Toronto Catholic District School Board Education Development Charges Background Study and Review of Education Development Charges Policies

Transcription

1 Toronto Catholic District School Board Education Development Charges Background Study and Review of Education Development Charges Policies Submitted by: Quadrant Advisory Group Limited Date: March 25, 2013

2 FOREWORD T h e f o l l o w i n g d o cu m e n t f u l f i l l s s e c t i o n o f t h e Ed u c a t i o n A c t w h i c h s t a t e s b e f o r e p a s s i n g a n e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t c h a r g e b y - l a w, t h e b o a r d s h a l l c o m p l e t e a n e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t c h a r g e s b a c k g r o u n d s t u d y. Th e f o l l o w i n g d o cu m e n t c o n t a i n s t h e E d u c a t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t C h a r g e ( E D C ) B a c k g r o u n d S t u d y r e p o r t f o r t h e T o r o n t o C a t h o l i c D i s t r i c t S c h o o l B o a r d ( T C D S B ). T h e f o l l o w i n g d o cu m e n t a l s o c o n t a i n s t h e b a c k g r o u n d r e p o r t p e r t a i n i n g t o a r e v i e w o f t h e E d u c a t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t C h a r g e s p o l i c i e s o f t h e T C D S B, c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e l e g i s l a t i v e r e q u i r e m e n t s t o c o n d u c t a r e v i e w o f t h e e x i s t i n g E D C p o l i c i e s o f t h e B o a r d p r i o r t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a d o p t i o n o f a s u c c e s s o r E D C b y - l a w. ACKNOWLEDGE MENTS T h e c o n s u l t a n t s w i sh t o a c k n o w l e d g e, w i t h a p p r e c i a t i o n, t h e e ff o r t s o f t h e s c h o o l b o a r d s t a f f t h a t p r o v i d e d i n v a l u a b l e a s s i s t a n c e t h r o u g h o u t t h e s t u d y p r o c e s s. F u r t h e r, t h e c o n s u l t a n t s w i s h t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f M r. S t e v e O M e l i a o f M i l l e r T h o m s o n L L P, l e g a l c o u n s e l f o r t h e T o r o n t o C a t h o l i c D i s t r i c t S c h o o l B o a r d o n e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t c h a r g e m a t t e r s, a s w e l l a s t h e e x p e r t i s e p r o v i d e d b y M r. M a r k P e n n e y, g s i R e a l E s t a t e & P l a n n i n g A d v i s o r s I n c. o n m a t t e r s d e a l i n g w i t h s i t e v a l u a t i o n. COPYRIGHT NOTICE T h e c o n t e n t s o f t h i s r e p o r t, i n c l u d i n g t h e f o r m a t s, s p r e a d s h e e t m o d e l s a n d m o d e l o u t c o m e s a r e t h e p r o p e r t y o f Q u a d r a n t A d v i s o r y G r o u p L i m i t e d. T h e c o n t e n t m a y n o t b e c o p i e d, p u b l i s h e d, d i s t r i b u t e d, d o w n l o a d e d, t r a n s m i t t e d o r c o n v e r t e d, i n a n y f o r m, o r b y a n y m e a n s, e l e c t r o n i c o r o t h e r w i s e, w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f Q u a d r a n t A d v i s o r y G r o u p L i m i t e d i

3 Contents... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... i Chapter 1 -- INTRODUCTION Background Toronto Catholic District School Board EDC By-law Rationale for Considering Adoption of New EDC By-law Policy Review Process and By-law Adoption Consultation Requirements Legislative Requirements to Adopt a New EDC By-law Eligibility to Impose Education Development Charges and Form A Background Study Requirements EDC Study Process... 8 Chapter 2 -- METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH Planning Component Financial Component: Chapter 3 JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD Legislative Provisions Analysis of Pupil Accommodation by Review Area Chapter 4 RESIDENTIAL/NON-RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST Background Legislative Requirements Residential Growth Forecast and Forms B and C Non-Residential Growth Forecast and Form D Chapter 5 DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND FUTURE ENROLMENT EXPECTATIONS Demographic and Enrolment Trends Projections of Pupil Accommodation Needs Chapter 6 SITE REQUIREMENTS AND VALUATION Legislative Requirements Site Requirements Site Valuation Land Escalation over the Forecast Period i

4 Chapter 7 --EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION Growth Forecast Assumptions EDC Pupil Yields Determination of Net Growth-Related Pupil Place Requirement Approved Capital Cost Per Pupil Net Education Land Costs and Forms E, F and G EDC Accounts Cash Flow Analysis and Forms H1 and H Non-Residential Share Education Development Charges Appendix A DRAFT EDC BY-LAW... A-1 Appendix B -- BACKGROUND DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO A REVIEW OF THE EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES POLICIES OF THE TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD... B-1 B.1 Existing EDC By-law in the City of Toronto... B-1 B.2 Overview of EDC Policies... B-1 B.3 Summary of By-law Appeals, Amendments and Complaints... B-14 Appendix C -- EDC POLICIES RE OPERATING SURPLUSES AND ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION ARRANGEMENTS... C-1 C.1 School Sites Operating Budget Surplus... C-1 C.2 Alternative Arrangements for School Facilities... C-3 ii

5 Toronto Catholic District School Board 2013 Education Development Charge Background Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY T h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s r e p o r t i s t o p r o v i d e b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e To r o n t o C a t h o l i c D i s t r i c t S c h o o l B o a r d s ( T C D S B ) E d u c a t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t C h a r g e s ( E D C s ) t o b e i m p l e m e n t e d i n a n e w E D C b y - l a w. Th e B o a r d w i l l s e e k i n p u t f r o m t h e p u b l i c, h o l d c o n cu r r e n t p u b l i c m e e t i n g s o n T h u r s d a y A p r i l 2 5, a n d g i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e p u b l i c s u b m i s s i o n s p r i o r t o p a s s a g e o f e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t c h a r g e s p r o p o s e d f o r T h u r s d a y M a y 2 3, P a r a g r a p h 2 3 o f t h e e x i s t i n g E D C b y - l a w o f t h e T C D S B i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e b y - l a w e x p i r e s o n A u g u s t 2 4, u n l e s s i t i s r e p e a l e d s o o n e r. Th e b y - l a w w a s a d o p t e d o n A u g u s t 1 4, w i t h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o n A u g u s t 2 5, T h e p r i m a r y p u r p o s e o f a n y B o a r d i n i m p l e m e n t i n g e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t c h a r g e s i s t o p r o v i d e a s o u r c e o f f u n d i n g f o r g r o w t h - r e l a t e d e d u c a t i o n l a n d c o s t s w h i c h a r e n o t f u n d e d b y ca p i t a l g r a n t a l l o c a t i o n s u n d e r t h e P r o v i n c e s c a p i t a l f u n d i n g m o d e l. E D C s m a y b e s e t a t a n y l e v e l, p r o v i d e d t h a t : T h e p r o c e d u r e s s e t o u t i n t h e R e g u l a t i o n a n d r e q u i r e d b y t h e M i n i s t r y a r e f o l l o w e d a n d o n l y g r o w t h - r e l a t e d n e t e d u c a t i o n l a n d c o s t s a r e r e c o v e r e d ; a n d, N o m o r e t h a n 4 0 % o f t h e a p p l i ca b l e c o s t i s f i n a n c e d v i a n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t ( i n c l u d i n g n o n - e x e m p t co m m e r c i a l, i n d u s t r i a l a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t ). T h e E D C c a l c u l a t i o n i s b a s e d o n n e w p u p i l s g e n e r a t e d b y n e w d w e l l i n g u n i t s w i t h i n t h e C i t y o f To r o n t o f o r w h i c h : b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s w i l l b e i s s u e d o v e r t h e f i f t e e n y e a r f o r e c a s t p e r i o d m i d t o m i d ; a d d i t i o n a l l a n d i s r e q u i r e d t o m e e t g r o w t h - r e l a t e d a c c o m m o d a t i o n n e e d s ; a n d e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t c h a r g e s m a y b e i m p o s e d o n t h e n e w d w e l l i n g u n i t s. i

6 A fo r e c a st o f n e w d w e l l i n g u n i t s i n t h e a r e a i n w h i c h E D C s a r e t o b e i m p o s e d, o v e r t h e ye a r fo r e c a st p e r i o d, w e r e d e r i v e d f ro m a co n s i d e ra t i o n o f : 1. T h e C i t y s C o u n c i l - a p p ro v e d h o u s i n g p o p u l a t i o n a n d e m p l o y m e n t fo r e c a st s o u t l i n e d i n t h e F l a s h fo r w a r d d o cu m e n t, w i t h co n s i d e r a t i o n o f r e c e n t d e v e l o p m e n t a c t i v i t y, a n d m o r e r e c e n t c h a n g e s i n p o p u l a t i o n a n d e m p l o y m e n t st r u c t u r e w i t h i n t h e C i t y o f To ro n t o ; 2. T h e N o v e m b e r G r e a t e r G o l d e n H o r s e s h o e G r o w t h F o r e ca st s t o , p r e p a r e d b y H e m s o n C o n su l t i n g Ltd, ( r e fe r r e d t o a s t h e P 2G u p d a t e ) ; 3. P r i m a r y co n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e d r a f t D C fo r e ca st a v a i l a b l e o n t h e C i t y o f To r o n t o s w e b s i t e a s o f F e b r u a r y 2 2, , a l s o p r e p a r e d b y H e m s o n C o n s u l t i n g Ltd. 4. A d a t a b a s e o f d e v e l o p m e n t a p p l i c a t i o n s s p e c i f y i n g d w e l l i n g u n i t t y p e, l o c a t i o n p ro v i d e d b y t h e TC D S B s P l a n n i n g d e p a r t m e n t. T h e d w e l l i n g u n i t a n d p h a s i n g o f d e v e l o p m e n t fo r e c a st d e r i v e d a s t h e b a s i s fo r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o p o s e d EC D c h a r g e i s n e t o f t h e r e si d e n t i a l statut o r y e xe m p t i o n s r e l a t e d t o d e m o l i t i o n s, c o n v e r s i o n s a n d h o u s i n g i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n. T h e fo r e c a st a l so g i v e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e To ro n t o R a i l wa y L a n d s E xe m p t i o n s p e c i f i e d i n t h e l e g i s l a t i o n. T h e f o r e c a s t o f n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t i s b a s e d o n t h e d r a f t J a n u a r y 2013 D C f o r e c a s t o f e m p l o y m e n t a n d t h e n o n - e x e m p t g r o s s f l o o r a r e a t h a t w o u l d n e e d t o b e c r e a t e d t o a cc o m m o d a t e t h e a n t i c i p a t e d e m p l o y m e n t g r o w t h i n t h e C i t y o f To r o n t o. T h e C i t y s g r o w t h f o r e c a s t s u g ge s t s t h a t a n a d d i t i o n a l 1 5 5, n e t n e w o c c u p i e d d w e l l i n g u n i t s w i l l b e a d d e d t o t h e e x i s t i n g h o u s i n g s t o c k i n t h e C i t y o f T o r o n t o o v e r t h e n e x t f i f t e e n y e a r s, a t a n a v e r a g e o f 1 0, 3 50 u n i t s p e r a n n u m. O f t h e n e t a d d i t i o n a l d w e l l i n g u n i t s, a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7% a r e a n t i c i p a t e d t o b e l o w d e n s i t y ( s i n g l e a n d s e m i - d e t a ch e d ), 7% m e d i u m d e n s i t y ( r o w h o u s e s, t o w n h o u s e s, e t c. ), a n d t h e r e m a i n i n g 86% w i l l b e h i g h d e n s i t y a p a r t m e n t u n i t s. B a c h e l o r a n d o n e - b e d r o o m u n i t s a c c o u n t f o r 3 7 % o f t h i s g r o u p, w i t h 4 9 % h a v i n g t w o b e d r o o m s o r m o r e. T h e c a p a c i t y o f t h e e l e m e n t a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y f a c i l i t i e s i n t h e B o a r d s e x i s t i n g i n v e n t o r y i s r e f l e c t i v e o f t h e O n - t h e - G r o u n d ( O T G ) c a p a c i t i e s a p p r o v e d b y t h e M i n i s t r y f o r E D C p u r p o s e s, a n d t h a t, i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e B o a r d c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y b e u s e d t o a c c o m m o d a t e g r o w t h - r e l a t e d p u p i l s. T h e c a p a c i t y o f K i n d e r g a r t e n s p a c e h a s b e e n a d j u s t e d t o r e f l e c t t h e P r o v i n c e s F u l l - D a y K i n d e r g a r t e n i n i t i a t i v e f o r a l l r e t r o f i t t e d s p a c e e i t h e r u n d e r c o n s t r u c t i o n o r i n t h e m i d s t o f t h e t e n d e r i n g co n st r u c t i o n p r o c e s s ( i. e. spa c e s e x p e c t e d t o b e a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e / 1 5 s c h o o l y e a r ) ii C o n s u l t a n t - p r e p a r e d y e a r s c h o o l e n r o l m e n t p r o j e c t i o n s a r e u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e n u m b e r o f g r o w t h - r e l a t e d s c h o o l s i t e s r e q u i r e d a s a r e su l t o f a n t i c i p a t e d e n r o l m e n t g r o w t h w i t h i n p o r t i o n s o f t h e B o a r d s ju r i s d i c t i o n.

7 T h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e s p e c t i n g b o t h p r o j e c t e d e n r o l m e n t a n d g r o w t h - r e l a t e d s i t e n e e d s w a s c o m p a r e d t o t h e B o a r d s a n t i c i p a t e d c a p i t a l p r i o r i t y n e e d s. A l l e l e m e n t a r y e n r o l m e n t p r o j e c t i o n s a r e h e a d c o u n t e n r o l m e n t a s t h i s i s r e f l e c t i v e o f t h e P r o v i n c i a l i n i t i a t i v e r e sp e c t i n g fu l l - d a y k i n d e r g a r t e n. S e c o n d a r y e n r o l m e n t s a r e r e f l e c t i v e o f a v e r a g e d a i l y e n r o l m e n t. I n a d d i t i o n, f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f Ed u c a t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t C h a r g e s, t h e e n r o l m e n t p r o j e c t i o n s a r e p r e p a r e d f r o m t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f a c c o m m o d a t i n g p u p i l s i n t h e i r h o m e s c h o o l a r e a s o v e r t h e l o n g t e r m ( i. e., h o l d i n g s i t u a t i o n s o u t s i d e o f t h e r e v i e w a r e a a r e t r a n s f e r r e d b a c k t o t h e i r r e s i d e n t a r e a ). T h e p r o j e c t e d e n r o l m e n t f i g u r e s f o r t h e n e w h o u s i n g d e v e l o p m e n t s h o w n i n t h e E D C s u b m i s s i o n s ( C h a p t e r 7 ) a r e a c u m u l a t i v e f i f t e e n - y e a r e n r o l m e n t f o r e c a s t o f h e a d c o u n t e n r o l m e n t. T h e j u r i s d i c t i o n - w i d e m i d t o m i d p r o j e c t i o n s o f e n r o l m e n t i n d i c a t e t h a t, f o r t h e T C D S B, t h e n u m b e r o f e l e m e n t a r y p u p i l s w i l l inc r e a s e b y 4, ( 6 4, , ) a n d s e c o n d a r y p u p i l s w i l l i n c r e a s e b y 316( 3 0, , ) s t u d e n t s. T h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f n e t g r o w t h r e l a t e d p u p i l p l a c e s ( N G R P P ) a n d a s s o c i a t e d g r o w t h - r e l a t e d s i t e n e e d s r e f l e c t : 1) p r o j e c t e d t o g r o w t h w i t h i n e a c h o f t h e 1 8 e l e m e n t a r y a n d 4 s e c o n d a r y r e v i e w a r e a s, t a k i n g i n t o co n s i d e r a t i o n h o u s i n g d e v e l o p m e n t b y c o m m u n i t y a n d t h e a s s o c i a t e d T C D S B s c h o o l s a f f e c t e d b y t h a t d e v e l o p m e n t, a s w e l l a s ; 2) h i s t o r i c a l ( o r i g i n a l E D C b y - l a w i n c e p t i o n ) t o e n r o l m e n t g r o w t h f o r w h i ch t h e T C D S B h a s n o t b e e n i n a p o s i t i o n, u n t i l n o w, t o a c q u i r e l a n d s t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h i s g r o w t h. Th i s h i s t o r i c a l g r o w t h - r e l a t e d n e e d i s f o u n d i n t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e E x i s t i n g C o m m u n i t y e n r o l m e n t p r o j e c t i o n s a n d h a s b e e n e x t r a c t e d f o r a n a l y s i s i n F o r m E, F a n d G. S i t e c o s t s a n d s i t e p r e p a r a t i o n / d e v e l o p m e n t c o s t s r e f l e c t a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e B o a r d s r e c e n t s i t e a c q u i s i t i o n e x p e r i e n c e s a n d a p p r a i s a l r e s e a r c h r e c e n t l y u n d e r t a k e n b y g s i R e a l E s t a t e & P l a n n i n g A d v i s o r s I n c. o n i t s b e h a l f. T h e p r o j e c t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l g r o s s f l o o r a r e a (G F A ) o v e r t h e f o r e c a s t p e r i o d ( 7 1, 4 8 5, m i l l i o n a d d i t i o n a l s q. f t. o f n e t gr o s s f l o o r a r e a ) w a s b a s e d o n t h e C i t y s d r a f t DC f o r e c a s t o f n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l g r o s s f l o o r a r e a, pre p a r e d b y H e m s o n C o n su l t i n g L t d. ( e x t r a p o l a t e d b e y o n d ) a s w e l l a s h i s t o r i c a l n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g p e r m i t d a t a d e t a i l i n g b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s b y t y p e a n d d e t a i l i n g a d d i t i o n s a n d n e w co n s t r u c t i o n. A s a r e su l t o f u n d e r t a k i n g a l l o f t h e n e c e s s a r y r e s e a r c h a n d c o m p l e t i n g t h e E D C s u b m i s s i o n, t h e p r o p o s e d e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t ch a r g e f o r t h e T o r o n t o C a t h o l i c D S B, w h e r e 75% o f t h e c o s t s a r e r e co v e r e d f r o m d e v e l o p m e n t, i s a s f o l l o w s : iii

8 $ 1, p e r r e s i d e n t i a l d w e l l i n g u n i t $0.94 p e r s q u a r e f o o t o f n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l g r o s s f l o o r a r e a T h i s i s i n c o m p a r i s o n t o t h e $ p e r r e s i d e n t i a l d w e l l i n g u n i t a n d $ p e r s q u a r e f o o t o n n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l g r o s s f l o o r a r e a i n t h e E D C b y - l a w. H o w e v e r, i t i s n o t e d t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d E D C b y - l a w r a t e s a r e b a s e d o n 75% r e s i d e n t i a l r e c o v e r y, a n d t h e B o a r d m a y c h o o s e t o r e t a i n t h i s a p p r o a ch o r m a y e l e c t t o a l l o c a t e a d i f f e r e n t p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e c h a r g e ( a m i n i m u m o f 0 % u p t o a m a x i m u m o f 4 0 % ) t o n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t. T h e E D C f o r m s f o r t h e B o a r d w e r e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n f o r a p p r o v a l, o n Ma r c h 2 5, M i n i s t e r i a l a p p r o v a l o f t h e s u b m i s s i o n i s r e q u i r e d p r i o r t o b y - l a w a d o p t i o n. I n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e S c h o o l B o a r d ch o o s e s t o e n a c t a b y - l a w l e v y i n g e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t c h a r g e s o n n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t, t h e n t h e b y - l a w w i l l t a k e s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e f o r m s e t o u t i n A p p e n d i x A. T h e r a n g e o f p o s s i b l e c h a r g e s d e p e n d s o n t h e B o a r d s c h o i c e o f t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e g r o w t h - r e l a t e d n e t e d u c a t i o n l a n d c o s t t h a t i s t o b e fu n d e d b y c h a r g e s o n r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t a n d t h e p e r c e n t a g e, i f a n y, t h a t i s t o b e f u n d e d b y c h a r g e s o n n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t. Th e p e r c e n t a g e t h a t i s t o b e f u n d e d b y c h a r g e s o n n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t s h a l l n o t e x c e e d 4 0 p e r c e n t, a c c o r d i n g t o s e c t i o n 7, p a r a g r a p h 8 o f R e g u l a t i o n 2 0 / 9 8. T h e r a n g e o f p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r t h e B o a r d i s s e t o u t b e l o w : % to be funded from Non- Residential Development Toronto Catholic District School Board Residential Education Development Charge (Per Dwelling Unit) Non-residential Education Development Charge (Cost Per Sq. Ft. of GFA) 0% $1,745 $0.00 5% $1,658 $ % $1,571 $ % $1,484 $ % $1,396 $ % $1,309 $ % $1,047 $1.50 iv

9 Chapter 1 -- INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Education development charges (EDCs) are charges which may be levied by a Board on residential, industrial, commercial and institutional development (excluding municipal, school, specified residential additions to existing units and replacement dwellings, as well as specific exemptions for industrial expansions of gross floor area and replacement non-residential development) pursuant to Division E of Part IX of the Education Act. The charges relate to the net education land cost of providing additional land (school sites and/or site development costs) for growth-related pupils. The charges are collected at building permit issuance by the area municipality, implementing the provisions of the Board s education development charge by-law. Education development charges are the primary source of funding site acquisition needs for a school board experiencing growth within their jurisdiction. Section of the Education Act allows a board to pass by-laws for the imposition of education development charges if there is residential land in the jurisdiction of a board that would increase education land costs. However, education development charges as a means of financing site acquisition costs are only available to boards who qualify under the legislation. To qualify, the Board s projected enrolment over a consecutive five year period must exceed permanent capacity at the time of by-law passage on either the elementary or secondary panel, for the entire Board jurisdiction, or alternatively, the Board must demonstrate that it has an existing unmet financial obligation arising from the predecessor EDC by-law. Further, Section of the Education Act, enables a board to pass a by-law amending an education development charge by-law. A by-law amendment allows a board the opportunity to revisit the by-law where actual expenditures exceed cost estimates, in an effort to ensure full cost recovery. If, for instance, recent site acquisition or site development costs are higher or lower than estimated in the existing by-law calculation, an amendment could be undertaken to incorporate these increased or decreased costs into the EDC rate structure(s). The same is true for by-law renewal, in that the transitional EDC account analysis determines the relationship between EDC revenue raised and site acquisition/site development needs generated by enrolment growth over the by-law period. In addition, a school board may pass a by-law amendment to recognize agreements approved by the board to acquire land post by-law adoption. 1.2 Toronto Catholic District School Board EDC By-law The Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) imposed an education development charge by-law in 2008 under the legislative authority of the Education Act, R.S.O., The existing EDC by-law applies to the City of Toronto. The adopted EDC rates for all Boards with in-force EDC by-laws are set out below. 1

10 EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BY-LAWS IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO Board Effective Date of Bylaw By-law Term Area to w hich By-law Applies Type of Charge Res. Charge/ Unit Non-Res. Charge/ Sq. Ft. of G.F.A. % of Charge Attributed to Residential Development % of Charge Attributed to Non- Residential Development Algonquin & Lakeshore Catholic 1 Oct-12 DSB 5 years City of Kingston A/S $124 $ % 0% Brant Haldimand Norfolk City of Brantford, A/S 2 Nov-08 5 years Catholic DSB County of Brant J/W/r $628 $ % 0% Conseil de district des écoles 3 publiques de langue française Jun-09 5 years City of Ottawa J/W/r $205 $ % 10% n 59 Conseil des écoles catholiques 4 de langue française du Centre- Jun-09 5 years City of Ottawa J/W/r $364 $ % 15% Est 5 Dufferin-Peel Catholic DSB Jul-09 5 years Peel Region J/W/r $551 $ % 25% 6 Durham Catholic DSB May-09 5 years Durham Region (excl. Clarington) J/W $541 $ % 0% 7 Durham DSB May-09 5 years Durham Region (excl. Clarington) J/W $1,423 $ % 0% 8 Greater Essex County DSB May-09 5 years City of Windsor J/W/r $591 $ % 0% 9 Greater Essex County DSB May-09 5 years County of Essex and the Township of Pelee J/W/r $454 $ % 0% 10 Halton Catholic DSB Jun-11 5 years Halton Region J/W $1,159 $ % 15% 11 Halton DSB Jun-11 5 years Halton Region J/W $2,506 $ % 15% Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic 12 DSB Aug-09 5 years City of Hamilton J/W $739 $ % 15% 13 Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB Jul-10 5 years Clarington A/S $994 $ % 10% 14 Ottawa Catholic SB Jun-09 5 years City of Ottawa J/W $433 $ % 17% 15 Ottawa-Carleton DSB Jun-09 5 years City of Ottawa J/W $624 $ % 15% 16 Peel DSB Jul-09 5 years Peel Region J/W $1,595 $ % 10% Peterborough, Victoria, 17 Northumberland & Clarington Catholic DSB Jul-10 5 years Clarington A/S $120 $ % 10% 18 Simcoe Muskoka Catholic DSB Nov-08 5 years Simcoe County J/W/r $370 $ % 10% 19 Simcoe County DSB Nov-08 5 years Simcoe County J/W $718 $ % 10% 20 Toronto Catholic DSB Aug-08 5 years City of Toronto J/W (w ith exempt areas) $544 $ % 25% 21 Upper Grand DSB Aug-09 5 years Dufferin County J/W/r $391 $ % 0% 22 Upper Grand DSB Aug-09 5 years Wellington County J/W/r $842 $ % 0% 23 Waterloo Catholic DSB May-11 5 years Regional Municipality of Waterloo J/W $425 $ % 20% 24 Waterloo Region DSB May-11 5 years Regional Municipality of Waterloo J/W $1,266 $ % 20% 25 Wellington Catholic DSB Aug-09 5 years Wellington County J/W $455 $ % 0% 26 York Catholic DSB Jul-09 5 years York Region J/W $650 $ % 10% 27 York DSB Jul-09 5 years York Region J/W $1,370 $ % 10% Note: Updated January 2013 by Quadrant Advisory Group Limited 2

11 1.3 Rationale for Considering Adoption of New EDC By-law In each of 2001, 2003 and 2008, the Toronto Catholic District School Board adopted a jurisdiction-wide EDC by-laws. The by-law adopted in 2001 was the first EDC by-law for the Board. The existing by-law, adopted on August 14, 2008, could remain in force until August 24, 2013 unless repealed or rescinded earlier by the Board. The Board expects to adopt a successor EDC by-law on May 23, 2013, but no later than August 24, Policy Review Process and By-law Adoption Consultation Requirements In order to consider the adoption of a new EDC by-law, the Board must first undertake a review of its existing EDC policies, in accordance with the legislation. Section sub-section (1) of the Education Act states that: Before passing an education development charge by-law, the board shall conduct a review of the education development charge policies of the board. Sub-section (2) goes on to state that: In conducting a review under subsection (1), the board shall ensure that adequate information is made available to the public, and for this purpose shall hold at least one public meeting, notice of which shall be given in at least one newspaper having general circulation in the area of jurisdiction of the board. As the Board has an existing EDC by-law in place, this section, therefore, has the effect of requiring a minimum of two public meetings to be held as part of consideration of a new education development charge by-law. The purpose of the first public meeting is to ensure that adequate information is made available to the public relative to the Board s review of the education development charge policies of the Board. This meeting will be held Thursday, April 25, 2013 at7:00 PM at the Catholic Education Centre Board Room located at 80 Sheppard Avenue East. Information respecting a review of the Board s policies is being made available to the public as part of this document. This information is titled, Background Document Pertaining to a Review of the Education Development Charge Policies of The Toronto Catholic District School Board and is found in Appendix B of this document. The Board will meet with interested development community stakeholders prior to the April 25 th scheduled public meeting to review in detail, the basis for the proposed charge. The scheduling of the second public meeting requires that the proposed by-law and the new education development charge background study are made available to the public at least two weeks prior to the meeting, and to ensure that any person who attends the meeting may make representations relating to the by-law (s (2)). This meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 9, 2013, and will also be held at the Catholic Education Centre Board Room. 3

