11/22/2016 - Regular Board Meeting
THAMES VALLEY DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
2016 NOVEMBER 22, 7:00 P.M.
BOARD ROOM, EDUCATION CENTRE
The Board met in regular session on 2016 November 22 in the Board Room at the Education Centre,
meeting in public session at 7:00 p.m. The following were in attendance:
TRUSTEES ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
R. Tisdale (Chair) (by phone)
J. Bennett
C. Goodall
G. Hart
P. Jaffe
B. McKinnon
Regrets:
R. Campbell
A. Morell
S. Polhill (+7:42)
A. Pucchio (-10:23)
M. Reid
P. Schuyler
J. Skinner
S. Suvajac
J. Todd
L. Elliott
V. Nielsen
J. Pratt
S. Builder
R. Culhane
M. Deman
K. Edgar
R. Kuiper
D. Macpherson
Guests:
L. Munro, Learning Supervisor
(-10:23)
B. Moore, Planning Coordinator
(-10:23)
C. Wiercinski, Planning
Administrative Assistant (-10:23)
L. Cutler, GIS Planning
Technician (-10:23)
P. McKenzie
M. Moynihan
S. Powell
K. Wilkinson
K. Bushell
B. Williams
T. Testa (-10:23)
R. Hoffman
L. Abell
D. Kettle, Capital Data
Analyst (-10:23)
N. Rayfield, Research
and Assessment
Associate (-10:23)
S. Macey, Manager
Financial Services (-10:45)
1. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair M. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 and acknowledged the traditional territory on
which the Board meeting is held.
2/3. O CANADA
The appreciation of the Board was extended to East Elgin Secondary School for their performance
and to Conductor Trevor Hiepleh for leading in the singing of O Canada and two musical selections.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda, as revised was approved on motion of Trustee G. Hart, seconded by Trustee C. Goodall
and CARRIED.
5. OFFICIAL RECORD
B. Williams, Supervisor, Corporate Services, read the following official record into the minutes:
We regret to record the death of Michelle Dick, an Educational Assistant at Aldborough Public School
on November 17, 2016.
6. RECOGNITIONS – None
7. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST - None
2016 November 22…2
8. PUBLIC INPUT - None
9. CHAIR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS - None
10. DIRECTOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS - None
11. CHAIRS’ VALEDICTORY ADDRESS
The Chair’s Valedictory Address was presented through a video highlighting the ongoing and
completed initiatives during the term of Past Chair B. McKinnon and Chair R. Tisdale.
The Chair’s Valedictory Address video is to be posted on the Board’s website.
Hello. As current and past Chairs of the Board, we are grateful to be here to thank our students,
parents, school communities, volunteers, staff and fellow Trustees for everything that has been
accomplished during our term this past year. We know too well that all of the progress and activity
undertaken at Thames Valley happens because so many of you work together to make it happen.
While the year was not without its challenges, we are happy to be able to applaud you for the many
achievements against the Multi-year Operational Plan and Strategic Priorities. The continued focus
on these priorities ensures we position our students for success and align the Thames Valley District
School Board with best-in-practice leadership.
Our new Committee structure, introduced this past year, provided the opportunity for a more
streamlined approach to moving our work forward while allowing for continued collaboration.
In particular, our four committees—Audit Committee, First Nations Advisory Committee, Special
Education Advisory Committee and Thames Valley Parent Involvement Committee —have many
accomplishments to report this year. Thank you to the community members who volunteer their time
for this Committee work and to staff who also work hard to fulfil committee mandates.
Audit Committee (text for slide)
• Oversight of internal audit for TVDSB.
• Provided support and direction to Senior Administration on confidential matters related to risk
mitigation.
• Recommended to the Board the approval of the year-end audited financial statements.
• Addressed issues with Audit Committee regulation and guidelines with the Ministry of Education.
Special Education Advisory Committee (text for slide)
Conducted a thorough review of each of the standards in the Special Education Plan
Assembled a working group that worked with the Special Education department to complete the
NEW Special Education Parent Resources on IEPs, IPRC, and the Supporting Student Success
Communication Guide
Provided input into the budget process for 2016-17 that would impact Special Education funding
Launching a survey for parents (with the Communications Department) to seek input on our
Special Education Plan.
Participated in the Passages event and the TVPIC Symposium
Thames Valley Parent Involvement Committee (text for slide)
The Thames Valley Parent Involvement Committee organized a Parent Engagement Symposium
at Montcalm Secondary School. The symposium, entitled 'Building Parent Engagement Together',
focused on building parent engagement capacity within our school communities.
TVPIC also supported a successful 'Connecting Families for Mental Health and Wellbeing' Forum
at King's University College.
2016 November 22…3
First Nations Advisory Committee
Through the support of the Ontario Ministry of Education and the Tim Horton Children’s Foundation,
ninety-five students from five school Boards in the London West region met at Camp Onondaga
Farms in St. George, Ontario for an incredible First Nations, Métis and Inuit Leadership camp
experience entitled “The Spirit Awakes”!
The “100 Years of Loss Exhibit” from the Legacy of Hope Foundation exhibited in our Central office to
provide awareness of the history of the Residential School system in Canada and to promote an
understanding of the impacts that this has had on First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples.
Educators from Thames Valley visited our three local First Nation communities and learned about
each community's distinct history, culture, language and geographic location. Representatives from
Oneida Nation of the Thames, Munsee-Delaware Nation and Chippewas of the Thames First Nation
were available at each stop to share valuable information.
The work of these Committees cannot be completed without the commitment of community members
and staff. We would like to thank all of our community members who have fulfilled time on these
Committees this year. Many of whom who have dedicated months and sometimes, years, of time to
the benefit of our students.
Thank You
Student Trustee
Hailey Goddeeris
TVPIC
Cathy Blokker
Sharon Gowdey
Dana Parsons
Colette Schouw
Lesley Stephenson
Tyler Logtenberg
Sheena Davis
FNAC
Leo Nicholas
Candy Thomas
Carolyn Doxtator
Sue Doxtator
Cathy Kechego
SEAC
Brianne Curry
Dennis Ensing
Tina Smith
Bonnie Montimy
In addition to all of the great work at the Committee level, we are pleased to recognize many
highlights from the past year, including (but is certainly not limited to!) the following:
The implementation of the GENTLE Centre which welcomed 477 Syrian newcomer students to
Thames Valley schools. This award-winning initiative is one that made Thames Valley, and us as
Canadians very proud.
Co-lead a multi-board, multi-agency coalition in response to the youth suicide cluster in
Woodstock, providing much-needed support, strategies and community-response in the face of
trauma.
Aligned innovative improvement practices with the Board Improvement Plan for Student
Achievement and School Improvement plans.
Upgrading the Wide-Area Network and Wi-Fi in ALL school sites!
Implementing Google Apps for Education tools across the Board, the CODE Project, Google
Classroom and Library Learning Commons.
The creation of the comprehensive Re-think Secondary Learning report, which will help reshape
the secondary school experience to better meet evolving needs of our students.
The development of our Math Strategic Plan based on the Renewed Math Strategy and work that
will build and support leadership and capacity in mathematics for all students.
Thank you again, to our students, school communities, committee volunteers, staff and fellow
Trustees for an outstanding year and are excited to be part of what next year will bring. We are proud
of your work and proud to be part of Thames Valley.
2016 November 22…4
The following motion was moved by Trustee P. Jaffe, seconded by Trustee J. Bennett and CARRIED.
That the Transcript from the Inaugural Valedictory Address video be included in
the minutes of the 2016 November 22 Board meeting.
12. MINUTES OF THE 2016 OCTOBER 25 REGULAR BOARD MEETING
a. Confirmation of Minutes
The minutes of the Regular Board Meeting of 2016 October 25 were adopted on motion of
Trustee Jaffe, seconded by Trustee J. Skinner and CARRIED.
b. Business Arising from the Minutes - None
13. STUDENT TRUSTEES’ UPDATE
Student Trustees S. Suvajac and A. Pucchio shared the Student Trustees’ Update.
The student trustees attended the Ontario Student Trustees’ Association - l’Association des élèves
conseillers et conseillères de l’Ontario (OSTA/AECO) Fall General Meeting from November 17 to 19.
Student trustees interacted with engaging speakers, met in committees, discussed regional education
issues and received training for making internal organization ch anges.
It was advised the Student Advisory Committee (SAC) met on October 27. Adobe connect was used
at the meeting as a means to increase the accessibility to SAC meetings. The next meeting is
scheduled for February 23, 2017. Student Advisory Committee meeting minutes will be shared at
Board meetings to increase the accountability and draw awareness to the work of the committee.
14. REPORTS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION
a. Annual Planning Report
Associate Director J. Pratt; Associate Director V. Nielsen; Executive Officer K. Bushell; Learning
Supervisor, L. Munro; Planning Coordinator, B. Moore; Capital Data Analyst D. Kettle; GIS
Planning Technician, L. Cutler; Research and Assessment Associate, N. Rayfield and Assistant
Planning, C. Wiercinski presented the Annual Planning Report.
The Annual Planning Report was shared through a presentation. The report provided a summary
of the Board’s pupil accommodation status including items requiring future studies and
accomplishments. It included summaries of capital planning initiatives, program enhancements,
student enrolment, capital funding, student accommodation, school renewal, community growth,
the new Pupil Accommodation Policy and Procedures, facility collaborations and co-build
opportunities as well as the proposed 2016-17 Pupil Accommodation Reviews. Finally, an
introduction to the new Planning Services web site was provided.
The following recommendation was moved by Trustee Jaffe, seconded by Trustee G. Hart and
CARRIED:
THAT the following schools be approved for potential facility collaborations:
Aberdeen Public School
Knollwood Park Pubic School
Nicholas Wilson Public School
Trafalgar Public School
Zorra Highland Park Public School
Arthur Voaden Secondary School
B. Davison Secondary School
Clarke Road Secondary School
College Avenue Secondary School
Huron Park Secondary School
Montcalm Secondary School
Saunders Secondary School
2016 November 22…5
West Elgin Secondary School
Westminster Secondary School
Glencoe District High School
North Middlesex District High School
Ingersoll District Collegiate Institute
Strathroy District Collegiate Institute
THAT the following proposed capital construction projects be approved for
potential cobuild opportunities and facility collaboration:
New Southeast London Elementary School
New Southwest London Elementary School
Masonville Public School – Addition & Renovation
New West London Elementary School
Springbank Public School – Addition & Renovation
Administration responded to questions regarding capital priority projects in the Southeast London,
Masonville, Southwest London, West London and Springbank areas. Clarification around empty
pupil places and holding zones was provided.
b. Initial Senior Administration Report: Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 02
The Initial Senior Administration Report: Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 02 was
presented by Executive Officer K. Bushell and members of the Planning team. The report was
provided to the Trustees in advance of the meeting.
A Pupil Accommodation Review (PAR) was described as a community consultation process
required by the Ministry of Education where school closure and/or consolidation is being
considered to address the changing demographics, enrolment, programming, and facility condition
challenges facing a school or schools in a particular area under review.
The Initial Senior Administration’s Report (ISAR) provided information to the Board of Trustees
and the public regarding existing accommodation in the area, the current surplus spaces and
growth needs and opportunities to redirect fixed resources to support student achievement and
well-being in advance of the consultation process.
Administration responded to questions of clarification regarding the PAR and ISAR process and
advised that recommendations from Administration will be presented to Trustees in May after
public consultation.
The following recommendation was moved by Trustee Jaffe, seconded by Trustee Bennett and
CARRIED.
That the Board authorize Senior Administration to conduct a Pupil Accommodation
Review, based on the information provided in the attached Elementary Pupil
Accommodation Review – 02 Initial Senior Administration’s Report, for the
following schools.
Fairmont Public School
Tweedsmuir Public School.
At the request of Trustee Polhill, a poll vote was conducted.
POLL VOTE
YEA: Trustee Todd, Trustee Skinner, Trustee Schuyler, Vice-Chair Reid, Trustee Polhill,
Trustee Morell, Trustee McKinnon, Trustee Jaffe, Trustee Hart, Trustee Goodall, Trustee Bennett,
Chair Tisdale
NAY: None ABSENT: Trustee Campbell
Student Trustee: A. Pucchio – YEA
Student Trustee: S. Suvajac – YEA
2016 November 22…6
c. Initial Senior Administration Report: EPAR 01
Executive Officer Bushell and members of the Planning Team presented the Initial Senior
Administration Report: Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 01. The report was provided to
the Trustees in advance of the meeting. (Note: Following the meeting a number of edits were
made to the report, they are indicated in red in the attached.)
The following recommendation was moved by Trustee S. Polhill, seconded by Trustee Jaffe and
CARRIED:
That the Board authorize Senior Administration to conduct a Pupil Accommodation
Review, based on the information provided in the attached Elementary Pupil
Accommodation Review-01 Initial Senior Administration’s Report, for the following
schools:
Davenport Public School
McGregor Public School
Mitchell Hepburn Public School
New Sarum Public School
Northdale Central Public School
Port Stanley Public School
River Heights Public School
South Dorchester Public School
Sparta Public School
Springfield Public School
Summers’ Corners Public School
Westminster Central Public School
Senior Administration responded to questions regarding the rationale of proposed closings and
renovations to the recommended schools. The logistics of the five year renewal needs was
described. It was advised that bus times and duration of bus rides must meet the requirements of
the Board’s procedure for maximum times allowed.
At the request of Trustee Polhill, a poll vote was conducted.
POLL VOTE
YEA: Chair Tisdale, Trustee Bennett, Trustee Goodall, Trustee Hart, Trustee Jaffe, Trustee
McKinnon, Trustee Morell, Trustee Polhill, Vice-Chair Reid, Trustee Schuyler, Trustee Skinner,
Trustee Todd
NAY: None ABSENT: R. Campbell,
Student Trustee: A. Pucchio – YEA
Student Trustee: S. Suvajac – YEA
At 10:23 p.m. a motion to recess was moved by Trustee Skinner, seconded by Trustee Bennett and
CARRIED.
The meeting reconvened in public session at 10:35 p.m.
15. REPORTS FROM BOARD COMMITTEES
a. First Nations Advisory Committee Report, 2016 October 18
Trustee P. Schuyler referred to the written report of the First Nations Advisory Committee (Item
15.a) provided to Trustees in advance of the meeting. There were no recommendations.
b. Chair’s Committee Report, 2016 October 25
Trustee McKinnon referred to the written report of the Chair’s Committee (Item 15.b) provided to
Trustees in advance of the meeting. There were no recommendations.
2016 November 22…7
c. Program and School Services Advisory Committee Report, 2016 November 1
Trustee Morell referred to the written report of the Program and School Services Advisory
Committee (Item 15.c) provided to the Trustees in advance of the meeting.
Further to agenda item #5 of the report, Trustee Skinner spoke to the following recommendation
in regards to robotics funding.
The following motion was moved by Trustee Skinner, seconded by Trustee Polhill and
CARRIED:
That the Board approach the Thames Valley Education Foundation to request that
they consider establishing a grant to support and enhance technology learning
and STEAM opportunities in TVDSB schools including, but not limited to,
elementary STEAM initiatives and secondary FRC robotics; and investigate
and seek fundraising sources, donors, and other methods in order to financially
support the grant.
d. Special Education Advisory Committee Report, 2016 November 7
Trustee Bennett referred to the written report of the Special Education Advisory Committee (Item
15.d) provided to the Trustees in advance of the meeting. There were no recommendations.
e. Planning and Priorities Advisory Committee Report, 2016 November 8
Trustee G. Hart referred to the written report of the Planning and Priorities Advisory Committee
(Item 15.e) provided to the Trustees in advance of the meeting. There were no recommendations.
Clarification was provided regarding the placement of correspondence received regarding the
Pupil Accommodation Review in a first class folder. Trustees can forward correspondence to the
Chair or T. Testa, Manager Communications to be placed in the first class folder.
f. Committee of the Whole, In-Camera Report 2016 November 8
Trustee McKinnon advised that the Committee of the Whole met in-camera from 6:00 p.m. to 6:06
p.m. The committee discussed confidential personal matters.
The following recommendation was moved by Trustee McKinnon, seconded by Trustee Todd and
CARRIED:
That the motions approved at the in-camera session of 2016 November 8 related to
personal matters be approved and recorded in the public minutes of the 2016
November 22 Board meeting.
g. Thames Valley Parent Involvement Committee Report, 2016 November 10
Trustee McKinnon referred to the written report of the Thames Valley Parent Involvement
Committee (Item 15.g) provided to the Trustees in advance of the meeting. There were no
recommendations.
h. Audit Committee Report, 2016 November 15
Trustee Morell referred to the written report of the Audit Committee (Item 15.h) provided to
Trustees in advance of the meeting.
The following recommendations were moved by Trustee A. Morell, seconded by Trustee Skinner
and CARRIED:
That the 2015-2016 Audited Financial Statements, as amended, be approved.
2016 November 22…8
That the 2015-2016 internal appropriations of accumulated surplus available for
compliance of $4,757,259 and $187,599 for Thames Valley Education Foundation as
outlined in Chart 1, be approved.
i. Chair’s Committee Report, 2016 November 15
Trustee McKinnon referred to the written report of the Chair’s Committee (Item 15.i) provided to
the Trustees in advance of the meeting.
The following recommendation was moved by Trustee McKinnon, seconded by Trustee Goodall
and CARRIED:
That Trustees A. Morell, J. Bennett, and R. Tisdale be appointed to the Trustee
Forums Ad Hoc Committee.
In response to a request for clarification of item #7, it was advised the Parent Engagement
Review is a Thames Valley review to look at current and future opportunities for parent
engagement. The committee structure was described.
j. Chair’s Committee Report, 2016 November 21
Trustee McKinnon referred to the written report of the Chair’s Committee (Item 15.j) provided to
the Trustees in advance of the meeting.
The following recommendation was moved by Trustee McKinnon, seconded by Trustee Morell
and CARRIED:
That Trustees B. McKinnon, A Morell, R. Campbell and R. Tisdale be appointed to
sit on the Parent Engagement Steering Committee.
k. Committee of the Whole, In-Camera Report, 2016 November 22
Trustee McKinnon advised that the Committee of the Whole met in-camera from 5:05 p.m. to 6:00
p.m. The committee discussed property and personal matters.
The following recommendation was moved by Trustee McKinnon, seconded by Trustee Bennett
and CARRIED:
That the motions approved at the in-camera session of 2016 November 22 related
to personal matters be approved and recorded in the public minutes of the 2016
November 22 Board meeting.
16. TRUSTEE UPDATES FROM EXTERNAL COMMITTEES
a. Ontario Public School Boards’ Association (OPSBA) Update - none
17. COMMUNICATIONS
a. Southwest Middlesex Letter
A letter to the Chair from the Municipality of Southwest Middlesex commending Administration for
their efforts during Ekcoe Central’s temporary relocation was received.
b. Jeff Yurek, MPP, Elgin-Middlesex-London Letter
letter to the Chair and Board of Trustees from MPP Jeff Yurek regarding the Pupil Accommodation
Review was received.
c. Letter of Response to Jeff Yurek, MPP Letter
The letter of response from Chair Tisdale to Jeff Yurek, MPP regarding the Pupil Accommodation
Review was provided.
2016 November 22…9
d. Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration Letter
A Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration letter to the Chair regarding the 2016-17 Adult Non-
Credit Language Training Program grant was received.
18. NOTICE OF MOTION – none
19. MOTION – NOTICE OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN - none
20. ADDITIONAL ITEMS – none
21. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS BY MEMBERS – none
22. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:51 p.m. on motion of Trustee Todd, seconded by Trustee Jaffe and
CARRIED.
Confirmed:
Vice Chairperson, M. Reid
2016 November 22…10
SUMMARY OF APPROVED RECOMMENDATIONS OF 2016 November 22
That the Transcript from the Inaugural Valedictory Address video be included in the minutes of
the 2016 November 22 Board meeting.
THAT the following schools be approved for potential facility collaborations:
Aberdeen Public School
Knollwood Park Pubic School
Nicholas Wilson Public School
Trafalgar Public School
Zorra Highland Park Public School
Arthur Voaden Secondary School
B. Davison Secondary School
Clarke Road Secondary School
College Avenue Secondary School
Huron Park Secondary School
Montcalm Secondary School
Saunders Secondary School
West Elgin Secondary School
Westminster Secondary School
Glencoe District High School
North Middlesex District High School
Ingersoll District Collegiate Institute
Strathroy District Collegiate Institute
THAT the following proposed capital construction projects be approved for potential cobuild
opportunities and facility collaboration:
New Southeast London Elementary School
New Southwest London Elementary School
Masonville Public School – Addition & Renovation
New West London Elementary School
Springbank Public School – Addition & Renovation
That the Board authorize Senior Administration to conduct a Pupil Accommodation Review, based
on the information provided in the attached Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review – 02 Initial
Senior Administration’s Report, for the following schools.
Fairmont Public School
Tweedsmuir Public School.
That the Board authorize Senior Administration to conduct a Pupil Accommodation Review, based
on the information provided in the attached Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review-01 Initial
Senior Administration’s Report, for the following schools:
Davenport Public School
McGregor Public School
Mitchell Hepburn Public School
New Sarum Public School
Northdale Central Public School
Port Stanley Public School
River Heights Public School
South Dorchester Public School
Sparta Public School
Springfield Public School
Summers’ Corners Public School
Westminster Central Public School
2016 November 22…11
That the Board approach the Thames Valley Education Foundation to request that they consider
establishing a grant to support and enhance technology learning and STEAM opportunities in
TVDSB schools including, but not limited to, elementary STEAM initiatives and secondary FRC
robotics; and investigate and seek fundraising sources, donors, and other methods in order to
financially support the grant.
That the motions approved at the in-camera session of 2016 November 8 related to personal
matters be approved and recorded in the public minutes of the 2016 November 22 Board meeting.
That the 2015-2016 Audited Financial Statements, as amended, be approved.
That the 2015-2016 internal appropriations of accumulated surplus available for compliance of
$4,757,259 and $187,599 for Thames Valley Education Foundation as outlined in Chart 1, be
approved.
That Trustees A. Morell, J. Bennett, and R. Tisdale be appointed to the Trustee Forums Ad Hoc
Committee.
That Trustees B. McKinnon, A Morell, R. Campbell and R. Tisdale be appointed to sit on the Parent
Engagement Steering Committee.
That the motions approved at the in-camera session of 2016 November 22 related to personal
matters be approved and recorded in the public minutes of the 2016 November 22 Board meeting.
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
Date of
Meeting: 2016 November 22
Item #:
REPORT TO:
☒
PUBLIC ☐
IN-CAMERA
☐
Administrative
Council
☐
Program and School Services
Advisory Committee
☐
Planning and Priorities
Advisory Committee
☒
Board
☐
Policy Working Committee
TITLE OF REPORT:
ANNUAL PLANNING REPORT
PRESENTED BY:
Kevin Bushell, Executive Officer, Facility Services and Capital Planning
PRESENTED FOR: ☒ Approval ☐ Information ☐ Advice
Recommendation(s): THAT the following schools be approved for potential facility collaborations:
Aberdeen Public School
Knollwood Park Pubic School
Nicholas Wilson Public School
Trafalgar Public School
Zorra Highland Park Public School
Arthur Voaden Secondary School
B. Davison Secondary School
Clarke Road Secondary School
College Avenue Secondary School
Huron Park Secondary School
Montcalm Secondary School
Saunders Secondary School
West Elgin Secondary School
Westminster Secondary School
Glencoe District High School
North Middlesex District High School
Ingersoll District Collegiate Institute
Strathroy District Collegiate Institute
THAT the following proposed capital construction projects be approved for potential co-
build opportunities and facility collaboration:
New Southeast London Elementary School
New Southwest London Elementary School
Masonville Public School – Addition & Renovation
New West London Elementary School
Springbank Public School – Addition & Renovation
Purpose: The following report provides a summary of the Board’s pupil accommodation status including both
items requiring future studies and accomplishments. It includes summaries of capital planning
initiatives, program enhancements, student enrolment, capital funding, student accommodation,
school renewal, community growth, the new Pupil Accommodation Policy and Procedures, facility
collaborations and co-build opportunities as well as the proposed 2016-17 Pupil Accommodation
Reviews. Finally, an introduction to the new Planning Services web site is provided.
