Minutes of Meetings Held on May 10 and 26, 2010

Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Regular Meeting

June 23, 2010

A regular meeting was convened at 4:05 p.m. on Wednesday, June 23, 2010, in the Boardroom, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, with Bruce Davis, Chair of the Board, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Nadia Bello, Chris Bolton, John Campbell, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Shaun Chen, Michael Coteau, Gary Crawford, Cathy Dandy, Bruce Davis, Gerri Gershon, Howard Goodman, Scott Harrison, John Hastings, Josh Matlow, James Pasternak, Stephnie Payne, Maria Rodrigues, Mari Rutka, Chris Tonks, Sheila Ward, Soo Wong and Student Trustees Gorick Ng and Fan Wu.

1. Temporary Chair

Trustee Bolton, Vice-Chair of the Board, presided from time to time throughout the meeting.

2. Resolution Into Committee of the Whole (Private Session)

At 4:05 p.m., on motion of Trustee Goodman, seconded by Trustee Rutka, the regular meeting resolved into Committee of the Whole (Private Session) to consider matters on the private agenda of the Committee of the Whole.

3. Reconvene

At 7 p.m., the regular meeting reconvened.

4. Board and School News

Grades 4 and 5 students from Nelson Mandela Park Public School performed the national an- them and several other musical selections written specifically for their community and school.

The Chair and Trustees Wong and Payne expressed thanks and appreciation to the two student trustee, Gorick Ng and Fan Wu for their contribution during the 2009-10 school year. Student Trustee Gorick Ng introduced Zane Schwartz and Jenny Williams who will be the student trustees for the 2010-11 school year. 5. Resolution Into Committee of the Whole (Private Session)

At 7:15 p.m., on motion of Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Crawford, the regular meeting resolved into Committee of the Whole (Private Session) to consider remaining matters on the private agenda of the Committee of the Whole.

6. Reconvene

At 9:10 p.m., the regular meeting reconvened.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 515 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

7. Committee of the Whole (Private), Report No. 24, June 23, 2010 (see page 526)

Trustee Goodman, seconded by Trustee Crawford, moved: That Report No. 24 of the Com- mittee of the Whole (Private), be adopted.

The matter of surplus declarations of property shown as Item 6 on Report No. 24 (Private) of the Committee of the Whole (see page 526) was adopted on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 56, page 524).

Adoption of the remaining items was carried.

8. Memorials

The Chair expressed sympathy on behalf of the Board to the families of Cesare Giaccone and Doug Weir, Board employees who recently died. The Chair also reminded the meeting about Aqsa Parvez, a former Board student who died two years ago.

Trustee Hastings expressed sympathy on behalf of the Board to the family of Rob McConnell, a Canadian Bandleader and valve trombone player who died recently.

Trustee Bolton expressed sympathy on behalf of the Board to the family of David Melville, a former teacher and activist who supported black students and the community who died recently in Vancouver.

A moment’s silence was observed in their memory.

9. Approval of the Agenda

Trustee Harrison, seconded by Trustee Atkinson, moved: That the agenda be approved and that items identified on the agenda as urgent be considered first.

The motion was carried.

10. Negotiations Steering Committee

Trustee Rutka, seconded by Trustee Harrison, moved: That Trustees Bolton, Goodman and Harrison be appointed as members of the Negotiations Steering Committee.

The motion was carried.

11. Director’s Leadership Report

The Director introduced Donna Quan, Angelos Bacopoulos and Marika Bourque, who have been appointed to the positions of Deputy Director, Academics, Chief Facilities Officer and Chief Technology Officer, respectively.

The Director also expressed sincere appreciation for many years of dedicated service to the following employees who are retiring by the end of the summer: Nancy Cummins, Don Higgins, Melanie Parrack and Michael Smith.

516 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

12. Matters to be Decided Without Discussion

Trustee Goodman, seconded by Trustee Crawford, moved: That the following matters presented as matters to be decided without discussion be approved or received, as appropriate:

(a) Confirmation of Minutes of Meetings Held on May 10 and 26, 2010

(b) Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 (see page 530)

1 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1616] 2 Mimico Adult Learning Centre, Ward 3 Partnership with Women’s Habitat Shelter [1611] 3 Playground Learning Environments Update [1602] 4 Deep Retrofit of Nelson Mandela Park Public School Incorporating a Child Care 31Facility: Program and Sketch Plan [1614] 5 Relief School for Thorncliffe Park Public School: Program and Sketch Plan [1615] 6 Accommodation of Students from 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590] 7 Columbariums Near Schools

1 Respectful Learning and Working Environment Policy [1580] 2 Workplace Violence Prevention Policy [1579] 3 Occasional Teaching Assignments

(d) Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 15, June 7, 2010 (see page 580)

1 Request for Ministry Enquiry on Special Education Financing Base

(e) Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 13, June 9, 2010 (see page 604)

2 School Effectiveness District Reviews

(f) Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 15, June 16, 2010 (see page 586)

1 Contract Awards [1624] 2 Stop Arm Cameras on School Buses [1627]

(g) Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 14, April 12, 2010 (For receipt) (see page 602)

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 517 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

(h) Communication From Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of Education, dated April 15, 2010, re Green Clean Program and the Ministry’s Green Clean Program (For receipt)

(i) Communication From the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, dated May 2010, re the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship (For receipt)

(j) Communication From the Lakehead District School Board, dated May 19, 2010, re Regional Environmental Education Leads (REELs) (For receipt)

(k) Communication From the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, dated June 4, 2010, re Implementation of the Early Learning Program (For receipt)

The motion was carried.

13. Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 13 (Part 2), May 10, 2010 (see page 604)

Trustee Bello, seconded by Trustee Chen, moved: That Items 1 and 2 of Report No. 13 (Part 2) of the Planning and Priorities Committee be adopted.

re Item 1, Accommodation Review: Heron Park Junior Public School, Peter Secor Junior Public School, Joseph Brant Senior Public School, Eastview Junior Public School, William G. Miller Junior Public School: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1592] (see page 604)

Trustee Goodman, seconded by Trustee Gershon, moved in amendment: That Parts (f) and (g) be amended by deleting “no later than September 2012.”

The amendment was carried on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 57, page 524). Student Trustee Wu voted in favour.

Parts (a), (b), (c), (d), and (i), and (f) and (g) as amended, were carried on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 58, page 524). Student Trustee Wu voted in favour.

Parts (e) and (h) were carried on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 59, page 524).

re Item 2, Accommodation Review: Chief Dan George PS-Brooks Road PS-Meadowvale- Sheppard Site-John Diefenbaker PS-Highcastle PS: Response to Recommendations of Accom- modation Review Committee [1591] (see page 605)

Trustee Ward, seconded by Trustee Goodman, moved in amendment: That Part (iv) be amended by changing “with appropriate resources” with “in the two new locations with resources equal to, at a minimum, what was available in the dual-track school for textbooks library resources, etc.”

The amendment was carried.

518 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

The motion to adopt Item 2 of Report No. 13 (Part 2) of the Planning and Priorities Committee, as amended, was carried on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 60, page 524). Student Trustees Ng and Wu voted in favour.

14. Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, May 31, 2010 (see page 616)

Trustee Wong, seconded by Trustee Chen, moved: That Report No. 15 of the Planning and Priorities Committee be adopted.

re Item 1, Accommodation Review: Highland Heights Jr PS-Timberbank Jr PS-Lynnwood- Heights Jr PS: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1613] (see page 616)

Item 1 was carried on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 61, page 524). Student Trustees Ng and Wu voted in favour. re Item 2, Accommodation Review: McCowan Road Jr PS-Cedarbrook Jr PS-Knob Hill- Jr PS- John McCrae Sr PS-Pringdale Gardens Jr PS-Charles Gordon Sr PS: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1606] (see page 617)

Item 2 was carried on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 62, page 524). Student Trustees Ng and Wu voted in favour re Item 3, Accommodation Review: Davisville Jr PS-Maurice Cody Jr PS-Hodgson Sr PS- Eglinton Jr PS-Spectrum Alternative Sr School: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1600] (see page 618)

Trustee Matlow, seconded by Trustee Goodman, moved in amendment: That a school presence be maintained at the Davisville Junior Public School/Metropolitan Toronto School for the Deaf, Maurice Cody Junior Public School, Eglinton Public School, and Hodgson Senior Public School sites.

The amendment was carried on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 63, page 524). Student Trustee Ng voted in favour

The main motion to adopt Report No. 15 of the Planning and Priorities Committee, as amended, was carried.

15. Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 16, June 14, 2010 (see page 631)

Trustee Tonks, seconded by Trustee Bello, moved: That Report No. 16 of the Planning and Priorities Committee be adopted.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 519 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Item 1, Accommodation Review of Keelesdale Junior Public School, Silverthorn Junior Public School, Kane Middle School, and C.E. Webster Junior Public School: Response to Recommen- dations of Accommodation Review Committee [1620] (see page 631)

Item 1 was carried on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 64, page 524). Student Trustees Ng and Wu voted in favour re Item 2, Accommodation Review: Kent Sr PS-ALPHA II Alternative School-Dovercourt Jr PS-Pauline Jr PS-Brock Jr PS: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1598] (see page 632)

Trustee Bolton, seconded by Trustee Rodrigues, moved: That consideration of the matter be postponed until another public meeting can be held.

The motion to postpone consideration was defeated on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 65, page 524). Student Trustees Ng and Wu voted in favour

Item 2 was carried on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 66, page 524). Student Trustees Ng and Wu voted in favour re Item 3, Accommodation Review of J.R. Wilcox Community School, Cedarvale Community School, Arlington Middle School, Rawlinson Community School And Humewood Community School: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1621] (see page 633)

Trustee Matlow, seconded by Trustee Ward, moved in amendment: That the following be added: “That an SK Early French Immersion program be considered for Humewood Community School and that the French as a Second Language Advisory Committee be consulted on any modifications to French Immersion and Extended French programs arising out of the accommodation review.”

The amendment was carried.

Item 3, as amended, was carried on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 67, page 524). Student Trustee Ng voted in favour

The motion to adopt Report No. 16 of the Planning and Priorities Committee, as amended, was carried.

16. Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17, June 21, 2010 (see page 648)

Trustee Harrison, seconded by Trustee Chen, moved: That Item 1 of Report No. 17 (Part 1) of the Planning and Priorities Committee be adopted.

re Item 1, Building for Tomorrow: Five-year Capital Building Program [1633] (see page 648)

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Rodrigues, moved in amendment: That Part (viii) H. be amended to read: “$1.5 million annually (30 sites at $50,000 per site) for a total of $7.5 million over five years to address Playground Learning Environments, Phase II. 520 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Trustee Harrison, seconded by Trustee Hastings, moved: That consideration of the amendment be postponed until a funding strategy is approved by the Ministry of Education.

The motion to postpone consideration was defeated on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 68, page 524). Student Trustees Ng and Wu voted against.

The amendment was defeated.

The main motion to adopt Item 1 of the Planning and Priorities Committee was carried on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 69, page 524).

17. Operations and Facilities Management Committee (Special Meeting), Report No. 16, June 21, 2010 (see page 669)

Trustee Ward, seconded by Trustee Goodman, moved: That Report No. 16 of the Operations and Facilities Management Committee be adopted.

The motion was carried.

18. Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 15 (Part 1), June 16, 2010 (see page 586)

Trustee Goodman, seconded by Trustee Rutka, moved: That Item 3 of Report No. 15 of the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee be adopted. re Item 3, Early Learning Program Before- And After-School Programs Implementation and Fee [1631] (see page 587)

Trustee Cary-Meagher, seconded by Trustee Bolton, moved in amendment: That Part (a) be amended by changing “$30.25” to “a range of between $20.00 and $30.00 based on the school’s ranking on the Learning Opportunities Index.”

Trustee Campbell, seconded by Trustee Crawford, moved: That consideration of the amendment be postponed indefinitely.

The motion to postpone indefinitely was carried.

The main motion to adopt Item 3 of Report No. 15 of the Administration, Finance and Account- ability Committee was carried.

19. Postponed Items

Consideration of the following items was postponed to a future meeting:

(a) Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 2), June 21, 2010 1 West Toronto Surplus 2 Timothy Eaton Surplus Declaration (b) Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 12 (Part 2), March 24, 2010

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 521 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

4 Full Market Price for Surplus Property 2 Surplus Declaration: Essex West Building [1555] (c) Toronto Lands Corporation’s Annual Budget 2010-11 (d) Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 13 (Part 2), May 10, 2010 4 General Decisions re Accommodation Review Committees (e) Human Resources and Professional Learning Committee, Report No. 12 (Part 2), June 2, 2010 4 Updating Requirements for an Executive Search Firm (f) Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 15 (Part 2), June 7, 2010 2 Creation of Position of Parent/Guardian Facilitator, Special Education 3 Membership of the Committee (g) Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 13 (Part 2), June 9, 2010 1 Transition to Digital Textbooks 3 Review of Professional Support Services 4 Establishment of a Children and Youth Mental Health Committee (h) Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 15 (Part 2), June 9, 2010 4 Paperless Board and Committee Meetings 5 French Course Costs 6 Student Activity Fees and Course Cost Fees (i) Cold Beverage Vending Contract with Pepsi (Trustees Harrison and Campbell) (j) Cold Beverage Vending (Trustees Wong and Student Trustee Ng) (k) School Water Fountain Inventory and Repair (Trustees Wong and Student Trustee Ng) (l) Membership of the Conduct and Ethics Review Committee (m) Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 12 (Part 2), May 5, 2010 1 Programs, Strategies and Re-engagement Opportunities for 18 to 20-Year Olds [1585] Referred without recommendation 4 Stop-Gap Lighthouse Program at Northern Secondary School (n) Health committee, Report No. 10 (Part 2), May 5, 2010 2 Proposed Tunnel to the Island Airport and Impact on The Waterfront School 3 Toronto Public Health Breastfeeding-Friendly Environment (o) Legal Expenses for Trustee Election Candidates (Trustees Matlow and Tonks) (p) Director’s Vision of Hope: Professional Development Event (Trustees Matlow and Harri- son) (q) Bucket Trucks (Trustees Hastings and Wong)

522 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

(r) Communication From Elizabeth Fulford, Chair, District School Board of Niagara, dated February 22, 2010, re Trustee Honorarium (s) Communication From the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, dated June 3, 2010, re Language Support and Settlement Services for Immigrant Children and Youth

20. Extension of the Meeting

At the appropriate time during the meeting, the Ending Time procedure was applied and the meeting was extended.

21. Adjournment

At 12:10 a.m., Thursday, June 24, 2010, on motion of Trustee Chen, seconded by Trustee Rutka, the meeting adjourned.

Bruce Davis Chair

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 523 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Recorded Vote Number

56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Trustee (see p. 516) (see p. 518) (see p. 518) (see p. 518) (see p. 519) (see p. 519) (see p. 519) (see p. 519)

Atkinson Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Bello Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Bolton N Y N N N Y N Y Campbell Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Cary-Meagher A N N N N N N N Chen Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Coteau Y Y N N N Y N Y Crawford Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Dandy Y Y N N N Y N Y Davis * * * * * * * * Gershon Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Goodman Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Harrison Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Hastings A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Matlow Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Pasternak A Y Y Y Y Y A Y Payne Y Y N N A A A Y Rodrigues N Y N N N Y N Y Rutka Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Tonks A Y Y Y A A Y Y Ward Y Y Y Y Y Y A A Wong Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Total Y 15 19 15 15 14 18 13 18 Total N 2 2 6 6 5 1 5 1 Total A and C 4 0 0 0 2 2 3 2 Y Vote in favour N Vote against A Absent * No vote cast (the Chair). The Board’s Bylaws, Section 154 states: “The chair may vote once on each motion considered by the Board.” N* No vote cast. The Board’s Bylaws, Section 15.3 states: A member of the Board, except the chair, who is present and who fails to vote on a motion shall be deemed to have voted against the motion. C Absent due to declaration of a possible conflict of interest

524 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Recorded Vote Number

64 65 66 67 68 69 Trustee (see p. 520) (see p. 520) (see p. 520) (see p. 520) (see p. 521) (see p. 521)

Atkinson Y N Y Y N Y Bello A N Y Y Y Y Bolton Y Y N N N Y Campbell Y N Y Y Y Y Cary-Meagher N Y N N A Y Chen Y Y N Y N Y Coteau N Y N Y N Y Crawford Y N Y Y N Y Dandy N Y N N Y Y Davis * * * * * * Gershon Y N Y Y Y Y Goodman Y N Y Y Y Y Harrison Y N Y Y Y Y Hastings A N Y Y Y Y Matlow Y N* Y Y Y Y Pasternak Y Y Y Y N Y Payne N Y N N N N Rodrigues N Y N N N N Rutka Y N Y Y Y Y Tonks Y N Y Y N Y Ward A A A N Y Y Wong Y Y N N N Y Total Y 13 9 12 14 10 19 Total N 5 11 8 7 10 2 Total A and C 3 1 1 0 1 0 Y Vote in favour N Vote against A Absent * No vote cast (the Chair). The Board’s Bylaws, Section 154 states: “The chair may vote once on each motion considered by the Board.” N* No vote cast. The Board’s Bylaws, Section 15.3 states: A member of the Board, except the chair, who is present and who fails to vote on a motion shall be deemed to have voted against the motion. C Absent due to declaration of a possible conflict of interest

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 525 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Committee of the Whole, Report No. 24 (Private), June 23, 2010

Committee of the Whole (Private)

Report No. 24

June 23, 2010 A regular meeting of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session) was convened at 4:05 p.m., Wednesday, June 23, 2010, in the Boardroom at 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario with Chris Bolton, Vice-Chair of the Board, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Nadia Bello, Chris Bolton, John Campbell, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Shaun Chen, Michael Coteau, Gary Crawford, Cathy Dandy, Bruce Davis, Gerri Gershon, Howard Goodman, Scott Harrison, John Hastings, Josh Matlow, James Pasternak, Stephnie Payne, Maria Rodrigues, Mari Rutka, Chris Tonks, Sheila Ward and Soo Wong. Trustee Gershon participated for part of the meeting by electronic means and for part in person.

1. Appointment of Chief Academic Officer

The Committee considered a staff report (as show in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole)

The Committee of the Whole (Private) RECOMMENDS that appointed Manon Gardner to the position of Chief Academic Officer effective September, 1, 2010.

2. Selections, Transfers and Placements of Principals and Vice-principals

The Committee considered a report from staff (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) presenting selections, transfers and placements of principals and vice-principals for approval.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the selections, transfers and placements of principals and vice-principals be approved.

3. Staff Changes

The Committee considered a report from staff presenting staff changes (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) for approval.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the staff changes be approved.

4. Private Personnel Matter

The Committee of the Whole (Private) RECOMMENDS that a private personnel matter (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be approved.

526 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Committee of the Whole, Report No. 24 (Private), June 23, 2010

5. Toronto Lands Corporation’s Annual Plan 2010-11

The Committee considered a report from the Toronto Lands Corporation (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) presenting the annual plan for 2010-11.

The Committee of the Whole (Private) RECOMMENDS that the Toronto Lands Corporation’s Annual Plan 2010-11 (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be approved.

6. Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Private), June 21, 2010

The Committee of the Whole (Private) RECOMMENDS that Report No. 17 (Private) of the Planning and Priorities Committee (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be approved, including:

Declarations of Surplus for Properties in the Toronto Lands Corporation Portfolio

That the following properties be declared surplus to the needs of the Board and be referred to the Toronto Lands Corporation for disposition in accordance with disposition parameters identified for each site:

(i) Parkview, 85 Forty First Street;

(ii) Pine River Outdoor Education Centre, RR#3, Shelburne;

Central Administrative and Headquarters Site Selection

That the guiding principles and key success factors for an administrative space realignment (see page 529) be approved.

7. Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 16 (Private), June 21, 2010

The Committee of the Whole (Private) RECOMMENDS that Report No. 16 (Private) of the Op- erations and Facilities Management Committee (as shown in the private minutes of the Commit- tee of the Whole) be approved, including:

Central Commerce Collegiate Institute, Proposed Lease to Ontario Early Years, 570 Shaw Street, Ward 10

(a) That a approximately 7,000 square feet of space at Central Commerce Collegiate Institute, as presented in the report, be declared surplus to the needs of the Board and made available for lease to the Ontario Early Years;

(b) That the 7,000 square feet surplus space at Central Commerce Collegiate Institute be referred to the Toronto Lands Corporation for lease as set out in the disposition parameters presented in the report.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 527 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Committee of the Whole, Report No. 24 (Private), June 23, 2010

Oak Park Centre, Proposed Lease to Boss Solarthermal, 286 Oak Park Avenue, Ward 16

(a) That approximately 5,500 square feet of space at Oak Park Centre, as presented in the report, be declared surplus to the needs of the Board and made available for lease to Boss So- larthermal;

(b) That the 5,500 square feet of surplus space at Oak Park Centre be referred to the Toronto Lands Corporation for lease as set out in the disposition parameters presented in the report.

8. Human Resources and Professional Learning Committee, Report No. 12 (Pri- vate), June 2, 2010

The Committee of the Whole (Private) RECOMMENDS that Report No. 12 (Private) of the Human Resources and Professional Learning Committee (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be received.

9. Private Property Matter

The Committee of the Whole (Private) RECOMMENDS that a private property matter (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be received.

10. Private Negotiations Matter

The Committee of the Whole (Private) RECOMMENDS that a private matter (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be received and that the Negotiations Steering Committee be re-established.

Chris Bolton Chair of the Committee

Adopted June 23, 2010

528 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Committee of the Whole, Report No. 24 (Private), June 23, 2010 Guiding Principles and Key Success Factors for an Administrative Space Realignment

Guiding Principles and Key Success Factors for an Administrative Space Realignment (as approved by the Board on June 23, 2010 (see page 527)

1a. Guiding Principles  Promote community involvement;  Maintain a public profile;  Provide easy access for the public and staff;  Provide access by public transit;  Require no land acquisition;  Support integrated service delivery through partnerships;  Generate revenue or provide other opportunities from existing administrative sites.

The buildings and site should be:  Centrally located;  Barrier free;  Energy efficient;  Be consistent with neighbourhood context  Provide adequate parking for staff and community;  Provide an agile, technically appropriate work environment for the 21st century.

1b. Key Success Factors Staff presented the following key success factors and recommends that they be met before any administrative space realignment is undertaken.

i. Achieve the Guiding Principles for Administrative Space Model  A new model must meet the administrative objectives as set by the Board.

ii. Generate Capital for Schools  Given the Board’s unfunded capital deficit in the order of $50 million and $2.8 billion back log in school renewal the net result of any new administrative model should generate significant dollars for capital investments;  The goal is to minimize capital expenditures for administrative functions and maximize capital revenue for schools.

iii. Reduce Operating Costs  The Board has a significant operating deficit; a new administrative model should reduce long-term operating costs.

iv. Realize an Effective Organizational Model to Serve Schools and Communities  Today, administrative staff is accommodated in 9 sites across the city;  A new administrative model should centralize the staff which needs to work together and decentralize the appropriate regional and quadrant staff to bring them closer to the schools they serve.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 529 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee

Report No. 15, June 2, 2010

A regular meeting of the Operations and Facilities Management Committee convened on Wednesday, June 2, 2010, from 4:05 to 5:50 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Gary Crawford presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Gary Crawford (Chair), Shaun Chen, Gerri Ger- shon, Howard Goodman and Soo Wong. Also present were Trustees Irene Atkinson, Chris Bol- ton, Sheila Cary-Meagher and James Pasternak. Trustees Atkinson, Chen, Goodman and Paster- nak participated by electronic means. Trustee Bolton participated for part of the meeting by electronic means and for part in person.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Contract Awards, Facility Services [1616]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 535) presenting contract awards. The Com- mittee received the contracts in Chart A and approved the contracts in Chart B.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Wong the Operations and Facilities Management Committee RECOM- MENDS that the contracts on Chart C, as presented in the report, be approved.

2. Mimico Adult Learning Centre, Partnership with Women’s Habitat Shelter [1611] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 542) presenting recommendations for the disposition of property at the Mimico Adult Learning Centre.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

530 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010

On motion of Trustee Wong, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee RECOM- MENDS:

(a) That a land parcel of approximately 11,200 square feet situated along the Royal York frontage of the Mimico Adult Learning Centre site, as presented in the report, be declared surplus and made available for long-term land lease to Women’s Habitat;

(b) That the Mimico Centre surplus land parcel be referred to the Toronto Lands Corporation for disposition as set out in the disposition parameters as presented in the report.

Staff undertook to present a briefing note on status of the North Toronto Collegiate Institute rebuild.

3. Playground Learning Environments Update [1602] On motion of Trustee Wong, the Committee received a report (see page 545) presenting an update on the playground learning environment program.

On motion of Trustee Wong, on behalf of Trustee Atkinson, and amended by Trustee Goodman, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee RECOMMENDS:

Whereas, Phase One of the Playground Learning Environments program has been ongoing for ten years and is still incomplete; and

Whereas, 127 schools still remain outstanding at an estimated cost of $6 million; and

Whereas, 22 schools still have no playground equipment; and

Whereas, the cost to install equipment at these22 sites is estimated at $1.9 million; and

Whereas, assuming the current rate of funding, Phase One will not be completed until 2013;

Therefore, be it resolved:

(a) That Phase One of the Playground Learning Environments Project be completed as planned;

(b) That the Director present a report on possible sources of funding to permit an annual allocation of $3 million, which will cover 60 sites at $50,000 per site per year, to proceed with Phase Two of the Playground Learning Environments Projects.

On amendment of Trustee Goodman, “That the Director present a report on possible sources of funding to permit” replaced the words, “That commencing immediately” and “be provided in the budget”.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 531 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010

4. Deep Retrofit of Nelson Mandela Park Public School Incorporating a Child Care Facility: Program and Sketch Plan [1614] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 554) presenting recommendations for the retrofit of Nelson Mandela Park Public School.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Gershon, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee REC- OMMENDS that a 97,992-square-foot renovation of Nelson Mandela Park Public School to accommodate 658 students at a cost of $17.4 million funded by the Ministry of Education, and a child care facility of 8,800 square feet, at a cost of $3.5 million funded by the City of Toronto, be approved.

5. Relief School for Thorncliffe Park Public School: Program and Sketch Plan [1615] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 557) presenting recommendations for the construction of a relief school for Thorncliffe Park Public School.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Gershon, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee REC- OMMENDS that on the site of Thorncliffe Park Public School, construction of a second school of 72,280 square feet for an enrolment of 698 JK-SK students and at a cost of $16.06 million funded by the Ministry of Education, and a child care centre of 11,668 square feet, at a cost of $3.8 million funded by the City of Toronto, be approved.

6. Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 557) seeking approval for the designation of an elementary school to accommodate students from a new residential development.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

532 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010

On motion of Trustee Wong, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee RECOM- MENDS that Muirhead Public School be the designated school to accommodate junior students from a new residential development at 2025 Sheppard Avenue East.

Staff undertook to alert the City of Toronto to the potential crossing of students at Sheppard Ave- nue to attend Muirhead Public School.

7. Columbariums Near Schools On motion of Trustee Wong, amended by Trustees Goodman and Bolton, the Operations and Fa- cilities Management Committee RECOMMENDS:

Whereas, some cultures are averse to being near human remains; and

Whereas, a school’s proximity to a columbarium1, or similar site, could result in a large number of Optional Attendance applications; and

Whereas, the issue of columbariums in neighbourhoods could possibly become a human rights issue;

Therefore, be it resolved that the Director approach the City of Toronto to request that, as part of the review of its official plan, the City review its approvals for the location of columbariums with sensitivity to its impact near school sites.

On amendment of Trustee Goodman, “the Director approach the City of Toronto” replaced the words “the City be requested to review permissions for”.

On amendment of Trustee Bolton, “as part of the review of its official plan” was added.

Part B: Information Only

8. Delegations The Committee heard the following oral delegations in accordance with the Board’s procedure for hearing delegations. re Use of land adjacent to Ester Shine Stadium

 Flynn Beharry, North York Hearts Soccer Club

1 a facility designed for the internment or storage of cremated human remains G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 533 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010

Staff undertook to discuss the matter and to advise on the next steps. re Potential Development in West Toronto

 Chris Glover

Staff undertook to discuss the future of West Toronto at a future meeting.

re Mimico Adult Learning Centre, Ward 3, Partnership with Women’s Habitat [1611]

 Rhonda Roffey, Executive Director, Women’s Habitat

9. Quarterly Construction Update, September 1, 2009 to February 28, 2010 [1612] On motion of Trustee Chen, the Committee received a staff report (see page 561) presenting information on the major construction projects undertaken from September 1, 2009 to February 28, 2010.

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report

Gary Crawford Chair of the Committee Adopted June 23, 2010

534 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1616]

Contract Awards, Facility Services [1616]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on June 2, 2010 (see page 530 ).

In accordance with the Board's policy P.017: Purchasing, the attached charts present contracts for receipt or approval, as appropriate.

The recommended suppliers and the term of each contract are shown in the attached charts. Chart 1 outlines contract awards provided for information; Chart 2 outlines contracts requiring Operations and Facilities Management Committee approval; and Chart 3 outlines contracts requiring Board approval. The amounts shown are based on the estimated annual consumption unless indicated otherwise. Actual amounts depend on the volume of products/services actually used during the term of the contract.

Chart 4 is a summary of contract awards for selected Facility Service projects for the period Sep- tember 2006 to date.

The Process

Contractors bidding on Board construction/maintenance projects must be pre-qualified. Consid- eration is given to bonding ability, financial stability, depth of experience, references, on-site safety record, and proof of union affiliation (applies to projects less than $1M or additions less than 500 square feet). Issuing a market call to pre-qualify is periodically advertised in Daily Commercial News and two electronic bulletin boards (MERX and BiddinGo) to facilitate broader public access.

The lowest cost bid is accepted where quality, functional, safety, environmental and other requirements are met. Every effort is made to include input from the users in the development of specifications and the evaluation process. Copies of all bids received and detailed information regarding all recommended awards are available in the Purchasing and Distribution Services De- partment.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 535 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1616]

Chart 1: Facilities Contract Awards Provided for Information (over $50,000 and up to $250,000)

User/Budget Lo No. of Estimated Holder Recommended Objec- Projected Start/End Customer In- Funding Products/Services Details Ward w Bids Annual School/Departme Supplier tions Date of Contract volvement Source Bid Rec’d Amount nt OTHER Supply of Air Filters #MJ08-108T N/ Dafco Filtration April 10, 2010/ Facility Ser- 1 Facility Services Exercising the one-year extension Yes No 6 $134,069 Operations A Group April 11, 2011 vices option on the current contract. Provision of pulse outputs at 123 locations to provide connections N/ April, 2010/ Facility Ser- Energy Effi- 2 Facility Services of electrical meters for the imple- Toronto Hydro N/A No 11 $60,100 A April, 2010 vices cient Schools mentation of the Computerized Energy Management System. Upgrade/Renew Foundation Wall June 21, 2010/ Facility Ser- Good Places 3 Facility Services at Forest Hill PS CN10-138Q 11 Inter-All Ltd. Yes No 4 $62,500 July 16, 2010 vices to Learn Foundation wall leaking Art Venetian Blind $18,800 Cleaning of Drapery & Blinds Schools and

MJ10-161Q for Various Schools N/ Cleanol Services June, 2010/ Facility Ser- Administra- 4 Facility Services Yes No 6 $13,826 on an “as and when required” A May, 2013 vices tive Depart-

basis On-Site Drapery ments $3,665 Cleaners Proceeds from the Sale

of North Redevelopment of North Toronto Delonte October, 2010/ Facility Ser- 5 Facility Services 11 Yes No 2 2 $160,560 Toronto CI C.I. – Site Services August, 2011 vices Land and

Capital Re- serve Proceeds from the Sale

of North Redevelopment of North Toronto Roman Metals March, 2010/ Facility Ser- 6 Facility Services 11 Yes No 2 3 $128,600 Toronto CI C.I. – Metal Fabrication September, 2010 vices Land and

Capital Re- serve Bering $89,905

Gas pipe testing at 60 schools Standards N/ June, 2010/ Facility Ser- 7 Facility Services RB10-168T See below for spe- Gorbern Yes No 5 $107,900 and Compli- A August 31, 2010 vices cific locations ance

M. Schultz $35,200

536 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1616]

User/Budget Lo No. of Estimated Holder Recommended Objec- Projected Start/End Customer In- Funding Products/Services Details Ward w Bids Annual School/Departme Supplier tions Date of Contract volvement Source Bid Rec’d Amount nt Revitaliza- Winston Churchill C.I. Replace- tion ment of Dust Collector RB10- N/ May, 2010/ Facility Ser- 8 Facility Services Dunford Liscio Yes No 7 $195,000 Program 167T Not feasible to repair old A August 30, 2010 vices (SFRMP- one Capital Delisle Program Move At George Harvey C.I. CN10-177T. The Delisle Program needs to be relo- Classic Construc- June, 2010/ Facility Ser- 9 Facility Services 6 Yes No 5 $205,200 Site-Funded cated from D. B. Hood to George tion Company August 6, 2010 vices Harvey.