12 Finally, the Board is expected to consider the adoption of a new education development charge by-law on Thursday, May 23, 2013 at the same location. A copy of the Notice of Public Meetings is set out on the following page. 1.5 Legislative Requirements to Adopt a New EDC By-law Section of the Education Act states that if there is residential development in the area of the jurisdiction of a board that would increase education land costs, the board may pass by-laws for the imposition of education development charges against land in its area of jurisdiction undergoing residential or non-residential development. In addition, section requires that before passing an education development charge by-law, the board shall complete an education development charge background study. Section stipulates that an education development charge by-law may only be passed within the one-year period following the completion of the education development charge background study. Section 10 of O. Reg 20/98 sets out conditions that must be satisfied in order for a board to pass an education development charge by-law. These conditions are: 1. The Minister has approved the Board s estimates of the total number of elementary and secondary pupils over each of the fifteen years of the forecast period. 2. The Minister has approved the Board s estimates of the number of elementary and secondary school sites used by the Board to determine the net education land costs. 3. The Board has given a copy of the education development charge background study relating to the by-law (this report) to the Minister and each Board having jurisdiction within the area to which the by-law would apply. 4. The Board meets at least one of the following conditions: Either the estimated average elementary or secondary enrolment over the five year by-law period exceeds the respective total capacity (OTG capacity adjusted for FDK loading where approved by the Province) that, in the Board s opinion is available to accommodate pupils, throughout the jurisdiction, on the day that the by-law is passed, or At the time of expiry of the Board s last EDC by-law that applies to all or part of the area in which the charges would be imposed, the balance in the EDC account is less than the amount required to pay outstanding commitments to meet growth-related net education land costs, as calculated for the purposes of determining the EDCs imposed under that bylaw. 4

13 Toronto Catholic District School Board 2013 Education Development Charge 5

14 1.6 Eligibility to Impose Education Development Charges and Form A Form A of the EDC Submission set out on the following page, demonstrates that the head count enrolment (i.e., includes full day kindergarten) over the proposed 5-year term of the EDC by-law (2013/2014 to 2017/18), as measured in October and March of each academic year, is projected to exceed the permanent capacity of the Board s existing inventory of school facilities, on the secondary panel. The Board s available permanent capacity at the secondary panel isless than the average 5-year enrolment projections over the time-period referenced above. As a result, the TCDSB meets the legislative trigger on the secondary panel. It is noted, however, that the legislation allows the Board to utilize education development charges as a source of funding for additional site purchases due to enrolment growth on both panels (elementary and secondary), even if the Board meets the legislative trigger on only one panel The Board carries a surplus transitional EDC account balance, however the balance on the EDC account is insufficient to fund the projected eligible net education and land costs of the Board. For the TCDSB, the five year (2013/14 to 2017/18) average head count enrolment is 60,750 for the elementary panel and ADE average enrolment of 29,943 on the secondary panel. When these figures are compared to 69,275 permanent spaces in the Board s existing inventory of elementary facilities and 24,270 permanent spaces on the secondary panel, enrolment exceeds capacity on the secondary panel. Note that these figures reflect the entire jurisdiction of the Board, which is the City of Toronto. 1.7 Background Study Requirements The following sets out the information that must be included in an education development charge background study and the appropriate chapter references from the enclosed report: 1. estimates of the anticipated amount, type and location of residential development for each year of the fifteen year forecast period, as well as the anticipated non-residential forecast of gross floor area in the City of Toronto- Chapter 4 2. the number of projected new pupil places (Chapter 5) and the number of new sites and/or site development costs required to provide those new pupil places - Chapter 6 3. the number of existing pupil places available to accommodate the projected number of new pupils in item #2 Chapter 7 4. for each school in the board s inventory, the number of existing pupil places and the number of pupils who attend the school Chapter for every existing elementary and secondary pupil place in the board s jurisdiction that the board does not intend to use, an explanation as to why the board does not intend to do so Chapter 7

15 Toronto Catholic District School Board Education Development Charges Submission 2013 Form A - Eligibility to Impose an EDC A.1.1: CAPACITY TRIGGER CALCULATION - ELEMENTARY PANEL Elementary Elementary Average Average Projected Elementary Panel Average Daily Enrolment Headcount Panel Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Projected Projected Board-Wide 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ Enrolment Enrolment Capacity Over Five less Years Capacity 69,275 60,423 60,485 60,385 60,970 61,485 60,750-8,525 Board-wide Capacity reflects all Purpose-built Kindergarten rooms existing or approved for funding and loaded at 26 pupils per classroom A.1.2: CAPACITY TRIGGER CALCULATION - SECONDARY PANEL Projected Secondary Panel Average Daily Enrolment (ADE) Secondary Average Secondary Panel Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Projected Projected Board-Wide 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ Enrolment Enrolment Capacity Over Five less Years Capacity 24,270 30,396 30,542 29,912 29,533 29,334 29,943 5,673 A.2: EDC FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Estimated to April 2013) Adjusted Outstanding Principal: $ 10,567,433 Less Adjusted EDC Account Balance: $ 51,209,089 Total EDC Financial Obligations/Surplus: $ 40,641,656 S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]FORM A 7

16 6. estimates of the education land cost, the net education land cost, and the growth-related net education land costs required to provide the projected new pupil places in item #2, the location of the site needs, the acreage for new school sites, including the area that exceeds the maximum set out in section 2 of O.Reg. 20/98, an explanation of whether the costs of the excess land are education land costs and if so, why - Chapter 6 7. the number of pupil places the board estimates will be provided by the school to be built on the site and the number of those pupil places that the board estimates will be used to accommodate the new pupils in item #2 - Chapter 7 8. a statement of the board s policy concerning possible arrangements with municipalities, school boards or other persons or bodies in the public or private sector, including arrangements of a long-term or co-operative nature, which would provide accommodation for the new pupils in item #2, without imposing EDCs, or with a reduction in such charges Appendix C 9. a statement from the board indicating that it has reviewed its operating budget for savings that could be applied to reduce growth-related net education land costs, and the amount of any savings which it proposes to apply, if any Appendix C. The TCDSB has developed assumptions in the calculations on which its EDC by-law will be based. The legislation stipulates that an education development charge by-law may only be passed within the one-year period following the completion of the education development charge background study. This report, dated March 25, 2013 will be considered for approval by the Board, as part of the meeting on May 23, 2013, which will also consider by-law adoption. Further, this report will be forwarded to the Minister of Education and each co-terminous board, as per legislative requirements. 1.8 EDC Study Process Figure 1-1 provides an overview of the education development charge process to be followed when a board considers the adoption of its second (and any subsequent) EDC by-law under the Education Act, including the policy review process. 8

17 Figure Overview of the Education Development Charges Process and Proposed Timelines Figure 1-1 Overview of the Education Development Charges Process and Proposed Timelines PHASE ONE PHASE TWO PHASE THREE PHASE FOUR PHASE FIVE PHASE SIX DETERMING ELIGIBILITY ANAYSIS CONSIDERATION OF OTHER SOURCES TO MEET THE NEEDS MINISTRY SUBMISSION PUBLIC PROCESS BY-LAW ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION A. Capacity Trigger Evaluation A. Fifteen Year Estimate of Amount, Type and Location of Residential and Non- Residential Development A. Board's Policy re Possible Public/Private Sector Partnerships to Provide Additional Accommodation and Statement of How Policy Implemented A. Completion of Ministry Forms A. Informal Stakeholder Consultation A. Liaison with Area Municipal Representatives re Implementation/ Collection Issues B. EDC Pupil Yields to Determine Average # of New Pupils B. Board's Policy on Operating Budget Savings which could be applied B. Complete Background Study and Forward to Ministry of Education, Public and Co- Terminous Boards B. Public Meeting(s) B. Board Consideration of Public Input and Revisions, as Necessary C. By-law Structure and Review Area Analysis C. Ministry of Education Approval C. Review of Public Submissions C. Second Public Meeting at Discretion of Board D. Net Growth-Related Pupil Forecast and Number of New Sites/ Acres of Land Required D. By-law Adoption E. Estimated Growth- Related Net Education Land Cost and Location of Site (Net of Grants, Surplus EDC Funds, etc.) E. By-law Implementation F. Fiscal Impact of Growth Evaluation F. Notice of By-law Passage/Preparation of EDC Pamphlet G. Apportion Costs Residential to Non- Residential 9

18

19 Chapter 2 -- METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH The following chapter outlines the methodology utilized to undertake the background analysis which underlies the proposed education development charge. There are two distinct aspects to the model. The first is the planning component, which is comprised largely of the dwelling unit projections over a fifteen-year period, the pupil yield analysis, the determination of the requirements of new development, enrolment projections for the existing community, the determination of net growth-related pupil places by review area and the identification of additional site requirements due to growth. The second component, which is the financial component, encompasses the determination of the charge (undertaken in the form of a cashflow analysis), including identification of the site acquisition, site development and study costs, projected expenditure timing, determination of revenue sources and assessment of borrowing impact. A description of each step in the calculation process is set out below. 2.1 Planning Component Step 1 - Determine the anticipated amount, type, and location of residential development over the 15- year period (i.e., building permits to be issued) and for which education development charges would be imposed during the mid-2013 to mid-2028 forecast period. A forecast of new dwelling units in the area in which EDCs are to be imposed, over the 15-year forecast period, were derived giving consideration to: 1. The City s Council-approved housing population and employment forecasts outlined in the Flashforward document, with consideration of more recent development activity, and changes in population and employment structure within the City of Toronto; 2. The November 2012 Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Forecasts to 2041, prepared by Hemson Consulting (referred to as the P2G update); 3. The draft housing, population and employment forecasts, as of January 2013, and prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd. as part of the City s development charges by-law update process. 4. A database of development applications specifying dwelling unit type and location provided by the TCDSB s Planning department. The occupied dwelling unit forecast derived as the basis for the determination of the proposed EDC charge is net of the statutory exemptions related to demolitions and conversions. The consultants have netted off an additional 1,506 high density units from CEO7 in consideration to the Toronto Railway Lands Exemption specified in the legislation. A total of 943 apartment units were netted off for

20 Brenner (estimated 2014 construction), as well as an additional 563 units at the same address (estimated 2015 construction). The forecast of non-residential development is based on the January draft DC update forecast of employment and the new and additional gross floor area that would need to be created to accommodate the anticipated employment growth in the City of Toronto. Step 2 - The draft by-law structure is based on a jurisdiction-wide rather than an area-specific approach to the construction of the proposed charge. The policy reasons for this choice are outlined in Appendix B. The elementary and secondary review areas have been altered from the 2008 EDC Background Study. The establishment of updated review area boundaries is based on where pupils are accommodated, the hierarchy of feeder school alignments, Kindergarten to elementary, to secondary programs proposed by Board staff, and considers recent capital expenditure strategies and approvals, introduction of Full-Day Kindergarten (FDK) programs, man-made barriers including major arterial roads, railway crossings and industrial areas, municipal boundaries, travel distances within the Board s transportation policies, program requirements, etc. Step 3 - Utilize the School Facilities Inventory information to determine the Ministry-approved OTG (Onthe-Ground) capacities (recognizing the implementation of FDK programs) and the number of portables and portapaks (temporary space) for each existing elementary and secondary facility. Adjust the OTG capacity for pupil spaces, which in the opinion of the Board, are not required to meet the needs of the existing community and to recognize the Ministry of Education s adjustment to Kindergarten classrooms to address the FDK initiative. Steps 4 through 6 -- Determine the Board s projections of enrolment, by school, by grade, over the fifteen-year forecast period. Enrolment projections that distinguish the pupil requirements of the existing community (elementary to secondary retention, the number of future JK subscriptions, and the by-grade advancement of the existing student population) from the pupil requirements of new development (the number of pupils anticipated to be generated by new development within the City and over the next 15 years) were prepared by the consultants and reviewed by Board Planning staff. Finally, the enrolment analyses assume that any pupils temporarily accommodated outside of their resident attendance area are returned to their resident area. Step 7 - Determine the number of available pupil places by subtracting the Year 2027/28 projected head count enrolment (to reflect FDK) from the total capacity for the review area. The Board is entitled to exclude any available pupil places that in the opinion of the Board, could not reasonably be used to accommodate enrolment growth. Step 8 - Complete Form A of the EDC Submission to determine eligibility to impose education development charges. 12 Step 9 - Subtract any available and surplus pupil places in existing facilities from the requirements of new development, to determine the net growth-related pupil place requirements, by review area. Determine net growth-related pupil places by review area and within each review area in accordance with the timing and location of growth. Step 10 - Determine the number of additional school sites and/or site development costs required to meet the net growth-related pupil place need and the timing of proposed expenditures. Where the

21 needs can be met through additions to existing facilities and where no additional land component is required, no sites are identified. However, in the latter circumstances, there may be site development costs incurred in order to accommodate enrolment growth. These costs will be included in the determination of growth-related net education land costs where appropriate. In addition, the Board may acquire lands adjacent to existing school sites in order to accommodate enrolment growth. Finally the acquisition of lands may be part of redevelopment strategies and may involve the acquisition of lands declared surplus by other public sector land owners. Step 11 - Determine the additional sites or acreage required and the basis upon which the TCDSB can acquire the lands. 2.2 Financial Component: Step 1 - Identify the land acquisition costs (on a per acre basis) in 2013 dollars. Where purchase agreements have been finalized, incorporate the final purchase price. For the TCDSB site acquisition strategies, some involve the purchase of new development sites; several involve the expansion of existing sites through purchase or expropriation, and acquisitions involving the purchase of lands from other school boards or agencies. In addition, identify the supplementary site acquisition costs for sites only partially funded under the predecessor EDC by-law. Step 2 - Identify site development, site preparation and applicable study costs specified under (2) of the Education Act. Step 3 - Apply an appropriate indexation factor to site preparation/development costs to recognize increased labour and material costs over time. Apply an appropriate land escalation factor to greenfields type site acquisition costs, over the last 10 years of the by-law. Step 4 - Determine what amounts, if any, should be applied to reduce the charge as a result of the following: 1. The Board s policy on alternative accommodation arrangements; 2. The Board s policy on applying any operating budget surplus to reduce net education land costs; 3. Any surplus funds in the existing EDC account which should be applied to reduce the charge; Step 5 - Determine the quantum of the charge (both residential and non-residential if the Board intends to have a non-residential charge), considering borrowing impact (particularly where there are significant deficit EDC account balances) and EDC account interest earnings by undertaking a cashflow analysis of the expenditure program over the 15-year forecast period. 13

22 1 PLANNING COMPONENT : FIGURE 0-1 EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH STEP 1 Acquire Municipal Growth Forecast and Other Planning Data/Sources to Determine Anticipated Development STEP 2 Establish Elementary / Secondary Review Areas STEP 3 Determine OTG Capacity Under Ministry-Approved School Facilities Inventory (SFIS) Adjusted for Approved FDK Loading STEP 4 Determine Requirements of Existing Community STEP 5 Undertake Pupil Yield Analysis STEP 7 Determine # of " Available " Pupil Places by Review Area 1 STEP 6 Determine Requirements of New Development STEP 8 Confirm EDC Eligibility ( Form A ) STEP 9 Determine Net Growth - Related Pupil Place Requirements STEP 10 Assess Site Acquisition Needs/Site Development Needs and Expenditure Timing STEP 11 Determine Status of Sites Owned, Under Agreement, etc. FINANCIAL COMPONENT : STEP 1 Determine Site Acquisition Costs STEP 2 Identify Site Development / Study Costs STEP 3 Escalate Site Acquisition / Site Development Costs STEP 4 Determine Sources of Funding to Reduce the Charge STEP 5 Determine Financial Impact (Cash Flow Analysis) of Expenditure Program Considering Borrowing Impact, Interest Earnings, etc Available pupil places, that, in the opinion of the Board, could reasonably be used to accommodate growth (section 7.3 of O. Reg 20/98 as amended)

23 Chapter 3 JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD 3.1 Legislative Provisions Section (4) of the Education Act states that an education development charge by-law may apply to the entire area of the jurisdiction of a board or only part of it. Despite this, an education development charge by-law of the board shall not apply with respect to land in more than one region if the regulations divide the area of the jurisdiction of the board into prescribed regions. Finally, education development charges collected under an education development charge by-law that applies to land in a region shall not, except with the prior written approval of the Minister, be used in relation to land that is outside that region and money from an EDC account established under section 16(1) of O.Reg. 20/98 may be used only for growth-related net education land costs attributed to or resulting from development in the area to which the EDC by-law applies (as amended by O.Reg. 193/10). Maps 3-1 and 3-2 found at the end of this chapter, outline the geographic jurisdiction analyzed in this EDC Background report. 3.2 Analysis of Pupil Accommodation by Review Area In order to attribute the number of pupil places that would be available and accessible to new development, within the areas in which development occurs, the Board s jurisdiction has been divided into sub-areas, referred to in the EDC submission as review areas. Within each review area, the total OTG capacity of all existing permanent accommodation is considered to be the total available capacity of the Board for instructional purposes and required to meet the needs of the existing community. The school board is entitled to remove any capacity that is not available to be used to accommodate growthrelated pupils. As such, the use of permanent accommodation spaces within a review area is based on the following priority: 1. The needs of the existing community (at the end of the 15-year forecast period) must take priority over the needs resulting from new development in the construction of additional pupil places. 2. Pupils generated from new development fill any surplus available OTG capacity. 3. Pupils generated from new development within the review area must take priority over the holding accommodation needs of other review areas. 15

24 The remaining pupil spaces required as a result of new development within the review area, or net growth-related pupil place requirements, are to be potentially funded through education development charges. The review area concept within education development charges is based on the premise that pupils should, in the longer term, be able to be accommodated in permanent facilities within their resident area; therefore, any existing available capacity within the review area is not accessible to accommodation needs outside of the review area. For the purposes of the calculation of education development charges described in this report, pupils of the Board who currently attend school facilities outside of their resident area, have been transferred back if the holding situation is considered to be temporary in nature. There are four important principles to which the consultants have adhered in undertaking the EDC calculation on a review area basis: 1. Capacity required to accommodate pupils from existing development should not be utilized to provide temporary or holding capacity for new development over the longer term; and 2. Pupils generated by new development should not exacerbate each Board s current accommodation problems (i.e., an increasing portion of the student population being housed in portables for longer periods of time); and 3. Board transportation costs should be minimized. 4. Determining where housing development has occurred, or is, expected to occur, and the specific schools affected by this development. The rationale for the review area boundaries for the elementary and secondary panels of the Board gave consideration to the following criteria: a. A desire by the Board to align feeder school patterns as students move from Kindergarten to elementary and secondary programs; (particularly with the implementation of FDK) b. Current school attendance boundaries; c. Travel distances to schools consistent with the Board s transportation policies; d. Former municipal boundaries; e. Manmade or natural barriers (e.g. existing or proposed major arterial roadways, expressways such as Highway 401 and Highway 8, railway crossings, industrial areas, river valleys, escarpments, woodlots, etc.); f. Distance to neighbouring schools; 16 Secondary review areas are normally larger in size than elementary review areas due to the former having larger school facilities and longer transportation distances. Typically, a cluster of elementary schools are feeder schools for a single secondary facility.

25 For the purpose of the jurisdiction-wide approach to calculating education development charges, the Toronto Catholic District School Board has 18 elementary review areas and 4 secondary review areas as shown on Maps 3-1 and 3-2, at the end of the chapter. Each review area has been further subdivided in order to determine the net growth-related pupil place need. The detailed development application database enables the Board to specify which existing and proposed school sites will be impacted by new housing development. The determination of net growthrelated pupil place needs is therefore concentrated on the school sites where additional site acquisition and/or site development costs would be required to accommodate enrolment growth. It is noted that undertaking the determination of additional site requirements using a review area and a sub review-area approach is consistent with the way in which future capital construction needs for the Board will be assessed over the long term. 17

26 MAP 3-1 Toronto Catholic District School Board 2013 Education Development Charge 18

27 MAP 3-2 Toronto Catholic District School Board 2013 Education Development Charge 19

28

29 Chapter 4 RESIDENTIAL/NON-RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST 4.1 Background This section of the report deals with the forecast of residential and non-residential development over the mid-2013 to mid-2028 fifteen-year forecast period. The parameters of the growth forecasts, particularly with regards to the anticipated timing, location and type of residential development, are critical components of the overall EDC process because of the inextricable link between new units and new pupil places. The location of development is particularly important to the determination of additional growth-related site needs. Therefore, every effort was made to consider a variety of forecasts, planning policies, economic perspectives (short term and longer term), as well as a detailed listing of units in the development forecast supplied by the TCDSB planning staff. In addition, Board staff and the consultants met with staff of the City s Planning Division Policy and Research in July, City staff noted that the City of Toronto is in the process of updating its Development Charges Study; as well as undertaking an update to the Official Plan population, housing and employment forecasts. Moreover, at that time, the Province of Ontario was in the process of amending the Places to Grow forecast and anticipated circulating that document in the Fall of The most recent City-approved forecast was still the June, 2002 Toronto Plan Flashforward. 1 Board staff were advised that any updates to the Flashforward forecast would likely result in housing projections that were closer to the Maximum scenario than the Base scenario given more recent development activity and demographic trends (e.g., birth rates, immigration patterns, etc.). In the interim the City has initiated an update to its development charges by-laws to be adopted prior to the Fall of Updated draft housing, population and employment forecasts were provided by the City, to the consultants, in February 2013 and have been incorporated into this report. 4.2 Legislative Requirements As the legislation permits school boards to collect education development charges on both residential and non-residential development, both must be considered as part of the growth forecast as follows: An EDC background study shall include estimates of the anticipated amount, type and location of residential and non-residential development. ; (Section (2) of the Education Act) Estimate the number of new dwelling units in the area in which the charges are to be imposed for each of the 15 years immediately following the day the by-law comes into force. ; (O.Reg 20/98), Section 7(2) 21 1 Toronto Official Plan, Flashforward: Projecting Population and Employment to 2031 in a Mature Urban Area, June 2002

30 If charges are to be imposed on non-residential development, the board shall determine the charges and the charges shall be expressed as either: (a) a rate applied to the gross floor area (GFA) of the development; (b) a rate applied to the declared value of development. (O.Reg 20/98), Section 7(10) If the board intends to impose different charges on different types of residential development, the board shall determine the percentage of the growth-related net education land cost to be funded by charges on residential development, and that is to be funded by each type of residential development. (O.Reg. 20/98), Section 9.1 The Board shall choose the percentage of the growth-related net education land costs that is to be funded by charges on residential development and the percentage, if any, that is to be funded by the charges on non-residential development. The percentage that is to be funded by non-residential development shall not exceed 40 percent. (O.Reg 20/98), Section 7(8)) The EDC Guidelines state that boards are encouraged to ensure that projections for growth are consistent with that of municipalities. The Toronto Catholic District School Board is also required to consider Section 6 of O. Reg. 20/98 dealing with the Toronto Railway Lands exemption, stating that: a board shall exempt an owner from education development charges on the lands to the extent provided for in the agreement (Development Levy Agreement Railway Lands Central and West), and the lands refer to the lands described in Schedules A and B to the agreement 4.3 Residential Growth Forecast and Forms B and C Historical Context Housing Demand The City s Flashforward projections document dated June 2002, states that housing demand in Toronto is projected to add 72,963 households between 2011 and Approximately 43% of the new households are apartments, with 3% row housing and 54% singles and semi-detached. The following table is taken from Table 5 of the City s report. 22 TABLE 4-1 TABLE 4-1 Single Semi-Detached Row/ Apartment Apartment Total Toronto Housing Demand by Dwelling Type Detached & Flat in Duplex Townhouse < 5 storeys 5 + storeys Other Housing , ,945 46, , ,870 3, , , ,276 49, , ,461 3, , , ,569 52, , ,450 3,506 1,003, , ,227 54, , ,818 3,709 1,054, , ,669 55, , ,058 3,761 1,074, , ,482 55, , ,733 3,797 1,090, , ,430 56, , ,414 3,839 1,109, , ,136 56, , ,180 3,879 1,127,845

31 The Places to Grow update which was circulated for comments in November, 2012, provides a reference housing forecast by dwelling unit type for the 2001 to 2041 forecast period. This updated forecast determines that almost 86% of the additional 214,110 households over the 2011 to 2031 will be apartment dwellings, while singles and semis account for almost 7% of the projected new households, with only 7% row housing units. Table 38 of the report is replicated below: TABLE 4-2 Housing by Type for the City of Toronto Singles Semis Rows Apartments Total ,150 92,060 52, , , ,120 72,410 60, ,060 1,047, ,910 73,880 68, ,030 1,162, ,100 75,390 75, ,050 1,262, ,580 76,500 81, ,860 1,342, Growth 11,980 2,980 15, , ,110 Source: Table 38, Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Forecasts to 2041, Technical Report November, 2012 HEMSON CONSULTING LTD. This shift to higher density development is consistent with more recent data related to building permits, housing starts and completions. While the City s Flashforward reference forecast recommends a viable housing mix, the report does state that the housing forecast does not replicate or predict the housing mix that would be determined through each municipality s Growth Plan conformity work. Planned housing mixes will continue to be decided by municipalities through their local planning processes. Building Permits: Over the time period the City of Toronto issued residential building permits at an average rate of 14,105 units per annum, or a total of 141,049 permits. More than 79% of the permits issued were for apartment developments, with an additional 10% for townhomes (including apartments in duplexes) and 11% for single and semi-detached homes. For the 2007 to 2011 period, the percentage of apartment units is even higher at 83.3% as shown in Table 4-3. Housing Starts: The number of annual housing starts in the City of Toronto since 1999 averaged just over 14,200 units. Since 2008, the robust high-rise condominium market has resulted in 89.5% of the total housing starts, on average. The graph on the following page illustrates annual housing starts in Toronto relative to the average. 23

32 Table 4-3 Table 4-3 City of Toronto Residential Building Permits, Year Single Semi- Detached Detached Townhomes¹ Apartments² Total , ,610 9,446 13, , ,722 11,058 14, , ,631 9,385 12, , ,519 16,867 20, , ,216 7,724 10, Sub-Total 7,688 1,731 8,698 54,480 72,597 % of Growth 10.6% 2.4% 12.0% 75.0% 100.0% Annual Average 1, ,740 10,896 14, , ,391 8,160 11, , ,534 11,316 14, ,883 13, ,384 14,424 16, ,238 12, Sub-Total 4,983 1,024 5,424 57,021 68,452 % of Growth 7.3% 1.5% 7.9% 83.3% 100.0% Annual Average ,085 11,404 13, Sub-Total 12,671 2,755 14, , ,049 % of Growth 9.0% 2.0% 10.0% 79.1% 100.0% Annual Average 1, ,412 11,150 14,105 Source: Statistics Canada Building Permits 1. Includes Townhomes and Apartments in Duplex 2. Includes Apartments with less than 5 storeys and Apartments with 5 storeys or more. 24

33 FIGURE 4-1 The January 2013 draft DC forecast of occupied units is more reflective of more recent construction experience, City planning policies and initiatives, underlying demographic trends, etc. Table 4-4 replicates the City s draft DC forecast. Therefore, for the purposes of meeting the legislative requirements governing education development charges, the Table 4-4 housing forecast, along with the Board s development inventory data, has been used as a basis to determine the anticipated amount, type and location of residential development, as well as the number of new dwelling units in the area in which charges are to be imposed for each of the 15 years immediately following the day the by-law comes into force. The draft DC forecast determines in the order of 155,300 additional occupied dwelling units for the mid-2013 to mid-2028 EDC forecast period, or an average of 10,350 per annum. 25

34 Remainder of Planning Period 10-Year Forecast Table 4-4 CITY OF TORONTO DRAFT January, 2013 DC Forecast Total Occupied Units and Population Occupied Housing Units and Population Period Year at Mid-Year Occupied Units Household Population PPU Non-Household Population Census Population ,080,000 2,649, ,100 2,689, ,097,600 2,690, ,600 2,731, ,111,800 2,722, ,100 2,763, ,122,800 2,746, ,600 2,788, ,132,600 2,764, ,100 2,806, ,141,700 2,780, ,500 2,823, ,151,000 2,797, ,900 2,840, ,160,500 2,814, ,400 2,857, ,170,100 2,831, ,800 2,875, ,179,700 2,849, ,200 2,893, ,189,300 2,866, ,600 2,911, ,198,800 2,884, ,000 2,929, ,208,200 2,901, ,400 2,946, ,217,500 2,918, ,800 2,963, ,226,500 2,938, ,200 2,984, ,235,300-2,957, ,700 3,004, ,243,800 2,976, ,100 3,023, ,252,100 2,994, ,500 3,042, ,260,200 3,012, ,900 3,060,400 Source: Table 3 Forecast of Total Occupied Units and Population prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd Methodological Approach 26 Municipal forecasts of residential development generally give consideration to: underlying demographic trends, timing and location of infrastructure emplacement, local planning policies (Official Plan and Secondary Plans), Provincial planning policies (e.g., Places to Grow, Provincial Policy Statement, Greenbelt Plan 2005, etc.), considerations of demand (including recent and projected real estate market conditions and recent historical construction statistics) and supply (land supply and absorption rates), staging of units in the development approvals process, etc. Figure 4-2 illustrates a household formation projection methodology. Figure 4-3 describes the approach taken to determine the mid-2013 to mid housing forecast for the City of Toronto.