Content: CAPITAL PLANNING INITIATIVES
In 2006 the Ontario Ministry of Education requested that all school boards implement a Capital
Plan. Since that time the Board’s Capital Plan has enabled improvements to the learning
environment for our students and staff in over 139 schools. This was accomplished through
program enhancements, the addition of new pupil places and general improvements to facilities.
These capital planning initiatives, as outlined in Appendix A, include:
11 new schools
60 additions and/or renovations to existing facilities
25 FDK additions/renovations
3 school conversions
40 school closures
289 portables sold or demolished
The majority of these capital initiatives were made fiscally feasible due to the recommendations
arising from Accommodation Review Committees (ARCs), where consolidation was approved, as
well as the implementation of the French Immersion Accommodation Plan. To date $394M has
been expended to fund these initiatives which have resulted in significant operational savings and
efficiencies.
It should be noted that, in 2015-16, the Ministry of Education funded the construction of
new Family Centres, as well as Childcare Centres at the two new schools currently under
construction in North London. The total funding received for these initiatives was $6.6M.
In the 2015-16 school year the school consolidation process was suspended to allow the Board
time to revise the Pupil Accommodation Policy and Procedures in order to reflect the new Ministry
guidelines relating to school consolidation. Now that the new Pupil Accommodation Policy and
Procedures have been approved senior administration is proposing to recommence the school
consolidation process by recommending 2 Pupil Accommodation Reviews (PARs) involving 14
elementary schools in 2016-17. These reviews will examine excess pupil places, enrolment
pressures and declining enrolment as well as program offerings and building conditions.
The impact of the capital planning initiatives made possible through the previous ARC process and
the new PAR procedure will allow the Board to re-invest savings to become more efficient and to
enhance and maximize learning environment and opportunities. These initiatives have a direct
impact on our students’ learning environment, staff work places and the community use of our
facilities.
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITES AND BENEFITS TO LEARNING
Learning program enhancements, made possible through capital planning initiatives, have created
a positive impact on the learning environment for our students. These enhancements include more
natural lighting and improvements to accessibility, display spaces and heating and ventilation.
Improvements to the physical layout in renovated and newly-built school settings have also
improved the opportunities for students to focus on collaborative, experiential and inquiry-based
learning through the optimal use of these spaces in schools.
Our students are growing up in a society that is immersed in technology. As an educational
system, it is critical that we continue to provide and enhance the learning opportunities in which
students can use technology to support their learning. The Information and Communications
Technology Strategic Plan (ICT) for 2015-18 includes the following priorities:
Increased use of mobile and cloud-based technologies;
Provision of a robust infrastructure;
Support for a learning organization;
Implementation of an enhanced communication system;
Exploration of emerging technologies.
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
Facility enhancements, made possible through the ICT, provide opportunities for students to
access the technology they need in order to thrive in a technologically-driven society. Greater Wi-Fi
accessibility supports learning in classrooms, gymnasiums, cafeterias and Library Learning
Commons. To date, 135 elementary and secondary schools have been fitted with Wi-Fi. When
completed, this translates into 7000 installed units. The targeted completion date for all Thames
Valley schools to have Wi-Fi in every learning area is December 2016.
Learning Commons
Library Resource Centres will continue to be redesigned into Learning Commons within Thames
Valley schools. These areas serve as integral hubs of learning where students and staff are able to
access digital technologies in addition to traditional print materials. Students and staff are able to:
Access and create information through the use of mobile technology devices;
Collaborate with peers and global citizens in inquiry-based learning using Self-Organized
Learning Environments (SOLEs);
Engage in problem-solving, media production, and design and construction.
The Learning Commons spaces consist of several areas:
Bright spaces in which mobile computer units, shelving, and tables allow for efficient and
flexible use of the space;
Connect Spaces in which students, staff and visitors have access to wireless
conductivity in order to learn collaboratively and connect with the global population;
Communication Spaces which provide multiple large, visual displays which facilitate
wireless interaction between participants;
Maker Spaces in which students create and stream multimedia presentations to a variety
of locations and audiences within and beyond the school. Maker Spaces also include
focus on hands-on building construction of projects, coding, and robotics for example;
Collaborative Spaces in which Self-Organized Learning Environments (SOLEs)
provide spaces for students to inquire and discover, with the support of their peers.
Elementary Schools
Through the capital planning process the Board has been able to provide Instrumental Music
Programs, Library Learning Commons, Gymnasia / Activity rooms and General Arts rooms in all
new or renovated elementary schools. Using the Board’s approved Program Standards all new or
renovated schools now meet this standard which has provided equity of programming to all schools
that have been involved in ARCs, where consolidation has been approved, or where the school
has been involved in a major capital project.
Outdoor Learning Environments
The opportunity for students to learn about, and from, the environment is an integral component of
the curriculum. As a result of this focus there have been significant improvements to the outdoor
settings in many of our schools. From tree plantings, gardens and habitat areas, to outdoor
classrooms, planting boxes and compost areas, school ground greening projects engage our
students through enhanced curriculum and dynamic play spaces that increase environmental
awareness.
The creation of outdoor learning spaces has also allowed schools to work collaboratively with the
community in order to help fund their construction. To date, over 80 green spaces have been built
in elementary and secondary schools, or are in the process of being built. As well, 30 schools are
in the process of completing school greening initiatives.
New for this year, the Board’s Environmental Education Centres have been used in different and
innovative ways. Elementary classes have been invited to formulate and submit research
proposals to use Environmental Education Centres as Environmental Research Stations with 25
initiatives completed this year.
Secondary Schools
This past school year the Board has embarked on numerous secondary programming initiatives.
This has included the renewal of secondary school science labs which are scheduled for
completion during the 2016-17 school year.
Developmental Education at the Secondary Level
With the growing number of secondary students with significant special education needs, who are
registered in Developmental Education programs, it was necessary to make capital investments in
schools with designated Developmental Education Centres. These improvements included a
renovation project to construct a Developmental Education Centre for secondary students at
Oakridge Secondary School which was completed in the fall of 2016. This project included
creation of accessible washrooms, classrooms counters and a shared kitchen in order to meet both
current and future needs.
Rethink Secondary Learning
During the 2015-2016 school year, TVDSB embarked on a ground breaking initiative called Rethink
Secondary Learning. This initiative set out to answer the following question: Are our secondary
schools providing youth with the knowledge and skills to reach their full potential in today’s
changing reality? We heard from secondary and elementary students, parents/caregivers, staff,
teachers, administrators, Trustees, recent graduates, postsecondary institutions and employers.
Over 2,000 voices came together to share their experiences, their beliefs and ideas about
secondary learning.
One of the main findings emerging from the report was the importance of a variety of experiences
for students related to programs and courses. “Stakeholders spoke about the desire for more
specialized and advanced courses, as well as programs geared toward specific careers, especially
in the later years of secondary school. Concerns regarding inequity of course and program
offerings across schools were raised by students, parents/caregivers and staff” (TVDSB, Rethink
Secondary Learning, p.22).
Although Thames Valley offers a number of different programs and courses the range varies
depending on graduation requirements, student interests, availability of staff and funding (T VDSB,
Rethink Secondary Learning, p.11). “As a result, schools are not always able to run all courses
that student express an interest in taking” (TVDSB, Rethink Secondary Learning, p.11). This is
especially problematic for smaller secondary schools. As of the 2016-17 school year the TVDSB
has 10 secondary schools with fewer than 600 FTE. These schools are expected to get even
smaller due to declining secondary enrolment. The effects of declining enrolment and empty pupil
places are far reaching as the majority of Board revenue is based on enrolment.
Maintaining small secondary schools and schools with significant empty pupil places redirects
funding away from student programs and other student supports causing a disproportionate
decrease on already limited Board resources.
As outlined in the Rethink Secondary Learning report TVDSB faces a challenging future: how to
create and maintain exceptional secondary schools that prepare students for their future, with
shrinking resources. The decline in Board resources can be directly attributed to declining
enrolment since enrolment is linked to both funding and staffing amounts. With this certainty, how
does TVDSB create the new programs with the latest technology that students have identified in
the Rethink Secondary Learning Report? How does TVDSB provide new and greater opportunities
for students that will propel them into the future?
The status quo, with 6,089 empty pupil places and an enrolment decline of 5400 since 1999, is not
sustainable over the long term if program enhancement is our intention. Allowing existing
conditions to continue will result in decreased program opportunities as fixed costs are supported
by fewer and fewer students. Action is required in order to harmonize capacity to enrolment thus
providing access to more resources and enhanced programs for our students.
Given the responsibility the Board carries to manage its’ resources in a fiscally accountable
manner, the difficult school consolidation process must be a significant next step in the Rethink
Secondary Learning process in order to provide a more equitable and sustainable secondary
experience for our students. This will allow the Board to concentrate resources and focus the
future on modernizing our aging secondary school buil dings and developing innovative program
offerings. This stronger, more sustainable future will provide greater opportunity in quality
programs and courses for all of our secondary students.
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
ENROLMENT
The enrolment increased from 2015 to 2016 by 1,352.83 FTE. This is significantly higher than
previous years. Many factors have contributed to the increase in enrolment and are discussed
below.
Refugee Immigration and Impact on Enrolment
The increase in enrolment from October 2015-2016 was mainly due to the refugee Immigration
settlement in Ontario. These new students enrolled from January to May of 2016. Students
registered through the GENTLE Centre (Guiding Entry to New Teaching and Learning
Experiences) located at White Oaks PS. This registration and accommodation process allowed for
a smooth transition for students before attending their designated home school. By May of 2016
the Board had registered 455 students (both elementary and secondary) and successfully ensured
school resources and accommodation of those students.
To ensure proper accommodation and projection of younger siblings entering our system , a survey
was conducted to determine intake of JK students that could be enrolling in the future. Results are
listed below:
Year of Birth JK Entry Year Number of
Students
2012 2016 49
2013 2017 25
2014 2018 32
2015 2019 33
2016 2020 7
It is projected that 490 Refugee Newcomer students are att ending TVDSB schools in 2016-17,
approximately 405 in elementary and 85 in secondary.
Elementary
Elementary Full Time Equivalent (FTE) enrolment in the TVDSB has declined annually from
53,509.50 in 1999-00 to 45,470.79 in the 2010-11 school year (see Appendix C.1). From 2011-12
to 2014-15, elementary FTE experienced marginal increases due to the general growth in intake
from the Full Day Kindergarten program and the continued popularity of the French Immersion
program. However, a decline of 138 students was observed from 2014-15 to 50,859 FTE in 2015-
16.
According to the preliminary October 31st student count as submitted by schools, the elementary
enrolment for 2016-17 increased significantly by 1,212 FTE or 2.4% over the previous year. The
enrolment can be viewed in the chart below or (see Appendix C.1)
Note: Enrolment FTE has been adjusted in the historical for all JK and SK to count as 1 not 0.5 to reflect the
elimination of half-time register as a result of the full implementation of Full Day Kindergarten
49500
50000
50500
51000
51500
52000
52500
53000
FTE School Year
Elementary Actual and Projected Enrolment (FTE)
The increase from 2015-16 to 2016-17 was observed over the entire school year. From October to
March the enrolment increased by 652 FTE and another 560 FTE from March to October. The 380
elementary refugee students enrolled through the GENTLE Centre had a significant impact on the
increase in enrolment from 2015 to 2016. Although this can only account for 31% of the enrolment
increase in elementary. Other increases observed in admittance year over year include:
Higher provincial migration (35%),
Entrance from private schools (26%),
Immigration not entered through the GENTLE Centre (10%)
Students entering from other Boards (10%).
Based on the increase from this year projected enrolment is expected to increase by 118 students
for the 2017-18 school year. This projection is based on such contributing factors as a smaller
cohort moving from grade 8 to 9; the government’s plan to continue with an increase in the total
immigration for 2017 and the stable rate of increase from grade to grade in 2016, that although
higher, aligns more with years prior to 2015.
Secondary
From 2015-16 to 2016-17 the Thames Valley has seen an increase of 139.95 FTE, according to
preliminary October 31st numbers. This is the first increase in secondary enrolment experienced in
10 years. As with elementary, refugee immigration played a role in this increase with 75 refugee
newcomer students enrolled through the GENTLE Centre. The number of international students
has also increased over last year. These increases were seen primarily at H. B. Beal SS. Another
increase in enrolment was observed in the Secondary program opportunities; SWAC (School within
a College) and SWAU (School within a University). Although the increase is promising for some
schools within Thames Valley, the issue of declining enrolment is still prevalent at many schools.
Analysis of Progression from Grade 8 to Grade 9
When students graduate from grade 8 and enter secondary school, Thames Valley has observed
the choice of students to continue with their education in secondary schools with Thames Valley or
enroll with other Boards. This migration is not only from our Board but the Board also has
observed students coming to the Thames Valley form other Boards in grade 9.
22000
22500
23000
23500
24000
24500
25000
25500
26000
FTE School Year
Secondary Actual and Projected Enrolment (FTE)
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
Below are two graphs indicating the Thames Valley’s loss of student’s and gain of studen ts from
elementary to Secondary:
Analysis of Thames Valley Students from Grade 8 to Grade 9
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Grade 8 Students 5560 5392 5352 5060 5300 5146
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Grade 8 to 9 Student Loss 637 591 673 573 568 612
Grade 8 to 9 Student
Retained 4923 4801 4679 4487 4732 4534
Percent Loss 11.5% 11.0% 12.6% 11.3% 10.7% 11.9%
Percent Retained 88.5% 89.0% 87.4% 88.7% 89.3% 88.1%
Analysis of Other Board Students to Grade 9
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Thames Valley Students 4871 4787 4666 4483 4731 4519
Gain 629 658 574 614 672 633
Percentage Gained 11.4% 12.1% 11.0% 12.0% 12.4% 12.3%
TVDSB has experienced an overall loss of just under 5400 students from 1999 to 2016. This
overall decrease in enrolment has made program viability increasingly problematic. Smaller
secondary schools are challenged in offering a wide variety of courses since the Ministry of
Education allocates the majority of school Board revenue based on student enrolment numbers.
Fewer students also results in expanded operating expenses, as the TVDSB must maintain
buildings with significant Empty Pupil Places.
The Secondary panel is stabilizing as seen in the Elementary panel. It is projected that Secondary
will decrease by 24.44 FTE for 2017-18. The enrolment for Secondary will increase and decrease
based on the grade 8 intake of students and as the grade 8 elementary cohort fluctuates, so will
the secondary panel.
Summary
Overall, the preliminary projections as shown in Appendix C.3 indicate that TVDSB will experience
stabilization in total FTE enrolment until 2020-21. These projections will continue to be analyzed
by the Capital Planning Coordinating Committee (CPCC) as they represent the changes and
challenges facing the TVDSB in the upcoming school years.
STUDENT ACCOMMODATION
Surplus Accommodation
TVDSB continues to operate with 14,933 Empty Pupil Places corresponding to approximately 1.7
million square feet of empty space, based on the 2015-16 Enrolment vs. Capacity Summary
Report. The Board has continued to experience the challenge of lack of accommodation in growth
areas and for specific programs. The continued decline of students in the urban cores, as well as
rural areas of the Board has resulted in surplus accommodation.
As a result of Board approved recommendations regarding Central London Elementary and West
Elgin Elementary Accommodation Reviews, 5 elementary schools, 1,000 Empty Pupil Places and
104,431 Excess Square Footage has been removed from the following calculations in the chart
below:
Schools Less Than 100% - Excess Capacity and Space by Region
Region
# of Schools
at < 100%
Empty Pupil
Places
Excess Square
Footage
Elementary:
Elgin 13 1,338 139,687
London 48 5,035 525,654
Middlesex 13 910 95,004
Oxford 21 1,561 162,958
Total 95 8,844 923,303
Secondary:
Elgin 4 1,124 146,182
London 8 2,596 337,533
Middlesex 5 1,154 150,023
Oxford 5 1,214 157,875
Total 22 6,089 791,613
Total Elementary & Secondary:
Elgin 17 2,462 285,870
London 56 7,631 863,187
Middlesex 18 2,064 245,027
Oxford 26 2,775 320,833
Total 117 14,933 1,714,916
Note: The above data is based on the 2015-16 Enrolment vs Capacity Summary Report
and includes the reduction of schools, Empty Pupil Places and excess square footage as a
result of the completed Central London Elementary ARC and Western Elgin Elementary
ARC.
It should be noted that the Empty Pupil Places within the secondary panel has increased with the
decline in enrolment in secondary schools (see graph below). The Empty Pupil Places will need to
be addressed with the ongoing secondary school review.
675.47,
16%
2,358.41
, 56%
651.21,
15%
566.99,
13%
2010-11 EPP: 4,252.08
Elgin
London
Middlesex
Oxford
1,124,
18%
2,596,
43%
1,154,
19%
1,214,
20%
2015-16 EPP: 6,089.33
Elgin
London
Middlesex
Oxford
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
CAPITAL FUNDING
Since 2006, the Board has been successful in accessing $394M of Ministry of Education Capital
Funding (see Appendix A: Capital Plan Initiatives) to construct capital projects which include new
schools, and additions and renovations. The Ministry of Education currently has 2 programs for
School Boards to apply for capital funding for building projects: Capital Priorities and School
Consolidation Capital Grants.
Capital Priorities
The first program, Capital Priorities, requires the Board to submit a prioritized list of capital projects
along with a comprehensive business case to support the need for each request. The Ministry has
indicated that its priority for capital funding under this program will be enrolment pressure, building
condition, school consolidation, as well as joint capital projects between coterminous boards.
Recently, the Capital Priorities Program has been expanded to include capital funding for child care
facilities and community hubs in schools. On 2016 October 14, the Ministry released the
Community Hubs Capital Funding: Minor Retrofits and Accessibility memo (2016:B18) to support
the expansion of community hub use in schools to benefit both students and the local community.
The TVDSB has been allocated $1.74M in funding to retrofit available space in schools for
community hubs and improve accessibility in order to allow for greate r opportunity for community
use through Facility Collaborations.
In 2015-16 the Board received Capital Priorities funding from the Ministry of Education for the
capital projects listed below:
2015-16 Capital Projects that Received Capital Priorities Funding
*Unspent Capital funding was derived from previous MOE approved Capital Projects
To date, TVDSB has not received official notification from the Ministry regarding 2016 Capital
Priorities submissions.
Unused capital funding, from previous Capital grants was approved by the Minis try to be used for a
seven classroom addition at Stoney Creek PS. As well, the Ministry funded the purchase and
development of a site, 1800 Cedarhollow Boulevard, for the new Northeast London PS.
The above noted projects are all currently underway and are within the estimated budgets
presented to the Board. It is expected that Ministry funding will cover all associated costs.
It should be noted that administration will continue to utilize the annual School Renewal and School
Condition grants, where appropriate, to address renewal issues in additions and/or renovation
projects.
Funding
Breakdown
NORTHEAST LONDON
ELEMENTARY
(OTG Capacity of 625,
5 Rm Child Care Centre
& Family Centre)
NORTHWEST LONDON
ELEMENTARY
(OTG Capacity of 539,
5 Rm Child Care Centre
& Family Centre)
STONEY
CREEK PS
(OTG Capacity
Increase of 173)
School $12,872,065 $10,910,720
Child Care Centre $2,471,420 $2,471,420
Family Centre $880,000 $920,000
Unspent Capital* $1,957,766
Subtotal $16,223,485 $14,302,140 $1,957,766
Site Acquisition $3,844,758 N/A N/A
TOTAL CAPITAL PRIORITIES FUNDING $36,328,149
School Consolidation Capital Grant
The second capital funding program the Ministry has in place, the School Consolidation Capital
(SCC) grant, funds capital projects resulting from school consolidation. To access capital funding
through this program, the Board is required to submit a comprehensive business case detailing the
capital funding for additional student accommodation resulting from a consolidation of two or more
schools.
The Board did not submit any business cases for this funding due to the fact that currently the
Board does not have any school consolidations requiring capital funding.
Board Supported Capital
The Board has also allocated $3.6M in the annual budget for Board Supported Capital (BSC),
along with a $1.6M contribution from the annual School Renewal grant to allow for an annual
$5.4M of funding for capital projects not funded by the Ministry.
To utilize this funding the Board must realize a budget surplus from the previous years’ operating
budget. This funding has been utilized in the past for the following Board initiatives:
French Immersion Accommodation Plan
Unfunded Accommodation Review recommendations
Technology Emphasis renovations
In 2015-16 Board Supported Capital funding was used for the addition and renovations to
Aldborough Public School, as well as partial funding of the Information and Communication
Technology Plan (ICT). In 2016-17 the Board approved the use of Board Supported Capital
funding for the addition and renovation to Southside Public School.
The need to prioritize capital projects with limited capital funding will be an ongoing challenge as
the Board moves forward with accommodation planning.
SCHOOL RENEWAL
The Board has invested significant capital dollars into the renewal of building components and
systems in our schools using the annual School Renewal Grant, Energy Efficient Schools (EES)
grant, Good Places to Learn (GPL) funding, and School Condition Improvement grant (see
Appendix A). Since 2006, the Board has invested $237.9M into the infrastructure of our schools.
The Ministry is aware that there are many schools that have a significant backlog of renewal needs
that require additional investment in school renewal to prevent further school condition
deterioration and to ensure that students continue to have a safe and healthy learning
environment. To address this issue the Ministry has made a significant investment of $2.5B in
School Condition Improvement funding (SCI). In 2015-16, the Board initially received $23.4M in
SCI funding and subsequently received an additional $21.7M in July 2016, of which $23.1M is yet
to be implemented by Facility Services. The Ministry has allocated $48.8M in SCI funding for
2016-17.
The Ministry has mandated the Board to direct 70% of SCI funding to key building components
such as foundations, roofing, window, HVAC etc. School boards are permitted to use the
remaining 30% to address locally identified renewal needs. It should be noted that f unding is to be
applied to building components that have been identified in the Ministry’s Facility Condition
Assessment Program database and may only use SCI funding in renewal expenditures in schools
that are expected to remain open for at least 5 years.
Facility Services have identified the following renewal initiatives for 2016-17 SCI funding:
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) requirements
Building Automation System replacement
Focus on Secondary School renewal
Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Improvements
The Ministry has also directed the Board to dedicate Proceeds of Disposition (POD) funding
realized through the sale of surplus schools to identified needs in the Ministry’s Facility Condition
Assessment Program database to support the school renewal backlog.
It should be noted that a significant amount of renewal needs were eliminated from our system
through the capital planning initiative and the closure of 40 schools.
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
GROWTH
Residential growth continues to cause enrolment pressure in many schools throughout Thames
Valley. One of the ways that this growth is accommodated is through the designation of Holding
Zones, which allows for proper accommodation of students without creating overcrowding at
neighbourhood schools until permanent solutions can be made. These solutions can include:
attendance area reviews, additions or the construction of new schools. At this time there are no
pending developments which require designation as a holding zone.
Construction Projects – Enrolment Pressure Residential Growth
Ministry funding has been received for two new schools in north London to accommodate
enrolment pressure stemming from residential expansion in the northeast and northwest corners of
the City of London's urban boundary. The two new elementary schools and the addition at Stoney
Creek PS will relieve pressure at Centennial Central, Emily Carr, Northridge and Stoney Creek
PS’s. The additional facility space also will allow for the collapse of four holding zones where
students are currently accommodated at Chippewa, Centennial Central, Stoneybrook and Wilfrid
Jury PS’s.
Capital Priorities 2016 Submission – Enrolment Pressure Residential Growth
The Board has identified the following areas identified below as facing the greatest enrolment
pressures and proceeded with business cases in the 2016 Capital Priorities report submitted to the
Ministry of Education. To date, TVDSB has not received official notification from the Ministry
regarding 2016 Capital Priorities submissions. These schools however, will remain as a priority to
the Board for future Capital requests.
New Southeast London PS
Southeast London’s Summerside community currently consists of three holding zones temporarily
accommodating 282 holding zone students at Fairmont PS, Tweedsmuir PS and Princess
Elizabeth PS. Further accommodation is required for current and projected students from
expected residential growth in the form of 3200 residential units that have been circulated within
the new Southeast London PS attendance area. The Board has also requested the inclusion of a
school block for a second School site within the Parker subdivision just east of the Summerside
community to prepare for the massive growth anticipated from the circulated plans for the area.
