excludes international students in some of the utilization measure

27 catchments, and other schools have a net gain of students due to more students transferring in than leaving. Please note international students account for <1% of the 2018 elementary total enrollment (refer to Table 6) and has a negligible impact on the data in Figure 8.

Figure 816. VSB 2018 elementary school difference in standard utilization measure and utilization measure adjusted for cross boundary and international student enrollment Source: Data from VSB cross boundary and international enrollment data

16 In the legend the bracketed numbers indicate the [number?] of catchments that meet the category, i.e. -40 to -30% (2) catchments are in that range; not all ranges have catchments meeting the category

28 Table 6. VSB 2018 overview of enrollment data School Regular Total Reg % Reg Cross Intl.18 Reg % Reg % Reg % Category (Reg)17 Enroll of Boundary Students Cross Intl. Cross Enrollment Total Students Boundary Boundary (Enroll) Enroll and Intl.

Elementary 22,512 27,750 81 2,40819 200 11 <1 12 Secondary 13,866 20,810 67 2,383 1,514 17 11 28 Source: Calculations by author, data source VSB 2018-19 Badgar enrollment projections

The purpose of adjusting enrollment rates for cross boundary and international students is to provide the best data for making long term planning decisions for partial land leases. By subtracting cross-boundary and international students from total enrollment, it is possible to determine how many regular program public school students are in each catchment. This adjusted enrolment assists in determining a school’s suitability for a partial land lease because cross boundary and international enrollment rates may be different in the future. For example, a new school replacement could influence students to attend their in catchment school instead of schools elsewhere thereby increasing the school’s utilization rate.

In 2015-2016, during the debate over school closures, there was considerable public concern that students were transferring from East Vancouver schools to Westside Vancouver schools, thereby exacerbating the predominance of East Vancouver schools on the 2016 school closure list (Sherlock 2015). All the listed school closures were in East Vancouver except one. David Nelson, the then VSB director of instruction, argued cross boundary transfers from East to West were not significantly affecting enrollment rates because students were not transferring substantial distances but transferring to nearby catchments; instead, East Vancouver’s higher density of schools and changing demographics are likely more important in explaining enrollment decline and the need for school closures in East Vancouver (Sherlock 2015). This report analyzed East to Westside Vancouver transfers and the data support Mr. Nelson’s claim. Using the cross boundary transfer data provided by the VSB and coding each school as East or

17 Regular means regular program: i.e. not district programs like Montessori, French or Mandarin immersion. 18 Intl. International 19 Excludes annexes

29 Westside Vancouver schools, the data showed Westside Vancouver schools gained a net 257 students from East Vancouver schools: this is only 11% of the regular program cross boundary transfers. Figure 8 shows schools with the greatest gain of cross- boundary students are gaining students from adjacent schools, which have the greatest outflow of such students: such as Bruce, Fraser, Hudson and Lloyd George. This likely indicates the majority of students are transferring to nearby schools. The pattern on the far Westside of Vancouver is less clear with no distinct pattern at Southlands, Kitchener, and Queen Mary; students may be travelling further from their home catchments to attend the above schools20. Overall, the movement of students choosing regular program cross boundary transfers indicates students are transferring to schools close to their home catchment out of choice or because their home school is overcapacity.

Secondary school cross boundary transfers and international student enrollment have a larger effect on enrollment rates than in elementary schools. 28% of the regular program students are either cross boundary or international students, with 17% being cross boundary and 11% international students, refer to Table 6. The spatial distribution of cross boundary and international students shows a significant net gain of students for South West Vancouver schools, refer to Figure 9. Particularly, Prince of Wales, Pt Grey, and Magee are gaining in between 20-30% of there current enrollment rate from cross boundary and international students. Figure 9 clearly shows Westside Vancouver schools receive more cross boundary and international students then East Vancouver schools. The 4 catchments with net losses are all in East Vancouver: John Oliver, Britannia, Windemere, and David Thompson. Only two East Vancouver secondary schools have net gains, with Tupper and Kilarney gaining between 5-10% of their total enrollment due to regular program cross boundary and international student enrollment.

20 Please note, due to privacy concerns data was not displayed that shows the specific movement of students from their home catchment to the school they attend.

Figure 9. VSB 2018 secondary school difference in standard utilization measures and utilization measures adjusted for cross boundary and international student enrollment Source: Data from VSB cross boundary and international enrollment data

Figure 10. VSB 2018 secondary school difference in standard utilization measures and utilization measures adjusted for cross boundary transfers Source: Data from VSB cross boundary and international enrollment data

The difference between standard utilization rates and adjusting only for cross boundary transfers have similar spatial distributions as the difference between standard utilizations and adjusting for cross boundary and international students with a few notable exceptions. Pt Grey and University Hill have substantial international enrollment. The difference between Pt. Grey’s standard utilization measure and utilization adjusted for cross boundary transfers is 5-10%, refer to Figure 10. However, the difference between the standard utilization measure and the utilization adjusted for cross boundary and international students increased to 20-30%, refer to Figure 9. This indicates international students account for 15-20% of Pt Grey’s enrollment. University Hill’s increased from 0-5% in Figure 10 to 15-20% in Figure 9 indicating University Hill has roughly 15% international enrollment. All the East Vancouver schools experienced net losses due to cross boundary transfers with the exception of three schools with 0-5% gains, and all Westside Vancouver schools have at least 0-5% gains with one school experiencing 5-10% gains and two schools with 10-15% gains. Overall, Westside

32 Vancouver schools gain students and East Vancouver school lose students. Additionally, international enrollment has a larger impact on Westside Vancouver schools than East Vancouver schools with 72% of regular district international students attending Westside Vancouver secondary schools. Refer to Appendix B for additional tables and figures analyzing cross boundary and international student enrollments affects on school utilizations.

4.2.1. Four part criteria

The results from the four-part criteria provide objective insight into how school sites provide opportunities for partial land leases. Table 7 displays each criterion with the schools’ score in ranked order. 14 of the 16 schools analyzed are in East Vancouver. Regarding individual school performance, Carleton and MacCorkindale were the only schools to score in the top 3 of two categories. A lack of consistency at the top of each category indicate there were no obvious choices when looking at criteria in a disaggregated form. Carleton Elementary scored the highest for utilization at 29 out of 40; indicating the school is poorly utilized compared to other schools. Bruce Elementary scored 20 out of 25 for school site and building characteristics indicating the school site has high potential for partial land leases such as having two fields and fronting an arterial street. Five schools scored 25 out of 25 for low future growth potential, indicating those catchments are unlikely to see significant population growth21. Finally, six schools scored 922 or higher on schools as limited community assets indicating the schools are not effectively used as community assets. Reasons for the poor scores were due to schools not having strong start programs, pre school and/or day cares, not being community schools, and no official community use of the school field. Adding all the categories together resulted in the overall scores.

21 Please note, the growth potential category has the highest uncertainty given urban planning is unpredictable due to which council is in power, economic conditions, and community opposition. 22 For school as community assets, a higher score means a school is NOT effectively used as a community asset

33 Table 7. Ranked elementary school scores per each land lease opportunity criteria School Site and Building Low Future Growth Potential: Limited Community Assets: Low Utilization Metrics: Characteristics: *High score = *High score = catchment has low *High score = schools not optimally *High score = schools poorly utilized school land ideal for partial land growth potential used as community assets leases School Score/40 School Score/25 School Score/25 School Score/10

Carleton Community Elementary 29 Bruce Community Elementary 20 Brock Elementary 25 Cunningham Elementary 10

Queen Alexandra Elementary 25 Renfrew Community Elementary 20 Franklin Community 25 MacCorkindale Elementary 10

MacCorkindale Elementary 24 Carleton Community Elementary 19 Mackenzie Elementary 25 Beaconsfield Elementary 9

Seymour Elementary 24 Beaconsfield Elementary 15 Osler Elementary 25 Brock Elementary 9

Cunningham Elementary 22 Mackenzie Elementary 15 Southlands Elementary 25 Osler Elementary 9

Southlands Elementary 20 Southlands Elementary 15 Cunningham Elementary 23 Southlands Elementary 9

Nightingale Elementary 20 Grandview Elementary 10 Renfrew Community Elementary 20 Carleton Community Elementary 8

Brock Elementary 19 Grenfell Community 10 Carleton Community Elementary 18 Nightingale Elementary 8

Grenfell Community 19 Nightingale Elementary 10 MacCorkindale Elementary 18 Queen Alexandra Elementary 8

Grandview Elementary 17 Osler Elementary 10 Seymour Elementary 18 Renfrew Community Elementary 8

Renfrew Community Elementary 17 Queen Alexandra Elementary 10 Beaconsfield Elementary 15 Franklin Community 7

Osler Elementary 15 Brock Elementary 9 Bruce Community Elementary 13 Grandview Elementary 7

Franklin Community 15 Cunningham Elementary 5 Grandview Elementary 13 Bruce Community Elementary 7

Mackenzie Elementary 15 Franklin Community 5 Grenfell Community 13 Grenfell Community 7

Beaconsfield Elementary 13 Seymour Elementary 5 Nightingale Elementary 13 Mackenzie Elementary 7

Bruce Community Elementary 5 MacCorkindale Elementary 4 Queen Alexandra Elementary 8 Seymour Elementary 7

34 The overall score is not a final result but provides guidance for further investigation. Table 8 displays the overall scores in ranked order and color coded based on priority23. Carleton elementary scored the highest with an overall score of 73. Carleton is evaluated as a priority site due to the high score and the excellent opportunity for a partial land lease fronting Kingsway. Renfrew scored the third highest, 65, and has high potential for a partial land lease along Renfrew Street. Both schools have large land bases, especially Renfrew, and if the schools were replaced, through the seismic mitigation program, there would likely be sufficient space for future school auditions even with the partial land leases. Refer to Land lease top examplesChapter 7 for more details on these sites.

Table 8. Ranked elementary school’s overall scores for land lease opportunities School Low School Site and Low Future Limited Overall Evaluation Opportunities Utilization Building Growth Community Score Result Metrics Characteristics Potential (25): Assets (10): (/100) (40): (25): *High score *High score = *High score = *High score = school land catchment has schools not = schools ideal for partial low growth optimally used poorly land leases potential as community utilized assets Carleton 29 19 18 8 73 Priority Strip of North facing grass field (60,000 sq. Community ft) fronting Kingsway very high potential for Elementary partial land lease. 20 15 25 9 69 (High) East section of double sized gravel field Southlands Potential could be partial land lease. Potential issues Elementary with sensitive ecological setting and single family area; possible re zoning issues.

23 Please note, some schools had an overall lower score but have higher potential, as seen in the evaluation result column, and vice versa.

35 School Low School Site and Low Future Limited Overall Evaluation Opportunities Utilization Building Growth Community Score Result Metrics Characteristics Potential (25): Assets (10): (/100) (40): (25): *High score *High score = *High score = *High score = school land catchment has schools not = schools ideal for partial low growth optimally used poorly land leases potential as community utilized assets Renfrew 17 20 20 8 65 (High) If school rebuilt priority opportunity for land Community Potential lease on strip of land fronting Renfrew St. Elementary Substantial space to build replacement school on East side of property. Mackenzie 15 15 25 7 62 (Moderate) Possible moderate sized partial land lease Elementary Potential on West portion of property; single family area with possible re-zoning issues. Brock 19 9 25 9 61 (High) High potential to lease 9500 sq. ft parking Elementary Potential lot on E 32nd Ave. Other lease options along Main St. could exist if school rebuilt Cunningham 22 5 23 10 59 (Moderate) No clear opportunity. Elementary Potential Osler 15 10 25 9 59 (Low) Adjacent to COV Montgomery Park. No Elementary Potential land available for partial land leases. MacCorkindale 24 4 18 10 56 (Moderate) Possible small partial land lease on NE Elementary Potential portion of property; single family area, possible re-zoning issues. Seymour 24 5 18 7 53 (Low) Elementary Potential Franklin 15 5 25 7 52 (Low) Community Potential Beaconsfield 13 15 15 9 52 (Low- Large plot of land, but low density single Elementary Moderate) family area and no clear opportunity based Potential upon street frontage and site access.