35 FIGURE 4-2 Figure 4-1 Residential Growth Forecast: Proposed Methodology Household Formation Projection Model DEMAND SUPPLY Historical Housing Development (Building Permits, Completions and Occupancy Cycles) by Municipality by Review Area by School Catchment Area Residential Units in the Development Approvals Process Type, phasing, location and complexity of planning approvals required RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT FORECAST FOR REGIONS AND MUNICIPALITIES Designated Lands under Official Plan and Related Secondary Plans Opportunities for Redevelopment of Lands (Industrial, Brownfields, Commercial, etc.) Long-range Servicing Capacity, Timing and Cost Economic Outlook re Housing Development, Residential Sales and Housing Prices Federal, Provincial, Municipal-wide Policy Direction (P2G, PPS, Greenbelt Plan 2005, etc.) In order to prepare 15-year projections of new occupied dwelling units in the City of Toronto, for which education development charges are to be imposed, the following process was followed: 1. The process described on Figure 4-3, followed by consideration of; 2. Statutory residential exemptions described below. Statutory Residential Exemptions: Additional Dwelling Unit Exemption Section (3) of the Education Act exempts, from the imposition of education development charges, the creation of two additional dwelling units within an existing single detached dwelling (i.e. the conversion of a single unit to a duplex or triplex), or one additional dwelling unit within a semidetached, row dwellings and other residential building. A reduction of 568 medium density units, or 5% of the total medium density units has been made on the EDC dwelling unit forecast. 27

36 Figure YEAR CITY OF TORONTO HOUSING FORECAST (ANNUALIZED FORECAST OF OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS) STEP ONE: REVIEW BACKGROUND INFORMATION Review of January 2013 "Draft" DC population and occupied dwelling unit forecast for mid-2013 to mid period Review Data Respecting Building Permits, Completions, Housing Starts and Census Households Review of Profile Toronto June 2011, Proposed Development by Growth Area and Stage of Development, Development Projects in Centres, Secondary Plan areas and Priority Neighbourhoods STEP TWO: PREPARE CITY-WIDE FORECAST BY DWELLING TYPE Prepare mid 2013 to mid 2028 forecast of housing units (single detached, semi detached, row housing, apartment & multi condo) based on July, 2012 meeting with City staff Determine mid 2013 to mid 2028 housing forecast net of statutory exemptions (demolitions and conversions, Railway lands development where applicable, etc.) STEP THREE - REVIEW CITY-WIDE FORECAST IN CONTEXT OF DC "Draft" GROWTH FORECAST TO 2041 Compare 15-year City-wide Forecast of Occupied Households and Housing by Unit Type and revised as necessary STEP FOUR - DISAGGREGATE HOUSING FORECAST BY EDC REVIEW AREA AND BY SCHOOL CATCHMENT Review of Board-supplied units in the development approvals process (phasing by unit type and by school catchment) Remove units completed and occupied, projects completed and closed and adjust timing of development in order of circulated, pending, followed by approved, consistent with the to 15-year City-wide "Draft" DC forecast 28 Review detailed housing forecast and adjusted phasing with Board staff and revise as necessary S:\TCDSB s:\schoolboard\tcdsb 2012 EDC\Report\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Report\Chapter Background Study 4 and Methodology Policies Review Schematic.xlsx Report _Final.docx

37 Replacement Dwelling Unit Exemption Section 4 of O.Reg 20/98 requires that the Board exempt from the payment of education development charges, the replacement, on the same site, a dwelling unit that was destroyed by fire, demolition or otherwise, or that was so damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise as to render it uninhabitable, provided that the replacement building permit is issued within two years that the dwelling unit was destroyed or became uninhabitable. No deduction has been made for replacement dwelling units where a demolition permit is unavailable, or has expired, as the City s grace period practice is five years. Toronto Railway Lands Exemption In 1994, an agreement entitled Development Levy Agreement Railway Lands Central and West (often referred to as the Railway Lands Agreement) was entered into by the City of Toronto, the predecessor boards of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) and Canadian National Railway/CN Transactions Inc. The agreement provided for development levy revenue to be collected from all development within the Railway Lands Central and West to finance the construction of a community centre and elementary schools for both TDSB and TCDSB. The Development Levy Trust Agreement requires that TDSB and TCDSB each construct, within the five year period following the issuance of sufficient building permits to achieve the threshold amount of the above-grade gross floor area, 683,000 m 2, or 7,351,991 ft 2 in the Railway Lands Central and West, an elementary school. According to the City of Toronto 11, the threshold level of gross floor area is expected to be reached at the end of the year. A 2 acre joint TDSB/TCDSB school site parcel, located south of Fort York Boulevard and West of Brunel Court, and known as 20 Brunel Court is expected to accommodate the following community services: Community Centre 38,000 ft 2 Day Care 7,500 ft 2 TDSB elementary school 55,000 ft 2 TCDSB elementary school 55,000 ft 2 Total 155,000 ft 2 It is noted that the Railway Lands Agreement did not contemplate the provision of any secondary school pupil spaces (nor the designation of lands for a secondary school site) for either the TDSB or the TCDSB. The TCDSB development tracking system contains the ongoing development of 19,205 additional units in the Railway Lands and Fort York Neighbourhood as follows: 1. Railway Lands East 3,959 units ( ~58% Bachelor/1 Bedroom and 42% 2 Bedrooms or more) 2. Railway Lands Central 3,318 units (~62% Bachelor/1 Bedroom and 38% 2 Bedrooms or more) 3. Railway Lands West 7,018 units (~63% Bachelor/1 Bedroom and 37% 2 Bedrooms or more) 4. Fort York 4,910 units (~62% Bachelor/1 Bedroom and 38% 2 bedroom or more) 29 1 City of Toronto Staff Report P;\2012\Internal Services\Re\Ec12024re AFS 14981, dated October 22, 2012

38 This report assumes, and the proposed EDC by-law will state, that the TCDSB intends to apply education development charges to all future development within the Railway lands to the extent that additional density is approved by the City. A reduction of 1,506 apartment units has been made to the EDC housing forecast in respect of future development within the Railway Lands, for which building permits have not been issued to date. FIGURE 4-4 RAILWAY LANDS CENTRAL, EAST AND WEST FIGURE 4-5 CENTRAL WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AREA 30

39 4.3.3 Net New Units and Forms B and C Table 4-5 summarizes the City of Toronto s housing forecast by unit type for the mid-2013 to mid-2028 period. The table also provides a summary of the housing forecast by TCDSB elementary review area. Table 4-6 which follows, summarizes Forms B and C of the EDC Submission. TABLE 4-5 Low Density Medium Density TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD 2013 EDC 15 Year Net Residential Unit Forecast Adjustment Details- 1 (Summarized by Elementary EDC Review Area) High Density (Bach/1 BR) High Density (2+ BR) Total Review Area Net New Res. Unit Forecast Net New Res. Unit Forecast Net New Res. Unit Net New Res. Unit Forecast- 4 Forecast Net New Res. Unit Forecast CE ,848 7,206 16,443 CE , ,650 CE ,957 CE ,639 2,389 9,231 CE ,115 CE ,706 3,573 CE ,479 26, , ,485 CE08 1, ,833 5,046 16,888 CE ,906 1,834 6,755 CE10 1, , ,597 CE ,093 CE ,625 3,405 8,083 CE ,790 9,335 20,045 CE ,074 CE ,496 4,372 CE ,008 2,123 CE ,049 CE Total 11,198 11,355 73,272 57, ,806 % of Total 7.3% 7.4% 47.6% 37.7% 100.0% Units/Year ,885 3,865 10,254 May not add due to rounding Notes: 1. Assumed to be net of demolitions consistent with City of Toronto January, 2013 'draft' DC forecast 2. Net of 1,155 Railway Lands development units projected to be constructed in Net of 351 Railway Lands development units projected to be constructed in 2014 and Net of 568 units for housing intensification S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Report\[15 Year Net Residential Unit Forecast Adjustment.xlsx]Sheet1 31

40 PROJECTION OF NET NEW DWELLING UNITS 1 TABLE 4-6 Toronto Catholic District School Board Education Development Charges Submission 2013 Forms B/C - Dwelling Unit Summary Total Jurisdiction - City of Toronto Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year / 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ 2019/ 2020/ 2021/ 2022/ 2023/ 2024/ 2025/ 2026/ 2027/ Singles & Semi-detached ,198 Row Housing ,923 Less: Intenstification Adjustment 568 Apartments - Bach & 1 Bedroom 7,088 6,800 5,052 4,665 4,119 4,821 4,547 4,871 5,088 4,900 4,826 4,676 4,800 4,051 4,124 74,427 Less: Railway Lands Exempt Development 1,155 Apartments - 2 Bedroom or more 7,521 5,769 4,386 3,462 3,375 3,089 3,496 3,391 3,260 3,295 3,336 3,521 3,355 3,614 3,462 58,332 Less: Railway Lands Exempt Development 351 Total 16,246 14,353 11,209 9,934 9,222 9,428 9,631 9,736 9,740 9,646 9,728 9,533 9,424 9,122 8, ,806 Total All Units Grand Total Gross New Units in By-Law Area 155,880 Less: Statutorily Exempt Units in By-Law Area 568 Less: Railway Lands Exempt Development 1,506 Total Net New Units in By-Law Area 153,806 Notes: 1. Assumed to be net of demolitions and conversions consistent with the City of Toronto's 'draft' January 2013 DC forecast prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]FORMS B & C Toronto Catholic District School Board 2013 Education Development Charge 32

41 13 Year Average 10 Year Historic Year Historic Toronto Catholic District School Board 2013 Education Development Charge 4.4 Non-Residential Growth Forecast and Form D The non-residential growth forecast indicates that a total of 81,162,300 square feet of non-residential gross floor area (GFA) space and additions is anticipated for the City of Toronto over the 15 year forecast period. Industrial and institutional additions, municipal and school board properties, which are exempt under the legislation, are expected to total 9,677,010 square feet of GFA over that same time period. Therefore, an education development charge by-law can be applied against a net of 71,485,290 square feet of net gross floor area. The non-residential growth forecast was derived from the City s draft DC forecast of new construction of space and employees prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd. The historic estimated construction of new space and additions is taken from Table 9 of the Hemson report. Table 4-7 Historic Estimated Construction of Space. New and Additions Estimated Space Construction, New and Additions (m 2 ) Commercial Space Industrial Institutional Total Year Office Retail Other ,200 54,500 26,900 25,500 12, , ,900 59,000 29,100 17,800 49, , ,700 76,300 37,700 14,200 89, , ,900 66,600 32,900 21,900 89, , ,500 81,000 40,000 43,200 95, , , , ,200 35,200 93, , , , ,200 55,300 59, , , , ,900 44,700 96, , , , , , , , , , ,800 99,400 72, , , , , , , , , , ,800 83, , , Est. 112, , ,400 99, , , Year Annual Average in m 2 81, , ,500 70, , , % 36.30% 18.00% 12.10% 19.50% 100% Source as Table 9 of City's January, 2013 'draft' DC fprecast perepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd. The projections of non-residential gross floor area were based on the City s draft DC forecast of nonresidential space for the 2013 to 2022, with an assumption of 45% of this 10 year forecast as the basis for the 2023 to 2028 forecast period as follow: 33

42 Summary and Space Forecast Table 4-8 Forecast New Construction of Space and Employees, New Additions ( net of demolition and conversions) Toronto Non-Residential Space Forecast of Growth, 2013 to 2022 Office Retail Other Commercial Industrial Institutional Total Historic Annual Average ( ) in m 2 81, , ,500 70,000, 112, ,900 Forecast Annual in m 2 75, ,000 95,000 60, , , % 36.50% 18.30% 11.50% 19.20% 100% Total 10-Year m 2 Total10-Year sq.ft. 750,000 8,073,000 1,900,000 20,452, ,000 10,226, ,000 6,459,000 1,000,000 10,764,000 5,200,000 55,974,000 This 15 year projection of additions non-residential gross floor area, with assumed statutory exemptions is set out on Table 4-9 below: TABLE 4-9 TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Determination of Non-residential GFA ( ) Industrial Commercial Institutional Total Projected Gross Floor Area (sq feet of GFA - New and Additions) 9,365,550 56,188,950 15,607,800 81,162,300 As a % of Total GFA 11.5% 69.2% 19.2% 100.0% Less: Statutory Exemptions for industrial expansions, municipal, school construction, hospitals, colleges and universities, GO Transit, etc. 1,404,833 2,809,448 5,462,730 9,677,010 Total Net Projected Addditional GFA 7,960,718 53,379,503 10,145,070 71,485,290 NET ESTIMATED GROSS FLOOR AREA 7,960,718 53,379,503 10,145,070 71,485,290 Source: Projected GFA taken from Hemson Consulting Ltd. 'draft' DC Forecast of New Construction of Space and Employees, New and Additions, January

43 Table 4-10 summarizes Form D of the EDC Submission: TABLE 4-10 Toronto Catholic District School Board Education Development Charges Submission 2013 Form D - Non-Residential Development D1 - Non-Residential Charge Based On Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) Total Estimated Non-Residential Board-Determined Gross Floor Area to be Constructed Over 15 Years From Date of By-Law Passage: Less: Board-Determined Gross Floor Area From Exempt Development: 81,162,300-9,677,010 Net Estimated Board-Determined Gross Floor Area: 71,485,290 S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]FORM D 35

44

45 Chapter 5 DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND FUTURE ENROLMENT EXPECTATIONS 5.1 Demographic and Enrolment Trends The Toronto Catholic District School Board provides education services in the City of Toronto. The TCDSB has a total enrolment of 91,450 students (60,679 elementary headcount and 30,771 secondary ADE) and currently operates 170 elementary and 37 secondary schools. This chapter will include historical demographic information for the City of Toronto and the historical enrolment for the TCDSB with emphasis on the information gathered from Statistics Canada Overview The consultants have been retained to prepare long term (i.e., 15-year) enrolment projections for the Board. The analysis set out herein examines both historic demographic and enrolment trends within the Board s jurisdiction and uses this information (along with forecasts about how these enrolment influences are likely to change), in order to derive by school, by grade enrolments. The consultants acquired detailed information respecting households and population data from the 1996, 2006 and 2011 (although custom tabulations respecting 2011 Census population structure by age of dwelling unit and type will not be available until August 2013) Census information, in order to assess historical trends school age population by dwelling unit type and by sub geography, for the purposes of determining appropriate pupil yield cycles to be applied to the housing forecast. The key elements of historical trends (both demographic and enrolment) are examined below. Firstly, demographic trends are assessed in terms of: What has been the change in pre-school and school age population, for the jurisdiction as a whole, and for sub-geographies within the Board s jurisdiction? Many school boards can, and will experience areas of school age population growth, offset by areas of decline. Further, it is possible to experience growth in secondary school age children due to in-migration, but a decline in elementary school age population. More importantly, what has been the change in pre-school and school age population per household? It is possible to experience significant new housing construction and yet experience a decline in school age population per household due to an aging population driving the demand for a portion of the new housing. How have migrations trends changed, as a whole and by age cohort? How has the economy affected the in-migration and out-migration of persons between the ages of 20 to 35 (i.e., those who account for the majority of the household births)? Has the ethnic make-up of the migrant population changed and, if so, how might this affect projected enrolment for the Catholic board in particular? What is the religious affiliation of the migrant population? It should be noted that religion is only asked every 37

46 second Census undertaking this occurred in 2011 but information is unavailable at the time of preparation of this Study. As a result, the 2004 Census information was considered. How has the birth rate (i.e., the number of children born annually) and the fertility rate (i.e., the number of children a female is likely to have in her lifespan) changed for particular age cohorts? For example, in many areas, the birth rate has declined in recent years, while the fertility rate in females over the age of 35 has been increasing. Generally the data indicates that, for the majority of the Province, women are initiating families later on in life and, in turn, having fewer children overall. Secondly, enrolment trends are assessed in terms of: How has the grade structure ratio (i.e., the number of pupils entering Junior Kindergarten versus the number of students graduating Grade 8) of the Board changed? Have changes in program delivery affected the Board s enrolment patterns (e.g., French Immersion)? How has the Board s share of elementary/secondary enrolment changed vis-à-vis the co-terminous boards and private school/other enrolment? Population and Housing Statistics Canada released the population and dwelling unit data related to the 2011 Census undertaking. While this data is relatively new and it does not contain cross- tabulated data of age structure, by unit type, by age of dwelling unit, it does enable the consultants to assess changing demographic trends at the municipal level (i.e., to get to the question of how changing demographics will affect the school-age population of sub-geographic areas within the City of Toronto). This information is one of the sources of the school and pre-school age population trends discussed herein as they relate to the TCDSB s jurisdiction. Table 5-1 compares the pre-school and school age population between and Census periods, illustrating the changing trends which will impact future enrolment growth for the Board. As shown in the table, the pre-school age population (ages 0-3) decreased by 5,355 persons or 4.7% between 2001 and 2006 and increased between 2006 and 2011 by 4,005 persons or 3.7%. This may be partially a reflection of a less accurate Census undertaking in 2006 (ie several major Ontario municipalities reported that the 2001 Census population plus housing occupancy to mid- 2006, generated higher population numbers than reported). The elementary school age population (ages 4-13) decreased by 18,945 persons or 6.5% from 2001 to This same age group continued to experience a decrease between the 2006 and 2011 Census period when the cohort decreased by 12,695 persons. 38

47 TABLE 5-1 TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Changes to Pre-School and School Age Population, Census Periods Pre-School Age (0-3) Actual Population Number of Occupied Households Population per Household (Population/Number of occupied households) Census Period Number of Occupied Households Census Period Absolute % Change Absolute % Change Absolute Absolute % Change % Change Absolute % Change Absolute % Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Toronto 126, , , ,945 (12,390) -9.8% (5,355) -4.7% 4, % 903, , ,445 1,047,880 Toronto (0.019) -13.6% (0.010) -8.2% (0.003) -3.1% Elementary School Age (4-13) Actual Population Number of Occupied Households Population per Household (Population/Number of occupied households) Census Period Number of Occupied Households Census Period Absolute % Change Absolute % Change Absolute Absolute % Change % Change Absolute % Change Absolute % Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Toronto 272, , , ,350 19, % (18,945) -6.5% (12,695) -4.6% 903, , ,445 1,047,880 Toronto % (0.031) -10.0% (0.030) -10.9% Secondary School Age (14-17) Actual Population Number of Occupied Households Population per Household (Population/Number of occupied households) Census Period Number of Occupied Households Census Period Absolute % Change Absolute % Change Absolute Absolute % Change % Change Absolute % Change Absolute % Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Toronto 104, , , ,475 7, % 2, % % 903, , ,445 1,047,880 Toronto % (0.002) -1.6% (0.007) -5.9% Source: Statistics Canada 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 Census Profile Data & Single Year of Age Population Data Note: Figures do not include the Census Undercount S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Census\[TCDSB Census Information.xlsx]5-1 PPU by Age Group Toronto Catholic District School Board 2013 Education Development Charge 39

48 From 2001 to 2006 the secondary school age population (ages 14-17) increased by 2,415 persons or 2.2%. This increase was spread out over the entire City of Toronto. During the 2006 to 2011 Census period, secondary school age population continued to increase by 750 persons or 0.7%. This increase was experienced across the City. Table 5-1 also calculates the school age population per household. It is important to evaluate the change in the school age population measured against the change in the number of occupied households. Significant housing development may not translate into a proportionate increase in school age population, especially if a significant portion of the development is higher priced condo/high-rise apartments. Analysis of the population by household indicates that during the 2001 to 2006 Census period, the total pre-school age population (ages 0-3) per household within the City of Toronto declined by 8.2%, followed by a 3.1% continued decline between 2006 to Between the 2001 and 2006 Census periods, the number of elementary students (ages 4-13) per household decreased by 10% followed by a further decline of 10.9% between the 2006 and Census periods. The decline in the 4-13 year old cohort per household is not concentrated in one particular area but instead it is distributed across the City. Population per household for the year old age cohort decreased during both Census periods by 1.6% and 5.9% respectively Births and Fertility Rates According to the Office of the Registrar General, the total number of children born annually in the City of Toronto decreased from 31,005 in 2001 to 28,493 in 2010 as shown in Table 5-2. This represents an 8% overall decrease in the number of live births over this same time frame. Table 5-3 shows fertility rates across the jurisdiction of the Board between 2001 and 2010 and an decrease from a level of births per 1,000 females to births per 1,000 females. TABLE 5-2 TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Births by Age of Mother, Year Total Unknown , ,790 8,053 10,630 6,201 1, , ,535 7,569 10,341 6,288 1, , ,487 7,519 10,261 6,207 1, , ,550 7,498 10,468 6,093 1, , ,346 7,376 10,233 6,272 1, , ,367 7,370 10,294 6,355 1, , ,300 7,295 10,367 6,792 1, , ,127 7,419 10,150 6,791 1, , ,794 6,890 9,896 6,417 1, , ,727 6,824 10,070 6,677 1, ,506 6,814 33,023 73, ,710 64,093 14, Source: Statistics Canada, Births by Age of Mother S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Census\[TCDSB Census Information.xlsx]5-2 Births by Age of Mother

49 TABLE 5-3 TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Historical Age Specific Fertility Rate Births per Population, Year Total Source: Statistics Canada S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Census\[TCDSB Census Information.xlsx]5-3 Fertility Rates Migration Patterns Table 5-4 compares the migration patterns between the International, Interprovincial and Intraprovincial population from mid-2000 to mid As indicated in Table 5-4, total net migration in the area has increased over the past five years by 64,112 persons from 2005 to The natural population increase (difference between the number of births and deaths) has decreased by 137 for the same time period. TABLE 5-4 TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Migration Patterns by Total Population 2000/ / / / / / / / / /10 International Migration 87,435 85,514 60,442 61,208 58,272 59,345 48,805 48,980 46,466 49,185 Interprovincial Migration 3, ,514-1,165-3,218-3,262-2,333-1, Intraprovincial Migration -57,804-75,000-74,653-69,539-58,804-48,816-39,962-35,605-26,737-26,737 Total Net Migration 33,200 11,290-14,783-9,845-1,697 7,311 5,581 11,042 17,781 22,397 Births 30,990 30,150 29,909 29,814 29,870 30,001 29,852 30,297 30,592 30,896 Deaths 17,358 16,551 16,928 16,664 17,321 16,859 16,411 16,760 17,314 17,891 Natural Increase 13,632 13,599 12,981 13,150 12,549 13,142 13,441 13,537 13,278 13,005 Source: Statistics Canada S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Census\[TCDSB Census Information.xlsx]5-4 Migration Summary 41

50 5.1.5 Enrolment Overview Historical elementary and secondary enrolments (2008/09 to 2011/12) for the TCDSB have been summarized in Tables 5-5 and 5-6. Table 5-5 outlines the total elementary enrolment for the TCDSB within its jurisdiction. Between 2008/09 and 2011/12, the elementary panel has decreased by 805 students or 1.31%. Enrolment at the secondary panel in Table 5-6 has increased by 964 ADE students or 3.24% between 2008/09 and 2011/12. In part, this reflects the increased apportionment share of the TCDSB over that time period. Without an apportionment shift, the TCDSB s historical decline in elementary enrolment would negatively impact on future secondary enrolment as a result of smaller graduating elementary classes moving into the secondary school environment Grade Structure Ratio (GSR) In Table 5-5, the change in Grade Structure Ratio (GSR) is shown in each year between 2008/09 and 2012/13. GSR measures the number of pupils entering the elementary system (JK-1) versus the number leaving the elementary system (Grades 6-8). A ratio of 1.0 is indicative of an equal number of pupils entering the system as those leaving the system (i.e., when the information is expressed as average daily enrolment including full-day kindergarten). Further, a ratio of 1.0 in each year is an indicator of stable enrolment, whereas a value less than 1.0 is indicative of a decline in enrolment moving into the secondary panel. Increasing births or net migration, as well as the introduction of programs like full day Kindergarten can alter the GSR. TABLE 5-5 TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Historical Elementary Enrolment, 2008/09 to 2012/13 42 Hist Hist Hist Hist Current Grade 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ JK 5,130 5,366 5,310 5,421 5,451 SK 5,430 5,410 5,559 5,568 5, ,595 5,845 5,684 5,908 5, ,112 5,740 5,933 5,814 5, ,924 6,263 5,838 6,045 5, ,339 6,045 6,344 5,918 6, ,311 6,487 6,165 6,415 5, ,724 6,489 6,646 6,341 6, ,735 6,830 6,619 6,731 6, ,187 6,851 6,933 6,718 6,781 SE Other Total 61,484 61,323 61,029 60,877 60,679 GSR Source: S:\TCDSB Toronto 2012 EDC\Report\TCDSB Catholic District EDC School Background BoardStudy and Policies Review Report _Final.docx S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Census\[TCDSB Census Information.xlsx]Table 5-5 Hist Enrol Elem

51 TABLE 5-6 TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Historical Secondary Enrolment, 2008/09 to 2012/13 Hist Hist Hist Hist Current Grade 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ ,353 7,467 6,991 7,179 6, ,116 7,328 7,462 7,088 7, ,935 7,063 7,303 7,510 7, ,403 8,551 8,762 8,892 9,412 SE Other Total 29,806 30,408 30,518 30,668 30,771 Source: Toronto Catholic District School Board S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Census\[TCDSB Census Information.xlsx]Table 5-6 Hist Enrol Sec Apportionment Tables 5-7 outlines the apportionment between primary elementary and secondary service providers in the City of Toronto (i.e., includes English language public boards and excludes French language schools, home schooling, institutional, instructional settings, etc.). Table 5-7 illustrates the historic elementary patterns of the TCDSB between 2007/08 and 2011/12 as reported to the Ministry of Education. Over this time frame, TCDSB increased its apportionment share by 0.25%. Similarly, the Board s apportionment share has increased at the secondary panel over the same timeframe by 1.36% which is significant. 43

52 TABLE 5-7 TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Historic Annual Enrolment (ADE), 2007/08 to 2011/12 Elementary Panel TCDSB 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ ,484 61,323 61,029 60,877 60, % 26.1% 26.1% 26.2% 26.0% TDSB 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ , , , , , % 73.9% 73.9% 73.8% 74.0% Secondary Panel TCDSB 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ ,186 28,477 28,703 29,535 29, % 24.8% 24.8% 25.4% 25.8% TDSB 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ ,975 86,366 86,821 86,886 85, % 75.2% 75.2% 74.6% 74.2% Source: Toronto Catholic District School Board S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Census\[TCDSB Census Information.xlsx]Table Apportionment 44

53 5.2 Projections of Pupil Accommodation Needs The end of this chapter summarizes the elementary and secondary enrolment projections for the TCDSB Methodology The derivation of by-school and by-grade enrolment projections consists of two distinct methodological elements. The first is based on a retention rate approach to determine how the existing pupils of the Board (i.e., pupils resident in existing housing within the Board s jurisdiction, as well as any pupils who reside outside of the Board s jurisdiction but attending schools of the Board) would move through each grade and transition from the elementary to the secondary panel, including changes in apportionment. This element of the enrolment projection methodology is known as the Requirements of the Existing Community. The second part of the projection exercise is to determine how many pupils would be generated by new housing development over the forecast period, and what portion of these pupils would potentially choose to attend schools of the Board. This element of the forecasting exercise is known as the Requirements of New Development. The EDC Guidelines require that each projection element be examined separately. The methodological approach to each element is examined in depth below. Requirements of the Existing Community The enrolment projections of the existing community are intended to reflect the predicted change in enrolment pertaining to housing units that have previously been constructed and occupied within the Board s jurisdiction. This differs from the pupil place requirements of new development, which reflect the anticipated enrolment to be generated from new housing units to be constructed over the next 15 years. Existing community projections may also include some pupils who live outside of the Board s jurisdiction, but attend schools of the Board. The key components of the existing community projection model are outlined in Figure Enrolment projections disaggregated by sub-geography (i.e., review areas). 2. Historic average daily enrolment by school and by grade. This information is verified against the Board s Financial Statements. The enrolment summaries are used to determine how changes in the provision of facilities and programs, as well as school choice, have affected student enrolment to date. This information also provides perspectives on how board apportionment has changed throughout the jurisdiction and by sub-area. This information provides an indication of holding situations where pupils are provided with temporary accommodation awaiting the construction of additional pupil spaces ( e.g. the Sheppard Avenue Concord Adex site). 45

54 FIGURE 1 PUPIL REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXISTING COMMUNITY A. Import Data Sources B. Aggregate Data C. Data Synthesis D. Panel Allocations E. Review Results Historic ADE Enrolment by Facility & Grade Retention Rate Model (10-15 Yr.) By School By Grade By Program Aggregate Facility Projection by Review Area Determine Grade to Grade Retention Rates JK Entry taken From MoF Trends of Projected 4Yr. Olds Feeder School Matrix Applied Retention Elementary or Elementary to Secondary Elementary Panel Projections (headcount includes FDK) Secondary Panel Projections (ADE) Review School and Grade Projections With Board Staff and Adjust as necessary 3. Historic retention rates by school, by grade and by program -- has the number of students moving through from grade to grade been more or less than previous years? Have changes to program offering affected the Boards share of enrolment at any particular school? 4. Apportionment by sub-area -- boards are asked to provide several years of data indicating student enrolment by school and by program, based on where pupils reside. This data provides the most accurate assessment of the Board s apportionment share by sub-geography. There are five (5) education service providers in this jurisdiction (i.e., two English - language, two Frenchlanguage, plus private school, home school, etc.). The cumulative apportionment share of each service provider must equal 100% Feeder school retentions for each elementary and secondary school -- this includes pupils feeding into specialized programs (e.g., French Immersion, Extended French, Gifted, etc.) and from elementary schools into secondary schools. The secondary enrolment projections are a direct function of the elementary enrolment projections where Grade 8 pupils feed into secondary schools. Typically Grade 8 students are directed to a preferred secondary school based on a board s attendance boundaries. However, open access policies at the secondary level often permit students to attend their school of choice (which could include a co-terminous board s secondary school).