Music Classroom at Georges Revitaliza- Vanier S.S. STM10-178T Music Classic Construc- May, 2010/ Facility Ser- tion Program 10 Facility Services 17 Yes No 7 $210,800 Classroom to support One World tion Company August 20, 2010 vices (SFRMP- Youth Arts Project Capital) 1 Sole Source product/services from Toronto Hydro 2 Four (4) contractors invited to bid; 2 responses received 3 Three (3) contractors invited to bid; 2 responses received

Chart 2: Facilities Contracts Requiring Operations and Facilities Management Committee Approval (over $250,000 and up to $500,000)

User/Budget No. of Estimated Projected Holder Recommended Low Customer Funding Products/Services Details Ward Objections Bids Annual Start/End Date of School/Departme Supplier Bid Involvement Source Rec’d Amount Contract nt BOILERS Boiler Replacement at Lescon PS CN10-180T. One boiler inopera- May, 2010/ Ram Mechanical Facility Ser- Good Places 1 Facility Services tive and beyond repair; second 17 Yes No 8 $445,900 September 24, Ltd. vices to Learn boiler operating at reduced capac- 2010 ity and beyond repair. OTHER Revitaliza- Greenhouse Addition at Don Mills Dole Contracting June, 2010/ Facility Ser- tion Program 2 Facility Services C.I. STM10-157T Program Up- 17 Yes No 4 $316,899 Inc. August 20, 2010 vices (SFRMP- grade Capital) G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 537 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1616]

User/Budget No. of Estimated Projected Holder Recommended Low Customer Funding Products/Services Details Ward Objections Bids Annual Start/End Date of School/Departme Supplier Bid Involvement Source Rec’d Amount Contract nt Carpentry Wood Shop Alterations Revitaliza- at Lakeshore C.I. CN10-160T tion Relocation of existing wood shop Program June ,2010/ Facility Ser- 3 Facility Services from Timothy Eaton BTI to Lake- 3 Ross & Anglin Yes No 7 $405,472 (SFRMP- August 31, 2010 vices shore CI part of the Wood Links Capital) Program

Proceeds from the Sale

of North Redevelopment of North Toronto October, 2010/ Facility Ser- 4 Facility Services 11 Magine Yes No 3 $325,000 Toronto CI C.I. – Excavation April, 2011 vices Land and

Capital Re- serve Proceeds from the Sale

Canadian Road of North Redevelopment of North Toronto August, 2010/ Facility Ser- 5 Facility Services 11 Construction & Yes No 2 4 $436,000 Toronto CI C.I. – Formwork April, 2011 vices Engineering Co. Land and

Capital Re- serve

Parkside ES RB10-155T Yard West Metro Con- June, 2010/ Facility Ser- Good Places 6 Facility Services improvements Site and lot up- 16 Yes No 4 $270,620 tracting August 27, 2010 vices to Learn grades

Window Replacement at Oriole Park P.S. RB10-139T Existing Phoenix Restora- June, 2010/ Facility Ser- Energy Effi- 7 Facility Services 11 Yes No 7 $477,381 windows are deteriorated beyond tion August 20, 2010 vices cient Schools repair. Window Replacement & Exterior Closure Upgrade at Adam Beck PS CN10-145T Existing windows, Dole Contracting June, 2010/ Facility Ser- Energy Effi- 8 Facility Services 16 Yes No 6 $445,620 exterior closure and Cluster Col- Inc. August 20, 2010 vices cient Schools umns are deteriorated and needs restoration. 4 Four (4) contractors invited to bid; 2 responses received

538 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1616]

Chart 3: Facilities Contracts Requiring Board Approval (over $500,000 and Consulting Services over $50,000)

User/Budget No. of Estimated Projected Holder Recommended Low Objec- Customer In- Funding Products/Services Details Ward Bids Annual Start/End Date of School/Departmen Supplier Bid tions volvement Source Rec’d Amount Contract t OTHER Window Replacement & Cluster Column Repairs at Niagara St PS. CN10-140T. June, 2010/ Façade retrofit due to dete- Limen Group Facility Ser- Energy Effi- 1 Facility Services 10 Yes No 8 $858,300 September 28, riorated envelope compo- Ltd. vices cient Schools 2010 nents (windows, masonry and cluster columns).

Window Replacement & Exterior Closure Upgrade at Wilkinson PS. CN10-148T Existing windows, exterior Dole Contract- June, 2010/ Facility Ser- Energy Effi- 2 Facility Services 15 Yes No 6 $1,031,420 closure and Cluster Columns ing Inc. August 20, 2010 vices cient Schools are deteriorated and needs restoration.

Consulting services to de- Facility Ser- velop a 10-Year Strategic vices and Eco- Energy Plan to reduce Build- June, 2010/ logical Liter- ing Related Green House Jones Lang Ministry 3 Facility Services N/A No No 5 10 $108,140 February, 2011 acy & Sustain- Gas Emissions, as per action LaSalle Grant able Develop- 1a) of the Go Green Climate ment Depart- Action Plan. ment DW10-111P Proceeds from the Sale of Redevelopment of North REC Demoli- August, 2010/ Facility Ser- North Toronto 4 Facility Services 11 Yes No 5 $780,000 Toronto C.I. – Demolition tion February, 2011 vices CI Land and Capital Re- serve

Supply of Various Locks & Hardware Hardware to TDSB Stock- Facility Op- Agencies $78,851 June, 2010/ Facility Ser- 5 Facility Services rooms and TDSB Sites N/A Yes No 4 erations & May, 2014 vices SXM10-159T. Supply of Renewal Jovan Distribu- $65,015 6 stock for use by trades staff tors

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 539 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1616]

User/Budget No. of Estimated Projected Holder Recommended Low Objec- Customer In- Funding Products/Services Details Ward Bids Annual Start/End Date of School/Departmen Supplier Bid tions volvement Source Rec’d Amount Contract t Proceeds from the Sale of March, 2011/ Artificial Turf at North To- Facility Ser- North Toronto 6 Facility Services 11 Dol Turf Yes No 2 7 $569,741 September, 2011 ronto CI. vices CI Land and

Capital Re- serve

Supply of Aluminum Win- dow Extrusions for 95 Short- Can-Art Alu- June, 2010/ Facility Ser- Good Places 7 Facility Services n/a Yes No 2 $500,000 8 ing (Glass Shop) material minum May, 2012 vices to Learn required to process windows

5 While not the lowest priced proposal, the JLL bid scored highest in the overall evaluation. 6 Represents cost savings of 10.5% in comparison to current contracts. 7 Four (4) contractors invited to bid; 2 responses received 8 proposed contract pricing approximately 4.65% higher than current contract

Chart 4: Summary of Select Facilities Contracts: (September 1, 2009 to Present)

Total Num- Total 2009/10 Total Total Number of Total Number Total 2008/09 ber of Pro- Contract Project Classification Expenditures Projects for this of Projects Contract jects 2009/10 Awards Re- Report 2008/09 Awards For this Report to date ported to Date Boilers $445,900 1 2 $669,900 4 $3,777,220

Roofing $0 0 14 $1,813,012 25 $3,027,096

Building Automation Sys- $0 0 3 $293,455 13 $1,571,238 tems (BAS) Heating Ventilation Air $0 0 1 $130,000 11 $2,434,932 Conditioning (HVAC)

540 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1616]

Swimming Pools $0 0 28 $8,442,356 1 $105,000 Ministry Grant – Primary $0 0 0 0 0 $0 Class Size Cap

TOTAL $445,900 1 48 $11,709,863 54 $10,915,486

Gas Pipe Testing Sites

Donview MS Zion Heights JHS Kipling Grove Sir Oliver Mowat CI Hillmount PS Dennis Ave. Community John Buchan PS Adult Basic L.C. Kingslake PS Fairbank Memorial C.S. Lynwood Heights PS Highbrook L.C. Lescon PS George Webster PS Maryvale PS Oakwood CI McNicoll PS Presteign Heights PS Meadowvale PS Parkdale CI Muirhead PS William Burgess PS Milliken PS Riverdale CI Newtonbrook SS Cloverdale Morrish PS Allenby PS Pineway PS Elmelea JS Percy Williams PS Alpha/Brant Rene Gordon ES Etienne Brule JS Silver Springs PS Annette PS Roywood PS George R Gauld Sir Samuel B Steele PS Bedford Park PS Seneca Hill PS Greenholme JMS St. Andrew's PS Blake PS Shaughnessy PS Highfield JS Chartland PS Blythwood PS Snowcrest PS John D Parker JS David & Mary Thomson CI Brock PS Steelesview PS John English JMS L'Amoreaux CI Woodbine JHS Kingsview Village JS Scarborough Centre for Al- ternative Studies YorkMills CI

For the Board’s decision see page 530.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 541 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Mimico Adult Learning Centre, Partnership With Women’s Habitat Shelter [1611]

Mimico Adult Learning Centre, Partnership with Women’s Habitat Shelter [1611]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on June 2, 2010 (see page 530).

Mimico Adult Centre is a 54,606 square foot building situated on a 4.5-acre parcel located south of Evans Road and north of Lakeshore Boulevard (refer to Appendix A). The facility was closed in the late 1980s as an elementary school and is currently used by Continuing Education. The building provides Adult English as a Second Language classes and community programming for seniors during the day and general interest courses are offered in the evening throughout the week.

The building also accommodates The Rec Room Before and After School Child Care Centre. The child care centre occupies three rooms and primarily services children attending school at John English Jr MS and St Leo Catholic School.

Women’s Habitat Proposal

Women’s Habitat is a woman’s shelter located in Etobicoke which has been servicing abused woman and their children in the community for more than 30 years. The shelter is currently located on Stanley Avenue, immediately north of Mimico Adult Centre (refer to Appendix A), and provides residential accommodation to ten families (woman and children); approximately 25 people. In addition, the shelter delivers an out reach program, housing placement services, parenting support, public health services, after school programs and out reach programs for girls at risk in a secondary building in the south Etobicoke community.

Women’s Habitat is well established in the south Etobicoke community and has become a long standing community member who is welcomed and supported by its neighbours and local community. The children living in the shelter are enrolled in local TDSB schools; some 1,700 students have been enrolled at John English Jr MS during its 30 years of operations. The women are often registrants of the adult and ESL courses offered at the Mimico Adult Centre. The shelter also works in partnership with LAMP, the Daily Bread Food Bank and local schools to provide a wealth of programming which support woman and children dealing with violence.

Women’s Habitat is actively exploring opportunities to relocate their residences. The current facility on Stanley Avenue is in need of significant repairs and has out grown the needs of its residents. As a long standing community member with strong, established support systems in the community, it is important that the new location for the shelter remain in this neighbourhood, more specifically in the area of Royal York and Lakeshore Boulevard.

In the fall of 2009, Women’s Habitat contacted the local Trustee and expressed an interest in the Mimico Adult Centre property for a potential relocation of their centre. The Mimico property is an ideal location for the shelter as it keeps the shelter in its neighbourhood, close to the community, services and partnerships it has established during the 30 years of its operations.

542 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Mimico Adult Learning Centre, Partnership With Women’s Habitat Shelter [1611]

The Ministry of Education has circulated a Facility Partnership Policy to Boards of Education which encourages boards of education to work other public service agencies to explore facility partnerships which build upon the concept of community hubs and integrated service models.

The Director of Education’s Vision of Hope, presented to the Board at its meeting of October 28, 2009, supports the development of full service schools.

In April 2010, representatives of the Board and Women’s Habitat began discussions regarding a potential partnership at the Mimico Centre Property. Representatives of Continuing Education were engaged in these discussions as they are the primarily users of the building. The parties examined opportunities to co-locate on the site and make use of any potential surplus space available in the Mimico building. Any potential surplus space at Mimico would be utilized to deliver programs by Women’s Habitat to service and support abused woman and children.

Continuing Education have advised that any potential permitting of surplus space to Women’s Habitat, to deliver programming for woman and children dealing with domestic abuse, would not be in conflict with the program delivery offered by Continued Education at Mimico.

On May 11, 2010, Women’s Habitat submitted an expression of interest to the Board which involves the development of a new purpose built residential shelter on the Mimico property (refer to Appendix B). Women’s Habitat proposes the following

A long-term land lease on the Mimico property to facilitate the relocation and construction of a stand alone, purpose-built facility to accommodate residences for woman and children into a new stand-alone, to be situated in the parking lot area of the site (refer to Appendix C).

Women’s Habitat would provide the capital and operating funding for construction and operations of a new residential facility on the Mimico lands.

Women’s Habitat would permit any surplus space in the Mimico building to deliver programs which support woman and children:

 after school programming for at-risk girls;  parent support programs;  abused women’s support groups;  young women’s counseling;

Women’s Habitat would meet with representatives of Continuing Education on a semi-annual basis to understand the potential availability of surplus space for permitting.

Community Consultation

On May 19, 2010 the local Trustee convened a community open house to present the proposal submitted by Women’s Habitat and to provide opportunities for community input.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 543 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Mimico Adult Learning Centre, Partnership With Women’s Habitat Shelter [1611]

The community members expressed issues related to:

1. Safety

Women’s Habitat responded to the issues of safety and explained that during the 32 years of operations at the Stanley Avenue location (located one block north of the Mimico property) there have been no incidents of violence at the shelter itself or the associated lands.

2. Parking

Women’s Habitat advised they require three parking spaces for staff. The new feasibility will occupy the existing parking lot of 27 spaces north of the building, It is proposed that buses currently parking in the second lot (south of the building) be relocated therefore providing an additional 29 spaces to support the needs of Mimico Adult Centre and the Women’s Habitat proposed facility.

Staff advised that representatives of Continuing Education, Facility Services and Women’s Habi- tat will work with members of the community through a design process which would address the community issues and concerns. In addition, the City of Toronto planning approval process, which would be required should the Board approve the proposed partnership, would also ensure community engagement in the development of a plan which would address the specific site issues raised by the community.

In general, the community was supportive of the proposal and committed to working with the local Trustee and Women’s Habitat as the details of a proposed new purpose-built shelter on the Mimico lands is developed.

In conclusion, the local trustee, representatives of Continuing Education, the local community and Board staff support the development of a purpose built residential facility to service the needs of Women’s Habitat on the Mimico lands as shown in Appendix B.

Appendices to the staff report not included above will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

For the Board’s decision see page 530.

544 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Playground Learning Environments Update [1602]

Playground Learning Environments Update [1602]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on June 2, 2010 (see page 531).

On November 28, 2001, the Board adopted a report of the Playground Learning Environment Steering Committee that recommended implementation of a Compliance Plan, setting out a rationale and recommending a course of action to move toward CSA compliance with respect to playground equipment across Board.

PLE Phase 1

Phase 1 of the PLE program actioned the Board’s direction to move toward playground equipment compliance across Board. Schools are prioritized for a PLE project based on: the condition of existing equipment, as determined by a third party playground inspector, and lack of any playground equipment on the site.

The Board upgrades equipment deemed suitable for retrofit, to as near CSA compliance as prac- ticable. Equipment deemed unsuitable for retrofit is removed and the Board provides an allocation based on the replacement cost of non-compliant equipment. Facility Services does not pre- scribe the use to which this allocation can be put, provided it is used in the schoolyard. It is at the discretion of the Local School Community Design Team (LSCDT) to set their own priorities. Most LSCDT’s elect to replace equipment, but others choose to apply funds for other schoolyard improvements. Many school communities have also seen fit to direct their own funds to school yard improvements. Since 2002, a total of $3.8 million has been raised by school communities for investment into their schoolyards.

For all PLE projects, Local School Community Design Teams work with a Design Facilitator (Landscape Architect) to develop a Master Plan for their schoolyard. The Design Facilitator would then produce construction drawings for the scope of work for which funding was available.

In the first year of PLE, projects were funded from leased revenue. In all subsequent years, including the current year and 2010/2011, PLE projects were funded from the Renewal Grant and Good Places to Learn (GPL). Work completed and in-progress at 304 schools follows, at a cost of $23.6 million (including 10 schools with subsequent project phases):

2001/02 138 Sites Cost $12,844, 900 2002/03 18 sites Cost $1,088,000 2003/04 22 sites Cost $1,108,550 2004/05 21 sites Cost $1,327,880 2005/06 18 sites Cost $708,080 2006/07 19 Sites Cost $1,631,160 2007/08 29 Sites Cost $1,623,690 2008/09 21 Sites Cost $1,726,780 2009/10 11 Sites Cost $613,958 2010/11 11 sites Cost $967,120 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 545 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Playground Learning Environments Update [1602]

One hundred and twenty-seven (127) schools remain outstanding for compliance upgrades/replacement at an estimated cost of $6.0 million.

Twenty-Two (22) schools currently have no playground equipment. The cost to install equipment at these sites is estimated to be $1.9 million.

Assuming the current rate of funding, Phase 1 of the PLE program should be complete in 2013. However, as GPL funding is anticipated to be depleted by 2011/12, no funding source has been identified for 2012/13 and following.

PLE Phase 2

In Phase 1 of the PLE Program, allocations by the Board were limited to replacement value and/or cost to retrofit equipment, plus an amount of $30/student for other PLE elements (meet and greet areas, learning circles, shade tree planting, etc). It is acknowledged that these allocations were not sufficient to fully implement the scope set out on master plans. Many schools would appreciate the creation of a Board funded Phase 2 PLE program once the compliance program is complete. It is proposed that, funds permitting, an annual allocation of $3 million (60 sites at $50,000 per site per year) be directed at that time to playgrounds for PLE Phase 2.

Playground Learning Environment Projects (PLE)

Ward # School Name Expenditures

PLE 1-Schools Site Upgrade (2001-2002) 1 Albion Heights JMS 75,900 1 Elmbank JM Academy 58,400 1 John D Parker JS 58,750 1 Kingsview Village JS 89,300 1 North Kipling JMS 42,300 1 West Humber JMS 42,800 2 Westway PS 45,590 3 Islington JMS 47,240 3 Lambton-Kingsway MS 114,000 3 Park Lawn JMS 68,500 4 Blacksmith PS 138,500 4 Chalkfarm PS 52,800 4 Gosford PS 73,650 5 Ancaster PS 125,000 5 Calico PS 107,600 Faywood Arts-Based Curriculum 5 School 48,760 5 Summit Heights PS 143,000 5 Tumpane PS 50,990 6 Bala Avenue Community School 89,400 6 Charles E Webster Jr PS 73,400 6 Cordella Jr PS 67,170 6 Dennis Avenue Community School 85,580 6 George Syme CS 90,400 546 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Playground Learning Environments Update [1602]

Ward # School Name Expenditures 6 Harwood Jr PS 91,640 6 Keelesdale PS 96,520 6 Portage PS 52,000 6 Weston Memorial PS 71,560 7 Fern Avenue Jr & SR PS 121,390 7 Garden Avenue Jr PS 48,750 7 Howard Jr PS 112,400 7 Humbercrest PS 136,690 7 Indian Road Crescent Jr PS 31,300 7 Keele Street Jr PS & City Co 220,170 7 Parkdale CI 16,000 7 Runnymede Jr&SR PS 140,380 7 Swansea Jr & SR PS 51,200 8 Allenby Jr PS 187,880 8 Baycrest PS 42,700 8 John Ross Robertson Jr PS 327,500 8 John Wanless Jr PS 57,700 8 North Preparatory Jr PS/Alt 99,360 9 Alexander Muir/Gladstone Ave. 73,040 9 Brock Jr PS 69,300 9 Carlton Village Jr PS 189,600 9 Dovercourt Jr PS 63,930 9 F H Miller Jr PS 59,000 9 Fairbank Memorial Community School 67,210 9 Pauline Jr PS 64,800 9 Perth Avenue Jr PS 97,050 9 Rawlinson CS 101,740 9 Regal Road Jr PS 143,850 9 Shirley Street Jr PS 69,060 10 ALPHA Alternative School Jr & SR 42,700 10 Charles G Fraser Jr PS 78,970 10 Clinton Street Jr PS 49,490 10 Dewson St JPS 142,730 10 Essex Jr & SR PS / Hawthorne II 354,900 10 Givins/Shaw Jr & SR PS 53,020 10 Huron Street Jr PS 130,800 10 King Edward Jr & SR PS 54,230 10 Lord Lansdowne Jr & SR PS 34,200 10 Montrose Jr PS/Delta Alternative 168,700 10 Ogden Jr PS 53,050 10 Orde Street Jr PS 72,270 10 Ossington/Old Orchard Jr PS 73,100 10 Palmerston Jr PS 96,000 10 Ryerson Jr&SR PS 65,460 11 Brown Jr PS 63,570 11 Cottingham Jr PS 56,400 11 Davisville Jr PS 116,600 11 Deer Park Jr & SR PS 102,480

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 547 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Playground Learning Environments Update [1602]

Ward # School Name Expenditures 11 Forest Hill Jr & SR PS 64,110 11 Maurice Cody Jr PS 198,740 11 McMurrich Jr PS 152,700 11 Oriole Park Jr PS 133,500 11 West Preparatory Jr PS 37,650 12 Cameron PS 144,700 12 Hollywood PS 109,250 12 Lester B Pearson PS 60,240 12 Steelesview PS 114,830 12 Yorkview PS 57,350 13 Bedford Park Jr PS 226,250 13 Blythwood Jr PS 106,600 13 Denlow PS 100,010 13 Dunlace PS 64,200 13 John Fisher Jr PS 131,550 13 Rolph Road ES 85,080 14 Jesse Ketchum Jr & SR PS 62,630 14 Nelson Mandela Park Jr & SR PS 102,500 14 Regent Park/Duke of York 102,510 14 Rose Avenue Jr PS 29,810 14 Rosedale Jr PS 215,050 14 Sprucecourt Jr PS 63,800 14 Whitney Jr PS 334,000 14 Winchester Jr & SR PS 137,470 15 Blake Street Jr PS / East Alt 69,100 15 Bruce JPS 65,250 15 Chester ES 135,820 15 Dundas Jr PS 167,740 15 Frankland Community JS 137,500 15 Jackman Avenue Jr PS 134,650 15 Leslieville Jr PS 59,930 15 Morse Jr PS 83,400 15 Pape Avenue Jr PS 105,920 15 Roden Jr PS 83,710 15 Wilkinson Jr PS 71,680 15 William Burgess ES 25,590 15 Withrow Ave JrPS/Que 87,980 16 Adam Beck Jr PS 51,350 16 Bowmore Road Jr & SR PS 72,580 16 Crescent Town ES 22,710 16 Duke of Connaught Jr & SR PS 113,880 16 Earl Beatty Jr & SR PS and C 120,200 16 Earl Haig PS 60,700 16 George Webster ES 33,200 16 Kew Beach Jr PS 83,680 16 Presteign Heights ES 117,250 16 Secord ES 30,390 16 Selwyn ES 116,400

548 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Playground Learning Environments Update [1602]

Ward # School Name Expenditures 16 Victoria Park ES 44,970 16 William J McCordic School 159,300 16 Williamson Road Jr PS 67,210 17 Brian PS 68,950 17 Cherokee Ps 53,300 17 Ernest PS 36,160 17 Kingslake PS 78,830 17 Roywood PS 122,940 17 Shaughnessy PS 136,900 18 Clairlea PS 37,220 18 Oakridge PS 42,260 20 Glamorgan Jr PS 80,600 20 North Bridlewood Jr PS 64,500 20 Sir Samuel B Steele JrPS 45,720 21 Fleming PS 40,600 21 Iroquois PS 101,480 22 Eastview Jr PS 80,800 22 Highcastle PS 47,300 22 Meadowvale PS 75,300 22 Poplar Road Jr PS 74,000 Total PLE 1 12,844,900 PLE 2-Schools Site Upgrade (2002-2003) 2 Broadacres JS 72,940 2 Dixon Grove PS 42,540 3 George R Gauld JS 27,380 8 Glenview PS 22,000 11 Cedarvale CS 71,440 12 RJ Lang E&MS 43,630 13 Owen PS 75,350 16 Kimberley Jr PS/Beaches Alt School Jr 87,930 18 Anson Park PS 18,280 18 Birch Cliff PS 118,430 18 Courcelette PS 72,590 18 Warden Avenue Jr PS 74,290 19 St. Andrews Jr PS/ASE 26,000 19 Wexford PS 144,710 20 Chester PS 7,000 22 Highland Creek PS 72,780 22 William G Davis PS 74,860 22 William G Miller JR PS 35,850 Total PLE 2 1,088,000 PLE 3-Schools Site Upgrade (2003-2004) 3 Norseman JMS 76,120 6 Maple Leaf PS 38,490 8 Joyce PS 31,430 9 General Mercer JPS 70,000

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 549 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Playground Learning Environments Update [1602]

Ward # School Name Expenditures 10 Kensington Comm. School 40,440 13 Norman Ingram PS 43,000 14 Church Street PS 68,450 14 Island PS/NSS 66,550 16 Gledhill PS 80,740 17 O' Connor PS 16,050 18 Blantyre PS 27,380 18 JG Workman PS 22,830 18 Walter Perry PS 25,520 19 Cedarbrook JPS 70,070 19 Woburn JPS 60,590 20 Bridlewood JPS 67,840 20 Chester LE PS 69,900 20 Lynngate JPS 71,680 21 Mary Shadd PS 25,010 22 G.B.Little JPS 40,030 22 Guildwood JPS 14,490 22 St. Margaret's PS 81,940 Total PLE 3 1,108,550 PLE 4-Schools Site Upgrade (2004-2005) 2 Seneca School 41,910 3 Lanor PS 80,350 3 Sir Adam Beck JPS 74,830 6 HJ Alexander School 107,450 6 Silverthorn JPS 90,660 7 Annette PS 85,170 7 Parkdale J Sr.PS 36,540 9 Shirley St. PS 12,400 12 Churchill PS 40,670 12 Hillmount PS 66,340 17 Crestview PS 22,850 17 Greenland PS 61,230 18 General Brock JMS 29,040 18 H.A.Halbert JPS 43,420 19 Cedarbrook PS 93,450 19 Hunter's Glen JPS 81,220 19 Knob Hill PS 110,800 19 William Tredway PS 97,080 20 Lynngate PS 18,060 22 West Hill PS 16,540 22 Willow Park PS 117,870 Total PLE 4 1,327,880 PLE 5-Schools Site Upgrade (2005-2006) 2 Humber Valley Village 87,850 2 Princess Margaret PS 35,630 3 Seventh St PS 25,700

550 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Playground Learning Environments Update [1602]

Ward # School Name Expenditures 4 Driftwood PS 22,080 4 Shoreham PS 33,670 4 Stanley PS 30,380 4 Topcliff PS 34,420 5 Dublin Heights 17,000 8 Flemington PS 23,910 11 Hillcrest PS 62,000 11 Hodgson SPS 75,000 12 Pineway PS 25,700 13 Gateway PS 25,700 17 Lescon PS 25,700 18 Claireville PS 25,700 18 George P Mackie JPS 41,530 21 Banting and Best PS 89,180 21 Thomas L Wells PS 26,930 Total PLE 5 708,080 PLE 6-Schools Site Upgrade (2006-2007) 1 The Elms MS 81,060 4 Yorkwoods PS 51,820 6 Brookhaven PS 84,830 6 George Syme CS 143,880 7 Fern Ave. PS 14,840 7 Queen Victoria PS 106,610 8 Allenby PS (Ph 2) 81,640 9 General Mercer JPS (Ph 2) 70,000 13 Grenoble PS 215,000 16 Gledhill PS (Ph 2) 80,740 16 Parkside PS 114,320 18 Mason Road PS 80,740 19 Churchill Hts. PS 76,390 19 Donwood PS 79,880 19 Ellesmere Statton PS 83,290 19 Scarborough Village PS 73,070 21 Percy Williams PS 74,440 22 Heather Hts PS 118,610 Total PLE 6 1,631,160 PLE 7-Schools Site Upgrade (2007-2008) 1 The Elms MS (Ph 2) 81,060 2 Eatonville JS 16,500 2 Parkfield PS 37,830 2 Seneca School 16,300 2 Wellsworth PS 78,450 5 Rockford PS 39,580 7 Lucy Mc CormickPS 8,360 7 Warren Park PS 66,610 8 Brier Hill PS 96,880

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 551 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Playground Learning Environments Update [1602]

Ward # School Name Expenditures 9 Downsview PS 32,000 9 Pauline PS (PH 2) 63,460 10 Beverley JPS 76,000 15 Diefenbaker ES 185,400 16 Balmy Beach PS 75,580 16 Earl Haig JPS 34,660 18 Cliffside PS 17,020 18 Danforth Gardens 74,080 19 St Andrews PS 18,000 20 Vradenburg PS 87,140 21 Brimwood Blvd. PS 148,040 21 Brookside PS 100,000 21 Malvern PS 76,600 21 North Agincourt 42,640 22 Centennial Road PS 77,660 22 West Rouge PS 73,840 Total PLE 7 1,623,690 PLE 8-Schools Site Upgrade (2008-2009) 1 Melody Village JS 57,020 2 Mill Valley MS 12,200 4 Derrydown PS 173,230 6 Lamberton PS 73,150 8 Armour Heights 37,330 10 Niagra Street School 68,290 11 Humewood PS 46,700 11 JR Wilcox PS 83,710 13 Norman Cook PS 80,720 13 Sunnyview School 52,330 17 Seneca Hill PS 10,550 18 Chine Dr. PS 56,000 18 RH King Academy 33,000 19 Buchanan PS 77,360 19 Glen Ravine JPS 191,990 19 Ionview PS 86,300 19 Pringdale Garden JPS 120,700 20 Highland Heights 185,500 20 Inglewood Heights PS 183,960 21 Milliken PS 96,740 Total PLE 8 1,726,780 PLE 9-Schools Site Upgrade (2009-2010) School Name Estimate 3 Wedgewood PS 33,250 9 Regal Road CS (Ph 2) 114,290 13 Rippleton PS 77,000 15 RH McGregor 48,230 19 George Peck School 45,060

552 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Playground Learning Environments Update [1602]

Ward # School Name Expenditures 20 Highland Heights 69,487 21 Emily Carr PS 75,157 21 CD Farquharson 73,867 22 Chief Dan George 77,617 Total PLE 9 613,958 PLE 10-Schools Site Upgrade (2010-2011) School Name Estimate 5 Calico PS 85,800 17 Crestview PS (Ph 2) 85,740 18 Cedar Drive JPS 91,270 19 Lord Roberts JPS (Ph 2) 83,800 20 Silver Springs PS 83,110 20 Lynngate JPS (Ph 2) 76,420 21 White Haven JPS 97,300 21 Tom Longboat JPS 83,860 21 Alexander Stirling PS 81,670 21 Berner Trail JPS 81,310 22 Cornell JPS 97,200 2 St George's JS 19,640 Total PLE 10 967,120

Grand Total 23,640,118

For the Board’s decision see page 531.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 553 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Deep Retrofit of Nelson Mandela Park Public School Incorporating a Child Care Facility: Program and Sketch Plan [1614]

Deep Retrofit of Nelson Mandela Park Public School Incorporating a Child Care Facility: Program and Sketch Plan [1614]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on June 2, 2010 (see page 532).

The area surrounding Nelson Mandela Park Public School is undergoing massive reconstruction as a result of the Regent Park Revitalization Plan.

The Director’s Vision of Hope includes support for the idea of full-service community schools where teaching and learning are combined with the services families need under one roof.

The Ministry’s Facility Partnerships Guideline encourages Boards to work with their community partners in order to share facilities to the benefit of boards, students and the community, and to optimize the use of public assets owned by school boards.

In anticipation of the Regent Park Revitalization Plan, Board, the Toronto Community Housing Corporation and the City of Toronto have worked collaboratively to develop a Community Hub in the area. Those efforts culminated in the joint selection of an architect to design a new Regent Park Community Centre (RPCC), a new child care centre and renovation of NMPPS. While the development of the two adjacent and interconnected facilities will proceed according to separate processes and will have unique and distinct programs, it is understood that the Community Cen- tre operator and school principal will work closely together to maximize opportunities for shar- ing of spaces, for example, the use of the kitchen and Community Hall for the school’s lunch program.

The Board is planning to renovate NMPPS in two Phases.

Phase 1

Phase 1 will accommodate 658 pupil places, including an early learning centre on the Lower Ground Floor consisting of five full day Kindergartens and a Child care Centre. In Phase 1, five classrooms will remain unassigned and incomplete. A tenant will be sought to lease these rooms and fit them up at the expense of the tenant.

Phase 2

Should the Board decide to undertake an Area Review in the Regent Park area, and should a consolidation result from the ARC, Phase 2 will include the restoration of the façade, addition of a new library, conversion of the Phase 1 library to two classrooms and fitting up of five rooms for kindergarten and classroom use. Phase 2 work will be funded from the proceeds of disposition of surplus assets identified through the ARC.

554 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Deep Retrofit of Nelson Mandela Park Public School Incorporating a Child Care Facility: Program and Sketch Plan [1614]

Project Milestones

 The Ministry of Education allocated Prohibitive to Repair Funding of $ 8.633 million in No- vember 2008, and $8.7 million in June, 2009 from which a budget of $17.33 million was established for the renovation of Nelson Mandela Park PS;  The City of Toronto allocated $3.5 million to create a Child Care Centre in renovated space at Nelson Mandela Park PS. The City will pay all operating costs for the child care centre;  Nelson Mandela Park PS Local School Design Committee began meeting on November 5, 2009. On Apr 7, 2010, the Design Committee unanimously approved the preliminary design concept.