36 School Low School Site and Low Future Limited Overall Evaluation Opportunities Utilization Building Growth Community Score Result Metrics Characteristics Potential (25): Assets (10): (/100) (40): (25): *High score *High score = *High score = *High score = school land catchment has schools not = schools ideal for partial low growth optimally used poorly land leases potential as community utilized assets Queen 25 10 8 8 50 (Low) Alexandra Potential Elementary Nightingale 20 10 13 8 50 (Low) Elementary Potential Grenfell 19 10 13 7 48 (Low) Community Potential Grandview 17 10 13 7 47 (Low) Elementary Potential Bruce 5 20 13 7 44 (Moderate) Possible partial land lease on East side of Community Potential property fronting Boundary Street. Very Elementary high score for site characteristics. Further investigation required.

The results for the secondary schools are more consistent than elementary schools. Table 9 displays each criterion with the schools’ scores in ranked order. 7 of the 9 schools are in East Vancouver. Four schools rank in the top 3 of each category at least twice, including John Oliver, Gladstone, Prince of Wales, and David Thompson. John Oliver ranked in the top 3 in all four categories. Gladstone and Templeton scores of 29 and 30 out of 40 in the utilization category, indicating the schools are poorly utilized relative to other schools. John Oliver and Prince of Wales both scored 20 out of 25 for school site building characteristics indicating both schools are good sites for partial land leases. Three schools scored 23 out of 25 for low future growth potential indicating those

37 catchments are unlikely to see significant population growth. Finally, six schools scored 924 or higher on limited community assets indicating the schools are not effectively used as community assets. Reasons for the poor performance include the schools not having City of Vancouver recreation facilities adjacent to the site, no official community use of the school fields, no adult education facilities, and not being a community school.

Table 9. Ranked secondary school scores per each land lease opportunity criteria School Site and Building Low Future Growth Potential: Limited Community Assets: Low Utilization Metrics: Characteristics: *High score = *High score = catchment has low *High score = schools not optimally *High score = schools poorly utilized school land ideal for partial land growth potential used as community assets leases School Score/40 School Score/25 School Score/25 School Score/10 David Thompson David Thompson Gladstone Secondary 29 John Oliver Secondary 20 23 Secondary Secondary 10 Prince of Wales Templeton Secondary 28 20 John Oliver Secondary 23 John Oliver Secondary Secondary 10 Prince of Wales John Oliver Secondary 22 Gladstone Secondary 15 Killarney Secondary 23 Secondary 10 Point Grey Secondary 22 Killarney Secondary 15 Point Grey Secondary 20 Gladstone Secondary 9 Britannia Community Windermere Windermere 22 15 Templeton Secondary 20 Secondary Community Secondary Community Secondary 9 Prince of Wales Britannia Community Britannia Community 21 10 18 Killarney Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary 7 Windermere Community Prince of Wales 20 Templeton Secondary 10 18 Point Grey Secondary Secondary Secondary 7

24 For school as community assets, a higher score means a school is NOT effectively used as a community asset

38 School Site and Building Low Future Growth Potential: Limited Community Assets: Low Utilization Metrics: Characteristics: *High score = *High score = catchment has low *High score = schools not optimally *High score = schools poorly utilized school land ideal for partial land growth potential used as community assets leases David Thompson Killarney Secondary 17 9 Gladstone Secondary 10 Templeton Secondary Secondary 7 David Thompson Windermere Community Britannia Community 13 Point Grey Secondary 9 10 Secondary Secondary Secondary 1

Table 10 displays the overall scores in ranked order and color coded based on priority. John Oliver Secondary scored the highest with an overall score of 74. John Oliver is evaluated as a highest priority site due to the high score and the excellent opportunity for a partial land lease fronting Fraser Street. Gladstone scored the fourth highest, 63, and has high potential for a partial land lease along Vanness Street. Both schools have large land bases and if the schools were replaced, through the seismic mitigation program, there would likely be enough space for future extensions even with the partial land leases. Refer to Land lease top examples Chapter 7 for more details on these sites. Prince of Wales Secondary scored the second highest with 69 points and is rated as a priority site. The school has an extremely large land base, 7.3 hectares, and if the school is replaced there are significant opportunities for partial land leases; however, given the current configuration of the school property and the location of the school buildings, visualizing locations for partial land leases would require further analysis.

39 Table 10. Ranked secondary school’s overall scores for land lease opportunities Limited School Site and Low Future Community Low Utilization Building Growth Assets (10): Metrics (40): Characteristics Potential (25): Overall *High score = Evaluation School *High score = (25): *High score *High score = Score Opportunities schools not Result schools poorly = school land catchment has (/100) optimally used utilized ideal for partial low growth as community land leases potential assets Highest Strip of (approx. 70,000 sq. ft) under Priority John Oliver utilized land along Fraser St. between 75 Partial Land Secondary E 41st and E 43rd Ave. ideal for partial Lease land lease. 22 20 23 10 Potential School has equivalent of 3 full sized Priority Prince of fields and is adjacent to a COV park Partial Land Wales 69 with sports field; substantial Lease Secondary opportunities for better utilization of Potential 21 20 18 10 large land base. COV has two fields adjacent to school. Opportunity for Templeton to share or (High) increase access to COV fields (similar Templeton Potential 65 to PT. Grey Secondary), thereby Secondary Partial Land facilitating opportunity for partial land Lease lease of 100,000 sq. ft. VSB field 28 10 20 7 fronting Adanac St. If school rebuilt half of North grass (High) field on Vanness Ave (65,000 sq. ft) Gladstone Potential ideal potential for partial land lease 63 Secondary Partial Land along SkyTrain. Adequate space still Lease remains on site for modern sports 29 15 10 9 field.

40 Limited School Site and Low Future Community Low Utilization Building Growth Assets (10): Metrics (40): Characteristics Potential (25): Overall *High score = Evaluation School *High score = (25): *High score *High score = Score Opportunities schools not Result schools poorly = school land catchment has (/100) optimally used utilized ideal for partial low growth as community land leases potential assets (Moderate) Windermere Potential Community 54 Moderate opportunity on gravel field. Partial Land Secondary 20 15 10 9 Lease (Low) Killarney Potential Killarney uses COV parks, limited VSB 62 Secondary Partial Land land for leasing 17 15 23 7 Lease (Low) Pt. Grey uses COV parks, limited VSB Point Grey Potential 58 land for leasing (VSB and COV share Secondary Partial Land ownership of running track land). 22 9 20 7 Lease (Low) David Potential Adjacent to COV park, limited VSB Thompson 55 Partial Land land for leasing Secondary 13 9 23 10 Lease (Low) (No opportunity) undergoing Britannia Britannia Potential Renewal Project: City of Vancouver, Community 51 Partial Land VSB Park Board, community etc. Secondary 22 10 18 1 Lease process.

41 4.3. Summary

Both elementary and secondary schools have schools with high potential for partial land leases. The majority and highest scoring school analyzed were in East Vancouver with the exception of Prince of Wales and Southlands. The top scores and distribution of scores for each of the four criteria were similar for elementary and secondary schools. Finally, the overall scores for elementary and secondary also shared similar top scores and distribution of scores.

42 Chapter 5.

Criteria for evaluation

The assessment of each policy option is based on the evaluation of societal and government objectives. Societal objectives include building new schools, minimizing school closures, and balanced enrollment; government objectives include public/media acceptance, minimized cost to government, and inter governmental issues. Each objective has a quantitative or qualitative measure to rate the policy option’s effect on each societal and government objective. Additionally, each objective is ranked based on a high, medium, and low ranking system worth 3, 2, and 1 point regardless if the measure is quantitative or qualitative. Key objectives are double weighted. This chapter discusses the societal and government objectives, the rational for their selection, and how they are measured.

5.1. Building new schools

The co-key societal objective to this study is the building of new schools; the other is reducing surplus seats. Both are related: building new schools deals with the too many students in some areas and reducing surplus seats addresses the too few students elsewhere. The principal theme identified in this paper is district enrollment decline and uneven enrollment have limited the VSB ability to receive provincial funding to build new schools25. The educational quality students receive can suffer from attending over-capacity schools. Over capacity schools can result in the loss of district programs (Vancouver School Board 2019), catchment changes, and overcrowding. Considering the VSB major constraint to building new schools is capital funding, the criteria used to evaluate building new schools is revenue generated to support the VSB’s share of capital projects for new schools and auditions. The measure is dollars of revenue generated for VSB capital used for new schools and/or auditions. The objective is double weighted as it is the studies’ co-key societal objective.

25 As well as seismically upgrade low enrollment schools: discussed in minimizing school closures.

43 A different method is required to measure $ of revenue generated for each policy option. Option 1 does not require a calculation because the option does not generate any additional revenue. Option 2 requires a set of calculations to estimate the revenue potential of partial land leases. The following steps are completed to estimate 99-year lease revenue:

• Analysis of nearby comparative properties26 using BC Assessment assessed values were used as the basis to calculate the leases gross revenue in ($ per sq. ft)

• 퐸푞푢푎푡푖표푛 1: 푎 ∗ 푏 = 푐 where a = $ per sq. ft, b = sq. ft area of proposed land lease, c = gross $ revenue from the land lease

• 퐸푞푢푎푡푖표푛 2: 푐 ∗ 푑 = 푒 where c = gross $ value of land lease, d = adjustment of -15% for leasehold versus freehold sale (Giglio, Maggiori, and Stroebel 2015), e = adjusted gross revenue

Revenue is estimated for policy option 3 by calculating other school district’s average per student revenue obtained from school site acquisition charges over a two year period and adjusted to the VSB 2017/18 enrollment population. Further, the revenue is amortized over 60 years because the revenue is used to purchase school sites for future schools. A school’s useful life is usually 60 years. Finally, future revenue is indexed to 2% forecasted annual inflation.

Each policy options received a low, medium, and high rating depending on the amount of revenue generated. Low is $0-99 million, medium is $100-199 million, and high is $200 million or greater. The high rating is sufficient to nearly cover the $203 million total cost for 4 new schools and 4 auditions required in the near future.

5.2. Reducing surplus seats

The risk of school closures causes considerable anxiety among parents, the public, and school children. Many families choose where to live based on the proximity and perceived quality of the neighborhood school. Reducing surplus seats is essential to

26 Generally, buildings zoned for 4 story strata or 6 story rentals were considered comparable properties except for schools in single family areas off arterial streets; for those areas single family homes (SFH) were considered comparable with property value adjustments: 1) to assume SFH are rezoned to 1.2 FSR townhomes on VSB leased sites and 2) adjusted by -20% for rental use

44 minimize the risk of school closures. The possibility of school closures occurred in 2016 and currently with the 2019 Draft Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) outlining 28 schools that should be analyzed for possible school closures based on low enrollment, forecasted enrollment decline, and the schools requiring seismic upgrades (Vancouver School Board 2019).

Reducing surplus seats and the VSB ability to receive capital funding for seismic mitigation are interrelated. The MEd is less likely to support schools for seismic upgrades with low utilization rates than schools with high utilization rates; moreover, the MEd directs school districts to reduce excess capacity (Ministry of Education 2017; Vancouver School Board 2019). If the VSB cannot increase district wide utilization through management efforts, some seismically high-risk low enrollment schools will likely close. Therefore, the criterion for reducing surplus seats is the reduction of surplus seats. The measure is the number of reduced surplus seats. A low rating is a reduction of 0-1499 seats, medium is 1500-3499 seats, and a high rating is 3500 or greater seats. The rational is 6712 surplus seats need to be reduced to achieve 95% district utilization. A high rating of 3500 seats or greater would reduce the surplus seats by more than half the required amount to reach 95% district utilization. As other policy options such as catchment boundary changes or relocating district programs can be used to reduce surplus seats, reducing the surplus seats by 3500 was deemed a high score.

5.3. Balanced Enrollment

Parents generally expect to be able to send their children to their home catchment and one of the guiding principals of the updated LRFP is to work towards the future where all children that desire to attend their home catchment school can expect a school of high quality (Vancouver School Board 2019). The reality of uneven enrollment rates in the VSB results is an inequity with waitlist in full catchments, whereas students in low enrollment catchments have no barriers to attending their home catchment. Hence, the criterion used for balanced enrollment is more even distribution of utilization. This is measured with the reduction in the number of overcapacity schools. Low is 0-3 schools, medium is 3-6 schools, and high is 6 schools or greater. The rational is 11 schools are over capacity and 8 schools have Kindergarten waitlists: 6 schools addresses 75% of Kindergarten students unable to attend their home catchment if they choose to do so. Preference will be given to policies that have the potential to limit

45 schools over capacity problems and increase enrollment at low enrollment schools thereby best balancing district enrollment.