55 6. Historical enrolment anomalies and the ability to document unusual shifts in enrolment at any individual school due to changes in program, staffing, transportation, policies etc. Long term enrolment projections for each elementary and secondary school were subsequently reviewed with Board staff and refined as necessary. Requirements of New Development The projected enrolment supporting the requirements of new development is intended to determine the number of pupils that would occupy new housing development, and the percentage of these pupils that are likely to attend schools of the Board. Some of these pupils may be held in existing schools of the Board, awaiting the opening of new neighbourhood schools. The key components of the new development projection model are outlined in Figure Units in the development approvals process -- this information was provided by the TCDSB, and is used as one of the considerations in deriving the detailed fifteen-year housing forecast by location and by unit type. Development applications information was made available to the consultants at a school level. Finally, the development information was provided by dwelling unit type (e.g., low, medium and high density) which is critical to determining appropriate student yields to be generated by the development. 2. Municipal growth forecast City of Toronto was contacted and asked to provide information respecting the most council -approved recent housing and population forecasts, secondary plans, etc., as well as a copy of the relevant approved forecast targets in the Official Plan. 3. Other housing and population forecasts prepared by a Hemson Consulting Ltd. were used to determine City- wide housing forecasts, both timing and housing type. 4. Both the units in the development approvals process and the 15-year municipal housing forecasts (i.e., by type, where available) are used to determine the number of new dwelling units to be constructed by review area and by school district. 47

56 FIGURE 2 PUPIL PLACE REQUIREMENTS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT: CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATIC A. External Data Sources B. Pupil Projection Calculations C. Panel Allocations D. Board Apportionments E. Pupil Requirements of New Development Growth Forecasts by Municipality Units in the Development Approvals Process, where available Residential Growth Forecast 15 Years Disaggregate Growth by Review Area Public Elementary Pupil Headcount Projection Population Over 55 Determining Headship Rates Net Units Disaggregate Growth by School, by Program, by Grade Elementary Pupil Projections (yld. X units) Catholic Elementary Pupil Headcount Projection Statistics Canada Census Data Historical Enrolment by School or Place of Residence Import Preschool and School Age Population Import Dwellings by Age, Density and Number of Bedrooms Determine School Age Population per Household Adjustments to School Age Population per Household re Data Anomalies Develop Pupil Yield Curve by Sub-geography Secondary Pupil Projections (yld. X units) Apportionment Calculations Public Secondary Pupil Projection ADE Catholic Secondary Pupil Projection ADE Private School and All Other Projections The 15-year housing projections typically do not match on an annual basis (i.e., phasing of approved development may differ from projected timing of development). However, they are matched by dwelling unit type and total number of units for each 5-year increment, where feasible, and always match to the 15-year projection totals Custom tabulated Statistics Canada data provides detailed information respecting the number of occupied households and the period constructed, household density, the number of bedrooms and the age of the occupants. This information is used to determine historic pupil generation factors (i.e., the total number of school-age children occupying a given household unit) by density and period of construction, as well as headship rates (i.e. the age of the household maintainers) by sub-geography. Pupil yield (i.e. the number of school- age children of the board occupying a given household unit) and pupil yield curves are derived over the fifteenyear forecast period, giving consideration to density type, declining ppu s, age of the dwelling unit and the occupancy cycle of the dwelling unit. A more detailed discussion is set out below.

57 The New Unit Pupil Yield Cycle Figure 3 translates the impact of the single detached unit occupancy trend to a conceptual representation of the pupil yield cycle for these types of dwelling units. This figure illustrates a typical yield cycle for a new single detached dwelling unit, commencing at initial occupancy of the unit. In reality, there are several variables that affect the overall pupil yield cycle. Firstly, most new communities are constructed over periods of 5 to 15 years, so that the aggregated overall pupil yield of even a community comprised entirely of single detached units will represent an amalgamation of units at different points on the pupil yield cycle. It should be noted that new communities are generally comprised of: Units constructed and occupied at different times; Development of varying densities (low, medium or high); There are particular types of units with low initial yield occupancies (e.g., adult lifestyle, recreational, granny flats, etc.). The second variable is that there are basically two pupil yield cycles that have historically affected single detached units in newer communities: the primary cycle, which occurs over the (approximate) first years of community development; and the sustainable cycle, which occurs after that point. The primary yield cycle for elementary pupil yields in new single detached units generally peaks within the first 7 to 10 years of community development, depending on the timing of occupancy of the units. Recent demographic and occupancy trends, however, suggest that the family creation process is being delayed as many families are postponing having children and also having less children (as witnessed by declining fertility rates). Also, lower mortgage interest rates over the past few years have allowed buyers to purchase homes in advance of the intention to create families. Peak yields may remain relatively constant over several years, particularly in periods of sustained economic growth. Eventually, however, the elementary yield would gradually decline until it reaches the end of the initial yield cycle and moves to the first stage of the sustainable yield cycle. The initial yield cycle of secondary pupils peaks in approximately year 12 to 15 of new community development (depending on the timing of occupancy of the units), and experiences a lower rate of decline than the elementary panel, before reaching the sustainable yield cycle. The second phase, the sustainable yield cycle for both the elementary and secondary panels appears to maintain the same peaks and valleys. However, the peak of the sustainable cycle is considerably lower than the primary peak for the community. Accordingly, the overall blended pupil yield for a single community will incorporate the combination of these factors. Pupil yields applicable to different communities will vary based on these (and other) demographic factors. Pupil generation in the re-occupancy of existing dwelling units can vary from its initial occupancy. For these reasons, an overall pupil yield generally reflects a weighting (i.e. the proportion of low, medium and high density units constructed each year) and blending of these variables. 49

58 Pupil Yield Figure 3 Conceptual Representation of the Pupil Yield Cycle for A New Single Detached Dwelling B. Peak Elementary B. Peak Secondary ELEMENTARY C. Sustainable Elementary A. Initial Elementary C. Sustainable Secondary A. Initial Secondary SECONDARY PRIMARY CYCLE SUSTAINABLE CYCLE Unit Occupied 6-10 Years Years Approximately 20 Years Approximate Age of Dwelling Years Calculation of Pupils Generated from Requirements of New Development 1. Statutorily-exempt units are removed from the gross. The resultant projection of dwelling units is known as the net units. 2. Historical enrolment by place of residence is requested from each co-terminous board. This information, along with the Census data, is used to determine apportionment applicable to the Board in each review area. 3. The pupil yields are adjusted to account for the apportionment share for the Board by density type. The yields are multiplied by the forecast of new dwelling units by type, by year, in order to derive enrolment projections from new development for the Board. Total Student Enrolment Projections The projected requirements of the existing community are added to the total requirements of new development by school and by grade, to determine total projected enrolment over the forecast period, as shown in Figure 4. This information is reviewed in detail with Board staff. The enrolments are adjusted, where necessary. 50

59 FIGURE 4 A. B. C. D. Existing Community New Development Data Testing Final Results Final Existing Community Enrolment Projections Total Board + Requirements of New Development Enrolment Projections Total Board Compare to other Source Population Trends Total Enrolment Projections by Panel, by School, by Grade Summary of Board Enrolment Projections Summaries of the total enrolment, based on the provision of full-day learning for 4- and 5- year olds (based on FDK capital projects approval for 2014) for the TCDSB, are provided in Table 5-8 and for the elementary and secondary panels. The total EDC elementary enrolment projections indicate that by the end of the 15-year forecast period, the Board will have a total enrolment of 64,957 students for an increase of 4,278 students from the 2012/13 enrolment of 60,679. The Board is expected to experience a decrease of about 935 students in the existing community, which is projected to be enhanced by an additional 5,213 pupils from new housing development, which is an overall pupil yield of On the secondary panel, TCDSB forecasts a decrease of 2,673 students in the existing community and 2,988 additional students to come from new development over the next 15 years. This results in total projected year 15 enrolment of 31,087 students on the secondary panel, increase of about 316 students from the 2012/13 enrolment. 51

60 Table 5-8 Toronto Catholic District School Board 2013 Education Development Charge Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year / 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ 2019/ 2020/ 2021/ 2022/ 2023/ 2024/ 2025/ 2026/ 2027/ Existing 60,679 60,006 59,686 59,179 59,391 59,548 59,777 59,809 59,782 59,605 59,431 59,615 59,761 59,940 59,822 59,744 Elementary Panel Requirement of New Development ,206 1,578 1,938 2,290 2,660 3,028 3,336 3,629 4,048 4,402 4,660 4,943 5,213 Total 60,679 60,423 60,485 60,385 60,970 61,485 62,066 62,469 62,810 62,941 63,060 63,664 64,162 64,600 64,765 64,957 Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year / 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ 2019/ 2020/ 2021/ 2022/ 2023/ 2024/ 2025/ 2026/ 2027/ Existing 30,771 30,174 30,120 29,290 28,738 28,351 28,038 28,279 28,509 28,798 28,568 28,373 28,008 27,962 28,005 28,098 Secondary Panel Requirement of New Development ,203 1,400 1,602 1,769 1,947 2,209 2,438 2,619 2,811 2,988 Total 30,771 30,396 30,542 29,912 29,533 29,334 29,241 29,679 30,111 30,567 30,514 30,582 30,446 30,581 30,816 31,087 S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]Enrolment Projection Summary 52

61 Chapter 6 SITE REQUIREMENTS AND VALUATION 6.1 Legislative Requirements The steps set out in section 7 of O.Reg. 20/98 for the determination of an education development charge, require the Board to...estimate the net education land cost for the elementary/secondary school sites required to provide pupil places for the new school pupils. Section (2) specifies the following as education land costs if they are incurred or proposed to be incurred by a Board: 1. Costs to acquire land or an interest in land, including a leasehold interest, to be used by the board to provide pupil accommodation. 2. Costs to provide services to the land or otherwise prepare the site so that a building or buildings may be built on the land to provide pupil accommodation. 3. Costs to prepare and distribute education development charge background studies as required under this Division. 4. Interest on money borrowed to pay for costs described in items 1 and Costs to undertake studies in connection with an acquisition referred to in item 1. Only the capital component of costs to lease land or to acquire a leasehold interest is an education land cost. Under the same section of the Act, the following are not education land costs: 1. Costs of any building to be used to provide pupil accommodation. 2. Costs that are attributable to excess land of a site that are not education land costs. (section 2 subsection 1 of O.Reg. 20/98) However, land is not excess land if it is reasonably necessary, (a) (b) to meet a legal requirement relating to the site; or to allow the facilities for pupil accommodation that the board intends to provide on the site to be located there and to provide access to those facilities. The exception to this is: (a) (b) land that has already been acquired by the board before February 1, 1998, or land in respect of which there is an agreement, entered into before February 1, 1998, under which the board is required to, or has an option to, purchase the land. 53

62 Finally, the Regulation specifies the following site sizes: Elementary schools Number of Pupils Maximum Area (acres) 1 to to to to or more 8 Secondary Schools Number of Pupils Maximum Area (acres) 1 to to to to to to or more Where school sites are situated adjacent to parkland that is available for school program usage, then the foregoing site size limitations are generally reasonable. However, municipalities may be reluctant to allow shared usage of this land. In the latter instance, Boards may require site sizes in excess of the maximum prescribed above. In some instances, a portion of the school site may be undevelopable (e.g. environmentally sensitive lands, woodlots, etc.). Changes to program offering often translate into larger school buildings footprints, increased playfield space, parking spaces, site access, etc. The EDC legislation deals with the acquisition of school sites meeting or exceeding the acreage benchmarks outlined above.

63 The following section deals with site needs related to enrolment growth in intensified development settings. The definition of education land costs includes: Costs to acquire land or an interest in land, including a leasehold interest, to be used by the Board to provide pupil accommodation; Costs to provide services to the land or prepare the site so that a building or buildings may be built on the land to provide pupil accommodation. Land is defined in the Assessment Act (R.S.O. 1990, Chapter A.31) as: Land covered with water; All trees and underwood growing upon land; All mines, minerals, gas, oil, salt quarries and fossils in and under land; All buildings, or any part of any building, and all structures, machinery and fixtures erected or placed upon, in, over, under or affixed to land; All structures and fixtures erected or placed upon, in, over, under or affixed to a highway, lane or other public communication or water, but not the rolling stock of a transportation system. In real property law, to whomsoever the soil belongs, he owns also to the sky and to the depths (Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad caelum et ad inferos). In other words, the ownership of land generally includes the ground or surface rights, the air rights (with the limitation that the height of effective (actual or reasonably potential) use of the ground occupier, the air is common property), and the subterranean rights (with the limitation of any mineral rights, gas rights, etc. owned by others). For the purposes of identifying growth-related net education land costs in an intensified development setting, the following eligible site acquisition/site development costs have been considered: 1. The acquisition or expropriation of lands adjacent to an existing school site to accommodate enrolment growth (this could include lands to accommodate facility additions, portables, additional surface parking requirements, sufficient playfield space to accommodate increased student enrolment and/or additional site access requirements/setbacks or other site conditions imposed by the municipality, as land acquisition costs); 2. As a result of growth-related demands, the costs related to the provision of alternative parking solutions that would have otherwise been incurred by the School Board if it had been in a position to acquire the additional ground-related acreage required to accommodate the parking standards established by the local municipality, as land acquisition costs; 3. As a result of growth-related demands, the cost of excavation and shoring for underground parking (where no other parking solution exists) as site development costs; 55

64 4. The costs to acquire a leasehold interest in the land, where the land consists only of air rights as described above (that is, a leasehold interest in building space required to accommodate enrolment growth, where no surface land is available to be acquired or is cost prohibitive relative to the leasehold interest cost). 5. The cost to acquire a co-terminous board school site declared surplus under O. Reg 444/98 The EDC Guidelines (Section 2.3.8) require that when the area of any of the proposed sites exceeds the site designations in this table (i.e. table above), justification as to the need for the excess land is required. Given that the Regulation standards have not been updated since 1992, a 15% premium is added to the Regulation benchmark to account for changing municipal parking standards and the impact of programs such as PCS, FDK and on-sight daycare, greater site access needs, playfield space, pens, parking requirements, and the potential to accommodate increased portables and a larger building footprint. An explanation is provided on individual Form E F and G s, where appropriate. 6.2 Site Requirements The site requirements arising from new development in each review area indicate the cumulative number of new pupil places required by Year 15 of the forecast period. Surplus pupil spaces are those that are available to meet some or all of the requirements of new development (where the permanent capacity exceeds the Year 15 enrolment expectations of the existing community), reducing the need for additional sites. Further, new sites may not be required where the Board intends to construct additions to existing facilities to meet all or a portion of the requirements of new development over the forecast period (although, in some cases the acquisition of adjacent property may be required). Even in a greenfield situation, school additions constructed to accommodate enrolment growth may require additional site development (e.g. grading, soil remediation, upgrading hydro services, removal of portables, etc.). Boards generally acquire sites a minimum of two years in advance of opening a new school facility, in order to ensure that there is sufficient time allowed for site servicing and preparation, facility design, contract tendering, building construction and the capital allocation process. The length of time required to approve development plans, acquire land for school sites, assess site preparation needs, and commence school construction can consume a decade or more, particularly where multi-use developments or redevelopment of lands are proposed. The permanent capacity of each new school to be constructed, proposed additions to meet growthrelated needs, the number of eligible pupil places to be funded, and associated land needs under the jurisdiction-wide by-law scenario is set out in Chapter Site Valuation 56 The TCDSB retained the services of the firm gsi Real Estate & Planning Advisors Inc. to undertake an analysis of the growth-related land acquisition costs proposed to be incurred (section (2) of the

65 Education Act) by the Board over the fifteen-year forecast period. Specifically the appraisers were requested to provide an opinion as to: (a) the appropriate land acreage value for school site acquisitions by the Board, for expected sites within the Board s jurisdiction through available land acquisition and through friendly or non-friendly expropriations; (b) the appropriate annual escalation factor to apply to the (current) school site value in order to sustain the likely acquisition cost over the 15-year period. The following is an excerpt from the gsi Report: The valuations provided in this study were completed for the purpose of EDC rate setting. In those instances where the required site is comprised of several specific (smaller) parcels - as is the case with the expansion lands it is important to recognize that for the purpose of EDC rate setting the value of the whole is more important than the specific value assigned to each of the parts (i.e. the smaller parcels or properties that combine to form the Board s requirements). As such, while the values contained in this report are suitable and defensible for the purpose of EDC rate setting, it is not appropriate to rely exclusively on the specific values assigned to each of the smaller parcels for the purpose of acquiring or expropriating said parcels. For those sites to be acquired in the short to mid-term, where specific lands have been identified by the Board, we have provided an estimate regarding the total cost of acquisition in order to account for costs related to landowner entitlements provided for under the Expropriations Act. Given the overriding potential for an expropriation in relation to public sector property acquisition, the estimated cost of acquisition also accounts for additional costs incurred by the Board in an effort to avoid a formal and costly expropriation (i.e. disposition incentive allowance). Depending on the type of property and quantum of market value, the estimated cost of acquisition may be 5 to 15 percent greater than the property s estimated market value. For those sites improved with a residential dwelling, we were unable to inspect the interior of the dwelling, as well as the interior of any other site improvements. Instead, we have relied on an exterior inspection (from the roadway) and property information available from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). Valuation Approach The valuations pertaining to the new school sites assume a relatively level, clear site with full municipal services available to the lot line and a site where there is sufficient soil depth to allow for construction of laterals to the building with blasting, or the use of a hoe ram or the importation of substantial amounts of fill. The values are predicated upon the Highest and Best Use of each site. A property s highest and best use is defined as: that use which is most likely to produce the greatest net return, in income or amenities, over a given period of time. Alternatively, Highest and Best Use may also be defined as the reasonable and probable use that will support the highest land value as of the effective date of appraisal. The following criteria are considered when estimating Highest and Best Use: The use must be legal and in compliance with zoning and building restrictions (or have the potential to receive and amendment or variance to the in force land use controls). 57 The use must be within the realm of probability, a likely one not speculative or conjectural.

66 A demand for such a use must exist. The use must be profitable. Our value estimates are predicated upon the concept of Market Value, which is defined as: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market as of the specific date under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests; 3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. payment is made in terms of cash in Canadian Dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. [1] [1] Canadian Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Appraisal Institute of Canada, We have applied the Direct Comparison Approach in forming our estimates of market value for the subject properties The Direct Comparison Approach provides a basis for value through a process of adjustments for differences between comparable sales and the subject property. In this method, similar land recently sold or offered for sale is analyzed and comparisons are made for variations in such factors as time, location, size, motivation, corner influence, zoning and prospective use. This is the most commonly used approach to value as it reflects typical buyer and seller reactions. The Direct Comparison Approach extracts its supporting data directly from the market. It contemplates the comparison of the subject property with comparable properties that have recently sold or are currently listed for sale and is an application of the Principal of Substitution. The analysis of completed sales, current listings and other information of properties with similar utility reflect, as of the effective date, the actions of buyers and sellers in the prevailing economic climate, and estimated market value of the subject properties. In forming our estimates of market value, we have also considered the assessed value assigned to the subject properties by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). We recognize that assessments are typically lower than current market value due to the retrospective date of assessment (being January 1, 2012) and the likely application of a discount to market value in order to avoid administratively cumbersome and costly appeals, as well as political unrest. 58

67 6.3.1 Approach In a greenfield development setting, assumed site acquisition costs underlying the calculation of the education development charge may fall into categories: 1. sites previously purchased by the Board; 2. future site acquisitions specified under option agreement between the Board and a landowner; 3. future site requirements either reserved or designated in a secondary plan, or whose location is, as yet, undetermined; 4. future site requirements where requirement to address identified need would result in friendly or non-friendly expropriations. 5. future sites, identified by a municipality as part of a secondary plan or other planning process; 6. future land purchases proposed to be incurred by a board (section (2)), where the acquisition of said land is delayed due to land servicing or the planning approvals process (with the proviso that the land be sold at a future date if it becomes clear that the affected lands will not be developed. In this case the value of the EDC funds used to acquire the land, must be returned to the EDC account. Any additional land proceeds are to be added to a board s Proceeds of Disposition account and used to fund capital expenditure needs (Section 16.1 of O. Reg 20/98). In undertaking the required appraisal report, gsi Real Estate & Planning Advisors Inc. note the following: For a new school site, the unit(s) of comparison utilized in the analysis process includes the sale price per area, sale price per square foot of buildable gross floor area (proposed or anticipated) and/or sale price per buildable dwelling unit (proposed or anticipated). Sites previously acquired by the Board are included at their original purchase price. Site purchase prices specified under option agreements and typically incorporating an annual escalation factor, have been inflated to Year 2013 dollars. The third and fourth categories, future site acquisitions, where no existing option agreement is in place or where expropriation may be needed, are costed on the basis of the research undertaken by the Board s appraiser, and more recent site acquisitions negotiations. The costs are based on valuation estimates of average acreage rates as of March, The fifth category, the acquisition of lands from a co-terminous school board, is based on the cost benchmarks outlined in the Education Act. 59

68 6.3.2 Preliminary Valuation Report Using the methodology described above, gsi Real Estate & Planning Advisors Inc. provided the following values for the identified review areas in Table 6-1. Landowners views of fair market value are, in several cases, considerably higher than an expert land valuation appraisal would reasonably suggest. While the Board has the opportunity under the legislation to revisit the quantum of the education development charge to account for higher than estimated land prices, it may only do so once every 12-month period. Constant amendments to the bylaw are both costly and time consuming. During the period, the Board continued to negotiate a complete settlement for the acquisition of one of its growth-related sites with significant additional costs being incurred. 6.4 Land Escalation over the Forecast Period The Appraiser s Report also estimates an annual land escalation rate to be applied to the acreage values in order to sustain the likely site acquisition costs over the next 5 years. In arriving at an escalation factor to be applied to the next 5-year horizon, the Appraisers considered the recent historical general economic conditions and land value trends over the past 10 years. While averages have been at approximately 8% over this time period, the Appraisers concluded that slow economic growth and uncertainties regarding the future of the market, particularly as interest rates begin to rise should be factors in the consideration of the application of an escalator. As such, the appraisers recommended an escalation factor of between 3% and 5% per annum for the purposes of projecting the land values over the five-year by-law period. The Consultants have taken these observations into consideration and applied an escalation factor of 4.25% to site acquisition needs in review areas where specific sites have not as yet been identified. As a result, an escalation rate has only been applied to 2 of the identified growth-related site needs to be acquired during the proposed 5-year by-law term. No escalation factor has been applied to any other identified growth-related site need. 60

69 TABLE 6-1 Toronto Catholic District School Board 2013 Education Development Charge 61 S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\Report\TCDSB EDC Background Study and Policies Review Report _Final2.docx

70 6.5 Site Preparation/Development Costs Site preparation/development costs are costs to provide services to the land or otherwise prepare the site so that a building or buildings may be built on the land to provide pupil accommodation. Site preparation/development costs are funded through three different sources. First, there is an expectation that the owner of the designated school site will provide: site services to the edge of the property s limit; rough grading and compaction; and a site cleared of debris; in consideration of being paid fair market value for the land. Where unserviced land is acquired by the board, the cost to provide services to the land is properly included in the education development charge. Prior to 2009, a board who qualified for pupil accommodation grants received $4.50 per square foot to provide a cost allowance for: landscaping, seeding and sodding (which includes rough grade and spreading stock-piled top soil), fencing and screening, asphalt and concrete (play areas, parking and curbs), as well as some excavation and backfilling. However, the current capital funding model requires that a school board submit a capital priorities business case for funding approval once such an initiative is announced by the Ministry. The Ministry s Leading Practices Manual for School Construction states that, Ministry funding for capital construction assumes soil conditions that would result in strip foundations or similar and other routine site costs, such as final grading, back-filling, landscaping, parking and curbs, hard and soft play areas, and on-site services. It is no longer clear if the Province is funding all the same site servicing costs as it did previously through pupil accommodation grants. The third and final source of financing site preparation/ development costs is education development charges (i.e. for eligible school boards). Through discussion with the development community, the boards and the Ministry, a list (although by no means an exhaustive list) of EDC eligible site preparation/ development costs in a greenfields situation has been determined Eligible Site Preparation/Development Costs EDC eligible site preparation/development costs in a greenfields development area include: an agent or commission fee paid to acquire a site or to assist in negotiations to acquire a site; costs to fulfill municipal requirements to properly maintain the school site prior to construction of the school facility; 62 land appraisal reports and legal fees; transportation studies related to site accessibility;

71 soils tests; environmental studies related to the condition of the school site; preliminary site plan/fit studies; stormwater management studies related to the site; archaeological studies precedent to site plan approval of the site; planning studies aimed at ensuring municipal approval of the site plan; expropriation costs; site option agreement costs; rough grading, removal of dirt and rubble, engineered fill; removal of buildings on the site; land transfer taxes. Finally, as noted above, in situations where a Board is acquiring raw land, or land on the fringe of the urban service boundary for the purposes of siting a school facility, eligible costs could additionally include: site servicing costs; temporary or permanent road access to the site; power, sanitary, storm and water services to the site; off-site services required by the municipality (e.g. sidewalks). As noted earlier in this Chapter, site preparation costs in intensified development situations could include the costs of excavation and shoring for underground parking under certain circumstances Conclusions on Site Preparation/Development Costs The Board concluded that an average of $80,150 per acre (based on the expenditure details set out below) for both elementary and secondary school sites is reasonable based on the Board s experiences over the previous and current by-law terms. This average site preparation cost per acre is a 4.75% increase over the amount applied under the 2008 by-law. 63