Masonville PS
An addition was requested, by the Board, for Masonville PS to accommodate the new attendance
area resulting from the inclusion of the former Sunningdale holding zone. The addition will
accommodate students from the original Masonville attendance area and 266 students from the
Sunningdale community. At this time there are still 38 students choosing the grandparenting option
to remain at Ryerson PS, with the majority in the intermediate grades.
New Southwest London PS
In Southwest London, residential and commercial growth continues as the city expands the
infrastructure required to service the needs of the Southwest Area Plan. Over 5500 residential
units are circulated from this area plan with 248 students already being accommodated from the
Bostwick and Longwoods communities at the holding schools Sir Isaac Brock PS and White Oaks
PS. Lambeth PS’s attendance area also encompasses a portion of this area. A new Southwest
PS will be required in the near future within the Talbot Village community. Two additional school
sites were incorporated in the designs of future communities to ensure long term permanent
student accommodation.
New Byron PS
The Byron community is expanding with plans for the communities of Riverbend South, Riverbend
Heights, Eagle Ridge and Woodhull. Together with TVDSB, the City of London and Sifton
properties a school site has been incorporated within the Riverbend South community plan. An
attendance area review within Byron area will be required to utilize space in existing schools and
create an attendance area for a new Byron PS.
New Northeast Woodstock PS
Development continues in Northeast Woodstock with just under 600 planned residential units
proposed for the area. This development is currently within the attendance areas of Springbank
PS and the holding zone which currently accommodates students at Winchester PS. This area will
require an attendance area review and an addition at Springbank PS in order to ensure appropriate
accommodation of students.
PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL SITES
The need for new elementary schools is contingent on many factors, such as: the pace of
residential construction, housing type, demographics and our Board share of enrolment resulting
from these factors. Even before a subdivision begins, construction obstacles can cause significant
delays, such as zoning changes, environmental issues, lack of municipal services and the cost
associated with upgrades. Continuous monitoring of development status and student yields is
imperative in order to track the distribution of students and to ensure proper accommodation.
Listed below (alphabetically) are the areas of the Board in which new elementary schools are
anticipated due to future residential growth:
Municipality Current School / Holding Zone Designation
Ilderton-SW Oxbow PS / Valleyview HZ
Komoka / Kilworth Parkview PS
London-Byron Byron Northview PS / Byron Somerset HZ
London-Lambeth NE Lambeth PS / Talbot Village PH2 HZ / Bostwick HZ
London-Lambeth SE Lambeth PS / Colonel Talbot HZ – Rick Hansen PS / White Oaks
London-Lambeth NW Lambeth PS / Longwoods HZ / Southwest London HZ
London-SE Summerside HZ - Fairmont, Tweedsmuir & Princess Elizabeth
London-SE Westminster Central PS /
St. Thomas-SC Elgin Court PS
St. Thomas-SE Mitchell Hepburn PS / Pt Stanley HZ
Woodstock-N Hickson Central PS / N Woodstock HZ
PUPIL ACCOMMODATION – POLICY AND PROCEDURES
In 2016, the Board was required by the Ministry of Education to update its Pupil Accommodation
Procedure and the former Encouraging Partnerships Procedure. In order to standardize all of the
Pupil Accommodation Policy and Procedures, the Policy and Procedures outlined below were
updated on 2016 March 29.
Pupil Accommodation Policy
It is the policy of TVDSB to provide students with accommodation in a process which is well-
informed, well-coordinated, transparent, and sustainable. This supports student achievement,
safety and well-being and ensures the long-term sustainability of the school system. It also allows
the Board to manage resources effectively and identify opportunities for collaborative facility
arrangements with community organizations.
Pupil Accommodation and Facility Organization Procedure (4015a)
The first procedure within the Pupil Accommodation Policy focuses on the actualization of the Pupil
Accommodation Review process, and matters related to accommodation and attendance areas,
transportation, facility condition and renewal, capital funding, student programs, and operating
costs. These factors, as outlined in the procedure are assessed by Board staff and then
communicated through a report presented to the Board. Similarly, it is through the Pupil
Accommodation and Facility Organization planning process that TVDSB forecasts which of its
facilities may remain sustainable, where new schools and significant renovations or additions may
be needed, potential adjustments to existing attendance areas, the identification of operating and
sustainable facilities which have unused space, and which facilities may be cons idered for
consolidation and/or closure.
Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Opportunities Procedure (4015b)
Focusing primarily on communication and collaboration with regional community organizations, this
procedure allows for an opportunity for the municipality to share planning information to assist with
student long-term accommodation planning. Through annual meetings, the TVDSB and community
organizations have an opportunity to discuss various collaboration topics such as building new
schools, undertaking significant renovations or additions to facilities, the use of unused space in
operating and sustainable schools, as well as the consideration of schools that may close or where
properties may be disposed.
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
Attendance Area Review Procedure (4015c)
This procedure addresses potential adjustments to existing attendance areas. It begins with the
development of a report which features current and proposed attendance areas, current enrolment
and accommodation, enrolment projections, current and proposed residential development and
community trends, and input received from community organizations related to the attendance area
under review.
Holding Zones and Holding Schools Procedure (4015d)
The Holding Zones and Holding Schools procedure addresses circumstances in which there is an
area of pending residential development within an existing attendance area. The report outlines
factors which can be considered for an interim alternative pupil accommodation arrangement, until
such time as a long-term pupil accommodation arrangement can be made. This procedure sets
out the process for the establishment for interim pupil accommodation for areas of pending
residential development, or other enrolment pressures, which may be accomplished through the
establishment of Holding Zones and Holding Schools.
Long term accommodation solutions to interim pupil accommodation arrangements arrived at by
the establishment of, or amendment to, Holding Zones and Holding Schools include permanent
accommodation in existing schools or construction of new schools, as well as additions or
renovations to existing schools to add additional accommodation.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND FACILITY COLLABORATION OPPORTUNITIES
In accordance with the Ministry of Education’s Community Planning and Partnerships Guideline
(2015 March 26), TVDSB developed the Community Planning and Facilities Collaboration
Opportunities Procedure (No. 4015b), which came into effect on 2016 March 29. This procedure
provides an opportunity for collaboration between T VDSB and Municipalities/community
organizations within the Board’s region, through annual meetings.
On 2016 June 15 and 2016 June 16, the TVDSB Planning Department held its first Annual
Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Opportunities Meetings, to which listed community
organizations identified in the procedure were invited. The number of attendees for each meeting
was as follows:
City of London County of Elgin County of Oxford County of
Middlesex
17 17 23 11
During the meeting, the Ministry of Education’s and TVDSB’s Policies and Procedure in regards to
pupil accommodation were discussed. As well, discussions were held about various aspects of
TVDSB planning data including student programs, enrolment projections, current enrolment and
accommodation, the financial impacts of declining enrolment, renewal needs and facility conditions,
collaboration opportunities, status of surplus space for sale, elementary accommodation, and the
Rethink Secondary Learning initiative. Time was allotted during the meeting for representatives
from community organizations to provide input and ask TVDSB staff questions regarding the
information provided.
Trustees, Municipal leaders and organizations community representatives who attended these
meetings indicated that the meetings were productive, facilitated open discussion among
individuals, and provided an opportunity for information and dialogue.
The 2017 Annual Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Opportunities meetings are
tentatively scheduled for 2017 June 14 and June 15.
FACILITY COLLABORATIONS
The Board is required by the Ministry of Education to review facilities and identify schools which
have been calculated to have utilization rates of 60% or less, or to have 200 or more unused pupil
places for two years, unless the Board has a specific use or plan for the unused space. As well,
when considering building a new school or undertaking a significant addition or renovation, Boards
are required to notify Municipalities and community organizations 1 to 3 years prior to the potential
construction start date.
Information for possible collaboration either for unused space in existing schools or co -build
opportunities will be shared at the annual meetings held with iden tified community organizations.
Child Care Centres and Family Centres
As announced this year, the Ministry of Education will be collaborating with the Board to assist in
funding for child care and family centres. TVDSB is one of the first Boards in the province to
collaborate with the Ministry in this matter, and is currently building a child care and family centre
facility in the two new school construction projects; the New Northeast London PS and the New
Northwest London PS.
As previously noted, TVDSB has received $1.74M to retrofit existing space for Facility
Collaboration Opportunities in schools.
The chart below identifies surplus Pupil Places and availability for Community Collaborations:
Unused Space (sorted by Utilization)
Facility Name Utilization Surplus
Pupil Places
Elementary Panel:
Trafalgar Public School 42.05% -237.00
Aberdeen Public School 52.21% -180.66
Knollwood Park Public School 52.28% -213.30
Nicholas Wilson Public School 55.12% -188.50
Zorra Highland Park Public School 57.51% -198.00
Secondary Panel:
Glencoe District High School 33.46% -361.30
B Davison Secondary School 37.11% -381.12
North Middlesex District High School 43.27% -241.68
Arthur Voaden Secondary School 43.73% -595.88
Westminster Secondary School 45.20% -613.24
West Elgin Secondary School 49.38% -325.00
Montcalm Secondary School 56.79% -545.75
Ingersoll District Collegiate Institute 66.62% -397.55
Clarke Road Secondary School 69.42% -476.17
College Avenue Secondary School 73.53% -278.73
Huron Park Secondary School 76.65% -226.29
Saunders Secondary School 77.61% -436.58
Strathroy District Collegiate Institute 83.01% -226.88
CO-BUILD OPPORTUNITIES
New SE London
New SW London
New West London
Springbank PS
Masonville PS
PROPOSED 2016-17 PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW (PAR)
In anticipation of the Proposed Pupil Accommodation Review, Senior Administration presented the
Board with the Draft Elementary Accommodation Study on April 12, 2016 which identified
accommodation and planning information for regions of the TVDSB. Subsequently, for the 2016-
17 school year, Senior Administration will be recommending to the Board, two Elementary Pupil
Accommodation Reviews on November 22 2016.
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 01 (EPAR-01)
The Draft Elementary Accommodation Study (2016 April 12) identified a number of issues in Elgin
County which merit an Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review (EPAR-01), including: projected
enrolment, school condition and proximity to students, as well as existing school model
organizations. Future enrolment projections suggest that fewer and centralized schools could be
used to accommodate these students. Through proposed school consolidations and new school
openings, attendance area adjustments and school model re-organization, the distribution of
students would become more balanced, the number of eligible walking students would increase,
and school and facility operations would become more efficient.
The following schools will be included in the Elementary Pupil Accommodation 01:
Davenport Public School
McGregor Public School
Mitchell Hepburn Public School
New Sarum Public School
Northdale Central Public School
Port Stanley Public School
River Heights Public School
South Dorchester Public School
Sparta Public School
Springfield Public School
Summers’ Corners Public School
Westminster Central Public School
Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 02 (EPAR-02)
The Draft Elementary Accommodation Study (2016 April 12) identified a number of issues in
southeast London which merit an Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review (EPAR-02), including:
current and projected enrolment, the existing schools condition, school size and other Board
planning priorities. Given enrolment projections for this area and limited funding, students could be
accommodated in one school.
The following schools will be included in the Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 02:
Fairmont PS
Tweedsmuir PS
Proposed 2016-17 Pupil Accommodation Review Schedule
In accordance with the TVDSB Pupil Accommodation and Facility Organization Procedure and the
Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Opportunities Procedure for timelines, the following
planning schedule is proposed:
DATE EVENT
2016
NOVEMBER
Annual Pupil Accommodation Report presented to the Board.
Initial Senior Administration Report (ISAR) presented to the
Board. The ISAR includes the recommendation for the
creation of a Pupil Accommodation Review (PAR).
DECEMBER Orientation Meeting
Post-Determination Meeting
2017
JANUARY - MARCH Public Meetings (three meetings, one per month)
JANUARY - FEBRUARY School Level Meetings (following the first two Public
meetings, minimum of one)
APRIL Final Senior Administration Report (FSAR) presented to the
Board
MAY Public Delegation Meeting and decision of the Board
(anticipated)
PLANNING SERVICES WEBSITE
In accordance with the newly released Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Procedure,
Planning Services has recently launched a website: (https://www.tvdsb.ca/planning.cfm) to provide
online access to long-term accommodation planning information.
This website contains up to date information on the following:
Plans to build new schools and undertake significant renovations and additions
Space in TVDSB facilities which are available for facility collaboration arrangements
Facilities which are available for sale
Agendas and notes for Annual Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Meetings
Community Organization Notification List
Available facility collaboration arrangements / co-building opportunities
Planning Services contact (planning@tvdsb.on.ca)
Annual Planning Reports
Current and historic Attendance Area Reviews/Pupil Accommodation Reviews
Policies & Procedures pertaining to Planning
Other planning initiatives/studies
Initial Senior Administration Report (ISAR)
Pupil Accommodation Review (PAR)
Cost/Savings:
Timeline:
Communications:
Appendices: A- Capital Initiatives February 2006 to November 2016
B - TVDSB School Closures, Consolidations and Openings 2006 to Present
C.1- Elementary Actual & Projected October 31 FTE
C.2 - Secondary Actual & Projected October 31 FTE
C.3 - Elementary and Secondary Actual & Projected October 31 FTE
Form Revised: January 2016
Relation to Commitments:
☒ Putting students first. ☒ Actively engaging our students, staff, families and communities.
☐ Recognizing and encouraging leadership in all its forms. ☐ Being inclusive, fair, and equitable.
☒ Ensuring safe, positive learning and working environments. ☐ Inspiring new ideas and promoting innovation.
☒ Taking responsibility for the students and resources entrusted to our care.
CAPITAL PLAN INITIATIVES ‐ FEBRUARY 2006 TO NOVEMBER 2016
New Schools, Additions and Renovations (Underway or Completed)¹
2017-18 Northwest London PS - New School
2017-18 Northeast London PS - New School
2017-18 Stoney Creek PS - Addition
2017-18 Southside PS - Addition / Renovation
2016-17 East Carling PS (Bishop Townshend) - Addition / Renovation
2016-17 Aldborough PS - Addition / Renovation
2016-17 Woodstock CI - Renovation
2016-17 Oakridge SS - Developmental Centre Renovations
2015-16 Westfield PS - New School
2015-16 Annandale PS - Renovation
2015-16 South Ridge PS - Addition / Renovation
2015-16 Dunwich-Dutton PS - Renovation
2015-16 West Oaks FI PS - Addition / Renovation
2015-16 Westminster SS - Renovation
2014-15 Algonquin PS - FDK Addition
2014-15 Arthur Ford PS - FDK Renovation
2014-15 Bonaventure Meadows PS - FDK Renovation
2014-15 Byron Northview PS - FDK Addition / Renovation
2014-15 Centennial Central PS - FDK Addition / Renovation
2014-15 Central Elgin CI - Renovation
2014-15 Eagle Heights PS - Addition / Renovation (incl. FDK)
2014-15 Jack Chambers PS - FDK Addition / Renovation
2014-15 Kensal Park FI PS - FDK Addition / Renovation
2014-15 Louise Arbour FI PS (Sir George Ross) - Conversion/Renovation
2014-15 Mitchell Hepburn PS - Addition / Renovation (incl. FDK)
2014-15 Northbrae PS - FDK Renovation
2014-15 Parkview PS - Addition / Renovation (incl. FDK)
2014-15 Princess Anne FI PS - FDK Addition / Renovation
2014-15 Princess Elizabeth PS - FDK Addition / Renovation
2014-15 Rick Hansen PS - FDK Renovation
2014-15 Ryerson PS - FDK Renovation
2014-15 Wilton Grove PS - FDK Renovation
2013-14 Balaclava St Education Centre (Balaclava) - Conversion/Renovation
2013-14 Clarke Road SS - Technology Renovations
2013-14 Hillcrest PS - FDK Addition / Renovation
2013-14 J.S. Buchanan FI PS (Southdale)- Addition / Renovation
2013-14 John P Robarts PS - FDK Addition / Renovation
2013-14 Mary Wright PS - New School
2013-14 McGregor PS - FDK Addition / Renovation
2013-14 Montcalm SS - Technology Renovations
2013-14 North Meadows PS - Addition / Renovation
2013-14 Orchard Park PS - Addition / Renovation
2013-14 Prince Charles PS - FDK Addition / Renovation
2013-14 Saunders SS - Technology Renovations
2013-14 Sir Isaac Brock PS - FDK Addition / Renovation
2013-14 Southwold PS - FDK Addition / Renovation
2013-14 University Heights PS - FDK Addition /Renovation
2012-13 Arthur Voaden SS - Technology Renovations
2012-13 Byron Southwood PS - FDK Addition / Renovation
2012-13 Emily Stowe PS - Conversion/Renovation
2012-13 Huron Park SS - Technology Renovations
2012-13 Mountsfield PS - FDK Renovation
2012-13 Oxbow PS - Addition / Renovation
2012-13 Sir G E Cartier PS - FDK Addition / Renovation
2012-13 Thamesford PS - FDK Addition / Renovation
2012-13 Woodstock CI - Technology Renovations
¹ FDK Projects listed above ‐ only additions or program renovations due to FDK accommodations have been listed.
CAPITAL PLAN INITIATIVES ‐ FEBRUARY 2006 TO NOVEMBER 2016
New Schools, Additions and Renovations (Underway or Completed)¹ continued
2011-12 Harrisfield PS - Addition / Renovation
2011-12 June Rose Callwood PS - Addition / Renovation
2011-12 Laurie Hawkins PS - New School
2011-12 Locke's PS - Addition / Renovation
2011-12 River Heights PS - FDK Addition / Renovation
2011-12 Riverside PS - Renovation
2011-12 Royal Roads PS - Addition / Renovation
2011-12 Springbank PS - Addition / Renovation
2011-12 Winchester Street PS - Addition / Renovation
2010-11 Caradoc PS - Addition / Renovation
2010-11 College Avenue SS - Addition / Renovation
2010-11 Glendale HS - Addition / Renovation
2010-11 Lambeth PS - Addition / Renovation
2010-11 London South CI - Renovation
2010-11 Northridge PS - Addition / Renovation
2010-11 Parkside CI - Addition (Greenhouse)
2010-11 Stoney Creek PS - New School
2010-11 Woodland Heights PS - Renovation
2009-10 A.B. Lucas SS - Renovation
2009-10 Blenheim District PS - New School
2009-10 East Oxford PS - Renovation
2009-10 John Wise PS - New School
2009-10 Medway HS - Addition / Renovation
2009-10 Montcalm SS - Renovation
2009-10 North Middlesex DHS - Renovation
2009-10 Pierre Elliott Trudeau FI PS - Addition / Renovation
2009-10 Princess Anne FI PS - Addition / Renovation
2009-10 West Nissouri PS - New School
2009-10 Wilberforce PS - New School
2008-09 Mitchell Hepburn PS - New School
2008-09 Sir Frederick Banting SS - Renovation
2007-08 Algonquin PS - Addition / Renovation
2007-08 Chippewa PS - Addition / Renovation
2007-08 Clara Brenton PS - Addition / Renovation
2007-08 Forest Park PS - Addition / Renovation
2007-08 Hickson PS - Addition / Renovation
2007-08 Ingersoll DCI - Renovation
2007-08 Kensal Park FI PS - Addition / Renovation
2007-08 Strathroy DCI - Addition / Renovation
2006-07 Jack Chambers PS - Addition / Renovation
2006-07 Sir Wilfrid Laurier SS - Renovation
2005-06 East Elgin SS - Renovation
¹ FDK Projects listed above ‐ only additions or program renovations due to FDK accommodations have been listed.
CAPITAL PLAN INITIATIVES ‐ FEBRUARY 2006 TO NOVEMBER 2016
School Conversions
Year School Conversion
2015-16 Annandale PS (Annandale PS & HS) - JK - 8 Elementary School
2014-15 Louise Arbour FI PS (Sir G Ross SS) - Single Track French Immersion
2013-14 J.S. Buchanan FI PS (Southdale)- Single Track French Immersion
2012-13 Emily Stowe PS (Norwich DHS)- JK - 8 Elementary School
2012-13 Balaclava St Education Centre (Balaclava) - Adult Continuing & Alternative Education Centre
2011-12 Roch Carrier FI PS (Hillcrest)- French Immersion (Program moved from Tollgate)
2011-12 West Oaks FI PS (Westdale)- French Immersion (New FI School)
2009-10 Woodstock CI - Dual Track French Immersion
2007-08 Princess Elizabeth PS - Dual Track French Immersion
School Closures - Declared Surplus (Completed)
Date Dispositions Retained for Future Use / Conversions
June 2016 Lorne Avenue PS - SOLD West Elgin Sr. Elem. - Retained for Secondary use
June 2015 Rolph Street PS - SOLD Maple Lane PS - Retained for possible future use
June 2014 Huron Heights FI PS - SOLD Sir George Ross SS - French Immersion conversion
June 2013 Colborne Street PS - SOLD Southdale PS - French Immersion conversion
Museum School - SOLD
Sherwood Forest PS - SOLD
May 2013 Tillson Avenue Education Centre - SOLD
June 2012 North Norwich PS - SOLD
Norwich PS (SOLD)
Otterville PS - SOLD
Sir Winston Churchill PS - SOLD
June 2011 Beachville PS - SOLD Balaclava PS - Adult Con & Alt Ed conversion
Princess Elizabeth PS (Ingersoll) - SOLD Hillcrest PS - French Immersion conversion
Scott Street PS - SOLD Tollgate FI PS - Retained for possible future use
Victory Memorial PS - SOLD Westdale PS - French Immersion conversion
Westfield PS (Ingersoll) - SOLD
June 2010 Brick Street PS - SOLD Norwich DHS - Elementary conversion
Caradoc South PS
Manor & Highland Park PS - SOLD
M.B. McEachren PS - SOLD
Metcalfe Central PS - SOLD
Northdale PS (London) - SOLD
June 2009 Biddulph Central PS - SOLD Drumbo PS - Demolished, New School built on site
Elmdale PS - SOLD
Leesboro Central PS - SOLD
Lucan PS - SOLD
Myrtle Street PS - SOLD
Plover Mills PS - SOLD
Prince Andrew PS - SOLD
Princeton Central PS- SOLD
Sweaburg PS - SOLD
Wellington Street PS - SOLD
CAPITAL PLAN INITIATIVES ‐ FEBRUARY 2006 TO NOVEMBER 2016
Surplus Pupil Spaces / Building Area
Capacity¹:
On-The-Ground Capacity Added 13,240
On-The-Ground Capacity Reduced -9,109
Net OTG Increase 4,131
Permanent Space:
Added Square Footage through Capital Projects 1,238,367
Reduced Square Footage through Consolidations/Closures -763,268
Net Square Footage Increase 475,099
Non-Permanent Space:
Capital Projects Funding ³ (in Millions)
Capital Priorities 82.6$
School Consolidation Capital 4.3$
School Renewal (within Capital Projects)40.4$
School Condition Improvement (within Capital Projects)9.6$
Board Supported Capital 27.0$
Child Care Capital 4.9$
Child and Family Support Capital 1.8$
Community Hubs Capital 1.7$
Temporary Accommodation Allocation 4.8$
New School Sites Purchase 8.9$
Full Day Kindergarten 61.8$
Proceeds of Disposition 10.9$
Prohibitive to Repair 35.8$
Energy Efficient Schools 19.1$
Good Places to Learn 31.8$
New Pupil Places (NPP)6.2$
Primary Class Size (PCS)14.7$
Enrolment Pressure 14.4$
Reserve Funds 5.0$
Pupil Accommodation Reserve Fund 7.1$
Other 1.2$
TOTAL 394.1$
School Renewal Program - Not included in Capital Projects (in Millions)
School Renewal Program 78.3$
School Condition Improvement 81.5$
Proceeds of Disposition - School Renewal 0.5$
Energy Efficient Schools Projects 4.5$
Energy Management Projects 12.7$
Good Places to Learn Projects 60.4$
TOTAL 237.9$
* Note: Gray italicized font indicates completed funding streams.
289 portables have been removed from the board’s inventory as a result of accommodation
projects and consolidations. Therefore the theoretical reduction in temporary student
accommodation capacity (assuming a loading of 23/portable) would be 6,647.
$237.9M (2005-06 to 2016-17) has been invested in our school’s infrastructure, building systems
and components in non-capital project schools.