5.4. Government Objectives

5.4.1. Public/media acceptance

Any major decision involving schools in the Vancouver School District is guaranteed to create considerable public and media attention. In 2016, during the school closure debate, and in 2018, during the cross boundary review, considerable public and media opposition occurred with both proposals. Hence, public media/acceptance is a key government objective and will be double weighted. The criteria and measure will be public/media acceptance. The measure’s methodology is slightly different depending on the policy options.

• Policy option 1 uses media articles, petition activity against the catchment boundary review, and historical outcomes of the boundary review

• Policy option 2 uses survey data conducted by the VSB, and media articles

• Policy option 3 uses survey data generated by private polling companies

5.4.2. Minimized cost to government

The budget implications of policy options are always important to government. The purpose of the objective is straight forward, what policy option provides the lowest cost to government. Therefore, criteria and measure for this objective is the least dollar ($) cost to government. The measure is also least dollar ($) cost to government. Low is $1,000,000 or greater, medium is $500,000 – $999,000, and High is greater than $500,000. The rational for the distribution is $500,000 dollars is less than 0.1 % of VSB’s annual budget. This was thought to be a minimal cost to government.

5.4.3. Intergovernmental issues

Public education decisions can involve the district board of education, the local municipality, and the provincial government. Understanding the potential conflicts between different levels of government is essential to evaluating the likely success of a policy option. The criteria used to evaluate intergovernmental issues is minimized

46 jurisdictional involvement. The measure is number of jurisdictions involved with a low rating being 3 jurisdictions, medium 2 jurisdictions, and a high rating only having 1 jurisdiction. The rational for the distribution is policy options are easier to implement when fewer jurisdictions are involved. The information used in the measure is from The School Act and The Local Government Act.

5.5. Summary Matrix

Table 11. Criteria and measures matrix Societal Objectives Criteria Measure Building new schools X2 Revenue ($) generated to Revenue generated ($) support VSB’s share of capital Low = $0-99 million projects for new Medium = $100-199 million schools/auditions High = $200 million or greater Reducing surplus seats X2 Reduction of surplus seats Number of reduced surplus seats Low = 0-1499 seats Medium = 1500-3499 seats High = 3500 seats or greater Balanced enrollment More even distribution of Reduction in number of utilization overcapacity schools Low = 0-3 schools Medium = 3-6 schools High = 6 or greater Key government objective: Public acceptance Level of public acceptance Public/media acceptance X2 Minimized cost to government Least dollar ($) cost to Least dollar ($) cost to government government Low = $1,000,000 or greater Medium = $500,000 – 999,000 High = <$500,000 Intergovernmental issues Minimized jurisdictional Number of jurisdictions involved involvement Low = 3 Medium = 2 High = 1

47 Chapter 6.

Policy options and analysis

After thoroughly reviewing the relevant literature, conducting a jurisdictional scan, and speaking to experts, three policy options were finalized. The policy options are options that the Vancouver Board of Education (VBE) can initiate to manage the problem of uneven enrollment with too many students in some schools and too few in others. However, the circumstances that have contributed to low district utilization and uneven enrollment have been extremely complex and no one policy option is likely to solve the VSB’s low district utilization rates, uneven enrollment, and related capital funding shortfalls.

Uneven enrollment and low district utilization rates have resulted in fewer schools being supported for seismic upgrades than if the district utilization was closer to capacity. Additionally, low district utilization has resulted in the provincial government’s limited financial support for new schools and school auditions in high growth areas (Vancouver School Board 2019). There is likely no one policy option, other than drastically increasing provincial educational funding, that can accommodate all VSB students in seismically safe schools within their home catchment without altering the current structure of VSB schools: such as school closures and amalgamation, and/or extensive catchment boundary changes. Incremental policy options have been selected that could provide preemptive solutions to the tough decisions, such as school closure and amalgamation, the VBE will likely need to make without taking innovative action now.

6.1. Option 1: Implement Catchment Boundary Changes

Option 1 is the VBE enact the Catchment Boundary Review recommendations conducted by the VSB involving changing catchment boundaries for a number of over capacity catchments and adjacent lower enrollment catchments. The policy’s intent to reduce capacity in over-utilized schools and increase capacity un under-utilized schools.

48 6.1.1. Building new schools

As discussed extensively in Chapter 2 the VSB lacks their share of the capital cost to support new schools and additions. The VSB shortage of capital funds is one of the limitations that prevent new schools and additions from being built in high growth areas. Changing catchment boundaries does not generate any additional revenue that the VSB can use to support their share of capital projects. Option 1 is therefore rated as low for building new schools due to the policies limited ability to generate revenue.

6.1.2. Reducing surplus seats

Low district wide enrollment has contributed to seismic upgrade delays. The combination of low enrollment schools requiring seismic upgrades has placed a number of these schools at risk of closure. 28 low enrollment schools requiring upgrading have been identified by the VSB for potential school closure analysis (Vancouver School Board 2019). Reducing surplus seats would likely result in increased provincial funding for seismic mitigation, which could minimize the risk of school closures. Option 1 moves students from high to low enrollment catchments encompassing 20 catchments. Assuming the catchment changes reduces the overcapacity school’s enrollments to just below capacity, 38027 surplus seats would be reduced. A reduction of 380 seats receives a low rating as the reduction does not have a significant impact on reducing the VSB’s district wide surplus seats. Additionally, option 1 does not address low enrollment schools outside of the catchment boundary review indicating the effect of the policy would be restricted to the geographic scope of the catchment boundary review. Of the 28 schools listed at risk for closure, only Prince of Wales and Seymour were in the catchment boundary review.

6.1.3. Balanced enrollment

To better balance enrollment in VSB schools the number of overcapacity schools must be reduced. 6 school are likely to no longer have over capacity problems with catchment changes moving students from over capacity schools to lower enrollment

27 Average of 276 seats (not cross boundary adjusted) and 483 (cross boundary adjusted). Calculations used nominal capacity.

49 schools. For this reason, option 1 receives a high rating on balanced enrollment. However, there are some unmeasured criteria that are relevant. In option 1, the average commute increases for children and families that are moved to another catchment; however, children not affected by the boundary change have a higher probability of attending their home catchment. The suggested catchment changes result in a clear reduction in the number of students not being able to attend their home catchment, 6 schools, but many students would not voluntarily accept the catchment changes and are left worse off. Option 1 clearly decreases the number of overcapacity schools and increase enrollment in adjacent low enrollment catchments. The trade-off is some students are adversely affected to better balance enrollment.

6.1.4. Public/media acceptance

Option 1 has already been presented to public, generating substantial public and media opposition. One petition against catchment changes had over 400 signatures (Anthony 2018) and local and national news agencies (CBC, CTV, Toronto Star, Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Courier) covered the story with a bias towards parents adversely affected by the changes. Parents were generally concerned with siblings attending different schools, longer/unsafe walking routes, loss of community cohesion, and lifestyle changes. The VSB and VBE responded to the public and media’s negative response by the delaying the vote on the issue. Option 1 is rated as low for public/media acceptance.

6.1.5. Minimized cost to government

The catchment boundary review has already been completed. Therefore, this policy option has a zero to negligible cost to government. Option 1 is rated as high for minimized cost to government.

6.1.6. Intergovernmental issues

Intergovernmental issues refer to bureaucratic and political issues that can arise when different levels of government are involved in the same problem. The VBE has full authority to change catchment boundaries to match enrollment per The School Act. No

50 other level of government has authority in this matter including municipalities or the province. Therefore, option 1 receives a high rating for intergovernmental issues.

6.2. Option 2: Partial land leases

Option 2 involves leasing partial areas of school land28 for minimum of 75 years for a mix of market and below market rentals using guidelines from Vancouver’s Moderate Income Rental Housing Pilot Program (MIRHPP) where 100% of the residential floor area is secured rental housing with least 20% of the residential floor area is made available to moderate income households earning between $30,000 to $80,000 per year. Additionally, option 2 requires a minimum of 30% of the total residential floor area is for family sized units29. Family sized units would only be rented to people with one or more school aged children at time of occupancy.

6.2.1. Building new schools

Revenue generated from possible partial land leases is required to be used for capital projects: Part 7, Division 1 of the School Act states that proceeds from the sale or leases longer than 5 years must only be used for capital projects (BC Government 2018a). There is a considerable potential to reevaluate how the VSB’s properties, assessed at $8 billion (Gangdev 2019), are utilized. Further, the ongoing seismic mitigation program provides an unprecedented opportunity to reevaluate land use and alternate configurations of school sites that are future priorities for seismic mitigation.

As detailed in Section 4.2, there are several elementary and secondary schools that scored highly on the criteria used to evaluate school sites with the greatest potential for partial land leases. Table 12 displays the value that the land leases would be worth if the sites were leased for approximately 99 years for secure market rental30. In most instances, it is assumed schools fronting arterial streets would be suitable for 6 story

28 Kingsgate mall is not included in the analysis as VSB is currently working on re negotiating air rights. Only included VSB school properties. 29 Family sized units are two or three bedroom units ranging from 1000 to 1300 sq. ft 30 There was no adjustment to the value for the land leases to account for 20% of the units at below market rents due to the difficulty of estimating the distribution of below market rents, i.e. how many targeted at $30,000 income versus $80,000 income.

51 buildings at 2.5 floor space ratios (FSR), and schools in established single family neighborhoods are suitable for 1.2 FSR townhomes.

Table 12. Estimated revenue for partial land leases for VSB schools Elementary Value Secondary Value Brock $8,536,351 Gladstone $30,384,090 Bruce $11,857,275 John Oliver $47,497,443 Carleton $39,471,055 Prince of Wales $56,989,379 Mackenzie $17,149,466 Templeton $36,840,086 Renfrew $24,486,615 Windemere $17,569,817 Southlands $26,151,267 - - Cunningham $5,158,139 - - MacCorkindale $10,124,970 - - Sum $142,935,138 $189,280,816 Adjusted Sum $121,494,868 $160,888,694 Combined Adjusted Sum31 $282,383,561 Source: calculations by author, based of BC Assessment data

Table 12 represents a fairly conservative estimate of the potential of VSB properties to generate revenue through partial land leases while providing needed market rental, below marker rental, and family rentals. VSB annexes and schools with large sites but higher utilizations are not considered. Despite the above limitations, land leases could result in substantial capital funds, $282 million, that the VSB could use to contribute the districts cost share for new schools and auditions in high growth areas. Option 3 receives a high rating for building new schools as the $282 million in estimated revenue is well above $200 million threshold for a high rating.

Should the MEd approve the $203 million cost for four new schools and four auditions (Vancouve School Board 2018) the maximum capital the VSB would have to contribute to new schools/auditions is 50% of the cost at $101.5 million. Therefore, the VSB could use 50% of the leasehold revenue, $141 million, to cover the VSB’s cost share to finance the construction of new schools. The VSB still retains approximately $40 million for projects not funded by the MEd. The remaining 50% of the leasehold

31 Estimated total value for each land lease was based off proposed land lease area in sq. ft multiplied by the assessed sq. ft land value of comparable properties using BC Assessment figures. Adjusted revenue refers an adjustment of -15% for leasehold versus freehold sale: Giglio, Maggiori, & Stroebel, 2015. For additional details refer to Section Error! Reference s ource not found..

52 revenue could be used to reduce surplus seats by right sizing replacement schools through the seismic mitigation program.

6.2.2. Reducing surplus seats

The VSB could use 50% of the leasehold revenue, $141 million, to select school replacements instead of the lowest cost seismic mitigation option. Replacement allows for the option to ‘right size’ schools to better match the catchment’s current and projected enrollment. By having the ability to right size schools, the VSB could reduce surplus seats while simultaneously seismically upgrading schools. Table 13 shows the 11 of the 13 schools that were identified for partial land leases are also on the VSB’s list of 28 schools to study for possible school closures.