72 The average annual change in the StatsCan Non-Res. Price Index for Institutional Structures (Toronto Series) is 0.9%. While this average price index change is nominal, given the Board s higher than anticipated site preparation costs, it is reasonable to apply an escalator of 3% per annum. Site preparation/development costs are escalated annually over the fifteen-year forecast period. The Form Gs of the EDC Submission, set out in Chapter 7, outline the assumed cost per acre (expressed in 2013 dollars), the assumed total land costs escalated to the year of site acquisition, or the end of the proposed by-law period, whichever is sooner, the site development costs and associated financing costs for each site required to meet the needs of the net growth-related pupil places. Average Site Preparation Costs per Acre Site Acres Site Prep Costs Site Prep Costs/Acre Father Serra (Green Meadows) 5.9 $ 142, $ 24, St. Andre (Yvonne) 5.1 $ 552, $ 108, Replacement St. Edward (Botham Road) $ 2,999, $ 251, St. Kevin site expansion 1.32 $ 37, $ 28, Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati - Morningside Heights 3 $ 77, $ 25, McAsphalt secondary $ 456, $ 42, $ 4,265, $ 112, Average --> $ 80,

73 Chapter 7 --EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION The basis for the calculation of the jurisdiction-wide schedule of education development charges for the Toronto Catholic District School Board is documented in the Board s Education Development Charges Submission to the Ministry of Education and found in this Chapter. 7.1 Growth Forecast Assumptions The net education land costs and EDC calculations for the Board were based on the following forecast of net new dwelling units for the mid-2013 to mid-2028 period, as detailed in Chapter 4 of this report: RESIDENTIAL: Net New Units 153,806 Average units per annum 10,254 The forecast of non-residential (includes commercial, industrial and institutional development) building permit value over the mid-2013 to mid-2028 period, as detailed in Chapter 4 of this report, is summarized as follows: NON-RESIDENTIAL: Net Gross Floor Area (GFA) Average annual GFA 71,485,290 sq.ft. 4,765,686 sq.ft. 7.2 EDC Pupil Yields In addition, the Board s education development charge calculations were based on assumptions respecting the number of pupils generated, per dwelling unit type (with separate pupil yields applied to each type), by municipality, and by panel (elementary versus secondary) from new development, as set out in Forms E, F and G included in this Chapter and described in detail in Chapter 5 of this report. Table 7-1 sets out the EDC pupil yields utilized to determine the number of pupils generated from new development and the yields attributable to the TCDSB based on historical apportionment shares. 65

74 TABLE TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Summary of Weighted/Blended Pupil Yields -- Elementary Review Area Low Med High - Bachelor + 1 Bedroom High -- 2 Bedrooms or More Total CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE Total Summary of Weighted/Blended Pupil Yields -- Secondary Review Area Low Med High - Bachelor + 1 Bedroom High -- 2 Bedrooms or More Total CS CS CS CS Total S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]Res Non-Res Table for Ex Sum 66

75 7.3 Determination of Net Growth-Related Pupil Place Requirement The determination of the number of growth-related pupil places eligible for EDC funding involves three key steps. The analysis required to complete each of these steps was undertaken for each of the growth forecast sub-areas, or review areas, discussed in Chapter 3. Generally, the steps required to determine the number of net growth-related pupil places by review area, are as follows: 1. Determine the requirements of the existing community which is total permanent capacity (net of any leased or non-operational capacity) of all school facilities in the Board s inventory measured against the projected enrolment (i.e.,headcount enrolment for the elementary panel and ADE enrolment for the secondary panel) from the existing community at the end of the fifteen-year forecast period. This determines whether there are any surplus pupil places available and accessible for pupils generated by new development. 2. Determine the requirements of new development, which is the number of pupils generated from the dwelling units forecasted to be constructed over the forecast period and the number of pupils generated from new development in previous EDC by-law periods that continues to be temporarily accommodated in existing schools until new school sites are acquired and the schools and/or additions constructed. 3. Determine Net Growth-related Pupil Place Requirements which is the requirements of new development less the number of available pupil places in existing facilities. 4. Determine the number of new occupied housing units and associated enrolment growth generated during the 2001 to 2011 Census period, and for which the TCDSB has been unable to pursue appropriate accommodation strategy until now. It is noted that the Board may apportion the OTG capacity for recently approved projects between the requirements of the existing community and the requirements of new development, provided that the needs of the existing community are first met. The Board is also entitled to remove any OTG capacity that is not considered to be available to serve new development (e.g., leased space, closed nonoperation space, temporary holding space, etc.). Table 7-2 sets out the projected net growth-related pupil place requirements (assuming a jurisdictionwide approach to the calculation), including the determination of the requirements of the new development and the requirements of the existing community, by panel for the Toronto Catholic District School Board. 67

76 TABLE 7-2 Toronto Catholic District School Board -- Determination of Net Growth-Related Pupil Places Elementary Schools with Limited Impact from New Development Schools Impacted by Housing Growth Secondary Schools with Limited Impact on New Development Schools Impacted by Housing Growth OTG Capacity 47,352 21,923 18,213 6,057 Projected 2013/14 to 2027/28 Enrolment (Existing Community) Requirements of New Development 2013/14 to 2027/28 (Headcount) Less: Available and Accessible Pupil Places on a Review Area Basis Equals: Net Growth-Related Pupil Place (NGRPP) Requirement 34,014 25,730 21,645 6,453 1,939 3,265 1,130 1,858 13, ,265 1,858 Historical NGRPP 2001 to ,481 - # of NGRPP Included in EDC Rate 5, S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]Table Approved Capital Cost Per Pupil Paragraphs 4-10 of Section 7 of O. Reg. 20/98 set out the steps involved in moving from growth-related new school pupils to obtain the growth-related net education land costs. Generally, these steps are as follows: 1. Estimate the net education land cost for the elementary and secondary school sites required to provide new pupil places. 2. Estimate the balance of the existing EDC account, on the day prior to inception of the new EDC by-law, if any. If the balance is positive, subtract the balance from the net education land costs. If the balance is negative, add the balance (in a positive form) to the net education land costs. 3. Determine the portion of the charges related to residential development and to non-residential development if the Board intends to impose a non-residential charge. 4. Differentiate the residential development charge by unit type if the Board intends to impose a variable residential rate. Instructions setting out the methodological approach to differentiate the residential charge can be found in the Education Development Charge Guidelines (Spring 2002) prepared by the Ministry of Education. 7.5 Net Education Land Costs and Forms E, F and G 68 The total net education land costs for the Toronto Catholic District School Board including escalation of land over the term of the by-law (five years), site acquisition costs, site development costs, associated

77 financing costs and study costs, less any EDC account balances, are $268,442,739 to be recovered from 153,806 net new units. The Board does not anticipate being in a position to designate operating budget funds for the purpose of acquiring school sites. On February 14, 2013, the Toronto Catholic District School Board Trustees approved the recommendation that with respect to its School Sites Operating Budget Surplus Policy (R.10), it is not anticipated that the Toronto Catholic District School Board will realize a surplus in its non-classroom operating budget. A copy of the Board s policy is found in Appendix C of this document. In addition, the Board has not been presented with any viable alternative accommodation arrangements that would serve to reduce the charge. On February 14, 2013, the Toronto Catholic District School Board Trustees approved the recommendation that with respect to its Alternative Arrangements for School Facilities Policy (R.09), the Toronto Catholic District School Board has been, and will continue to be, open to discussion and prepared to consider joint venture developments (where necessary), among other creative and fiscally responsible solutions, to address its accommodation needs A copy of the Board s policy is found in Appendix C of this document. EDC Submission (Forms E, F and G): The following sheets detail for each elementary and secondary panel: the cumulative number of forecasted new dwelling units by type; the weighted/blended pupil yield by unit type and the number of growth-related pupil places generated by the 15-year housing forecast; the existing schools within each review area, the SFIS # and the OTG capacity for EDC purposes; the projected existing community enrolment; the cumulative requirements of new development and the determination of the number of available and surplus pupil places; the number of net growth-related pupil places (i.e. the number of eligible pupil places); comments detailing each Board s capital priorities, and the determination of the number of historical NGRPP. a description of the growth-related site acquisition needs, the number of eligible acres, the anticipated cost per acre, the site preparation costs, financing costs and total education land costs. 69

78

79 Toronto Catholic District School Board 2013 Education Development Charge 71

80 72

81 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE01 Weighted/Blended Total Net Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom , High Density - Two Bedrooms or More , A Total Gross Dwelling Units 803 1, ,481 1,242 1,085 1,251 1,200 1,331 1,104 1,120 1, , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 Christ the King B2 Our Lady of Peace (FI) B3 St. Leo B4 St. Louis B5 St. Teresa B6 St. Ambrose B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 Totals 2,362 1,781 1,724 1,666 1,602 1,561 1,539 1,516 1,504 1,462 1,456 1,456 1,480 1,491 1,507 1,514 1, C Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities C1 St. Elizabeth C2 Our Lady of Sorrows C3 Holy Angels C4 St. Mark C5 Christ the King (ROND Component) 39 C6 St. Teresa (ROND Component) 12 C7 C8 Totals 1,279 1,545 1,505 1,494 1,472 1,469 1,439 1,433 1,405 1,404 1,371 1,367 1,390 1,401 1,415 1,422 1, Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 291 Description of Growth-related Need: The TCDSB is proposing to construct a new 536 pupil place school on the Lakeshore Grounds (a 2.16 acres site leased from the City of Toronto). There will be an opportunity to accommodate an additional 51 of the 291 elementary pupils generated by new development. Underground parking costs are included as site development costs due to the size of the school site. TCDSB is also exploring options to acquire 6.9 acres of land in the northeast portion of South Etobicoke, to serve development in the Bloor Dundas development area. The NGRPP are based on 2001 to 2011 evidence of occupied housing (6,480 according to 2001 to 2011 Census of occupied dwelling units) and enrolment growth for Holy Angels and Our Lady of Sorrows equal to 355 pupil places, plus the 2013 to 2028 projected increase in the Requirements of New Development for St. Elizabeth, Our Lady of Sorrows, Holy Angels and St. Mark equal to an additional 240 pupil places, for a total of 595 additional pupil places to be accommodated as a result of enrolment growth. The acreage is based on 6.0 acres plus 15% to account for PCS, FDK and daycare, parking, pens, portables, set backs, playfield space and access for a total of 6.9 acres. Map of Review Area % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Predecessor By-law Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs Lakeshore Grounds elementary school (2.16 acre site) (site leased from City of Toronto for $1 per 1 annum in perpetuity) leased % $0 $0 $1,909,035 $0 $0 $20,035 $0 $1,889,000 New school site in NE portion of South Etobicoke to 2 serve Bloor Dundas development % $2,300,000 $15,870,000 $553,035 $0 $69,411 $0 $0 $16,492, Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE01 FORMS E, F & G

82 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE02 Weighted/Blended Total Net Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom , High Density - Two Bedrooms or More A Total Gross Dwelling Units , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 Father Serra B2 Josyf Cardinal Slipyj B3 Mother Cabrini B4 St. Maurice B5 Transfiguration B6 St. Demetrius B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 Totals 2,261 2,173 2,141 2,117 2,098 2,077 2,063 2,055 2,050 2,025 2,027 2,007 2,002 2,017 2,037 2,042 2, C Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities C1 Nativity of Our Lord (EF) C2 St. Clement C3 C4 St. Gregory (EF) C5 All Saints (EF) ,017 1,005 1,016 1,034 1,019 1,020 1,025 1,026 1,020 1, C6 St. Marcellus C7 C8 Totals 2,462 2,778 2,811 2,849 2,845 2,887 2,915 2,966 2,966 2,990 3,016 2,974 2,973 2,993 3,015 3,016 3, Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 264 Description of Growth-related Need: TCDSB is exploring options to acquire 5.75 acres of land in the central portion of Central Etobicoke, to serve development primarily along the Highway 427 corridor. The NGRPP is based on 2001 to 2011 evidence of occupied housing and enrolment growth (256 pupils at Nativity of Our Lord, St. Clement, St. Gregory and All Saints). In addition, 2013 to 2028 projected enrolment growth is projected to add an additional 264 pupils as a result of enrolment growth.therefore, total growth-related needs are 520 NGRPP. The acreage is based on 5.0 acres plus 15% for PCS, FDK and daycare pens, parking, access and additional GFA requirements, or a total of 5.75 acres. Map of Review Area 74 % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Predecessor By-law Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs 1 New site in central portion of Central Etobicoke % $2,300,000 $13,225,000 $460,863 $0 $73,404 $0 $13,759, Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE01 FORMS E, F & G

83 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE03 Weighted/Blended Total Net Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom High Density - Two Bedrooms or More A Total Gross Dwelling Units , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 Msgr John Corrigan B2 St. Angela B3 St. Benedict (EF) B4 St. Dorothy B5 St. John Vianney B6 St. Stephen B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 Totals 3,221 2,382 2,382 2,436 2,465 2,492 2,453 2,447 2,417 2,364 2,322 2,261 2,211 2,155 2,124 2,104 2, C Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities C1 Holy Child Jesus C2 St. Andrew C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Totals 1, ,034 1,064 1,069 1,100 1,078 1,065 1,033 1,008 1, Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth (153) F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 27 Description of Growth-related Need: The 180 net growth-related pupils generated from new development can be accommodated in existing facilities with future attendance boundary adjustments. Map of Review Area % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Predecessor By-law Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs 1 No growth-related needs in CE03 $ Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE01 FORMS E, F & G

84 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE04 Weighted/Blended Total Net Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom , High Density - Two Bedrooms or More , A Total Gross Dwelling Units 1, , , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 Holy Family B2 Pope Paul VI B3 Senhor Santo Cristo B4 St. Anthony B5 St. Bruno B6 St. Clare (EF) B7 St. Francis of Assisi (formerly St. Lucy site) B8 St. Helen B9 St. Josaphat (formerly Brother Edmund Rice site) B10 St. Luigi B11 St. Luke B12 St. Mary of the Angels B13 St. Pius X B14 St. Rita B15 St. Sebastian B16 St. Vincent de Paul (EF) B17 Stella Maris Totals 8,601 4,948 4,793 4,672 4,559 4,518 4,485 4,441 4,419 4,430 4,422 4,402 4,397 4,382 4,360 4,318 4, C C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities Totals Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 0 Description of Growth-related Need: While housing development in this review area is expected to generate 498 additional pupils, there is sufficient surplus capacity to accommodate this enrolment growth. Map of Review Area % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Predecessor By-law Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs 1 No growth-related needs in CE Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE01 FORMS E, F & G

85 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE05 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom High Density - Two Bedrooms or More A Total Gross Dwelling Units , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 Immaculate Conception B2 James Culnan (EF) B3 Our Lady of Victory B4 Santa Maria B5 B6 St. James B7 St. Matthew B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 Totals 2,833 2,544 2,483 2,458 2,424 2,402 2,410 2,409 2,413 2,394 2,363 2,370 2,371 2,377 2,378 2,365 2, C Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities C1 St. Bernard C2 St. John the Evangelist C3 St. Cecilia (FI) C4 St. Eugene C5 C6 C7 C8 Totals 1,753 1,934 1,948 1,980 1,976 2,037 2,053 2,099 2,135 2,157 2,168 2,150 2,150 2,155 2,154 2,143 2, Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 133 Description of Growth-related Need: TCDSB proposes an expansion of the St. John the Evangelist (existing OTG 278 pp) school site to accommodate growth. The ROND attributed to the EDC growth strategy includes St. Cecilia's FI program recognizing that there is continued potential for enrolment growth due to this program. During the 2001 to 2011 Census period, there were an additional 1,280 dwellings added to the number of occupied dwellings, and in the catchment area for Our Lady of Victory and St. Bernard. This development generated enrolment growth of 102 pupils over that same time. above, or 102 pupil places. In addition, the 2013 to 2028 projected increase in the Requirements of New Development for these schools is equal to an additional 133 pupils, or a total of 235 pupil places to be accommodated as a result of enrolment growth. The acreage is based on 1 acre per 100 pupils, plus a 15% premium for PCS, FDK and daycare pens, parking, site access and additional GFA requirements, or a total of 2.7 acres. Map of Review Area % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Predecessor By-law Expansion of St. John The Evangelist ( temporarily relocated pupils to St. Josaphat in anticipation of 1 this strategy) % $3,853,684 $10,414,581 $216,605 $0 $13,192 $21,274 $0 $10,623, Notes: 1. Costs Land Costs S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE05 FORMS E, F & G 77

86 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE06 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom High Density - Two Bedrooms or More , A Total Gross Dwelling Units , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 Blessed Margherita of Citta Castello B2 St. Andre (December 2013) B3 St. Augustine of Canterbury B4 St. Charles Garnier B5 St. Conrad B6 St. Francis de Sales B7 St. Gerard Majella (scheduled to close) B8 St. Jane Frances B9 St. Martha B10 St. Philip Neri (scheduled to close) B11 St. Roch B12 St. Wilfrid B13 Venerable John Merlini B14 B15 B16 B17 Totals 5,213 5,019 4,984 4,949 4,889 4,872 4,907 4,973 5,023 5,051 5,034 5,030 5,091 5,122 5,175 5,191 5, C Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities C1 St. Jerome C2 St. Raphael C3 C4 C5 C6 St. Jude C7 St. Simon C8 Totals 1,763 2,135 2,096 2,077 2,010 2,011 2,015 2,026 2,002 2,008 1,987 2,005 2,029 2,042 2,063 2,069 2, Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 489 Description of Growth-related Need: The TCDSB is proposing the construction of a new 425 pupil place elementary school east of Keele Street. The net education land costs and EDC eligible acres are based on a 5.0 acre site with a 15% premium. for PCS, FDK and daycare parking, site access and pens, or a total of 5.75 acres. The NGRPP is based on 321 ROND for St. Jerome and St. Raphael, based on 2013 to 2028 projected enrolment growth, plus evidence of historical dwelling unit and enrolment growth at St. Conjrad, St. Jerome and St. Raphael (980 new units and 137 additional pupils for the 2001 to 2011 period), for a total of 458 NGRPP. Map of Review Area 78 TCDSB is also proposing to construct a replacement St. Simon school on TDSB's former Melody site (3.5 acres). The NGRPP total is 237, or 43.6% of the 544 pp replacement school. The number of growth-related pupils is made up of 2001 to 2011 occupied housing and enrolment growth at St. Simon (69 pupil places) plus the 2013 to 2028 ROND of 168 pp. The acreage is based on 43.6% of 3.5 acres, or 1.52 acres. Cost has already been included in EDC account reconciliation. % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Predecessor By-law Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs New elementary school to serve Downsview and 1 York University south development % $1,750,000 $10,062,500 $460,863 $2,327,925 $105,941 $1,735,395 $14,692, St. Simon (included in EDC account reconciliation) 4 5 Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE05 FORMS E, F & G

87 Review Area: CE07 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached Medium Density - Row Housing, etc , High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 3,825 3,304 2,033 1, ,462 1,630 2,074 1,572 1,833 2,314 1,514 2, , High Density - Two Bedrooms or More 3,131 2,248 1, ,043 1,010 1, ,061 1,045 1,421 1, , A Total Gross Dwelling Units 7,104 5,579 3,424 2,119 1,375 1,679 1,606 2,918 3,042 3,729 2,932 3,269 3,656 3,701 4, , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 St. Mary B2 St. Michael's Choir Jr. (EF) B3 St. Raymond B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 Totals 1, C Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities C1 Our Lady of Lourdes C2 St. Michael C3 St. Paul C4 Our Lady of Perpetual Help C5 C6 C7 C8 Totals 1,477 1,395 1,400 1,443 1,469 1,557 1,619 1,676 1,754 1,821 1,866 1,922 1,976 2,016 2,036 2,042 2, Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth D Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 367 Description of Growth-related Need: Note: The determination of ROND is exclusive of development applications that are subject to the Railway Lands agreement. TCDSB expects to acquire a new school site in the West Donlands development area. The NGRPP are based on 2001 to 2011 occupied housing and enrolment growth for Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Perpetual Help (3,980 new units and 267 new pupils). In addition, the 2013 to 2028 ROND equates to 367 additional pupil places, for a total of 634 NGRPP. Map of Review Area The EDC eligible acreage is based on 6 acres for a 550 pp school, with an 15% premium for PCS, FDK and daycare parking, site access and pen space, or a total of 6.9 acres. % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Predecessor By-law Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs 1 New school site in West Donlands designated % $5,300,000 $36,570,000 $553,035 $0 $0 $0 $37,123, Notes: 1. X:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G

88 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE08 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached , Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom , High Density - Two Bedrooms or More , A Total Gross Dwelling Units 1,118 1, ,146 1,150 1,250 1,211 1,266 1,000 1,191 1,161 1,531 1,443 1, , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 D'Arcy McGee (EF) B2 Holy Rosary B3 St. Alphonsus B4 St. Charles B5 St. John Bosco B6 St. Nicholas of Bari B7 St. Thomas Aquinas B8 St. Francis Xavier B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 Totals 4,047 3,171 3,055 2,965 2,912 2,901 2,897 2,900 2,882 2,847 2,854 2,839 2,868 2,892 2,906 2,907 2, C Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities C1 Blessed Sacrament (EF) C2 St. Margaret (EF) C3 St. Monica C4 170 C5 Our Lady of the Assumption C6 Sts Cosmas and Damian C7 Regina Mundi C8 St. Fidelis Totals 2,448 3,211 3,192 3,161 3,164 3,160 3,189 3,206 3,204 3,218 3,221 3,230 3,263 3,291 3,310 3,310 3, Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 281 Description of Growth-related Need: TCDSB is looking to acquire a new elementary school site to serve long term development along the Yonge Street corridor. The EDC eligible site needs are based on the assumption of the acquisition of an existing school site of 7.8 acres. The EDC eligible portion is based on a 425 pp school, 89.2% of which is an EDC eligible cost. The determination of NGRPP is based on 2013 to 2028 ROND of 170 pp plus 209 pupil places resulting from occupied housing(i.e. 860 additional dwelling units) and enrolment growth at Blessed Sacrament and St. Margaret. The per acre site cost is based on the Regulation benchmarks for acquisition of a school site from a co-terminous board. The Lawrence Heights secondary plan will generate the need for a new elementary school site for the TCDSB. The EDC eligible site size is based on 112 ROND for the 2013 to 2028 period plus 261 pupils related to occupied housing and enrolment growth for Our Lady of the Assumption, St. Charles and Sts. Cosmos and Damian (on the basis of 715 new dwelling units added between 2001 and 2011), for a total of 373 NGRPP. Site size is 5.0 acres plus 15% premium (5.75 acres x 87.8% eligible growth-related share) for PCS, FDK, and daycare, parking, pens, site access to accommodate a 425 pp school facility. Map of Review Area 80 % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Predecessor By-law Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs 1 Yonge corridor south of Hwy 401 site % $2,431,364 $16,911,996 $557,505 $0 $107,318 $0 $17,576,818 2 $0 3 New Lawrence Heights elementary school % $3,000,000 $15,139,412 $404,475 $0 $261,209 $2,374,720 $18,179, Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G

89 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE09 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom , High Density - Two Bedrooms or More , A Total Gross Dwelling Units , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 Totals C Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities C1 St. Norbert C2 St. Robert C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Totals Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 234 Description of Growth-related Need: The Board is proposing to expand the existing St. Norbert school site to accommodate enrolment growth. The total NGRPP is based on 2001 to 2011 occupied housing and enrolment growth at St. Norbert and St. Robert (1,185 pupils and enrolment growth of 125 pupils between 2001 and 2011), for a total of 359 NGRPP. The addiitonal land to accommodate growth is based on Regulation size sizes of 1 acre per 100 pupils plus 15% premium for PCS, FDK, parking, pens, site access, portables, playfileds, etc. Site size is based on the acquisiiton of 2.85 acres and 100% EDC eligibility. Map of Review Area % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Predecessor By-law Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs 1 Expansion of St. Norbert site owned % $4,485,000 $12,782,250 $228,428 $0 $189,510 $31,648 $2,107,215 $15,275, Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G

90 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE10 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached , Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom , High Density - Two Bedrooms or More A Total Gross Dwelling Units , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 Holy Name B2 Immaculate Heart of Mary B3 St. Brigid B4 St. Joachim B5 St. Maria Goretti (EF) 758 1,027 1,023 1,020 1,015 1,004 1,033 1,053 1,067 1,075 1,098 1,100 1,114 1,122 1,126 1,127 1, B6 St. John (EF) B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 Totals 3,396 2,795 2,731 2,695 2,677 2,677 2,704 2,747 2,756 2,781 2,813 2,824 2,857 2,879 2,889 2,890 2, C Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities C1 St. Denis C2 St. Joseph C3 St. Dunstan C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Totals Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 47 Description of Growth-related Need: The TCDSB is looking to acquire lands adjacent to St. John to accommodate housing and enrolment growth in the area. The NGRPP are based on 2001 to 2011 evidence of housing and enrolment growth equal to 174 NGRPP arising from 1,920 new dwelling units and 174 additional pupils at St. Denis, St. John and St. Joseph. In addition, the 2013 to 2028 preojected ROND adds 47 NGRPP, for a total of 222 NGRPP. Map of Review Area Eligible for 2.55 acres, based on 1 acre per 100 pupils plus the 15% premium. 82 % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Predecessor By-law Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs 1 Expansion of St. John site % $4,225,000 $10,786,425 $1,674,623 $0 $13,912 $0 $12,474, Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G

91 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE11 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom High Density - Two Bedrooms or More A Total Gross Dwelling Units , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 Canadian Martyrs B2 Holy Cross B3 Our Lady of Fatima (EF) B4 St. Anselm B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 Totals 1,869 1,747 1,740 1,733 1,698 1,719 1,731 1,730 1,693 1,657 1,643 1,639 1,631 1,622 1,623 1,617 1, C C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities Totals Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 0 Description of Growth-related Need: There are sufficient available and surplus pupil places to accommodate the 72 pupils projected as ROND. Map of Review Area % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Predecessor By-law Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs 1 No growth-related needs in CE11 $ Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G

92 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE12 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom , High Density - Two Bedrooms or More , A Total Gross Dwelling Units , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 St. Catherine B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 Totals C Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities C1 Annunciation (EF) C2 Our Lady of Wisdom(FI) C3 Precious Blood C4 St. Isaac Jogues C5 St. Kevin C6 C7 Blessed John XXIII Catholic School C8 St. Bonaventure (EF) Totals 2,616 2,634 2,588 2,526 2,479 2,495 2,476 2,478 2,474 2,492 2,470 2,469 2,473 2,493 2,505 2,502 2, Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth (119) F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 188 Description of Growth-related Need: Board is proposing to acquire a new school site and undertake capacity reductions/re-alignment of school boundaries in this review area. The NGRPP is based on the 2013 to 2028 net ROND of 188 pupil places, plus 360 pupil places generated by occupied housing (3,205 additional dwelling units) and enrolment growth (360 additional pupils) for the period 2001 to 2011, for a total of 549 pupil places. The EDC eligible acreage is based on a 525 pupil place facility on 6 acres of land, with a 15% premium for PCS, FDK, parking, daycare, site access, pens, portables, setbacks and playfield spaces, for a total of 6.9 acres. Map of Review Area 84 % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Predecessor By-law Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs 1 New school site in central portion of review area % $3,750,000 $25,875,000 $553,035 $0 $0 $0 $26,428, Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G