Resources: Project Budget

Nelson Mandela Park Public School Energy Efficient Schools Fund $8.7M Prohibitive to Repair Funding $8.63M TOTAL $17.33M Child care Centre Funded by the City of Toronto $3.5M Estimated Phase 1 Costs for School and Child Care Construction 15,382,269 Fees @ 8% 1,380,560 Soft Costs 1,806,518 HST @ 2.16% 366,413 Subtotal 18,935,760 Contingency @ 10% 1,893,576 Total Project costs $20,830,000

In addition, high performance green measures totaling $979,000 will be incorporated into the project to target LEED Gold certification, funded from energy savings within a 15-year payback.

Estimated Phase 2 Costs

Construction $3,419,625 Fees @ 8% 315,854 Soft Costs 225,000 HST @ 2.16% 87,435 Subtotal 4,047,914 Contingency @ 10% 449,768 Total Project costs $4,497,682

Implementation and Review

The Ministry of Education requires approval at a number of stages of Capital projects. Staff has worked closely with the Ministry to establish the planning rationale for the project and have received approval of a Space Template (building program).

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 555 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Deep Retrofit of Nelson Mandela Park Public School Incorporating a Child Care Facility: Program and Sketch Plan [1614]

Upon approval of this report by Board, staff will request approval of a Transfer from Reserves to allow the project to proceed to Tender in October 2010.

The renovated school is planned to reopen in January 2012.

For the Board’s decision see page 532.

556 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Relief School for Thorncliffe Park Public School: Program and Sketch Plan [1615]

Relief School for Thorncliffe Park Public School: Program and Sketch Plan [1615]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on June 2, 2010 (see page 532).

Thorncliffe Park Public School has current enrolment of over 1,900 students. Overcrowding has resulted in students needing to be accommodated in 19 portable classrooms. It is proposed that these enrolment pressures be addressed by constructing a second school on the site, to operated independently of Thorncliffe Park PS and be dedicated exclusively to early learning (Full Day Kindergarten and Child Care). The school will consist of 26 kindergarten classrooms, two special education rooms and a Child Care Centre.

The new school will be located at the north west corner of the site and will primarily occupy space currently used for parking. It is a unique attribute of the Thorncliffe Park community that most families generally walk to the site. Access to the new school will be from a driveway serving the East York Town Centre and from the schoolyard. Portables will remain on the site until completion of the construction, but once removed, the schools will enjoy expanded open space from what is currently available. Staff is working with the City of Toronto to allow the school to share EV Burgess Park, adjacent to the site. In future, staff parking will be accommodated off- site through an agreement with Morguard investments, on the site of the East York Town Centre.

The new two storey school will be dedicated to early learning, with the Child Care Centre located one level below grade, opening onto a generous sunken courtyard. Ground floor kindergarten rooms will be accessible by both interior and exterior circulation routes while generous interior staircases, ramps and an elevator will facilitate movement of parents and children to second floor kindergarten rooms and roof play spaces. In addition to amply outfitted and day lit kindergarten rooms, the school will have variously themed shared activity rooms and spaces distributed throughout the school to allow teachers to offer a wide range of play and learning experiences to the four and five year old children.

The project team is targeting LEED Silver certification for the new school building.

Project Milestones

 The Ministry of Education allocated Primary Class Size Reduction funding of $4 million in May, 2004, and Capital Priorities funding of $12.06 million in June, 2009 from which a budget of $16.06 million was established for the new JK/SK school at Thorncliffe Park Ele- mentary School;  The City of Toronto has allocated $3.8 million to create a Child Care Centre in the new school at Thorncliffe Park ES. The City will pay all operating costs for the child care centre;  The Thorncliffe Park Elementary School Local School Design Committee began meeting on November 15, 2009. On April 15, 2010, the Design Committee unanimously approved the preliminary design concept.

Resources: Project Budget:

Thorncliffe Park ES G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 557 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Relief School for Thorncliffe Park Public School: Program and Sketch Plan [1615]

Ministry of Education Capital Priority Fund 12.06M Primary Class Size Reduction Program .00M TOTAL 16.06M Child care Centre Funded by the City of Toronto 3.8M Estimated Costs Construction 5,663,443 Soft Costs ,870,996 HST @ 2.16% 39,561 Subtotal 7,874,000 Contingency @ 10% 1,986,000 Total Project costs $19,860,000

In addition, high performance green measures totaling $ 695,000 will be incorporated into the project to target LEED Silver certification, funded from energy savings within a 15 year payback.

Implementation And Review

The Ministry of Education requires approval at a number of stages of Capital projects. Staff has worked closely with the Ministry to establish the planning rationale for the project and have submitted a Space Template (building program) for approval.

Upon approval of this report by Board, and the Space Template by the Ministry, staff will request approval of a Transfer from Reserves to allow the project to proceed to Tender in October 2010.

The new school is planned to open in January 2012.

For the Board’s decision see page 532.

558 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590]

Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on June 2, 2010 (see page 532).

The purpose of this report is to obtain approval from Trustees to designate an elementary school to accommodate students from a new residential development.

In October 2000 the Board approved a protocol for dealing with new residential development. A key directive of the approved protocol was that staff should redirect students from new residential development in communities with over-utilized schools to other schools with under-utilized capacity.

A new residential development is planned in Ward 17 south-east of Sheppard Avenue and High- way 404 (see the map in Appendix A). The development, for 1,070 condominium apartments, is to be built in three phases. The first phase, for 330 units, is currently under construction with occupancy scheduled for the Fall of 2010. It is projected to generate 46 elementary and 18 secondary students.

The second phase, for 413 units, will commence construction later this year with occupancy scheduled for 2012. It is projected to generate 58 elementary and 23 secondary students. The third and final phase, for 327 units, is scheduled to commence construction in 2011 with occupancy planned for late 2013. It is projected to generate 46 elementary and 18 secondary students. The tables in Appendix B show the student yield over time for each phase.

Muirhead PS is recommended as the receiving school to accommodate students in Junior Kin- dergarten through to Grade 6 because it is the closest school to the development site with surplus capacity. In addition, Muirhead PS has a small enrolment and could develop a stronger program by accepting more students.

Pleasant View JHS is the current designated intermediate school to serve students in Grades 7 to 9 from this area. The school has sufficient surplus capacity to accommodate students from the entire development, and it is likely to remain operating below capacity in the near future. The number of students projected will not have a significant impact on the enrolment.

Sir John A MacDonald CI is the current designated secondary school to accommodate students from this area. The school facility is operating slightly above capacity, and the number of secondary students projected from the development may require the use of one or two portables. How- ever, Sir John A MacDonald CI is recommended to remain the designated secondary school to allow the students from the new development the opportunity to attend the same secondary school with their peers as they graduate from Pleasant View JHS.

Appendix C shows the impact of the development on schools.

The impact on the French Immersion and Extended French Programs is minimal with only 17 elementary students and 2 secondary students expected to be generated. Elementary French Im- mersion is offered at Brian PS and Don Valley JHS, while Extended French is offered at Dunlace

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 559 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590]

PS and Milne Valley MS. York Mills CI and Leaside HS offers French Immersion and Extended French programs, respectively, for secondary students.

Muirhead PS is located within a one kilometre walking distance of the development site. As such, busing will not be required pursuant with the Board’s transportation policies.

The local Trustee, Superintendents of Education, and affected Principals have been notified and are in support of these recommendations.

Additional costs for portables are anticipated at the secondary school.

Appendices to the staff report not included above will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

For the Board’s decision see page 532.

560 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590]

Quarterly Construction Update, September 1, 2009 to February 28, 2010 [1612]

As received by the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on June 2, 2010 (see page 534).

Each year, Facility Services undertakes a number of construction projects varying in size, scope and funding. A direction was given at the Operations and Facility Management Committee to provide a quarterly report with respect to the major construction projects.

* Total Budget for Actual Occupancy Ward Description Project This Fiscal Expendi- Start Date Date Budget Year ture in Q2

GPL 1 Projects Leaside HS - Window 395,000 395,000 11,808 10-Jun-10 4-Aug-10 13 replacement Bedford Park PS- Win- 200,000 200,000 1,548 2-Jul-10 20-Aug-10 13 dow Replacement Glen Ravine - Replace 250,000 250,000 9,322 29-Jul-10 25-Sep-10 19 Windows Projects Under 100K 2,800,632 229,549 76,306 Projects to be allocated 3,369,924 3,369,924 Total GPL 1 Projects 7,015,556 4,444,473 98,984

GPL 2 Projects Yorkdale - Site Up- 139,225 76,316 51,397 1-Jul-09 1-Nov-09 8 grades Central Commmerce CI -Replace secondary 213,523 95,775 61,310 5-Oct-09 1-Apr-10 10 switchgear Rolph ES - Replace 17-Aug- 669,911 181,445 179,013 4-Jan-10 13 Windows 09 Duke of Connaught - 15-Feb- 102,400 99,651 93,568 25-Mar-10 16 Curtain Wall 10 Donview MS - Re- 944,657 174,573 154,779 8-Jun-09 4-Feb-10 17 placement Windows Wexford PS - Replace 265,250 40,475 32,383 8-Aug-08 15-Dec-09 19 Secondary Switch Gear Buchanan - Replace 113,573 36,575 34,272 5-Jan-09 16-Oct-09 19 Secondary switchgear Projects Under 100k 7,257,717 385,928 145,083 Projects to be allocated 2,059,262 2,059,262 Total GPL 2 Projects 11,765,518 3,150,000 751,805

GPL 3 Projects West Humber CI - Up- 25-Nov- 194,382 194,382 179,752 7-May-10 1 grade Theatre System 09 1 Elmlea JS- Upgrade 111,780 54,896 49,106 21-Sep- 3-Oct-10

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 561 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590]

* Total Budget for Actual Occupancy Ward Description Project This Fiscal Expendi- Start Date Date Budget Year ture in Q2 PA-Phone & MC Sys- 09 tem Dixon Grove JMS - Re- 30-Nov- 167,330 82,873 78,113 4-Feb-10 2 plce Windows 09 John English- Replace/ 104,248 92,504 81,130 29-Jun-09 2-Sep-09 3 Upgrade Exterior Wall 4 Emery CI - Upgrade Theatre System 190,393 190,393 47,744 10-Jan-10 30-Apr-10

Stanley PS -Building 143,000 143,000 95,325 5-Mar-10 5-May-10 4 Envelope Repair Northview Heights - 12-Mar- 100,000 96,342 60,702 2-Sep-09 5 Motor Control 09 Howard PS - Field 132,000 132,000 122,110 1-Nov-09 24-Jun-10 7 Drainage Upgrade Ledbury Park EMS - 682,484 145,829 92,273 28-Jun-09 2-Sep-09 8 Traffic Control North Prepartory -Sewer 14-Mar- 122,880 122,880 68,990 15-Apr-10 8 Drain Repair 10 Allenby PS - Lead Paint 116,000 116,000 108,699 1-Dec-09 31-Jan-10 8 Abate McMurrich PS - Piping 12-Dec- 900,000 141,302 33,433 2-Sep-09 11 Replacement 08 McMurrich -Upgrade 15-Sep- 158,400 158,400 132,079 20-Feb-10 11 PA -Phone System 09 JR Wilcox PS - School 110,207 66,445 65,417 1-Jul-09 1-Nov-09 11 Site Upgrade Newtonbrook- Re- 23-Feb- 190,000 40,942 19,208 19-Apr-10 12 placeLibrary A/C Unit 09 Bedford Park - Replace 200,000 200,000 20,160 2-Jul-10 20-Aug-10 13 Window Dunlace - Replace Criti- cal Windows All Eleva- 191,945 96,716 92,107 6-Nov-09 22-Dec-09 13 tions Queen Alexander - Re- plce Water Supply- 105,000 99,717 92,744 5-Dec-09 13-Jan-10 15 Valves Bowmore PS - Replace 708,758 320,639 152,080 28-Jan-09 2-Sep-09 16 Air Handling Equipment Glen Ames / Williamson 588,345 213,175 200,758 10-Jul-09 8-Sep-09 16 - Parking Duke of Connaught - 414,819 265,656 21,071 6-Apr-10 2-Jul-10 16 Replace.Windows Earl Haig -Upgrde Con- 11-Aug- 142,800 69,520 39,041 18-Sep-09 16 crete Slab & Stair 09 18 Walter Perry - Hydro 218,500 145,878 76,437 22-Jul-09 28-Sep-09

562 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590]

* Total Budget for Actual Occupancy Ward Description Project This Fiscal Expendi- Start Date Date Budget Year ture in Q2 Duct Samuel Hearne - Re- 13-Aug- place Critical Windows 210,899 27,776 27,516 25-Sep-09 09 18 All Elevation Cliffwood - Upgrade 165,000 158,879 128,420 2-Jan-09 14-Nov-09 18 Electrical Transformer Corvette PS - Upgrade 146,300 141,322 138,570 5-Mar-09 10-Oct-09 18 PA - Phone System Norman Cook PS- 107,215 49,740 39,746 1-Jul-09 1-Nov-10 18 School Site Upgrade Glen Ravine - School 218,489 22,267 21,457 1-Jun-09 1-Nov-09 19 Site Upgrade Wexford C I -UG Hydro 150,000 150,000 72,913 9-Sep-09 23-Sep-09 19 Service Upgrde Ellesmere Stattton - Up- 137,672 137,672 119,627 15-Jan-10 15-Apr-10 19 grade PA - Phone Sys Buchanan PS - School 103,857 51,886 40,000 1-Jun-09 1-Sep-09 19 Site Upgrade Kennedy PS - Capital 27-Apr- 1,114,000 1,114,000 50,000 22-Mar-10 20 Renewal 09 J B Tyrrell Upgrade 175,000 168,040 121,623 2-Nov-09 12-Nov-09 20 Elec. Tranfrmr Highland Heights - 116,015 116,015 36,500 2-Jul-10 30-Aug-10 20 School Site Upgrade Stephen Leacock- Up- 12-Aug- 100,000 96,139 24,919 22-Jan-10 20 grade Hydro Service 09 Berner Trail -Replace 11-May- 183,166 60,063 44,093 25-Mar-10 21 Fire Alarm System 09 West Hill - Renewal 625,000 446,105 413,968 16-Jul-09 2-Sep-09 22 Classroom Ductwork Highland Creek - Base 134,680 125,099 93,021 5-Aug-09 5-Jan-10 22 Window Replacement Projects Under 100k 24,653,880 10,170,025 5,214,372 Projects to be allocated 10,499,863 10,499,863 Total GPL 3 Projects 44,834,307 26,724,380 8,515,224

GPL 4 Projects Highfield - Renewal Site 1,220,000 1,220,000 1,183,932 2-Jul-09 15-Aug-10 1 Components Projects Under 100k 70,000 70,000 25,495 Projects to be allocated 699,120 699,120 Total GPL 4 Projects 1,290,000 1,989,120 1,209,427

Critical Facilities Renewal Projects

(Debenture) Project Under 100K 2,272,179 327,128 117,203

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 563 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590]

* Total Budget for Actual Occupancy Ward Description Project This Fiscal Expendi- Start Date Date Budget Year ture in Q2 Projects to be allocated 1,000,000 1,000,000 (portable Moves) Total Critical Facilities Renewal 3,272,179 1,327,128 117,203 Projects (Debenture)

SFRMP I Pro- jects North Toronto CI - Re- 20-Nov- 52,265,115 26,776,500 8,156,852 30-Sep-11 11 placement 07 Total SFRMP I Projects 52,265,115 26,776,500 8,156,852

SFRMP II Projects Barrier Free Park Lawn - Barrier Free 110,300 110,300 12,303 26-Jun-10 30-Sep-10 3 Stage Lift L B Pearson CI - Barrier 510,410 385,710 345,987 8-Apr-09 29-Jan-10 21 Free Elev. Alexander Stirling - BF 138,697 112,878 92,195 15-Jun-09 1-Apr-10 21 Stage Access Projects Under 100K 2,249,803 283,580 283,572 Projects to be allocated 247,055 247,055 Total Barrier Free 3,256,265 1,139,523 734,057

Program Upgrade Ca-

pacity Various Schools PUC 1,250,000 296,740 83,943 9-Jan-09 12-Jul-10 portable moves Projects Under 100K 440,161 2,800 2,795 Total Program Upgrade 1,690,161 299,540 86,738 Capacity

Broadening Choice Westview-Health Care 21-May- 400,000 64,709 42,399 31-Aug-09 4 Program 09 Projects to be allocated 1,235,291 1,235,291 Total Broadening 1,635,291 1,300,000 42,399 Choice

Safety Upgrade Various Schools - Kitchen Fire Suppres- 315,799 164,824 151,118 14-Jun-09 2-Sep-09 sion Northern Secondary - 252,000 32,408 14,032 6-Aug-09 15-Sep-09 11 Theatre Safety

564 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590]

* Total Budget for Actual Occupancy Ward Description Project This Fiscal Expendi- Start Date Date Budget Year ture in Q2 East York CI - Theatre 12-Nov- 211,725 74,302 39,268 1-May-10 16 Safety 09 Projects Under 100K 2,078,406 1,195,712 152,691 Projects to be allocated 780,254 780,254 Total Safety Upgrade 3,638,184 2,247,500 357,109

Science Lab Projects Under 100K 349,000 133,792 11,309 Total Science Lab 349,000 133,792 11,309 Total SFRMP II Projects 10,568,901 5,120,355 1,231,612

SFRMP III Projects New School Capital Projects Under 100K 300,000 292,993 10,466 Total New School Capi- 300,000 292,993 10,466 tal

Program Upgrade Ca-

pacity Seneca School - Special- 440,000 267,611 213,137 19-Jun-09 21-Sep-09 2 ized Ed. Upgrades Sheppard - Africentric 212,407 212,407 212,407 27-Jul-09 1-Sep-09 5 ES JK-Grade 5 Allenby - Classroom Alt.& Childcare Reloca- 225,380 104,131 80,879 4-Jun-09 25-Aug-09 8 tion Beverley - Expansion 164,788 34,954 32,152 29-Jul-09 8-Sep-09 10 Grade 8 Classroom Pape Avenue - Kinder- 238,000 104,874 92,274 15-Jul-09 13-Oct-09 15 garten Classroom Roden - Whole Child 181,000 83,294 41,332 8-Jul-09 5-Oct-09 15 Alternative School Projects Under 100K 1,936,701 987,564 433,075 Projects to be allocated 455,165 455,165 Total Program Upgrade 3,853,441 2,250,000 1,105,256 Capacity

Barrier Free Projects Under 100K 110,600 15,000 12,295 Projects to be allocated 685,000 685,000 Total Barrier Free 795,600 700,000 12,295

Multiuse Capital( to be 200,000 0 allocated)

Pool Conversion( to be 500,000 450,000 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 565 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590]

* Total Budget for Actual Occupancy Ward Description Project This Fiscal Expendi- Start Date Date Budget Year ture in Q2 allocated)

* Total Budget for Actual Occupancy Project This Fiscal Expendi- Start Date Date Ward Description Budget Year ture in Q2 Special Education Pods North Toronto CI -Class 187,510 187,510 82 1-Feb-10 1-Sep-10 11 and Meeting Room Projects to be allocated 152,490 152,490 Total Sp.Ed.Pods 340,000 340,000 82

Major Program Im-

provements Lakeshore C I - Cos. Laboratory to Wood- 306,227 163,377 143,769 31-Jul-09 9-Dec-09 3 Shop Rosedale Heights - Chemical Prepartory & 280,000 101,612 35,374 22-Jun-09 23-Nov-09 14 Storage Projects Under 100K 1,159,318 602,294 300,767 Projects to be allocated 1,495,717 1,495,717 Total Major Program 3,241,262 2,363,000 479,910 Improvements

Special Alternative

Schools Sheppard - Specialized 500,000 41,845 41,845 27-Jul-09 1-Sep-09 5 Africentric School Total Sp.Alt Schools 500,000 41,845 41,845 Total SFRMP III Projects 9,030,303 5,987,838 1,649,854

PCS Projects Highfield PS-12 Class- 5,592,440 2,379,819 192,798 2-Jul-09 11-Jun-10 1 room Addition (PCS) Crescent Town-8 Class- 5,054,783 3,286,748 1,566,566 4-Jul-09 7-Sep-10 16 room Addition (PCS) Kennedy PS-10 Class- 27-Apr- 4,397,000 1,570,547 1,207,631 22-Mar-10 20 room Addition (PCS) 09 Projects Under 100k 1,669,541 1,158,351 314,636 Total PCS Projects 16,713,764 8,395,465 3,281,631

Energy Phase VI Projects W.L.Mackenzie CI - 144,146 83,434 70,758 3-Nov-09 1-May-10 5 Energy Solar P.V. Ledbury PK E - BAS / 28-Oct- 169,250 159,165 62,445 30-May-10 8 Mechanical 10

566 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590]

* Total Budget for Actual Occupancy Ward Description Project This Fiscal Expendi- Start Date Date Budget Year ture in Q2 Hillcrest JPS -Energy 150,869 150,869 87,027 4-Jan-10 20-May-10 11 Solar P.V. Marc Garneaux CI - 21-Apr- 623,312 19,323 8,306 31-Aug-11 13 BAS / Mechanical 10 R.H. King Acad - BAS / 21-Apr- 635,040 19,686 6,096 31-Aug-11 18 Mechanical 10 L'Amoreaux CI - BAS / 21-Apr- 559,311 17,339 8,001 31-Aug-11 20 Mechanical 10 Sir William Osler - 387,796 12,022 3,048 9-Mar-09 31-Aug-10 21 BAS / Mechanical Tippet road - BAS / 217,933 31,617 13,488 16-Jun-09 28-Feb-10 Mechanical Networking Pilot sites 143,596 44,886 31,061 1-May-09 28-Dec-09 Projects Under 100K 2,904,152 484,485 466,243 Projects to be allocated 690,975 690,975 Total Energy Phase VI Projects 6,626,380 1,713,800 756,473

Energy Efficient Schools EES) Thistletown CI - Re- 303,520 191,176 184,960 8-Dec-09 8-Feb-10 1 place. Windows Blacksmith PS - Replace 512,470 303,446 243,307 4-Aug-10 28-Oct-10 4 Cooling Plant Stanley PS - Replace 18-Dec- 296,102 287,281 287,281 29-Apr-10 4 Windows 09 William Lyon CI - Re- 168,694 162,163 143,286 27-Jan-10 22-Mar-10 5 place Windows Humberside CI - Re- 1,064,480 372,431 177,686 4-Jul-09 10-Jul-10 7 place Windows Lawrence Hts MS - 26-Mar- 509,614 506,789 153,447 11-Jun-10 8 Replace Windows 10 Central Commerce- 17-May- 2,262,000 1,609,437 36,203 20-Aug-10 10 Replace NW Windows 10 Niagara St JPS - Replace 28-Apr- 1,495,000 1,045,555 42,419 28-Sep-10 10 Windows 10 Essex SPS - Replace 670,284 163,731 157,939 23-Jun-09 13-Nov-09 10 East Windows Kensington - Roof Re- 30-Sep- 231,775 231,775 106,959 14-May-10 10 placement /Area 'C' 09 Hillcrest JPS - Roof Re- 30-Nov- 252,474 252,474 111,614 30-Dec-09 11 placement (D&E) 09 Thorncliffe ES - Replace 550,000 157,998 151,227 29-Jun-09 30-Oct-09 13 Boiler System Sunny View - Roof Re- 215,625 149,852 79,658 4-Aug-09 2-Sep-09 13 placement Area-C6-SS Jarvis CI - Replace Boil- 30-Apr- 2,093,301 852,477 755,393 26-Nov-09 14 ers 09

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 567 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590]

* Total Budget for Actual Occupancy Ward Description Project This Fiscal Expendi- Start Date Date Budget Year ture in Q2 Jesse Ketchum PS - 1,834,701 987,064 926,017 6-Jul-09 14-Dec-09 14 Replace Windows/Wall Wilkinson PS- Replace 19-May- 1,600,000 1,132,045 30,114 20-Aug-10 15 Windows/Wall 10 Earl Grey SPS - Replace 881,113 278,697 236,635 23-Jul-09 30-Nov-09 15 Windows Queen Alexander MPS - 17-May- 397,368 388,882 66,308 30-Jul-10 15 Replace Windows 10 Adam Beck JPS- Re- 20-May- 1,445,000 1,057,700 37,776 20-Aug-10 16 place Windows/Wall 10 Secord ES - Replace Windows E&W Ele- 337,825 327,535 121,166 10-Jul-10 16-Aug-10 16 ments. Presteign Hts ES - Re- 11-Nov- 181,404 174,422 169,254 4-Feb-10 16 place Windows 09 Cassandra PS - Replace 22-Mar- 307,494 307,396 98,847 2-Jul-10 17 Windows 10 Fairmount JPS - Up- 1,528,089 677,490 473,257 8-Jun-09 2-Sep-09 18 grade Boiler Plant Kennedy PS - Boilers 27-Apr- 760,000 760,000 633,200 22-Mar-10 20 Replace 09 Meadowvale - Roof Re- 226,890 226,890 195,207 2-Oct-09 18-Jan-10 22 place C,BD1,BD2&B3 Various Sites- 2,464,760 1,559,708 1,559,708 7-Jul-09 26-Feb-10 Thermostat Replacement Various Sites - Occu- 583,000 490,399 397,593 13-Jul-09 26-Feb-10 pancy Sensor Projects Under 100k 10,677,625 3,160,187 1,575,851 Total Energy Efficient Schools 33,850,608 17,815,000 9,152,312 Projects

Nelson Mandela Park PS 26-Oct- 18,830,000 600,000 150,190 5-Sep-11 14 Ren 09 PTR Nelson Mandela 18,830,000 600,000 150,190 Park PS Renovation Thorncliffe Pk ES - New 10-Oct- 16,062,231 600,000 45,122 30-Aug-12 13 School Building 10 CPF - Thorncliffe Pk ES 16,062,231 600,000 45,122 - New School

Jesse Ketchum - Site/Interior Renova- 2,150,000 1,000,000 12,839 7-Nov-08 30-Oct-10 14 tions Jesse Ketchum 2,150,000 1,000,000 12,839 (Shadow)

568 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590]

* Total Budget for Actual Occupancy Ward Description Project This Fiscal Expendi- Start Date Date Budget Year ture in Q2 Chester Le - City Child- 3,700,000 1,000,000 51,751 5/27/2010 4/1/2010 20 care Project Chester Le Daycare 3,700,000 1,000,000 51,751

Pools Rehabilitation Projects Westview Centennial - 29-Mar- 676,150 676,150 37,033 30-Jun-10 4 Pool Rehabilitation 10 Humberside CI-Pool 710,660 497,462 18,288 26-Jun-10 30-Sep-10 7 Rehabilitation Keele Street-Pools Re- 21-Aug- 716,463 501,524 32,424 30-Sep-10 7 habilitation Grant 09 Glenview Sr. PS - Pool 19-Apr- 528,600 528,600 22,733 30-Jun-10 8 Rehabilitation 10 Allenby JPS - Pool Re- 513,850 359,695 16,510 15-Jun-10 17-Sep-10 8 habilitation Harbord CI - Pools Re- 331,226 231,858 25,469 28-Jan-10 17-Sep-10 10 habilitation Grant Forest Hill CI- Pool Re- 16-Mar- 684,600 479,220 40,079 17-Sep-10 11 habilitation 10 Northern SS-Pools Re- 473,550 473,550 473,550 4-Aug-09 25-Dec-09 11 habilitation Grant AYJackson SS - Pool 684,600 684,600 129,015 2-Mar-10 30-Jun-10 12 Rehabilitation Newtonbrook SS-Pool 437,600 306,320 31,394 21-Jun-10 17-Sep-10 12 Rehabilitation Jarvis CI - Pool Reha- 11-Mar- 557,850 390,495 15,240 10-Sep-10 14 bilitation 10 Riverdale CI - Pools 177,108 177,108 160,999 1-Sep-09 29-Dec-09 15 Rehabilitation Grant Stephen Leacock- Pools 27-Aug- 420,686 420,686 420,686 18-Feb-10 20 Rehabilitation Grant 09 Projects to be allocated 2,071,617 2,071,617 Total Pools Rehabilitation 8,984,560 7,798,885 1,423,420

Student Success Strategy (Projects Under 100K) 1,778,086 80,000 Student Success Strategy 1,778,086 80,000 (Projects Under 100K)

School Energy Generation Initia-

tive Grant Projects Under 100K 150,000 150,000 10,119 Total School Energy Generation 150,000 150,000 10,119 Initiative Grant

Renewal funded from capital

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 569 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590]

* Total Budget for Actual Occupancy Ward Description Project This Fiscal Expendi- Start Date Date Budget Year ture in Q2 York Humber CI- Re- 20-Oct- 122,537 42,500 42,021 30-Sep-09 6 pair Roof 08 Humberside CI - Roof 10-Sep- 146,952 146,952 56,971 10-Jan-10 7 Leak Damages 09 Warren Pk JPS - Mould 29-Sep- 106,200 106,200 13,917 30-Jun-10 7 Remediation 09 North Toronto CI - S/I 115,547 115,547 115,547 1-Jun-10 15-Sep-10 11 blinds Don Mills -Office Reno- 100,000 100,000 54,686 15-Jan-10 15-Apr-10 17 vation Timothy Eaton BTI - 219,000 186,570 113,016 28-Jul-09 18-Dec-09 20 School Closure 2010 - Portable Pro- 1,000,000 1,000,000 637,801 9-Jan-09 12-Jan-10 gram-Moves/Renos EastEdOff-Upgrade 900,000 900,000 21,876 22-Jan-10 30-Jun-10 Back-up Power West Education Office - 30-Nov- 625,082 625,082 403,256 3-May-10 Chiller Replacement 09 Various School - Up- 333,000 147,717 128,025 1-Jun-09 5-Apr-10 grade Unsafe Sportsfield Various Schools # Signs 300,000 118,322 22,656 3-Oct-09 15-Sep-09 Exit Doors SCE - Gas Pipe Testing 300,000 221,124 96,167 5-May-09 2-Sep-09 Various Sites - Sport 14-Sep- 175,000 175,000 139,898 30-Jun-10 Field Lining 09 Various Schools - # 152,500 152,500 44,822 1-May-10 15-Sep-10 Signs Exit Doors SCE-Mould Survey & 120,000 56,905 33,908 2-Sep-08 21-Apr-10 Remediation-Buildings Various Sites - Sign In- 25-Nov- 113,050 109,254 108,508 25-Jan-10 stallation 09 Projects Under 100K 7,406,342 2,701,677 2,455,564 Projects to be allocated 1,646,848 1,644,650 Total Renewal funded from capital 13,882,058 8,550,000 4,488,639

Leased Premises Brockton - Exterior Wall 450,645 173,024 141,627 5-Jan-09 12-Jan-09 Repair Hardington Centre -Fire 100,000 100,000 42,193 18-Jan-10 14-May-10 Restoration Projects Under 100K 829,602 68,033 49,361 Projects to be allocated 658,943 658,943 Total Leased Premises 2,039,190 1,000,000 233,181 Grand Total 124,672,945 41,336,638

* Projects may extend over more than one year

570 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590]

Updated 2009 2009 - 2010 - 2010 Capital Actual Expen- Capital Pro- Program Projects Re- diture in Q2 jects Cost vised Cost ($ Millions) ($ Millions) ($ Millions)

GOOD PLACES TO LEARN

1 (GPL)

GPL 1 4.4 4.4 0.10

GPL 2 3.8 3.2 0.75

GPL 3 29.1 26.7 8.52

GPL 4 4.2 2.0 1.21

CRITICAL FACILITIES RE- 0.3 1.3 0.12 2 NEWAL (Debenture) SCHOOL FACILITIES REVI- TALIZATION PLAN ( SFRMP 27.8 26.8 8.16 3 I ) SCHOOL FACILITIES REVI- TALIZATION PLAN ( SFRMP 4 II )

Barrier Free 1.1 1.1 0.73

Program Upgrade Capacity 0.3 0.3 0.09

Broadening Choices Projects 1.9 1.3 0.04

Safety Upgrades 2.7 2.2 0.36

Science Lab 0.1 0.1 0.01

SCHOOL FACILITIES REVI- TALIZATION PLAN ( SFRMP 5 III )

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 571 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590]

Updated 2009 2009 - 2010 - 2010 Capital Actual Expen- Capital Pro- Program Projects Re- diture in Q2 jects Cost vised Cost ($ Millions) ($ Millions) ($ Millions)

New School Capital 0.3 0.3 0.01

Program Upgrades 3.6 2.3 1.10

Barrier Free 1.0 0.7 0.01

Multi-use Capital 0.2 0.0 0.00

Pool Conversions 0.5 0.5 0.00

Special Education Pods 4.0 0.3 0.01

Major Program Improvements 2.5 2.4 0.48

Specialized Alternative Schools 0.0 0.04 0.04

PRIMARY CLASS SIZE (PCS) 8.4 8.4 3.28 6

ENERGY PHASE VI 3.4 1.7 0.76 7 ENERGY EFFICIENT 19.5 17.8 9.15 8 SCHOOLS

PTR - Nelson Mandela Park PS 0.6 0.6 0.15 9

CPF - Thorncliffe Park PS 0.6 0.6 0.05 10

Jesse Ketchum PS(Shadow) 1.7 1.0 0.01 11

Chester Lee Daycare 1.5 1.0 0.05 12

Pools Rehabilitation 7.8 7.8 1.42 13

572 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 15, June 2, 2010 Accommodation of Students From 2025 Sheppard Avenue East [1590]

Updated 2009 2009 - 2010 - 2010 Capital Actual Expen- Capital Pro- Program Projects Re- diture in Q2 jects Cost vised Cost ($ Millions) ($ Millions) ($ Millions)

Student Success Strategy Fund- 0.2 0.1 0.00 14 ing School Energy Generation Initia- 0.2 0.2 0.01 15 tive Grant

Renewal funded from Capital 8.5 8.6 4.49 16

Leased Premises * 1.0 1.0 0.23 17

Grand Total 141.2 124.7 41.34

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 573 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Human Resources and Professional Learning Committee, Report No. 12 (Part 1), June 2, 2010

Human Resources and Professional Learning Committee

Report No. 12 (Part 1), June 2, 2010

A meeting of the Human Resources and Professional Learning Committee convened on Wednesday, June 2, 2010, from 6:15 to 7:40 p.m. in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Nadia Bello, Chair, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Nadia Bello (Chair), Stephnie Payne, James Pasternak, Mari Rutka and Chris Tonks. Also present were Trustees Chris Bolton and Gerri Gershon. Trustee Tonks participated by electronic means.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Respectful Learning and Working Environment Policy [1580]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 577) presenting a policy that confirms the Board’s commitment to providing a respectful working and learning environment.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Rutka, the Human Resources and Professional Learning Committee RECOMMENDS that the policy Respectful Learning and Working Environment, as presented in the staff report, be adopted.