Table 13. Right sizing schools identified for partial land leases Selected 2019/20 Capital 50 % of VSB % 2018 2018 Reduced Schools at Risk Plan Estimate value of land funding for Enrollment Nominal Seats of Closure ($) lease Replacement Cross Capacity Adjusted

Prince of Wales 95,900,000 28,494,690 30% 833 1100 267 John Oliver 89,900,000 23,748,722 26% 1273 1700 427 Carleton 25,000,000 19,735,527 79% 222 615 393 Templeton 106,300,000 18,420,043 17% 818 1400 582 Gladstone 129,300,000 15,192,045 12% 972 1600 628 Renfrew 37,300,000 12,243,308 33% 470 760 290 Windermere 125,200,000 8,784,909 7% 1134 1500 366 Mackenzie 37,000,000 8,574,733 23% 457 635 178 Bruce 17,700,000 5,928,637 33% 381 340 -4132 MacCorkindale 26,900,000 5,062,485 19% 198 490 292 Cunningham 25,200,000 2,579,069 10% 338 660 322 SUM 715,700,000 148,764,168 26%33 7096 10800 3704 Source: calculations by author, data from Draft 2019 LRFP; VSB 2018-19 Badgar projections; BC Assessment data

32 Bruce requires further study. Very large school site with high density of nearby schools; however, when accounting for large proportion of students lost to other schools through cross boundary, no seats would be reduced due to right sizing. 33 Average, not sum

53 If partial land leases occur at the above 11 schools, the schools should receive seismic funding due to the revenue generated providing the VSB the option to right size school replacements. This would prevent 11 possible school closures. Table 13 shows that 3,704 seats could be reduced by right sizing schools. The number increases to 4201 when using enrollment rates not adjusted for cross boundary transfers. Additionally, option 2 will likely result in a small number of new in catchment students that would live in the family rentals further reducing surplus seats.

By reducing surplus capacity through the ability to choose school replacements the VSB can demonstrate to the MEd they are effectively managing enrollment. The MEd will likely fund more schools for seismic mitigation minimizing school closures and reducing surplus seats if school replacements are right sized. Option to receives a high rating as the estimated reduction in surplus seats is greater than 3500 seats.

6.2.3. Balanced Enrollment

Option 2 generates sufficient revenue from partial land leases to fund additional capacity in schools with kindergarten waitlists and >100% utilization. Specifically, to accommodate all in catchment students attending regular programs 522 total seats are needed in the 6 VSB schools with kindergarten waitlists and >100% utilization for a total cost of $34 million. The 522 seats would not account for potential future growth in the catchment. Option 2 clearly has strong potential to reduce the number of overcapacity schools and better balance enrollment. 6 schools would no longer have overcapacity issues. However, option 2 only addresses over capacity schools and does not meaningfully address increasing enrollment at low enrollment schools. Because of this deficiency, option 2 receives a medium rating for balanced enrollment.

6.2.4. Public/media acceptance

In 2016, the VSB conducted an online public survey and received 400 responses for a confidence interval of +/- 5.6%. One of the questions asked was: Would you be supportive of the VSB developing or selling a portion of school properties if the revenue was used to support?

54 Upgrading school facilities

New schools/auditions

Top up funds for replacement school

Heritage retention

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Support (%)

Figure 11. VSB online survey ‘The Future of Our Schools’ Source: VSB Long Range Facilities Plan Appendix J

The results from this question indicate VSB students and parents would likely be receptive to partial land leases if the funds were used for upgrading school facilities, new schools/auditions, and top up funds to choose a replacement school over an upgrade, refer to Figure 11. However, in the qualitative survey respondents did not want land sales and thought the province should increase funding to prevent school closures (Vancouver School Board 2016a). Given the conflicting the results and the public resistance to developments near schools34 option 2 is rated as medium.

6.2.5. Minimized cost to government

Option 2 is the costliest option to government by a substantial margin with a total cost of $4.4 million35. Table 14 displays the costs that the VSB would have to absorb if pursuing partial land leases. Table 14 includes the most pertinent cost but there are likely additional costs that were outside of the scope of this paper to estimate. Refer to Section 5.4.2 for additional methodological information. Given the cost to government is >$1,000,000, option 2 receives a low rating for minimized cost to government.

34 Marpole residents take legal action against City of Vancouver over modular housing: https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/marpole-residents-appeal-against-temporary- modular-housing-dismissed-by-judge 35 Assumed the VSB would undertake the rezoning and design approvals before leasing the land to potential buyers.

55 Table 14. Policy option 2 cost to government Cost Type Cost Elementary Rezoning Fee $260,783 Secondary Rezoning Free $321,820 Design Cost Elementary $1,429,351 Design Cost Secondary $1,892,808 VSB Staff Cost (Elem + Secondary) $510,000

Total Cost $4,414,763 Note: calculations by author; rezoning fee based off City of Vancouver fees and design cost is 1% of total value of land lease

6.2.6. Intergovernmental Issues

The VBE have limited authority to unilaterally implement partial land leases. Multiple levels of government would be involved with implementing partial land leases as stipulated in The School Act and The Vancouver Charter. The City of Vancouver is involved in re zonings and development permits required for option 2, and MEd must approve leases >10 years. Essentially, if the City of Vancouver or the MEd are not in favor of partial land leases option 2 could be stopped. Therefore, three levels of government are involved and option 2 receives a low rating for intergovernmental issues.

6.3. Option 3: School Site Acquisition Charges

Option 3: the Vancouver Board of Education passes a resolution to enact School Site Acquisition Charges (SSAC) for eligible developments. SSAC are charges that municipalities collect on behalf of school districts from residential developers to cover the cost of purchasing land for new schools required from the increased populations caused by development. A number of other school districts in Metro Vancouver collect SSAC including Richmond, Burnaby, and Surrey, refer to section School Site Acquisition Charges for further details.

6.3.1. Building new schools

SSAC do not generate enough revenue to allow the VSB to purchase additional school sites in high enrollment areas within a short time period. Using SSAC revenue data from other school districts in Metro Vancouver and adjusting to VSB enrollment

56 levels, resulted in $1.3 million in annual SSAC revenue and $148 million amortized over 60 years assuming an inflation rate of 2%. The expected revenue from SSAC is regionally dependent on a number of factors such as intensity of urban development and enrollment rates. The estimate is prone to uncertainty. Option 2 is rated as medium for building new schools as the revenue is between $100-$200 million with a caveat that the revenue is not immediate but accrues over a long time period.

6.3.2. Reducing surplus seats

Option 3 is unlikely to reduce surplus seats for a number of reasons. The policy option does not address low enrollment catchments and would not contribute to reducing surplus seats. Specifically, option 3 focuses on providing funding for land purchases in high enrollment areas of the district with overcapacity issues providing no opportunity to reduce surplus seats. Option 3 receives a low rating for reducing surplus seats as no seats will be reduced.

6.3.3. Balanced enrollment

Option 3 does not meaningfully contribute to a more even distribution of utilization. The SSAC revenue is Insufficient to accommodate all the estimated 522 excess in catchment students that attended regular programs in the 6 VSB schools with >100% utilization and Kindergarten waitlists. Based on the estimated $34 million cost to build auditions to accommodate the additional students it would take over 21 years to fund school auditions from SSAC revenue to reduce the overcapacity problems at the 6 schools. Option 3 receives a low rating for balanced enrollment as no schools have their overcapacity problems resolved.

6.3.4. Public/media acceptance

The public and media in Vancouver have a poor view of developers. A 2018 survey of Vancouver residents revealed 38% of surveyed residents though developers had the greatest influence on the look and feel of their neighbourhood, ahead of the municipal government at 23%, and the community itself at 20% (Canseco 2018). Of Metro Vancouver residents, 31% had a positive opinion of real estate developers, while the majority, at 58%, outlined negative views (Canseco 2018). Additionally, an online

57 petition with over 400 signatures against the catchment boundary review argued that developers should pay their share when adding residents to full catchments (Anthony 2018). It is clear that SSACs will likely be viewed positively by the public and media as SSACs are a cost to developers and thus receives a high rating.

6.3.5. Minimized cost to government

The cost of option 3 is transparent as the fee structure a municipality charges a school district to collect SSAC is outlined in The Local Government Act. Municipalities charge a $2000 administration fee and 0.1% of SSAC revenue. Based on the estimated SSAC revenues, the VSB would be charged $3,300 annually and $376,000 over 60 years. As the cost is below $500,000, option 3 receives a high rating to minimize cost to government.

6.3.6. Intergovernmental issues

The VBE has restrained authority to enact SSACs. The VBE and the City of Vancouver work together on technical matters regarding setting SSAC rates. However, the VBE can submit a resolution to enact SSACs and if the local municipality does not agree the province can appoint a mediator. Generally, the local board of education has authority to initiate SSACs and the province only becomes involved if the municipality disagrees with the local board of education. The VBE does not have complete control of option 3 as two jurisdictions, the VBE and the province, have some level of authority. Therefore, option 3 is rated as medium for intergovernmental issues.

58 6.4. Policy Matrix

Table 15. Policy Matrix Option 2: Option 3: School Option 1: Catchment Partial Land Site Acquisition Criteria Measure Boundary Changes Leases Charges Revenue ($) generated to Medium: $148 Building new support VSB’s High: $282 Low: $0 (2) million over 60 schools X2 share of capital million (6) years (4) projects for new schools/auditions

Reducing surplus Reduction of High (6) 3950 Low (2) 380 seats Low (2) 0 seats seats X2 surplus seats seats

More even Balanced Medium (3) 6 distribution of High (3) 6 schools Low (1) 0 schools enrollment schools utilization

Public/media Public Low (2) Medium (4) High (6) acceptance X2 acceptance Least dollar ($) Minimized cost to Low $4.4 High: $376,000 cost to High: $0 (3) government million (1) over 60 years (3) government Minimized Intergovernmental jurisdictional High (3) Low (1) Medium (2) Issues involvement Total 15 21 18

6.5. School consolidation

This paper does not directly analyze the merit of school closures and consolidation. From the research presented it is clear that the VSB has a problem with low current and projected utilization. Additionally, many schools have low current and projected utilizations and require seismic mitigation. The VSB and the MEd have a responsibility to provide seismically safe schools for VSB students. Considering many of the low enrollment schools are located in areas with high densities of elementary

59 schools, school closures and consolidation may be a reasonable option in certain situations.

School consolidation could be a reasonable alternative to partial land leases in certain areas of East Vancouver that have a high density of schools with low enrollment rates. The Westside of Vancouver provides limited opportunities as the density of schools is much lower with substantially larger catchments. Figure 12 shows 5 of the 8 elementary schools selected for partial land leases border one another. There is a possibility Cunningham, Carleton, MaCorkindale, and Bruce could be merged. The four schools have a 58% utilization rate, when corrected for cross boundary transfers, and only 44% utilization rate using standard utilization measures. By 2028, the collective enrollment is forecasted to grow by only 34 seats. The four schools combined have 674 surplus seats corrected for cross boundary transfers and 906 surplus seats using standard utilization measures. All four schools require seismic mitigation. All of the above reasons provide a solid argument for school closure and consolidation in this area; however, there are a number of problems with school consolidation even in the VSB’s most suitable areas for school consolidation.

Figure 12. Selected elementary schools for partial land leases Source: calculations by author, data provided by VSB

School closure and consolidation creates a number of problems. Community cohesion is altered, green space is lost, commutes become longer, and neighborhoods loose community amenities. Despite these issues, school closure and consolidation also present additional problems. Specifically, if two or three of the schools are closed, in the area discussed above, would there be enough space to accommodate the replacement school with adequate outdoor space? Would the VSB be able to purchase additional land if the area experienced substantial development driven enrollment growth? Some of these issues might be solved if the closed school properties were leased long term using similar land tenures to partial land leases.

Partial land leases and school closure and consolidation have similar objectives of reducing surplus seats and increasing revenue. School closures may provide a more efficient method or reducing surplus seats but increases the risk of not having adequate land for future school expansions should enrollment increase in the future; notwithstanding all the other problems with school closures. School closure and

61 consolidation remain a politically difficult and risky policy, but not considering it would ignore the realities of the VSB low district utilization, uneven enrollment, and high number of seismically unsafe schools. Lastly, targeted catchment changes should not be ruled out as a legitimate policy alternative.

62 Chapter 7. Land lease top examples

Figure 13. Renfrew Elementary partial land lease Renfrew Elementary has a high potential for a partial land lease for a variety of reasons. The school is located on a very large 3.09 hectare (Ha) site on East 22nd Avenue and Renfrew Street. The site provides a high potential for a partial land lease because the school is seismically rated as high risk, has low utilization, and does not have a supported seismic mitigation project, refer to Section 4.2.1 for more information. Additionally, the school site fronts an arterial street (Renfrew) and the large site could accommodate the suggested partial land lease, refer to Figure 12, with remaining space for a replacement school to accommodate the current enrollment36 with surplus land for future additions should enrollment increase. With the suggested partial land lease shown in Figure 12, 2.61 ha would remain after the lease. The remaining area is over 2.5 times larger than Bayview Elementary, 0.96 ha37, which will can accommodate 365 students when rebuilt.