93 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE13 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 1, , High Density - Two Bedrooms or More 1,241 1, , A Total Gross Dwelling Units 2,684 2,108 1,344 1, ,255 1,738 1, ,064 1,337 1,288 1,343 1, , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 St. Edward B2 Botham Site (New St. Edward)(Open 2013) B3 Cardinal Carter Academy for the Arts B4 Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha B5 Epiphany of Our Lord B6 Holy Redeemer B7 Blessed Trinity B8 Our Lady of Guadalupe B9 St. Matthias B10 St. Gerald B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 Totals 2,535 1,583 1,586 1,595 1,636 1,672 1,707 1,763 1,804 1,833 1,849 1,843 1,866 1,889 1,908 1,918 1, C Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND ROND Sub Totals Temp. Facilities C1 St. Antoine Daniel C2 St. Paschal Baylon C3 St. Agnes C4 C5 St. Cyril (FI) C6 C7 St. Timothy (EF) C8 St. Gabriel Totals 2,038 2,553 2,548 2,575 2,590 2,632 2,645 2,688 2,724 2,760 2,739 2,774 2,795 2,816 2,845 2,854 2, Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 333 Description of Growth-related Need: TCDSB is seeking a new site on which to construct a replacement St. Cyril school, of sufficient size to accommodate Yonge corridor growth north of Park Home Ave. The NGRPP are based on 2001 to 2011 occupied housing growth equivalent to 3,260 new dwelling units and 106 pupil places, plus projected 2013 to 2028 ROND of 78 pupil places, for a total of 184 pupil places. The EDC eligible site size is based on Year 15 anticpated enrolment of 411 pupils ( ROND) at 5.0 Regulation acreage plus 15% premium for PCS, FDK, pens, parking, daycare, site access, playfields, portables and setbacks, etc., less the existing site size of 2.97 acres (5.75 acres minus 2.97 acres = 2.78 acres) to 2011 dwelling unit growth (3,305 new units) and enrolment growth at St. Antoine Daniel and St. Pascal Baylon equivalent to 381 pupil places, plus 2013 to 2028 projected ROND of 38 pupil places, or a total of 419 pupil places. The acquisition of 2.12 acres is proposed based on Year 15 total projected enrolment of 630 pupils (with some redirection of St. Pascal Baylon oversubscription) = 7.0 acres plus 15% less 4.88 existing acres = 2.12 acres. Map of Review Area The TCDSB has been negotiating the acquisition of 1.8 acres of land on the former Canadian Tire lands. The Concord Adex property is currently valued at $8.0 million per acre. The NGRPP are based on projected ROND growth for the 2013 to 2028 period of 217 pupil places, plus 2001 to 2011 evidence of housing and enrolment growth equivalent to 76 pupil places, for a total of 294 pupil places. % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Predecessor By-law Costs Land Costs 1 New St. Cyril site % $2,547,573 $7,082,253 $222,817 $0 $69,411 $0 $7,374,481 2 Expansion of St. Antoine Daniel site % $4,106,347 $8,705,456 $162,220 $0 $59,441 $986,348 $9,913,465 3 Concord Adex (Cdn Tire) site % $8,083,571 $14,550,428 $1,614,270 $0 $25,838 $1,302 $0 $16,189, Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G

94 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE14 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom High Density - Two Bedrooms or More A Total Gross Dwelling Units , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 Cardinal Leger B2 St. Agatha (FI) B3 St. Albert B4 St. Barbara B5 St. Edmund Campion B6 St. Nicholas B7 St. Rose of Lima B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 Totals 3,074 2,582 2,559 2,530 2,485 2,464 2,426 2,401 2,381 2,355 2,334 2,286 2,261 2,251 2,241 2,221 2, C Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities C1 St. Boniface C2 St. Ursula C3 St. Theresa Shrine C4 C5 C6 St. Brendan C7 St. Malachy C8 St. Martin de Porres (EF) Totals 1,784 2,047 2,026 2,034 2,035 2,048 2,095 2,109 2,122 2,133 2,111 2,076 2,053 2,044 2,035 2,016 1, Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 207 Description of Growth-related Need: TCDSB is proposing to expand the St. Boniface site to accommodate housing and enrolment growth in the SW portion of the review area. The NGRPP are based on projected 2013 to 2028 ROND of 152 pupil places as shown above. The Board is seeking to acquire 2.89 acres of land to the west of the St. Boniface site. The projected Year 15 enrolment of pupils equates to a site size of 5.75 (with the 15% premium), less the existing site size of 2.86 acre, for a net site expansion of 2.89 acres. Map of Review Area TCDSB acquired the Port Union site to serve housing and enrolment growth in the SE corner of the review area (are served by St. Brendan, St. Malachy and St. Martin de Porres). It is noted that the TCDSB expects an additional 55 ROND as a result of 2013 to 2028 houisng development. 86 % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Predecessor By-law Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs 1 Expansion of St. Boniface site owned % $4,330,677 $12,515,657 $231,634 $0 $149,686 $0 $12,896, Port Union site (included in EDC account analysis) 4 5 Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G

95 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE15 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom High Density - Two Bedrooms or More , A Total Gross Dwelling Units , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 Totals C Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities C1 St. Lawrence C2 St. Richard (EF) C3 St. Thomas More C4 St. Victor C5 C6 C7 C8 Totals 1,451 1,506 1,527 1,565 1,600 1,617 1,645 1,652 1,655 1,645 1,627 1,629 1,631 1,622 1,617 1,605 1, Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 131 Description of Growth-related Need: TCDSB is looking to acquire an elementary school site to serve housing and enrolment growth in the Scarborough Town Centre development area. The NGRPP are based on 2001 to 2011 occupied housing and enrolment growth equivalent to 210 pupil places, plus the projected ROND of 131 pupil places for the period 2013 to 2028 (as shown in Section C above), for a total of 341 additional pupil places. The EDC eligible acreage is based on a 425 pp. school, 80.2% eligibility and 5.0 acres with a 15% premium for PCS, FDK, daycare, site access, parking and pens. Map of Review Area % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Predecessor By-law Costs Land Costs New site to serve Scarborough Town Centre 1 development % $3,750,000 $17,300,735 $1,839,774 $0 $21,479 $0 $19,161, Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G

96 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE16 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom High Density - Two Bedrooms or More , A Total Gross Dwelling Units , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 Francis Liberman Jr B2 Holy Spirit B3 Our Lady of Grace (EF) B4 Prince of Peace B5 St. Aidan B6 St. Bartholomew B7 St. Henry B8 St. Ignatius of Loyola B9 St. Marguerite Bourgeoys B10 St. Maximilian Kolbe B11 St. Rene Goupil B12 St. Sylvester B13 The Divine Infant B14 B15 B16 B17 Totals 3,280 2,531 2,532 2,498 2,448 2,459 2,456 2,420 2,380 2,362 2,326 2,302 2,272 2,260 2,247 2,227 2, C C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 0 Description of Growth-related Need: The 127 additional pupil places attributable to 2013 to 2028 housing growth can be accommodated within the surplus and available capacity. Therefore, there are no growth-related needs at this time. Map of Review Area 88 % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Predecessor By-law Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs 1 No growth-related needs in CE16 $ Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G

97 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE17 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom High Density - Two Bedrooms or More A Total Gross Dwelling Units , Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 Sacred Heart B2 St. Barnabas B3 St. Columba B4 St. Dominic Savio B5 St. Elizabeth Seton B6 St. Florence B7 St. Gabriel Lalemant B8 St. Jean de Brebeuf B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 Totals 2,518 1,982 1,951 1,918 1,863 1,836 1,802 1,754 1,705 1,667 1,634 1,624 1,612 1,590 1,581 1,567 1, C C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 0 Description of Growth-related Need: There is sufficient available and surplus capacity to accommodate the 108 ROND arising from 2013 to 2028 proposed housing development. Map of Review Area % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Predecessor By-law Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs 1 No growth-related needs in CE17 $ Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G

98 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CE18 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Elementary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached Medium Density - Row Housing, etc High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom High Density - Two Bedrooms or More A Total Gross Dwelling Units Requirements of Existing Community: B Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities B1 Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati (Open 2013) B2 St. Bede B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 C C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Totals Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 15 Number of Housing Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 ROND Temp. Facilities Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas D (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 0 Description of Growth-related Need: Map of Review Area 90 % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Predecessor By-law Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Land Costs 1 No growth-related needs in CE18 $ Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G

99 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CS01 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Secondary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached , Medium Density - Row Housing, etc , High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom , , High Density - Two Bedrooms or More , A Total Gross Dwelling Units 871 1,248 1,364 1,657 1,589 1,661 1,706 1,650 1,572 1,420 1,467 1, ,164 1, , Requirements of Existing Community: Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Number of B From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Temp. Facilities B1 Bishop Allen Academy (FI, EF) 717 1,497 1,490 1,502 1,514 1,543 1,542 1,564 1,558 1,568 1,587 1,521 1,500 1,443 1,423 1,465 1, B2 Don Bosco B3 Father Henry Carr (formerly Marian Academy Site) ,055 1,060 1,111 1,089 1,086 1,069 1, B4 Michael Power/St Joseph (EF) 1,644 2,062 2,010 1,985 1,951 1,918 1,911 1,898 1,916 1,899 1,973 1,964 1,930 1,908 1,848 1,835 1,870 6 B5 Monsignor Percy Johnson (EF) 909 1, ,007 1,045 1,091 1,094 1,101 1,102 1,105 1,085 1,065 1,035 1,021 0 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 Totals 4,944 6,068 5,897 5,882 5,823 5,817 5,902 5,970 6,112 6,131 6,247 6,217 6,096 6,018 5,882 5,837 5, Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by Housing OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Number of C Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Temp. Facilities C1 Father John Redmond C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Totals 999 1,105 1,078 1,078 1, Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth D Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth (157) F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 204 Description of Growth-related Need: The 192 net growth-related pupil places is partially allocated to Father John Redmond, which has previously been funded from the EDC account, therefore there are no additional growth-related site needs at this time. Map of Review Area % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Predecessor Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs By-law Costs Land Costs 1 Father John Redmond (previously funded from EDCs) $ Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G

100 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CS02 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Secondary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached , Medium Density - Row Housing, etc , High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 5,101 4,590 2,938 1,931 1,709 2,226 1,783 2,921 2,997 2,983 2,981 2,819 3,648 2,708 2, , High Density - Two Bedrooms or More 4,293 2,964 1,889 1,665 1,363 1,164 1,564 1,605 1,641 1,659 1,437 1,348 1,545 1,787 1, , A Total Gross Dwelling Units 10,152 8,261 5,433 4,020 3,573 3,967 4,087 5,306 5,411 5,294 5,084 4,825 5,777 5,521 5, , Requirements of Existing Community: Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Number of B From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Temp. Facilities B1 Archbishop Romero B2 Bishop Marrocco/Thomas Merton B3 Chaminade College (M) B4 Loretto Abbey (EF) (F) B5 Loretto College (F) (formerly R. W. Scott site) B6 Marshall McLuhan (EF) 969 1,068 1,065 1,054 1,059 1,061 1,014 1,017 1,003 1,010 1, ,002 0 B7 Monsignor Fraser College ( Isabella Campus) B8 Monsignor Fraser College (Orientation Centre) B9 Monsignor Fraser College (Alternative Campus) B10 Neil McNeil (M) B11 Notre Dame (F) B12 St. Michael Choir (EF) (M) B13 St. Patrick B14 B15 B16 Totals 5,868 7,817 7,778 7,770 7,552 7,198 7,007 6,934 6,948 7,015 7,036 6,950 6,963 6,951 7,036 7,087 7, Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by Housing OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Number of C Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Temp. Facilities C1 Dante Alighieri 651 1,188 1,136 1,171 1,147 1,185 1,161 1,137 1,182 1,189 1,209 1,170 1,128 1,111 1,105 1,102 1, C2 St. Joseph College (F) C3 St. Mary C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Totals 2,079 2,777 2,715 2,700 2,574 2,537 2,426 2,331 2,369 2,375 2,403 2,360 2,362 2,379 2,418 2,420 2,426 Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth D Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 663 Description of Growth-related Need: Dante Alighieri is proposed for redevelopment/replacement school construction to accommodate 437 of the 663 net growth-related pupil places, plus 2001 to 2011 housing growth of 715 units and enrolment growth of 115 pupils. The Board's net education land costs reflect the construction of a 1,300 pp secondary school for a total of 552 additional NGRPP plus existing community enrolment of 1,115 pupils. The EDC eligible acres are based on the Regulation standard of 1.2 acres per 100 pupils, or 5.52 x 1.2 = 6.62 acres Map of Review Area A waterfront secondary school is proposed to accommodate 226 of the 663 net growth-related pupil places. This would be in addition to the 14,300 units constructed within the Railway Lands and exempted from the payment of EDCs. The TCDSB net education land costs are based on 2.71 acres (226/1,000 pupil place secondary school, or 22.6% of a 12 acre site as prescribed in O.Reg 20/98). In the event the Board is not able to secure a ground surface site to construct a secondary school, then the Board would seek to acquire leased facilities. The Board's appraisers have determined a cost of $25.00 PSF 'net rent' ($31.50 per sq ft NPV for a 20 year lease) x 130,000 sq. ft., with a 20 year lease at a cost of $4,640,000 plus below-grade parking at $3,062,500 for 70 spaces. % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Predecessor Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs By-law Costs Land Costs 1 Dante Alighieri replacement with enrolment growth subject of on-going land assembly strategy , % $ 4,640,000 $30,735,360 $530,914 $0 $0 $3,266 $0 $31,263, Waterfront secondary school (assumed above grade leasehold of 130,000 2 sq. ft.) based on the NPV of a 20-year lease at $25.00 per sq ft , % $0 $926,396 $3,279,867 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,206, Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G

101 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CS03 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Secondary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached , Medium Density - Row Housing, etc , High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 1,374 1,604 1,257 1,913 1,346 1,445 1,687 1,279 1,171 1, , High Density - Two Bedrooms or More 1,361 1,630 1,132 1, , ,290 1,175 1,041 1, , A Total Gross Dwelling Units 3,047 3,705 2,978 3,636 2,673 2,718 3,392 2,531 2,385 2,259 2,168 2,248 2,117 1,877 1, , Requirements of Existing Community: Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Number of B From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Temp. Facilities B1 Cardinal Carter Academy for the Arts B2 Madonna (F) B3 Monsignor Fraser College (Northwest Campus - formerly Regina Pacis) B4 Senator O'Connor College (FI, EF) 1,020 1,215 1,205 1,214 1,162 1,144 1,095 1,066 1,094 1,102 1,097 1,071 1,064 1,016 1,026 1,002 1,039 0 B5 St. Basil-The-Great 984 1,248 1,200 1,235 1,232 1,216 1,192 1,156 1,162 1,181 1,219 1,199 1,194 1,162 1,157 1,173 1,173 0 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 Totals 3,660 3,938 3,873 3,981 3,880 3,837 3,750 3,657 3,681 3,714 3,765 3,711 3,708 3,611 3,611 3,615 3,652 0 Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by Housing OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Number of C Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Temp. Facilities C1 St. Joseph's Morrow Park (F) C2 James Cardinal McGuigan C3 Brebeuf College (EF)(M) 1,008 1,045 1,015 1, , ,003 1,037 1,059 1,100 1,120 1,128 1,094 1,107 1,076 1,078 0 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Totals 1,995 2,462 2,442 2,453 2,471 2,580 2,532 2,564 2,596 2,671 2,747 2,795 2,818 2,708 2,733 2,714 2,709 Total Available Pupil Spaces to Accommodate Growth D Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 669 Description of Growth-related Need: The net education land costs are based on the acquisition of an existing 4.9 acre school site from TDSB (located on SW corner of Cummer Avenue and Bayview Avenue) and additional land assembly of up to 3.1 acres, for a total of 8.0 acres. The determination of the number of EDC eligible acres is based on 669 pupils plus 704 Year 15 existing community = 1,373 total enrolment. EDC eligible acreage is determined to be (669/1,350 x 16 acres = 7.93 acres). In addition, the Board has determined the need to construct 70 underground parking spaces at a cost of $2,450,000. Map of Review Area % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Predecessor Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs By-law Costs Land Costs 1 Permanent location for St. Joseph Morrow Park P&S agreement in place , % $1,531,624 $9,894,291 $3,085,210 $0 $203,995 $12,830 $4,214,895 $17,385, Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G

102 Toronto Catholic District School Board - Forms E, F and G EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SUBMISSION 2013 Review Area: CS04 Weighted/Blended Total Yr. 15 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Secondary Total Net New Units Growth-related Projected Housing Growth 2013/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Yield 2027/28 Pupils Low Density - Singles and Semi-detached , Medium Density - Row Housing, etc , High Density - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom , High Density - Two Bedrooms or More 1, , A Total Gross Dwelling Units 1, , , , Requirements of Existing Community: Review Area Schools With Limited Impact OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Number of B From New Development Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Temp. Facilities B1 Blessed Cardinal Newman (EF) - 1,310 1,247 1,208 1,168 1,107 1,099 1,094 1,100 1,131 1,158 1,176 1,177 1,155 1,136 1,137 1, B2 Francis Libermann B3 Jean Vanier 909 1, B4 Mary Ward (EF) 861 1,124 1,139 1,149 1,102 1,112 1,099 1,076 1,078 1,089 1,072 1,059 1,061 1,039 1,038 1,029 1,027 0 B5 Monsignor Fraser College (Midland Campus) B6 Blessed Pope John Paul II (EF) 1,074 1,436 1,358 1,304 1,186 1,111 1,143 1,127 1,143 1,154 1,154 1,125 1,116 1,105 1,085 1,083 1, B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 Totals 3,741 5,973 5,737 5,636 5,336 5,183 5,204 5,144 5,157 5,235 5,245 5,194 5,173 5,102 5,048 5,041 5, Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) Review Area Schools Impacted by Housing OTG Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Number of C Growth: Capacity 2012/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /28 Temp. Facilities C1 Blessed Mother Teresa C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Totals Requirements of New Development for Limited Growth Areas (Cumulative) D Requirements of New Development for High Growth Areas (Cumulative): E Less: Available Pupil Places to Accommodate Growth 0 F Equals: Net growth-related Pupil Place Requirements 166 Description of Growth-related Need: Map of Review Area 94 % of Capacity Eligible Site Less Previously Growth-related Net Education Lands Costs Proposed Proposed Attributable Total # of EDC Cost Education Site Land Preparation Financed Total Site Year of NGRPP School to NGRPP Acres Eligible per Land Preparation Escalation Escalation from Predecessor Financing Education Description of Growth-related Site Acquisition Needs: Status Acquisition Requirements Capacity Requirements Required Acres Acre Costs Costs Costs Costs By-law Costs Land Costs 1 No Growth-related needs in CS04 $ Notes: 1. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]CE07 FORMS E, F & G

103 7.6 EDC Accounts Section 7(5) of O.Reg. 20/98 (as amended by 473/98 and O.Reg. 193/10) states that The Board shall estimate the balance of the education development charge reserve fund, if any, relating to the area in which the charges are to be imposed. The estimate shall be an estimate of the balance immediately before the day the board intends to have the by-law come into force. The Board shall adjust the net education land cost with respect to any balance estimated. If the balance is positive, the balance shall be subtracted from the cost. If the balance is negative, the balance shall be converted to a positive number and added to the cost. Table 7-3 summarizes the EDC account collections to October 2012 for the Toronto Catholic District School Board. The collections cover the period which corresponds to implementation of the EDC bylaw to the aforementioned reconciliation date and includes collections from residential and nonresidential development, as well as any proceeds from the disposition of surplus properties (i.e., to the extent that the disposed of site was previously funded through education development charges), any interest earned on the account to date, any interest expense on account deficits to date and any refunds or overpayments during this time period. TABLE 7-3 TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD REVENUE COLLECTIONS SUMMARY -- AUGUST 25, 2008 TO October 31, 2012 EDC Collection Period Total Actual Collections Plus: Proceeds from Dispositions (EDC Share) Plus: Interest Earned Less: Refunds Net Collections 1 August 25, 2008 to August 24, 2009 (incl. accrued interest) $6,516,473 $75,279 -$1,470 $6,590,282 2 August 25, 2009 to August 24, 2010 (incl. accrued interest) $6,541,053 $41,767 -$45,652 $6,537,168 3 August 25, 2010 to August 24, 2011 (incl. accrued interest) $13,134,163 $216,013 -$428,742 $12,921,435 4 August 25, 2011 to August 24, 2012 (incl. accrued interest) $11,683,974 $336,764 -$63,243 $11,957,496 5 August 25, 2012 to October 31, 2012 $1,712,789 $1,712,789 Total Remitted from City of Toronto $39,588,452 $39,588,452 Total Interest Earned $669,823 $669,823 Total Refunds -$539,106 -$539,106 Total: $39,719,169 S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Revenues\[Revenue Summary.Final.xlsx]Table 7-3 Revenue Section 7(5) of O.Reg 20/98 requires that a board estimate the EDC account collections and eligible expenditures on the day immediately before the day the board intends to have the new by-law come into force. This estimate is typically undertaken several months in advance of the implementation of the new by-law. The EDC account reconciliation undertaken herein, dates back to the original EDC bylaw in order to ensure that actual, rather than estimated revenues and expenditures have been taken into account on a go forward basis. Table 7-4 calculates the estimated EDC account balance as of May 27, 2013 which is the day before the in-force date of the proposed by-law. The estimate of revenue for the November 1, 2012 to May 27, 2013 is based on monthly collections data for this time period during

104 Table 7-4 also determines the eligible EDC expenditures for the Board and details site acquisition costs, net site preparation and development costs, study costs, and interest costs. Finally, the portion of the expenditures eligible to be funded through education development charges is shown and a cumulative EDC account balance is determined. For the TCDSB, there is an account surplus in the order of $40,641,656. It is noted that any additional costs related to these EDC eligible sites, and expended after the account reconciliation undertaken as of February, 2013, will be included in the reconciliation of the next EDC by-law. 7.7 Cash Flow Analysis and Forms H1 and H2 Table 7-5 set outs a fifteen-year cashflow analysis of the proposed capital expenditure program for school sites. Immediately following this table is the Form H1 that identifies the Residential and Non- Residential EDC as reflected in Table 7-5. The quantum of the charge is determined on the basis of a 75% / 25% residential/non-residential share, for the Board. As well, a sensitivity analysis is provided, for various non-residential ratios ranging between 0% and 40%. Where EDC collections in any given year are insufficient to cover the cost of EDC expenditures, then interim financing in the form of the issuance of long term financing for amounts over $1.0 million and short term financing for amounts less than $1.0 million has been applied. It should be noted that the Board has identified sites for acquisition within the 5-year by-law term for which negotiated acquisition costs will apply. As such, financing has not been included in the cost of these sites. The cash flow methodology is consistent with that undertaken by municipalities and is described as follows: Cash Flow Assumptions: site acquisition and costs are assumed to escalate by 4.25% where the site is greenfields in nature. If not, no escalation on site acquisition is applied. Site development costs are assumed to escalate at 3% perannum. site acquisition costs are inflated only over the term of the by-law period (five years); site development costs escalate over the full fifteen year forecast period; the Education Development Charge account accrues 1.65% interest earnings per annum; all interim financing is assumed to be undertaken on a short term basis for a five-year term at a cost of 3%; any long term financing carries a 10 year term at a cost of 4%, consistent with recent Bank of Canada prime business rates. 96

105 TABLE 7-4 TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BY-LAW EDC Account Reconciliation - Revenues less Expenditures EDC By-law Period August 25, 2008 to May 27, Estimated EDC Account Collections January 1, August 25, 2008 (including accrued interest) $ 1,464,704 Actual EDC Account Collections January 1, August 25, 2008 (including accrued interest) $ 2,257,626 Adjustment to Estimated EDC Account Collections January 1, August 25, 2008 (including accrued interest) $ 792,922 2 Collections Adjusted 2008 EDC Reserve Fund Deficit to recognize Actual EDC Account Collections January 1, August 25, 2008 $ 792,922 August 25, 2008 to August 24, 2009 (incl. accrued interest) $ 6,590,282 August 25, 2009 to August 24, 2010 (incl. accrued interest) $ 6,537,168 August 25, 2010 to August 24, 2011 (incl. accrued interest) $ 12,921,435 August 25, 2011 to August 24, 2012 (incl. accrued interest) $ 11,957,496 August 25, 2012 to October 31, 2012 $ 1,712,789 3 Adjustment for reduction in St. Andre growth share from 60.6% to 28.2% (funded in 2003 EDC submission account reconciliation) $ 1,459,326 4 Estimated EDC Account Collections November 1, May 27, 2013 $ 9,237,672 5 Total Estimated EDC Account Collections as Proposed By-law Implementation $ 51,209,089 EDC Expenditures to Date: 2013 Review Area Expenditures Former Name Year Site Acquired Site Size in acres Site Acquisition Costs Incurred - Sept to April XX, 2013 Net Site Preparation Costs Incurred - Sept to April XX, 2013 Total Costs to Date to 2013 Non- Growth Related Share of Expenditure Growth-related Share of Expenditure Funded Under a Previous EDC Bylaw Eligible to be financed from Existing EDC Reserve EDC Reserve Fund Balance CE01 Kipling/Lakeshore Elementary Lakeshore Grounds 2.16 $ 20,035 $ 20, % 100.0% $ - $ 20,035 $ 51,189,054 CE02 Father Serra (former Green Meadows (TDSB) Father Serra $ 96,147 $ 44,445 $ 140, % 100.0% $ 5,001,482 $ 140,592 $ 51,048,462 CE05 St. John the Evangelist $ 21,274 $ 21, % 100.0% $ 21,274 $ 51,027,188 CE06 St. Andre (former Yvonne PS (TDSB)) Yvonne PS $ 585,281 $ 585, % 28.2% $ 1,270,153 $ 165,049 $ 50,862,138 St. Simon (former CE06 Melody PS (TDSB) Melody PS $ 3,402,068 $ 8,400 $ 3,410, % 43.6% $ - $ 1,486,964 $ 49,375,174 CE09 St. Norbert Addition $ 31,648 $ 31, % 100.0% $ 31,648 $ 49,343,527 St. Kevin Site Expansion (formerly Gooderham CE12 Learning Centre (TDSB)) St. Kevin site expansion $ 137,899 $ 137, % 28.0% $ 233,701 $ 38,612 $ 49,304,915 CE13 St. Edward (Botham Road) Sheppard Ave Corridor $ 4,854,784 $ 1,628,001 $ 6,482, % 100.0% $ 23,013,744 $ 6,482,785 $ 42,822,130 CE13 Concord Adex Site $ 1,302 $ 1, % 100.0% $ 1,302 $ 42,820,828 Port Union Village CE17 (Yellow Moon Homes) Port Union $ 278,001 $ 278, % 100.0% $ 284,999 $ 278,001 $ 42,542,827 Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati (Formerly CE18 Morningside Heights) Morningside Heights $ 1,350,664 $ 9,147 $ 1,359, % 88.0% $ 1,187,996 $ 1,196,633 $ 41,346,194 CS02 Dante Alighieri $ 3,266 $ 3, % 100.0% $ 3,266 $ 41,342,928 CS03 St. Joseph Morrow Park (Blessed Trinity Option now with Bayview & Cummer (TDSB)) $ 12,830 $ 12, % 100.0% $ 12,830 $ 41,330,098 CS04 McAsphalt/Mattamy McAsphalt (Morningside Ave) $ 110,443 $ 110, % 75.2% $ 7,246,792 $ 83,064 $ 41,247,033 Study Costs $ 605,378 $ 605,378 $ 40,641,656 Totals $ 13,180,977 $ 38,238,868 $ 10,567,433 Cost of Interim Financing Estimated EDC Reserve Fund Surplus as at Proposed By-law Implementation $ 40,641,656 S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Revenues\[Revenue Summary.Final.xlsx]Table 7-4 Rev compared to Exp 97