TVDSB School Closures, Consolidations and Openings (2006 to Present)Yearof ARCformationName of PupilAccommodationReview School NameOfficialClosure Date Consolidations / ActionsOpening /Start DateN/A None / GrowthNew Northeast London PS‐New JK ‐ 8 elementary school 2017 September 1N/A None / GrowthNew Northwest London PS‐New JK ‐ 8 elementary school 2017 September 12011‐12 ARC 16East Carling PS (formerly Bishop Townshend PS)‐Addition and renovations.2016 September 12011‐12 ARC 16Lorne Avenue PS2016 June 30(original date 2015 June 30)2015‐16: JK ‐ 8 to St. George's PS (west of Adelaide)2016‐17: remaining JK ‐ 8 to East Carling PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2011‐12 ARC 36West Elgin Senior PS2016 June 302015‐16: Grade 8 onlySchool closed and retained for future Board use.‐2011‐12 ARC 36Dunwich‐Dutton PS‐Expanded from JK ‐ 6 to JK ‐ 8(2015‐16 only: expanded to JK ‐ 7)Renovations.2016 September 12011‐12 ARC 36Aldborough PS‐Expanded from JK ‐ 6 to JK ‐ 8(2015‐16 only: expanded to JK ‐ 7)Addition and renovations.2016 September 12011‐12 ARC 37Westfield PS (Tillsonburg)‐New JK ‐ 8 elementary school2015 September 12011‐12 ARC 37South Ridge PS‐Expanded from JK ‐ 6 to JK ‐ 8Addition and renovations.2015 September 12011‐12 ARC 37Rolph Street PS2015 June 30JK ‐ 6 to South Ridge PS and Westfield PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2011‐12 ARC 37Maple Lane PS2015 June 30JK ‐ 6 to Annandale PSSchool closed and retained for future Board use.‐2011‐12 ARC 37Annandale PS‐Expanded from Gr 7 ‐ 8 to JK ‐ 8(2015‐16 only ‐ All Gr 8 remained to graduate)Renovations.2015 September 1N/ANone / French ImmersionLouise Arbour French Immersion PS(formerly Sir George Ross SS)‐Conversion and renovations.Re‐opened as SK ‐ 8 FI elementary school.SK ‐ 8 FI program relocated from Huron Heights FI PS and Centennial Central PS.2014 September 1N/ANone / French ImmersionHuron Heights French Immersion PS2014 June 30SK ‐ 8 FI program relocated to Louise Arbour FI PS.School closed and declared surplus. ‐Last revised: 2016 August 1Page 1 of 5
TVDSB School Closures, Consolidations and Openings (2006 to Present)Yearof ARCformationName of PupilAccommodationReview School NameOfficialClosure Date Consolidations / ActionsOpening /Start DateN/ANone / French ImmersionCentennial Central PS2014 June 30(FI only)FI program to Louise Arbour FI PS (SK ‐ 7 FI in 2014, Gr 8 FI remained to graduate)Remains JK ‐ 8 regular track elementary school2014 September 12011‐12 ARC 11B. Davison SS(formerly Thames SS)‐Consolidation of Sir George Ross SS and Thames SSReconstituted as Secondary Vocational School for City of London (and portion of Middlesex)2014 September 12011‐12 ARC 11Sir George Ross SS2014 June 30Gr 9 ‐ 12 to B. Davison SS.School closed and retained for future Board use.‐2009‐10 ARC 26University Heights PS‐Expanded from JK ‐ 6 to JK ‐ 8Renovations.2013 September 12009‐10 ARC 26Orchard Park PS‐Addition and renovations.2013 September 12009‐10 ARC 26Sherwood Forest PS2013 June 30JK ‐ 6 to Orchard Park PSSchool closed and declared surplus. 2013 September 12009‐10 ARC 21Mary Wright PS2012 June 30 New JK ‐ 8 elementary school2013 September 12009‐10 ARC 21J.S. Buchanan French Immersion PS(formerly Southdale PS)‐JK ‐ 8 regular track to Mary Wright PSRe‐opened as SK ‐ 8 FI elementary school.SK ‐ 8 FI program relocated from Colborne St. PS2013 September 12009‐10 ARC 21Colborne Street PS2012 June 30JK ‐ 8 regular track to Mary Wright PSSK ‐ 8 FI program to J. S. Buchanan FI PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2009‐10 ARC 21North Meadows PS‐Addition and renovations.2013 September 12009‐10 ARC 19Emily Stowe PS(formerly Norwich District HS)‐Conversion and renovations.Re‐opened as JK ‐ 8 elementary school.2012 September 12009‐10 ARC 19Otterville PS2012 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Emily Stowe PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2009‐10 ARC 19North Norwich PS2012 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Emily Stowe PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2009‐10 ARC 19Norwich PS2012 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Emily Stowe PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2009‐10 ARC 17Prince Charles PS‐Addition and renovations.2012 September 12009‐10 ARC 17Sir Winston Churchill PS2012 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Lord Nelson PS and Prince Charles PS.School closed and declared surplus.‐Last revised: 2016 August 1Page 2 of 5
TVDSB School Closures, Consolidations and Openings (2006 to Present)Yearof ARCformationName of PupilAccommodationReview School NameOfficialClosure Date Consolidations / ActionsOpening /Start Date2007‐08 ARC 15June Rose Callwood PS(formerly Edward Street PS)‐Expanded from JK ‐ 6 to JK ‐ 8Addition and renovations.2011 September 12007‐08 ARC 15Balaclava Street PS2011 June 30JK ‐ 6 to June Rose Callwood PSSchool closed and declared surplus. ‐N/ANone / French ImmersionRoch Carrier French Immersion PS(formerly Hillcrest PS ‐ Woodstock)‐SK ‐ 8 FI program relocated from Tollgate PS.Re‐opened as SK‐8 FI elementary school.2011 September 1N/ANone / French ImmersionTollgate PS2011 June 30SK ‐ 8 FI program relocated to Roch Carrier FI PS.School closed and retained for future Board use.‐2007‐08 ARC 14Hillcrest PS (Woodstock)2011 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Winchester Street PS, Springbank PS and Northdale PS (Woodstock)School closed and retained for future Board use.‐2007‐08 ARC 14Winchester Street PS(formerly D. M. Sutherland PS)‐Addition and renovations.2011 September 12007‐08 ARC 13Westfield PS2011 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Harrisfield PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2007‐08ARC 13Laurie Hawkins PS‐New JK ‐ 8 elementary school2011 September 12007‐08 ARC 13Victory Memorial PS2011 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Harrisfield PS and Royal Roads PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2007‐08 ARC 13Princess Elizabeth PS (Ingersoll) 2011 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Laurie Hawkins PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2007‐08ARC 13Royal Roads PS(formerly Princess Anne PS ‐ Ingersoll)‐Addition and renovations.2011 September 12007‐08 ARC 13Harrisfield PS(formerly Harris Heights PS)‐Addition and renovations.2011 September 12007‐08 ARC 13Beachville PS2011 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Central PS (Woodstock) and Laurie Hawkins PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐N/ANone / French ImmersionWest Oaks French Immersion PS(formerly Westdale PS)‐Re‐opened as SK ‐ 6 FI elementary school.2011 September 1Last revised: 2016 August 1Page 3 of 5
TVDSB School Closures, Consolidations and Openings (2006 to Present)Yearof ARCformationName of PupilAccommodationReview School NameOfficialClosure Date Consolidations / ActionsOpening /Start Date2007‐08 ARC 12Westdale PS2011 June 30JK ‐ 6 to Riverside PSSchool closed and retained for future Board use.‐2006‐07ARC 10(London 2)M.B. McEachren PS2010 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Lambeth PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2006‐07ARC 10(London 2)Lambeth PS(formerly A.E. Duffield PS)‐Addition and renovations.2010 September 12006‐07ARC 9 (Oxford 1)Sweaburg PS2009 June 30JK ‐ 8 to East Oxford PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2006‐07 ARC 8 (London 3)Manor & Highland Park PS2010 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Woodland Heights PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2006‐07 ARC 8 (London 3)Brick Street PS2010 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Woodland Heights PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2006‐07 ARC 7 (Oxford 2)Blenheim Central PS‐New JK ‐ 8 Public School Built on Drumbo school site2009 September 012006‐07 ARC 7 (Oxford 2)Princeton Central PS2009 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Blenheim Central PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2006‐07ARC 7 (Oxford 2)Drumbo Central PS2009 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Blenheim Central PSSchool closed and demolished‐2006‐07ARC 6(Middlesex 2)West Nissouri PS‐New JK ‐ 8 elementary school2009 September 12006‐07ARC 6(Middlesex 2)Plover Mills PS2009 June 30JK ‐ 8 to West Nissouri PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2006‐07ARC 6(Middlesex 2)Leesboro Central PS2009 June 30JK ‐ 8 to West Nissouri PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2006‐07ARC 6(Middlesex 2)Prince Andrew PS2009 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Wilberforce PS, West Nissouri PS and Centennial Central PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2006‐07ARC 6(Middlesex 2)Wilberforce PS‐New JK ‐ 8 elementary school2009 September 12006‐07ARC 6(Middlesex 2)Lucan PS2009 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Wilberforce PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2006‐07ARC 6(Middlesex 2)Biddulph Central PS2009 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Wilberforce PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐Last revised: 2016 August 1Page 4 of 5
TVDSB School Closures, Consolidations and Openings (2006 to Present)Yearof ARCformationName of PupilAccommodationReview School NameOfficialClosure Date Consolidations / ActionsOpening /Start Date2006‐07 ARC 5 (Elgin 2)Pierre Elliott Trudeau French Immersion PS(formerly Homedale Senior PS)‐Addition and renovations.Re‐opened as SK ‐ 8 FI elementary school.2010 September 12006‐07 ARC 5 (Elgin 2)Homedale Senior PS2009 June 30Gr 7 ‐ 8 to Forest Park PS, John Wise PS and Mitchell Hepburn PS.‐2006‐07ARC 5 (Elgin 2)Wellington Street PS2009 June 30SK ‐ 5 to Pierre Elliott Trudeau FI PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2006‐07 ARC 4 (Oxford 4)Norwich District HS2010 June 30Gr 9 ‐ 12 to College Avenue SS and Glendale HS.School closed and retained for future Board use.‐2006‐07 ARC 4 (Oxford 4)Glendale HS‐Expanded from Gr 10 ‐ 12 to Gr 9 ‐ 12.2010 September 12006‐07 ARC 4 (Oxford 4)Annandale PS(formerly Annandale PS & HS)2010 June 30(Secondary only)Remains Gr 7 ‐ 8 elementary schoolGrade 9 to Glendale HS 2010 September 12006‐07ARC 3(Middlesex 1)Caradoc PS(formerly Caradoc Central PS)‐Addition and renovations.2010 September 12006‐07ARC 3(Middlesex 1)Caradoc South PS2010 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Caradoc PS (formerly Caradoc Central PS) and Ekcoe Central PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2006‐07ARC 3(Middlesex 1)Metcalfe Central PS2010 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Adelaide ‐ W. G. MacDonald PS, Caradoc North PS and Ekcoe Central PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2006‐07 ARC 2 (London 1)Stoney Creek PS‐New JK ‐ 8 elementary school2009 September 12006‐07 ARC 2 (London 1)Northdale PS (London)2010 June 30JK ‐ 8 to Northridge PS and Stoney Creek PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2006‐07 ARC 1 (Elgin 1)John Wise PS‐New JK ‐ 8 elementary school2009 September 12006‐07 ARC 1 (Elgin 1)Scott Street PS2011 June 302009: JK ‐ 8 to John Wise PS (area south of Talbot)2011: JK ‐ 8 to June Rose Callwood PS (remaining)School closed and declared surplus.‐2006‐07 ARC 1 (Elgin 1)Myrtle Street PS2009 June 30JK ‐ 6 to John Wise PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐2006‐07 ARC 1 (Elgin 1)Elmdale PS2009 June 30JK ‐ 6 to John Wise PSSchool closed and declared surplus.‐N/A NoneMitchell Hepburn PS‐New JK ‐ 8 elementary school2008 September 1Last revised: 2016 August 1Page 5 of 5
Appendix C.1
School
Year Enrolment Change % Change Enrolment Change % Change
1999-00 53,509.50
-12.00 -0.02%
2000-01 53,497.50
-111.00 -0.21%
2001-02 53,386.50
-370.00 -0.69%
2002-03 53,016.50
-719.00 -1.36%
2003-04 52,297.50
-1368.00 -2.62%
2004-05 50,929.50
-871.50 -1.71%
2005-06 50,058.00
-1333.00 -2.66%
2006-07 48,725.00
-961.50 -1.97%
2007-08 47,763.50
-1129.71 -2.37%
2008-09 46,633.79
-977.76 -2.10%
2009-10 45,656.03
-185.24 -0.41%
2010-11 45,470.79 46,139.59
8.47 0.02% 399.17 0.87%
2011-12 45,479.26 46,538.76
13.24 0.03% 1,473.24 3.17%
2012-13 45,492.50 48,012.00
184.00 0.40% 1,279.00 2.66%
2013-14 45,676.50 49,291.00
1,707.00 3.46%
2014-15* 50,998.00 50,998.00
-138.88 -0.27% -138.88 -0.27%
2015-16 50,859.12 50,859.12
1212.88 2.38% 1,212.88 2.38%
2016-17 52,072.00 52,072.00
118.00 0.23% 118.00 0.23%
2017-18 52,190.00 52,190.00
74.00 0.14% 74.00 0.14%
2018-19 52,264.00 52,264.00
62.00 0.12% 62.00 0.12%
2019-20 52,326.00 52,326.00
108.00 0.21% 108.00 0.21%
2020-21 52,434.00 52,434.00
Total % Change -2.01%
(1999 to 2020)
Elementary FTE October 31 Elementary FTE Enrolment Adjusted for FDK
Note: Enrolment numbers are based on Trillium extracts for October 31st of each year and are not audited.
* Elementary FTE calculations starting in 2014-15 as per Ministry of Education Memo 2014:SB19 to reflect the elimination of
half-time register as a result of the full implementation of Full Day Kindergarten
Thames Valley District School Board
Elementary Actual & Projected October 31 FTE
Student Enrolment Change 1999-00 to 2020-21
Appendix C.2
School FTE
Year Enrolment Change % Change
1999-00 28,279.57
-85.64 -0.30%
2000-01 28,193.93
-377.88 -1.34%
2001-02 27,816.05
-315.86 -1.14%
2002-03 27,500.19
-1054.54 -3.83%
2003-04 26,445.65
161.91 0.61%
2004-05 26,607.56
103.34 0.39%
2005-06 26,710.90
55.10 0.21%
2006-07 26,766.00
-36.53 -0.14%
2007-08 26,729.47
-435.36 -1.63%
2008-09 26,294.11
-66.49 -0.25%
2009-10 26,227.62
-630.51 -2.40%
2010-11 25,597.11
-537.73 -2.10%
2011-12 25,059.38
-436.10 -1.74%
2012-13 24,623.28
-932.44 -3.79%
2013-14 23,690.84
-701.56 -2.96%
2014-15 22,989.28
-205.26 -0.89%
2015-16 22,784.02
139.95 0.61%
2016-17 22,923.97
-24.44 -0.11%
2017-18 22,899.53
239.86 1.05%
2018-19 23,139.39
-133.39 -0.58%
2019-20 23,006.00
165.00 0.72%
2020-21 23,171.00
Total Change 1999-2020 -5,108.57 -18.06%
Secondary FTE October 31
Note: Enrolment numbers are based on Trillium extracts for October 31st of
each year and are not audited.
Thames Valley District School Board
Secondary Actual & Projected October 31 FTE
Student Enrolment Change 1999-00 to 2020-2021
Appendix C.3
Year Elementary Secondary Total
Actual
1999-2000 53,509.50 28,279.57 81,789.07
2000-2001 53,497.50 28,193.93 81,691.43
2001-2002 53,386.50 27,816.05 81,202.55
2002-2003 53,016.50 27,500.19 80,516.69
2003-2004 52,297.50 26,445.65 78,743.15
2004-2005 50,929.50 26,607.56 77,537.06
2005-2006 50,058.00 26,710.90 76,768.90
2006-2007 48,725.00 26,766.00 75,491.00
2007-2008 47,763.50 26,729.47 74,492.97
2008-2009 46,633.79 26,294.11 72,927.90
2009-2010 45,656.03 26,227.62 71,883.65
2010-2011 45,470.79 25,597.11 71,067.90
2011-2012 45,479.26 25,059.38 70,538.64
2012-2013 45,492.50 24,623.28 70,115.78
2013-2014 45,676.50 23,690.84 69,367.34
2014-2015*50,998.00 22,989.28 73,987.28
2015-2016 50,859.12 22,784.02 73,643.14
Projected
2016-2017 52,072.00 22,923.97 74,995.97
2017-2018 52,190.00 22,899.53 75,089.53
2018-2019 52,264.00 23,139.39 75,403.39
2019-2020 52,326.00 23,006.00 75,332.00
2020-2021 52,434.00 23,171.00 75,605.00
FTE (Full Time Equivalent)
* Elementary FTE calculations starting in 2014-15 as per Ministry of Education
Memo 2014:SB19 to reflect the elimination of half-time register as a result of the
full implementation of Full Day Kindergarten
Thames Valley District School Board
Actual & Projected October 31 FTE Enrolment
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
Date of
Meeting: 2016 November 22
Item #:
REPORT TO:
☒
PUBLIC ☐
IN-CAMERA
☐
Administrative
Council
☐
Program and School Services
Advisory Committee
☐
Planning and Priorities
Advisory Committee
☒
Board
☐
Policy Working Committee
TITLE OF REPORT:
INITIAL SENIOR ADMINISTRATION’s REPORT – ELEMENTARY PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW 02
PRESENTED BY:
Kevin Bushell, Executive Officer, Facility Services and Capital Planning
PRESENTED FOR: ☒ Approval ☐ Information ☐ Advice
Recommendation(s): THAT the Board authorize Senior Administration to conduct a Pupil Accommodation
Review, based on the information provided in the attached Elementary Pupil
Accommodation Review-02 Initial Senior Administration’s Report, for the following schools:
Fairmont Public School
Tweedsmuir Public School.
Purpose: It is the policy of Thames Valley District School Board to:
provide our students with accommodation which supports student achievement, safety and
well-being;
ensure the long-term sustainability of our school system;
manage our resources effectively, in a manner which is well-informed, well-coordinated,
transparent and sustainable; and
identify opportunities for collaborative facility arrangements with community organizations.
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND BENEFITS TO LEARNING
Provincial guidelines note that school boards should make decisions about pupil accommodation
based on the following reasons:
1. “…fostering student achievement and well-being/supporting the school board’s student
achievement and well-being strategy…”
2. “…effective stewardship of school board resources/the most effective use of its school
building and funding…”
source: Ontario Pupil Accommodation Review (PAR) Guideline
As we work to develop the skills that our students require to be successful in today’s global
environment— with skills around collaboration, communication, innovation and creativity, we are
called upon to provide students with best possible programming and facilities within the resources
available. We need to create new school communities that will facilitate and support our learners to
be the best they can be. Through the implementation of the various changes proposed in the
Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review EPAR-02, Tweedsmuir Public School will provide
enhanced educational opportunities for our students.
As stated in the Guide to Pupil Accommodation Reviews by the Ontario Ministry of Education
(2016), there are many benefits to students in schoo ls involved in accommodation reviews.
Benefits to Students
School boards generally consolidate and close schools to enable improved educational options
and opportunities for students.
By bringing students together through a school consolidation, school boards are often able to offer
a better educational experience. Some of the potential improvements may include:
The range of programming and courses available;
The availability of specialized support services for indi vidual students or small groups;
Specialized facilities, such as gyms, libraries, design and technology, music and science
rooms;
Sufficient enrolment to support sports teams and other extracurricular activities ;
A school building in better condition than the one that is to close;
Accessibility features with respect to entry, movement within the facility and outdoor play
space.
Within Thames Valley District School Board, we see these benefits to students impacting in a
variety of ways:
The range of programming and courses available; and
The availability of specialized support services for individual students or small groups.
An increase in school size provides several benefits to students. Using a model where
multiple educators are teaching a specific grade allows for more options for student class
placement.
A greater staff complement provides more opportunities for students to receive support
from non-classroom teaching and support staff and better utilization of system support staff
such as teachers on special assignment, gifted itinerant teachers, English language
Learner (ELL) teachers, instructional coaches and superintendents of student
achievement. With fewer schools to support, less travel time for itinerant staff leads to
increased time available to be spent with students.
W e know that the greatest impact on student learning is the quality of classroom instruction
(Hattie, 2009). An increased school staff complement creates greater opportunities for
staff to co-plan, co-learn and co-teach with like-grade partners. Collaboration amongst staff
members provides dynamic and robust programming for students.
Collaboration is a key competency for today’s learners that engages them deeply and is
transferrable to new learning situations. An increased student complement presents
students with opportunities to collaborate with a greater number and more diverse group of
peers benefitting them personally and in future business and work relationships.
Sufficient enrolment to support sports teams and other extracurricular activities.
A larger staffing complement also provides increased numbers of staff to volunteer their
time in support of a wider variety of extracurricular responsibilities on behalf of students.
As well, there would be sufficient numbers of students to support various s ports teams.
Specialized facilities, such as gyms, libraries, design and technology, music and science
rooms.
One of the focus areas of the Accommodation Reviews is to improve the Library Learning
Commons in each of the schools involved.
Not only would the Library Learning Commons be updated, but with more students in a
school, the school would receive increased teacher librarian complement, allowing greater
access for students to this valuable space and teacher. Teacher -librarians serve to
enhance literacy instruction and learning across all subject areas when they partner with
the classroom teacher.
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
A school building in better condition than the one that is to close; and
Accessibility features with respect to entry, movement within the facility and outdoor play
space.
Learning environment enhancements, through capital planning initiatives, create a positive
impact on the learning environment for our students. Enhancements to natural lighting,
accessibility, display spaces, heating and ventilation, as well as the physical layout in
renovated and newly-built school settings improve the opportunities for students to focus
on collaborative, experiential and inquiry-based learning through the optimal use of all
spaces in the school.
In newly built and renovated buildings an activity room will be created. During the
instructional day the activity room may be used for, but is not limited to, physical education,
large group activities, collaborative learning activities, presentations and performances.
Benefits to the Greater Community
Consolidating schools which have had a long history, memories and often generations of families
who attended them can be a difficult process. The sense of community can be greatly enhanced
with the collective creation of a new school identity. The amalgamation of school communities or
the creation of a new school community provides opportunities for renewal; the enhancement of
past traditions and establishment of new traditions. Consolidation provides schools with a wider
range of resources and an increased number of experiences to draw upon. School Councils,
teams and clubs can benefit from a greater diversity in their membership.
Enhanced facilities provide an updated venue for the community to use school facilities for
activities that occur outside of the school day. An enhanced facility can provide a space for sports
teams, clubs, and musical groups to work within the school.
A sense of connectedness is not dependent upon the size of a school. Connectedness is
developed through the creation of a culture of learning and caring and the strengthening of
community school values and can be seen in schools of all sizes.
The Thames Valley District School Board is committed to helping every child achieve success with
the primary goal to enable students to develop the knowledge, skills, and characteristics that will
lead them to be personally successful, economically productive, and actively engaged citizens. The
TVDSB is committed to further developing a culture of learning and innovation as one of its key
principles within the Board’s vision. The creation of newly built and renovated facilities is one
action that helps us work toward this commitment. Our TVDSB students deserve the very best
learning environment where they are inspired to learn and be successful.
PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW
A Pupil Accommodation Review (PAR) is a community consultation process required by the
Ministry of Education where school closure and/or consolidation is being considered to address
changing demographics, enrolment, programming, and facility condition challenges facing a school
or schools in a particular area under review.
The Initial Senior Administration’s Report (ISAR) is intended to provide information to the Board of
Trustees, and the public, regarding existing accommodation in the area, the current surplus spaces
and growth needs and opportunities to redirect fixed resources to support student achievement and
well-being in advance of the consultation process.
The ISAR includes a School Information Profile or SIP, which contains 2015-16 background data,
for each school within the accommodation review, as well as the following:
An analysis of the current situation;
An accommodation proposal with accompanying rationale;
An overview of the consultation process;
Previous steps taken to address excess capacity within the area; and,
Timelines for implementation of recommendations.
On 2016 April 12, the Planning Department presented the Draft Elementary Accommodation Study
to the Board of Trustees, a high-level report of observations on accommodation issues in the
TVDSB that are being monitored closely. Identified in the Study was London 01, consisting of
Fairmont and Tweedsmuir Public Schools as well as the two Summerside Holding Zones
designated to those schools.