36 Can accommodate current enrollment adjusted for cross boundary and international students as well as current enrollment not adjusted for the above factors (applies to all case studies) 37 Below MEd site area standard of 1.9-2.3 ha. Indicates need for urban specific site area standards; a review of site area standards to incorporate urban schools would create greater transparency for

Figure 14. Carleton Elementary partial land lease

Carleton Elementary is the top rated priority site for a partial land lease for Elementary Schools. The school is located on a large 2.4 Ha site on East 41st Avenue and Kingsway Street. The site provides a priority potential for a partial land lease for many of the same reasons as Renfrew Elementary, refer to Section 4.2.1 for more information. Like Renfrew, Carleton fronts an arterial street (Kingsway) and the large site could accommodate the suggested partial land lease, refer to Figure 13, with remaining space for a replacement school to accommodate the current enrollment with surplus land for future additions should enrollment increase. With the suggested partial land lease shown in Figure 13, 1.85 ha would remain after the lease. The site does have irregular angles and careful thought would be required to site the replacement school and ensure adequate outdoor space is provided.

expected standards for urban schools. However, schools can be built below provincial site area standards: Crosstown Elementary, Elsie Roy.

Figure 15. John Oliver Secondary partial land lease

John Oliver Secondary is the top rated priority site for a partial land leases for Secondary Schools. John Oliver shares most of the same characteristics with the above examples because all the analyzed schools were evaluated using the same four part criteria discussed in Section 3.4. The school is located on a large 4.87 Ha site on East 41st Avenue and Fraser Street. John Oliver fronts arterial streets, Fraser and E 41st, and the large site could accommodate the suggested partial land lease, refer to Figure 14, with remaining space for a rebuilt school to accommodate the current enrollment with surplus land for future additions should enrollment increase. With the suggested partial land lease shown in Figure 13, 4.21 ha would remain after the lease.

Figure 16. Gladstone Secondary partial land lease

Gladstone has high potential for a partial land lease. Gladstone is located on a large 5.38 Ha site on Stainsbury Avenue. Gladstone does not front an arterial street, but instead fronts the Expo Line. The large site could accommodate the suggested partial land lease, refer to Figure 14, with remaining space for a rebuilt school to accommodate the current enrollment with surplus land for future additions should enrollment increase. With the suggested partial land lease shown in Figure 15, 4.79 ha would remain after the lease. There are two approved 6 story rental developments on Victoria Street close to Gladstone. The precedent set by the developments38 indicated the City of Vancouver could (in principal) be in support of similar development on school land. Renfrew also has an approved 6 story rental development adjacent to the school on East 22nd Avenue.

38 3681 Victoria Drive https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/3681victoria/index.htm, 3365 Commercial Drive https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/3365commercial/, and 3281 E 22nd Avenue, https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/3281-3295e22/index.htm

66 Chapter 8.

Recommendation

There has clearly been considerable controversy on how to best manage the VSB’s enrollment decline and uneven enrollment. Schools are often seen as the hub of communities and public anxiety increases whenever changes to school catchment boundaries or school closures enter the public discourse. The release of the draft 2019 update to the Long Range Facilities Plan outlining 28 schools at risk of closure due to high seismic risk and low enrollment has already generated a number of news articles and will surely lead to substantial public oppositions should the school closure process move foreword. The debate around school closures and school consolidations will reoccur without a change to how VSB assets are managed. The $2.8 billion in capital costs provides too great a cost for a provincial government to fund without expecting the VSB to make changes to manage their enrollment.

The average age of VSB schools is 73 years (Vancouver School Board 2019) and the planning decisions made three quarters of a century ago had considerably different priorities and restraints than today. The ongoing seismic mitigation program provides a unique opportunity to right size schools and re imagine how the VSB’s $8 billion in assessed land value is utilized. Many VSB schools have two or more fields that are poorly utilized, and some older school building’s footprints do not use the school site efficiently. Changes to the status quo need to be done now or a delayed response could result in more drastic measures such as school closures.

Option 2 was recommended for the significant potential partial land leases provide through additional capital revenue as well as spin off benefits such as affordable rental housing suitable for families. To be clear, the recommendation is for the VSB to build upon the public consultation conducted for the 2016 Long Range Facilities Plan on alternative uses for VSB lands. This report provides a first step into analyzing what schools have the highest potential for partial land leases and what type of land use would provide the optimal mix of public benefits and revenue for the VSB. A land tenure option for land leases not analyzed in this report but could provide a good mix of revenue while benefiting the public could be strata housing for VSB teacher/staff at 20%

67 below market rates similar to SFU’s Verdant39 at UniverCity. Leased units at 20% below market value would likely provide similar revenue to the mix of market/non market rentals analyzed in this report.

While option 2 provides the best opportunity to generate revenue for new school’s and auditions in growth areas and provide revenue to right size seismic replacements in low enrollment areas, necessary public consultation will take time. That is why it is recommended the Vancouver Board of Education (VBE) immediately pursue option 3 and implement School Site Acquisition Charges (SSAC) by passing a final resolution, per section 575 (5) of The Local Government Act, indicating what land will be needed for new schools in growth areas. Most school districts in Metro Vancouver collect SSAC to fund site acquisitions, the VSB budgeted $10 million (Vancouve School Board 2018) to acquire a school site for the Olympic Village; SSAC could be used in the near future to part fund that cost as well as other future site acquisitions.

Through past public consultations, petitions, and social media it is clear the public is against school closures and the sale of school lands. Option 2 provides the best policy to address the significant problems of declining district enrollment and uneven enrollment. Schools are community hubs and if the public, VBE, the City of Vancouver, and the Ministry of Education accept partial land leases as a policy option school closures and consolidations may be prevented. Because of the complex nature of the problem future catchment changes and school closures may still occur despite implementing partial land leases; however, not changing the status quo now will certainly compound the problem for future generations. There are significant opportunities for the VSB and the City of Vancouver to collaborate with the intention of better integrating City planning with VSB facility planning. Partial land leases present an opportunity to start this process.

39 http://www.verdantliving.com/affordability.html

68 Chapter 9.

Limitations and first steps

There were a number of limitations with this study. The first involved failed attempts to speak with certain stakeholders and government representatives. Representatives from the BC Teacher’s Federation, the Vancouver District Parent Advisory Council, Vancouver Elementary Teachers Association, and the Vancouver Secondary Teachers Association did not respond to interview requests or were unable to do interviews. Multiple government representatives were also contacted with similar results including The North Vancouver School District, the City of Vancouver, and the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education did not respond, or could not speak to, multiple requests for interviews.

Lack of time and resources provided limitations for the partial land lease option. It was impossible to accurately appraise the market value of each partial land lease; further it was not in the scope of the paper to forecast future land values given the extreme complexity of the Vancouver real estate market. There were also VSB enrollment data limitations. Specifically, the cross boundary data for district programs was not provided by the VSB. If this data was provided, a calculation of the number of public school students in each catchment could have been done. It is possible schools that could be suitable for partial land leases were not included in the analysis because out of catchment students attending district programs increased the school’s utilization above 85% thereby excluding the schools from the analysis. A very recent release of the district cross boundary data highlights this issue.

The VSB’s district cross boundary data was recently released with data analyst Jens Von Bergmann conducting an analysis of the data. In Appendix B, Table B1 ranks each school’s share of in-catchment students (adjusted for regular and district program cross boundary transfers) to each school’s operational capacity. The data confirms the hypothesis that some school’s utilizations were increased from out of catchment students attending district programs. Specifically, the Kerrisdale catchment’s share of in catchment students to the operational capacity of the main elementary and annex is only 64%. Kerrisdale Elementary is one of the VSB’s largest school sites and would likely be

69 an ideal site for a partial land lease. It would be beneficial to incorporate the district cross boundary data into the partial land lease analysis criteria to identify additional schools for partial land leases. Better coordination between the VSB and City of Vancouver could provide planning guidance to implement partial land leases and further address the VSB’s uneven enrollment patterns.

The City of Toronto and the Toronto District School Board’s City School Boards Advisory Committee provides excellent guidance for how the City of Vancouver, UBC Endowment Lands, and the VSB can improve collaboration on integrating city planning decisions with VSB facility planning. The discussion and potential implementation of partial land leases provides a great opportunity to create a Vancouver version of Toronto’s City School Boards Advisory Committee. If a committee is formed, one of the committee’s first objectives should be the implementation of School Site Acquisition Charges for the Vancouver School District.

70 References

Anthony, Shirley. 2018. “Stop the Vancouver School Board from Changing Elementary School Catchment Boundaries.” Change.Org. https://www.change.org/p/stop-the- vancouver-school-board-from-changing-elementary-school-catchment- boundaries?recruiter=876365294&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email &utm_campaign=share_email_responsive (March 12, 2019).

Ballard, Joel. 2018. “VSB Says Lack of Provincial Funding Forced It to Make a Hard Decision.” CBC News: British Columbia. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- columbia/vsb-says-lack-of-provincial-funding-forced-it-to-make-a-hard-decision- 1.4723569.

BC Government. 2018a. School Act. Canada. http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96412_00.

———. 2018b. “School Tax.” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/property- taxes/annual-property-tax/school-tax?keyword=school&keyword=tax (October 16, 2018).

———. 2018c. Seismic Mitigation Program: Progress Report. Victoria. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/resource- management/capital-planning/seismic-mitigation/progress_report.pdf.

BC Legislative Assembly. 2015. “LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT [RSBC 2015] CHAPTER 1.” : Division 20. http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/r15001_14#division_d0e5 4972.

Bergmann, Jens Von. 2016. “SDH Zoning and Landuse.” Mountain Doodles. https://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog/2016/06/17/sdh-zoning-and-land-use/ (March 22, 2018).

Bozikovic, Alex. 2018. “It’s Time to Stop Toronto’s Schools – and Its Heritage – from Crumbling.” The Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-its-time-to-stop-torontos- schools-and-its-heritage-from/.

Canseco, Mario. 2018. “Residents Increasingly Share a Dim View of Real Estate Developers.” Business in Vancouver. https://biv.com/article/2018/09/residents- increasingly-share-dim-view-real-estate-developers.

Capital Developments & Metropia. 2018a. “Bloor & Dufferin.” Project Home Page. https://bloordufferin.com/ (January 5, 2019).

———. 2018b. “Bloor & Dufferin Key Statistics.” https://bloordufferin.com/the- project/#key-statistics (January 5, 2019).

71 Center on International Education Benchmarking. 2018. “Canada: Governance and Accountability.” http://ncee.org/what-we-do/center-on-international-education- benchmarking/top-performing-countries/canada-overview/canada-system-and- school-organization/ (December 31, 2018).

Chingos, Matthew, M. 2017. “How Progressive Is School Funding in the United States?” https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-progressive-is-school-funding-in-the- united-states/.

City of Surrey Staff. 2003. Corporate Report: No: R207 School Site Aqusition Charges. Surrey. https://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/CR_2003-R207-7877.pdf.

City of Toronto Staff. 2017. Work Plan Update: City School Boards Advisory Committee TS8.3. Toronto. https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/ts/bgrd/backgroundfile- 108148.pdf.

City of Vancouver. 2017. Community Benefits from Development: Improving Neighbourhoods & Enabling Affordable Housing. Vancouver. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/community-benefits-from-development.pdf.

CSF. 2018. “Green Annex (Maquinna).” The Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique (CSF). https://annehebert.csf.bc.ca/notre-ecole/annexe- anne-hebert/ (January 9, 2019).

Gangdev, Srushti. 2019. “Vancouver School Board Urged to Build Modular Housing on Land It Owns.” Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/5025910/vancouver- school-board-modular-housing-motion/.

Giglio, Stefano, Matteo Maggiori, and Johannes Stroebel. 2015. “Very Long-Run Discount Rates.” Quarterly Journal of Economics.

Jones, Russ. 2017. The Board of Education of School District No. 39 (Vancouver): Financial Statements: 2016/2017. Victoria. https://www.vsb.bc.ca/_layouts/vsbwww/arch/default/files/2016_2017 Financial Statements_from SOFI report.pdf.

Kurucz, John. 2018. “Vancouver School Board Reaches $75-Million Deal with BC Hydro for West End School Site.” The Vancouver Courier. https://www.vancourier.com/news/vancouver-school-board-reaches-75-million-deal- with-bc-hydro-for-west-end-school-site-1.23430064.

Ministry of Education. 2009. “Ministry of Education Capital Management Branch: Disposal of Land or Improvements Order (M193/08) School Building Closure and Disposal Policy.” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/resource- management/capital-planning/closures-disposals-qa.pdf.