106 Scenario Comments: Toronto Catholic District School Board TABLE 7-5 Toronto Catholic District School Board Sensitivity Analysis BOTH PANELS Cashflow Analysis for Both Panels (Total Jurisdiction) Non-res Res Non-Res Current (2013) $ Share Rate Rate Form H2 0% $1,745 $0.00 Cashflow Assumptions 5% $1,658 $0.19 Type of Development Net New Total Net Education Land Cost Differentiated Residential A. EDC Account interest earnings (per annum): 1.65% Distribution Factor 10% $1,571 $0.38 (Form B/C) Units ROND by Development Type EDC Per Unit B. L/T Debenture Rate 4.00% 15% $1,484 $0.56 C. S/T Borrowing Rate 3.00% Low Density 23,157 11,705 68% $ 137,689,417 $ 5,946 20% $1,396 $0.75 D. L/T Debenture Term (years) 10 Medium Density 12,626 2,867 17% $ 33,724,888 $ 2,671 25% $1,309 $0.94 E. S/T Borrowing Term (years) 1 High Density 28,095 2,543 15% $ 29,917,750 $ 1,065 40% $1,047 $1.50 Revenues: Previously Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Financed 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ 2019/ 2020/ 2021/ 2022/ 2023/ 2024/ 2025/ 2026/ 2027/ 2008 By-law¹ Alternative Accommodation Arrangements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 Operating Budget Surplus $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3 Assumed Debenture Financing $0 $0 $11,790,000 $8,000,000 $23,650,000 $1,850,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,700,000 $0 $15,700,000 $0 $0 $0 4 S/T Borrowing Requirement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5 Subtotal (1 through 4) $0 $0 $11,790,000 $8,000,000 $23,650,000 $1,850,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,700,000 $0 $15,700,000 $0 $0 $0 6 EDC Revenue (Residential) 1,309 per unit $21,009,450 $18,543,294 $14,482,776 $12,829,509 $11,911,900 $12,172,391 $12,432,882 $12,567,709 $12,575,563 $12,452,517 $12,553,310 $12,313,763 $12,175,009 $11,781,000 $11,530,981 7 EDC Revenue (Non-residential) 0.94 per sq.ft $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,628,323 $4,165,491 $4,165,491 $4,165,491 $4,165,491 $4,165,491 8 Subtotal EDC Revenue (6 + 7) $25,637,773 $23,171,617 $19,111,099 $17,457,832 $16,540,223 $16,800,714 $17,061,205 $17,196,032 $17,203,886 $17,080,840 $16,718,801 $16,479,254 $16,340,500 $15,946,491 $15,696,472 9 Total Revenue (5 + 8) 19,904,767 $25,637,773 $23,171,617 $30,901,099 $25,457,832 $40,190,223 $18,650,714 $17,061,205 $17,196,032 $17,203,886 $26,780,840 $16,718,801 $32,179,254 $16,340,500 $15,946,491 $15,696, ,757,374 Expenditures: 10 Site acquistion costs (escalated at 4.25% per annum for 5 years) $46,100,512 $27,066,085 $41,745,000 $21,930,456 $36,570,000 $12,390,425 $7,082,253 $0 $0 $48,036,095 $0 $32,051,408 $0 $0 $0 11 Site preparation costs (escalated at 3% per annum to date of acquisition) ² $0 $0 $5,521,842 $2,017,068 $1,244,892 $722,324 $660,353 $566,803 $282,258 $0 $0 $3,281,587 $0 $1,412,699 $4,961, Deficit Recovery $0 $0 $0 $0 13 Study Costs $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 $175, Debenture Carrying Costs $0 $0 $0 $1,453,600 $2,439,928 $5,355,759 $5,583,847 $5,583,847 $5,583,847 $5,583,847 $6,779,769 $6,779,769 $8,715,437 $7,261,837 $6,275, Short Term Borrowing Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16 Total Expenditures (10 through 15) $0 $46,275,512 $27,066,085 $47,266,842 $25,401,124 $40,254,820 $18,643,508 $13,326,453 $6,150,650 $5,866,105 $53,619,942 $6,954,769 $42,112,764 $8,715,437 $8,674,536 $11,411,602 Cashflow Analysis: 17 Revenues Minus Expenditures (9-16) -$20,637,739 -$3,894,468 -$16,365,743 $56,708 -$64,597 $7,206 $3,734,752 $11,045,382 $11,337,781 -$26,839,102 $9,764,032 -$9,933,510 $7,625,063 $7,271,955 $4,284, Opening Balance $40,641,656 $40,641,656 $20,003,917 $16,375,255 $9,669 $67,472 $2,923 $10,296 $3,806,842 $15,097,286 $26,871,246 $32,674 $9,958,352 $25,251 $7,776,544 $15,296, Sub total ( ) $40,641,656 $20,003,917 $16,109,449 $9,512 $66,377 $2,875 $10,129 $3,745,049 $14,852,224 $26,435,067 $32,144 $9,796,706 $24,841 $7,650,314 $15,048,499 $19,581, Interest Earnings (12 months on Sub-total) $0 $265,806 $157 $1,095 $47 $167 $61,793 $245,062 $436,179 $530 $161,646 $410 $126,230 $248,300 $323, Closing Balance ³ ( ) $40,641,656 $20,003,917 $16,375,255 $9,669 $67,472 $2,923 $10,296 $3,806,842 $15,097,286 $26,871,246 $32,674 $9,958,352 $25,251 $7,776,544 $15,296,800 $19,904, Previously financed from predecessor by-law Total L/T debt issued: $70,690,000 2 No escalation applied beyond the 15-year timeframe. Total short term borrowing: $0 3 Includes any EDC Account surplus/deficit accruing from the Board's existing EDC by-law. Total debenture payments (current $): $87,154,369 Residual debt payment as of end of forecast period: $19,757,374 Year in which outstanding debt is fully funded: 2034 S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013 Valued.March xlsx]FORM H1

107 Toronto Catholic District School Board Education Development Charges Submission 2013 Form H1 - EDC Calculation - Uniform Residential and Non-Residential Determination of Total Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs Total: Education Land Costs (Form G) $ 308,384,394 Add: EDC Financial Obligations (Form A2) Subtotal: Net Education Land Costs $ 308,384,394 Less: Operating Budget Savings $ - Positive EDC Account Balance $ 40,641,656 Subtotal: Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs $ 267,742,739 Add: EDC Study Costs $ 700,000 Total: Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs $ 268,442,739 Apportionment of Total Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs Total Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs to be Attributed to Non-Residential Development (Maximum 40%) 25% $ 67,110,685 Total Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs to be Attributed to Residential Development 75% $ 201,332,054 Calculation of Uniform Residential Charge Residential Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs $ 201,332,054 Net New Dwelling Units (Form C) 153,806 Uniform Residential EDC per Dwelling Unit $ 1,309 Calculation of Non-Residential Charge - Use Either Board Determined GFA or Declared Value Non-Residential Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs $ 67,110,685 Non-Exempt Board-Determined GFA (Form D) GFA Method: Non-Residential EDC per Square Foot of GFA 71,485,290 $ 0.94 S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]FORM H1 Toronto Catholic District School Board 2013 Education Development Charge 99

108 Explanation of the Cash Flow Analysis: A. Revenues Line 1 incorporates any offsetting reduction to the charge resulting from alternative accommodation arrangements the Board has entered into, or proposes to enter into. Line 2 incorporates any operating budget surplus that the Board has designated for site acquisition purposes. Line 3 incorporates the long term (ten-year term) debenture requirements. Line 4 incorporates the short term borrowing requirement. Lines 3 and 4 involve an iterative process wherein interim (debenture) financing is incorporated in order to ensure that the closing balance on Line 22 is positive in each year and that there is sufficient residual at the end of 15 years to pay off the outstanding residual debt. Line 5 subtotals lines 1 through 4. Line 6 determines the EDC revenue to be generated by residential building permits to be issued over the forecast period. Line 7 determines the EDC revenue to be generated by non-residential building permits to be issued over the forecast period. Line 8 subtotals the residential EDC revenue (Line 6) and the non-residential EDC revenue (Line 7). Line 9 totals all anticipated revenue sources (Lines 5 and 8). B. Expenditures 100 Line 10 brings forward into the calculation the annual site acquisition costs. The timing of the capital expenditures generally determines the point at which the escalation factor of 4.25% per annum is applied. However, this escalation factor, for sites to be acquired by the TCDSB is only being applied to growth-related site needs in Review Areas where specific sites have not already been identified. Line 11 incorporates the site preparation/development costs, and escalates these costs at 3% per annum. Line 12 calculates the expected recovery, if applicable, of the current deficit, distributed equally over the first 4 years of the forecast period. The intention is to clear the pre deficit prior to by-law renewal in Line 13 incorporates the study costs specified under section (2) at the beginning of each new by-law period, and over the 15-year forecast period. Line 14 calculates the debenture carrying costs where longer term financing is appropriate. A 4% interest rate is assumed over the 10 year financing period. Interest is accrued beginning in the year following the issuance of the debt. Line 15 calculates the short term borrowing costs. An interest rate of 3% has been assumed over a five year term of borrowing.

109 Line 16 calculates total anticipated expenditures by totaling Lines 10 through 15. C. Cash Flow Analysis Line 17 calculates total revenues minus total expenditures (Line 9 minus Line 16). Line 18 extracts the closing balance from the previous year and describes it as the opening balance. Line 19 calculates a sub-total of Lines 17 and 18. Line 20 accrues EDC account interest earnings at 1.65% on the sub-total (Line 20). Line 21 is the closing balance (Line 19 plus Line 20). 7.8 Non-Residential Share One of the key policy decisions to be made by the Board in advance of adopting the by-law, is the percentage of net education land costs to be recovered from residential and non-residential development (or residential only). The apportionment of net education capital costs to determine the residential education development charge per unit and the non-residential rate per square foot of gross floor area was based on the residential/non-residential share underlying the Board s existing EDC by-law (i.e., 75% residential and 25% non-residential share). However, it is noted that the determination of the EDC charge based on any assumed share non-statutory exempt residential development over the term of the by-law, and any proportionate share from non-residential (industrial, institutional and commercial) development, does not prejudice the Board s final policy decision on this matter. A sensitivity analysis outlining a range of possible residential EDC rates and comparable non-residential rates is set out in the top right-hand corner of the cashflow analysis. Non-residential shares ranging from 0% to 40% are determined for this purpose. 7.9 Education Development Charges Finally, Table 7-6 summarizes the calculation of the jurisdiction-wide residential and non-residential education development charges for the Board. 101

110 This information is consistent with the EDC submission, approval of which is required to be given by the Ministry of Education prior to consideration of by-law adoption. TABLE 7-6 TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD CALCULATION OF RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGE Total Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs (over 15- year forecast period including associated financing and study costs) $ 268,442,739 Costs Financed in the Previous 2008 By-law $ 90,354 Site Acquisition Costs $ 270,665,583 Land Escalation Costs $ 2,327,925 Site Preparation Costs $ 15,432,961 Site Preparation Escalation Costs $ 4,041,748 Debenture Interest Payments $ 14,741,241 Short Term Debt Interest Payments $ - Study Costs $ 700,000 Financial Obligations/Surplus (projected EDC Account Balance as of May 27, 2013) $ 40,641,656 Interest Earnings $ 1,870,520 Closing Account Balance 1 $ 19,904,767 Total Net New Units 153,806 Total Non-Residential, Non-Exempt Board-Determined GFA 71,485,290 Residential Education Development Charge Per Unit based on 75% of Total Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs $ 1,309 Non-Residential Education Development Charge Per Sq. Ft. of GFA based on 25% of Total Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs $ 0.94 [1] Reflects the EDC account balance in Year 15 (2027/28) which would be required to fund the residual debt requirement of $19,757,374 for the Board. S:\TCDSB 2012 EDC\EDC Submission\[TCDSB EDC Submission 2013.xlsx]Table

111 Appendix A DRAFT EDC BY-LAW PREAMBLE TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW 2013 NO. 1. Section (1) of the Education Act (the Act ) enables a district school board to pass by-laws for the imposition of education development charges against land if there is residential development in its area of jurisdiction that would increase education land costs and the residential development requires one or more of the actions identified in section (2) of the Act. 2. The Toronto Catholic District School Board (the Board ) has determined that the residential development of land to which this by-law applies increases education land costs. 3. The Board will experience enrolment growth in the areas of the City of Toronto where it has no sites for new schools or where its existing sites cannot accommodate more students without an addition for which it will require land. The only available funding source for the acquisition of land is education development charges. The Board regrets that it has no choice but to impose education development charges. The Board also regrets that it is unable to provide exemptions for affordable housing because doing so would leave the Board without sufficient funds to acquire the land it needs to accommodate enrolment growth. 4. Section (4) of the Act provides that an education development charge by-law may apply to the entire area of jurisdiction of a board or only part of it. 5. The Board has referred its estimates of the total number of new elementary and secondary pupils and its estimates of the number of elementary and secondary school sites to the Ministry of Education for approval, and such approval was given on, 2013 under section 10 of Regulation 20/ The Board has conducted a review of its education development charge policies and held a public meeting on, 2013, in accordance with section of the Act. 7. The estimated average number of secondary school pupils of the Board over the five years immediately following the day this by-law comes into force will exceed the total capacity of the Board to accommodate secondary school pupils throughout its jurisdiction on the day this by-law is passed. 1. The Board has given a copy of the education development charges background study relating to this by-law to the Minister of Education and to each school board having jurisdiction within the area to which this by-law applies in accordance with section 10 of Ont. Reg. 20/ The Board has therefore complied with conditions prescribed by section 10 of Regulation 20/98. A-1

112 3. The Board has given notice and held a public meeting on, 2013, in accordance with section (1) of the Education Act and permitted any person who attended the public meeting to make representations in respect of the proposed education development charges. 4. The Board has determined in accordance with section (3) of the Act that no additional public meeting is necessary in respect of this by-law. NOW THEREFORE THE TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Defined Terms 1. In this by-law, PART 1 - APPLICATION A-2 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Act means the Education Act, area of the by-law means the City of Toronto resulting from the amalgamation effected on January 1, 1998 under the City of Toronto Act, 1997 S.O. 1997, c.2; Board means the Toronto Catholic District School Board; development means any activity or proposed activity in respect of land that requires one or more of the actions referred to in Sections 5 and 6 of this by-law, and includes redevelopment, expansion, extension or alteration, or any two or more of them, of a use, building or structure, except interior alternations to an existing building or structure which do not intensify the use of the building; dwelling unit means a room or suite of rooms used, or designed or intended for use by one person or persons living together in which culinary and sanitary facilities are provided for the exclusive use of such person or persons, and shall include, but is not limited to, a dwelling unit or units in an apartment, group home, mobile home, duplex, triplex, semi-detached dwelling, single detached dwelling, stacked townhouse and townhouse; education development charge means charges imposed pursuant to this by-law in accordance with the Act; education land costs means costs incurred or proposed to be incurred by the Board, (i) (ii) (iii) to acquire land or an interest in land, including a leasehold interest, to be used by the Board to provide pupil accommodation; to provide services to the land or otherwise prepare the site so that a building or buildings may be built on the land to provide pupil accommodation; to prepare and distribute education development charge background studies as required under the Act;

113 (iv) as interest on money borrowed to pay for costs described in paragraphs (i) and (ii); and (h) (v) to undertake studies in connection with an acquisition referred to in paragraph (i). existing industrial building means a building used for or in connection with, (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) manufacturing, producing, processing, storing or distributing something, research or development in connection with manufacturing, producing or processing something, retail sales by a manufacturer, producer or processor of something they manufactured, produced, if the retail sales are at the site where the manufacturing, production or processing takes place, office or administrative purposes, if they are, (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (A) (B) carried out with respect to manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distributing of something, and in or attached to the building or structure used for that manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution; gross floor area means the total floor area, measured between the outside of exterior walls or between the outside of exterior walls and the centre line of party walls dividing the building from another building, of all floors above the average level of finished ground adjoining the building at its exterior walls and, for the purpose of this definition, the non-residential portion of a mixed-use building is deemed to include one-half of any area common to the residential and nonresidential portions of such mixed-use building or structure; local board means a local board as defined in the Municipal Affairs Act, other than a district school board; mixed use means land, buildings or structures used, or designed or intended for use, for a combination of non-residential and residential uses; non-residential use means lands, buildings or structures or portions thereof used, or designed or intended for all uses other than residential use, and includes, but is not limited to, an office, retail, industrial or institutional use; residential development means lands, buildings or structures developed or to be developed for residential use; residential use means lands, buildings or structures used, or designed or intended for use as a dwelling unit or units, and shall include a residential use accessory to a non-residential use and the residential component of a mixed use or of an agricultural use. 2. Unless otherwise expressly provided in this by-law, the definitions contained in the Act or the regulations under the Act shall have the same meanings in this by-law. A-3

114 In this by-law where reference is made to a statute, a section of a statute, or a regulation, such reference will be deemed to be a reference to any successor statute, section or regulation. Lands Affected 4. (a) (b) Subject to section 4(b), this by-law applies to all lands in the area of the by-law; This by-law shall not apply to lands that are owned by and are used for the purpose of: (i) a municipality or a local board thereof; (ii) (iii) (iv) a district school board; a public hospital receiving aid under the Public Hospitals Act; a publicly-funded university, community college or a college of applied arts and technology established under the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act, or a predecessor statute; (v) The Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority ("GO Transit"); (vi) a cemetery or burying ground that is exempt from taxation under section 3 of the Assessment Act; (vii) non-residential uses permitted under s. 39 of the Planning Act. A-4

115 Part II - Education Development Charges 5. (1) In accordance with the Act and this by-law, and subject to sections 9 and 10, the Board hereby imposes an education development charge against land undergoing residential development or redevelopment in the area of the by-law if the residential development or redevelopment requires any one of those actions set out in subsection (2) of the Act, namely: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment to zoning by-law under section 34 of the Planning Act; the approval of a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act; a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act applies; the approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act; a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act; (f) (g) the approval of a description under section 50 of the Condominium Act; or the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 in relation to a building or structure, where the first building permit issued in relation to a building or structure for above ground construction is issued on or after the date the by-law comes into force. (2) In respect of a particular development or redevelopment an education development charge will be collected once, but this does not prevent the application of this by-law to future development or redevelopment on the same property. 6. (1) In accordance with the Act and this by-law, and subject to sections 12 and 13 the Board hereby imposes an education development charge against land undergoing nonresidential development or redevelopment in the area of the by-law which has the effect of increasing existing gross floor area of such development if the non-residential development or redevelopment requires any one of those actions set out in subsection (2) of the Act, namely: (a) (b) (c) (d) the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment to a zoning by-law under section 34 of the Planning Act; the approval of a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act; a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act applies; the approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act; A-5

116 (e) (f) (g) a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act; the approval of a description under section 50 of the Condominium Act; or the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 in relation to a building or structure. where the first building permit issued in relation to a building or structure for above around construction is issued on or after the date the by-law comes into force. (2) In respect of a particular development or redevelopment an education development charge will be collected once, but this does not prevent the application of this by-law to future development or redevelopment on the same property. 7. Subject to the provisions of this by-law, the Board hereby designates all categories of residential development and non-residential development and all residential and nonresidential uses of land, buildings or structures as those upon which education development charges shall be imposed. Residential Education Development Charges 8. Subject to the provisions of this by-law, the Board hereby imposes an education development charge of $.00 per dwelling unit upon the designated categories of residential development and the designated residential uses of lands, buildings or structures, including a dwelling unit accessory to a non-residential use, and, in the case of a mixed-use building or structure, upon the dwelling units in the mixed-use building or structure. Exemptions from Residential Education Development Charges 9. As required by subsection (3) of the Act, an education development charge shall not be imposed with respect to: (a) (b) the enlargement of an existing dwelling unit or; the creation of one or two additional dwelling units as prescribed in section 3 of Regulation 20/98 as follows: A-6

117 NAME OF CLASS OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING Single detached dwellings Semi-detached dwellings or row dwellings Other residential buildings DESCRIPTION OF CLASS OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS Residential buildings, each of which contains a single dwelling unit, that are not attached to other buildings Residential buildings, each of which contains a single dwelling unit, that have one or two vertical walls, but no other parts, attached to other buildings A residential building not in another class of residential building described in this table MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS Two One One RESTRICTIONS The total gross floor area of the additional dwelling unit or units must be less than or equal to the gross floor area of the dwelling unit already in the building The gross floor area of the additional dwelling unit must be less than or equal to the gross floor area of the dwelling unit already in the building The gross floor area of the additional dwelling unit must be less than or equal to the gross floor area of the smallest dwelling unit already in the building 10. (1) An education development charge under section 8 shall not be imposed with respect to the replacement, on the same site, of a dwelling unit that was destroyed by fire, demolition or otherwise, or that was so damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise as to render it uninhabitable. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), education development charges shall be imposed under section 8 if the building permit for the replacement dwelling unit is issued more than 3 years after, (a) (b) the date the former dwelling unit was destroyed or became uninhabitable; or if the former dwelling unit was demolished pursuant to a demolition permit issued before the former dwelling unit was destroyed or became uninhabitable, the date the demolition permit was issued. (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), education development charges shall be imposed under section 8 against any dwelling unit or units on the same site in addition to the dwelling unit or units being replaced. The onus is on the applicant to produce evidence to the satisfaction of the Board, acting reasonably, to establish the number of dwelling units being replaced. A-7

118 (4) Subject to section 13, an education development charge shall be imposed under section 8 where a non-residential building or structure is replaced by or converted to, in whole or in part, a residential building or structure. Non-Residential Education Development Charges 11. Subject to the provisions of this by-law, the Board hereby imposes an education development charge of $ per square foot of gross floor area of non-residential development upon the designated categories of non-residential development and the designated non-residential uses of land, buildings or structures and, in the case of a mixed use building or structure, upon the non-residential uses in the mixed-use building or structure. Exemptions from Non-Residential Education Development Charges 12. As required by section of the Act, if a development includes the enlargement of a gross floor area of an existing industrial building, the amount of the education development charge that is payable in respect of the enlargement is determined in accordance with the following rules: (a) (b) if the gross floor area is enlarged by 50 per cent or less, the amount of the education development charge in respect of the enlargement is zero; If the gross floor area is enlarged by more than 50 per cent the amount of the education development charge in respect of the enlargement is the amount of the education development charge that would otherwise be payable multiplied by the fraction determined as follows: 13. (i) (ii) Determine the amount by which the enlargement exceeds 50 per cent of the gross floor area before the enlargement; Divide the amount determined under paragraph 1 by the amount of the enlargement. A-8 (a) (b) As required by section 5 of Regulation 20/98, subject to paragraphs (b) and (c), an education development charge under s. 11 shall not be imposed with respect to the replacement, on the same site, of a non-residential building that was destroyed by fire, demolition or otherwise, or that was so damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise as to render it unusable. Notwithstanding paragraph (a), an education development charge shall be imposed under section 11 against any additional gross floor area of any nonresidential development on the same site in excess of the gross floor area of the non-residential building or structure being replaced, subject to the following calculation: If the gross floor area of the non-residential part of the replacement building exceeds the gross floor area of the non-residential part of the building being replaced, the exemption applies with respect to the portion of the education development charge calculated in accordance with the following formula:

119 Exempted portion = GFA (old) x EDC GFA (new) where, "Exempted portion" means the portion of the education development charge that the board is required to exempt; "GFA (old)" means the gross floor area of the non-residential part of the building being replaced; "GFA (new)" means the gross floor area of the non-residential part of the replacement building; "EDC" means the education development charge that would be payable in the absence of the exemption; (c) The exemption in paragraph (a) does not apply if the building permit for the replacement building is issued more than 5 years after, (i) the date the former building was destroyed or became unusable; or (ii) if the former building was demolished pursuant to a demolition permit issued before the former building was destroyed or became unusable, the date the demolition permit was issued; (d) Subject to section 16, an education development charge shall be imposed under section 11 where a residential building or structure is replaced by or converted to, in whole or in part, a non-residential building or structure. 14. The education development charge to be imposed in respect of mixed use development shall be the aggregate of the amount applicable to the residential development component and the amount applicable to the non-residential development component. 15. (a) (b) Where it appears to the Board that the land values underlying the education development charge calculation are predicting higher costs than the Board is generally experiencing over a period of time sufficient to show the discrepancy with a reasonable degree of assurance, the Board shall consider a motion to study amending the By-law to reduce the charge. Where it appears to the Board that the land values underlying the education development charge calculation are predicting lower costs that the Board is generally experiencing over a period of time sufficient to show the discrepancy with a reasonable degree of assurance, the Board shall consider a motion to study amending the By-law to increase the charge. A-9

120 Credits 16. This section applies where an education development charge has previously been paid in respect of development on land and the land is being redeveloped, except where sections 9 and 10, and/or section 12 and 13 apply: (a) (b) (c) The education development charge payable in respect of the redevelopment will be calculated under this by-law; The education development charge determined under paragraph (a) will be reduced by a credit equivalent to the education development charge previously paid in respect of the land, provided that the credit shall not exceed the education development charge determined under paragraph (a); Where the redevelopment applies to part of the land the amount of the credit shall be calculated on a proportionate basis having regard to the development permissions being displaced by the new development. For example, if 10% of non-residential gross floor area of a non-residential building is being displaced by residential development through conversion, the residential education development charge on the applicable number of units will be calculated under section 8 of the by-law, and the credit will be the education development charge originally paid on the gross floor area being converted subject to the limit in paragraph (b). Payment of Education Development Charges PART III - ADMINISTRATION 17. The education development charge in respect of a development is payable to the City of Toronto on the date that the first building permit for above ground construction is issued in relation to a building or structure on land to which the education development charge applies. 18. Education development charges shall be paid by cash, by certified cheque or by bank draft. 19. The Treasurer of the Board shall establish and maintain an education development charge reserve fund in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and this By-law. Payment by Land 20. Subject to the requirements of the Act, the Board may by agreement permit an owner to provide land in lieu of the payment of all or any portion of an education development charge. In such event, the Treasurer of the Board shall advise the Treasurer of the City of Toronto of the amount of the credit to be applied to the education development charge. Collection of Unpaid Education Development Charges A In accordance with section of the Act, section 349 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25, applies with necessary modifications with respect to an education development charge or any part of it that remains unpaid after it is payable.

121 Date By-law In Force 22. This by-law shall come into force on, Date By-law Expires 23. This by-law shall expire on, 2018, unless it is repealed at an earlier date. Severability 24. Each of the provisions of this by-law are severable and if any provision hereof should for any reason be declared invalid by a court or tribunal, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Interpretation 25. Nothing in this by-law shall be construed so as to commit or require the Board to authorize or proceed with any particular capital project at any time. Short Title 26. This by-law may be cited as the Toronto Catholic District School Board Education Development Charges, 2013 By-law No.. ENACTED AND PASSED this day of, Chair Director of Education and Secretary A-11

122

123 Appendix B -- BACKGROUND DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO A REVIEW OF THE EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES POLICIES OF THE TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD The policy review document outlined herein is intended to provide the reader with an overview of the education development charge policies underlying the existing (i.e., August 2008) EDC by-law of the Toronto Catholic District School Board pursuant to Section , Division E, of the Education Act, as follows: Before passing an education development charge by-law, the board shall conduct a review of the education development charge policies of the board. Moreover, each Board is required to: 1. Ensure that adequate information is made available to the public (i.e. this document); and 2. Hold at least one public meeting, with appropriate notification of the meeting. B.1 Existing EDC By-law in the City of Toronto The Toronto Catholic District School Board adopted and implemented EDC by-laws governing the entire City of Toronto in 2001, 2003 and again in The Toronto Catholic DSB s existing by-law was adopted on August 14, 2008 with implementation of the approved charges on August 25, The Board held two public meetings (including consideration of by-law adoption) and held two stakeholder sessions as part of the 2008 EDC consultation process. In accordance with the legislation, TCDSB EDC by-law may be in effect for no more than 5 years and will expire no later than August 24, B.2 Overview of EDC Policies This section of the report provides an overview of the key education development charge policy issues that will be dealt with under the Toronto Catholic DSB s proposed EDC by-law. The Board of Trustees, after consideration of public input, will make decisions on each of these policy issues prior to passage of the new EDC by-law anticipated to occur on May 23, The policy decisions to be considered by the Board of Trustees, prior to by-law adoption, are as follows: 1. What portion of the net education land costs are to be recovered from residential and nonresidential (e.g. industrial, commercial and institutional) development? 2. Are the charges to be applied on an area-specific or jurisdiction-wide basis? B-1

124 3. Does the Board wish to exempt any residential or non-residential development? If so, how does the Board propose to fund the shortfall? 4. Does the Board wish to provide any demolition or conversion credits beyond that specified in the legislation? 5. What by-law term is proposed by the Board; five years, or something less? 6. Does the Board wish to apply surplus operating funds, if any, to reduce the charge? 7. Are there any possible accommodation arrangements with private or public sector agencies that would effectively reduce the charge? Policy discussions and decisions that are specific to the Toronto Catholic District School Board would also include: 1. Whether or not to exempt any affordable housing development within the City of Toronto 2. Whether or not to exempt a variety of land uses and developments exempted by the City of Toronto and outlined in the City of Toronto Dc By-law No Aligning by-law definitions with the City of Toronto DC by-law where appropriate B.2.1 Percentage of Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs to be Borne through EDCs Legislative Provisions: O.Reg. 20/98 section 7 paragraphs 9 (iii) and 10 (vi) restrict a board to a maximum of 100% recovery of the net growth-related education land costs from residential and non-residential development. Under the existing capital funding model, education development charges are the only revenue source available to fund growth-related site acquisition and development costs where a school board qualifies to impose education development charges. However, in deriving net growth-related education land costs, there are several impediments to full cost recovery: non-statutory exemptions granted by a school board, restrict full cost recovery; the cost to provide land for pupils generated by statutorily-exempt residential development has no funding source; there are restrictions on the number of acres of land that a board can fund through an EDC bylaw, which in turn results in less flexibility to the board in accommodating peak enrolment needs; B-2 the determination of growth-related site needs is based on On-the-Ground (OTG) capacity which is an assessment of classroom loading, which may not the functional capacity of classroom use from a program perspective.