Holding Zones have a defined geographic boundary from which residing students are to attend a
designated School, as approved by the Board, until such time as long -term accommodation can be
established. In 2015 April 14, the Board approved the permanent accommodation of the
Summerside Holding Zones within the new attendance area for the proposed Southeast London
PS, upon opening.
For many years the Holding Zone students have been artificially inflating the utilization at Fair mont
PS and Tweedsmuir PS. In 2015, including the Holding Zone students, these schools had a total
enrolment of 665 and an average utilization of 81%. Now that the Board has approved the new
Attendance Area for these students, and is currently planning for the permanent accommodation of
these students, we must examine the empty pupil places that will remain in these schools.
Excluding the Holding Zone students looking only at the students from Fairmont and Tweedsmuir
attendance areas the total enrolment was 448. The combined capacity of both schools of 813
exceeds the needs for this area of Southeast London. Given that these schools are located less
than 2 km from each other, enrolment projections for this area and limited funding, students could
be accommodated in one school.
After further examination of the schools’ current and projected enrolment, the existing schools
condition, school size, other Board planning priorities and funding, it was determined that a Pupil
Accommodation Review is merited as the current situation is not sustainable.
The following proposed solution and recommendation to the accommodation issues in this region
will be included in the attached Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review (EPAT-02) Initial Senior
Administration’s Report:
Students from the Summerside Holding Zones (holding at Fairmont PS and
Tweedsmuir PS) are permanently accommodated at the new Southeast London PS,
upon opening;
Fairmont PS and Tweedsmuir PS attendance areas amalgamate, creating one
Regular Track attendance area;
Fairmont PS and Tweedsmuir PS students are consolidated into one JK - 8
Elementary school, at the Tweedsmuir facility location;
Closure and declaring Fairmont PS surplus.
Content: See attached document
Cost/Savings: See attached document
4% 4%
13%
20%
20%
17%
22%
2015-16 TVDSB Schools by Utilization Under 50 %
51- 60 %
61-70 %
71-80 %
81-90 %
91-100 %
Over 101 %
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
Timeline: See attached document
Communications: N/A
Appendices: Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review-02 Initial Senior Administration’s Report
Form Revised: January 2016
Relation to Commitments:
☒ Putting students first. ☒ Actively engaging our students, staff, families and communities.
☐ Recognizing and encouraging leadership in all its forms. ☒ Being inclusive, fair, and equitable.
☒ Ensuring safe, positive learning and working environments. ☒ Inspiring new ideas and promoting innovation.
☒ Taking responsibility for the students and resources entrusted to our care.
INITIAL SENIOR
ADMINISTRATION REPORT
ELEMENTARY PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW 02
POSTED ON THE PLANNING SERVICES WEBPAGE: 2016 NOVEMBER 15
PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES: 2016 NOVEMBER 22
Page 1 of 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 2
BACKGROUND TO THE PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW PROCESS ........................................... 2
STUDENT ACCOMMODATION ............................................................................................................... 2
SUMMARY OF THE CURRENT SITUATION ........................................................................................... 4
NOTES ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILES ...................................................................................................... 4
SECTION 2 - CURRENT ACCOMMODATION DETAILS ........................................................................... 5
FAIRMONT PUBLIC SCHOOL: ................................................................................................................ 5
TWEEDSMUIR PUBLIC SCHOOL: .......................................................................................................... 7
SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDED SOLUTION ............................................................................................... 9
AMALGAMATED JK-8 SCHOOL AT TWEEDSMUIR SITE ................................................................... 11
FINALNCIAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 15
TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION: ..................................................................................................... 17
SECTION 4 – COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION & MUNICIPAL INPUT ..................................................... 18
SECTION 5 - CO-BUILD AND COLLABORATION OPPORTUNITIES .................................................... 18
SECTION 6 - PAR CALENDAR & TIMELINE ............................................................................................ 19
EPAR-02 TIMELINE: ............................................................................................................................... 19
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................. 20
A. GLOSSARY
B. SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILES:
B-1 FAIRMONT PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-2 TWEEDSMUIR PUBLIC SCHOOL
C. COMMUNITY PLANNING & FACILITY COLLABORATION MEETING INFORMATION
D. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION INPUT
Page 2 of 20
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND TO THE PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW PROCESS
The School Board Efficiencies and Modernization Strategy (SBEM) was introduced to provide incentives
and supports for school boards to make more efficient use of school space. As part of this program the
Ministry of Education announced a number of funding changes (such as the reduction and elimination of
top-up funding) for operation and maintenance aimed at motivating school boards to address surplus
capacity (unfunded space). The revenue loss is in the excess of $4M.
The Ministry of Education’s Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline (2015 March) established
expectations for all school boards on managing and reviewing underutilized school space, including
potential school closures, and for the greater coordination and sharing of planning related information
between school boards and other community partners.
A Pupil Accommodation Review (PAR) is a community consultation process required by the Ministry of
Education where school closures and/or consolidations are being considered to address changing
demographics, enrolment, programming, and facility condition challenges facing a school or schools in a
particular area under review.
In order to determine the parameters of the proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review-02
(EPAR-02), the following fundamental questions were posed related to each school included in this PAR:
Have any issues been identified as a priority of the Board?
Is the current situation sustainable (with respect to enrolment projections, school utilization, and
facility renewal/condition)?
Does the current situation provide equity of programming for all of our students?
Is there an opportunity to improve student learning?
Is the current situation financially sustainable (with respect to funding available)?
Are there any potential facility collaboration opportunities with community organizations?
School consolidation can often provide opportunities to invest in enhanced learning opportunities for
students. Quality teaching and learning environments are key to effective program delivery. Schools built
50-60 years ago often do not meet the programming needs of today’s curriculum and students. Access to
up-to-date facilities with appropriate kindergarten spaces, gymnasia, learning commons with maker
spaces are examples of enhanced learning environments that can prepare our students for the future.
The purpose of a Pupil Accommodation Review is to discuss with parents, and our greater school
communities, the Initial Senior Administration’s Report (ISAR) which focuses on a fundamental question:
Are we providing the optimal educational opportunities and facilities for our students?
STUDENT ACCOMMODATION
The schools within this accommodation study area include Fairmont and Tweedsmuir Public Schools.
These schools are located in southeast London in the City of London’s planning districts of Hamilton
Road and Jackson. Within the existing community of Fairmont and Tweedsmuir Public Schools the
community has seen decline in the number of school aged children from 2001 to 2011. The current
attendance area for Fairmont Public School has some potential for residential growth with the secondary
plan for lands known as Meadowlily. This area is still in a planning stage and will be revisited in 2017-
2018 as indicated by the City of London’s planning department. All other surrounding parcels are already
built up, zoned for industrial use or designated as environmentally significant areas.
Page 3 of 20
The two schools in this study area are currently Holding Schools for areas within the Summerside
community. Holding Zones are typically within areas of residential growth where a development is held at
another school until permanent accommodation can be met. Delays in construction and low Board share
of students have caused a delay in the removal of these Holding Zones. Although the development in the
Summerside community and surrounding area has progressed over the last few years, the planned
growth will cause enrolment pressure at Princess Elizabeth Public School as enrolment succeeds the
holding accommodation designated years ago. In the spring of 2015, the Southeast London Attendance
Area Review was conducted to create an attendance area for the new Southeast London Public School.
On April 14th, 2015 the three Summerside Holding Zones were approved by the Board to be included in
the New Southeast London Public School attendance area.
With the Holding Zones still being accommodated temporarily at these schools facilities, the enrolment
versus capacity is perceived as suitable, but as the demographics have changed in the existing
communities of Tweedsmuir and Fairmont Public Schools the Thames Valley District School Board will
have challenges with low student enrolment when the Holding Zones are removed.
In the following enrolment and capacity chart, only the in area student populations and capacities of
school facilities are compared.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Students (FTE) School Year
EPAR-02 - Enrolment and Capacity - Status Quo
OTG Capacity Projected Enrolment Existing Community Historical Enrolment
Page 4 of 20
SUMMARY OF THE CURRENT SITUATION
The Draft Elementary Accommodation Study (2016 April 12) identified a number of issues in southeast
London which merit an Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review (EPAR-02), including: current and
projected enrolment, the existing schools’ condition, school size and other Board planning priorities.
Given enrolment projections for this area and limited funding, students could be accommodated in one
school.
For many years now the enrolment at Fairmont Public School and Tweedsmuir Public School has been
artificially inflated due to Holding Zone students. Now that permanent accommodation has been
approved by the Board, we must focus on resolving the problem of low enrolment for both schools. As
this area is considered an established community with limited development opportunity enrolment in this
area is not projected to increase. In 2015-16 the total enrolment of in area students was 448, the OTG
Capacity at Fairmont PS was 355 and 458 at Tweedsmuir PS. With an addition and renovations,
students could be accommodated in one facility that would meet current Board standards.
NOTES
All information identified in the Pre or existing situation and the School Information Profiles are based on
2015-16 school year data.
The following Special Education assumptions have been utilized for the recommended solution:
As the student need is anticipated to remain consistent, the total Learning Support teachers and
Educational Assistants allocation has remained unchanged from the 2015-16 staffing complement and
the allocations have been distributed proportionately with the student movement.
The following Transportation assumptions have been utilized for the recommended solution:
The transportation calculations for the recommendations have been based on 2015-16 student numbers
and residences.
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILES
The School Information Profiles (SIP), located in Appendix B, provide data from the 2015-16 school year
for each of the schools involved in the EPAR-02. Each SIP provides a school overview, an instructional
profile, a facility and site profile, and a municipality and community use profile. This information is
provided to assist the Pupil Accommodation Review Committee (PARC) and the community in
understanding the context surrounding the decision to include each for the specific schools in the EPAR-
02 process.
Page 5 of 20
SECTION 2 - CURRENT ACCOMMODATION DETAILS
FAIRMONT PUBLIC SCHOOL:
(See also School Information Profile (SIP) for further information)
Attendance Areas - A map of the current attendance area and associated Holding Zones can be found
in Section A of the Fairmont Public School SIP.
Program - Fairmont Public School is an English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 8 Elementary
school. The Deaf and Hard of Hearing program (junior and intermediate) classes, serving the entire
TVDSB, have been placed by the Board at this location.
School Organization - In 2015-16, there were 1 Full Day Kindergarten, 4.5 Primary (grade 1-3), and 6.5
Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes, including were 8 split grade classes. As kindergarten is
considered a two year program in the TVDSB, classes contain both junior and senior students. In 2015-
16, there were 1 Full Day Kindergarten, 1 Primary (grade 1-3), and 1 Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-
8) Deaf and Hard of Hearing classes. All Special Education classes meet the Ministry of Education
standards for class size.
Before & After School Program - There was a Before and After School program available in 2015-16,
offered by the YMCA of Western Ontario with a before school start time of 7:30 am and an after school
end time of 6:00 pm. Before and After School program costs were fully recoverable. Total revenue from
this program was $1,000.
Community Use - In 2015-16, 10 permits were taken out for the school building, totalling 613 hours and
a total revenue of $3,489.75 through the Community Use of Schools. There were also 2 permits taken
out for the school grounds, totalling 311 booked hours and a total revenue of $488.00 through the
Community Use of Schools
Collaborations - In 2015-16, no facility collaborations, non-school programs or services were located at
the school.
Enrolment - Enrolment projections have been separated for the existing in area community and the
Summerside Holding Zone students. The in area enrolment for Fairmont is projected to remain relatively
stable: 145 pupils in 2016; 165 pupils in 2020; and finally, 153 pupils in 2024. Enrolment charts with
grade by grade data can be found in Section B of the SIP.
Staffing Complement - In 2015-16, Fairmont Public School had a total staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
allocation of 37.00.
Administrative allocation: 1 Principal, 0.5 Vice-Principal, and 1.0 Secretary
Teacher allocation: 20.21 FTE teachers, 3.57 Special Education teachers, 0.47 teacher-
librarians, 0.3 ESL teachers and 1.7 learning support teachers.
Educational Assistant allocation: 5.0.
Early Childhood Educator allocation: 1.0.
Custodial allocation: 2.25.
Development - The majority of the Fairmont Public School attendance area is developed, as the
surrounding parcels are already built up, zoned for industrial use or designated as environmentally
significant areas. The exception to this is the area of Meadowlilly located south of the Thames River. In
2012, the City of London created five possibilities for land use of the area. Planning will continue to
monitor this area as this Secondary plan is still in the early stages and further studies of the area will be
addressed as the City plans to revisit the Secondary plan in 2017-2018.
Demographics - Statistics Canada census indicates that between 2001 and 2006 the total population
increased by 5%. Between 2006 and 2011 the population slightly decreased by 1%. Although the total
Page 6 of 20
population has remained relatively stable over the past 10 years, the population of elementary school
aged children (4 to 13 year olds) has decreased by 12 % between 2001 and 2006 and another 20%
between 2006 and 2011. The student population has stabilized over the past 5 years with no significant
residential growth within this area. Continued stabilization is anticipated as indicated in the Enrolment
chart found in Section B of the Fairmont Public School SIP.
Accommodations - In 2015-16, Fairmont Public School was at 79.2% utilization, when Holding Students
are removed, the in area utilization would be 42.0%. The 2015-16 On-The-Ground Capacity (or OTG) of
Fairmont Public School was 355. As determined by the Ministry of Education loading calculations, the
loaded spaces included: 2 FDK classrooms, 11 Standard Classrooms, 1 Computer lab, and 3 Special
Education Classrooms. Non-loaded space included: 1 Learning Commons, 1 gymnasium and stage and
seminar room. There was also one portable classroom.
The Space Template for Fairmont Public School (found in Section C of the SIP) identifies Instructional
and Operational spaces. Instructional spaces are broken down by room type, size and Ministry of
Education loading calculations. Operational spaces are broken down by space type and size.
The calculated area per pupil by OTG is 99.82 sq. ft.; the calculated area per pupil by 2015-16 enrolment
is 126.10 sq. ft. and the calculated area per in area pupil (excluding the Holding students) is 236.23 sq. ft.
Facility Condition & Renewal - Fairmont Public School was originally built in 1952 with additions built in
1955, 1966, and 1982. The TVDSB has invested $85,715 in renewal in the school. This work is identified
by project in the chart located in Section C of the SIP.
The Ministry of Education’s School Facility Condition Assessment Program retained third -party
consultants to inspect, assess and catalogue the condition of schools across Ontario. The school
condition data collected identified a renewal backlog of High and Urgent needs totalling $4,012,350 for
Fairmont Public School.
The Facility Condition Index or FCI (snapshot in time calculation) compares the relative condition of a
building’s 5 year renewal needs and the cost to rebuild the facility. The higher the FCI the greater the
renewal needs. The FCI for is Fairmont Public School is 71%. (See also the Glossary for further
information regarding FCIs)
Transportation - 4 vehicles were utilized to transport 52 in area students to Fairmont Public School at a
cost of $37,799 (not including specialized transportation). The average ride time was 9 minutes. The
range of student residence proximity to Fairmont Public School is 0.07 - 2.45km.
Financial Analysis of the School - Using the School based costs of Administration, Facility Services
and Information Technology, it has been calculated that in 2015-16 the average cost per student at
Fairmont Public School (excluding Holding Zone students) was $3,068.45 compared to the Board
average cost per student of $1,416.06 as identified in the chart found in Section C of the SIP.
Page 7 of 20
TWEEDSMUIR PUBLIC SCHOOL:
(See also School Information Profile (SIP) for further information)
Attendance Area - A map of the current attendance area and associated Holding Zones can be found in
Section A of the Tweedsmuir Public School SIP.
Program - Tweedsmuir Public School is an English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 8 Elementary
school.
School Organization - In 2015-16, there were 3 Full Day Kindergarten, 5.5 Primary (grade 1-3), and 7.5
Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes, including 8 split grade classes. As kindergarten is
considered a two year program in the TVDSB, classes contain both junior and senior students
Before & After School Program - There was a Before and After School program available in 2015-16,
offered by the London Children’s Connection with a before school start time of 7:30 am and an after
school end time of 6:00 pm. Before and After School program costs were fully recoverable. Total revenue
from this program was $1,000.
Community Use - In 2015-16, 17 permits were taken out for the school building, totalling 327 hours and
a total revenue of $782.70 through the Community Use of Schools. There were no permits taken out for
the use of school grounds through Community Use of Schools.
Collaborations - In 2015-16, no facility collaborations, non-school programs or services were located at
the school.
Enrolment - Enrolment projections have been separated for the existing in area community and the
Summerside Holding Zone students. The in area enrolment for Tweedsmuir is projected to decline: 283
pupils in 2016; 271 pupils in 2020; and finally, 247 pupils in 2024. Enrolment charts with grade by grade
data can be found in Section B of the SIP.
Staffing Complement - In 2015-16, Tweedsmuir Public School had a total staff Full Time Equivalent
(FTE) allocation of 34.63.
Administrative allocation: 1 Principal, 0.5 Vice-Principal, and 1.0 Secretary
Teacher allocation: 21.16 FTE teachers, 0.62 teacher-librarian, 0.1 ESL teacher and 1.5 learning
support teachers.
Early Childhood Educator allocation: 1.0.
Educational Assistant allocation: 3.5.
Custodial allocation: 2.25.
Development - The current attendance area of Tweedsmuir Public School has no significant residential
development, with limited lands for future residential growth. The attendance area has limited lands for
future residential growth.
Demographics - Statistics Canada Census Data indicates that between 2001 and 2006 the total
population increased by 5%, between 2006 and 2011 the population increased again by 1%. The
Elementary school aged children (4 to 13 year olds) was stable between 2001 and 2006 and decreased
8% between 2006 and 2011. These demographics are anticipated to continue, as indicated in the
Enrolment chart found in Section B of the Tweedsmuir Public School SIP.
Accommodations - In 2015-16, Tweedsmuir Public School was at 83.84% utilization. When Holding
Zone students are removed, the in area utilization would be 65.07%.
The 2015-16 On-The-Ground Capacity (or OTG) of Tweedsmuir Public School was 458. As determined
by the Ministry of Education loading calculations, the loaded spaces included: 3 FDK classrooms, 15
Standard Classrooms, 1 Computer lab and 1 Learning support room. Non-loaded space included: Non-
loaded space included: 1 Learning Commons, 1 General Arts room 1 gymnasium and stage.
Page 8 of 20
The Space Template for Tweedsmuir Public School (found in Section C of the SIP) identifies Instructional
and Operational spaces. Instructional spaces are broken down by room type, size and Ministry of
Education loading calculations. Operational spaces are broken down by space type and size.
The calculated area per pupil by OTG is 84.30 sq. ft.; the calculated area per pupil by 2015-16 enrolment
is 100.55 sq. ft. and the calculated area per in area pupil (excluding the Holding students) is 129.56 sq. ft.
Facility Condition & Renewal - Tweedsmuir Public School was originally built in 1959 with additions built
in 1961, 1965, and 1990. In the last 10 years, the TVDSB has invested $541,691 in renewal in the school.
This work is identified by project in the chart located in Section C of the SIP.
The Ministry of Education’s School Facility Condition Assessment Program retained third -party
consultants to inspect, assess and catalogue the condition of schools across Ontario. The school
condition data collected identified a renewal backlog of High and Urgent needs totalling $4,299,500 for
Tweedsmuir
The Facility Condition Index or FCI (snapshot in time calculation) compares the relative condition of a
building’s 5 year renewal needs and the cost to rebuild the facility. The higher the FCI, the greater the
renewal needs. The FCI Tweedsmuir Public School is 60%. (See also the Glossary for further
information regarding FCIs)
Transportation - 4 vehicles were utilized to transport 147 in area students to Tweedsmuir Public School
at a cost of $57,210. The average ride time was 13 minutes. The range of student residence proximity to
Tweedsmuir Public School is 0.01 - 3.48km.
Financial Analysis of the School - Using the School based costs of Administration, Facility Services
and Information Technology, it has been calculated that in 2015-16 the average cost per student at
Tweedsmuir Public School (excluding Holding Zone students) was $1,549.24 compared to the Board
average cost per student of $1,416.06 as identified in the chart found in Section C of the SIP.
Page 9 of 20
SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
The TVDSB is committed to providing quality education to students through programs and facilities that
support academic achievement and well-being and to ensuring effective stewardship of the resources of
the Board.
The Senior Administration’s recommended changes involve the consolidation of the two elementary
schools. This consolidation will allow for the City of London’s planning district to have a centered school
community with a viable and more economical sustainability. The student population has stabilized over
the past 5 years; with no significant residential growth within the study area. The Thames Valley District
School Board will be able to enhance program opportunities for the Hamilton Road and Jackson
community district and sustain student accommodation now and in the future.
By 2023-24 the total enrolment of in area students is projected to drop to 150 at Fairmont and 246 at
Tweedsmuir PS. By factoring the existing OTG Capacity, the utilization at Fairmont PS will drop to 42.2%
and at Tweedsmuir PS it would drop to 53.7%.
The operational costs to maintain, clean and heat these spaces will not be funded by the province. This
funding shortfall will have to be subsidized by the system as a whole, further resulting in fully-occupied
classrooms being under allocated in funds and added dilution of resources.
Based on careful consideration of demographics, program offerings, historical enrolment trends, location
of existing students and facility size/condition, the Senior Administration’s recommendations have been
developed to provide enhanced learning opportunities for students and to address the long term
accommodation needs of the Board.
The Senior Administration’s recommended solution and date of implementation are contingent
upon the Ministry of Education’s approval and capital funding of the new Southeast London
Public School.
The following are the Senior Administration’s recommendations with respect to EPAR-02, to
resolve accommodation issues in this region:
THAT the attendance areas of Fairmont Public School and Tweedsmuir Public School
amalgamate, creating one Regular Track JK - 8 attendance area, effective 2019 July 01,
contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding ;
THAT the Fairmont Public School and Tweedsmuir Public School students be
consolidated into one JK - 8 Elementary school, located at 349 Tweedsmuir Avenue,
London ON, effective 2019 July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of
capital funding;
THAT an addition and renovations be completed for student accommodation and program
enhancement at Tweedsmuir Public School, contingent upon Ministry of Education
approval of capital funding;
THAT Fairmont Public School be closed and declared surplus, as of 2019 July 01,
contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding .
Page 10 of 20
The resulting combined enrolments will provide greater opportunities for students within the review area.
This consolidation of schools will also assist in reducing the unfunded space operated by the board as
well as long term renewal and operating costs.
Page 11 of 20
AMALGAMATED JK-8 SCHOOL AT TWEEDSMUIR SITE
Attendance Area - Figure 01, recommended Tweedsmuir Public School new attendance area,
effective 2019 September 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Tweedsmuir PS - Enrolment and Capacity
OTG Capacity
Projected Enrolment
Holding Community
Projected Enrolment
Existing Community
Historical Enrolment
Page 12 of 20
Development – The majority of the two schools’ existing community land use is built up, zoned for
industrial use or designated as environmentally significant areas. The exception to this is the area of
Meadowlilly, located south of the Thames River. In 2012, the City of London created five possibilities for
Land use in the area. As the majority of the area within Meadowlily is identified as open space the City of
London has indicated the total area acknowledged as urban reserve community growth is 20.8 hectares. The
City has also communicated that if the growth area was developed with only residential units the breakdown of
type would be 75% low density and 25% medium density, totaling 858 units. The City indicated this to be a
high estimate as possible servicing constraints could reduce the developable area to 20.8 hectares.
With the possibility of development of this area the Planning department has completed preliminary
projections of the student yields using the possible land use designation as indicated by the City of
London. It is projected that 120 students would emanate from the completed Meadowlily subdivision based on
current student yields and a 10 year build out. Planning will continue to monitor this area as this Secondary
plan is still in the early stages and further studies of the area will be addressed as the City plans to revisit
the Secondary plan in 2017-2018. It should be noted that new development within a community allows
for an increase in student enrolment which helps the viability of a school an d its community.
Enrolment Projections
Program - English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 8 Elementary school.
School Organization - Projections indicate, as of 2019-20 there will be sufficient enrolment to have 3 Full
Day Kindergarten, 5.2 Primary (grade 1-3), and 9.4 Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes, with
only a limited need for split grade classes. As kindergarten is considered a two year program in the
TVDSB, classes will continue to contain both junior and senior students.