———. 2012. “Ministry of Education: Area Standards.” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/resource-

72 management/capital-planning/areastandards.pdf.

———. 2017. Capital Plan Instructions for 2018/19 Five-Year Capital Plan Submissions. Victoria. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/resource- management/capital-planning/current-resources/capital-plan-instructions.pdf.

———. 2018a. “Capital Bylaws.” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education- training/administration/capital/planning/capital-bylaws (October 15, 2018).

———. 2018b. “Capital Programs for Kindergarten to Grade 12.” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education- training/administration/capital/programs (October 16, 2018).

———. 2018c. “Finding a Better Way to Support School Districts, Student Success.” Information Bulletin. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2018EDUC0004-000306 (October 18, 2018).

———. 2018d. “School District Profile Province of British Columbia.” District Profiles. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-grade- 12/profiles/profile-province.pdf (October 30, 2018).

———. 2018e. “School District Profile School District No. 38 (Richmond).” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-grade- 12/profiles/profile-sd38-richmond.pdf (October 30, 2018).

———. 2018f. “School District Profile School District No. 39 (Vancouver).” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-grade- 12/profiles/profile-sd39-vancouver.pdf (October 18, 2018).

———. 2018g. “School District Profile School District No. 39 (Vancouver).” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-grade- 12/profiles/profile-sd39-vancouver.pdf (October 17, 2018).

Ministry of Finance. 2019. “Making Life Better Budget 2019: Budget and Fiscal Plan 2019/20-2021/22.” https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2019/pdf/2019_budget_and_fiscal_plan.pdf.

North Vancouver School District. 2011. Surplus Land Retention and Disposition Strategy. North Vancouver. https://www.sd44.ca/Board/LandManagement/LandManagement/Documents/Surplu sLandRetentionAndDispositionStrategy2011.pdf.

———. 2012. Land Management Summary Report. North Vancouver. https://www.sd44.ca/Board/LandManagement/PastEngagement/Documents/NVSD- Land-Management-Summary-Report-June-12-2012-1lpe9in.pdf.

———. 2015. Land, Learning and Livability Community Consulation - October UPDATE. North Vancouver.

73 https://www.sd44.ca/Board/LandManagement/PastEngagement/Documents/LandL earningLivabilityUpdate20151029-2.pdf.

Pablo, Carlito. 2017. “Vancouver School District Leases Laurier Annex to Francophone Education Board.” The Georgia Strait. https://www.straight.com/news/1000881/vancouver-school-district-leases-laurier- annex-francophone-education-board.

Penner, Derrick. 2017. “Population Shrinking in Vancouver’s High-Priced Single-Family Neighbourhoods.” The Vancouver Sun. https://vancouversun.com/news/local- news/population-shrinking-in-vancouvers-high-priced-single-family-neighbourhoods.

Phipps, A G, and P M Anglin. 1993. “A Rational Economic-Analysis of Public-School Closings in Saskatoon.” Environment and Planning A 25(3): 339–55.

Phipps, Alan G. 2008. “Reuses of Closed Schools in Windsor, Ontario.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 42(1): 18–30.

Resource Management and Executive Financial Office. 2018. OPERATING GRANTS MANUAL. Victoria. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/resource- management/k12funding/18-19/18-19-operating-grants-manual.pdf.

Sherlock, Tracy. 2015. “Many Vancouver Schools Just Three-Quarters Full.” The Vancouver Sun. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Many+Vancouver+schools+just+three+quarter s+full/11050668/story.html.

Statistics Canada. “Table 37-10-0065-01 School Board Expenditures (x 1,000).” https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3710006501 (March 21, 2019a).

———. “Table 37-10-0066-01 Public and Private Elementary and Secondary Education Expenditures (x 1,000).” https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3710006601 (March 21, 2019b).

TLC and TDSB. 2014. “Revised Service Aggreement between the Toronto Land Corporation and the Toronto District School Board.” https://www.torontolandscorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2014-11-26-TDSB- TLC-Revised-Service-Agreement.pdf.

Toronto District School Board. 2018. “Education Development Charges.” https://www.tdsb.on.ca/About-Us/Accountability/Renewal-Needs-Backlog-and- Facility-Condition-Index/Education-Development-Charges (March 18, 2019).

Vancouve School Board. 2018. Appendix E Capital Plan Summary: 2019 Draft Long Range Facilities Plan. Vancouver. https://www.vsb.bc.ca/District/Planning_and_Facilities/Long_Range_Facilities_Plan

74 /Documents/Appendix-E.pdf.

Vancouver School Board. 2015. “Policy 20: Disposal of Land or Improvement.” https://www.vsb.bc.ca/District/Board-of- Education/Policy_Manual/Documents/sbfile/180928/20-Policy20-Disposal-of-Land- or-Improvements.pdf.

———. 2016a. 2016 Long Range Facilities Plan: Appendix J Public Consultation Report by Public Assembly. Vancouver. https://www.vsb.bc.ca/_layouts/vsbwww/arch/default/files/lrfp/2016/05/appendix-j- public-consultation-report-by-public-assembly.pdf.

———. 2016b. VANCOUVER BOARD OF EDUCATION LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLAN. Vancouver. https://www.vsb.bc.ca/_layouts/vsbwww/arch/default/files/lrfp/2016/05/lrfp-final- report-may-2016-board-approved2.pdf.

———. 2018a. Appendix D Facility Condition Index: Draft 2019 Long Range Faccilities Plan. Vancouver. https://www.vsb.bc.ca/District/Planning_and_Facilities/Long_Range_Facilities_Plan /Documents/Appendix-D.pdf.

———. 2018b. “Departments Overview.” https://www.vsb.bc.ca/District/Departments/Pages/default.aspx (October 17, 2018).

———. 2018c. Summary Elementary School Catchment Boundary Review. Vancouver. http://go.vsb.bc.ca/schools/gordon/Registration/Documents/QA - Elementary School Attendance Area Boundary Review.pdf.

———. 2019. Long Range Facilities Plan 2019 - Draft. Vancouver. https://www.vsb.bc.ca/District/Planning_and_Facilities/Long_Range_Facilities_Plan /Documents/sbfile/190225/LRFP-draft-feb25.pdf.

Wood, Graeme. 2018. “Land Costs Force Richmond School District to Abandon City Centre School.” Richmond News. https://www.richmond-news.com/news/land- costs-force-richmond-school-district-to-abandon-city-centre-school-1.23352874.

75 Appendix A: Funding analysis

Given the considerable public, media, and special interest focus on provincial education funding, an analysis of the future of VSB schools cannot be done without addressing the funding question. The BC Teacher’s Federation (BCTF), past VBE trustees, the public, and some media have indicated that the VSB’s lack of capacity to build new schools in growth areas and fund seismic mitigation in low enrollment areas is primarily due to chronic underfunding of the education system. Appendix A addresses data from Statistics Canada to demonstrate that the VSB funding shortfalls are not primary due to chronic provincial underfunding. The primary reason why BC’s education spending has lagged other provinces is due to BC government not increasing teachers’ compensation at the same rates as other provinces.

To argue the gap between BC and other provinces total education spending is the reason why new schools are not built and seismic mitigation occurs too slowly oversimplifies the problem. Instead, the VSB capital funding shortfalls are mainly driven by district enrollment decline, uneven enrollment patterns, and to a lesser extent, by past provincial underfunding of capital projects. The BC NDP has reasonably addressed the provincial capital funding issue by increasing per student capital funding beyond all other province’s average 2007-2016 per student capital expenditures, refer to Figure A5. As argued in this paper, the increase will not solve the VSB’s problem of inadequate capacity in growth areas and unsupported seismically high risk schools in low enrollment areas.

Instructional spending accounts for the majority of education spending at nearly 70% of BC’s 2016 school board expenditures with capital expenditures accounting for just over 7% (Statistics Canada n.d., n.d.). Relative increases in teacher spending has the largest effect on total education expenditures. Refer to Tables A1 and A2 for a breakdown of expenditures.

76 Table A1. BC’s 2016 school boards’ education expenditures School Board Expenditure by Type Percent (%) Teachers' salaries 62.0 School facilities 10.6 Teacher's pensions40 7.3 Capital 7.2 Other 4.8 Administration 4.0 Instructional supplies 3.9

Source: Calculation by author: Statistics Canada Table 37-10-0065-01 and Table 37-10-0066-01

Table A2. Canada’s 2016 school boards’ education expenditures School Board Expenditure by Type Percent (%) Teachers' salaries 60.5 Capital 9.7 School facilities 8.2 Teacher's pensions41 7.3 Other 6.0 Administration 5.3 Instructional supplies 2.9

Source: Calculation by author: Statistics Canada Table 37-10-0065-01 and Table 37-10-0066-01

Generally, BC’s proportion of education expenditures is similar to Canadas with an exception for capital spending.

BC’s education funding has increased at the lowest rate of all Canadian provinces mostly due to BC’s teacher spending per student increasing at the lowest rate of all Canadian provinces. Figure A1 shows BC is last among the provinces for nominal education spending increases from 2006/2007 to 2015/2016. The minimal increase caused BC’s per student education spending to substantially decrease compared to other provinces. In 2006/2007 BC spent the fourth most per student and by 2015/2016 BC spent the lease per student among Canada’s ten provinces, refer to Figure A2.

40 Direct government expenditure on contributions to school board teacher’s pension fund 41 Same as 29.

77 70.0 57.6 60.0 56.3 47.5 50.0 45.2 44.7 43.4 42.5 38.8 40.0

30.0 21.2 20.0 15.5

10.0 Expenditurechange (%) 0.0

Figure A1. Total per student education expenditure change from 2006/2007 to 2015/2016 Source: Calculation by author: Statistics Canada Table 37-10-0066-01 and Table 37-10-0007-01

Prince Edward Island Newfoundland and Labrador Nova Scotia Ontario New Brunswick Quebec British Columbia Saskatchewan Alberta Manitoba

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Dollars $ Expenditures per student $ 2015 / 2016 Expenditures per student $ 2006 / 2007

Figure A2. Total per student education spending 2015/2016 and 2006/2007 Source: Calculation by author: Statistics Canada Table 37-10-0007-01 and Table 37-10-0065-01

Teachers’ salaries in BC have increased at the lowest rate in Canada between 2006/2007 and 2015/2016, refer to Figure A3. Additionally, in 2015/2016 BC spent the least per student on teachers’ salaries (Statistics Canada n.d.). As previously stated, nearly 70% of 2016 school board expenditures were for teachers’ salaries and pensions indicating the strong relationship between level of teacher compensation and total

78 education expenditures (Statistics Canada n.d., n.d.). See Figure A4 for a teacher salary comparison highlighting BC’s low teacher salaries.

70.0 61.4 60.0 57.3 48.1 46.3 50.0 43.7 40.8 40.5 40.0 40.0 28.5 30.0 21.1 20.0

10.0 Teacher's' Teacher's' salary change(%) 0.0

Figure A3. Teacher’s salaries42 per student expenditure change from 2006/2007 to 2015/2016 Source: Calculation by author: Statistics Canada Table 37-10-0065-01, Table 37-10-0007-01

42 Includes fringe benefits

79 $110,000

$100,000

$90,000

$80,000 $75,142

$70,000 $64,067 $60,000

$50,000

Median Salary ($) SalaryMedian $40,000

$30,000

$20,000

Figure A4. Teacher’s median salaries across Canada Source: Data from BCTF Teacher Nov-Dec 2018 salary analysis using salary data from collective barging agreements April 2018

Capital spending is obviously central to the paper’s main arguments. Over a 10 year period, 2007-2016, BC was near the Canadian median for capital spending among the provinces, refer to Figure 343. Considering BC has substantial costs with seismic upgrades it appears BC was under spending on capital projects. However, BC Budget 2019 rectifies the past moderate under spending by increasing per student capital spending above all provinces past capital spending, refer to Figure 3.

43 Data was averaged due to the high year to year variability in capital spending due to most jurisdictions deciding on major projects on a case by case basis.