2. Workplace Violence Prevention Policy [1579] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 578) presenting a policy in developed in accordance with recent revisions to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The policy states the Board’s commitment to providing a workplace that is free of violence.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Rutka, the Human Resources and Professional Learning Committee REC- OMMENDS that the policy Workplace Violence Prevention, as presented in the staff report, be adopted.

574 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Human Resources and Professional Learning Committee, Report No. 12 (Part 1), June 2, 2010

3. Occasional Teaching Assignments On motion of Trustee Rutka, the Human Resources Committee RECOMMENDS:

Whereas, some retired teaching staff are currently used in supply and or as long-term occasional teaching roles;

Therefore, be it resolved that in August 2010 the Director provide the following information for the 2008-09 school year:

(i) a breakdown of the number of days worked by both retired teachers and those who are on the eligible-to-hire list, including the amounts paid to occasional teachers, as percentages of the total, for all reasons, and broken down by:

 teachers who qualified within the last three years  retirees  all others

(ii) breakdowns for secondary and elementary in the following categories:

 all occasional teachers in all types of assignments  all occasional teachers in short-term assignments  all occasional teachers in long-term assignments  similar breakdowns by panel

(iii) definitions of short-term and long-term assignments, hiring practices, dispatch practices and other relevant factors as identified by staff.

4. Updating Requirements for an Executive Search Firm Consideration of the matter was postponed to a future meeting.

Part B: Information Only

5. Staffing Process

Staff provided oral updates on the status of the 2010-11 staffing processes for all employee groups and answered questions from the members. Staff undertook to provide a statistical report on the demographics of employees in October 2010.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 575 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Human Resources and Professional Learning Committee, Report No. 12 (Part 1), June 2, 2010

6. Communications Between Ontario College of Teachers and the Board

The Committee discussed the matter of how information and reports of the College of Teachers is shared with Board staff. Staff explained that recent events were very unusual and staff will monitor issues going forward.

7. Sexual Relationships Between Staff and Student/Former Students

The Committee discussed the section of operational procedure PR560, Abuse and Neglect of students that states:

Board staff/volunteers working directly with a student of any age in their professional capacity will not enter into a sexual relationship with that student during the course of the professional relationship or for a period of one year thereafter.

Staff explained that the wording and intent of this section had been carefully considered from ethical and legal perspectives and was intended to protect both students and teachers.

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report

Nadia Bello Chair of the Committee

Adopted June 23, 2010

576 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Human Resources and Professional Learning Committee, Report No. 12 (Part 1), June 2, 2010 Respectful Learning and Working Environment Policy [1580]

Respectful Learning and Working Environment Policy [1580]

As presented to the Human Resources and Professional Learning Committee on June 2, 2010 (see page 574). The policy is created as an overarching policy that is supported by a number of current and pending policies that encompass the Board’s commitment to ensure a respectful learning environment. Below is a new policy to affirm the Board’s commitment to providing a learning and working environment that is free from all objectionable conduct including violence, harassment, bullying/intimidation and discrimination and to support the new requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Policy Title: Respectful Learning And Working Environment Objective: To provide a learning and working environment in which all individuals treat each other with respect, dignity and learn to work in an environment that is free from all objectionable conduct including violence, harassment, bullying/intimidation and discrimination. Definition: Working environment is any place where employees, students and other users perform work or work-related duties or functions. Schools and school-related activities, such as ex- tracurricular activities and excursions, comprise the workplace, as do Board offices and facilities. Conferences and training sessions fall within the ambit of this policy. Policy Statements (a) The Board holds high expectations for the conduct of its employees, its students, educational partners and any others associated with the school community; (b) This policy applies to all Board students, employees, trustees and other users such as members of consultative committees, clients of the Board, parents, visitors, volunteers, permit holders, contractors and employees of organizations not related to the Board but who nevertheless work on or are invited onto Board premises. (c) This policy is intended to provide a greater awareness of the value of establishing and maintaining respectful learning and working environments and the need to respond to the damaging effects of objectionable conduct; (d) This policy and the underlying policies are supported by programs and procedures intended to define the issues and responsibilities to ensure the Board’s compliance with all legisla- tive requirements. Specific Directives: The Director has authority to issue operational procedures to implement this policy.

For the Board’s decision see page 574.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 577 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Human Resources and Professional Learning Committee, Report No. 12 (Part 1), June 2, 2010 Workplace Violence Prevention Policy [1579]

Workplace Violence Prevention Policy [1579]

As presented to the Human Resources and Professional Learning Committee on June 2, 2010 (see page 574). Recent amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act of Ontario Section 32.0.1 require the employer to prepare a policy with respect to workplace violence. The policy shall be in a written form and shall be posted at a conspicuous place in the workplace.

Below is a new policy that states the Board’s commitment to provide a work environment that is free of workplace violence as defined in the Occupational Health and Safety Act and to comply with these new requirements.

Title: Workplace Violence Prevention Objective: The Board is committed to providing a work environment that is safe and free of workplace violence as defined by the Occupational Health & Safety Act:

(i) The exercise of physical force by a person against a worker, in a workplace that causes or could cause physical injury to the worker;

(ii) An attempt to exercise physical force against a worker, in a workplace, that could cause physical injury to the worker;

(iii) A statement or behaviour that is reasonable for a worker to interpret as a threat to exercise physical force against the worker in a workplace that could cause physical injury to the worker (“violence au travail”).

Definition: Working environment is any place where employees perform work or work-related duties or functions and includes Board sanctioned social events.

Policy Statements (a) The Board believes in the prevention of violence and is committed to promoting a violence-free workplace in which all people respect one another and work together to achieve common goals.

(b) This policy applies to all Toronto District School Board students, employees, trustees and other users such as members of consultative committees, clients of the Board, parents, visitors, volunteers, permit holders, contractors, and employees of organizations not related to the Board but who nevertheless work on or are invited onto Board premises.

(c) This policy applies to all activities that occur while on Board premises or while engaging in Board related activities and Board related social events;

(d) The Board is committed to the implementation of measures and procedures for the reduction of violent incidents through the assessment of risk, by providing employees information related to risk of workplace violence of a person with a history of workplace violence

578 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Human Resources and Professional Learning Committee, Report No. 12 (Part 1), June 2, 2010 Workplace Violence Prevention Policy [1579]

and instruction on how to report, and how the employer will investigate. In conjunction with its responsibilities and duties as outlined in the Education Act, the Board will take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker.

Specific Directives: The Director has authority to issue operational procedures to implement this policy.

For the Board’s decision see page 574.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 579 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 15 (Part 1), June 7, 2010

Special Education Advisory Committee

Report No. 15 (Part 1), June 7, 2010

A meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee was convened on Monday, April 12, 2010 at 7:05 to 9:20 p.m., in Committee Room B, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Clovis Grant presiding. The following committee members were present: Diana Avon, Christina Buczek, Richard Carter, Elizabeth Fisher, Dr. Robert Gates, Clovis Grant, Dr. Norm Forman, Steven Lynette, Tina Shier, Tammy Simon, Ann Szabo and Trustees John Hastings and James Pasternak. Regrets were received from Loris Bennett, Scott Bridges and Susan Musgrave.

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Request for Ministry Enquiry on Special Education Financing Base

On motion of Trustee Pasternak, amended by Trustee Hastings, the Special Education Advisory Committee RECOMMENDS:

Whereas, between the years 2005 and 2010 school enrolment has decreased by 13,600; and

Whereas, there has been an increase in the number of students with special needs by 5,200, which includes an increase of 2,200 students with exceptionalities as identified by an Identifica- tion, Placement and Review Committee;

Whereas, the net increase in special education funding since 2002-03 of approximately $40 million is primarily due to increasing salaries and has no impact on increasing needs; and

Whereas, analysis of the Grant for Student Needs for the 2020-11 fiscal year concluded that “among the significant changes made was to reduce the ‘transitioning’ funding stabilization for the high needs portion of the grant established in 2005-06 by 50%”, which represents a funding reduction of $2.6 million. At the same time, staff estimate that the Special Equipment Amount has been reduced by $500,000 and the Measures of Variability increased the High Needs Amount by about $200,000; and

Whereas, many other school boards across Ontario have found that current shortfalls in special education funding are hurting the education delivery system; and

Whereas, students with special needs face enormous challenges in their schooling and in the wider society;

580 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 15 (Part 1), June 7, 2010

Therefore, be it resolved that a communication, with a copy to the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, be sent to the Ministry of Education requesting that a special inquiry into the financing base of special education be commissioned.

2. Creation of Position of Parent/Guardian Facilitator, Special Education Consideration of the matter was postponed to a future meeting.

3. Membership of the Committee Consideration of the matter was postponed to a future meeting.

Part B: Information Only

4. 2010-11 Funding for Special Education [Page 1, item 3(ii)] Cindy Burley reported that part of SEAC’s mandate is to provide input to the Board on budget decisions pertaining to Special Education. This year, the department has not been asked to make cuts to Special Education programs and services, so budget input from SEAC was not sought. Staff intend to begin the staffing allocation process earlier in the new school year and will be looking for input from SEAC in the fall if there is a possibility that cuts are required.

5. SEAC and TDSB Procedural Bylaws In light of changes made to the Board’s procedural bylaws from which SEAC takes direction, the Committee decided that the Bylaws subcommittee should reconvene to review and report back to SEAC on recommended changes to the bylaws. Diana Avon, Steven Lynette and Trustee John Hastings were appointed to sit on the subcommittee.

6. Ministry of Education E-learning Members were invited to review the Ministry’s e-learning web site for SEAC and to submit comments and or recommendations on its usefulness.

7. Communications Subcommittee The committee discussed the draft SEAC parents’ guide pamphlet which was emailed to members for feedback. Members are invited to submit comments and/or recommendations to Clovis Grant prior to the end of the school year.

The Communications subcommittee undertook to draft procedures for dealing with incoming correspondence from the generic SEAC electronic mailbox. The draft will be shared with members in the fall.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 581 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 15 (Part 1), June 7, 2010

8. Special Education Plan Subcommittee The subcommittee met on May 11, 2010 and took a final review of the Special Education Plan which is now called the Special Education Report, the final draft of which was received last week.

9. Correspondence

 Letter dated April 12, 2010 re nominations for new SEAC member and alternate for VOICE  Email dated May 10, 2010 from Toronto Family Network re Special Education Funding Ad- vocacy Letter in SEAC April 12, 2010 Minutes  Email dated May 10, 2010 from Paula Surdin re resignation as SEAC Community Rep  Email dated May 11, 2010 from Karlo Cabrera re invitation to participate in Beginning Teachers Summer Institute  Email dated May 13, 2010 from Gary Bunch re the Canadian Association of Inclusive Edu- cation  Email dated May 31, 2010 from Nancy Morrison re Advocacy at Queen’s Park on Bench- marks and SSAH issues  Email dated April 11, 2010 from Kim Southern-Paulsen re parent involvement and outreach to families with exceptional students  Email date June 4, 2010 from Karen Forbes re recognition and than you to SEAC members and those leaving SEAC  Email dated June 4, 2010 from the Toronto Family Network re May agenda  Email dated June 4, 2010 from Toronto Family Network re questions/answers re November 2009 SEAC meeting.

10. Senior Superintendent’s Report The senior superintendent presented a report (see SEAC:006B) to the Committee.

11. Central Coordinating Principal’s Report The central coordinating principal presented a report (see SEAC:006B) to the Committee.

12. Professional Support Services Report The manager of Professional Support Services presented a report (see SEAC:006B) to the Com- mittee.

Clovis Grant Chair of the Committee

Adopted June 23, 2010

582 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 13 (Part 1), June 9, 2010

Program and School Services Committee

Report No. 13 (Part 1), June 9, 2010

A meeting of the Program and School Services Committee convened on Wednesday, June 9, 2010, from 6:35 to 8:25 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Michael Coteau chairing.

Committee members present: Trustees Michael Coteau (Chair), Cathy Dandy, Josh Matlow and Maria Rodrigues. Regrets were received from Trustee John Campbell. Also present were Trus- tees Sheila Cary-Meagher, Soo Wong and Student Trustee Fan Wu.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Transition to Digital Textbooks

Consideration of the matter was postponed to a future meeting.

2. School Effectiveness District Reviews Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other (refer without recommendation)

On motion of Trustee Dandy on behalf of Trustee Gershon, the Program and School Services Committee RECOMNDS:

Whereas, School Effectiveness District Reviews have been implemented as part of the Director’s Vision of Hope; and

Whereas, the purpose of the School Effectiveness District Reviews is to enable school staff to highlight their successes, further refine practices to improve student achievement and monitor school improvement through the provision of evidence, so as to further inform the school improvement planning process; and

Whereas, the reviews are collaborative processes with the Families of Schools superintendent leading a team of internal staff composed of central and school-based principals, Program staff and other superintendents; and

Whereas, the Board’s Improvement Plan's pillar of "Community, Culture and Caring" embraces partnership support from parents, community members and agencies that contribute to the school's improvement directions;

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 583 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 13 (Part 1), June 9, 2010

Whereas, there is further value added to the school improvement planning process by determin- ing the degree to which the school is,

 welcoming to parents and the community  inclusive of parental and partnership input  able to show evidence of the impact of co-curricular activities and partnership support on student achievement

Therefore be it resolved that the Director consider designing a process to invite external community partners, such as local business people, community agency personnel, etc., into the School Effectiveness District Review process to specifically focus on the non-academic aspects of the participating school.

3. Review of Professional Support Services Consideration of the matter was postponed to a future meeting.

4. Establishment of a Children and Youth Mental Health Committee Consideration of the matter was postponed to a future meeting.

Part B: Information Only

5. Delegations

The following delegations were heard in accordance with the Board’s procedure for hearing delegations: re Report of the French as a Second Language Advisory Committee

 Tami Oudendijk, Co-chair, FSLAC  Trish Murphy re Youthview Program

 Edward Heeley, Producer, Director, Writer, Actor re Full Service Schools

 Cathy Reid re Audit of Professional Support Services

 Janis Jaffe-White and Reva Schafer, Toronto Family Network

584 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 13 (Part 1), June 9, 2010

re Extended French Program, Hodgson Sr. P.S.

 Dhira Bery, Parent, Extended French, Hodgson Sr. P.S.  Lorie Scarfarotti, Parent, Extended French, Hodgson Sr. P.S.

Written submissions from Edward Heeley and Janis Jaffe-White were received.

6. French as a Second Language Advisory Committee On motion of Trustee Rodrigues, the Committee received a report from the French as a Second Language Advisory Committee from a meeting held on June 3, 2010.

7. Kindergarten Learning Strategy The Committee heard a presentation from staff on the Kindergarten Learning Strategy which includes individual resources accessible on the Board’s intranet. It is intended to provide Kinder- garten teaching teams, principals and superintendents with the skills and strategies to implement literacy programs and foster academic and affective development of Kindergarten students. Hundreds of staff have actively participated in the development of the strategy.

8. Program Fast Facts 2009-10 On motion of Trustee Rodrigues, the Committee received a staff report1 presenting the Fast Facts issued by the Program department, 2009-10.

Part C: Ongoing Matters

9. Postponed Matters The Committee decided to postpone consideration of the following matter to the next meeting.

 Admission to French Immersion Programs by Students From Another School Board Through the Optional Attendance Process (Trustee Campbell)

Michael Coteau Chair of the Committee

Adopted June 23, 2010

1 The document will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 585 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 15 (Part 1), June 16, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee

Report No. 15 (Part 1), June 16, 2010

A meeting of the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee was convened on Wednesday, June 16, 2010, from 4:10 to 5:55 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Sheila Ward presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Sheila Ward (Chair), Irene Atkinson, Sheila Cary-Meagher and Scott Harrison. Regrets were received from Trustee John Hastings. Also present were Trustee Gerri Gershon and Student Trustees Gorick Ng and Fan Wu.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Contract Awards [1624]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 589) presenting contracts for products and/or services used by schools and administrative departments. The Committee received the contracts on Chart A.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Atkinson, amended by Trustee Cary-Meagher, the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee RECOMENDS:

(a) That the contracts on Chart B, as presented in the report and with the exception of the contract for ten IT Services contracted staff, be approved;

(b) That the contract for ten IT Services contracted staff in the amount of $1,404,250 be approved at the discretion of the chief technology officer, and that staff report to the Admini- stration, Finance and Accountability Committee on the outcome in August 2010.

Staff undertook to look at broadening notification re student accident insurance to parents at both the beginning and end of the school year, perhaps two or three times in September and include notice to the Student SuperCouncil and school councils.

586 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 15 (Part 1), June 16, 2010

2. Stop Arm Cameras on School Buses [1627] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 595) presenting additional information on school bus stop-arm cameras as requested by the Board on May 26, 2010.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Atkinson, the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee RECOMMENDS that a pilot project to place stop-arm cameras on some of the schoolbuses used to transport students be approved.

3. Early Learning Program Before- And After-School Programs Implementation and Fee [1631] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 596) and a report from the Parent Involve- ment Advisory Committee (see page 600) concerning implementation of the Early Learning Pro- gram’s before- and after-school programs.

On motions of Trustee Harrison and Atkinson, the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee RECOMMENDS:

(a) That the fee for Early Learning Program Before- and After-School Programs at a daily rate of $30.25 be approved;

(b) That the Chair of the Board draft a letter to the Minister of Education expressing PIAC’s concerns as to the implementation of Phase 1 of the Early Learning Program emphasizing the following:

 the negative implications on Daycare Centres  limited curriculum quality for the children  limited facilities in schools for programming  limited communication to parents on the process;  the ripple effects on students at all levels throughout the system;

and that in Phase II of the Early Learning Program, capital as well as programming dollars be allocated to cover all additional costs;

(c) That appreciation and thanks be extended to the Parent Involvement Advisory Committee for consideration of the matter.

Staff undertook to include Learning Opportunities Index rankings to schools that are proposed to have the before- and after-school programs.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 587 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 15 (Part 1), June 16, 2010

4. Paperless Board and Committee Meetings Consideration of the matter was postponed to a future meeting.

5. French Course Costs Consideration of the matter was postponed to a future meeting.

6. Student Activity Fees and Course Cost Fees Consideration of the matter was postponed to a future meeting.

Part B: Information Only

7. Contract Award, Cold Beverage Vending Services The Committee considered a staff report presenting a recommendation for the provision of cold beverage vending services.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

At the Committee meeting, a motion of Trustee Harrison to approve the following staff recommendation was defeated: “That a one-year extension, ending August 31, 2011, to the current Pepsi Bottling Group contract for cold beverage vending services be approved.”

Staff undertook to renegotiate with Pepsi to expand the variety of offerings to schools and report back to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee.

Part C: Ongoing Matters

8. Postponed Matters No matters to report

Sheila Ward Chair of the Committee Adopted, as amended, June 23, 2010

588 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Contract Awards [1624]

Contract Awards [1624]

As presented to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on June 16, 2010 (see page 586).

In accordance with the Board's policy P.017: Purchasing, the attached charts present contracts for receipt or approval, as appropriate.

Contracts related to the Board’s Facility Services function are presented separately to the Opera- tions and Facilities Management Committee.

The recommended suppliers and the term of each contract are shown in the attached charts. Chart 1 outlines contract awards provided for information, Chart 2 outlines contracts requiring Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee approval, and Chart 3 outlines contracts requiring Board approval. The amounts shown are based on the estimated annual consumption unless indicated otherwise. Actual amounts depend on the volume of products/services actually used during the term of the contract.

The Process

Purchasing and Distribution Services, where possible, invited bids from a minimum of three firms. Requirements expected to exceed $100,000 were also posted on two electronic bulletin boards (MERX and BiddinGo) to facilitate broader public access.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 589 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Contract Awards [1624]

Chart 1: Contract Awards Provided for Information (contracts over $50,000 and up to $175,000)

User/Budget No. of Estimated Projected Holder Recommended Low Customer In- Products/Services Details Ward Objections Bids Annual Start/End Date School/Departme Supplier Bid volvement Rec’d Amount of Contract nt

$25,000 September, Student Accident Insurance Reliable Life PDS & Risk 1 Students N/A Yes No 2 (paid by 2010/ August, LG10-121P Insurance Management students) 2015

Science Supplies, ordered as and September, PDS and when required. One-year con- CCS Educa- 2 All Schools N/A N/A N/A N/A $78,000 2010/ August, School Ser- tract extension option. RFP tional Inc. 2011 1 vices staff SM06-182P Science Supplies, ordered as and September, PDS and when required. One-year con- Bo- 3 All Schools N/A N/A N/A N/A $117,800 2010/ August, School Ser- tract extension option. RFP real/Northwest 2011 1 vices staff SM06-182P Science Supplies, ordered as and Sargent Welch September, PDS and when required. One-year con- 4 All Schools N/A (Division of N/A N/A N/A $156,200 2010/ August, School Ser- tract extension option. RFP VWR) 2011 1 vices staff SM06-182P All Schools and Environmentally responsible PDS & Waste July, 2010/ 5 Administrative disposal of electronic equipment N/A Artex Yes No 6 No cost Management June, 2015 Departments LG10-120P (Facilities) Ontario Physical Curriculum Support Documents Health & Health & Physical and Health Edu- 6 (see additional information be- N/A N/A N/A N/A $60,000 September, 2010 Physical Edu- Education cation Associa- low) cation tion

1 One-year extensions are required to ensure continued access to current supply contracts, pending completion of the RFP process for lab supplies by Ontario Education Collabo- rative Marketplace (OECM)

590 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Contract Awards [1624]

Chart 2: Contracts Requiring Board Approval (contracts over $250,000 and Consulting Services over $50,000)

User/Budget Recom- No. of Estimated Projected Holder Low Objec- Customer In- Products/Services Details Ward mended Sup- Bids Annual Start/End Date of School/Departme Bid tions volvement plier Rec’d Amount Contract nt Consulting Services – De- velop an architecture and design a next generation Cisco Ad- network that will support July, 2010/ 1 IT Services N/A vanced Ser- N/A N/A N/A $167,000 IT Services wireless access for all sites December, 2010 vices by 2015. (see additional information below) Visa Students/Intl Excel (Pa- September 1, International (VISA) Student PDS & Int. 2 Stud N/A cific) Finan- Yes No 7 $571,200 2 2010/ Insurance SM09-096P Students staff &Admissions cial Inc. August 31, 2013 10 contracted staff to support September 1, various IT functions. As per Ap- ITS and PDS 3 IT Services N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,404,250 2010/ (see additional information pendix D staff August 31, 2011 below)

2 No cost to the Board; paid by student. Health insurance is mandatory for International Students.

Sole Sourcing of Wireless Network Design to Cisco

The Board approved the allocation of $2M on an annual basis for 5 years to implement the expansion of wireless technology to support teaching and learning in our schools, an objective of the Director’s Vision of Hope.

One of the three prerequisites to facilitate the wireless local area network (WLAN) is a robust and responsive WLAN architecture and a design must be in place that can be easily replicated for all of the schools.

The Board has standardized on Cisco networking technology since amalgamation. Over the course of the past eleven years, the Board has continued to invest in advanced, leading edge technology and products from Cisco to provide connectivity across all sites.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 591 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Contract Awards [1624]

The Board’s connectivity infrastructure for the wide area network (to link all Board buildings together) and local area networks (to connect computers within schools) has been built with Cisco internetworking products. Additionally, Cisco is the support services provider for the Data Centre network equipment and is familiar with the specifics of the networking environment across the system.

Cisco Advanced Services has proposed a four task design approach:

Task 1: WLAN Architecture, Security Planning & Design Support for:

 Secure Mobility  Voice over WLAN  Context aware location  Guest access  Video over WLAN

Task 2: WLAN detailed design(low level design) for key WLAN applications listed above

Task 3: Cisco Unified Wireless Network (CUWN) Implementation Services

Task 4: Radio Frequency (RF) Assessment Services:

RF Site Survey and Spectrum Analysis for the following locations:

 1 indoor site up to 25,000 square feet  1 indoor site up to 50,000 square feet

It is estimated that it will take until December 2010 to complete the Design Phase, at a cost $167,000. The total cost of $167,000 will be covered as follows: $110,000 will be taken from the 2009/2010 Budget for wireless, and the remaining $57,000 will be taken from the 2010/2011 Budget for wireless.

ITS Contracted Staff

To enable IT Services to complete project-based system development work in progress (such as Student Success Dashboard) and cover vacancies that ITS is unable to fill, extensions of contract personnel are required as listed below. The total planned contract cost for 2010/11 is approximately $1,404,250 (10 contractors).

592 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Contract Awards [1624]

Rates charged by contracted staff were determined following a Request for Proposals process in 2007 to establish “vendors of record”. The Board approved the vendors of record for a three-year term on January 30, 2008.

Contractors are released as the projects are completed.

Contract personnel are required due to a lack of qualified in-house staff and the difficulties in filling posted vacant positions. The Technology Architect position is a vacancy that we have been trying to fill. There were no qualified applicants after spending many thousands of dollars for newspaper advertising, staff time etc.

The Applications developers and Datawarehouse supports are required to continue provisioning the Cognos Datawarehouse to support Student Success Indicators, Learning to 18, Safe Schools, School Improvement Planning, and Students at risk.

All contracts can be cancelled upon 30 days notice.

IT Services Contract staff, 2010-11

Contract 10-11 Current Role Rate New Date Vendor/Company Function since Budget Sr Application Application Ar- Oct-2001 102.00 31-Aug-11 178,500 Sapphire Tech Architect chitecture PL/SQL devel- Nov-2000 DataWarehouse 84.00 31-Aug-11 147,000 Sapphire Tech oper Datawarehouse Jul-2000 DataWarehouse 80.00 31-Aug-11 140,000 Knowledge 4 You application support. Help Desk Sys- AZ -Tech Com- Apr-1989 Help Desk 62.50 31-Aug-11 120,000 tem Technical puter Sys Analyst Information Ar- Computer Hori- chitecture for Sep-1998 Data Architect 100.00 31-Aug-11 175,000 zons/ISG Student Success projects Technology Ar- Systhesys Canada Technology Ar- Jun-1998 67.00 31-Aug-11 125,000 chitect Inc. chitect – Design

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 593 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Contract Awards [1624]

and plan

Apr-2005 Student Success 79.00 31-Aug-11 138,250 Sapphire Tech Data Analyst Cognos Devel- Nov-2006 Student Success 83.00 31-Aug-11 145,250 Solvtech Inc. oper Cognos Devel- Dec-2005 Student Success 83.00 31-Aug-11 145,250 Solvtech Inc. oper BSA SAP Tele- Telecommuni- Sep-2007 48.00 31-Aug-11 90,000 Sapphire Tech com Account cations Validation 10 1,404,250

For the Board’s decision see page 586.

594 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Stop Arm Cameras on School Buses [1627]

Stop Arm Cameras on School Buses [1627]

As presented to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on June 16, 2010 (see page 587). At its meeting held on May 26, 2010, the Board approved that the Director present a report to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on proceeding with a pilot project placing cameras on school buses to capture information about drivers who fail to stop for school buses when their lights are flashing ("stop-arm violators"). The Board and the Toronto Catholic DSB (TCDSB) have been approached by ACS Transportation with a proposal to conduct a pilot project of placing “stop-arm cameras” on some of the buses the Board’s carriers use to transport our students. The objective would be to capture statistics on “stop- arm violators” and use the data gathered as a basis to encourage the provincial government to make such equipment mandatory in the future. This is seen as one additional measure to contribute to student safety. In a meeting with ACS Transportation, they proposed that a number of buses could have cameras mounted on the sides of the vehicles. Video-taping would start when the school bus red flashing lights are activated. The goal would be to capture only the license plate number and date and time that a motorist commits an infraction. The Board’s contracted carriers, Stock, First Student, and Attridge have been consulted and are interested in considering the pilot but they require technical specifications prior to proceeding. There will be some modifications to the “stop arm” and installation of the camera system which needs to be better understood. A detailed proposal from ACS Transportation Solutions has been requested. A legal opinion has been obtained as to the legality of proceeding with a pilot project under the relevant statutes and regulations. The firm concluded that, apart from any considerations under privacy law, the Board could proceed with the pilot project. However, the firm stated that, under current law, the photographs could not be used as evidence against a driver. Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA), the collection of photographs of vehicle licences would be considered a collection of "personal information". If challenged for allegedly violating privacy rights, the Board would argue that such collection is jus- tified on the grounds of student safety. Only violators (and not all drivers on the road) would be recorded by the camera, so the collection is very limited in scope. The office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner does not give advance rulings on the validity of privacy concerns. There are similar pilot projects being conducted in Nova Scotia and Manitoba. The results of these pilots are not completed. If the Board approves that staff proceed with the pilot, the company will be asked to submit a detailed proposal. We expect that the TCDSB will also agree to the pilot. Since a large part of the busing in Toronto is integrated their participation is appropriate. Staff would then be in a better position to approach our contracted carriers to further define the parameters of the pilot. The pilot would be conducted, data would be gathered, compiled, and evaluated in order to produce relevant statistics.

For the Board’s decision see page 587.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 595 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Early Learning Program Before- and After-School Programs Implementation and Fee [1631]

Early Learning Program Before- And After-School Programs Implementation and Fee [1631]

As presented to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on June 16, 2010 (see page 587).

On 12 January 2010, the Ministry of Education (MOE) approved 71 Toronto District School Board (TDSB) school sites to offer Early Learning Program (ELP) in September 2010 or Phase One (Appendix A).

As part of the MOE initiative, an extended day program or Before- and After-School Program is also to be offered where sufficient interest has been expressed for a parent fee cost recovery program.

Program planning has been ongoing for full day learning without Before- and After-School Pro- grams (Appendix B).

On 13 January 2010, the MOE released Memorandum 2010: EL2. This Memorandum outlined the responsibilities of the Board with regard to setting fees for Before- and After-School Pro- grams, which could only commence following the passing of Bill 242 and the release of the coinciding regulations. Bill 242 was passed on 27 April 2010. The coinciding regulations were released on 8 June 2010.

A. (i) Surveying for Parent Interest (no cost provided)

In February 2010, Principals were asked to survey parents of incoming JK registrations and of students moving from JK to SK as to their interest in participation (without indicating a cost). From this data, a systemwide level of interest was determined, which indicated that approximately half of the 71 Phase One schools had sufficient interest (20 students or more) in a Before- and After-School Program.

(ii) Initial Costing Estimate

Based on the level of interest indicated (approximately half the schools) a preliminary costing was developed using the following parameters:

 Minimum program size of 20;  Minimum staffing of two adults, an Early Childhood Educator (ECE) and an Early Child- hood Assistant (ECA) for each program;  Program offered 188 days (not to include PA Days, holidays, breaks or summer months);  Program offered from 7:30 a.m. until school starts and after school until 6:00 p.m.;  Daily fee includes one before school snack and one after school snack (there is no provision for lunch);  Other operating costs with benchmarks as provided by MOE (i.e., supplies, vacancy rate, administrative costs).

Using this criteria a cost range of $25.00 to $35.00 was determined.

596 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Early Learning Program Before- and After-School Programs Implementation and Fee [1631]

(iii) Surveying for Parent Interest (cost range provided)

At the end of April, a second letter was sent out to these same 71 schools. This letter indicated a cost range of $25.00 to $35.00.

The results from the April survey indicated that only five schools have sufficient interest for a single Before- and After-School Program.