The placements of self-contained Special Education program classes are at the discretion of the Special
Education department. For the purpose of this scenario, the self-contained Deaf and Hard of Hearing
classes have been allocated to Tweedsmuir Public School for calculation purposes only. Staffing
allocation will remain unchanged. Final placement of this program class is outside the purview of this
process.
Tweedsmuir PS Historical and Projected Enrolment
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8
SE FTE
2011 30 29 34 28 30 35 45 43 31 46 0 351
2012 39 39 31 40 39 33 39 50 43 36 0 389
2013 36 37 40 33 41 45 32 43 47 41 0 395
2014 37 38 34 41 35 38 42 35 42 48 0 390
2015 41 32 36 37 36 40 39 46 34 43 0 384
2016 35 30 30 37 40 40 41 39 35 34 0 361
2017 42 30 28 31 37 41 40 42 38 35 0 364
2018 37 37 29 30 30 37 41 41 40 38 0 360
2019 43 37 39 36 29 37 48 59 48 43 20 439
2020 43 38 36 39 37 30 37 49 58 49 20 436
2021 43 38 37 36 40 38 30 37 47 59 20 425
2022 44 38 37 37 37 40 38 30 36 48 20 405
2023 44 39 37 37 38 38 40 38 29 36 20 396
2024 44 39 38 37 38 39 38 41 37 29 20 400
2025 44 39 38 38 38 39 39 38 39 37 20 409
2026 44 39 38 38 39 39 39 39 37 39 20 411
Page 13 of 20
Accommodations - Program enhancements, addition and renovations are recommended for student
accommodation. Improvements include a new gymnasium and primary activity room addition and
program enhancements to create a Learning Commons. Renovations would include Full Day
Kindergarten and standard classrooms and General Arts classroom improvements.
Following an accommodation review that results in school consolidation, it is the practice of the TVDSB
that remaining facilities are renewed and AODA requirements.
Educational Opportunities and Benefits to Learning
School boards generally consolidate schools to enable improved educational options and opportunities
for students. By bringing students together through a school consolidation, school boards are often able
to offer a better educational experience.
One of the focus areas of the Accommodation Reviews is to improve the Library Learning Commons at
Tweedsmuir Public School. A new Library Learning Commons would be created.
Another focus of the Accommodation Reviews is to move the FDK classrooms to the first floor, providing
ease of accessibility for Early Years students.
Learning environment enhancements, through capital planning initiatives, create a positive impact on the
learning environment for our students. Enhancements to natural lighting, accessibility, display spaces,
heating and ventilation, as well as the physical layout in renovated and newly-built school settings
improve the opportunities for students to focus on collaborative, experiential and inquiry-based learning
through the optimal use of all spaces in the school.
In the planned addition, a gymnasium and activity room would be created. During the instructional day
the activity room may be used for, but is not limited to, physical education, large group activities,
collaborative learning activities, presentations and performances.
In a renovated building a General Arts classroom would be created. The general arts room is a multi-
purpose room. It is equipped with sound attenuation panels and increased storage for musical
instruments and visual arts supplies.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Students (FTE) School Year
EPAR-02 - Senior Administration's Recommended
Enrolment and Capacity
OTG Capacity Projected Enrolment Existing Community Historical Enrolment
Page 14 of 20
Transportation - It is anticipated that 150 students would be eligible for transportation and 4 buses would
be required in the recommended solution. The average bus ride time would be 11 minutes and the
longest bus ride time would be 30 minutes. The student proximity to school would remain similar with
both the average distance of 1.31 km and the longest distance of 3.94 km.
The exact number and location of students in 2019-20 cannot be confirmed at this time, in order to create
bus run transportation scenarios and costing. The transportation calculations for the recommendations
have been based on 2015-16 student numbers and locations.
Grandparenting Option - As Fairmont Public School is recommended to close, the grandparenting
option is not available for the 2019-20 grade 7 students.
Co-Build Opportunity - TVDSB will circulate potential co-build opportunities to Community Organizations
for Tweedsmuir Public School.
Page 15 of 20
FINALNCIAL ANALYSIS
OPERATIONAL COST/SAVINGS
It has been calculated that an annual savings of $628,500 would be achieved through the recommended
consolidations
Pre
Consolidation
Cost
Post
Consolidation
Cost
Savings /
(Cost)
Facilities $423,625
$276,250
$147,375
Transportation $315,675
$347,344
($31,669)
IT $ 22,492
$11,246
$11,246
Staffing $3,927,309
$3,288,406
$638,903
$4,689,101
$3,923,246
$765,855
Adjusted Teacher Costs Due to Enrolment Changes once
consolidations are in place
($137,355)
Adjusted Annual Savings
$628,500
CAPITAL COSTS
School Project Type
Estimated
Cost Description
TWEEDSMUIR PS Addition and
Renovations $3,503,000
Addition for Gymnasium.
Renovations include FDK, classrooms,
General Arts, Learning Commons
Total $3,503,000 Note: Project contingent on Ministry of Education Capital Funding approval
The accommodation changes required as a resulted of the proposed consolidation recommended in
EPAR-02 deal with ensuring Tweedsmuir PS has appropriate program spaces that meet TVDSB
standards of the students designated to the school.
It should be noted that through the proposed consolidation, closure and disposition of Fairmont PS, the
Board has removed $4,012,350 of high and urgent renewal needs identified at Fairmont PS.
Page 16 of 20
COST PER STUDENT
The following costs per student were calculated for the existing schools in EPAR-02, without the Holding
Zone students, using the site base cost of: School Administration, Facility Services and Information
Technology.
The average Board cost per Elementary student is $1416.06.
CURRENT SITUATION
School Cost per Student
Fairmont PS $3,068.45
Tweedsmuir PS $1,549.24
As noted above, both school’s cost per student is greater than the Board Average.
The average cost per student for the current student in EPAR-02 is $2057.90 not including the Holding
Zone students.
RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
School Cost per Student
Tweedsmuir PS $1,253.94
The average cost per student for the proposed recommendation for EPAR-02 is $1253.94 which is a
saving of $803.96 per student from the current situation excluding Holding Zone students.
Page 17 of 20
TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION:
The new Southeast London Elementary School and the addition to Tweedsmuir Public School are
dependent upon Ministry of Education approval and funding of the capital construction. Implementation
of the recommendation to close Fairmont Public School and consolidate in area students at Tweedsmuir
Public School are dependent upon Ministry of Education approval and funding of the capital construction.
The transition planning will be completed in consultation with parents/guardians and school staff.
The Board is unable to fund or complete the proposed recommendations without Ministry funding.
Existing School Closure Consolidated
Attenance Area
New
Accommodation
Fairmont PS 2019-06-30*
Tweedsmuir PS 2019-07-01*2019-09-01*
* Dates that are contingent on Ministry of Education Capital Funding Approval
Implementation Timeline by School
Page 18 of 20
SECTION 4 – COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION & MUNICIPAL INPUT
The Board has provided opportunity for collaborations at schools within this PAR through the Facility
Organization and Collaboration Opportunity Procedure and its predecessor Encouraging Facility
Partnerships Procedure. To date, the Board has not received any interest in collaborations.
The Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Meetings were held on 2016 June 15, for the City of
London and County of Middlesex, and 2016 June 16, for the County of Elgin and County of Oxford. (See
Appendix C for the meeting invitation and agenda) Attendees were asked to provide feedback on the
information presented, as well to provide the Planning Department with any relevant planning information
of their own. The 2016 April 12, Draft Elementary Accommodation Study was shared and details were
discussed, outlining areas of existing accommodation pressure or surplus and identified future Board
needs.
In addition, on 2016 September 16, the Board of Trustees approved for Senior Administration to contact
listed Community Organizations within the region of the proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation
Reviews.
On 2016 September 19, an email communication was sent to all listed Community Organizations within
the regions of the proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Reviews identifying; the names of the
schools involved, any potential school closures, and any proposed student long-term accommodation.
By Thursday, October 13, 2016, Community Organizations were asked to provide the TVDSB Planning
Department, by email, with: a clear indication of any community planning or facility collaboration
opportunities the respective recipient is aware of and which relate to the schools identified; and any
relevant technical information the recipient may have and wish to provide, including but not limited to, in
the case of any municipal level of government, the municipal level of governments population and future
development projections for the affected region.
To this day, the Planning Department has received 1 communication from the Municipalities or
Community Organizations who attended and/or were notified of the meeting. The input received has been
attached as Appendix D
SECTION 5 - CO-BUILD AND COLLABORATION OPPORTUNITIES
As part of the Senior Administration’s recommendations there is opportunity for co-build(s) and
collaboration(s) with Community Organizations. The chart below summarizes the potential opportunities
with respect to the Senior Administration’s recommendations:
Elementary School Co-Build Collaboration Collaboration Space Available
Opportunity Opportunity* ~ Rooms ~ Sq. Ft.
Tweedsmuir Yes No N/A N/A
Page 19 of 20
SECTION 6 - PAR CALENDAR & TIMELINE
EPAR-02 TIMELINE:
In accordance with the TVDSB Pupil Accommodation and Facility Organization and the Community
Planning and Facility Collaboration Opportunities procedures and in compliance with Ministry of
Education’s Pupil Accommodation Review and Community Planning and Partnership Guidelines’
minimum and maximum timelines, Senior Administration has outlined the following proposed Elementary
Pupil Accommodation Review - 02 schedule of meetings and important dates:
Scheduled Dates Meeting
2016 December 12 Orientation Meeting (for PAR Committee members only)
2016 December 14 Post Determination Meeting with listed Community Organizations
2017 January 10 Initial Public Meeting of EPAR-02
2017 January 16 School Level Meeting(s) #1
2017 February 9 Second Public Meeting of EPAR-02
2017 February 13 School Level Meeting(s) #2
2017 March 9 Final Public Meeting of EPAR-02
(presentation of each school’s reports)
2017 April 11 Final Senior Administration’s Report (FSAR) presented to the Board
(tabled to allow for public delegation)
2017 May 2 Public Delegation Meeting
2017 May 23 FSAR including public delegation input returns to Board for
Final Decisions by the Board of Trustees
The Final Senior Administration’s Report will be posted for public viewing on the Board’s Planning
webpage and presented to the Board on 2017 April 11. It will contain the final recommendations and
include feedback received through the Pupil Accommodation Review process (a report from each school
involved in the accommodation review, and input received from the listed Community Organizations and
from the public) to assist the Board with deliberation and decisions.
Following the presentation of the FSAR at a special Board meeting on 2017 May 2, public delegations to
the Board will be received. On 2017 May 23, two weeks following public delegations, the Board is
scheduled to deliberate and make final decisions regarding EPAR-01.
Page 20 of 20
APPENDICES
A. GLOSSARY
B. SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILES:
B-1 FAIRMONT PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-2 TWEEDSMUIR PUBLIC SCHOOL
C. COMMUNITY PLANNING & FACILITY COLLABORATION MEETING INFORMATION
D. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION INPUT
TERM DEFINITION
Activity Room Space used for the delivery of Physical Education curriculum for primary students.
Calculated space includes: gym floor area and storage. This space is not loaded by
the Ministry. The TVDSB standard for an Activity Room is 1,300 sq. ft.
Allocation of Custodial Staff The number of Custodial Staff allocated to a School is calculated using the Board’s
current staffing formula. Where a School site does not use TVDSB Custodial Staff,
the equivalent custodial full time equivalent will be calculated based on the hours
provided in the current Contract Cleaning agreement.
Annual Planning Report
(formerly Annual Pupil
Accommodation Report)
An annual report that provides a summary of the Board’s pupil accommodation
status including both accomplishments and items requiring future studies.
Attendance Area An area defined by a geographic boundary which determines students’ designation
to a particular School or program (e.g. French Immersion and Emphasis
Technology), based on primary residence within that area.
Before and After School
Program
A child minding service provided by community child care organizations occurring
within the school facility outside the instructional day during the school year.
Cohort A group of subjects who share a defining characteristic.
Collaboration Suitability How suitable a school would be to accommodate a possible facility collaboration as
deemed by TVDSB.
Community Organization Regional entities (including municipalities) within the TVDSB, as identified on the
TVDSB planning website.
Community Use of Grounds The usage of the School’s grounds is determined by the number of booked permits
through the Community Use of Schools.
Community Use of School The usage of the School building is determined by the number of booked permits
(permits issued per space) and booked hours (hours booked per space) through the
Community Use of Schools.
Computer Lab Students vacate regular classrooms for rotary computer studies in this room. When
not included in a Learning Commons, this space is loaded by the Ministry at 23.
Dwelling A type of residence.
Enrolment Total number of students that are attending a school at particular date.
Facility Condition Index
(FCI)
The FCI is a standard benchmark that is used to compare the relative condition of a
building. It compares a facility’s total five year renewal needs to the cost of
rebuilding the facility.
FCI=Five year of renewal needs (year of assessment plus four (4)) divided
Asset Replacement Value (based on Ministry Construction Benchmarks)
In general, the higher the FCI, the more renewal needs and therefore the poorer
condition of the building.
Final Senior Administration
Report (FSAR)
The Final Senior Administration Report will include the final written reports of the
applicable School PARC Subcommittees; the TVDSB Senior Administration’s final
recommendations on pupil accommodation and attendance areas, together with a
proposed timeline for implementation; advise parties wishing to make presentations
to the Trustees at the Public Delegation Meeting that they are required to submit a
presenter package as per Board procedure; and any written views and/or materials
received.
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX A
Page 1 of 5
TERM DEFINITION
Full Time Equivalent (FTE)Full-time equivalent (FTE) is defined as the total hours worked or instruction
minutes received divided by the average hours required for a full-time status.
Gymnasium Space used for the delivery of Physical Education curriculum, School assemblies,
community activities, etc. Calculated space includes; gym floor area, stage, change
rooms, and storage. This space is not loaded by the Ministry.
The TVDSB standards are based on OTG.
The standard for Elementary schools up to 360 is 4,000 sq. ft., 361-630 is 6,000 sq.
ft., and over 630 is 8,000 sq. ft.
High Density Unit Housing with a higher population density than the average (apartment buildings).
Historical Enrolment Total number of students that attended a school at particular date in the past.
Holding Zone An area defined by a geographic boundary, within an Attendance Area (usually with
high concentrations of new or imminent development), for which the Trustees have
approved that students residing in it are to attend a specified School based on
available capacity, until such time as long-term accommodation and related revised
Attendance Areas can be established.
Holding Zone Students Students who reside within a defined Holding Zone. These students attend a
Holding School.
Imputted Expenditures to
Transport Students to
School
The cost to transport students as provided by Finance.
Initial Senior Administration
Report (ISAR)
An Initial Senior Administration Report will contain a summary of accommodation
issues; recommended option(s); information on actions taken by TVDSB
Administration prior to formally submitting ISAR; School Information Profiles for
each of the Schools involved and will specify meeting dates.
Instrumental Music /
General Arts Room
An Instrumental Music Classroom has special architectural features such as sound
baffling, instrumental storage, raised flooring, etc.
A General Arts Room is a classroom which has special architectural features which
facilitate the delivery of Dance, Drama, Music (Instrumental and Vocal) and Visual
Arts.
Students vacate their regular classrooms for programming in this room. This space
is not loaded by the Ministry.
The TVDSB standard for an Instrumental Music / General Arts Room is 1,000 sq. ft.
Intramural sports Refers to (individual or team) sports conducted within the School which are in
addition to the program requirements.
Inter-School Sports Refers to (individual or team) sports conducted with other Schools which are in
addition to the program requirements.
Land Use As part of a community's' Official Plan which outlines short/long term development
goals and appropriate uses of specified lands within a community.
Learning Commons Learning Commons include a main reading area, the library collection, maker
space, an attached audio-visual (AV) room,and work room in total area. This space
is not loaded by the Ministry. The TVDSB standard for a Learning Commons is
3,200 sq. ft.
Medium Denisty Unit A type of housing where more than one home is constructed and each new home
has its own, separate footprint on the land (townhouses).
Official 2015 October 31
FTE Enrolment
Official Ministry of Education Full Time Equivalent student count as of that date,
which has been actualized.
APPENDIX A
Page 2 of 5
TERM DEFINITION
On-The-Ground Capacity
(OTG)
The Ministry has identified categories of instructional space. Each category has a
designated room capacity (this differs for elementary and secondary instructional
space). Room capacity ratings are closely associated with the student to teacher
class size ratios that have been set by the Ministry for funding purposes. The sum of
a school’s designated room capacity ratings is the school’s total capacity.
Instructional space includes classrooms, art rooms, science rooms, computer labs
and special education classrooms. Operational space, defined as space not
available for instructional purposes, is not assigned a capacity rating. This includes
staff rooms, washrooms, mechanical spaces, hallways, change rooms, staff
meeting rooms and kitchens and academic storage area.
Out of Area Students Students who do not attend their designated school.
Projected Enrolment Calculated number of students to attend a school based on demographics and
historical trends.
Pupil Accommodation
Review (PAR)
A Pupil Accommodation Review (PAR) is a community consultation process
required by the Ministry of Education where a school closure and/or consolidation is
being considered to address changing demographics, enrolment, programming, and
facility condition challenges facing a school or schools in a particular area under
review. Pupil Accommodation Reviews are governed by Ministry guidelines and
follow a Board approved policy and procedure.
Pupil Accommodation
Review Committee (PARC)
The Pupil Accommodation Review Committee (PARC) is comprised of
representatives from each school (School PARC Subcommittee) within the PAR.
Purpose built Kindergarten
classroom
Purpose built Kindergarten classrooms are spaces designed to be self-contained
and configured for the instruction of Kindergarten pupils. They include sufficient
space for programming, storage, self-contained washrooms, a coat cubby area and
a separate entrance.
The TVDSB standard for a Kindergarten classroom is 1,100 sq. ft. which is inclusive
of all the elements identified above
Replacement Value of the
School
Calculation based on the benchmark costing of a School as provided by the Ministry
of Education for new construction. The size of the School is based on current OTG.
Resource Room A space used for general instruction, having an area of approximatley 400-700 sq.ft.
and are loaded by the Ministry of Education at 12.
School Facilities Inventory
System (SFIS)
The School Facilities Inventory System (SFIS) was developed by the Ministry of
Education to compile key information on the physical inventory of all school facilities
in Ontario. The inventory information allows for the measurement of school capacity
and utilization on a consistent basis across the province and is reviewed annually.
School Information Profile
(SIP)
School information Profile (SIP) is created for each School under consideration.
Among other purposes, SIPs will serve as orientation documents for the respective
Pupil Accommodation Review Committee and the School Communities
involved.SIPs contain school specific information on Facility Profile, Instructional
Profile and Community Use Profile.
School Level Meetings The purpose of School-Level Meetings is to provide the School PARC
Subcommittee with an opportunity to explain the information received at the
respective Public Meetings and, obtain input from their School Community.
APPENDIX A
Page 3 of 5
TERM DEFINITION
Self-Contained Special
Education Classroom/Suite
Special Education rooms are teaching spaces used to provide a range of self-
contained programs for students. The provision of special education rooms varies
from school to school given the range of students needs, flexibility is critical to allow
the Board to support students.
Each Self-Contained Special Education Class is loaded by the Ministry at 9.
The TVDSB minimum standard for a Self-Contained Special Education classroom is
700 sq. ft.
A Self-Contained Special Education Suite is a cluster of classrooms and ancillary
spaces designed and built specifically for the needs of Special Education. Ancillary
spaces are not loaded.
Single Family Unit Is also called a single-detached dwelling, or separate house is a free-standing
residential building.
Special Education/Spec.
Ed. (SE)
Special education programs and services primarily consist of instruction and
assessments that are different from those provided to the general student
population. Only self-contained Special Education calsses have been identified in
enrolment.
Staff Calculation The determination of staff count is based on: Collective Agreements, Ministry of
Education Guidelines and Funding, as well as Board practices.
Standard classroom Standard Classrooms are spaces configured for general instruction, intended to
deliver programs from grades one to eight, and are loaded by the Ministry at 23.
Classroom count is based on space type, regardless of current use.
The TVDSB minimum standard for a Standard Elementary Classroom is 700 sq. ft.
Student Count Student Count is the total school enrolment as of October 31st of the school year in
which the PAR was established.
Transportation Eligibility Students attending their board-designated school are eligible for transportation
based on the following distances:
• Elementary aged students that reside greater than 1.6 kms from the school site
• Secondary aged students that reside greater than 3.2 kms from the school site
Historical “hazard designations” that pre-date the formation of Student
Transportation Services (STS) may be included in the current and “post PAR”
figures. Post PAR figures for new schools are solely distance based calculations.
Future assessment of conditional bussing will be made on actual area conditions in
advance of school openings.
Zoning In community planning, zoning by-laws contain specific, legal regulations. Zoning
establishes appropriate standards for land use, scale and intensity of development.
APPENDIX A
Page 4 of 5
Item Assessed Definition
Minimum number of pedestrian entrances required to be
barrier free
1 to 3 = 1 barrier free entrance
4 or 5 = 2 barrier free entrances
more than 5 = not less than 50% must be barrier free entrances
Designated parking space Proper size and number of spaces according to Municipal by-laws.
Accessibility signs Sign indicating location of: barrier free entrance,
parking, barrier free washroom, elevator.
Path of travel to the main entrance door
.
The provided accessible path of travel from the designated Barrier Free
Accessible parking space to an accessible building entrance is:
- A minimum of 1100 mm wide
- Includes curb cuts and ramps
- Exterior walks to be designed as a ramp where the gradient is greater
than 1 in 20
Designated entrances
The provided designated Barrier Free Accessible entrance is:
- Actual clear opening width 865mm.
- Clearly marked with a sign incorporating the international symbol of
access
- Provided with an automatic door open device
Designated Wheelchair Spaces and Adaptable seating See Table 3.8.2.1. OBC 2012
Assistive listening devices
All classrooms, auditoria, meeting rooms with an area of more than
100m2 and an occupant load of 75 shall be equipped with assistive
listening systems.
Path of travel to all floors/elevations. Including stages.
The Barrier Free Accessible path of travel is provided with either:
- An accessible ramp as per 3.8.3.4.OR
- A vertical transportation device where a floor or an elevation difference
exists (including stages)
Surface finish of ramps and stairs
Surfaces of ramps, landings and treads shall have:
- a finish that is slip-resistant
- colour contrast to demarcate leading edge
- tactile attention indicator
Passenger Elevating Devices
The provided Barrier Free Accessible Elevator has the following:
- Clear audible communication indicating floors and up/down direction
- A control panel, which is provided with Braille
- Emergency call system and where the top is at a maximum height of
1,100 mm above floor
Fire alarm system with strobe and audible signals
Fire alarm system is reported to include:
- Strobe lights
- Audible signals
Drinking Fountains Spout located not more than 915 mm above finished floor…etc.
Universal washroom
A designated Barrier Free Accessible washroom is:
- provided one per floor
- centrally located within the floor
Equipped with:
- An automatic door open device
- Grab bars
- Shelf
- Emergency call button
- Lever handle or motion sensor faucets
- A lavatory, where an insulated knee space is provided and the height
of lavatory top is a maximum of 840 mm
above the floor....etc.