80 1800 1622 1600 1373 1400 1136 1200 1121 1000 901 849 825 800 728 600 400 200 74 14 0 Capital spending($millions) 0

Average (2007-2016) Forecast Average (2020-2022)

Figure A5. Capital expenditure per student from 2006/2007 to 2015/2016 with BC Budget forecast Source: Calculation by author: Statistics Canada Table 37-10-0065-01, Table 37-10-0007-0, and BC Budget Table A 14

This review of education spending in BC demonstrates that BC’s low education spending increases are mainly caused by BC low teacher salary increases. Capital spending in BC appears to have been moderately too low when compared to other provinces, but Budget 2019 nearly doubles per student capital spending. Lastly, the Vancouver School district has unique problems specific to the district such as enrollment decline combined with uneven enrollment that need to be addressed. To upgrade/replace all high risk schools and build new schools/auditions in high growth areas without addressing the above enrollment issues would result in education expenditures far greater than any other jurisdiction. Lastly, factoring in the end of the teachers’ collective bargaining agreement and demands for salary increases creates further budgetary pressures.

81 Appendix B: Supplemental maps and tables

The VSB district cross boundary data was recently released with data analyst Jens Von Bergman conducting an analysis of the data. Table B1 ranks each school with the share of in-catchment students (adjusted for both regular and district program cross boundary transfers) to the school’s operational capacity. Catchments with annexes and main elementary schools have been combined. Additionally, schools highlighted yellow indicate schools that were selected for partial land leases. Schools highlighted turquoise indicate schools that passed the three step filtering process but were not selected for partial land leases. With the notable exception of Bruce, and to a lesser extent Mackenzie, all schools selected for partial land leases were low enrollment schools. Bruce was only considered for a partial land lease due to the school’s large property that fronts an arterial street and Bruce is adjacent to three very under utilized schools: MaCorkindale, Carleton, and Cunningham. Refer to Table B1.

Table B1. VSB share of in catchment students to school capacities Source: Compiled by author, data from Mountain Doodles, VSB X – Boundary: examining VSB cross boundary data, April 15, 2019

Rank School In-catchment Capacity Share of in-catchment students students to capacity (%)

1 Fraser 504 201 251 2 False Creek 405 224 181 3 Hudson 493 317 156 4 Carr 419 270 155 5 Maquinna 311 228 136 6 Elsie Roy 521 387 135 7 Britannia 295 228 129 8 Norma Rose Point 852 662 129 9 Fleming 521 410 127 10 Fleming 521 410 127 11 General Gordon 513 410 125 12 Nelson 535 429 125 13 Laurier 332 275 121 14 Oppenheimer 461 387 119 15 Carnarvon 429 364 118 16 Roberts Total 807 697 116 17 Lloyd George 470 410 115 18 Livingstone 368 340 108 19 Cook 490 457 107 20 McKechnie 261 251 104

82 Rank School In-catchment Capacity Share of in-catchment students students to capacity (%)

21 Kitchener 492 476 103 22 Bruce Total 515 502 103 23 Bayview 347 340 102 24 Henderson 565 569 99 25 Queen Elizabeth Total 503 513 98 26 Wolfe 355 364 98 27 Crosstown 461 476 97 28 Tecumseh Total 556 583 95 29 Weir 408 433 94 30 Sexsmith 385 410 94 31 Beaconsfield 271 294 92 32 Van Horne 406 452 90 33 Mackenzie 522 592 88 34 Shaughnessy 381 433 88 35 Maple Grove 435 499 87 36 Jamieson 414 480 86 37 Franklin 234 275 85 38 McBride Total 452 534 85 39 Selkirk Total 666 787 85 40 Grandview 173 205 84 41 Strathcona 395 476 83 42 Moberly 561 677 83 43 University Hill Elementary 317 383 83 44 Thunderbird 276 340 81 45 Quilchena 198 247 80 46 Champlain Heights Total 446 564 79 47 Nightingale 282 364 77 48 Mount Pleasant 227 294 77 49 Brock 278 364 76 50 Grenfell 384 503 76 51 Norquay 576 774 74 52 Trudeau 269 364 74 53 Lord 244 340 72 54 Southlands 227 317 72 55 Kingsford Smith 275 387 71 56 Queen Alexandra 191 270 71 57 Dickens Total 402 579 69 58 Begbie 214 317 68 59 Queen Mary 267 406 66 60 Hastings Total 523 806 65 61 Secord Total 539 838 64 62 Kerrisdale Total 398 625 64 63 Waverley 297 467 64 64 Trafalgar 285 476 60 65 Nootka 308 522 59 66 Osler 173 294 59

83 Rank School In-catchment Capacity Share of in-catchment students students to capacity (%)

67 Renfrew 373 639 58 68 Seymour 208 391 53 69 MaCorkindale 224 457 49 70 Douglas Total 328 707 46 71 Cunningham 249 615 40 72 Carleton 228 573 40 District Schools 1 Tyee 184 135 136 2 L'ecole Bilingue 448 452 99 3 Quesnel 380 410 93 4 Tennyson 414 452 92 5 Xprey 75 247 30

Figure B1. VSB Elementary school’s utilization difference between 2018 and 2028 Source: Calculations by author, Data source VSB Badgar 2018-19 enrollment projects

Figure B2. VSB Secondary school’s utilization difference between 2018 and 2028 Source: Calculations by author, data source VSB Badgar 2018-19 enrollment projects

85 Appendix C: Supplemental partial land lease case studies

Figure C1. Southlands Elementary partial land lease

Figure C2. Brock Elementary partial land lease

86 Figure C3. Bruce Elementary partial land lease

Figure C4. Templeton Secondary partial land lease

87 Figure C5. Prince of Wales Secondary school site (no suggested partial land lease)

88 Appendix D: Interview summaries

Interview with Dr. Kelly Murphy

Policy Development Officer Social Development, Finance and Administration Division City of Toronto

Kelly is a senior policy development officer with the City of Toronto working in the Social Development, Finance, and Administration Division. She was involved in the City of Toronto’s evaluation of Schools as Community Assets for the 23 Toronto District School Board Properties that were considered surplus. As part of that evaluation, she collaborated with Toronto District School Board (TDSB) when the City School Board Advisory Committee was active. She has stated the relationships built with City and TDSB staff has remined. She has a MEd and PhD in the Sociology of Education and the Sociology of Science.

Kelly identified several similar issues that both the VSB and the TDSB experience. Particularly the problem of rapid population growth in certain areas of the City of Toronto combined with enrollment decline in other areas. She argued that educational development charges (EDC), which are very similar to School Site Acquisition Charges, could provide some relief to the enrollment challenges above; however, the TDSB cannot charge EDC due to the district having less than 100% district utilization.

A consistent theme of collaboration between the City and the TDSB emerged as the interview progressed. Kelly thought that the City and school board should work together to advocate for change and produce ‘made in Toronto’ solutions partly due funding increases and changes to The Education Act being a political non starter. She provided a few examples of incremental solutions such as the City of Toronto’s new initiative to speed up the permitting process for school capital projects, better integrating school utilization with community utilization, and the City potentially purchasing TDSB surplus land for parks.

89 Interview with Dr. Jason Ellis

Assistant professor Faculty of Education | Department of Educational Studies University of British Columbia

Jason is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia (UBC). He is an expert in the history of education with a focus on urban and suburban education, education policy, school reforms etc. He is a frequent expert source for the media on local public education issues.

Jason argued that the VSB has to better manage enrollment rates because lack of provincial funding is not the main reason for the VSB’s inability to build new schools in growth areas and receive funding for seismic upgrades/replacements in low enrollment schools. Particularly, he argued that operating expenses are low because teacher’s salaries are low. He was not opposed to some VSB schools being closed for a variety of reasons including students being less impacted than rural students due to the density of schools in Vancouver.

A few policy options were suggested such as busing students from high to low enrollment areas, like in the TDSB Pupil Review. However, he argued Vancouver is different than TDSB because TDSB is much larger geographic area with suburban areas that could be more suitable to busing. He also indicated that the School Act has minimum limits on what distance a board is required to provide transportation to students as a potential limiting factor for busing students in Vancouver.

Interview with Dr. Jens von Bergmann

Data Scientist Mountain Math

Jens holds undergraduate degrees in Physics and Computer Sciences and a PhD in Mathematics. He taught for several years at the University of Calgary, University of Notre Dame and Michigan State University before founding Mountain Math to work on his passion of data analysis and visualization. Jens is frequently interviewed by the media on urban issues.

90 Jens provided a number of insights regarding the technical issues of urban development and enrollment planning. He is a strong supporter of using the in catchment population of all public school students and not standard utilization metrics for long term facilities planning. Further, the VSB should include future developments in their enrollment projections; he provides an example that some of the UBC projections underestimate future growth. Lastly, he argues the key issue with uneven enrollment is urban development and not including future developments within enrollment projections can led to inaccurate enrollment forecasts.

Jens thinks some schools could be closed but the school land should not be sold. Instead mixed use buildings could be built on the former school sites with the lower floors converted to school use if needed in the future. He also suggests the VSB and City of Vancouver work together to develop single family areas to encourage more students in low catchment areas. He suggests areas south of Joyce Station would be an ideal area to start. He acknowledged the challenges with different levels of government and thought the province could play of role of incentivizing developers to build in low density areas of the city to boost future enrollments. Finally, Jens indicated townhouses have the highest number of children per household and would be an ideal building type to densify low density low enrollment areas of the City.

Interview with Jeffery Fisher

Vice President & Senior Policy Advisor Urban Development Institute

Jeffery Fisher is an expert in urban development with considerable experience in urban policy issues. He represents the Urban Development Institute (UDI) which is a non-profit association of the development industry. Corporate members of UDI are developers, property managers, financial lenders, lawyers, engineers, planners, architects, appraisers, real estate professionals, local governments and government agencies.

Jeffery argued that there are opportunities to enhance school land use in urban areas. He argued that urban schools can be built taller, 4 stories, with use of roof space for activities like vegetable gardens and there are opportunities for the VSB to further use City of Vancouver park space like at Crosstown Elementary. Additionally, he argued

91 that stakeholder engagement on school standards in urban areas should commence. Particularly, from a developer’s perspective it is difficult to build urban childcare and urban schools with suburban standards.

A strong theme through the interview was the opportunities to develop areas around low enrollment schools using missing middle land use types such as multiplexes, row homes, townhomes, and low rise apartment buildings. He suggested that the City, in collaboration with the VSB and the public, could create mini area plans to bring more students to low utilized catchments. He thought land leases would be political non- starters unless they were incorporated into broader mini area plans. The City may be concerned with losing green space and residents could also be concerned with a loss of green space.

Jeff discussed a few specific barriers the VSB may face to ensuring partial land leases are successful. The principal issues, other than City and residents’ concerns with loss of green space, would be the fees the City takes in when a land lift occurs, i.e. a rezoning. Would the City forgo community amenity contribution (CAC) and development cost levies (DCL) if the VSB incorporates substantial social aspects to the land use: such as below market rents and family sized units? Jeff did not provide an answer to the question but there are many past examples when the city waived DCLs.

92 Appendix E: Jurisdictional Review

North Vancouver School District

The North Vancouver School District (NVSD) has experience and polices regarding school land management and school sales with an overall view of considering school properties as community assets. The NVSD has specific policies, guiding principals, and recent experience with land sales and school board land management strategies. In 2011, the NVSD released the Surplus Land Retention and Disposition Strategy to guide the management of 12 identified surplus properties. A key purpose of the strategy was to manage school lands as community assets to thereby maximize the public benefit; particularly, the NVSD argued that school assets provide an opportunity to raise revenue to improve the districts school programming in areas not covered by the Ministry of Education funding (North Vancouver School District 2011). The NVSD initially released 8 guiding principals for the future retention and disposition of surplus land. Key aspects of the guidelines include realizing school lands are community assets, consulting the public, considering broad community objectives for the alternative use of school land such as objectives for affordable housing or green space, and repurposing school lands through the use of long term leases (North Vancouver School District 2015). The NVSD experience with drafting strategies for effective stewardship of the district’s surplus lands provides insight into potential solutions to the uneven enrollment challenges currently facing the VSB; particularly, the NVSD experience with past land sales and community consultations.

The NVSD has considerable experience with selling surplus school properties to fund school replacements and new school expansions not covered by Ministry of Education funding.

93 Table E1. NVSD sold school proceeds allocations School Name Total Price Sold ($) Use of proceeds

Ridge Way Annex • $5.1 m repay loan to MEd for rebuilding Monteray Elementary Sutherland and $16.48 million Westview Schools • $13.7 m to fill funding gap for Keith Lynn School Argyle Secondary replacement over lowest cost option Source: Data from North Vancouver School District (NVSD)

Throughout the process of selling the above 3 school properties, key stakeholders and the public were consulted.