B. Staffing for Before- and After-School Program

ELP programs (classrooms) with a Before- and After-School Program will receive the following staffing:

 1 teacher (for school day);  2 ECEs (each with a 6 hour day--one starting at 7:30 a.m. and one ending at 6:00 a.m. with overlap during the lunch hour);  1 ECA (before school);  1 ECA (after school).

See below for a sample day schedule.

C. Recommended Daily Fee for Before- and After-School Programs

Outlined below is a calculation of the daily rate of $30.25 for ELP Before- and After-School Programs. Consultation has taken place with the City of Toronto, Toronto Catholic District School Board and the MOE.

This costing does not include facility upgrades for all 71 Phase One ELP schools, which will be funded by the Ministry, and include where needed: telephone; refrigerator; security system including camera and buzzer; external lighting for primary entry door; and washroom (where accessibility demands it).

Phase One Approved Early Learning Program Schools

Approved School Site List Agnes MacPhail PS Heather Heights Jr PS Twentieth Street JS Albion Heights JMS Highland Creek PS Wellesworth JS Alexmuir Jr PS HJ Alexander CS West Glen JS Ancaster PS Inglewood Heights Jr PS West Rouge Jr PS Bala Avenue CS Iroquois Jr PS Westmount JS Bendale Jr PS Islington JMS Weston Memorial Jr PS Birch Cliff Heights PS James S Bell JMS Wexford PS Birch Cliff PS JG Workman PS White Haven Jr PS

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 597 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Early Learning Program Before- and After-School Programs Implementation and Fee [1631]

Approved School Site List Broadacres JS King George PS William G Davis Jr PS Cherokee PS Kingslake PS Chester Le Jr PS Lillian PS Churchill Heights PS Lord Lansdowne Jr & Sr PS Cliffside PS Market Lane Jr & Sr PS Cordella Jr PS Mary Shadd PS Crestview PS Military Trail PS David Hornell JS Muirhead PS Dennis Avenue CS North Bendale Jr PS Dundas Jr PS Pape Avenue Jr PS Ellesmere-Statton PS Parkdale Jr & Sr PS Elmbank JMS Parkfield JS Ernest PS Pauline Johnson Jr PS Fairglen Jr PS Portage Trail JCS FH Miller Jr PS Rene Gordon ES General Brock PS Second Street JMS George Anderson PS Silver Springs PS George B Little PS Sloane PS Glen Ravine Jr PS Stanley PS Greenholme JMS Summit Heights PS HA Halbert Jr PS Terraview-Willowfield PS Harrison PS Terry Fox PS Harwood PS Tom Longboat Jr PS

Early Learning Program: Phase One Regular Program Planning

(a) Teaching and Learning

The Board will be introducing a districtwide Kindergarten Learning Strategy for all half-day and full-day programs for September 2010. The strategy aligns our current classroom work focused on effective instructional practices, play-based learning and assessment with our Effective Schools work supported by the School Effectiveness Framework and District Reviews.

A programming team introduced the Kindergarten Learning Strategy to school kindergarten teams consisting of the Principal or Vice-Principal, kindergarten teachers and Early Childhood

598 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Early Learning Program Before- and After-School Programs Implementation and Fee [1631]

Educators (ECEs) during one of four half-day professional learning sessions offered on 9 and 10 June 2010. (b) Staffing Full-day kindergarten classes without a Before- and After-School Program will receive the following staffing: 1 Teacher (for school day); 1 ECE (for school day – where class size is 16 or above); and 1 lunchroom supervisor (for lunch hour). Issues related to the staffing of small or large classes will be addressed during September realignment. Projection of Before- and After-School Revenue and Cost

Amounts Assumptions Number of days 188 Staffing per Class 2 Number of Classes 5 Number of students 130 Expenditures Salaries Early Childhood Educa-

tor Regular School Year Rate of Pay $30.99 Hours per day 4.5 Number of school days per 188 year Professional Development 6 Days Total Days 194 Salary $135,271 Benefits 32,898 Vacation and Stats 21,862 Total Salary and Benefits 190,031 Early Childhood Assis-

tant Regular School Year Rate of Pay 24.41 Hours per day 4.5 Number of school days per 188 year Professional Development 6 Days Total Days 194 Salary 106,550 Benefits 25,913 Vacation and Stats 17,220

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 599 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Early Learning Program Before- and After-School Programs Implementation and Fee [1631]

Total Salary and Benefits 149,683 Special Education

Costs Allocation to support Student needs 128,554 Total Salary and Benefit Costs per Site 468,268 Other Costs Snacks 48,880 Supplies 48,880 Telephone Costs 4,500 Professional Development 6,013 ECE & ECA 5% Supply Costs 17,286 Facilities Costs 15,000 Vacancy Rate of 7.5% 51,576 Total Site Costs 660,403 System Program Costs Program Total System Costs Supervisor 78,853 /Expenses Total Projected Costs 739,256 Revenue School Day Rate 1 Total Costs projected 739,256 2 Number of Pupil 130.0 Amount per Pupil 3 5,687 (lin 1 / line 2) 4 Number of Days 188 Daily Rate 5 30.25 (line 3 / line 4)

Report of the Parent Involvement Advisory Committee

Meeting held on: April 6, 2010

Time: From: 7:00 PM To: 10:30 PM

Location: 5050 Yonge Street

Chair: Donna Coughlan and Trustee Wong

Members present: Laurie (Ward 3), Ricardo (Ward 6), Dagmar(Ward 8) Mona (Ward 8), Briony (Ward 10) ,Diane (Ward 13) Janet (Ward 15) Ellen (Ward 16) Gary (ward 17),Joanne (Ward 18), Donna (Ward 20), Samy (Tamil Parents), Karen (Ward 21)

Members not present: Vivek (Ward 1) Tanya(Ward 3),Michelle (Ward 4), Jos (Ward 7), Maritza (Ward 10), Roseanne (Ward 11) Eva (Ward 12), Ines (Ward 14), Kate (Ward 16) Laura (Ward 17), Patricia, (Ward 19),Margaret (TFCP), Mirian (SSEN), Jane (PEN)

600 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Early Learning Program Before- and After-School Programs Implementation and Fee [1631]

The committee decided to make the following recommendations:

Topic: Early Learning Program Phase I Implementation

The Parent Involvement Advisory Committee RECOMMENDS:

That the Chair of the Board draft a letter to the Minister of Education expressing PIAC’s concerns as to the implementation of Phase 1 of the Early Learning Program emphasizing the following:

and that in Phase II of the Early Learning Program, capital as well as programming dollars be allocated to cover all additional costs.

Background or Supporting Information From the Parent Involvement Advisory Committee

PIAC at its meeting on April 6, 2010 discussed the roll out of the Early Learning Program. Members reported on feedback from parents and daycare centres expressing concerns around lack of information on the roll-out, types and cost of after school programming and the implica- tion for daycare centres.

Parents across the system are interested in the ELP however, the roll out process has left many uninformed and confused about key programming and costing implications for families and the schools involved. Many feel that schools delivering the ELP will be forced to compromise programming to accommodate the ELP. Childcare centres have also expressed to parents their concerns around the impact of ELP on their survival and locations within our schools.

Parents across wards of TDSB have requested PIAC to bring their concerns forward to the chair of the board and other Community Advisory Committees of the board.

For the Board’s decision see page 587.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 601 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 14, April 12, 2010

Special Education Advisory Committee

Report No. 14, April 12, 2010

A meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee was convened on Monday, April 12, 2010 from 7:05 to 9:10 p.m., in Committee Room B, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Clovis Grant presiding. The following committee members were present: Diana Avon, Loris Bennett, Scott Bridges, Christina Buczek, Richard Carter, Dr. Robert Gates, Clovis Grant, Dr. Norm Forman, Steven Lynette, Susan Musgrave, Rebecca Rycroft, Tammy Simon, Ann Szabo and Trustees John Hast- ings and James Pasternak. Regrets were received from Liz Fisher and Tina Shier.

Part A: Committee Recommendations

No matters to report

Part B: Information Only

1. Delegation and/or Presentations

(a) Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

SEAC heard a presentation from staff regarding the development, implementation and enforce- ment of accessibility standards for people with disabilities, as set out in the Accessibility for On- tarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 and the Board’s progress regarding implementation of these standards.

(b) 2010-11 Funding for Special Education

SEAC heard a presentation from staff providing an analysis of the Grants for Student Need and the Special Education Grant as announced by the Ontario government in March 2010. At a future meeting, staff will provide further explanations of each grant and changes from the previous year.

Public consultation on tfche budget will be held as indicated:  April 19, 7 p.m., Rosedale Heights School of the Arts, 711 Bloor Street East  April 26, 7 p.m., 140 Borough Drive  May 3, 7 p.m., 5050 Yonge Street  May 4, 7 p.m., Islington Junior Middle School, 44 Cordova Avenue

602 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 14, April 12, 2010

2. Business Arising from the Minutes of March 8, 2010 . Special Education Funding At the March meeting, SEAC heard a presentation from Trustee Bruce Davis, Chair of the Board, seeking support of member organizations to address the underfunding of special education, and decided in part: That the Chair and representatives work with the Chair of the Board on a letter to parents/guardians seeking their support to approach the provincial government, through their Members of Parliament and the Minister of Education to revise the funding formula for special education, so that it reflects the services that special education children need. A copy of the advocacy letter from Chair Davis was included in members’ folders. Clovis Grant indicated that the Chair of the Board would share the letter with trustees1. It was decided that SEAC would await the response from trustees prior to moving forward on the letter. . Parents Reaching Out Grant The Committee heard that a grant action plan had been approved in the amount of $10, 200, to be used for two information sessions to parents and for the production and translation of a brochure to parents seeking feedback on SEAC. The deadline for completion of activities is October 15, 2010. The first information session would be held before the end of the school year and the second one in late September 2010. It was decided that the Communications subcommittee will or- ganize and report back to the full committee. A staff person, David Hill will be able to provide support to the committee.

3. Trustee’s Report Trustee Pasternak:

 extended appreciation to Cindy Burley for her presentation on Shared Solutions at the North York Memorial Community Hall on April 13, 2010  reported that SEAC’s recommendation regarding the Ombudsman will be considered by the Board on Wednesday, April 14, 2010

The following motion from Christina Buczek, seconded by Norm Forman, intended to amend the Committee’s previous recommendation was defeated: That a pilot project for an Ombudsman serving special needs students for a two-year period, be created and reviewed after two years, to determine what, if anything should follow, whether a Boardwide Ombudsman, or continue or discontinue with a limited Om- budsman for Special Needs students. Clovis Grant Chair of the Committee Received June 23, 2010

1 The document will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 603 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 13 (Part 2), May 10, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee

Report No. 13 (Part 2), May 10, 2010

A meeting of the Planning and Priorities Committee convened on Monday, May 10, 2010, from 5:10 to 8:05 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Bruce Davis presiding.

The following committee members were present: Trustees Bruce Davis (Chair), Nadia Bello, John Campbell, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Michael Coteau, Gary Crawford, Howard Goodman, Maria Rodrigues, Mari Rutka. Regrets were received from Trustees Chris Bolton and Sheila Ward. Also present were Trustees Shaun Chen, Gerri Gershon, Scott Harrison and Soo Wong. Trustees Chen and Harrison participated by electronic means. Trustees Coteau and Crawford participated for part of the meeting by electronic means and for part in person.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Accommodation Review: Heron Park Junior Public School, Peter Secor Jun- ior Public School, Joseph Brant Senior Public School, Eastview Junior Public School, William G. Miller Junior Public School: Response to Recommenda- tions of Accommodation Review Committee: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1592] (amended by the Board)

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 608) and the full report of the Accommodation Review Committee re the Heron Park Junior Public School, Peter Secor Junior Public School, Joseph Brant Senior Public School, Eastview Junior Public School, William G. Miller Junior Public School accommodation review.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Bello, the Planning and Priorities Committee RECOMMENDS (as amended by the Board, see page 518):

(a) That Eastview Junior Public School be converted from a JK to Grade 6 junior school to a JK to Grade 8 public school offering JK to Grade 7 effective September 2011 and JK to Grade 8 effective September 2012;

(b) That Joseph Brant Senior Public School be converted from a Grade 7 and 8 senior school to a JK to Grade 8 public school offering JK to Grade 8 effective September 2012;

604 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 13 (Part 2), May 10, 2010

(c) That William G. Miller Junior Public School be converted from a dual-track JK to Grade 6 junior school to a dual-track JK to Grade 8 public school, offering JK to Grade 7 effective September 2011 and JK to Grade 8 effective September 2012;

(d) That Heron Park Junior Public School and Peter Secor Junior Public School be closed and consolidated into the new Joseph Brant Public School effective September 2012;

(e) That the attendance boundaries of Heron Park Junior Public School and Peter Secor Junior Public School be merged to create the Joseph Brant Public School attendance boundary;

(f) That the Joseph Brant Extended French program be relocated to two sites, Cedarbrook Public School (pathway for the Poplar Road Junior Public School program) and Joseph Howe Senior Public School (pathway for the Centennial Road Junior Public School program), effective September 2011;

(g) That the Heron Park Junior Public School site located at 280 Manse Road (approximately 5.9 acres), including the school facility (approximately 29,150 S.F.), be declared surplus to the needs of the Board and referred to the Toronto Lands Corporation for sale;

(h) That the Peter Secor Junior Public School site located at 255 Coronation Drive (approximately 5.3 acres), including the school facility (approximately 32,009 S.F.), be declared surplus to the needs of the Board and referred to the Toronto Lands Corporation for sale;

(i) That approximately four acres of the William G. Miller Junior Public School site at 60 Bennett Road be declared surplus to the Board’s needs and that the Toronto Lands Corpo- ration be directed to consider all feasible options, resulting from local school and community consultation, including severing the site in order to maximize revenues.

At the Committee meeting, an amendment of Trustee Goodman to delete the words “no later than September 2012” from Parts (f) and (g) was defeated by the Committee. However, the Board adopted the amendment (see page 518).

Minority Report 1 (submitted in accordance with Bylaw 41.2) Trustee Rodrigues disagreed with the majority and recommends that Parts (f), (g) and (h) not be approved.

Minority Report 2 (submitted in accordance with Bylaw 41.2) Trustee Goodman disagreed with the majority and recommends that the words no later than September 2012 be deleted from Parts (f) and (g). Note: This was adopted by the Board (see page 518).

2. Accommodation Review: Chief Dan George PS-Brooks Road PS-Meadowvale- Sheppard Site-John Diefenbaker PS-Highcastle PS: Response to Recommen- dations of Accommodation Review Committee [1591] (amended by the Board) The Committee considered a staff report (see page 612) and the full report of the Accommodation Review Committee re the Chief Dan George PS-Brooks Road PS-Meadowvale- Sheppard Site-John Diefenbaker PS-Highcastle PS accommodation review.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 605 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 13 (Part 2), May 10, 2010

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Bello, amended by Goodman, the Planning and Priorities Committee RECOMMENDS (as amended by the Board, see page 518) that when the new school at the Meadowvale/Sheppard site has been constructed:

(a) That Brooks Road Public School be closed;

(b) That the attendance boundary for the regular English program at Brooks Road Public School be combined with that of Highcastle Public School;

(c) That the Brooks Road Public School site located at 85 Keeler Boulevard (approximately 6.0 acres), including the school facility (approximately 44,385 square feet), be declared surplus to the needs of the Board and referred to the Toronto Lands Corporation for sale;

(d) That local French Immersion programs which might be affected by the changes be supported in the two new locations with resources equal to, at a minimum, what was available in the dual-track school for textbooks library resources, etc.”

At the Committee meeting, Parts (a)(iv), (b) and (c) were added on amendment of Trustee Goodman. A motion of Trustee Rodrigues to postpone consideration of the matter until further input from the French as a Second Language Advisory Committee could be received was defeated.

Minority Report (submitted in accordance with Bylaw 41.2) Trustee Rodrigues disagreed with the majority and recommends that Part (a)(iii) not be approved.

3. General Decisions re Accommodation Review Committees Consideration of the matter was postponed to a future meeting.

4. Accommodation Review: Flemington Public School, Baycrest Public School, Lawrence Heights Middle School, Sir Sandford Fleming Academy and Year Round Alternative School At Bathurst Heights: Response to Recommenda- tions of Accommodation Review Committee: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1589] The matter was considered on May 26, 2010.

606 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 13 (Part 2), May 10, 2010

Part B: Information Only

Part B matters were received May 26, 2010.

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report

Bruce Davis Chair of the Committee

Adopted, as amended, June 23, 2010

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 607 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 13 (Part 2), May 10, 2010 Accommodation Review: Heron Park Junior Public School, Peter Secor Junior Public School, Joseph Brant Senior Public School, Eastview Junior Public School, William G. Miller Junior Public School: Re- sponse to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1592]

Accommodation Review: Heron Park Junior Public School, Peter Secor Junior Public School, Joseph Brant Senior Public School, Eastview Junior Public School, William G. Miller Junior Public School: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee: Re- sponse to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1592]

As presented to the Planning and Priorities Committee on May 10, 2010 (see page 604).

In October 2009, the Board approved the establishment of an Accommodation Review Commit- tee (ARC) for Eastview Jr PS, Heron Park Jr PS, Joseph Brant Sr PS, Peter Secor Jr PS, and Wil- liam G. Miller Jr PS.

Appendix A includes a map showing the location of the schools.

The ARC began its work in November 2009. The ARC included members of the school community including parents and staff. The ARC held four public meetings and submitted its final report with recommendations in April 2010. The ARC’s final report can be found in Appendix B.

In accordance with Ministry of Education guidelines, the ARC report will be made public for 60 days prior to the Board making its decision in June 2010. To this end, the ARC’s final report was received by the Director and then posted on the Board’s website on 13 April 2010.

The ARC recommended that Heron Park Jr PS and Peter Secor Jr PS be closed. It also made other recommendations about grade configuration at schools and Extended French that are included in its report.

Staff’s response to each of the ARC’s recommendations if provided below.

Staff supports the recommendation of the ARC to close two schools as they are under utilized and the trend will continue. The schools are not required for the long-term accommodation needs of students within this area based on location, projected enrolment, forecasted maintenance costs, and future facility condition. Data on actual and projected enrolment for Heron Park Jr PS, Peter Secor and the other schools in the Accommodation Review is provided below.

In elementary grades, larger schools provide a greater opportunity for students to receive programs such as drama and dance, music, visual arts, science and technology, and physical education with teachers with specialist qualifications as well as greater flexibility in timetabling.

If the Board approves the closing of Heron Park Jr PS and Peter Secor Jr PS, it must also amend the existing attendance areas. Appendix E contains a map that shows the existing and proposed attendance area.

608 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Financial Implications

Declaring Heron Park Jr PS and Peter Secor Jr PS surplus will enable the Board to reduce its annual operating expenses such as caretaking, maintenance, and utility costs by an estimated $63,000.

Selling the two properties would also avoid the deferred maintenance costs of $6.2 million and contribute to the reinvestment plans for schools in this review.

A portion of the William G. Miller Jr PS property not required by the school would be severed to contribute to the facility upgrades in the review area.

Resources

The costs of the facility upgrades described in the Facility Framework previously presented to Board and the funding strategy will form a part of the five-year Capital Program that will be presented to Board for approval in June 2010.

Implementation And Review

The implementation of the Board-approved recommendations will require approval by the Min- istry of Education.

If approved, Heron Park Jr PS and Peter Secor Jr PS will be closed once necessary facility upgrades have been made to Joseph Brant to accommodate the increased number of students.

Staff will implement a detailed plan for transitions for students and staff prior to the closing of the two schools.

Staff Responses to the Accommodation Review Committee’s Recommendations

ARC Recommendation Staff Response That the Toronto District School Board: Staff supports this recommendation. Convert Eastview from a JK to Grade 6 junior school to a JK to Grade 8 Public school. Convert Joseph Brant from a Grade 7 & 8 senior school to a JK to Grade 8 Public School. Consolidate Heron Park Jr. and Peter Secor Jr. at the new Joseph Brant Public School. Convert William G. Miller from a Dual-track JK to Grade 6 junior school to a Dual-track JK to Grade 8 Public School.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 609 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

ARC Recommendation Staff Response Redirect the Extended French students from Centennial Road JPS to Joseph Howe SPS. Redirect the Extended French students from Poplar Road JPS to Cedarbrook PS. That the Toronto District School Board request Staff supports this recommendation. Toronto Police Services and the City of To- ronto Planning Department conduct an immediate traffic study of the Manse Road and Coronation Drive during the school year (not on a P.A. Day or in the summer) with the view to assigning the appropriate resources (crossing guards & stop lights) to ensure student safety. That the changes to facilities required at the Staff supports this recommendation. remaining schools (Joseph Brant P.S., East- view P.S. and Wm. G. Miller P.S.) be completed as per the attached Appendix B (of the ARC report) to enable implementation of Rec- ommendation # 1 in a phased in fashion commencing September, 2011. It is also recommended that one of the three retrofitted JK to Grade 8 schools become a barrier-free facility.

Actual and Projected Enrolment for the Schools Named in the Accommodation Review

Projected Projected Existing Existing Utilization Enrolment Ministry School Name Grades Rate 2018 Rated Served 2018 (Head Count) Capacity (Head Count) Status Quo Eastview Jr PS JK-6 342 443 77% Heron Park Jr PS JK-6 382 305 125% Joseph Brant Sr PS 7&8 352 423 83% Peter Secor Jr PS JK-6 180 268 67%

610 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

William G Miller Jr PS JK-6 389 461 84% Total 1,645 1,900 87% Staff Recommendation Eastview Jr PS JK-8 423 482 88% Heron Park Jr PS Close 0 0 0% Joseph Brant Sr PS JK-8 698 782 89% Peter Secor Jr PS Close 0 0 0% William G Miller Jr PS JK-8 472 548 86% Total 1,593 1,812 88%

Appendices to the staff report not included above will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

For the Board’s decision see page 604.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 611 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 13 (Part 2), May 10, 2010 Accommodation Review: Chief Dan George PS-Brooks Road PS-Meadowvale-Sheppard Site-John Diefenbaker PS-Highcastle PS: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1591]

Accommodation Review: Chief Dan George PS-Brooks Road PS-Meadowvale-Sheppard Site- John Diefenbaker PS-Highcastle PS: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1591]

As presented to the Planning and Priorities Committee on May 10, 2010 (see page 605).

In October 2009, the Board approved the establishment of an Accommodation Review Commit- tee (ARC) for Brooks Road PS, Chief Dan George PS, Highcastle PS, and John G. Diefenbaker PS.

Appendix A includes a map showing the location of the schools.

The ARC recommended that Brooks Road PS be closed. It also made other recommendations that are included in its report.

Staff’s response to each of the ARC’s recommendations is provided below.

Staff supports the ARC’s recommendation to close Brooks Road PS as the school is not required for the long-term accommodation needs of students within this area based on location, projected enrolment, forecasted maintenance costs, and future facility condition. Data on actual and projected enrolment at Brooks Road PS and the other schools in the Accommodation Review is provided below.

If the Board approves the closing of Brooks Road PS, it must also amend the attendance area. It is recommended that Brooks Road PS’s attendance area for the regular English program be combined with that of Highcastle PS. Appendix E contains a map that shows the existing and proposed attendance area.

With the closing of Brooks Road PS, staff will be establishing two French Immersion sites to accommodate the growing demand and student proximity to this program. In the Malvern community, staff will be investigating two primary locations, Alexander Stirling PS or Fleming PS, to serve this community. As well, with the enhanced facilities at Highcastle PS, it will become a dual track JK – Grade 8 school, the population to the south of Hwy 401 will be well served for French Immersion. This location will also alleviate overcrowding in a French Immersion program southwest of the review area.

612 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

One area that has experienced growth is the area around Meadowvale and Sheppard. There is no school in the immediate area so students are being bused to Highcastle PS and Chief Dan George. Board approved the creation of a new school in the Meadowvale/Sheppard area in Oc- tober 2008 but the school has not yet been constructed as the Board is awaiting Ministry approval.

Financial Implications

Closing Brooks Road PS would decrease annual operating costs such as caretaking, maintenance, and utility costs by approximately $315,000. This decrease would be offset by increased annual operating costs of $300,000 incurred when the new school on the Meadowvale/Sheppard site is open because it would be significantly larger in size and serve a larger student population. Therefore, the net effect of staff’s recommendations would be a decrease in annual operating expenses by an estimated $15,000.

Reducing net operating cost savings is not the primary driver in this situation. It is the need for a new school and the realignment of other schools. The end result would enable the Board to improve the program delivery for the remaining schools plus build a new school with an increase in pupil places and a minimal impact on operating expenses.

Selling the property would also avoid the deferred maintenance costs of $5.5 million and contribute to the reinvestment plans for schools in this review.

Resources

The costs of the facility upgrades and the new school at the Meadowvale/Sheppard site described in the Facility Framework previously presented to Board and the funding strategy will form part of the five-year Capital Program that will be presented to Board for approval in June 2010.

Implementation And Review

The implementation of Board-approved recommendations will require approval by the Ministry of Education.

If approved, Brooks Road PS will be closed when the new school at the Meadowvale/Sheppard site has been constructed.

Staff will implement a detailed plan for transitions for students and staff prior to the closing of the school.

Staff Responses to the Accommodation Review Committee’s Recommendations

ARC Recommendation Staff Response That three schools in the Meadow- Staff supports this recommendation. The

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 613 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

ARC Recommendation Staff Response vale/Sheppard ARC remain open to pupils. opening of a new school that will accommodate approximately 500 students in the Meadowvale/Sheppard area (approved by Board in October 2008) will significantly impact the enrolment at the schools in the review.

That Chief Dan George Public School, High- Staff supports this recommendation. castle Public School and John G. Diefenbaker

Public School remain open to pupils.

That Brooks Road Public School closes to pu- Staff supports this recommendation. The pils. school is not needed in the long term and is expected to deteriorate at an increasing rate as

it ages.

That a French Immersion program continues to Staff supports this recommendation and rec- be offered in one of the remaining schools in ommends that the French Immersion program this ARC in order to serve students in the area. at Brooks Road PS be relocated to two sites – one north of Highway 401 (Fleming PS or Alexander Stirling PS) and one south of High- way 401 (Highcastle PS) to help alleviate overcrowding in a French Immersion program southwest of the review area.

Enrolment and Capacity for the Schools Named in Accommodation Review

Projected Projected Existing Existing Utilization Enrolment Ministry School Name Grades Rate 2018 Rated Served 2018 (Head Count) Capacity (Head Count)

Status Quo Brooks Road PS JK-8 388 417 93% Chief Dan George PS JK-8 318 311 102% Highcastle PS JK-8 494 297 166% John G Diefenbaker PS JK-8 226 357 63% Alexander Stirling PS JK-8 318 509 62%

614 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Projected Projected Existing Existing Utilization Enrolment Ministry School Name Grades Rate 2018 Rated Served 2018 (Head Count) Capacity (Head Count)

Total 1,744 1,891 92% Staff Recommendation Brooks Road PS Close 0 0 0% Chief Dan George PS JK-8 145 314 46% Highcastle PS JK-8 510 562 91% John G Diefenbaker PS JK-8 226 332 68% Alexander Stirling PS JK-8 478 554 86% Meadowvale Sheppard PS JK-8 517 620 83% Total 1,876 2,382 79%

Appendices to the staff report not included above will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

For the Board’s decision see page 605.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 615 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, May 31, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee

Report No. 15, May 31, 2010

A meeting of the Planning and Priorities Committee convened on Monday, May 31, 2010, from 5:10 to 8:55 p.m., in the Boardroom, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Bruce Davis presiding.

The following committee members were present: Trustees Bruce Davis, Nadia Bello, Chris Bol- ton, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Michael Coteau, Gary Crawford, Howard Goodman, Maria Rodri- gues, Mari Rutka and Sheila Ward. Regrets were received from Trustee John Campbell. Also present were Trustees Scott Harrison, Josh Matlow and Soo Wong. Trustee Bello participated by electronic means. Trustee Harrison participated by electronic means for part of the meeting and for part in person.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Accommodation Review: Highland Heights Jr PS-Timberbank Jr PS- Lynnwood-Heights Jr PS: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1613]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 621) and the full report of the Accommodation Review Committee re the Highland Heights Jr PS-Timberbank Jr PS- Lynnwood-Heights Jr PS accommodation review.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Goodman, the Planning and Priorities Committee RECOMMENDS:

(a) That the report of the Highland Heights Junior Public School, Timberbank Junior Public School and Lynnwood Heights Junior Public School Accommodation Review Committee be considered following future Accommodation Reviews of the related middle schools in the area;

(b) That until further student Accommodation Reviews have been completed, that the current JK to Grade 6 configurations at Highland Heights Junior Public School, Timberbank Jun- ior Public School and Lynnwood Heights Junior Public School be maintained.

616 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, May 31, 2010

2. Accommodation Review: McCowan Road Jr PS-Cedarbrook Jr PS-Knob Hill- Jr PS- John McCrae Sr PS-Pringdale Gardens Jr PS-Charles Gordon Sr PS: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1606] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 623) and the full report of the Accommodation Review Committee re the McCowan Road Jr PS-Cedarbrook Jr PS-Knob Hill- Jr PS- John McCrae Sr PS-Pringdale Gardens Jr PS-Charles Gordon Sr PS accommodation review.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Cary-Meagher, the Planning and Priorities Committee RECOMMENDS:

(a) That Cedarbrook Junior Public School be converted to a JK to Grade 8 school as of Sep- tember 2011 and begin a phased implementation by accepting Grade 7 students in Septem- ber 2011;

(b) That Knob Hill Junior Public School be converted to a JK to Grade 8 school as of Septem- ber 2011 and begin a phased implementation by accepting Grade 7 students in September 2011;

(c) That Charles Gordon Senior Public School accept additional late-entry Grade 7 Extended French students as of September 2011;

(d) That John McCrae Senior Public School be converted to a JK to Grade 8 Public School as of September 2011;

(e) That McCowan Road Junior Public School be closed and consolidated with John McCrae Public School as of September 2011;

(f) That Pringdale Gardens Junior Public School be closed and consolidated with John McCrae Public School upon completion of the renovations at John McCrae;

(g) That the attendance boundaries of McCowan Junior Public School and Pringdale Gardens Junior Public School be merged to create the John McCrae Public School attendance boundary;

(h) That the McCowan Junior Public School site located at 425 McCowan Road (approximately 6.1 acres), including the school facility of approximately 41,706 square feet, be declared surplus to the needs of the Board and that a land use study be undertaken by staff to determine, in consultation with the community as well as the local trustee, superintendent of education, and the school principal, which portion of the property be severed and referred to the Toronto Lands Corporation for sale;

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 617 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, May 31, 2010

(i) That, on completion of the renovations to John McCrae Senior Public School, Pringdale Gardens Junior Public School site located at 1325 Danforth Road of approximately 6.3 acres, including the school facility of approximately 44,846 square feet, be declared surplus to the needs of the Board and referred to the Toronto Lands Corporation for sale.

At the committee meeting, on motion of Trustee Cary-Meagher, “on completion of the renovations to John McCrae Senior Public School” was added to Part (i).

3. Accommodation Review: Davisville Jr PS-Maurice Cody Jr PS-Hodgson Sr PS-Eglinton Jr PS-Spectrum Alternative Sr School: Response to Recommen- dations of Accommodation Review Committee [1600] (amended by the Board) The Committee considered a staff report (see page 627) the full report of the Accommodation Review Committee re the Davisville Jr PS-Maurice Cody Jr PS-Hodgson Sr PS-Eglinton Jr PS- Spectrum Alternative Sr School accommodation review.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Goodman, the Planning and Priorities Committee RECOMMENDS (as amended by the Board, see page 519):

(a) That a school presence be maintained at the Davisville Junior Public School/Metropolitan Toronto School for the Deaf, Maurice Cody Junior Public School, Eglinton Public School, and Hodgson Senior Public School sites;

(b) That the deaf/hard of hearing programs remain at Davisville Junior Public School/Metropolitan Toronto School for the Deaf pending relocation to one locale as per a previous Board decision;

(c) That Spectrum Alternative Senior School be relocated to Davisville Junior Public School/Metropolitan Toronto School for the Deaf effective September 2011.