125 All Boards with EDC by-laws in place, have calculated their EDC rates to derive 100% cost recovery of the net education land costs, however, some have reduced this level by granting at least some limited non-statutory exemptions (i.e., primarily non-residential exemptions), through negotiations with development community interests, and in response to policy positions put forth by the jurisdictional municipalities and other interested stakeholders. Considerations: One of the most significant considerations in the legislative treatment of education development charges is that there is no tax-based funding source to make up the shortfall where full cost recovery is not achieved. At the time the 2008 EDC by-law was adopted by TCDSB the Board s legal advisors were of the opinion that the granting of non-statutory exemptions during by-law adoption forces the board to absorb the loss of revenue associated with granting the exemptions. Many of the revenue sources under the existing education capital funding model are enveloped and are therefore not available to be used for purposes other than that for which they were legislatively intended. The Toronto Catholic District School Board s 2008 EDC by-law recovers net education land costs from residential development (75%) and non-residential development (25%) within the City of Toronto. That is, no areas are exempted from the charge, with the exception of the Railway Lands (see section 6 of O.Reg 20/98). Only statutorily-exempt residential uses have been exempted from the imposition of education development charges in the City of Toronto. Therefore, the existing EDC by-law is designed to recover as much of the net education land cost needs as the legislation will allow. B.2.2 Jurisdiction-wide vs. Area Municipal (or Sub-area) Charges Existing EDC By-law Provisions: The existing in force EDC by-law is applied on a City-wide uniform basis (with the exception of the Railway Lands as noted above). The rationale for this decision is primarily based on the premise that: 1. A jurisdiction-wide approach is more consistent with the way in which education services are provided by the Board; 2. A jurisdiction-wide charge affords more flexibility to the Board to meet its long-term accommodation needs; 3. Uniform application of education development charges is more congruent with the education funding model as a whole. 4. Money from an education development charges account may be used only for growth-related net education land costs attributed to or resulting from development in the area to which the education development charge by-law applies (section 16 of O.Reg 20/98). Therefore monies collected in one by-law area could not be spend outside of that by-law area and this is particularly problematic given school choice at the secondary level. B-3

126 Public Input Received with Respect to this Policy: The City of Toronto requested that the Board consider exempting affordable housing development from the education development charge proposed in The Board considered but was unable to accommodate this request as to do so would leave the Board without sufficient funds to acquire the land needed to accommodate enrolment growth. Legislative Provisions: Section sub section (4) allows for area specific EDC by-laws by providing that an education development charge by-law may apply to the entire area of jurisdiction of a board or only part of it. Further, the Education Act permits a board to have more than one EDC by-law under section subsection (1) in that If there is residential development in the area of jurisdiction of a board that would increase education land costs, the board may pass by-laws for the imposition of education development charges against land in its area of jurisdiction undergoing residential or non-residential development. Finally, section (c) of the Education Act requires that an education development charge by-law shall...designate those areas in which an education development charge shall be imposed. Considerations: Under the Regulatory framework, a board must establish a separate EDC account for each by-law that it enacts and may only use the funds to pay for growth-related net education land costs (and the other eligible land costs defined under the Act) in that area (which may comprise a region of a board as defined under O.Reg. 20/98). The entire approach outlined in the legislation, and governing the determination of education development charges, requires that the calculation of the charge, the preparation of background studies, the establishment of EDC accounts and the expenditure of those funds, etc., is to be done on an individual by-law basis. From a methodological perspective, an EDC-eligible board is required to make assumptions respecting the geographic structure of the by-law or by-laws from the onset of the calculation process. Discussions respecting the number of potential by-laws and the subdivision of the Board s jurisdictions into review areas are held with the Board at the commencement of the study process. If, as a result of the consultation process undertaken in contemplation of the adoption of an EDC by-law or by-laws, the Board chooses a different policy direction, it is usually advised by legal counsel that a new background study is required, and the calculation/public consultation process begins anew. Several of the key considerations in assessing the appropriateness of area specific versus uniform application of education development charges are as follows: B-4 The use of a uniform jurisdiction-wide EDC is consistent with the approach used to fund education costs under the Provincial funding model (i.e., the same per pupil funding throughout the Province), with a single tax rate for residential development (throughout the Province) and uniform Region-wide tax rates for non-residential development (by type), and is consistent with the approach taken by the Board to make decisions with respect to capital expenditures;

127 Uniform by-law structures are more consistent with the implementation of a board s capital program (i.e., school facilities where and when needed) and are more consistent with board philosophies of equal access to all school facilities for pupils; School attendance boundaries have, and will continue to shift over time, as boards deal with a dynamic accommodation environment and the need to make efficient use of limited capital resources, particularly given that they are dealing with ageing infrastructure, demographic shifts and continually changing curriculum and program requirements; Where the pace of housing development generates the need for a school site over a longer period of time, there is a need to temporarily house pupils in alternate accommodation; which consumes the asset lifecycle of the hosting facility, even if pupils are accommodated in portable structures; District school boards have a statutory obligation to accommodate all resident pupils and as such, pay less attention to municipal boundaries as the basis for determining by-law structure; A board must establish a separate EDC account for each by-law and may only use the funds to pay for growth-related net education land costs in that by-law area; In a situation where pupils are accommodated in a by-law area other than their place of residence, there is the potential for stranded funds and the Education Act does not address this type of circumstance. Jurisdiction-wide application of the charge assists in minimizing the risk of less-than-full cost recovery, especially where attendance boundaries and accommodation strategies change over time. Where it is determined that stranding of EDC funds is not likely to occur over the by-law term, and an area specific by-law is adopted by the board, careful monitoring would be required on an on-going basis to ensure that the board does not subsequently find itself in a position where it was unable to fully fund growth-related site needs over the longer term. Where this situation has the potential to occur, a new by-law structure should be considered by the board as soon as possible, because there is no ability to make up the funding shortfall once building permits are issued; The ability to utilize EDC funds for capital borrowing purposes under an area specific by-law scheme is limited to borrowing for cash flow purposes only (i.e., revenue shortfalls), due to the inability, under the existing legislation, to recover net education land costs sufficient to repay the borrowed area; Multiple EDC accounts under a multiple by-law approach restrict the flexibility required to match the timing and location of site needs to available revenue sources and may compromise the timing of new school construction and increase financing costs; Multiple by-laws can give consideration to different patterns and levels of development (including composition of dwelling units) in that they incorporate variable rates throughout the region. The appropriateness of utilizing area specific by-laws to reflect economic diversity B-5

128 within a jurisdiction, should, however, be measured in the context of measurable potential market or development impact; The precedent for levying uniform municipal development charges for soft services (e.g., recreation, library) is well established, and is currently used in existing DC by-laws by virtually all municipalities. As well, infill dwelling units pay the same development charge for these services as new units in the major growth areas, despite the availability of existing facilities; While today there are few area specific EDC by-laws in the Province of Ontario, those that have been adopted or proposed, reflect areas where there is little or no expectation of crossboundary attendance. B.2.3 Non-Statutory Residential Exemptions Legislative Provisions: Under the legislation, residential statutory exemptions include: The enlargement of an existing dwelling unit (s (3)(a)). The addition of one or two units to an existing residential building where the addition is within prescribed limits (s (3)(b), O.Reg. 20/98 s.3). The replacement dwelling on the same site as a dwelling unit that was destroyed (or rendered uninhabitable) by fire, demolition or otherwise, where the building permit for the replacement dwelling is issued two years or less after the later of the date on which the former dwelling unit was destroyed or became uninhabitable, or a demolition permit was issued (O.Reg. 20/98 Section (4)). In addition, Part III, s.7.1 of O.Reg. 20/98 provides that, The board shall estimate the number of new dwelling units in the area in which the charges are to be imposed for each of the 15 years immediately following the day the board intends to have the by-law come into force. The board s estimate shall include only new dwelling units in respect of which education development charges may be imposed. Accordingly, any costs related to students generated from units which are statutorily exempt (in housing intensification) are not recoverable from EDCs. Finally, an amendment to O.Reg. 20/98 enables a board to vary the EDC rates to consider differences in size (e.g. number of bedrooms, square footage) of dwelling units or occupancy (permanent or seasonal, non-family households or family households) although the latter (i.e. occupancy) could change over time. B-6 Section 7 paragraph (9) of O.Reg. 20/98 states that, the board shall determine charges on residential development subject to the following, i) the charges shall be expressed as a rate per new dwelling unit,

129 ii) the rate shall be the same throughout the area in which charges are to be imposed under the by-law,... Despite this, a board may impose different charges on different types of residential development, based on the percentage of the growth-related net education land costs to be applied to residential development that is to be funded by each type. The restrictions noted above would also apply in the case of differentiated residential EDC rates. Considerations: Some types of units may initially generate limited (if any) pupils (e.g., bungalow townhouses, small apartments, adult lifestyle, recreational units), although "need for service" is not a requirement of education development charges under Division E of the Education Act. There is precedent to levy education costs on these types of units, since residential taxpayers contribute to education costs whether or not they use education services. Further, there is no legislative ability under the Building Code Act to restrict the number of occupants in a dwelling unit either at the time of initial occupancy, or subsequent re-occupation. There would appear to be two options under the EDC legislation for dealing with variations in school age population per household, over time. However, neither solution is simple in real practice. The first alternative is to provide an exemption for a particular type of dwelling unit. However, any exempt category must be definable such that a reasonable 15-year projection can be made, and a physical description can be included in the EDC by-law, such that building officials can readily define exempt units (e.g., seniors' housing receiving Provincial assistance would be definable, whereas market housing being marketed to seniors would be very difficult to project and define, since it could be claimed by any development). Also, occupancy status could change over time. In addition, school boards deal with a variety of municipal zoning definitions within their jurisdiction and it is extremely difficult to be consistent with all municipal DC by-law implementation practices concurrently. The second alternative would be to differentiate the residential charge by type in order to establish a lower EDC rate for dwelling units that would typically be occupied by fewer school age children per household. However, the same unit type (e.g., single detached), with the same number of bedrooms, or square footage, could exhibit vastly different school age occupancies. The same difficulties prevail in trying to define a unit type that segregates various levels of school occupancy that is definable and can be easily implemented under by-law application. Finally, as noted earlier, there is no legislative ability to restrict the level of occupancy, and occupancy status could change over time. However, even where the policy decision is not to differentiate the residential charge, the projections of enrolment are usually designed to consider the lower pupil generation of these units, which is applied to the number of units in the dwelling unit forecast expected to be non-children households. Therefore, non-differentiated residential rates represent averages for all types of units which give consideration to the variation in school age population per household. To date, no board has exempted any form of non-statutory residential unit in an in-force EDC by-law. B-7

130 Existing EDC by-law Provisions: Currently, there are no by-law exemptions given for units that are marketed as adult lifestyle or for affordable housing projects. The determination of pupils generated by new development does, however, take into consideration the minimal occupancy of adult lifestyle units by school age children. 1. Under the Education Act, approximately 0.6% of the forecasted medium density dwelling units are currently estimated to be exempt from the payment of EDCs under the legislative provisions dealing with housing intensification. It is assumed that the occupancy of these intensified units is predominantly made up of non-children households. 2. Historical data regarding school age children per household, which represents an average of all household occupancies, is a significant component of the projected elementary and secondary enrolment. 3. The EDC pupil yield analysis assesses changing headship rates and uses this information to modify the future expectations of the number of school age children per household. B.2.4 Non-Statutory Non-residential Exemptions Legislative Provisions: Non-residential statutory exemptions include: land owned by, and used for the purposes of, a board or a municipality expansions to industrial buildings (gross floor area) replacement, on the same site, of a non-residential building that was destroyed by fire, demolition or otherwise, so as to render it unusable and provided that the building permit for the replacement building was issued less than 5 years after the date the building became unusable or the date the demolition permit was issued Section 7 paragraph (10) of O.Reg. 20/98 states that if charges are to be imposed on non-residential development... the charges shall be expressed as... a) a rate to be applied to the board-determined gross floor area of the development, or b) a rate to be applied to the declared value of the development. Considerations: If a board elects not to have a non-residential charge, then non-statutory non-residential exemptions is not an issue. B-8 However, there is no funding source currently available under the new funding model to absorb the cost of providing non-statutory exemptions. In addition, by-law administration and collection of the charge,

131 and the ability to treat all development applications in a fair and equitable manner, are complicated by the granting of non-statutory exemptions. A 2007 legal opinion, sought on this matter by the consultant, suggests that a school board must absorb the cost of exemptions voluntarily granted by the board to any non-statutory non-residential development (i.e., the board would not be in a position to make up the lost revenue by increasing the charge on the other non-exempt non-residential development under the legislation). Existing EDC By-law Provisions: The Toronto Catholic District School Board s existing in-force EDC by-law applies to both residential and non-residential development. The Board has the ability to revisit this policy decision for the 2013 by-law. B.2.5 Demolition and Conversion Credits Legislative Provisions: Section 4 of O.Reg 20/98 prescribes a replacement dwelling unit exemption. Section 4 states that a board shall exempt an owner with respect to the replacement, on the same site, of a dwelling unit that was destroyed by fire, demolition or otherwise, or that was so damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise as to render it uninhabitable. However, a board is not required to exempt an owner if the building permit for the replacement dwelling unit is issued more than two years after, a) the date the former dwelling unit was destroyed or became uninhabitable; or b) if the former dwelling unit was demolished pursuant to a demolition permit issued before the former dwelling unit was destroyed or became uninhabitable, the date the demolition permit was issued. The Board s EDC by-law extends the exemption period to three years instead of the required two years. Section 5 of O.Reg. 28/98 deals with exemptions for the replacement of non-residential buildings. Similar provisions apply with respect to the replacement of non-residential gross floor area (GFA), except that the credit is only applied to the extent that the amount of new floor space is equivalent to the GFA of the floor space being replaced. The grace period for the replacement of non-residential GFA is five years. There are no legislative provisions specifically dealing with conversion of use. However, the EDC Guidelines, section 4.1, states that, Board by-laws may include provisions for credits for land use conversion. Typically, this situation would arise if an EDC is paid for one type of development and shortly thereafter (the period of time defined in the board s EDC by-law), the land is rezoned and a new building permit issued for redevelopment (to an alternate land use). EDC by-laws may include provisions for providing credits in this situation to take into account the EDC amount paid on the original B-9

132 development (generally by offsetting the EDC amount payable on the redevelopment). The 2008 TCDSB EDC by-law provides a credit equal to the amount of the charge originally paid on the space that is being converted. B.2.6 % of Net Education Land Costs to be borne by Residential and Non-residential Development Legislative Provisions: Section (1) of the Education Act provides that a board may pass an EDC by-law against land in its area of jurisdiction undergoing residential or non-residential development, if residential development in the board s jurisdiction would increase education land costs. Section 7 paragraph 8 of O.Reg. 20/98 requires that, the board shall choose the percentage of the growth-related net education land cost that is to be funded by charges on residential development and the percentage, if any, that is to be funded by charges on non-residential development. The percentage that is to be funded by charges on non-residential development shall not exceed 40 percent. A board has the choice under the Education Act, of levying an EDC only on residential development (for partial or full eligible cost recovery), or levying a charge on both residential and non-residential development (up to a maximum of 40% of costs allocated to non-residential development). Under the previous DCA legislation, a charge on non-residential development (then termed commercial development) was required. Considerations: For most of the current EDC by-laws, 10-15% of net growth-related education costs were funded by nonresidential development. This percentage was specifically requested by a majority of the development organizations during the public consultation process, particularly where the quantum of the residential charge is higher than the norm. There are limited options for funding education land costs under the Province s new capital funding model. All boards eligible to impose education development charges are likely to seek full eligible cost recovery (100%) under EDCs. However, the requirement for an EDC non-residential charge is not part of the Education Act and therefore boards may elect to recover 100% of costs from residential development or up to 40% from non-residential development (with the remainder to be recovered from residential development). The major advantages of allocating 100% of net education land costs to residential development are as follows: B-10 Reduction of risk to the board in not achieving full revenue recovery, as demand for new pupil places will increase directly with the level of residential growth; non-residential floor area (or building permit declared value) is difficult to forecast over 15 years (particularly on an areaspecific basis), and a downturn in non-residential growth would leave the board with an EDC revenue shortfall (with limited available funding sources to make up the differential);

133 Simplified EDC process and by-law, eliminating the need to deal with a range of requests for exemptions, and redevelopment credits; Establishment of a more direct linkage to the need for the service (i.e., pupils generated by new residential development) and the funding of that service, similar to municipal development charges (although not legislatively required by the Education Act), although it is widely accepted by planning practitioners that employment growth leads housing growth; The difficulties in administering/collecting even a nominal non-residential charge and interpretation of by-law applicability vis-a-vis municipal DC by-law definitions of gross floor area, zoning provisions, etc. The major disadvantages of allocating 100% of net education land costs to residential development are as follows: Increases the residential charge; A downturn in residential growth due to changing economic conditions will have a negative impact on EDC cash flow and the ability to contain account deficits; Potential impact on the residential development market, due to a higher residential EDC bearing 100% of the net education land costs; May be opposed by the development community which strongly supported the 85-90% residential and 10-15% non-residential division of costs under the current EDC by-laws; The precedent of eliminating the non-residential charge in one by-law period may make it difficult to reverse the decision and have a non-residential charge in a subsequent by-law period; Eliminating the non-residential charge reduces the breadth of the board s overall EDC funding base, which may be particularly significant if there are large commercial/industrial developments in future. B.2.7 By-law Term Legislative Provisions: The Education Act permits a school board to pass an EDC by-law with a maximum term of five years (s (1)). A board with an EDC by-law in force, may pass a new EDC by-law at any time, after preparing a new education development charge study, securing the Minister of Education s approval, and undertaking the required public process (s (2)). A board may amend an EDC by-law once in each one-year period following by-law enactment, to do any of the following: B-11

134 1. Increase the amount of an education development charge that will be payable in any particular case. 2. Remove, or reduce the scope of, an exemption. 3. Extend the term of the by-law. (s (2) and subject to s (1)) A public meeting is not required for a by-law amendment; however, the board must give notice of the proposed amendment, in accordance with the regulations, and make available to the public, the EDC background study for the by-law being amended, and sufficient information to allow the public to generally understand the proposed amendment. (s ) Considerations: A five-year term provides the maximum flexibility since a board has the power to amend the by-law or pass a new by-law at an earlier point, if necessary. The level of effort required to emplace a new by-law (e.g., production of an EDC background study, involvement in an extensive consultation process with the public and liaison process with municipalities) would suggest that a longer term (maximum five years) by-law is more desirable. B.2.8 Application of Operating Surpluses to Capital Needs Legislative Provisions: The education development charge background study must include a statement from the board stating that it has reviewed its operating budget for savings that could be applied to reduce growth-related net education land costs, and the amount of any savings which it proposes to apply, if any. Considerations: The Regulation requires that this issue be addressed by the board. The use of the expression, if any, recognizes that even if there is a surplus, the board may not choose to direct it to this particular form of expenditure. The Provincial Funding Model prescribes envelopes which impact on the direction of budgetary surpluses, including the requirement that funds may not be moved from the classroom to nonclassroom category; funds generated by special education needs cannot be used for other purposes; funds generated from grants for new pupil places or facilities renewal must be used for this purpose or placed in an account for future use. Only funds generated from the School Board Administration and Governance, Transportation and School Operations grants may be directed elsewhere (and therefore could be potentially used for education land costs). B-12 The Board reviewed its existing policy and on February 14, 2013 determined that there are no surplus operating funds to offset EDC-related expenditures. A copy of the Board s policy is found in Appendix C.

135 B.2.9 Policy on Alternative Accommodation Arrangements Legislative Provisions: Information which must be included in the education development charge background study includes A statement of the board s policy concerning possible arrangements with municipalities, school boards or other persons or bodies in the public or private sector, including arrangements of a long-term or cooperative nature, which would provide accommodation for the new elementary school pupils and new secondary school pupils...without imposing education development charges or with a reduction in such charges. (section 9(1) paragraph 6 of O.Reg 20/98) For a subsequent EDC by-law period, the board is further required to provide a statement of how the policy...was implemented and, if it was not implemented, an explanation of why it was not implemented. Considerations: The legislation would appear to contemplate situations where the arrangements include consideration for both land and buildings. The impact on the Board s permanent capacity (particularly in the situation of a long-term leasing arrangement) would have to be considered as part of the needs assessment inherent in the EDC calculation. If other persons were to enter into these arrangements with school boards, they would be potentially spreading the benefit of the arrangement across all development, as opposed to a land owner entering into a services-in-lieu agreement that would provide the applicant with a credit against EDCs payable. The pupil accommodation account can be utilized to enter into long and short term lease arrangements with the private sector, or to enter into multi-use partnership agreements with other school boards, municipalities or the private sector. Section 210.1(12) of the Municipal Act permits school boards to provide limited exemptions from municipal and school taxes and education development charges in exchange for the provision of school capital facilities, under certain circumstances. The Board reviewed its existing policy and on February 14, 2013 determined that it will continue to explore accommodation arrangements which may result in accommodation efficiencies; however, at this time there are no savings under this policy to offset EDC-related expenditures. A copy of the Board s policy is found in Appendix C. B-13

136 B.3 Summary of By-law Appeals, Amendments and Complaints B.3.1 Appeals Under Section of the Education Act, any person or organization may appeal an education development charge by-law to the Ontario Municipal Board by filing with the secretary of the board that passed the by-law, a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the by-law and the reasons supporting the objection. There were no appeals of the 2008 TCDSB EDC by-law. B.3.2 Amendments Legislative Provisions: Section subsection (1) states that subject to subsection (2), a board may pass a by-law amending an education development charge by-law. Subsection (2) goes on to say that, a board may not amend an education development charge by-law so as to do any one of the following more than once in the one-year period immediately following the coming into force of the by-law or in any succeeding one year period: 1. Increase the amount of an education development charge that will be payable in any particular case. 2. Remove, or reduce the scope of, an exemption. 3. Extend the term of the by-law. Section states that A by-law amending an education development charge by-law comes into force on the fifth day after it is passed. Finally, before passing a by-law amending an education development charge by-law, the board shall, a) give notice of the proposed amendment in accordance with the regulations; and b) ensure that the following are made available to the public, B-14 (i) (ii) the education development charge background study for the by-law being amended, and sufficient information to allow the public to understand the proposed amendment.

137 No amendments have been made to the EDC by-law in place today. B.3.3 Complaints Under Section of the Education Act, an owner, the owner s agent or a board, may complain to the council of the municipality to which an education development charge is payable that, In addition, a) the amount of the education development charge was incorrectly determined; b) a credit is or is not available to be used against the education development charge, or that the amount of a credit was incorrectly determined; c) there was an error in the application of the education development charge by-law. A complaint may not be made...later than 90 days after the day the education development charge, or any part of it, is payable. No complaints have been filed to date with respect to the Toronto Catholic District School Board EDC bylaw. B-15

138

139 Appendix C-- EDC POLICIES RE OPERATING SURPLUSES AND ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION ARRANGEMENTS C.1 School Sites Operating Budget Surplus Policy Section: Real Property Sub-Section: Policy Name: School Sites Operating Budget Surplus Policy No: R.10 Date Approved: January 20, 2000 Board Meeting Background (1) Section 9(1) paragraph 8 of O. Reg 20/98 (Education Development Charges - General) provides that an education development background charge study must contain: 8. A statement from the board stating that it has reviewed its operating budget for savings that could be applied to reduce growth-related net education land costs, and the amount of any savings which it proposes to apply, if any. (2) It is therefore necessary that the review referred to in section 9(1) paragraph 8 be conducted annually as part of the process of setting the estimates. (3) Under the General Legislative Grant Regulation, only a surplus from the non-classroom part of the estimates is eligible to be used to acquire school sites, thereby reducing the growth related net education land cost and the education development charge that may be levied by the TCDSB. Policy Where there has been or it appears that there will be surplus in the non-classroom part of the estimates of the TCDSB in a fiscal year, the Board shall determine whether all, part, or none of the surplus will be designated as available for the purpose of acquiring school sites by purchase, lease or otherwise. Regulations (1) If there is, or it appears that there will be a surplus in the operating budget, the Board shall pass a motion substantially as follows: Whereas it appears that there has been or that there will be a surplus in the non-classroom part of the budget; Moved that: (i) The Board may designate an amount as available for the purpose of acquiring school sites by purchase, lease or otherwise; C-1

140 (ii) The Board s reasons for so deciding are as follows: [The Board may choose to direct some funds to the purchase of school sites or may decline to do so. Reasons for the decision should be included which indicate where the board will be directing the funds and its basic reasons for doing so. The purpose for this part of the motion is to ensure that a clear record of the board s decision and its reasons are available as part of the public record for inclusion in the education development charge background study. This is particularly necessary as evidence for the Ontario Municipal Board in the event of an appeal of the by-law.] (2) If there is no surplus, or it appears that there will not be a surplus in the operating budget, no further action is required with respect to this Policy. C-2

141 C.2 Alternative Arrangements for School Facilities Policy Section: Real Property Sub-Section: Policy Name: Alternative Arrangements for School Facilities Policy No: R.09 Date Approved: January 20, 2000 Board Meeting Background (1) A number of legislative provisions encourage school boards to consider alternate arrangements for the accommodation of elementary and secondary school pupils to the usual arrangement under which a school site is acquired and a stand-alone school is built on it. (2) Ontario Regulation 20/98 provides that the education development charge background study contain: 6. A statement of the board s policy concerning possible arrangements with municipalities, school boards or other persons or bodies in the public or private sector, including arrangements of a long-term or co-operative nature, which would provide accommodation for the new elementary school pupils and new secondary school pupils estimated under paragraph 3 of section 7, without imposing education development charges, or with a reduction in such charges. 7. If a previous education development charge background study completed by the board included a statement under paragraph 6, a statement of how the policy referred to in the statement was implemented and, if it was not implemented, an explanation of why it was not implemented. (3) Regulation 446/98 (Reserve Funds) permits a school board to utilize proceeds in the Pupil Accommodation Allocation Reserve Fund for the acquisition of school sites that are acquired as part of transactions under which the board also acquires school buildings on the school sites. (4) Section of the Municipal Act authorizes municipalities and school boards to enter into arrangements under which they can provide for exemptions from taxation for municipal and school purposes of land or a portion of it that is entirely occupied and used or intended for use for a service or function that may be provided by a school board or municipality. It also authorizes an exemption to be given from municipal and education development charges in certain circumstances. C-3

142 (5) The TCDSB recognizes that alternative arrangements can provide an opportunity to improve service delivery and peak enrolment capacity, reduce duplication of public facilities, maximize the effective use of available dollars, and reduce site size requirements. These include a variety of acquisition strategies such as forward buying, options, purchases, lease buy-back, sites exchanges and joint venture partnerships. (6) The TCDSB s record demonstrates this commitment: AGENCIES INVOLVED Humberwood Centre TCDSB(elementary school) TDSB (elementary school) City of Toronto (community centre) Library Board (library branch) Mary Ward Catholic Secondary School TCDSB (secondary school) City of Toronto (community centre) Lakeshore Grounds Campus (future school(s)/recreation TCDSB (secondary & if necessary, elementary school) centre/park campus) Humber College (Lakeshore Campus) City of Toronto (recreation centre and park) Railway Lands (future schools/park/ community centre campus) TCDSB (elementary school) TDSB (elementary school) City of Toronto (community centre and park) Port Union Village (future schools/park campus) - TCDSB (elementary school) - TDSB (elementary school) - City of Toronto (park) Policy C-4 The TCDSB will consider possible arrangements with municipalities, school boards or other persons or bodies in the public or private sector, including arrangements of a long-term or cooperative nature, which would provide accommodation for the new elementary school pupils and new secondary school pupils who are resident pupils of the Board, subject to the Regulations set out below.

143 Regulations (1) The arrangement must be cost effective and advantageous for the TCDSB compared to other possible arrangements including an acquisition of a school site and the construction of a free standing building. (2) The arrangement shall comply with any guidelines issued by the Ministry of Education and Training. (3) The TCDSB may enter into lease arrangements respecting school facilities intended to be used to accommodate peak enrolment, but shall not enter into such arrangements respecting school facilities that are necessary to accommodate long-term enrolment unless the arrangements could result in ownership at the Board s discretion. (4) The TCDSB shall retain sufficient governance authority over the facility to ensure that it is able to deliver the appropriate educational program to its pupils, and to ensure that its identity, ambience and integrity are preserved. (5) The facility shall have a separate entrance with the school name on the exterior of the school easily visible from the street. C-5