The NVSD experience with engaging the public provides significant understanding into what North Vancouver stakeholders considers important for the long term management of school lands. As North Vancouver and Vancouver are adjacent municipalities with the similar capital funding restraints partly caused by too many students in some areas and not enough in others, NVSD public engagement provides a proxy for Vancouver. In 2012, the NVSD initiated a public consultation campaign by initiating a meeting of key stakeholders (principally teachers, administrators, and parent organizations) to discuss preferred priorities for educational enhancements funded by land management revenues and preferences for particular approaches (North Vancouver School District 2015). Top priorities identified included replacement schools and facility upgrades, and preferred approaches included a preference for long term leases over land sales, preference for development proposals that include affordable and/or senior housing, and ensuring proceeds are available for future and long term needs (North Vancouver School District 2015).

In 2012, the North Vancouver School District’s public surveys regarding land management of surplus school lands illustrate a number of key themes applicable for the Vancouver School Board. The land management survey collected feedback from the community to inform decision-making regarding the School District’s 11 surplus properties. While the majority of the survey questions were open ended text responses making any quantitative analysis difficult, the feedback provides understanding into

94 some of the community members concerns. Table 5 summarizes some of the top concerns and related opportunities. Clearly, respondents were generally concerned about selling school land which many viewed as valuable community assets. However, respondents thought there were opportunities to lease lands for community benefits such as affordable housing, recreation centers, and/or day cares.

Table E2. NVSD land management stakeholder engagement summary Concerns Opportunities

Selling land may need in future Explore 99 year leases

Board would not pursue retaining Projects that benefit the community: rec ownership of land with long term centers, affordable housing, daycare leases

Zoning of land not appropriate for Sell portion of land to fund education community programs and services

Source: Data from NVSD 2012 land management survey

Vancouver School District

The Vancouver School District has limited recent experience with land sales or long term land leases. The only recent decision by the Vancouver Board of Education to sell land to fund the construction of new schools occurred with the sale of a subterranean parcel of land underneath Lord Roberts Annex to BC Hydro for approximately $75 million (Kurucz 2018). The proceeds from land sales are planned to fund a new elementary school in Coal Harbour and a replacement school at Lord Roberts Annex (Kurucz 2018). VBE chair Janet Fraser stated the MEd had no plans to fund the Coal Harbour school within the next 10 years and therefore the VBE were left with few options other than approving the sale (Ballard 2018). The Vancouver School Board also currently leases, for less than 10 year periods, three recently closed annexes to the BC Francophone School Board: Chief Maquinna Annex, John Henderson Annex, (CSF 2018) and Sir Wilfred Laurier Annex (Pablo 2017).

95 Toronto School District

The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) is the only board in Canada to have a subsidiary corporation managing the Board’s lands and assets. In 2008, the TDSB established the Toronto Land Corporation (TLC), a wholly owned subsidiary of the TDSB, to oversee the disposition, redevelopment, management and leasing of properties no longer operating as schools (TLC and TDSB 2014). Between April 2008 and August 2014, 65 of the 97 deemed surplus properties were sold (TLC and TDSB 2014). In September 2018, TLC’s mandate was expanded to beyond management of surplus sites to include management of all Board-wide real estate, land use planning, asset management, leasing, partnerships, and community hubs (Cite TLC Website).

Bloor Dufferin development

The Toronto Land Corporations mission and guiding principals have similarities to the North Vancouver School District’s polices and feedback from stakeholders. The TLC’s mission is “to improve the educational experience for students in TDSB schools by maximizing the benefit of TDSB real estate for students and their communities” (Cite TLC website). The mission is comparable to the NVSD Surplus Land Retention and Disposition Strategy objective of managing surplus schools as community assets and improving educational programming for students (North Vancouver School District 2011). Additionally, both the NVSD and the TLC second core principal identifies the need to modernize the public school systems to continue to deliver quality education (Cite TLC website guiding principal and 2011 land management strategy report). The TLC current strategy of developing community hubs: mixed use developments with multiple services and programs (educational, health, recreational, employment, social services) adjacent or on a TDSB active school lands reflects the public feedback from the NVSD public consultations (Cite TLC website). NVSD stakeholders generally were supportive of projects that included public benefits like daycare or affordable housing and supported multi-use of school lands for community benefits (North Vancouver School District 2012).

In Toronto, the community hub concept is being pursued with the Bloor/Dufferin Re Generation Project. The project property is 10.4 acres in size with four building located on the site: the former Kent Secondary School, closed in 2012, the Bloor

96 Collegiate Institute and Alpha Alternative School, both secondary schools located in the same building, and the former Brockton High School, closed in 1995 and currently housing a learning centre (cite TLC website and (Bozikovic 2018)). In 2016, the TLC sold 7.3 acres the land for $121.5 which includes the former Kent Secondary and the building housing the Bloor Collegiate Institute and Alpha II Alternative School (Bozikovic 2018). 3.1 acres will be retained including former Brockton Secondary which will be demolished and replaced with a new building for the Bloor Collegiate Institute and Alpha II Alternative School for a estimated cost of $30-35 million (Bozikovic 2018). The developers, Capital Developments, Timbercreek Asset Management and Metropia, purpose to build a mix of residential, office, retail spaces with community assets such as a daycare, public park, affordable housing, and a proposed 30,000 square foot community hub in the former old heritage wing of Kent Secondary School (Capital Developments & Metropia 2018a). The Ontario government will contribute $20 million to the new secondary school and the community hub (cite TLC website).

The Bloor/Dufferin Re Generation Project has many community benefits included in the development such as parks, affordable housing, and the community hub. The above community benefits reflect many of the opportunities North Vancouver residents identified in the community engagement to guide the management of surplus North Vancouver School District lands (North Vancouver School District 2012). However, the amount of affordable housing and the services provided in the community hub have to been finalized (Capital Developments & Metropia 2018a) and critics of the development are concerned that the Toronto District School Board sold valuable land they will likely be needed as the area grows (Bozikovic 2018). The concern with selling entire properties was the top concern for respondents of the NVSD engagement for the management of surplus lands (North Vancouver School District 2012). Clearly, projects like the Bloor/Dufferin Re Generation Project can provide community benefits but selling large parcels of land for high density redevelopment could lead to future land shortages for school boards and a loss of a pubic asset: for example, in the Bloor/Dufferin proposed development 62% of the 2,098 residential units are family units (Capital Developments & Metropia 2018b) likely resulting in 1000 or more additional children entering the neighborhood.

97 TDSB and City of Toronto collaboration

The City of Toronto and the Toronto District School Board have worked closely together regarding TSBS assets to maximize resources and minimize negative effects on local communities providing a valuable model for other municipalities and school districts to follow. In 2015, the City School Boards Advisory Committee was formed with 6 city councillors and 6 school trustees (City of Toronto Staff 2017). The two mandates, summarized below, of the advisory committee were:

1. To provide advise to City Council for methods to best share information between the City of Toronto and school boards serving Toronto to maximize resources and minimize negative effects on local communities

2. To foster collaboration between the City and the school boards to best address the needs of the City, school boards, and the province regarding publicly funded schools and related infrastructure (City of Toronto Staff 2017).

To accomplish the mandates the advisory committee planned to address 3 barriers to achieving shared interests between the TDSB and the City of Toronto. This paragraph will reference the TS8.3 Workplan Update: City-School Boards Advisory Committee document. Of particular interest to this study was barrier 1 and 3. Barrier 1 measured the full use of surplus schools in communities and not just by school utilization; to partially accomplish the task the advisory committee conducted a Community Asset Utilization Measurement by measuring the community use of the 23 TSBS surplus school facilities and fields using a Community Asset Evaluation Framework consisting of four categories: child care, greenspace and recreation, future growth, and community programing.

The framework scored each of the 23 surplus schools out of 25 for 3 of the four categories; the fourth category, community programing, was scored out of 15. Each school was identified as a strong, moderate, or low interests to the city for each of the four categories. Finally, all scores were summed for a score out of 90. By using this framework, the City of Toronto identified a site, Thistletown, as a site to consider acquiring. Further, the advisory committee identified five other priority community assets to explore partnership opportunities and further assess the impacts of further transit driven growth. This process relates strongly to this paper in that this research will

98 attempt to identify partial school property that can be leased long term using a similar methodology. Therefore, work by the advisory committee provides relevant practical procedures to learn from.

School site acquisition charges

The City of Vancouver does not collect SSAC while many neighboring municipalities do. Currently, Burnaby, Richmond, Delta, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey, Maple Ridge and Mission collect SSAC. Rates for SSAC are generally based upon land cost, enrollment requirements, and amounts of unused capacity within a school district (City of Surrey Staff 2003).

The Toronto School District School Board (TDSB) cannot charge SSACs, called Educational Development Charges (EDC) in Ontario, due to the TDSB district utilization being below 100%. EDC are very similar to SSAC in that they are fees collected from developers to fund the site acquisition of new schools in areas of urban growth. The TDSB is advocating for the “Ontario Government to amend the Education Development Charges Regulation (Ontario Reg. 20/98) under the Education Act to allow the TDSB to collect EDCs to help support urgent school infrastructure needs and reduce overcrowding in high-growth areas of the City” (Toronto District School Board 2018). The TDSB also argues EDC funds scope of acceptable use should expand beyond site acquisition and include cost to construct new schools, auditions, and renovations (Toronto District School Board 2018).

Literature review summary

The literature review’s key objective addressed two opposing solutions to the policy problem: closing schools and associated adaptive reuse or sale, and options to keep schools open through municipal and/or school board revenue generation. Based on the literature, either approach involved considerable tradeoffs. The most consistent theme in the literature was community opposition to potential school closures and land sales. Given societies general preferences to value land as a public asset, communities have reason to be concerned. Specifically, Giglio et al., 2015 paper analyzing large data sets on leasehold and freehold sale values in the United Kingdom and Singapore clearly demonstrate the high value people place on future benefits of real estate. Conversely,

99 (Phipps and Anglin 1993; Phipps 2008) argues school closures can have net benefits for the school district and improve education quality as low enrollment schools often lack the resources of larger schools. There are tradeoffs between operating low enrollment schools for too long and decisions to close schools and sell the land. In sum, the literature provides relevant information but no clear answers to the policy problem addressed in this paper.

100 Appendix F: Policy options not pursued

1. Bus students from over utilized schools to under utilized schools

2. School closures: but the VSB does not sell the land and instead builds mixed use building with the first 2 to 3 floors rented or leased <10 years allowing the VSB to reoccupy the floors should they be needed due to future enrollment increases.

3. Increase BC’s total per student education expenditures to the Canadian average.

4. Eliminate provincial funding of private schools.

5. Partial land sales and/or land swaps.

6. VSB acts as the developer of surplus school space to build market rental, office space etc. VSB leases or rents the space out.

7. VSB builds mixed use building with strata condos above first 2 to 3 floors in low enrollment schools requiring seismic mitigation. VSB uses the revenue from the sale or lease of above strata units to fund new schools and auditions in high growth areas. District utilization would increase because lower floors of mixed use buildings could be designed to better accommodate the catchment’s current and projected enrollment.

8. School closures and school amalgamation.

9. Moving district programs from high utilized schools to low utilized schools.

10. VSB sells surplus land to the City of Vancouver with the condition the land be used for park space. This could occur in areas of the city with a low density of park space that will likely see future densification. The City could recoup their investment through future CACs paid by developers.

11. Sale or lease of VSB owned non school property such as Kingsgate mall.

12. Charging school specific CAC in over utilized school catchments.

13. Review of Area Standards operating capacity and school site area calculations.

101 Appendix G: Closed VSB annex options

Name 2015 School Current Use On In Near Adjacent to Alternative Uses Operating Area arterial Development Frequent COV Capacity (ha) Area Transit Undeveloped Parks Garibaldi 145 0.61 Not officially No No No No Low development Annex closed but no potential: could be enrolling retained as swing space or students leased

Chief 103 0.60 Lease BC Yes No Yes (750 No Land lease for 6 story Maquinna Francophone m from rentals: i.e. Option 2 Annex School Board Renfrew Station, Millennium Line) Sir Wilfred 103 0.62 Temporary 5 No Yes Yes (500 Yes Retain land for future Laurier year Lease m to elementary school for Annex to BC Marine Dr Cambie Corridor, Francophone Station, negotiate with COV to use School Board Canada park space for school use: Line) i.e. like Crosstown

John 103 0.83 Lease BC No No No No Low development Henderson Francophone potential: could be Annex School Board retained as swing space.

102