The following staff recommendation was defeated by the Committee, but was adopted by the Board (see page 519):

That a school presence be maintained at the Davisville Junior Public School/Metropolitan Toronto School for the Deaf, Maurice Cody Junior Public School, Eglinton Public School, and Hodgson Senior Public School sites Minority Report (submitted in accordance with Bylaw 41.2) Trustee Goodman disagreed with the majority and recommends that a school presence be maintained at the Davisville Junior Pub- lic School/Metropolitan Toronto School for the Deaf, Maurice Cody Junior Public School, Eglin- ton Public School, and Hodgson Senior Public School sites. Note: Adopted by the Board (see page 519). 618 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, May 31, 2010

Part B: Information Only

4. Delegations

Oral Delegations

The Committee heard the following oral delegation in accordance with the Board’s procedure for hearing delegations. re Highland Heights Jr PS-Timberbank Jr PS-Lynnwood-Heights Jr PS PS Accommodation Review Committee

 Gina Pavlovski, Lynnwood-Parent and Accommodation Review Committee Member (also written submission)  Faraz Chaudhery, Highland Heights Parent Council

re McCowan Road Jr PS-Cedarbrook Jr PS-Knob Hill- Jr PS- John McCrae Sr PS-Pringdale Gardens Jr PS-Charles Gordon Sr PS Accommodation Review Committee

 Tom Rogers, Member, Knob Hill J.P.S. School Council (also written submission)

re Davisville Jr PS-Maurice Cody Jr PS-Hodgson Sr PS-Eglinton Jr PS-Spectrum Alternative Sr School Accommodation Review Committee

 Katharine Hancock, Eglinton PS Parent and Community Council  Trish Murphy, Parent co-chair, French as a Second Language Advisory Committee (also written submission)  Yuliya Desyatova  Shelley Laskin, ARC Community Member

re Kent Sr PS-ALPHA II Alternative School-Dovercourt Jr PS-Pauline Jr PS-Brock Jr PS Accommodation Review Committee

 Chris Glover  Mrs. Talabi, SAVE KENT Parents Group  Kelly Winsa, Vice-Chair, Dovercourt School Council, and Accommodation Review Commit- tee Member  Frank Consiglio, Accommodation Review Committee Member  Megan Park and Solène Morinière, Child Care Operators  Deborah Girvin  Yelena Shved-Idowu, Parent, Kent Sr. P.S.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 619 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, May 31, 2010

Written Submissions

1. The Committee received the following written submissions in lieu of oral delegations: re Highland Heights Jr PS-Timberbank Jr PS-Lynnwood-Heights Jr PS PS Accommodation Review Committee

 Gina Pavlovski, Lynnwood-Parent and Accommodation Review Committee re McCowan Road Jr PS-Cedarbrook Jr PS-Knob Hill- Jr PS- John McCrae Sr PS-Pringdale Gardens Jr PS-Charles Gordon Sr PS Accommodation Review Committee

 Pat Gappmayr, Member, Charles Gordon Parent Council and Accommodation Review Committee  Tami Oudendijk, Parent co-chair, French as a Second Language Advisory Committee  Mandekh Hussein, Student Rep on the Accommodation Review Committee  Carrie Gillespie, ARC Committee member (parent), Patsy Hamilton-Diabo, ARC Committee member (parent) and Co-chair, Cedarbrook School Council  Tom Rogers, Member, Knob Hill J.P.S. School Council re Davisville Jr PS-Maurice Cody Jr PS-Hodgson Sr PS-Eglinton Jr PS-Spectrum Alternative Sr School Accommodation Review Committee

 Wendy Crawford, Davisville Parent Council  Trish Murphy, Parent co-chair, French as a Second Language Advisory Committee

5. Adjournment Due to Loss of Quorum At 8:55 p.m. the meeting adjourned due to loss of quorum. At the time the meeting adjourned, Trustees Davis, Crawford, Goodman, Matlow, Rodrigues, Ward and Wong were present. Only Trustee Crawford, Davis, Goodman, Rodrigues and Ward counted for quorum.

Part C: Ongoing Matters

6. Postponed Matters The Committee postponed consideration of the following matter to the next meeting:

 Accommodation Review: Kent Sr PS-ALPHA II Alternative School-Dovercourt Jr PS- Pauline Jr PS-Brock Jr PS: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1598]

Bruce Davis Chair of the Committee Adopted, as amended, June 23, 2010 620 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, May 31, 2010 Accommodation Review: Highland Heights Jr PS-Timberbank Jr PS-Lynnwood-Heights Jr PS: Re- sponse to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1613]

Accommodation Review: Highland Heights Jr PS-Timberbank Jr PS-Lynnwood-Heights Jr PS: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1613]

As presented to the Planning and Priorities Committee on May 31, 2010 (see page 616).

In October 2009, the Board approved the establishment of an Accommodation Review Commit- tee (ARC) for Highland Heights Junior Public School, Timberbank Public School and Lynnwood Heights Junior Public School.

Appendix A includes a map showing the location of the schools.

The ARC recommended that all three schools, Highland Heights Junior PS, Timberbank Junior PS and Lynnwood Heights Junior PS, remain open and become JK to Grade 8 schools. While staff understands the intent of the ARC to align with the Vision of Hope in terms of grade configurations, the outcome of the ARC’s recommendation will produce student enrolment levels that will limit effective program opportunities. Appendix C shows projected enrolment by grade to illustrate this point.

Furthermore, withdrawing students from their respective middle schools to support the implementation of the JK to Grade 8 model, will have a material impact on these schools that were not named in this review.

Staff will undertake a feasibility study of the impacted middle and feeder schools in this area. This study will analyze the impact of this ARC’s recommendations on the middle schools and where warranted, will recommend that additional Accommodation Reviews be undertaken. With Board approval to proceed with additional Accommodation Reviews, once completed, staff will revisit the current ARC recommendations and consider implementation where feasible.

The ARC also recommended that existing feeder school paths to Stephen Leacock CI and Agin- court CI remain the same. Staff cannot respond to this recommendation until a review of the middle schools in the area has been completed.

Data on actual and projected enrolment for the schools in the Accommodation Review can be found in Appendix C.

Staff will begin an Accommodation Review of middle schools related to the elementary schools in this review.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 621 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Actual and Projected Enrolment

Current - 2009 JK-6 Grade Head Student Utilization FTE Count MRC Variance RateJKSK123456 Highland Hts Jr PS 228.5 252 466 -214 54% 26 21 30 30 27 44 34 40 Lynnwood Hts Jr PS 117.5 132 199 -67 66% 13 16 18 13 20 12 15 25 Timberbank Jr PS 177.5 204 354 -150 58% 30 23 33 32 18 22 29 17 Total 523.5 5881019 -431 59%6960817565787882

Projected - 2019 JK-8 Grade Head Student Utilization FTE Count MRC Variance RateJKSK12345678 Highland Hts Jr PS 292 292466 -174 63%26262728293231313131 Lynnwood Hts Jr PS 159 159199 -40 80%14151819181515151515 Timberbank Jr PS 271 271 354 -83 77% 29 28 29 30 30 27 26 25 24 23 Total 722 7221019 -297 73%69697477777472717069

Appendices to the staff report not included above will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

For the Board’s decision see page 616.

622 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, May 31, 2010 Accommodation Review: McCowan Road Jr PS-Cedarbrook Jr PS-Knob Hill- Jr PS- John McCrae Sr PS-Pringdale Gardens Jr PS-Charles Gordon Sr PS: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1606]

Accommodation Review: McCowan Road Jr PS-Cedarbrook Jr PS-Knob Hill- Jr PS- John McCrae Sr PS-Pringdale Gardens Jr PS-Charles Gordon Sr PS: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1606]

As presented to the Planning and Priorities Committee on May 31, 2010 (see page 617).

In October 2009, the Board approved the establishment of an Accommodation Review Commit- tee (ARC) for McCowan Road Junior Public School, Cedarbrook Junior Public School, Knob Hill Junior Public School, John McCrae Senior Public School, Pringdale Gardens Junior Public School, and Charles Gordon Senior Public School.

The ARC began its work in November 2009. The ARC included members of the school community including parents and staff. The ARC held four public meetings and submitted its final report with recommendations in March 2010. The ARC’s final report can be found in Appendix B.

The ARC recommended that McCowan Junior Public School and Pringdale Gardens Junior Pub- lic School be closed. It also made other recommendations about grade configurations at schools and Extended French that are included in its report.

Staff’s response to each of the ARC’s recommendations if provided below.

Staff supports the recommendation of the ARC to close two schools as they are under utilized and the trend will continue. The schools are not required for the long-term accommodation needs of students within this area based on location, projected enrolment, maintenance costs, and future facility condition. Data on actual and projected enrolment for the schools in this Accom- modation Review is provided below.

In elementary grades with larger student bodies, there is a greater opportunity for students to receive programs such as drama and dance, music, visual arts, science and technology, and physical education with teachers holding specialist qualifications. As well, the greater the critical mass of students, the greater the flexibility in timetabling.

If the Board approves the closing of McCowan Junior Public School and Pringdale Gardens Jun- ior Public School, it must also amend the existing attendance areas. Appendix E contains a map that shows the existing and proposed attendance area.

With the closing of McCowan Junior Public School, there is an opportunity to dispose of the applicable building and lands. Staff will review the land use requirements associated with the expanded JK – Grade 8 John McCrae Public School site. Once determined, following consultation

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 623 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

with the school, community, Superintendent and local Trustee, TLC will then proceed with the appropriate severance and disposition of the remaining surplus lands. Financial Implications Declaring McCowan Junior Public School and Pringdale Gardens Junior Public School surplus will enable the Board to reduce its annual operating expenses such as caretaking, maintenance, and utility costs by an estimated $358,000. Selling the two properties would also avoid the deferred maintenance costs of $13.2 million and contribute to the reinvestment plans for schools in this review. Resources The costs of the facility upgrades described in the Facility Framework previously presented to Board and the funding strategy will form a part of the five-year Capital Program that will be presented to Board for approval in June 2010. Implementation And Review The implementation of the staff recommendations will require approval by the Ministry of Edu- cation. McCowan Junior Public School and Pringdale Gardens Junior Public School will be closed once necessary facility upgrades have been made to McCrae Public School to accommodate the increased number of students. Staff will implement a detailed plan for transitions for students and staff prior to the closing of the two schools. Staff Responses to the Accommodation Review Committee’s Recommendations

ARC Recommendation Staff Response That Cedarbrook JPS become a JK to Grade 8 Staff supports this recommendation. Public School September 2011. Extended

French Program for Grade 7 and 8 is offered at Cedarbrook That Charles Gordon SPS remain as it is pres- Staff supports this recommendation given there ently and accepts additional late entry Grade 7 is adequate demand and space. Extended French students That Knob Hill JPS become a JK to Grade 8 Staff supports this recommendation. Public School September 2011. That John McCrae SPS become a JK to Grade Staff supports this recommendation. 8 Public School September 2011 That McCowan Road JPS be closed and con- Staff supports this recommendation. solidated with John McCrae PS September 2011.

624 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

ARC Recommendation Staff Response That Pringdale Gardens JPS be closed and con- Staff supports this recommendation. solidated with John McCrae PS once the necessary construction is completed. This is estimated to be approximately 2013.

School Information Profiles

Ministry Enrolment Grade Student School Name Rated 2009/2010 Utilization Rate Configuration Variance Capacity (Headcount) Status Quo Projected Ministry Enrolment Projected Grade Rated 2018 (Head- Student Projected Utiliza- School Name Configuration Capacity count) Variance tion Rate Cedarbrook Jr PS JK-6 504 320 -184 63% Charles Gordon Sr PS 7-8 471 396 -75 84% John McCrae Sr PS 7-8 560 198 -362 35% Knob Hill Jr PS JK-6 562 414 -148 74% McCowan Rd Jr PS JK-6 397 269 -128 68% Pringdale Gardens Jr PS JK-6 460 320 -140 70% Proposed Projected Ministry Projected Grade Con- Enrolment Projected Utiliza- School Name Rated Student figuration 2018 (Head- tion Rate Capacity Variance count) Cedarbrook Jr PS JK-8 519 446 -73 86% Charles Gordon Sr PS 7-8 471 380 -91 81% John McCrae Sr PS JK-8 913 796 -117 87% Knob Hill Jr PS JK-8 566 515 -51 91% McCowan Rd Jr PS Close Pringdale Gardens Jr PS Close

Site Data Estimated # of Surplus / School Existing # of Site Size School Name Class- Deficit Class- Size Built Classrooms (Acres) rooms rooms (Sq Ft) Required Cedarbrook Jr PS 25 25 - 5.2 48,047 1957 Charles Gordon Sr PS 26 26 - 2.2 70,828 1971 John McCrae Sr PS 27 44 -17 2.9 78,513 1969 Knob Hill Jr PS 29 30 -1 5.3 55,043 1955

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 625 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Ministry Enrolment Grade Student School Name Rated 2009/2010 Utilization Rate Configuration Variance Capacity (Headcount) McCowan Rd Jr PS Close 6.1 41,706 1954 Pringdale Gardens Jr PS Close 6.3 44,846 1962

Appendices to the staff report not included above will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

For the Board’s decision see page 617.

626 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, May 31, 2010 Accommodation Review: Davisville Jr PS-Maurice Cody Jr PS-Hodgson Sr PS-Eglinton Jr PS-Spectrum Alternative Sr School: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1600]

Accommodation Review: Davisville Jr PS-Maurice Cody Jr PS-Hodgson Sr PS-Eglinton Jr PS- Spectrum Alternative Sr School: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1600]

As presented to the Planning and Priorities Committee on ay 31, 2010 (see page 618).

In October 2009, the Board approved the establishment of an Accommodation Review Commit- tee (ARC) for Davisville Junior Public School/Metropolitan Toronto School for the Deaf, Mau- rice Cody Junior Public School, Hodgson Senior Public School, Eglinton Junior Public School, and Spectrum Alternative Senior School.

Appendix A includes a map showing the location of the schools.

The ARC recommended all schools named in the Accommodation Review remain open as community schools with infrastructure that supports strong viable programs and in facilities that will house projected enrolment. It also made other recommendations about French Immersion, Spe- cial Education, and Spectrum Alternative Senior School that are included in its report.

Staff’s response to each of the ARC’s recommendations is provided below.

Current and projected enrolments for the schools in the review is provided below.

An addition will be required at Maurice Cody Junior Public School to accommodate increased enrolment in the future. Detailed data about Maurice Cody Junior Public School and the other schools in the review can be found in Appendix D.

Financial Implications

Annual operating costs would increase by approximately $33,000 as a result of the proposed addition at Maurice Cody Junior Public School but this increase will be offset by increases in top- up grants. As a result, the net impact will be an increase in grants of $45,700.

Resources

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 627 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Staff Responses to the Accommodation Review Committee’s Recommendations

ARC Recommendation Staff Response Davisville Jr PS/MTSD, Maurice Cody Jr PS, Staff supports a school presence at all four Hodgson Sr PS and Eglinton JR PS remain school sites. open as community schools with infrastructure that supports strong viable programs and in facilities that will house their projected enrolment capacity. Due to enrolment growth and the significant A Middle School model be maintained within capital investment to create JK- Grade 8 mod- the area of the Accommodation Review. els in this area as well as the impact on school boundaries, at this time, staff supports the con- tinuation of the current accommodation model. The current attendance area for each school be maintained. Staff supports this recommendation.

Programs currently in the group of Accommo- dation Review schools be maintained. Staff supports this recommendation.

Spectrum Alternative Sr School remain within the area of the Accommodation Review but be considered for relocation to Davisville Jr Staff supports the recommendation to relocate PS/MTSD in order to create some additional Spectrum Alternative Sr School to Davisville capacity at Eglinton Jr PS and that transition Jr PS/MTSD. plans be designed, consulted on and implemented for the relocation.

Necessary facility capacity, with appropriate educational and program supports as required, Staff supports this recommendation and up- be added to schools in the Accommodation grades to schools in this review are included in Review to meet projected enrolments and that the Facility Framework previously presented to reasonable capital investment be provided to the Board of Trustees. ensure enhanced programming for all students.

628 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

ARC Recommendation Staff Response There be recognition of the importance of achieving appropriate program balance in Staff recognizes the importance of ensuring the schools offering both French and English and viability of both French and English tracks and that TDSB staff meet with parents and school will follow existing procedures to ensure both staff in September 2010 to initiate a process to thrive. ensure the continued viability of the English programs at Davisville Jr. PS and Eglinton Jr PS. TDSB staff meet with staff and parents of Staff will investigate the feasibility of this rec- Hodgson Sr PS, Eglinton Jr PS and Davisville ommendation in conjunction with senior man- Jr PS/MTSD to discuss the location of the agement in the Program department. Grade 7-8 French Extended program currently

located at Hodgson Sr PS and the possible move to Davisville Jr PS/MTSD. Staff will consider improvements to Eglinton Improvements to the facilities of Eglinton Jr Jr PS that align with the facility upgrades de- PS be included in the Facility Framework for scribed in the Facility Framework previously this Accommodation Review. presented to the Board of Trustees.

Staff will investigate this recommendation in Consideration be given to including additional conjunction with senior management in the Special Education programs in the Accommo- Special Education department to ensure consis- dation Review schools to support local com- tency with the Special Education plan for ele- munity needs. mentary schools. Investigation occur with respect to the use of schools space for the community including Staff supports this recommendation. Child care and Parenting and Family Literacy Centres.

School Information Profiles

Ministry Enrolment Grade Student School Name Rated 2009/2010 Utilization Rate Configuration Variance Capacity (Headcount) Status Quo Davisville Jr PS/Metro Deaf JK-6 384 361 -23 94% Maurice Cody Jr PS JK-6 520 668 148 128% Hodgson Sr PS 7-8 285 357 72 125%

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 629 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Ministry Enrolment Grade Student School Name Rated 2009/2010 Utilization Rate Configuration Variance Capacity (Headcount) Eglinton Jr PS/Spectrum Alt JK-6 / 7-8 486 523 37 108% Proposed Projected Ministry Projected Projected Grade Con- Enrolment School Name Rated Capac- Student Utiliza- figuration 2018 (Head- ity Variance tion Rate count) Davisville Jr PS/Metro Def/Spectrum JK-6 / 7-8 510 425 -85 83% Maurice Cody Jr PS JK-6 716 668 -48 93% Hodgson Sr PS 7-8 331 357 26 108% Eglinton Jr PS JK-6 501 459 -42 92%

Site Data Estimated # of Class- Surplus / School Existing # of rooms Re- Deficit Class- Site Size Size School Name Classrooms quired rooms (Acres) (Sq Ft) Built Davisville Jr PS/Metro Def/Spectrum 37 30 7 3.8 85,068 1960 Maurice Cody Jr PS 26 33 -7 2.9 59,546 1928 Hodgson Sr PS 15 17 -2 4.2 64,796 1914 Eglinton Jr PS 26 27 -1 1.6 61,754 1998

Appendices to the staff report not included above will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

For the Board’s decision see page 618.

630 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, June 14, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee

Report No. 16, June 14, 2010

A meeting of the Planning and Priorities Committee convened on Monday, June 14, 2010, from 5:10 to 8:45 p.m., in the Boardroom, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Bruce Davis presiding.

The following committee members were present: Trustees Bruce Davis, Nadia Bello, Gary Crawford, Howard Goodman, Maria Rodrigues, Mari Rutka and Sheila Ward. Regrets were received from Trustees Chris Bolton, Sheila Cary-Meagher and Michael Coteau. Also present were Trustees Irene Atkinson, Chris Tonks and Soo Wong. Trustees Bello and Crawford participated by electronic means. Trustee Tonks participated by electronic means for part of the meeting and for part in person.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Accommodation Review of Keelesdale Junior Public School, Silverthorn Jun- ior Public School, Kane Middle School, and C.E. Webster Junior Public School: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1620]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page q636) and the full report of the Keelesdale Junior Public School, Silverthorn Junior Public School, Kane Middle School, and C.E. Webster Junior Public School Accommodation Review Committee.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Campbell, the Planning and Priorities Committee RECOMMENDS:

(a) That Silverthorn Junior Public School be closed and consolidated with Kane Middle School as of September 2011 and that Kane Middle School be converted to a JK to Grade 8 school as of September 2011;

(b) That C.E. Webster Junior Public School be converted to a JK to Grade 8 school as of Sep- tember 2011 and begin a phased implementation by accepting Grade 7 students in Septem- ber 2011;

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 631 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, June 14, 2010

(d) That the attendance boundary for the reconfigured JK to Grade 8 C.E. Webster Junior Pub- lic School match its current junior-school boundary;

(e) That the Silverthorn Junior Public School site located at 55 Ypres Road (approximately 3.3 acres), including the school facility (approximately 178,000 square feet), be declared surplus to the needs of the Board and referred to the Toronto Lands Corporation for sale.

2. Accommodation Review: Kent Sr PS-ALPHA II Alternative School- Dovercourt Jr PS-Pauline Jr PS-Brock Jr PS: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1598] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 639) and the full report of the Kent Sr PS- ALPHA II Alternative School-Dovercourt Jr PS-Pauline Jr PS-Brock Jr PS Accommodation Re- view Committee.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Campbell, amended by Trustee Ward, the Planning and Priorities Commit- tee RECOMMENDS:

(a) That Brock Junior Public School and Dovercourt Junior Public School be reconfigured from JK to Grade 6 schools to JK to Grade 8 schools offering JK to Grade 7 effective Sep- tember 2011 and JK to Grade 8 effective September 2012;

(b) That the attendance area for Kent Senior Public School be divided between Brock Junior Public School south of Bloor Street and Dovercourt Junior Public School north of Bloor Street as of September 2011;

(c) That staff investigate the creation of an enriched Kent math, science and technology program for Grades 7 and 8 at the Bloor Collegiate Institute site including the assessment of granting priority standing for admission to students residing in the junior attendance boundaries for Brock Junior Public School, Dewson Junior Public School, Dovercourt Jun- ior Public School, Montrose Junior Public School, and Pauline Junior Public School;

(d) That the matter of the location of Alpha II be referred to staff for a recommendation to the Board within six months;

(e) That following the relocation of regular day school students from Kent/Alpha II, the Kent/Alpha II school building located at 980 Dufferin Street be closed.

At the Committee meeting, staff recommended that Alpha II be relocated to the Bloor Collegiate Institute building. However, on amendment of Trustee Ward, the Committee decided to recommend referral to staff shown at Part (d).

632 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, June 14, 2010

Also at the Committee meeting, Trustee Rodrigues moved that consideration of the entire matter be postponed to the regular meeting scheduled for September 2010. The motion was defeated.

3. Accommodation Review of J.R. Wilcox Community School, Cedarvale Com- munity School, Arlington Middle School, Rawlinson Community School And Humewood Community School: Response to Recommendations of Accommo- dation Review Committee [1621] (amended by the Board) The Committee considered a staff report (see page 643) and the full report of the J.R. Wilcox Community School, Cedarvale Community School, Arlington Middle School, Rawlinson Com- munity School And Humewood Community School Accommodation Review Committee.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Goodman, amended by Trustees Campbell and Ward, the Planning and Priorities Committee RECOMMENDS (as amended by the Board, see page 520):

(a) That Arlington Middle School be closed as of September 2011;

(b) That French Immersion and Extended French programs currently located at Arlington Middle School be maintained at the present level, as a minimum, and that the French as a Second Language Advisory Committee be part of the consultation process before the programs are relocated;

(c) That J.R. Wilcox Community School, Cedarvale Community School, Humewood Com- munity School, and Rawlinson Community School become JK to Grade 8 schools as of September 2011 and begin a phased implementation by accepting Grade 7 students in Sep- tember 2011 and that these schools maintain their current junior school boundaries;

(d) That the Arlington Middle School site located at 501 Arlington Avenue (approximately 1.24 acres), including the school facility (approximately 90,222 square feet), be referred to the Toronto Lands Corporation for advice back to the Board in August 2010;

(e) That an SK Early French Immersion program be considered for Humewood Community School and that the French as a Second Language Advisory Committee be consulted on any modifications to French Immersion and Extended French programs arising out of the accommodation review.

At the Committee meeting, on amendment of Trustee Campbell, Part (d) was amended by changing “be declared surplus to the needs of the Board and referred to the TLC for sale” to “be referred to the Toronto Lands Corporation for advice back to the Board in August 2010.” Also Part (b) was added on amendment of Trustee Ward and a motion of Trustee Rodrigues to refer Part (c) to staff for consideration as a potential viable site for a Program of Choice was defeated.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 633 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, June 14, 2010

Part B: Information Only

4. Delegations

Oral Delegations

The Committee heard the following oral delegation in accordance with the Board’s procedure for hearing delegations. re Accommodation Review of J.R. Wilcox Community School, Cedarvale Community School, Arlington Middle School, Rawlinson Community School and Humewood Community School: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1621]

 Robin Fraser (also written submission)  Kevin Ghiglione, Accommodation Review Committee Member (also written submission)  Sindy Preger, Julian Heller, Christopher May, Members, French as a Second Language Advi- sory Committee  Alyssa Douglas, speaking on behalf of Lisa Taylor, the ARC member for Cedarvale Com- munity School

re Accommodation Review: Kent Sr PS-ALPHA II Alternative School-Dovercourt Jr PS- Pauline Jr PS-Brock Jr PS: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Commit- tee [1598]

 Carol Nash

Written Submissions

2. The Committee received the following written submissions in lieu of oral delegations:

re Accommodation Review of J.R. Wilcox Community School, Cedarvale Community School, Arlington Middle School, Rawlinson Community School And Humewood Community School: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1621]

 Robin Fraser  Kevin Ghiglione, Accommodation Review Committee Member

re Accommodation Review: Kent Sr PS-ALPHA II Alternative School-Dovercourt Jr PS- Pauline Jr PS-Brock Jr PS: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Commit- tee [1598]

 Alena Talabi, Kent Parents Group

634 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, June 14, 2010

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report

Bruce Davis Chair of the Committee

Adopted, as amended, June 23, 2010

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 635 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, June 14, 2010 Accommodation Review of Keelesdale Junior Public School, Silverthorn Junior Public School, Kane Middle School, and C.E. Webster Junior Public School: Response to Recommendations of Accommoda- tion Review Committee [1620]

Accommodation Review of Keelesdale Junior Public School, Silverthorn Junior Public School, Kane Middle School, and C.E. Webster Junior Public School: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1620]

As presented to the Planning and Priorities Committee on June 14, 2010 (see page 631).

In October 2009, the Board approved the establishment of an Accommodation Review Commit- tee (ARC) for Keelesdale Junior Public School, Silverthorn Junior Public School, Kane Middle School, and C.E. Webster Junior Public School.

Appendix A includes a map showing the location of the schools.

Staff’s response to each of the ARC’s recommendations is provided below.

Staff supports the recommendation of the ARC to consolidate Silverthorn Junior Public School and Kane Middle School thereby closing Silverthorn Junior Public School as the two schools are under-utilized and the trend will continue. Silverthorn Junior Public School is not required for the long-term accommodation needs of students within this area based on location, projected enrolment, maintenance costs, and future facility condition.

Data on actual and projected enrolment for the schools in this Accommodation Review is provided below.

If the Board approves the closing of Silverthorn Junior Public School, it must also amend the existing attendance areas. Appendices E and F contain maps that show the existing and proposed attendance areas.

636 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Financial Implications

Declaring Silverthorn Junior Public School surplus to the needs of the Board will enable the Board to reduce its annual operating expenses such as caretaking, maintenance and utility costs by an estimated $50,000.

Selling the property would also avoid the deferred maintenance costs of approximately $10 million and contribute to the reinvestment plans for schools in this review.

Resources

The costs of the facility upgrades described in the Facility Framework previously presented to Board and the funding strategy will form a part of the Five-Year Capital Program that will be presented to Board for approval in June 2010.

Staff Responses to the Accommodation Review Committee’s Recommendations

ARC Recommendation Staff Response Consolidate Silverthorn Jr. P.S. and Kane M.S. Staff supports this recommendation. (K-8) Keeledale Jr. P.S. remains (K-6) Staff supports this recommendation C.E. Webster Jr. P.S. retains its Gr. 6 students Staff supports this recommendation. and eventually becomes (K-8)

School Information Profiles

Ministry Enrolment Grade Student School Name Rated 2009/2010 Utilization Rate Configuration Variance Capacity (Headcount) Status Quo Keelesdale JPS JK-6 262 180 -82 69% Silverthorn JPS JK-6 596 278 -318 47% Kane MS 7-8 492 262 -230 53% Charles E Webster JPS JK-6 545 399 -146 73% Projections Based on Proposed Staff Recommendations Projected Ministry Projected Grade Con- Enrolment Projected Utiliza- School Name Rated Student figuration 2018 (Head- tion Rate Capacity Variance count) Keelesdale JPS JK-6 262 167 -95 64% Silverthorn JPS Close Kane MS JK-8 492 428 -64 87% Charles E Webster JPS JK-8 545 522 -23 96% Site Data

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 637 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Estimated # of Surplus / School Existing # of Site Size School Name Class- Deficit Class- Size Built Classrooms (Acres) rooms rooms (Sq Ft) Required Keelesdale JPS 8 14 -6 4.2 36,613 1960 Silverthorn JPS Close 3.3 53,564 1916 Kane MS 23 26 -3 4.2 80,786 1969 Charles E Webster JPS 26 30 -4 5.3 48,207 1950

Appendices to the staff report not included above will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

For the Board’s decision see page 631.

638 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, June 14, 2010 Accommodation Review: Kent Sr PS-ALPHA II Alternative School-Dovercourt Jr PS-Pauline Jr PS- Brock Jr PS: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1598]

Accommodation Review: Kent Sr PS-ALPHA II Alternative School-Dovercourt Jr PS-Pauline Jr PS-Brock Jr PS: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1598]

As presented to the Planning and Priorities Committee on June 14, 2010 (see page 632).

In October 2009, the Board approved the establishment of an Accommodation Review Commit- tee (ARC) for Kent Senior Public School, ALPHA II Alternative School, Dovercourt Junior Pub- lic School, Pauline Junior Public School and Brock Junior Public School.

Appendix A includes a map showing the location of the schools.

The ARC’s recommendations and staff’s response are provided below.

Staff is recommending the closure of the school building that houses Kent Senior Public School and Alpha II Alternative School as it will not be required for the long-term accommodation needs of students in the review area. Data on actual and projected enrolment for the schools in the Accommodation Review is provided below.

Appendix E contains a map that shows the existing and proposed attendance area.

Financial Implications

Closing the Kent school building will enable the Board to reduce its annual operating expenses such as caretaking, maintenance, and utility costs by an estimated $307,000.

There will also be no continued investment towards the $15.4 million deferred maintenance cost associated with this school.

Resources

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 639 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Staff Responses to the Accommodation Review Committee’s Recommendations

ARC Recommendation Staff Response 1. The following accommodation option for the Staff supports the grade reconfigurations and five schools named in this ARC be imple- alternative school placement recommended by mented: the ARC. Kent continues as a separate school at Bloor CI as a Pre-TOPS program for interested grade 7 Staff will investigate the creation of an en- and 8 students from across the city. riched Kent math/science/technology program Any student attending a school named in the at Bloor Collegiate Institute including the as- ARC in September 2010 and residing in the sessment of granting priority standing for ad- Grade 7 and 8 Kent catchment area will be mission to students residing in the Grade 7 and given priority standing for admission to the 8 Kent catchment area. Pre-TOPS program for grade 7 and/or 8 if they meet the entry requirements for that program.

Brock Junior P.S. and Dovercourt Junior P.S. are converted to JK-Grade 8 schools; the grade 7/8 students not interested in the pre-TOPS program attend these schools. Pauline stays as a JK-Grade 6 school, with its Grade 6 students feeding to Dovercourt for Grade 7. Dewson’s regular program Grade 6 students and Montrose’s Grade 6 students residing in Kent’s senior attendance area will feed to Brock for grade 7. Alpha II moves into Bloor CI. 2. The daycare currently located in Kent/Alpha We have been informed that the daycare cur- II be relocated to a retrofitted Pauline Junior rently at Kent Senior Public School will be Public School. closing at the end of June 2010. Staff will support the process for the creation of a child care centre for infants and toddlers at Pauline Junior Public School in accordance with existing Board procedures.

640 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

ARC Recommendation Staff Response 3. The timing for these changes be as follows: Staff supports the timelines provided that renovations are completed within the time pe- September 2010 – Kent Senior Public School riod. continues to accept students into Grade 7 and Grade 8; Alpha II continues to offer a program for students in Grades 7, 8, 9 and 10 (subject to sufficient enrolment). September 2011 – Renovations completed for Brock and Dovercourt; Kent Senior Public School offers only a Grade 8 program; Alpha II offers a program for students in Grades 7, 8, 9 and 10 (subject to sufficient enrolment). Brock and Dovercourt are converted to JK-Grade 8 schools but offer only Grade 7 programs for the 2011-2012 school year. September 2012: Retrofit completed; Kent is relocated to Bloor CI with a new mandate, offering only a Pre-TOPS program for interested Grade 7 and 8 students from across the city. Alpha II moves into Bloor CI. Brock and Do- vercourt offer both Grade 7 and Grade 8 programs. 4. The community have input (Local School Subject to Board approval of staff’s recom- Community Design Team) regarding the use of mendations regarding this accommodation re- the property if a school building is closed. view, a Local School Community Design Team will be formed to develop a land use management master plan for the Bloor, Kent and Brockton property. 5. The revenue from the lease or sale of a In the Facility Framework approved by the school building, if a school is closed, must be Board, revenue generated from the sale of used to improve other schools named in the Board lands will be used for facility upgrades. ARC. (Facility Framework responding to the

ARC as approved at the Board meeting).