- Coat hook
Thames Valley District School Board
AODA Facility Assessment - Barrier Free Design Compliance Checklist
APPENDIX A
Page 5 of 5
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILE
FAIRMONT PUBLIC SCHOOL
2015-16
ADDRESS:
1040 HAMILTON ROAD, LONDON, N5W 1A6
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 1 of 17
OVERVIE
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Current Attendance Area
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 2 of 17
*without Holding Zone students
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Criteria Fairmont PS Board Average
Size of the school site (acres) 10.35 7.26
Year original school was built 1952 1977
Building area (square feet) 35,434.79 44,701.66
Portable classrooms (2015-16) 1 2.86
Year addition(s) built
1955, 1966, 1985
Grade Configuration
JK - 8
Criteria Fairmont PS Board
Average
On-The-Ground (OTG) Capacity (2015-16) 355 444
Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Enrolment: Official 2015 October 31 281.00 385.00
Utilization factor 79.15% 87.17%
Excess or Shortage (-) of Pupil Places 74.00
202.00* 58.59
Number of Holding Zone students (if any) 128
Number of out of area students 17
General Profile
Distance (km) to 5 closest
TVDSB Elementary Schools
1.14 Ealing
1.23 Tweedsmuir
2.17 Trafalgar
2.53 Prince Charles
2.65 L.B. Pearson School
for the Arts
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 3 of 17
52
128
70
Number of Fairmont PS
Students who are Eligible
for Transportation
Number of Summerside
Holding at Fairmont PS
Students who are Eligible
for Transportation
Number of Students who
are Not Eligible for
Transportationn
Transportation - Length of bus ride Fairmont PS Board
Shortest 7.00 min 1.00 min
Longest 19.00 min 71.00 min
Average 9.00 min 16.00 min
Percentage of Students
Transported to School
72%
Number of Buses Required
4
Distance- Proximity of Students to existing
school Fairmont PS Board
Shortest 0.07 km 0.01 km
Longest 2.45 km 67.08 km
Average 0.85 km 2.45 km
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Transportation Costs
Regular Home to School $37,799
Specialized $220,666
Total $258,465
Transportation
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 4 of 17
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8
SE FTE
2015 9 8 16 16 17 10 12 9 9 24 20 150
2016 13 7 9 15 21 17 9 15 8 11 20 145
2017 13 12 7 9 16 22 16 9 15 8 20 147
2018 14 12 12 8 10 17 22 17 10 16 20 158
2019 15 13 13 13 9 11 17 22 17 11 20 161
2020 15 13 13 13 14 9 11 17 22 18 20 165
2021 15 13 13 13 14 14 9 11 17 23 20 162
2022 15 13 13 13 14 14 14 9 11 18 20 154
2023 15 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 9 11 20 150
2024 15 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 9 20 153
2025 15 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 20 158
2015 - 2025 - STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-8 - students from Fairmont PS Existing Community ONLY
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8
SE FTE
2015 7 2 14 9 10 18 15 17 24 15 0 131
2016 12 9 3 17 10 10 15 16 16 23 0 131
2017 12 10 9 4 18 11 10 16 16 16 0 122
2018 13 10 10 10 4 19 11 11 15 15 0 118
2019 13 11 10 10 10 4 19 11 10 14 0 112
2020 13 11 11 10 11 10 4 19 10 10 0 109
2021 13 11 11 11 11 12 10 4 18 10 0 111
2022 13 11 11 11 12 12 12 10 4 17 0 113
2023 13 11 11 11 12 13 12 12 10 4 0 109
2024 13 11 11 11 12 13 13 12 11 10 0 117
2025 13 11 11 11 12 13 13 13 11 11 0 119
2015 - 2025 - STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-8 - students from Summeside Holding at Fairmont PS ONLY
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 SE FTE
2011 22 28 25 24 32 34 28 36 33 23 23 308
2012 22 23 23 23 27 34 35 30 33 34 20 304
2013 32 29 23 25 24 26 33 34 29 34 25 314
2014 19 35 26 27 25 27 29 35 39 29 25 316
2015 16 10 30 25 27 28 27 26 33 39 20 281
2016 25 16 12 32 31 27 24 31 24 34 20 276
2017 25 22 16 13 34 33 26 25 31 24 20 269
2018 27 22 22 18 14 36 33 28 25 31 20 276
2019 28 24 23 23 19 15 36 33 27 25 20 273
2020 28 24 24 23 25 19 15 36 32 28 20 274
2021 28 24 24 24 25 26 19 15 35 33 20 273
2022 28 24 24 24 26 26 26 19 15 35 20 267
2023 28 24 24 24 26 27 26 26 19 15 20 259
2024 28 24 24 24 26 27 27 26 25 19 20 270
2025 28 24 24 24 26 27 27 27 25 25 20 277
2011 - 2025 - STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-8 - students from Fairmont PS Existing Community
AND - STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-8 - students from Summerside Holding Zone at Fairmont PS
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Fairmont PS Enrolment
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 5 of 17
JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 X 5
2 16 10 26
3 13 5 18
4 17 17
5 4 4 1 9
6 20 20
7 18 18
8 9 14 23
9 14 9 23
10 18 6 24
11 1 1 2 2 X 6
12 20 20
13 23 23
14 10 15 25
15 24 24
TOTAL 18 13 34 29 28 28 28 27 35 41 281
Class
Number
Enrolment By Grade (Student Count)Spec.
Ed.
Class
Total
School Organization
2015-16* Staffing Allocation (FTE) Fairmont PS
Principal 1.00
Vice-Principals 0.50
Secretaries 1.00
Teachers at the School 20.21
Self-Contained Special Education
Teachers 3.57
Teacher-Librarians 0.47
English as a Second
Language (ESL) Teachers 0.30
Native as a Second
Language (NSL) Teachers 0.00
Learning Support Teachers (LST) 1.70
Early Childhood Educators (ECE) 1.00
Educational Assistants (EA) 5.00
Custodial 2.25
Total 37.00
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Availability of Extra-Curricular Activities
Inter-School Sports?
YES
Intramural Sports?
NO
School Clubs?
YES
Programming and Course
Offering for 2015-2016
Fairmont PS serves a population of
281 students from kindergarten to
grade 8. There are 12 standard
classes and 2 specialized classes.
.
Specialized Service offerings
at Fairmont PS
There are two classes for
students who are deaf or hard of
hearing.
School Organization and Staffing
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 6 of 17
ft² ft²
Kindergarten Classroom 2 1,331 2,662 26 52
Standard Classroom 11 892 9,812 23 253
Art Room - - 23 -
Science Room - - 23 -
Music Vocal - - 23 -
Computer Lab 1 799 799 23 23
Technical / Vocational - - 23 -
Special Education Area 3 918 2,754 9 27
General Arts / Musical Instrumental - - -
Resource Room - Loaded (400-699 sf) - - 12 -
Seminar Rooms - Unloaded (<400 sf) 1 188 188 -
Gymnasium Area and Stage 1 3,137 3,137 -
Change Rooms 2 175 351 -
Activity / General Purpose Room - - -
Learning Commons (formerly Library) 1 1,770 1,770 -
21,473 355 Total GFA and OTG of Instructional Area
OTGInstructional Space #Size Floor Area Load
ft² ft²
Main Office & Reception 948
Staff Room and Teacher Work Rooms 1,758
Servery 83
Custodial Areas 234
Meeting Room 121
Academic Storage -
Washrooms 1,317
Gymnasium Storage 315
Chair Storage (in Gymnasium) -
Mechanical Spaces 1,371
6,147
27,619
28.29% 7,814
35,434
Total Square Feet 35,434
Operational Space Per Pupil Floor Area
Total Operational Area
Total Operational and Instructional
Gross Up Added
Gross Floor Area
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Calculated Area per Pupil
by OTG
Calculated Area per Pupil by
Enrolment including Holding
Zone Students
Calculated Area per Pupil by
Enrolment excluding Holding
Zone Students
99.82 126.10 236.23
Facility Space Template
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 7 of 17
Item Y/N
Minimum number of pedestrian entrances required to be barrier free N
Designated parking space Y
Accessibility signs N
Path of travel to the main entrance door.Y
Designated entrances Y
Designated Wheelchair Spaces and Adaptable seating N/A
Assistive listening devices Y
Path of travel to all floors/elevations. Including stages.N
Surface finish of ramps and stairs N
Passenger Elevating Devices N
Fire alarm system with strobe and audible signals Y
Drinking Fountains N
Universal washroom Y
Barrier Free Accessibility Checklist
68,507 sq. ft.
Hard Surface
Play Area
312,946 sq. ft.
Green Space
Play Area
No.Types
6 Soccer (1) , Baseball backstops (2),
Basketball courts (3)Playground equipment (2) and FDK playyard
Playing fields Other site amenities
Standard BF Total Staff FTE Required Plus/ Minus % of Standard
43 2 45 37.00 47.00 0.00 95.74%
Number of Existing
Parking Spaces
TVDSB
Parking Standard: Staff +10
Designed Student
Drop off/Pick up Area
No. of Buses Yes/No Assessment Note Yes/No
4 Yes Good. No
Designated School Bus Bays / Loading Zones
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Facility Profile
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 8 of 17
Financial Analysis of School* (including Holding Zone students)
Cost ($) Cost per Student ($) Board Average per
Student ($)
Cost of Administration 237,912.00 846.66 612.00
Cost of Facility Services 211,110.00 751.28 774.84
Cost of Information Technology 11,246.00 40.02 29.22
Total 460,268.00 1,637.96 1,416.06
Financial Analysis of School* (excluding Holding Zone students)
Cost ($) Cost per Student ($) Board Average per
Student ($)
Cost of Administration 237,912.00 1,586.08 612.00
Cost of Facility Services 211,110.00 1,407.40 774.84
Cost of Information Technology 11,246.00 74.97 29.22
Total 460,268.00 3,068.45 1,416.06
School Utility Costs** (including Holding Zone students)
Cost($) Cost per Sq. Ft.($) Board Average
per Sq. Ft. Cost per Student ($) Board Average
per Student ($)
47,670.42 1.35 1.55 169.65 214.40
School Utility Costs** (excluding Holding Zone students)
Cost($) Cost per Sq. Ft.($) Board Average
per Sq. Ft. Cost per Student ($) Board Average
per Student ($)
47,670.42 1.35 1.55 317.81 214.40
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
* Board Average for Administration and Information Technology is based on the Elementary Panel
* Board Average for Facility Services is based on all schools operated by the Board
** Included in above Facility Services costs
Financial Profile
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 9 of 17
Project Description Total
Asbestos Repairs 1,432$
Designated Substance Report 173$
Replace exterior doors.22,414$
Masonry Chimney Repairs (Design Only)1,375$
Masonry Chimney Repair 44,561$
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review 429$
Wi-Fi Cabling Installation (Zone #2) Installation / Cabling 3,237$
Wi-Fi Cabling Installation (Zone #2) WiFi AP's 12,095$
Fairmont PS Total 85,715$
10 Year Repair History
Facility Condition Index
28%
Provincial Average
37%
Board Average
65%
PAR Average
71%
Fairmont PS
Replacement Value
of the School
$7,619,261
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Facility Profile
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 10 of 17
Five Year Renewal Needs
Cost Priority Action Year
Year
Renewal Requirement
$ 528,000 Urgent 2015 Roof Coverings - Original Construction to Addition 1 Renewal
$ 206,650 Urgent 2015 Hot Water Boilers Renewal
$ 563,200 Urgent 2015 Heating water distribution systems - Piping Systems Renewal
$ 10,000 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - D304003 Heating water distribution
systems - Piping Systems - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 200,000 Urgent 2015 Main Switchboards Renewal
$ 200,000 Urgent 2015 Panels Renewal
$ 354,400 Urgent 2015 Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities - Site Renewal
$ 10,000 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - G30 - Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities -
Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 10,400 High 2017 Major Repair - Foundations
$ 24,000 High 2015 Exterior Walls - Addition 1 Renewal
$ 16,500 High 2015 Ceiling Finishes - Original Construction to Addition 1 Renewal
$ 135,000 High 2015 Plumbing Fixtures - Washroom Fixtures Renewal
$ 194,950 High 2015 Domestic Water Distribution - Piping System Renewal
$ 10,000 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2020 Domestic Water Distribution -
Piping System - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 10,000 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2030 Sanitary Waste - Beyond Rated
Useful Life
$ 193,600 High 2015 Sanitary Waste Renewal
$ 55,000 High 2015 Gas Supply System Renewal
$ 30,000 High 2015 Auxiliary Equipment - HVAC Pumps Renewal
$ 55,600 High 2015 Air Distribution, Heating & Cooling - Ductwork Renewal
$ 30,000 High 2015 Exhaust Systems Renewal
$ 120,000 High 2015 Air Handling Units - Gym Renewal
$ 102,150 High 2015 Fin Tube Radiation Renewal
$ 240,000 High 2015 Controls & Instrumentation Renewal
$ 10,000 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D502001 Branch Wiring - Cabling,
Raceways & Bus Ducts - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 513,900 High 2015
Branch Wiring - Cabling, Raceways & Bus Ducts - Beyond
Rated Useful Life Renewal
$ 23,000 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Exterior Lighting - Wall Mounted Renewal
$ 26,000 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Exterior Lighting Pole Renewal
$ 88,000 High 2015 Playing Fields - Site Renewal
$ 52,000 High 2016 Fencing & Gates - Site Renewal
$ 4,012,350
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
TVDSB Five Year Renewal Needs
Project Description Total
Asbestos Repairs $
1,738
Library Renovation $
19,543
Window Replacement - Phase 2 $
393,085
Designated Substance Report $
173
Barrier Free Washroom Renovation $
31,015
Roof Moisture Survey $
4,086
1971 Steel Joist review $
5,540
Supply and install ceiling lift $
10,475
Anthes Joist Investigation $
8,485
Chimney Removal $
9,605
WIFI installation $
4,781
Roof Scan $
4,495
Replace VAT Flooring $
89,680
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review $
490
Replace Boilers and Pumps $
260,434
Exterior Lighting upgrades $
1,188
Davenport PS Total $
844,813
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 11 of 17
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 12 of 17
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 13 of 17
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Land Use and Zoning
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 14 of 17
Demographics within the Fairmont PS Attendance Area
Fairmont PS is a JK - 8 school located in the Southeast area of the City of London. The school currently
accommodates students from the City of London's Planning Districts identified as Hamilton Road and Jackson.
The school also accommodates a Summerside Holding at Fairmont PS, a Holding Zone located in the
Summerside community also within the Jackson Planning District.
Within the attendance area of Fairmont PS, Statistics Canada indicates that from 2001 to 2006 the total
population increased by 5%. From 2006 to 2011 the population slightly decreased by 1%. Although the total
population has remained relatively stable over the past 10 years, the population of elementary school aged
children (4 to 13 year olds) has decreased. From 2001 to 2006 the 4 to 13 year olds decreased by 12% and
decreased 20% from 2006 to 2011.
In the spring of 2015, the Southeast London Attendance Area Review was conducted to create an attendance
area for the new Southeast London PS. On April 14th, 2015 Summerside Holding at Fairmont PS was approved
by the Board to be included in the New Southeast PS attendance area. Ministry Capital funding has not yet been
received for the new school.
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18 Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
93 303 126 1992 325 1000 2513 2.5 0.30 0.13
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18 Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
70 268 171 2125 332 1117 2634 2.4 0.24 0.15
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18 Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
84 215 150 2147 302 1150 2596 2.3 0.19 0.13
Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006, 2011 Census
2001 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2006 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2011 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Demographic Data for Fairmont PS
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 15 of 17
Within the current attendance area of Fairmont PS, 81 single family and medium density units are currently circulated.
Within the next 10 years approximately 15 students are projected to be generated from this development. Most of the
attendance area within Fairmont PS is developed, with the exception of Meadowlily area as identified on the map
above. In 2012, the City of London created five land use options for the area with residential units ranging from 62 to
2,045 units. Further studies of the area will be addressed as the City plans to revisit the Secondary plan in 2017 - 2018.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Residential Development
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 16 of 17
YES
Were Community
Use of School
costs fully
recoverable?
YES YMCA of Western Ontario $1,000.00 Yes
Were Before and After school
programs or services (e.g., child
care) avaiable at this school
Name of Child Care Provider
Revenue from the
Before and After
school programs
Were before and after
school programs cost fully
recoverable
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
YES 10 613 3,489.75$
Was the School building
used by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Building Use:
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
YES 2 311 488.00$
Were School Grounds used
by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Grounds Use:
Y Y N Y Y Y
N Y N N/A N/A
Air Conditioning Compartmenta-
lization
Dedicated
Washroom Space
Existing Community
Use
Existing
Collaboration
Suitable Vacant
Space Parking Barrier-Free
Accessibility Municipal Services Site Size Dedicated Access
to Space
Collaboration Suitability
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Community Use Profile
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Fairmont PS SIP ~ Page 17 of 17
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILE
TWEEDSMUIR PUBLIC SCHOOL
2015-16
ADDRESS:
349 TWEEDSMUIR AVENUE, LONDON, N5W 1L5
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 1 of 18
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Current Attendance Area
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 2 of 18
*without Holding Zone students
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Students (FTE) School Year
Tweedsmuir PS
Enrolment and Capacity - Status Quo
OTG CapacityProjected Enrolment Holding CommunityProjected Enrolment Existing Community
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Criteria Tweedsmuir PS Board Average
Size of the school site (acres) 8.85 7.26
Year original school was built 1959 1977
Building area (square feet) 38,610.15 44,701.66
Portable classrooms (2015-16) 0 2.86
Year addition(s) built
1961, 1965, 1990
Grade Configuration
JK - 8
Criteria Tweedsmuir PS Board Average
On-The-Ground (OTG) Capacity (2015-16) 458 444
Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Enrolment: Official 2015 October 31 384.00 385.00
Utilization factor 83.84% 87.17%
Excess or Shortage (-) of Pupil Places 74.00
159.00* 58.59
Number of Holding Zone students (if any) 85
Number of out of area students 9
General Profile
Distance (km) to 5 closest
TVDSB Elementary Schools
1.23 Fairmont
2.25 Ealing
2.89 Prince Charles
3.17 Princess Anne FI
3.76 L.B. Pearson School
for the Arts
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 3 of 18
147
85
144
Number of Tweedsmuir
PS Students who are
Eligible for
Transportation
Number of Summerside
Holding at Tweedsmuir
PS Students who are
Eligible for
Transportation
Number of Students who
are Not Eligible for
Transportationn
Transportation - Length of bus ride Tweedsmuir PS Board
Shortest 4.00 min 1.00 min
Longest 25.00 min 71.00 min
Average 13.00 min 16.00 min
Percentage of Students
Transported to School
62%
Number of Buses Required
4
Distance - Proximity of Students to
existing school Tweedsmuir PS Board
Shortest 0.01 km 0.01 km
Longest 3.48 km 67.08 km
Average 1.32 km 2.45 km
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Transportation Costs
Regular Home to School $57,210
Specialized $0
Total $57,210
Transportation
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 4 of 18
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 SE FTE
2015 12 6 5 4 9 9 10 13 11 7 0 86
2016 8 9 5 6 4 8 8 11 10 9 0 78
2017 12 6 8 5 6 4 8 8 11 10 0 78
2018 10 10 6 9 5 6 4 8 8 11 0 77
2019 10 8 9 6 9 5 6 4 8 8 0 73
2020 10 8 8 9 6 9 5 6 4 8 0 73
2021 10 8 8 8 9 6 9 5 6 4 0 73
2022 10 8 8 8 8 9 6 9 5 6 0 77
2023 10 8 8 8 8 8 9 6 9 5 0 79
2024 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 6 9 0 83
2025 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 6 0 81
2015 - 2025 - STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-8 - students from Summerside holding at Tweedsmuir PS ONLY
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 SE FTE
2011 30 29 34 28 30 35 45 43 31 46 0 351
2012 39 39 31 40 39 33 39 50 43 36 0 389
2013 36 37 40 33 41 45 32 43 47 41 0 395
2014 37 38 34 41 35 38 42 35 42 48 0 390
2015 41 32 36 37 36 40 39 46 34 43 0 384
2016 35 30 30 37 40 40 41 39 35 34 0 361
2017 42 30 28 31 37 41 40 42 38 35 0 364
2018 37 37 29 30 30 37 41 41 40 38 0 360
2019 38 32 35 29 29 31 37 41 39 40 0 351
2020 38 33 31 35 29 30 31 38 40 39 0 344
2021 38 33 32 31 35 30 30 31 36 40 0 336
2022 39 33 32 32 31 35 30 30 30 36 0 328
2023 39 34 32 32 32 32 35 30 29 30 0 325
2024 39 34 33 32 32 33 32 37 29 29 0 330
2025 39 34 33 33 32 33 33 32 34 29 0 332
2011 - 2025 - STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-8 - students from Tweedsmuir PS Existing Community
AND - STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-8 - students from Summerside holding at Tweedsmuir PS
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 SE FTE
2015 29 26 31 33 27 31 29 33 23 36 0 298
2016 27 21 25 31 36 32 33 28 25 25 0 283
2017 30 24 20 26 31 37 32 34 27 25 0 286
2018 27 27 23 21 25 31 37 33 32 27 0 283
2019 28 24 26 23 20 26 31 37 31 32 0 278
2020 28 25 23 26 23 21 26 32 36 31 0 271
2021 28 25 24 23 26 24 21 26 30 36 0 263
2022 29 25 24 24 23 26 24 21 25 30 0 251
2023 29 26 24 24 24 24 26 24 20 25 0 246
2024 29 26 25 24 24 25 24 27 23 20 0 247
2025 29 26 25 25 24 25 25 24 25 23 0 251
2015 - 2025 - STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-8 - students from Tweedsmuir PS Existing Community ONLY
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Tweedsmuir PS Enrolment
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 5 of 18
JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 14 11 25
2 13 11 24
3 14 10 24
4 19 19
5 17 17
6 20 20
7 17 3 20
8 14 8 22
9 19 19
10 16 13 29
11 16 14 30
12 12 17 29
13 29 29
14 11 14 25
15 11 15 26
16 12 14 26
41 32 36 37 36 40 39 46 34 43 384
Enrolment By Grade (Student Count)Spec.
Ed.
Class
Total
Class
Number
School Organization
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
2015-16* Staffing Allocation (FTE) Tweedsmuir PS
Principal 1.00
Vice-Principals 0.50
Secretaries 1.00
Teachers at the School 21.16
Self-Contained Special Education
Teachers 0.00
Teacher-Librarians 0.62
English as a Second
Language (ESL) Teachers 0.10
Native as a Second
Language (NSL) Teachers 0.00
Learning Support Teachers (LST) 1.50
Early Childhood Educators (ECE) 3.00
Educational Assistants (EA) 3.50
Custodial 2.25
Total 34.63
Availability of Extra-Curricular Activities
Inter-School Sports?
YES
Intramural Sports?
YES
School Clubs?
YES
Programming and Course
Offering for 2015-2016
Tweedsmuir PS serves a
population of 384 students from
kindergarten to grade 8. There are
16 standard classes.
Specialized Service offerings
at Tweedsmuir PS
There are no specialized services
offered at Tweedsmuir PS
School Organization and Staffing
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 6 of 18
ft² ft²
Kindergarten Classroom 3 1,129 3,386 26 78
Standard Classroom 15 811 12,171 23 345
Art Room - - 23 -
Science Room - - 23 -
Music Vocal - - 23 -
Computer Lab 1 965 965 23 23
Technical / Vocational - - 23 -
Special Education Area - - 9 -
General Arts / Musical Instrumental 1 1,073 1,073 -
Resource Room - Loaded (400-699 sf) 1 607 607 12 12
Seminar Rooms - Unloaded (<400 sf) 1 - -
Gymnasium Area and Stage 1 2,729 2,729 -
Change Rooms - - -
Activity / General Purpose Room - - -
Learning Commons (formerly Library) 1 1,935 1,935 -
22,867 458 Total GFA and OTG of Instructional Area
OTGInstructional Space #Size Floor Area Load
ft² ft²
Main Office & Reception 663
Staff Room and Teacher Work Rooms 806
Servery 99
Custodial Areas 508
Meeting Room -
Academic Storage 1,158
Washrooms 1,029
Gymnasium Storage 220
Chair Storage (in Gymnasium) -
Mechanical Spaces 477
4,959
27,826
38.76% 10,784
38,610
Total Square Feet 38,610
Operational Space Per Pupil Floor Area
Total Operational Area
Total Operational and Instructional
Gross Up Added
Gross Floor Area
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Calculated Area per Pupil
by OTG
Calculated Area per Pupil by
Enrolment including Holding
Zone Students
Calculated Area per Pupil by
Enrolment excluding Holding
Zone Students
84.30 100.55 129.56
Facilities Space Template
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 7 of 18
Item Y/N
Minimum number of pedestrian entrances required to be barrier free N
Designated parking space N
Accessibility signs Y
Path of travel to the main entrance door.Y
Designated entrances Y
Designated Wheelchair Spaces and Adaptable seating N/A
Assistive listening devices Y
Path of travel to all floors/elevations. Including stages.N
Surface finish of ramps and stairs Y
Passenger Elevating Devices N
Fire alarm system with strobe and audible signals Y
Drinking Fountains N
Universal washroom N
Barrier Free Accessibility Checklist
38,014 sq. ft.
Hard Surface
Play Area
256,760 sq. ft.