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 641 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

School Information Profiles

Status Quo

Ministry Enrolment Grade Student School Name Rated 2009/2010 Utilization Rate Configuration Variance Capacity (Headcount)

Kent Sr PS 7-8 551 198 -353 36% Dovercourt Jr PS JK-6 436 249 -187 57% Pauline Jr PS JK-6 325 235 -90 72% Brock Jr PS JK-6 325 142 -183 44%

Proposed Projected Ministry Projected Grade Con- Enrolment Projected Utiliza- School Name Rated Capac- Student figuration 2018 (Head- tion Rate ity Variance count) Kent Sr PS Dovercourt Jr PS JK-8 436 339 -97 78% Pauline Jr PS JK-8 325 235 -90 72% Brock Jr PS JK-8 325 244 -81 75%

Site Data Estimated # Surplus / School Existing # of of Class- Site Size School Name Deficit Class- Size Built Classrooms rooms Re- (Acres) rooms (Sq Ft) quired Kent Sr PS 3.5 103070 1909 Dovercourt Jr PS 24 19 5 3.3 66961 1916 Pauline Jr PS 17 14 3 2.9 83055 1912 Brock Jr PS 19 18 1 1.8 56901 1914

Appendices to the staff report not included above will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

For the Board’s decision see page 632.

642 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 15, June 14, 2010 Accommodation Review of J.R. Wilcox Community School, Cedarvale Community School, Arlington Middle School, Rawlinson Community School And Humewood Community School: Response to Rec- ommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1621]

Accommodation Review of J.R. Wilcox Community School, Cedarvale Community School, Ar- lington Middle School, Rawlinson Community School And Humewood Community School: Response to Recommendations of Accommodation Review Committee [1621]

As presented to the Planning and Priorities Committee on June 14, 2010 (see page 633).

In October 2009, the Board approved the establishment of an Accommodation Review Commit- tee (ARC) for J.R. Wilcox Community School, Cedarvale Community School, Arlington Middle School, Rawlinson Community School, and Humewood Community School.

Appendix A includes a map showing the location of the schools.

Staff’s response to each of the ARC’s recommendations is provided below. The ARC’s recommendations to close Arlington Middle School and to reconfigure the remaining schools in the review are contingent on the complete implementation, at a minimum, of the Facility Frame- work, presented by staff at the March 25th private meeting.

Staff supports the recommendation of the ARC to close Arlington Middle School as it is not required for the long-term accommodation needs of students within this area based on location, projected enrolment, maintenance costs, and future facility condition.

Data on actual and projected enrolment for the schools in this Accommodation Review is provided below.

If the Board approves the closing of Arlington Middle School, it must also amend the existing attendance area. Appendix E contains a map that shows the existing and proposed attendance area.

Financial Implications

Declaring Arlington Middle School surplus will enable the Board to reduce its annual operating expenses such as caretaking, maintenance, and utility costs by an estimated $365,000.

Selling the property would also avoid the deferred maintenance costs of $8.6 million and contribute to the reinvestment plans for schools in this review.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 643 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Resources

Implementation And Review

The implementation of the staff recommendations will require approval by the Ministry of Edu- cation. If approved, Arlington Middle School will close effective September 2011. Staff will implement a detailed plan for transitions for students and staff prior to the closing of the school.

Staff Responses to the Accommodation Review Committee’s Recommendations

ARC Recommendation Staff Response Arlington Middle School be closed. Staff supports this recommendation.

J.R. Wilcox Community School, Cedarvale Staff supports these schools becoming JK- Community School, Humewood Community Grade 8 schools and maintaining their current School, and Rawlinson Community School junior school boundaries. become JK – Grade 8 schools.

Recommendations #1 and #2 are contingent on the complete implementation, at a minimum, of the Facility Framework, presented by Sheila Penny, Director of Strategic Building and Re- newal and Daryl Sage, Director of Strategy and Planning at the March 25th private meeting. J.R. Wilcox house the grade 7 entry point for Staff supports this recommendation. French Extended Grade 7 & 8. French Immersion SK to Grade 8 be estab- An Early French Immersion program will be lished at Humewood Community School and established at Humewood Community School consideration be made for the implementation in alignment/in accordance with the policies of Grade 4 entry French middle immersion and procedures for Admission to French Im- program. mersion programs.

Consideration will be given for the implementation of a Grade 4 Middle French Immersion program at Humewood Community School.

644 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

ARC Recommendation Staff Response Humewood CS be considered as a site for an Staff is supportive of the recommendation. alternative school. The establishment of a new alternative school is guided by TDSB’s operational procedure called Alternative Schools PR584. 6a. The International Baccalaureate Pri- Staff supports this recommendation. mary Years Program (IB PYP) at Cedarvale

Community School and at J.R. Wilcox Com- munity School be maintained.

6b. The International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program (IB MYP) at Arlington Middle

School be relocated to J.R. Wilcox Community School and Cedarvale Community School. Staff will contact the International Baccalaure- ate Organization regarding this recommenda-

tion. 6c. Other schools in the area should be en-

couraged to seek similar certification.

Staff will consider the feasibility of this recommendation. 7a. A reasonable, respectful and transparent Staff supports these recommendations. transition opportunity be provided for students and families affected by all potential changes.

7b. Any change that occur must create minimal disruption to communities, students, families and staff in these school sites.

7c. No portables will be used. A school and community committee be estab- Staff supports this recommendation. lished to support collaborative opportunities among and between any schools affected by this ARC.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 645 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

ARC Recommendation Staff Response 9. Community be invited to give ongoing and If the Board and the Ministry of Education ap- genuine input into the design processes which prove the identified Capital Investment in the emerge from the recommendations, and that receiving schools, the Facilities Department opportunities to improve safety and accessibil- will initiate Local School Community Design ity at these sites be explored. Teams to participate in decision making regarding approved projects. 10. As soon as possible after the final recom- TDSB has established a central steering com- mendations are approved at the TDSB Board mittee that has developed criteria for the selec- Meeting in June 2010, a community committee tion of full-service schools including commu- be struck to investigate the development of a nity needs, current services within the school, full service community school in the area of and partnership readiness. Requests from Ac- the schools of the Accommodation Review. commodation Review Committees will be referred to the appropriate Executive Superinten- dent who will direct them to the central steering committee. The committee will consider the request based on the site selection criteria. 11. Existing child care and early learning op- Staff supports this recommendation. portunities be protected or expanded if feasible.

School Information Profiles

Status Quo Ministry Enrolment Grade Rated 2009/2010 Student School Name Configuration Capacity (Headcount) Variance Utilization Rate JR Wilcox CS JK-6 487 260 -227 53% Cedarvale CS JK-6 337 226 -111 67% Arlington MS 7-8 499 240 -259 48% Rawlinson CS JK-6 880 449 -431 51% Humewood CS JK-6 602 367 -235 61%

Projections Based on Proposed Staff Recommendations Projected Ministry Enrolment Projected Grade Con- Rated 2018 (Head- Student Projected Utiliza- School Name figuration Capacity count) Variance tion Rate JR Wilcox CS JK-8 487 375 -112 77% Cedarvale CS JK-8 337 276 -61 82% Arlington MS Close Rawlinson CS JK-8 880 626 -254 71% Humewood CS JK-8 602 471 -131 78%

646 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Site Data Estimated # of Class- Surplus / School Existing # of rooms Deficit Class- Site Size Size School Name Classrooms Required rooms (Acres) (Sq Ft) Built JR Wilcox CS 25 27 -2 2.9 52,585 1920 Cedarvale CS 15 15 0 4 35,315 1950 Arlington MS 1.2 90,222 1971 Rawlinson CS 43 39 -4 5.9 108,612 1920 Humewood CS 29 28 1 3.8 64,676 1972

Appendices to the staff report not included above will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

For the Board’s decision see page 633.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 647 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010

Planning and Priorities Committee

Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21, 2010

A meeting of the Planning and Priorities Committee convened on Monday, June 14, 2010, from 5:15 to 9:50 p.m., in the Boardroom, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Bruce Davis presiding.

The following committee members were present: Trustees Bruce Davis, Nadia Bello, John Campbell, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Michael Coteau, Gary Crawford, Howard Goodman and Maria Rodrigues. Regrets were received from Trustees Chris Bolton, Mari Rutka and Sheila Ward. Also present were Trustees Irene Atkinson, Shaun Chen, Gerri Gershon, Scott Harrison, Chris Tonks and Soo Wong. Trustees Bello, Chen, Coteau and Wong participated by electronic means. Trustee Crawford participated by electronic means for part of the meeting and for part in person.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Building for Tomorrow: Five-year Capital Building Program [1633]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 653) presenting a five-year capital building program.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Campbell, amended by Trustee Rodrigues (on behalf of Trustee Atkinson), the Planning and Priorities Committee RECOMMENDS The Board decided that a Five-Year Capital Building Program, as follows, be approved conditional upon Board and Ministry approval of the funding strategy:

Responding to the Accommodation Review Committees Launched in 2009

(a) That $56,596,064 be allocated for upgrades to ARC receiving schools to include:

(i) Permanent Accommodations $24,631,368

(ii) Program Upgrades $14,673,461

(iii) Building Upgrades $3,672,120

648 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010

(iv) Wireless Technology $798,716

(v) Grounds Refreshing $337,865

(vi) Security Infrastructure $1,305,000

(vii) Additional Upgrades $3,470,350

(viii) Early Learning Program $7,707,184

Redevelopment Projects

(b) That a Davisville-Yonge Local School Community Design Team be formed in January 2011 for the purposes of exploring a land use management plan on the Davisville property;

(c) That no further action regarding the Lawrence Height Revitalization project be undertaken until such time as the City has approved a Secondary Plan for the revitalization of Lawrence Heights, which is anticipated in the summer of 2011;

(d) That a Bloor-Dufferin Local School Community Design Team be formed in September 2010 for the purposes of exploring a land use management plan on the Bloor-Kent- Brockton properties;

Midland-Lawrence

(e) That Option 3 for the Bendale-Thomson New School, as presented in the report, be approved;

(f) That the consolidation of Bendale BTI and David and Mary Thomson into a new 172,000 square foot secondary facility with a pupil place capacity of 1,509 pupil places, at a cost of $41.1 million be approved;

(g) That a process to select architects to confirm the development parcels for surplus declarations to be referred to Toronto Lands Corporation and to provide design services for the new Bendale-Thomson Secondary School be initiated;

(h) An Oakburn-Avondale Local School Community Design Team be formed in January 2011 for the purposes of exploring a land use management plan on the Oakburn-Avondale properties;

School Facilities Revitalization Master Plan IV (SFMRP IV)

(i) The Board allocate $98.7 million to the School Facilities Revitalization Master Plan IV to include:

(i) New Pupil Places: $15.2 million to design and construct a new JK-8 school for the Meadowvale Sheppard (Rougeville) community on a 4.65 acre site, with an area of 64,029 square feet and a Ministry Rated Capacity of 631 pupils;

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 649 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010

(ii) Building Capacity Upgrades Required to Address Shifts in Enrolment: $3 million annually for a total of $15 million over five years for building upgrades required to address shifts in enrolment;

(iii) Major Program Improvements

A. The Board allocate $2.5 million annually for a total of $12.5 million over five years to address Broadening Choices requirements;

B. $350,000 annually for a total of $1.75 million over five years to upgrade chemical storage ventilation;

C. $2 million annually for a total of $10 million over five years to upgrade science labs;

(iv) Barrier Free Accessibility in Designated Schools: $1 million annually for a total of $5 million over five years to address requirements for barrier free accessibility in designated schools

(v) Structural Repairs and Water Quality

A. $2.3 million per year for a total of $11.5 million over five years to address cluster column structural defects;

B. $750,000 per year for a total of $3.75 million to address improving water quality;

(vi) Portables: $2 million annually for a total of $10 million over five years to address portable relocation requirements;

(vii) Phase VII Energy Projects: $3 million in 2012/13; 2013/14 and 2014/15 for a total of $9 million over three-years to address Phase VII energy projects;

A. Playground Learning Environments: $1 million annually (20 sites at $50,000 per site) for a total of $5 million over five years to address Playground Learning Environments, Phase II.

Playground Learning Environments: $1 million annually (20 sites at $50,000 per site) for a total of $5 million over five years to address Playground Learning Environments, Phase II.

At the Committee meeting, on amendment of Trustee Rodrigues (on behalf of Trustee Atkinson), Part (viii) C., third part, (science labs) was amended by changing $1.5 million to $2 million and $7.5 million to $10 million. Also, a motion of Trustee Rodrigues, on behalf of Trustee Atkinson, to increase the amount for Playground Learning Environments, section (viii) H., by $2.5 million was defeated.

Minority Report: (submitted in accordance with Bylaw 41.2) Trustee Rodrigues disagreed with the recommendation of the majority of the Committee and recommends instead that Part (viii) H.

650 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010

be amended to read: “$1.5 million annually (30 sites at $50,000 per site) for a total of $7.5 million over five years to address Playground Learning Environments, Phase II.

2. Surplus Declaration: West Toronto Collegiate Institute [1630] Consideration of the matter was postponed to a future meeting.

3. Surplus Declaration: Timothy Eaton Business and Technical Institute [1632] Consideration of the matter was postponed to a future meeting.

4. Full Market Price for Surplus Property Consideration of the matter was postponed to a future meeting.

Part B: Information Only

5. Delegations

Oral Delegations

The Committee heard the following oral delegation in accordance with the Board’s procedure for hearing delegations. re Building for Tomorrow: Five-year Capital Building Program [1633]

 Peter Harrison, Teacher, Bendale BTI  Diane Wilson-Sweet, Chair, David and Mary Thomson School Council  Faareeha Bhana, Student, Edgewood P.S.  Chris Glover

re Surplus Declaration: West Toronto Collegiate Institute [1630]

 Amy Murabayashi  Graham Hollings, CUPE4400 Adult ESL/LINC Instructor  Chris Glover

Written Submissions

3. The Committee received the following written submissions in lieu of oral delegations:

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 651 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010

re Building for Tomorrow: Five-year Capital Building Program [1633]

 Naseema Subratee-Khan, the School Council Chair at Donwood Park Jr. P.S.

6. Loss of Quorum At 9:50 p.m., the meeting adjourned due to loss of quorum. At the time quorum was lost, members Campbell, Cary-Meagher, Crawford, Davis, and Goodman were present. Also present was Trustee Gershon.

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report

Bruce Davis Chair of the Committee

Adopted June 23, 2010

652 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010 Building for Tomorrow: Five-Year Capital Building Program [1633]

Building for Tomorrow: Five-year Capital Building Program [1633]

As presented to the Planning and Priorities Committee on June 21, 2010 (see page 648).

The Board has begun to make significant inroads toward addressing a system faced with declining enrolment, aging infrastructure and changing demographics. Accommodation reviews are critical if the Board is to achieve its student achievement and financial strategy objectives as outlined in the Director’s Vision of Hope. The Ministry supports the Board’s investment in solutions which respond to current accommodation reviews while the Board also focuses on eliminating its capital deficit.

The Ministry has asked the Board to file a Capital Recovery Plan before it will approve the implementation of any new capital program. The following outlines a funding strategy that would serve as the Board’s Capital Recovery Plan. It is contingent upon Board approval of the surplus declarations, as described below in June 2010. Should the Board elect not to approve the surplus declarations before it in June 2010, the Five-Year Capital Building Program, as set out below, will require modifications.

The Ministry has recognized the Board’s ongoing commitment to clear its capital deficit by providing $20M in new capital funding to address the capital needs arising from the Accommoda- tion Review Committees (ARCs) currently being considered by the Board as well as new capital funding to implement the Early Learning program.

A: Investing in TDSB Schools

(a) Five-Year Capital Building Program in Summary

The implementation of the proposed Five-Year Capital Building Program proposes to reinvest in schools as follows:

(i) Respond to the capital needs of the ARCs launched in 2009 with a reinvestment of $56,596,064 in schools to:

 convert 16 schools to JK-8 and provide the required facility upgrades for Grades 7 and 8 instruction – science technology, music and art;;  provide permanent accommodation at all receiving schools;  implement the Early Learning Program (ELP) in 16 schools;  provide access wireless technology in 27 schools;  refresh school buildings and grounds;  respond to additional upgrades identified through the ARC process.

Note: School consolidations, which have been recommended through the ARC process, will result in an annual $1,988,755 reduction in operating costs and a $59M reduction in deferred maintenance backlog.

(ii) Move forward on five significant redevelopment projects which could realize at a minimum four new schools and generate additional revenue for reinvestment in

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 653 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010 Building for Tomorrow: Five-Year Capital Building Program [1633]

schools. This report recommends proceeding with a new secondary school for Ben- dale-Thomson at $41.1M.

(iii) Respond to new capital requirements in schools with an investment of $96.2M by launching the fourth phase of Phase IV of the School Facility Revitalization Master Plan.

 build a new elementary school for the Meadowvale-Sheppard community;  provide building renovations to respond to shifts in enrolment;  provide renovations required for program delivery including Broadening Choices and Science Labs;  provide barrier free accessibility, structural building repairs and water quality improvements;  provide for a portable program;  fund the Board ongoing energy management program;  provide Playground Learning Environments implemented as Phase II.

The total new capital investments proposed for school is in excess $190M.

(b) Funding Plan to Clear the Capital Deficit and Create a Capital Reserve

The opening balance for the current Capital Building Program for 2009/10 showed a deficit in the amount of $61,673,912. To clear the capital deficit and create a capital reserve the following funding strategy is recommended.

If approved, the projected revenue stream is as follows:

Approved surplus declarations $92.7M Pending surplus declarations $39.1M ARCs launched in 2009 $48.67M Five Redevelopment Projects $89.16-$111.9 TCL future surplus declarations 2011-15 $122.0M Total $391.63-$414.37M

Should the Board approve the surplus declarations as they are presented by staff in June 2010, the Board will be in a positive cash flow by the year 2010/11 with an opportunity to once again develop an annual capital program which will see significant dollars reinvested in schools to meet the program needs required for students to be successful in a world of rapid change.

Over the next five-years, approved and future surplus declarations have the potential to generate a revenue stream as outlined below.

(i) Approved Surplus Declarations

The Board has approved surplus declarations for 21 properties which have been actioned by the Toronto Lands Corporation (TLC).

654 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010 Building for Tomorrow: Five-Year Capital Building Program [1633]

The approved surplus declarations will generate $92.723M over the next three-years.

(ii) Pending Surplus Declaration

There are currently three properties to be considered for surplus declarations. Two properties – Timothy Eaton and West Toronto, have emerged following the Accommodation Re- view process; a third property, the Essex West Building, is a closed building in which a co- terminus school board has expressed an interest, in response to their accommodation requirements.

The projected revenue for the three properties is $39.1M. These surplus declarations will be presented to the Board at its meeting in June 2010.

(iii) Accommodation Review Committees, Sites Recommended for Closure

In October 2009, the Board launched ten ARCs. The ARCs have conducted their reviews and in April 2010 nine ARCs submitted their recommendations to the Director of Educa- tion.

Staff will be bringing forward staff’s response to the ARCs recommendations in June 2010. Should the Board approve the staff recommendations, the surplus declarations emerging from the 2009/10 ARC process will generate $48.67M. These surplus declarations will be presented to the Board at its meeting in June 2010.

Additional Ministry of Education Funding to Support the ARCs

On May 20, 2010 the Ministry informed the Board that it had approved new capital funding of $20M to support the capital projects resulting from the accommodation review processes. This funding is in addition to $7,707,184 of potential Ministry funding for the Early Learning Program.

(iv) Redevelopment Projects

In October 2009, the Board launched five redevelopment projects to realize the potential land values of properties strategically located in the City. The TLC has been advised of the five redevelopment projects launched by the Board in October 2009.

Two of the proposed redevelopment projects required ARCs to understand the student accommodation needs prior to launching the redevelopment exploration. The Board will consider recommendations from these two ARCs in June 2010.

The Lawrence-Midland redevelopment completed the ARC process in September 2008 and in February 2009, the Board approved the consolidation of the two secondary schools. In the May 2010, a Local School Community Design Team (LSCDT) was formed to explore a land use management plan for the Bendale-David and Mary Thomson properties.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 655 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010 Building for Tomorrow: Five-Year Capital Building Program [1633]

The LSCDT evolved three options which are described later in this report. The options were forwarded to TLC for input and evaluation of development potential and revenue stream

The Board will consider the recommendations for the Bendale-Thomson land use management plan in June 2010.

The five redevelopment projects provide the Board with an opportunity to generate a significant revenue stream to support a reinvestment in schools. A preliminary review of av- erage land values across the City suggests that four of the five projects could generate in the order of $89.16M-$111.9M to support funding capital reinvestment. The Board will continue to work with TLC to realize the potential revenue for the five redevelopment projects as Land Use Management Master Plans are explored.

(v) Future Surplus Declarations

In June 2010 the TLC will present, for the Board consideration, the 2010/11 Annual Plan which recommends surplus declarations for the sale of various properties currently in the closed school portfolio.

Should the Board approve the surplus declarations as recommended by the TLC’s 2010/11 Annual Plan, the projected revenue stream is $41.7M. These surplus declarations will be presented to the Board at its meeting in June 2010.

In addition, the TLC has undertaken a review of their portfolio and identified additional potential sites for future disposition. TLC has estimated the revenue stream for such future disposition to be in the order of $80M which could be realized during the period 2011/15. These surplus declarations will be presented to the Board in subsequent TLC Annual Plan submissions.

In summary the Five-Year Capital Building Program proposes a new investment in TDSB schools of over $190M with a funding strategy, if approved, that will provide the ability to generate $391.6M-$414.37M to fund this reinvestment, clear the capital deficit and complete the current capital program.

Ministry staff are in support of the proposed plan and have provided an additional $20M in funding to support the current ARC capital program in addition to considering capital funding for the implementation of Early Learning in the receiving schools.

(d) Next Steps

Early in 2011, staff will be presenting to Trustees:

 a Long-Term Capital Plan;  a system wide review of program and student accommodation needs.

656 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010 Building for Tomorrow: Five-Year Capital Building Program [1633]

This Long-Term Capital Plan will inform future capital building programs. The Five-Year Capi- tal Building Program as presented will be refreshed and presented to Trustees on an annual basis as a new capital issues emerge.

Staff is also considering other potential redevelopment opportunities and will be presenting additional potential redevelopment projects to the Board early in 2011 with the Long-Term Capital Plan.

In addition to considering school consolidations, Trustees, through the work of the Administra- tive Space Working Committee, are considering consolidating administrative space with the goal of disposing of surplus administrative property to generate capital to invest in schools. The Committee will be reporting to the Board on possible options as they emerge.

A detailed capital building program cash flow is shown in the following appendices4:

 Summary Capital Program Forecast  Summary of Cash Flow Expenditure, Revenue: Existing Capital Program and Proceeds of Disposition  Summary of Cash Flow Expenditure – Revenue: ARCs Launched in 2009  Summary of Cash Flow Expenditure – Revenue: Redevelopment Projects (High and Low Estimates)  New Annual Capital Program School Facilities Revitalization Master Plan Phase IV.

What follows is detailed information on the proposed capital investments.

B: Responding to the Accommodation Review Committees (ARCs) Launched in 2009

On October 28, 2009, the Board approved the formation of ten ARCs with the objective that students will be better served through expanded program offerings and improved facilities.

On March 10, 2010, the Board approved a Facility Framework which sets out the facility upgrades to be incorporated into the ARC receiving schools. Such facility upgrades will be funded from the disposition of surplus properties and the Ministry of Education through the recently announced new Ministry Capital funding for theses ARCs and the implementation of the Early Learning Program.

Staff has applied the Facility Framework to the models recommended by the ARCs and reviewed additional facility upgrades requested by the ARCs. The following reflects the investments planned at ARCs receiving schools, in accordance with the Facility Framework:

4 Appendices to the staff report not included above will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time. G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 657 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010 Building for Tomorrow: Five-Year Capital Building Program [1633]

Facility Framework Category Description Budget

Classroom additions 1. Permanent Accommodations required for student ac- $24,631,368 commodation Upgrades to accommodate changing program needs including, but not 2. Program Upgrades $14,673,461 limited to, science and technology, art and music Upgrades required to refresh schools including, but not limited to, 3. Building Upgrades painting, flooring, ceil- $3,672,120 ings and, where appropriate, introduction of natural light Upgrades required to 4. Wireless technology provide wireless acces- $798,716 sibility Tree planting and minor 5. Grounds refreshing $337,865 planting Adequate security infrastructure to support the 6. Security Infrastructure $1,305,000 expansion of the full service school model Staff reviewed and supported additional up- 7. Additional Upgrades $3,470,350 grades recommended by ARCs. TOTAL $48,888,880 Early Learning Program to be funded 8. $7,707,184 by the Ministry TOTAL $56,596,064

The ARCs have submitted reports to the Director of Education recommending their preferred accommodation model.

Staff is responding to the ARC recommendations in reports to the Planning and Priorities Com- mittee through May and June 2010.

Recommendation That the Board allocate $56,596,064 for upgrades at ARC receiving schools, in accordance with the Facility Framework.

658 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010 Building for Tomorrow: Five-Year Capital Building Program [1633]

Appendix B provides the following:

 Project description for each ARC (Appendix B).  Summary of estimated capital cost (Appendix B (i)).  Summary of cost estimates applied using the Facility Framework, by school by ARC (Ap- pendix B (ii)).

C: Redevelopment Projects

The Board, at its meeting of October 28, 2010, identified five redevelopment opportunities which, if realized, will result in a significant revenue stream to invest in school facilities.

1. Davisville – Yonge

The Davisville – Yonge ARC was approved by the Board in October 2009 to examine and address the issues of growth and overcrowding in this area of the City. The ARC recommended and staff support maintaining a local school presence on the Davisville property.

A preliminary staff review, indicates the potential for redevelopment of the 3.8 acres in addition to maintaining a local school presence on the Davisville property. Staff support advancing to the next phase in the process – formation of a Local School Community Design Team (LSCDT) with input from parents, stakeholders and community to explore a land use management plan on the Davisville property. The land use management plan will look to address school and community needs in a potential redevelopment project. TLC will provide expert development advise.

Recommendation That a Davisville-Yonge Local School Community Design Team be formed in January 2011 for the purposes of exploring a land use management plan on the Davisville property.

2. Lawrence Heights Revitalization

An ARC was approved to examine student accommodation and program delivery in August 2008. The ARC reported its findings to the Board in June 2009. Staff responded to the ARC recommendations in a report to Planning and Priorities on May 10, 2010. On May 26, 2010 the Board approved:

(a) That Sir Sanford Fleming Academy be relocated to the Bathurst Heights site for the start of the 2011-12 school year;

(b) That the Sir Sanford Fleming Academy site located at 50 Ameer Avenue be declared surplus to the needs of the Board as of June 30, 2010 and referred to the Toronto Lands Cor- poration for lease;

(c) That Board staff continue to work with the City of Toronto and Toronto Community Hous- ing Corporation regarding the implementation of the Lawrence-Allen Revitalization Plan to ensure that the needs of present and future students in the area are met;

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 659 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010 Building for Tomorrow: Five-Year Capital Building Program [1633]

(d) That Board staff bring further recommendations to the Board for approval as required as each phase of the revitalization plan moves forward.

The schools in the ARC form part of the Lawrence Heights Neighbourhood, an area currently slated for significant revitalization by the City and Toronto Community Housing as part of the Lawrence-Allan Revitalization Plan.

City staff will present to its Council a proposed land use plan which will guide the revitalization of this neighbourhood over the next 20 years. The proposed City plan supports the directions and recommendations of the ARC and Board staff; the City Plan also presents an opportunity for possible redevelopment of the Bathurst Heights property.

Recommendation That no further action, regarding the Lawrence Height Revitalization project, be undertaken until such time as the City has approved a Secondary Plan for revitalization of Lawrence Heights, which is anticipated in the summer of 2011.

3. Bloor–Dufferin

The Bloor–Dufferin ARC was approved by the Board in October 2010 to examine and address the issues of declining enrolment in this area of the City. This redevelopment project includes a land assembly consisting of Bloor CI, Brockton HS (closed) and Kent Sr PS and Brockton Sta- dium properties situated at the corner of Bloor and Dufferin Street.

The recommended accommodation model from the ARC, as it affects this land parcel, includes the closure of the Kent Sr PS building.

A preliminary staff review, indicates the potential for redevelopment of the Kent-Bloor-Brockton lands with a local secondary school presence on the lands. Staff support advancing to the next phase in the process – formation of a LSCDT to explore a land use management plan on the Kent-Bloor-Brockton properties with the input from school and community and expert advise from TLC.

Recommendation That a Bloor-Dufferin Local School Community Design Team be formed in September 2010 for the purposes of exploring a land use management plan on the Bloor-Kent- Brockton properties.

4. Lawrence–Midland

In April 2007, an ARC was approved to examine student accommodation and program delivery for the following schools:

 Bendale BTI;  David and Mary Thomson CI;  Donwood PS;  Edgewood PS;  Highbrook Learning Centre.

660 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010 Building for Tomorrow: Five-Year Capital Building Program [1633]

In September 2008, the ARC reported its findings to the Board and in February 2009, the Board approved the ARC recommendations for a consolidation of two secondary schools and expansion of a junior school to a JK–8 school in a campus with a new secondary school.

In April 2010, the Board directed staff to present a plan which includes all funding sources, partnerships with government and or community-based agencies to support the project moving forward by June 2010. A Request for Proposal was issued to retain architects to assist with the design stage of the project.

A LSCDT consisting of school and community stakeholders was established in May to evolve a land use management plan which would integrate a new consolidated secondary school, provide opportunities for community partnerships in the building of a sports complex, and surplus lands suitable for residential development.

The LSCDT evolved three land use management options; each option identified surplus lands available for residential redevelopment. The three options were forwarded to the TLC for review and evaluation.

The LSCDT unanimously supported Option 3 which involves a new 172,000 square foot consolidated secondary school, with a capacity of 1,509, located in the interior of the site, with surplus lands fronting onto Midland Avenue and Lawrence Avenue East available for residential development. Option 3 provides the greatest opportunities to:

 Maintain the two existing schools operational while a new facility is constructed minimizing disruption to students and staff;  Bring Bendale and Thomson students together in a new building providing the opportunities to create a new school culture and identity for students and eliminating the sense of “merg- ing” students into an existing building and school culture;  Establish a secondary school facility which would meet the new program delivery model supported by the ARC and the Board;  Actively seek a development partner to construct and operate a sports complex consisting of gymnasiums, fitness, dance, banquet rooms, artificial turf, asphalt track and Dome;  Reduce 385,161 square footage, attributed to the existing two secondary facilities, to a new 172,000 square foot facility; thus providing a reduction in operating square footage by 213,161 square feet and realizing a significant reduction in annual operating expenditures (caretaking, maintenance, utilities and renewal);  Provide 21 acres of surplus lands for residential development.

A review of the three land use options is outlined in Appendix C (ii-iv).

Staff supports the consolidation of Bendale BTI and David and Mary Thomson CI in a new secondary facility as shown, in Option 3, Appendix C (iv).

 Capital Costs: $41.1M  Estimated Revenue TBC

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 661 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010 Building for Tomorrow: Five-Year Capital Building Program [1633]

Staff support the consolidation of the secondary facilities as shown in Option 3 and recommends advancing to design and sketch plans for a new secondary school facility.

Recommendation That (i) Option 3, Bendale – Thomson New School Option as shown in Appendix C (iv) be approved; (ii) The Board approve the consolidation of Bendale BTI and David and Mary Thomson in new 172,000 square foot secondary facility with a pupil place capacity of 1,509 at a cost of $41.1M; and (iv) The Board initiates the process to select architects to confirm the development parcels for surplus declarations to be referred to TLC; and to provide design services for the new Bendale-Thomson Secondary School.

5. Oakburn Redevelopment

The Oakburn Avondale property consists of an elementary facility and a plant facility. In 2008, the Board convened a local feasibility study and concluded a school presence is required on the Oakburn/Avondale property to service accommodation needs. The Board is currently examining its requirement for plant facilities. The proposed redevelopment project presents an opportunity to intensify the 10 acre parcel, by relocating the plant functions and developing the lands with a new elementary school and residential development.

Recommendation That an Oakburn-Avondale Local School Community Design Team be formed in January 2011 for the purposes of exploring a land use management plan on the Oakburn- Avondale properties.

D: New Annual Capital Requirements, School Facilities Revitalization Master Plan Phase IV

Urban centres like Toronto face ongoing, changing demographics resulting from a variety of factors. Upgrades to facilities are required to accommodate changes to curriculum over time. In response to these changes, the Board considers, on an annual basis, capital investments required to support student accommodation and program requirements. Historically, the Board’s capital program has been developed and approved through the School Facilities Revitalization Master Plan, Phases I, II and III. This multi-year capital planning process has addressed:

1. New Pupil Places responding to new residential communities and residential intensification. 2. Renovation/Replacement/Addition. 3. Building upgrades required to accommodate shifts in enrolment. 4. Major Program Improvements. 5. Barrier Free. 6. Cluster Columns 7. Portables. 8. Energy Phase VII.

662 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010 Building for Tomorrow: Five-Year Capital Building Program [1633]

9. Playground Learning Environments.

Should the Board approve the surplus declarations, as presented in this report in June, staff recommend the reinstatement of a new capital program through a School Facility Revitalization Master Plan Phase IV (SFRMP IV)involving the following capital priorities.

(i) New Pupil Places for New Residential Communities

Given the intensification of land in the City of Toronto, there are relatively few opportunities for the creation of new neighbourhoods and communities in the traditional brownfield sites. Plan- ning staff track residential developments and the growth of communities to determine the need for school sites and buildings to service children emanating from such new communities.

The Board responded to the growth of new communities with the construction of two new schools – Thomas Wells PS (2005) and Brookside PS (2007).

(ii) Meadowvale-Sheppard (Rougeville)

In December 2008, the Board identified Meadowvale Sheppard as the Board’s top capital new pupil place priority, and staff communicated the same to the Ministry. The Ministry provided Capital Priority funding for projects at Nelson Mandela Park PS and Thorncliffe Park PS, and no Ministry funds were approved for Meadowvale Sheppard at that time.

The new east Scarborough community, located on the north side of Sheppard Avenue, west of Meadowvale and east of Conlins Road, consisting of 1,123 low density residential units, has been constructed and occupied. Approximately 509 elementary students currently residing in the community are being bused to two holding schools, Chief Dan George PS and Highcastle PS. Both schools are over capacity with a total of nine portables. Long-term enrolment projections indicate this number rising to approximately 600. A new elementary school is required as soon as possible to meet these accommodation needs. Should the Board approve this report, staff will present a detailed project report to Operations and Facility Management Committee in August, 2010. A summary for the Meadowvale – Sheppard (Rougeville) school project requirements is attached as Appendix D (i-ii).

Recommendation That the Board allocate $15.2M to design and construct a new JK-8 school for the Meadowvale Sheppard (Rougeville) community on a 4.65 acre site, with an area of 64,029 square feet and a Ministry Rated Capacity of 631 pupils.

Other Emerging New Communities

Planning staff have conducted a review of emerging new communities arising from large residential developments and the need and time frame for new school facilities on new sites to service new residential communities.

The new Meadowvale-Sheppard community is fully built out and as such is the Board’s first priority for a new pupil place school.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 663 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010 Building for Tomorrow: Five-Year Capital Building Program [1633]

The following additional schools will be required in the next 2- to 5-year time frame to service residential development:

Residential Community Timeframe Railway Lands 2-3 years West Donlands 3-6 years Fort York 5-10 years

A full review of the funding priority and timeframe is contained in Appendix E and E (i), Poten- tial New Schools on New Sites to Serve New Communities.

New Pupil Places for Infill Residential Intensification

The City’s official plan sets out “Avenues” and “Corridors” which present, due to location of transit and other amenities, the opportunities for residential intensification. Over the years this intensification has resulted in significant enrolment pressures in various neighbourhoods across the City.

Staff have responded to this intensification with the “redirection” of students to adjacent schools where accommodation was available; and placement of portables.

Planning staff will be conducting a review in the fall of 2010, to identify those neighbourhood/communities experiencing residential intensification and the requirement and priority for new pupil places to address accommodation needs. Staff will present a Long-Term Capital Plan to the Board in early 2011.

2. Renovation/Replacement/Addition

The Board tracks the condition of its facilities on an annual basis. The Facility Condition Index (FCI) is an indicator of the condition of major building components relative to their life cycle, expressed as a percentage. The table below provides a ranking of the FCI

Condition FCI Number of Schools Good < 5% 23 Fair 5-10% 28 Poor 10-30% 249 Critical > 30% 247

The Ministry defines Prohibitive to Repair (PTR) schools as those with an FCI in excess of 65%. Recently, the Board received PTR funding from the Ministry for Nelson Mandela Park PS and Churchill PS.

Staff will continue to work with the Ministry to identify additional opportunities for PTR funding to address facility condition priorities.

664 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010 Building for Tomorrow: Five-Year Capital Building Program [1633]

Building Upgrades Required to Address Shifts in Enrolment

Demographic shifts occur every year in the City of Toronto, and each year Planning staff works with schools to project enrolments and identify shifts that will require small interior renovations to address emerging accommodation pressures. The following are examples of 2009/10 projects funded from Building Upgrades for Capacity.

Dewson Jr PS

Partition open teaching area to create 8 enclosed classrooms

John Fisher Jr PS

Classroom addition in the basement

Beverley PS

Create Grade 7 & 8 Classrooms

Karen Kain School of the Arts

Phase 2 expansion to Grade 8

Adam Beck PS

Renovation for additional classrooms to accommodate French immersion

Recommendation That $3M annually for a total of $15M over five-years for building upgrades required to address shifts in enrolment

4. Major Program Improvements

The Board responds to students’ instructional needs with changes in program delivery. In many instances, such changes require modifications to physical spaces to support the programs. Reno- vations to support program changes are reviewed and prioritized by the Broadening Choices Steering Committee (BCSC) in consultation with Facility Services staff. The Committee consists of the Executive Superintendent, Superintendents, Central Coordinating Principals and Pro- gram Coordinators from the Program Department, and representative Superintendents of Educa- tion and Elementary and Secondary School Principals. BCSC has identified the following program spaces as requiring major upgrades for 2010/11:

 CALC, Hospitality Program Expansion  Cedarbrae CI, Woodlinks Program  Danforth Tech CI, Hospitality Program Expansion  Earl Haig SS, New Hospitality, Hairdressing and Aesthetics  Georges Vanier SS, World Youth Arts program  Lawrence Park CI, Hospitality and Tourism  Lester B. Pearson, New Health and Wellness Program G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 665 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010 Building for Tomorrow: Five-Year Capital Building Program [1633]

 Maplewood HS, Healthy Active Living Program  Rosedale Heights School for the Arts, Drama Dance Program  Sir Sanford Fleming Academy, Pathway Expansion  Sir William Osler, Hospitality program Expansion

Recommendation That $2.5M annually for a total of $12.5M over five-years to address Broad- ening Choices requirements.

In addition, Secondary School science labs and chemical storage rooms have been identified as having a significant backlog. Up-to-date facilities are needed to provide safe and healthy working conditions for students and teachers (i.e. Science lab ventilation, chemical storage ventilation, dust collectors) and to ensure student success in hands-on inquiry-based science and technology programs. Health and Safety considerations for staff and students, including upgrading the ventilation system in the chemical storage rooms, are prioritized.

The backlog of required Chemical Storage Upgrades totals $12M; and the backlog of Secondary Science Lab Upgrades totals $80M.

Recommendation That the Board allocate $350,000 annually for a total of $1.75M over five- years to upgrade chemical storage ventilation.

Recommendation That the Board allocate $1.5M annually for a total of $7.5M over five-years to upgrade science labs.

Barrier Free Accessibility in Designated Schools

The Board’s Barrier Free Committee, consists of Special Education and Facility Services staff. Its mandate is to address the need for equitable access for students and staff with disabilities. Designated sites were selected throughout the Board to provide cost-effective barrier free access. These sites were strategically located in families of schools to provide a flow-through from elementary to secondary schools.

The Barrier Free Committee meets monthly to identify facility upgrade priorities to accommodate students with special needs requirements in designated schools.

Recommendation That the Board allocate $1M annually for a total of $5M over five-years to address requirements for Barrier Free Accessibility in designated schools.

Structural Repairs and Water Quality

During exterior wall maintenance projects, steel columns located at clustered window bays were found to be severely corroded at the sill. (Detailed description of this issue available upon request). Staff recommends that an assessment program be undertaken for pre-1950 schools where similar construction methods were employed, to determine where the corrosion of steel columns is an issue. Due diligence assessments at 29 schools found that corrosion was a concern in sev-

666 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010 Building for Tomorrow: Five-Year Capital Building Program [1633]

eral locations. Further investigation is required to determine the degree of corrosion in the 29 school buildings, and the risk posed by this condition for staff and students.

In 2008 the City of Toronto introduced the Municipal Water Supply Bylaw which requires a premise isolation valve on the water main coming into the building to prevent reverse flow con- tamination of the municipal water supply.

The Board must also ensure safe water for users of the building by protecting against contamina- tion of drinking water from the fire line. Both objectives are achieved in a cost effective manner by installing check valves (back flow preventers) on both the water main and potable water line.

Recommendation That the Board allocate $2.3M per year for a total of $11.5M over five-years to address column structural defects.

Recommendation That the Board allocate $750,000 per year for a total of $3.75M over five- years to address improving water quality.

Portables

Demographic shifts occur every year in the City of Toronto, so each year Planning staff works with schools to project enrolments and identify shifts that will require portable moves to address accommodation pressures.

Recommendation That the Board allocate $2M annually for a total of $10M over five-years to address portable relocation requirements.

Phase VII Energy Projects

As presented in the Go Green: Climate Change Action Plan, the Board has made great achieve- ments in addressing environmental concerns, through innovative and effective actions to improve energy conservation. Energy efficiency measures have reduced energy consumption and improved the indoor learning environments for students. Energy retrofit projects are cost effective, averaging payback periods of less than eight years. Measures include new installations of Build- ing Automation Systems (BAS) and upgrades to bring obsolete BAS systems to current standards.

Recommendation That the Board allocate $3M in 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 for a total of $9M over three-years to address Phase VII energy projects.

Playground Learning Environments

In Phase I of the Playground Learning Environment Program (PLE), allocations by the Board was limited to replacement value and/or cost to retrofit equipment, plus an amount for other PLE elements (meet and greet areas, learning circles, shade tree planting, etc). These allocations were not sufficient to fully implement the scope set out on master plans.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 667 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Planning and Priorities Committee, Report No. 17 (Part 1), June 21,2010 Building for Tomorrow: Five-Year Capital Building Program [1633]

Recommendation: That the Board allocate $1M per year (20 sites at $50,000 per site per year) for a total of $5M over five-years for PLE Phase II.

Conclusion

Staff has developed a Five-Year Capital Building Plan which, if approved by the Board, will during the period 2010/15 clear the capital deficit, create a capital reserve and provide a revenue stream which will bring significant reinvestment to schools and take the Board and its students into the future.

Resources

Implementation of the Five-Year Capital Building Plan Program will be funded from the proceeds of disposition generated from approved, pending and future surplus declarations during the period 2010/15 and Ministry funding.

The Board and the Ministry of Education will work closely to ensure that the Ministry’s and Board’s requirements for due diligence with regard to transfers to/from reserves are met.

Implementation And Review

Construction Schedules and cash flow projections for the Five-Year Capital Building Plan are set out in the appendices which address the four major components of the plan: (a) Clear the capital deficit and build a capital reserve; (b) Responding to the capital needs of the ten ARCs; (c) Launching redevelopment projects; (d) New annual capital requirements through Phase IV of the School Facilities Revitalization Master Plan Phase IV. The Board’s approval of the Five-Year Capital Building Plan will establish a capital program direction; implementation of the program will be contingent upon the continual collaboration with the Ministry as the specific plans evolve and the necessary Ministry approvals are obtained. Staff will regularly refresh the Capital Plan and provide updates to the Board on an annual basis.

For the Board’s decision see page 648.

668 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 16, June 21, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee

Report No. 16, June 21, 2010

A special meeting of the Operations and Facilities Management Committee convened on Mon- day, June 21, 2010, from 2:35 to 3:20 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Gary Crawford presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Gary Crawford (Chair), Shaun Chen, Gerri Ger- shon, Howard Goodman and Soo Wong. Also present were Trustees Sheila Cary-Meagher and Scott Harrison. Trustee Chen participated by electronic means.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

Part A: Committee Recommendations

1. Contract Awards, Facility Services [1634]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 671) presenting contract awards. The Com- mittee received the contracts in Chart A and approved the contracts in Chart B.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Goodman, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee REC- OMMENDS that the contracts on Chart C, as presented in the report, be approved.

2. Schoolyard Improvements: Jesse Ketchum Public School [1628] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 676) concerning the redesign and construction of the school playgrounds at Jesse Ketchum Public School.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Goodman, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee REC- OMMENDS that staff be authorized to sign a Letter of Understanding with the City of Toronto for the redesign and construction of the school playgrounds at Jesse Ketchum Public School.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 669 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 16, June 21, 2010

3. Lakeshore Collegiate Institute and Nustadia Recreation Inc. Facility Agree- ment Key Business Terms [1629] The Committee considered a staff report (see page 677) concerning a potential lease of part of the Lakeshore C.I. property.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation: Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Goodman, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee REC- OMMENDS:

(a) That the Board enter into a lease with Nustadia Recreation Inc. for a portion of the lands at Lakeshore Collegiate Institute, located at 350 Kipling Avenue, for a term of 15 years, with three options to renew for five-years each, on the key business terms as presented in the report;

(b) That the Director be authorized to finalize the Facility Agreement with Nustadia Recrea- tion Inc.

Part B: Information Only

No matters to report

Part C: Ongoing Matters

No matters to report

Gary Crawford Chair of the Committee

Adopted June 23, 2010

670 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 16, June 21, 2010

Contract Awards, Facility Services [1634]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on June 21, 2010 (see page 669).

In accordance with the Board's policy P.017: Purchasing, the attached charts present contracts for receipt or approval, as appropriate.

The recommended suppliers and the term of each contract are shown in the attached charts. Chart 1 outlines contract awards provided for information; Chart 2 outlines contracts requiring Operations and Facilities Management Committee approval; Chart 3 outlines contracts requiring Board approval. The amounts shown are based on the estimated annual consumption unless indicated otherwise. Actual amounts depend on the volume of products/services actually used during the term of the contract.

Chart 4 is a summary of contract awards for selected Facility Service projects for the period Sep- tember 2006 to date.

The Process

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 671 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 16, June 21, 2010 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1634]

Chart 1: Facilities Contract Awards Provided for Information (over $50,000 and up to $250,000)

User/Budget No. of Estimated Holder War Recommended Low Objec- Projected Start/End Customer In- Funding Products/Services Details Bids Annual School/Departme d Supplier Bid tions Date of Contract volvement Source Rec’d Amount nt ROOFING Partial Roof Replacement B1,B2,B4 at Riverdale C.I. Triumph Alumi- STM10-191T Roof leaking be- June, 2010/ Facility Ser- Good Places 1 Facility Services 15 num and Sheet Yes No 5 $204,002 yond repair and metal roof deck August 20, 2010 vices to Learn Metal Inc. perforated with rust requiring immediate replacement SWIMMING POOLS Curtain Wall at Central Tech CI, RB10-173T. Existing curtain wall Lisgar Construc- May 20, 2010/ Facility Ser- Energy Effi- 2 Facility Services 10 Yes No 5 $103,000 is leaking and requires replace- tion Company July 2, 2010 vices cient Schools ment. Asbestos Abatement associated with the curtain wall replacement Abbot Environ- May, 2010/ Facility Ser- Energy Effi- 3 Facility Services 10 Yes No 5 $69,550 of pool project at Central Techni- mental June 15, 2010 vices cient Schools cal School. OTHER Developmentally Delayed (DD) Classroom at Birchmount Park Revitaliza- Orlando C.I. June 28, 2010/ Facility Ser- tion Program 4 Facility Services 18 Marchese Con- Yes No 6 $105,100 STM10-183T A classroom is be- August 31, 2010 vices (SFRMP – tracting ing renovated to accommodate a Capital) new DD program Proceeds from the sale Landscaping at North Toronto CI. of North CRCE Construc- July 4, 2010/ Facility Ser- 5 Facility Services Concrete and Paving work is re- 11 N/A 1 N/A N/A $81,800 Toronto CI tion Ltd. July 30, 2010 vices quired at the new school. land and capital reserve Malvern C.I., Noise Abatement Renewal Enclosure RB10-184Q Enclosure Centrum Reno- July, 2010/ Facility Ser- 6 Facility Services 16 Yes No 6 $56,923 Funded from for existing dust collector to re- vations August 31, 2010 vices. Capital duce noise to acceptable level. 8 Facility Services Asbestos Abatement type 2 at 14 Restoration En- Yes No 5 $62,790 March 25, 2010/ Facility Ser- Ministry

672 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 16, June 21, 2010 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1634]

User/Budget No. of Estimated Holder War Recommended Low Objec- Projected Start/End Customer In- Funding Products/Services Details Bids Annual School/Departme d Supplier Bid tions Date of Contract volvement Source Rec’d Amount nt Nelson vironmental May 21, 2010 vices Capital Grant Mandela Park PS. Building struc- Contractors ture investigation

1. To ensure continuity and seamless tie in of work the same contractor is recommended to be used for the school as is for the landscaping of condos at the North Toronto CI site.

Chart 2: Facilities Contracts Requiring Operations and Facilities Management Committee Approval (over $250,000 and up to $500,000)

User/Budget No. of Estimated Projected Holder Recommended Low Customer Funding Products/Services Details Ward Objections Bids Annual Start/End Date of School/Departme Supplier Bid Involvement Source Rec’d Amount Contract nt OTHER Edgewood P.S. RB10-195T Expe- Revitaliza- riential Lab which includes Sci- tion ence Tech Classroom, Art Room, July, 2010/ Facility Ser- 1 Facility Services 19 Ross & Anglin Yes No 6 $418,400 Program Library & Collaborative work August 22, 2010 vices (SFRMP- space to facilitate program deliv- Capital) ery .

Chart 3: Facilities Contracts Requiring Board Approval (over $500,000 and Consulting Services over $50,000)

User/Budget No. of Estimated Projected Holder Recommended Low Objec- Customer In- Funding Products/Services Details Ward Bids Annual Start/End Date of School/Departmen Supplier Bid tions volvement Source Rec’d Amount Contract t HVAC Upgrade Obsolete Chiller Plant at Harbord CI CN10- June, 2010/ 196T. Existing Chiller & Ram Mechani- Facility Ser- Good Places 1 Facility Services 10 Yes No 8 $708,500 September 30, Cooling Tower are in poor cal vices to Learn 1 2010 condition, rusted, leaking and beyond repair. OTHER

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 673 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 16, June 21, 2010 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1634]

User/Budget No. of Estimated Projected Holder Recommended Low Objec- Customer In- Funding Products/Services Details Ward Bids Annual Start/End Date of School/Departmen Supplier Bid tions volvement Source Rec’d Amount Contract t Playground Learning Envi- ronment at Jesse Ketchum P.S. STM10-175T The Four Seasons is building a build- City of To- ing that will cast a shadow KCL Contract- June, 2010/ Facility Ser- 2 Facility Services 14 No 2 No 3 $1,594,000 ronto (Section over the play yard of this ing October 31, 2010 vices 37) school. The developer has provided funds to upgrade the play yard of the school to compensate

Chart 4: Summary of Select Facilities Contracts: (September 1, 2009 to Present)

Total Num- Total 2009/10 Total Expendi- Total Number of Total Number Total 2008/09 ber of Pro- Contract Project Classification tures Projects for this of Projects Contract jects 2009/10 Awards Re- Report 2008/09 Awards For this Report to date ported to Date Boilers $0 0 2 $669,900 4 $3,777,220

Roofing $204,002 1 15 $2,017,014 25 $3,027,096

Building Automation Sys- $0 0 3 $293,455 13 $1,571,238 tems (BAS) Heating Ventilation Air $708,500 1 2 $838,500 11 $2,434,932 Conditioning (HVAC) Swimming Pools $172,550 2 30 $8,614,906 1 $105,000 Ministry Grant – Primary $0 0 0 0 0 $0 Class Size Cap

674 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 16, June 21, 2010 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1634]

TOTAL $1,085,052 4 52 $12,433,775 54 $10,915,486

For the Board’s decision see page 669.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 675 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 16, June 21, 2010 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1634]

Schoolyard Improvements: Jesse Ketchum Public School [1628]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on June 21, 2010 (see page 669).

The City of Toronto requires a signed letter of understanding/undertaking from the Board prior to transferring $2M in Section 37 funding allocation.

Bay-Yorkville Developments, is constructing two buildings (Four Seasons Development), a 46- storey hotel and residential condominium, and a 30-storey mixed use residential condominium at the northeast corner of Bay Street and Yorkville Avenue.

Due to the proximity of the proposed Four Seasons Development to the Jesse Ketchum P.S., the Board retained a consultant to prepare a shadow impact study for the school. According to the consultant’s report, the shadowing from the proposed development will give rise to serious long term impacts at the school. The local Trustee, staff and consultants, in consultation with the school parents, developed a Master Plan for the School which will mitigate those impacts and result in an improved learning environment for the students.

In April, 2006, an agreement was reached between the Board and the Bay-Yorkville Develop- ments, that will see the developer provide the Board a contribution of $2M to be used for upgrades at Jesse Ketchum PS (to be secured through an agreement under Section 37 of the Plan- ning Act) for the implementation of the Master Plan (see Appendix A). The $2M will be paid to the Board following the signing of a Letter of Understanding with the City and the Board and on the approval by City of Toronto Council for the release of the funds.

The City had offered to allocate an additional $150,000 for this project, based on an expectation that Section 37 funding would flow from another project seeking City approval. However, the Ontario Municipal Board denied the Section 37 funding from this project and the City is no longer in a position to provide this funding.

Appendices to the staff report not included above will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.

For the Board’s decision see page 669.

676 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 16, June 21, 2010 Lakeshore Collegiate Institute and Nustadia Recreation Inc. Facility Agreement Key Business Terms [1629]

Lakeshore Collegiate Institute and Nustadia Recreation Inc. Facility Agreement Key Business Terms [1629]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on June 21, 2010 (see page 670).

City of Toronto – TDSB Land Exchange The Lakeshore CI property is a 15.8 acre land parcel located at 350 Kipling Avenue (refer to Appendix A). Immediately north of the school land is a 10-acre land parcel historically referred to as the Gilbey lands. In 2007, the Board approved a 49-year Land Lease to the City of Toronto for the Gilbey Lands in exchange for a 49-year Land Lease for the Don Russell Park which included the old Lakeshore Lions Arena. The land exchange was completed to facilitate construction of a four-pad arena which would provide ice time for local hockey teams; ancillary uses and a practice facility for the Maple Leafs Hockey Team currently practicing out of the old Lake- shore Lions Arena (refer to Appendix A). The new Lakeshore Lions Arena was completed and occupied in September 2009. Humber College Land Lease In July 2009, the Board approved a long-term lease of the old Lakeshore Lions Arena to Humber College for the purposes of housing their School of Performing Arts and Media Studies. Humber College also provided the capital to construct a gymnasium, which is available to the Lakeshore CI during school hours and to the community after school hours. The new program space for the School of Performing Arts and Media Studies and gymnasium was completed and occupied in February 2010. Lakeshore CI Field Revitalization

Artificial Turf Donation and Dome

On 28 October 2009, the Board approved acceptance of a donation for the installation of a FIFA artificial turf soccer field at Lakeshore CI. Staff issued a request for proposals seeking a development partner for the installation and opening of an air-supported structure (Dome) at Lake- shore CI (refer to Appendix B) by the fall of 2010. On 10 March 2010, the Board approved the selection of Nustadia Recreation Inc. (NRI) as a development partner and authorize the Director to negotiate an agreement with NRI for the development of a Dome and year-round operation of a recreational facility at Lakeshore CI with the following conditions:

 That the City’s agreement on the site plan be secured;  That another public meeting be held;  That new funding to rebuild the football field be secured.

TDSB – NRI Facility Agreement The Board has been working with NRI and the City during the past month to finalize key business terms and with IBI to secure the necessary City planning approvals to facilitate construction G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 677 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 16, June 21, 2010 Lakeshore Collegiate Institute and Nustadia Recreation Inc. Facility Agreement Key Business Terms [1629]

during July – September, with the opening of the field for October 2010. In regards to City planning approvals, applications have been made to the City and the approval review process is pro- gressing with the City’s support. The consultants have identified an existing sewer easement located beneath the proposed artificial turf field which may impact the ability to install the necessary infrastructure to support the Dome. Board staff, NRI and IBI, in collaboration with the City, is working to resolve this technical matter. In regards to the Agreement, staff and NRI have negotiated key business terms for the construction, installation and operation of a Dome and year-round operation of a recreational facility at Lakeshore CI. The key business terms are attached as Appendix C and are conditional upon re- solving the technical matter concerning construction of a grade beam to support the Dome. Conclusion Board staff supports an agreement with NRI for the purposes of constructing, installing and operating the artificial turf field and Dome on the Lakeshore CI lands based on key business terms contained in Appendix C.

Proposed Terms

Following is a brief summary of the proposed terms for a lease from Toronto District School Board (“TDSB”) to NuStadia Recreation Inc. or its nominee (“NRI”) for the installation of an artificial turf field at Lakeshore Collegiate Institute (the “School”) and the erection of a removable air-supported structure (the “Dome”) to permit year-round use of the field for soccer and other field sports.

1. Tenant: A newly incorporated company (the “Tenant”) wholly owned by NRI. No change of control of Tenant permitted without prior written approval of TDSB, in its sole, unfettered and subjective discretion.

2. Lease: (a) A triple net lease for a term of fifteen (15) years with three renewals of 5 years each (subject to Planning Act consent to be obtained by NRI at its sole expense).

(b) Consent of City required to extent lease includes City-owned land.

3. Rent: $1.00 per year

4. Construction: (a) NRI to install the Field to meet FIFA standards, including all associated work such as excavation, sub-surface drainage, lines, moveable goal posts, lighting, etc.

(b) NRI to supply and erect removable Dome to cover entire Field, including all associated improvements such as grade beam, lights, mechanical systems and controls.

678 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 16, June 21, 2010 Lakeshore Collegiate Institute and Nustadia Recreation Inc. Facility Agreement Key Business Terms [1629]

rooms, public washrooms, office /administration space.

(d) NRI to construct storage facility for Dome when removed from Field.

(e) The Field and Dome to be secured through CCTV monitoring and a surrounding security fence with access to the Field only through the entry building.

(f) NRI to install services required for operation of Field and Dome.

(g) NRI to relocate the football field to location north of the Field and Dome including excavation, grading and sodding. In re- turn, Tenant to be entitled to issue permits for use of football field during term of the Lease for use outside of School hours and to retain all revenue thereby generated. The School will be entitled to use the football field during School hours and for special events without charge.

(h) All work to be undertaken in compliance with City’s “Fair Wage Policy” in accordance with the MCSTC collective agreement.

5. Capital Contributions: (a) TDSB will turn over $800,000 contribution from Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Inc. when it has been received to assist in defraying costs of construction of facilities including the Field.

(b) TDSB will arrange with City to pay $40,000 to NRI previously allocated to install outdoor basketball court to assist with construction of the Field and Dome.

6. Location: The Field and Dome will be located in part on land leased by TDSB from the City and in part on land owned by TDSB.

7. Approvals: Construction of the Field and the Dome shall be subject to the receipt of the following approvals:

(a) TDSB has arranged with City for applications for minor variance to permit use of the Field by the Tenant and for site plan approval.

(b) NRI to obtain all permits required for construction of facilities.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 679 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 16, June 21, 2010 Lakeshore Collegiate Institute and Nustadia Recreation Inc. Facility Agreement Key Business Terms [1629]

(d) City approval required for lease to NRI, installation of services, proposed use and parking on Gus Ryder Pool parking lot.

(e) Detailed plans and specifications to be prepared by NRI and are subject to TDSB approval.

(f) Final approval of amendments to the agreement among the City, the Province and the Government of Canada respecting BMO Field permitting, among other things, replacement of community use by construction of a new field at the School property.

8. Completion Date: October 1, 2010 subject to delays beyond NRI’s reasonable control.

9. Lease Terms: (a) Tenant responsible to pay all costs including utilities, insurance, cleaning, taxes (if applicable), repairs, maintenance and replacements and cost of removing Dome in the spring and re- installing in the fall.

(b) Maintenance and repair work to be done by MCSTC or by contractors who have an agreement with MCSTC. NRI to provide caretaking services..

(d) Reserve fund to be created with annual payments into a trust fund of amounts reasonably estimated to be required for maintenance and repair of artificial turf and Dome during the term of the Lease.

(e) Facilities to be owned by Tenant during term of lease with ownership to revert to TDSB on expiry or other termination of lease.

(f) TDSB to have right to require Tenant to remove facilities on expiry or other termination of lease.

(g) Subject to TDSB use and City rights described below, Tenant entitled to rent out facilities and to retain all of the revenue.

(h) Use of facilities limited to TDSB use and for “Community Sports Purposes” or “Community Sports Use” (both terms defined as meaning non-professional recreational multi-sport activities undertaken by any person and including, among other things, field sport events (such as, by way of example and not

680 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 16, June 21, 2010 Lakeshore Collegiate Institute and Nustadia Recreation Inc. Facility Agreement Key Business Terms [1629]

by way of limitation, soccer, rugby, cricket, field hockey and football), athletic contests and ancillary uses thereto, such as restaurants, food concessions and retail outlets).

(i) Rates charged by Tenant will be competitive with hourly rates charged for use of playing fields of similar quality within the GTA.

(j) Field lights to be turned off by 11:00 p.m. when Dome not in place.

(k) Tenant not permitted to assign or sublet without prior approval of TDSB, which may be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld.

10. TDSB Use: (a) Tenant to issue permits to TDSB for use of Field without charge on School days from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

(b) Tenant, acting reasonably, to permit TDSB to have occasional use without charge during periods from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. on School days and at other times for special School events, provided that such use is arranged in advance with the Tenant and does not conflict with existing scheduled use by others (or that such scheduled use can be rearranged).

(c) Facilities Management Review Team with equal representa- tion of Tenant and School to meet regularly to address operational issues including scheduling. Team will prepare/approve annual schedule.

11. City Use: (a) City to be entitled to approve permits issued for use during July and August (the “City Use”) to the extent of at least 512 hours in the aggregate at no cost to the City.

(b) All net revenues (after the payment of all operating costs) generated from the issuance of permits during the City Use Period shall be for the benefit of the City. The parties agree that operating costs shall include an appropriate management fee to be paid to NRI for the provision of its services during the City Use Period.

(c) NRI shall draft a “Community Access Plan”, subject to the approval of the City, to govern access to and use of the facilities during the City Use Period, including an appropriate policy to reflect residency requirements and a fair and equitable booking policy, including ensuring that both genders have fair and equitable access to primetime Community Sports Use.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 681 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 16, June 21, 2010 Lakeshore Collegiate Institute and Nustadia Recreation Inc. Facility Agreement Key Business Terms [1629]

(d) NRI acknowledges that there will be an agreement between the City and TDSB arising out of replacement of artificial turf from BMO Field and that it will be required to comply with the provisions of that agreement.

12. Parking: Users of Field may use parking facilities at Lakeshore Collegiate outside School hours and, subject to City approval, at Gus Ryder Pool. Future parking may be available adjacent to Lakeshore Lions Arena.

13. Advertising: Tenant to be entitled to all advertising and sponsorship revenue subject to compliance with TDSB advertising policies from time to time.

14. Costs: Each party to bear its own costs of negotiating agreements and lease. NRI shall bear its own costs for due diligence, including obtaining all approvals as may be required for the construction of the Field and the Dome.

15. Pro forma: NRI to forthwith provide TDSB with a pro forma showing its anticipated costs of constructing and installing the facilities, operating costs and anticipated revenues over a reasonable period.

16. Evidence of funding: NRI to provide evidence of funding required for completing facilities on or before July 31, 2010. Agreement is conditional on TDSB being satisfied with such evidence.

17. Due Diligence Period: NRI to have until July 31, 2010 to be satisfied in its sole, unfettered and subjective discretion with the feasibility of the project (including economic feasibility).

18. City Use: (a) City to be entitled to approve permits issued for use during July and August (the “City Use”) to the extent of at least 512 hours in the aggregate at no cost to the City.

(d) NRI acknowledges that there will be an agreement between the City and TDSB arising out of replacement of artificial turf

682 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 16, June 21, 2010 Lakeshore Collegiate Institute and Nustadia Recreation Inc. Facility Agreement Key Business Terms [1629]

from BMO Field and that it will be required to comply with the provisions of that agreement.

19. Parking: Users of Field may use parking facilities at Lakeshore Collegiate outside School hours and, subject to City approval, at Gus Ryder Pool. Future parking may be available adjacent to Lakeshore Lions Arena.

20. Advertising: Tenant to be entitled to all advertising and sponsorship revenue subject to compliance with TDSB advertising policies from time to time.

21. Costs: Each party to bear its own costs of negotiating agreements and lease. NRI shall bear its own costs for due diligence, including obtaining all approvals as may be required for the construction of the Field and the Dome.

22. Pro forma: NRI to forthwith provide TDSB with a pro forma showing its anticipated costs of constructing and installing the facilities, operating costs and anticipated revenues over a reasonable period.

23. Evidence of funding: NRI to provide evidence of funding required for completing facilities on or before July 31, 2010. Agreement is conditional on TDSB being satisfied with such evidence.

24. Due Diligence Period: NRI to have until July 31, 2010 to be satisfied in its sole, unfettered and subjective discretion with the feasibility of the project (including economic feasibility).

25. Advertising: Tenant to be entitled to all advertising and sponsorship revenue subject to compliance with TDSB advertising policies from time to time.

26. Costs: Each party to bear its own costs of negotiating agreements and lease.

27. Pro forma: NRI to forthwith provide TDSB with a pro forma showing its anticipated costs of constructing and installing the facilities, operating costs and anticipated revenues over a reasonable period.

28. Evidence of funding: NRI to provide evidence of funding required for completing facilities on or before July 31, 2010. Agreement is conditional on TDSB being satisfied with such evidence.

29. Due Diligence Period: NRI to have until July 31, 2010 to be satisfied in its sole, unfettered and subjective discretion with the feasibility of the project (including economic feasibility).

For the Board’s decision see page 670.

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530 683 Toronto District School Board June 23, 2010

Blank Page

684 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\100623.doc)sec.1530