Green Space
Play Area
No.Types
7 Soccer (1), Baseball backstops (2),
Volleyball (1), Basketball nets (3)Playground equipment (2) and FDK playyard
Playing fields Other site amenities
Standard BF Total Staff FTE Required Plus/ Minus % of Standard
45 0 45 34.63 44.63 0.37 100.83%
Number of Existing
Parking Spaces
TVDSB
Parking Standard: Staff +10
Designed Student
Drop off/Pick up Area
No. of Buses Yes/No Assessment Note Yes/No
4 No
Good, located on
street. Room for bays
to be installed
No
Designated School Bus Bays / Loading Zones
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Facility Profile
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 8 of 18
Financial Analysis of School* (including Holding Zone students)
Cost ($) Cost per Student ($) Board Average per
Student ($)
Cost of Administration 237,912.00 619.56 612.00
Cost of Facility Services 212,515.00 553.42 774.84
Cost of Information Technology 11,246.00 29.29 29.22
Total 461,673.00 1,202.27 1,416.06
Financial Analysis of School* (excluding Holding Zone students)
Cost ($) Cost per Student ($) Board Average per
Student ($)
Cost of Administration 237,912.00 798.36 612.00
Cost of Facility Services 212,515.00 713.14 774.84
Cost of Information Technology 11,246.00 37.74 29.22
Total 461,673.00 1,549.24 1,416.06
School Utility Costs** (including Holding Zone students)
Cost($) Cost per Sq. Ft.($) Board Average
per Sq. Ft. Cost per Student ($) Board Average
per Student ($)
48,253.74 1.25 1.55 126.75 214.40
School Utility Costs** (excluding Holding Zone students)
Cost($) Cost per Sq. Ft.($) Board Average
per Sq. Ft. Cost per Student ($) Board Average
per Student ($)
48,253.74 1.25 1.55 161.93 214.40
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
* Board Average for Administration and Information Technology is based on the Elementary Panel
* Board Average for Facility Services is based on all schools operated by the Board
** Included in above Facility Services costs
Financial Profile
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 9 of 18
Project Description Total
Asbestos Report - O.Reg. 278/05 940$
Asbestos Repairs 3,323$
Replace Roof A,B 60,993$
Replace Boilers 206,711$
Asbestos Report - Additional Sampling 1,626$
Designated Substance Report 173$
Roof Moisture Survey 4,495$
Replace main entrance and construct vestibule.103,590$
Replacement of Transite and Acoustical Ceiling Tile 140,975$
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review 368$
Security System Replacement 3,991$
Wi-Fi Cabling Installation (Zone #2) Installation / Cabling 2,139$
Wi-Fi Cabling Installation (Zone #2) Wi-Fi AP's 12,368$
Tweedsmuir PS Total 541,691$
10 Year Repair History
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Facility Condition Index
28%
Provincial Average
37%
Board Average
65%
PAR Average
60%
Tweedsmuir PS
Replacement Value
of the School
$9,187,499
Facility Profile
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 10 of 18
Five Year Renewal Needs
Cost Priority Action Year
Year
Renewal Requirement
$ 10,000 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - D304003 Heating water distribution
systems - Piping Systems - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 603,800 Urgent 2015 Heating water distribution systems - Piping Systems Renewal
$ 10,000 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - D4020 Standpipe Systems - Beyond
Rated Useful Life
$ 46,350 Urgent 2015 Standpipe Systems Renewal
$ 10,000 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - G30 - Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities -
Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 386,100 Urgent 2015 Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities - Site Renewal
$ 19,800 High 2015 Major Repair - Foundations
$ 18,600 High 2015 Exterior Doors - Original Building Renewal
$ 83,200 High 2015 Wall Finishes - Original Construction to Addition 2 Renewal
$ 126,000 High 2015 Ceiling Finishes - Original Building Renewal
$ 240,000 High 2015 Plumbing Fixtures - Washroom Fixtures Renewal
$ 41,400 High 2015 Sinks Renewal
$ 212,350 High 2015 Domestic Water Distribution - Piping Systems Renewal
$ 10,000 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2020 Domestic Water Distribution -
Piping System - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 212,350 High 2015 Sanitary Waste Renewal
$ 10,000 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2030 Sanitary Waste - Beyond Rated
Useful Life
$ 129,850 High 2015 Air Distribution, Heating & Cooling - Duct System Renewal
$ 10,000 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D304001 Air Distribution, Heating &
Cooling - Insufficient Ventilation
$ 526,600 High 2015
Air Distribution, Heating & Cooling - Insufficient Ventilation
Renewal
$ 42,000 High 2015 Exhaust Systems Renewal
$ 60,000 High 2015 Air Handling Units Renewal
$ 111,350 High 2015 Terminal & Package Units - Original Building Renewal
$ 240,000 High 2015 Controls & Instrumentation - HVAC Controls Renewal
$ 200,000 High 2015 Panels Renewal
$ 23,000 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Exterior Lighting Renewal
$ 569,850 High 2015 Branch Wiring - Cabling, Raceways & Bus Ducts Renewal
$ 10,000 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D502001 Branch Wiring - Cabling,
Raceways & Bus Ducts - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 10,000 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Stage Lighting Renewal
$ 32,500 High 2015
Lighting Equipment - Emergency Lighting - Battery Back-ups
Renewal
$ 135,000 High 2015 Public Address Systems Renewal
$ 20,000 High 2015 Security Systems Renewal
$ 23,000 High 2015 Pedestrian Paving Renewal
$ 52,000 High 2015 Playing Fields - Site Renewal
$ 52,000 High 2016 Fencing & Gates - Site Renewal
$ 12,400 High 2015 Retaining Walls - Site Renewal
$ 4,299,500
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
TVDSB Five Year Renewal Needs
Project Description Total
Asbestos Repairs $
1,738
Library Renovation $
19,543
Window Replacement - Phase 2 $
393,085
Designated Substance Report $
173
Barrier Free Washroom Renovation $
31,015
Roof Moisture Survey $
4,086
1971 Steel Joist review $
5,540
Supply and install ceiling lift $
10,475
Anthes Joist Investigation $
8,485
Chimney Removal $
9,605
WIFI installation $
4,781
Roof Scan $
4,495
Replace VAT Flooring $
89,680
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review $
490
Replace Boilers and Pumps $
260,434
Exterior Lighting upgrades $
1,188
Davenport PS Total $
844,813
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 11 of 18
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 12 of 18
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 13 of 18
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 14 of 18
SECTION D
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Land Use and Zoning
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 15 of 18
Demographics within the Tweedsmuir PS Attendance Area
Tweedsmuir PS is a JK - 8 school located in the Southeast area of the City of London. The school currently
accommodates students from the City of London's Planning Districts labelled as Hamilton Road. The school also
accommodates the Summerside Holding at Tweedsmuir PS, a Holding Zone located in the Summerside
community within the Jackson Planning District.
Within the attendance area of Tweedsmuir PS, Statistics Canada indicates that from 2001 to 2006 the total
population increased by 5%. From 2006 to 2011 the population increased again by 1%. Although the total
population has increased over the past 10 years, the population of elementary school aged children (4 to 13 year
olds) has decreased. From 2001 to 2006 the 4 to 13 year the population remained stable and decreased 8% from
2006 to 2011.
In the spring of 2015, the Southeast London Attendance Area Review was conducted to create an attendance
area for the new Southeast London PS. On April 14th, 2015 the Summerside Holding at Tweedsmuir PS was
approved by the Board to be included in the New Southeast PS attendance area. Ministry Capital funding has not
been received for the new school.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Demographic Data for Tweedsmuir PS
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18 Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
173 544 314 3122 613 1511 4153 2.7 0.36 0.21
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18 Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
169 546 278 3376 659 1634 4370 2.7 0.33 0.17
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18 Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
199 503 303 3412 616 1714 4418 2.6 0.29 0.18
Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006, 2011 Census
2001 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2006 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2011 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 16 of 18
Growth and Development
Currently there are no significant residential developments within Tweedsmuir PS' attendance area. The
attendance area has very limited lands for future residential growth.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Residential Development
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 17 of 18
YES
Were Community
Use of School
costs fully
recoverable?
YES London Children's Connection $1,000.00 Yes
Were Before and After school
programs or services (e.g., child
care) avaiable at this school
Name of Child Care Provider
Revenue from the
Before and After
school programs
Were before and after
school programs cost fully
recoverable
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
*YES 17 327 782.70$
Was the School building
used by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Building Use:
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
NO 0 0 -$
Were School Grounds used
by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Grounds Use:
Y Y N Y Y Y
N Y N N/A N/A
Air Conditioning Compartmenta-
lization
Dedicated
Washroom Space
Existing Community
Use
Existing
Collaboration
Suitable Vacant
Space Parking Barrier-Free
Accessibility Municipal Services Site Size Dedicated Access
to Space
Collaboration Suitability
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Community Use Profile
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 Tweedsmuir PS SIP ~ Page 18 of 18
You Are Invited to Attend Our
Annual Community Planning and Facility
Collaboration Meeting
Meeting: City of London Municipalities
Date: 2016 June 15
Time: 9:00am – 10:30am
Location: Thames Valley District School Board
Education Centre Board Room
1250 Dundas Street, London ON
The objective of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for TVDSB to share information on
its long-term accommodation planning; and receive from listed Community Organizations
information which may assist with the management of excess space, projected future
needs, and otherwise help identify opportunities for facility collaborations.
Information sharing will allow the TVDSB and Community Organizations (which includes
Municipalities) to work together to the benefit of the board, students and the community, and
to optimize the use of public assets.
Please RSVP to planning@tvdsb.on.ca by
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Please ensure that your RSVP includes the full name and position of the Community
Organization representative(s) who will attend the meeting. Community Organizations
are entitled to have two representatives attend the meeting.
If you wish to share relevant information and/or make a presentation at the meeting, please submit the
information to TVDSB, by email, addressed to planning@tvdsb.on.ca, by Tuesday May 31, 2016. Please
bring to the meeting four copies of any of the above indicated planning information.
Any planning information provided in electronic format by a listed Community Organization will be posted
on TVDSB’s website, until the next scheduled annual meeting for that region.
For further information please visit our website at www.tvdsb.ca/planning
APPENDIX C
Page 1 of 3
You Are Invited to Attend Our
Annual Community Planning and Facility
Collaboration Meeting
Meeting: City of London Community Organizations
Date: 2016 June 15
Time: 11:00am – 12:30pm
Location: Thames Valley District School Board
Education Centre Board Room
1250 Dundas Street, London ON
The objective of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for TVDSB to share information on
its long-term accommodation planning; and receive from listed Community Organizations
information which may assist with the management of excess space, projected future
needs, and otherwise help identify opportunities for facility collaborations.
Information sharing will allow the TVDSB and Community Organizations (which includes
Municipalities) to work together to the benefit of the board, students and the community, and
to optimize the use of public assets.
Please RSVP to planning@tvdsb.on.ca by
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Please ensure that your RSVP includes the full name and position of the Community
Organization representative(s) who will attend the meeting. Community Organizations
are entitled to have two representatives attend the meeting.
If you wish to share relevant information and/or make a presentation at the meeting, please submit the
information to TVDSB, by email, addressed to planning@tvdsb.on.ca, by Tuesday, May 31, 2016. Please
bring to the meeting four copies of any of the above indicated planning information.
Any planning information provided in electronic format by a listed Community Organization will be posted
on TVDSB’s website, until the next scheduled annual meeting for that region.
For further information please visit our website at www.tvdsb.ca/planning
APPENDIX C
Page 2 of 3
Annual Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Meeting
Between the TVDSB and the City of London
Date: 2016 June 15
Time: 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Location:
Thames Valley District School Board
Education Centre, Board Room
1250 Dundas Street, London ON
A G E N D A
1. Introduction
2. Ministry of Education Information Guidelines and Initiatives
3. Thames Valley District School Board Pupil Accommodation Policy and Procedures
4. Thames Valley District School Board Planning Information
a. Student Programs
b. Enrolment Projections
c. Current Enrolment and Accommodation
d. Financial Impacts of Declining Enrolment
e. Renewal Needs and Facility Conditions
f. Collaboration Opportunities
g. Status of TVDSB Surplus Space for Sale
h. Elementary Accommodation
i. Rethink Secondary Learning
j. Planning Website
5. Questions and comments
6. Adjournment
APPENDIX C
Page 3 of 3
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
Date of
Meeting: 2016 November 08
Item #:
REPORT TO:
☐
PUBLIC ☐
IN-CAMERA
☐
Administrative
Council
☐
Program and School Services
Advisory Committee
☒
Planning and Priorities
Advisory Committee
☐
Board
☐
Policy Working Committee
TITLE OF REPORT:
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION CONSULTATION INPUT RECEIVED FOR THE
PROPOSED ELEMENTARY PUPIL ACCOMODATION REVIEW 02
PRESENTED BY:
Kevin Bushell, Executive Officer, Facility Services and Capital Planning
PRESENTED FOR: ☐ Approval ☒ Information ☐ Advice
Recommendation(s):
Purpose: To inform the Board that no input was received within the deadline from Community Organizations,
in regards to the Proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 02, as requested in the
attached correspondence sent to listed Community Organizations on 2016 September 19.
Following the deadline, input was received, and has been noted and attached to this report.
Content: As stated in the Pupil Accommodation and Facility Organization Procedure (No.4015a), listed
Community Organizations were given an opportunity to provide Senior Administration with input to
be included in the upcoming Initial Senior Administration Report.
The input requested from Community Organizations (see Appendix A: Community Organization
Consultation) asked for the following:
A clear indication of any community planning or facility collaboration opportunities
which relate to the schools identified; and
Any relevant technical information they may have and wish to provide including, but not
limited to, in the case of any municipal level of government, the municipal level of
government’s population and future development projections for the affected region.
As requested by the Trustees, the enclosed attachments include the input received from
Community Organizations listed in the Community Planning and Facility Collaboration
Opportunities Procedure (4015b).
Cost/Savings: N/A
Timeline: N/A
Communications: N/A
APPENDIX D
Appendices: A. Community Organization Consultation (2016 SEPT 13)
B. EPAR 02: Email correspondence requesting Community Organizations input (2016 SEPT 19)
C. EPAR 02: Community Organization Input Received
D. EPAR 02: Listed Community Organizations
Form Revised: January 2016
Relation to Commitments:
☐ Putting students first. ☒ Actively engaging our students, staff, families and communities.
☐ Recognizing and encouraging leadership in all its forms. ☐ Being inclusive, fair, and equitable.
☐ Ensuring safe, positive learning and working environments. ☐ Inspiring new ideas and promoting innovation.
☒ Taking responsibility for the students and resources entrusted to our care.
APPENDIX D
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
Date of
Meeting: 2016 September 13
Item #:
REPORT TO:
☒
PUBLIC ☐
IN-CAMERA
☐
Administrative
Council
☐
Program and School Services
Advisory Committee
☒
Planning and Priorities
Advisory Committee
☐
Board
☐
Policy Working Committee
TITLE OF REPORT: COMMUNITY ORGANZATIONS CONSULTATION
PRESENTED BY:
Kevin Bushell, Executive Officer, Facility Services and Capital Planning
PRESENTED FOR: ☒ Approval ☐ Information ☐ Advice
Recommendation(s): THAT Senior Administration contact listed Community Organizations, within the region of the
proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 01 to inform them of a Pupil Accommodation
Review recommended to the Board for approval on 2016 November 22 for the following schools:
Davenport Public School
McGregor Public School
Mitchell Hepburn Public School
New Sarum Public School
Northdale Central Public School
Port Stanley Public School
River Heights Public School
South Dorchester Public School
Sparta Public School
Springfield Public School
Summers’ Corners Public School
Westminster Central Public School
THAT Senior Administration contact listed Community Organizations, within the region of the
proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 02 to inform them of a Pupil Accommodation
Review recommended to the Board for approval on 2016 November 22 for the following sch ools:
Fairmont Public School
Tweedsmuir Public School
Purpose: As stated in the Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Opportunities Procedure, (No.
4015b), Senior Administration requires authorization to contact listed Community Organizations for
a proposed Pupil Accommodation Review.
Content: On 2016 April 12, the Board received a document titled Draft Elementary Accommodation Study
Report, in which the above named schools were reviewed.
As outlined in the Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Opportunities Procedure (No.
4015b);
APPENDIX D
Section 7.1 states that:
Before presenting a recommendation to the Trustees to undertake a Pupil Accommodation
Review, TVDSB Administration must have sought and the obtained approval of the Trustees to
contact the Community Organizations then listed on TVDSB’s website as being entitled to receive
Notices and who are otherwise identified as being with in the affected region, and advise them that
TVDSB is considering a Pupil Accommodation R eview in that region.
Section 7.2 states that:
When contacting listed Community Organizations, TVDSB Administration will identify: the names
of the schools involved; any potential school closures; and, any proposed student long -term
accommodation.
TVDSB will request recipients to provide TVDSB, by email addressed to planning@tvdsb.on.ca,
within ten (10) business days of the date of TVDSB’s email to such Community Organizations,
with:
A clear indication of any community planning or facility collaboration opportunities the
respective recipient is aware of and which relate to the schools identified; and
any relevant technical information the recipient may have and wish to provide, including,
but not limited to, in the case of any municipal level of government, the municipal level of
government’s population and future development projections for the affected region.
TVDSB Administration will contact, by email, listed Community Organizations on 2016 September
28. Any communication received from listed Community Organizations will be included in a report
to the Board on 2016 November 22.
Cost/Savings: N/A
Timeline: 2016 September 28 – Email sent to listed Community Organizations
2016 October 13 – Deadline for input from Community Organizations
2016 November 22 – Report presented to the Board
Communications: As Noted
Appendices: N/A
Form Revised: January 2016
Relation to Commitments:
☐ Putting students first. ☒ Actively engaging our students, staff, families and communities.
☐ Recognizing and encouraging leadership in all its forms. ☐ Being inclusive, fair, and equitable.
☒ Ensuring safe, positive learning and working environments. ☐ Inspiring new ideas and promoting innovation.
☒ Taking responsibility for the students and resources entrusted to our care.
APPENDIX D
Printed by: Planning Department Wednesday, October 19, 2016 1:50:38 P
Title: Proposed: Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 02 (E...Page 1 of 2
Monday, September 19, 2016 1:16:45 PM
Proposed: Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 02 (EPAR 02)
From:Theresa Levschuk
Subject:
To:
Cc:
EPAR 02 - 2016/17
Trustees2014 Claudia Wiercinski Planning Department
Dear Community Partner:
In compliance with the TVDSB Community Planning and Facility Collaboration
Opportunities Procedure (No. 4015b), TVDSB is required to contact listed Community
Organizations, when proposing to conduct a Pupil Accommodation Review.
Senior Administration is proposing the following Elementary Pupil Accommodation
Review, be approved by the Board on November 22, 2016, for the following schools:
Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 02:
Fairmont Public School
Tweedsmuir Public School
The Draft Elementary Accommodation Study (2016 April 12) identified a number of
issues in southeast London which merit an Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review
(EPAR-02): current and projected enrolment, the existing schools condition, school size
and other Board planning priorities. Given enrolment projections for this area and limited
funding, students could be accommodated in fewer schools.
The following proposed solution to the accommodation issues in this region will be
presented in an Initial Senior Administration Report:
Students from the Summerside Holding Zones (holding at Fairmont PS and
Tweedsmuir) are permanently accommodated at the new Southeast London PS,
upon opening;
Fairmont PS and Tweedsmuir PS attendance areas amalgamate, creating one
Regular Track attendance area;
Fairmont PS and Tweedsmuir PS students are consolidated into one JK - 8
elementary school at the Tweedsmuir facility location;
Closure and disposition of Fairmont PS.
Your organization has the opportunity to provide to the Board, by email addressed to
APPENDIX D
Printed by: Planning Department Wednesday, October 19, 2016 1:50:38 P
Title: Proposed: Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 02 (E...Page 2 of 2
planning@tvdsb.on.ca, the following:
a A clear indication of any community planning or facility collaboration opportunities
which relate to the schools identified; and
bany relevant technical information you may have and wish to provide including, but
not limited to, in the case of any municipal level of government, the municipal level
of government’s population and future development projections for the affected
region.
Please respond to TVDSB, by email, with your information no later than Thursday,
October 13, 2016.
Laura Elliott
Director of Education
Theresa Levschuk
Executive Assistant to the Director
Thames Valley District School Board
1250 Dundas Street
London, Ontario N6A 5L1
Ph: 519-452-2000 ext. 20222 Fax: 519-452-2396
email: t.levschuk@tvdsb.on.ca
Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the
use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or personal information that
may be subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the
intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete the message and any attachments.
APPENDIX D
October 19, 2016
Ms. Laura Elliot
Director of Education
Thames Valley District School Board
1250 Dundas St., P.O. Box 5888
London, ON N6A 5L1
BY EMAIL
Dear Ms. Elliot,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EPAR-02 related to Fairmont and Tweedsmuir
Public Schools. We are providing this response in addition to the City’s previous response
regarding community planning and facility collaboration opportunities dated October 13, 2016.
We understand that the proposed solution to the accommodation issues will be to amalgamate
the Fairmont and Tweedsmuir attendance areas, consolidate the students in one school,
Tweedsmuir, and close Fairmont Public School.
With respect to the future population and development projections for the affected area
(Hamilton Road neighbourhood), the area of the neighbourhood east of Highbury Avenue is
outside the Primary Transit Area identified in The London Plan, and would not be an area of
focus for future intensification. We do not anticipate significant net growth within the area,
however, some growth is anticipated in the southeast area of the neighbourhood.
Population and development projections for the Jackson (Summerside) neighbourhood
however, do indicate an increase of population of the next 20 years, continuing the trend seen in
the past three census periods.
We have attached links to the profiles of these two neighbourhoods for your information.
Hamilton Road: http://www.london.ca/About-London/community-statistics/neighbourhood-
profiles/Documents/2014-Neighbourhood-Profile-Update/Hamilton-Road.pdf
Jackson (Summerside): http://www.london.ca/About-London/community-
statistics/neighbourhood-profiles/Documents/2014-Neighbourhood-Profile-Update/Jackson.pdf
With respect to the future closure and disposition of Fairmont Public School, the City would be
interested in exploring opportunities in the future to retain a portion of the school site as open
space/parkland in the area adjacent to the neighbouring YMCA facility. We recognize that this
is not a matter under consideration at this stage of the process.
The City will also be undertaking a policy review of surplus community facility sites, including
schools later in 2016. This review is intended to provide policy direction on how the City would
evaluate options for the redevelopment and/or re-use of these sites, and how these sites may
be used in the future.
APPENDIX D
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this matter. Schools are key features of our
communities, and collaborative planning and approaches can only make our neighbourhoods
and communities stronger.
Yours truly,
Gregg Barrett, AICP
Manager, Long Range Planning and Research
cc. Lynn Livingstone, Managing Director, Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services
Donna Baxter, Manager, Policy and Planning Support
Y:\Shared\policy\CORRES\16CORRES\Response_TVDSB_EPAR Teedsmuir and Fairmont.docx
APPENDIX D
Last Updated: September 2016
City of London
Anago Resources
ATN Access for Persons with Disabilities Inc. (ATN
Access Inc.)
Best Buddies Canada
Big Brothers Big Sisters of London & Area
Central Community Health Centre
Child and Parent Resource Institute
Childreach
Children's Aid Society of London & Middlesex
Children's Health Foundation
Chippewa of the Thames
Chippewa of the Thames Health Centre
City of London
College Boreal
Community Living London
Community Living Ontario
Conseil Scolaire Catholique Providence
Conseil Scolaire Viamonde
Craigwood Youth Services
Family Service Thames Valley
Fanshawe College
Growing Chefs! Ontario Society
Infrastructure Ontario - Ontario Lands Division
Strategic Asset Planning
John Howard Society of London & District
Let's Talk Science
London Bridge Child Care Services Inc
London Children's Connection
London District Catholic School Board
London Health Sciences Centre
London InterCommunity Health Centre
London Public Library
London-Middlesex Consolidated Municipal Service
Manager (CMSM)
Merrymount Children's Centre
Middlesex-London Health Unit
Munsee Delaware Nation
Munsee Delaware's Health Program
NSTEP Registered Charity (Nutrition, Students,
Teachers Exercising with Parents)
Oneida Nation of the Thames
Oneida Nation of the Thames Health Centre
Oneida Nation of the Thames Mental Health/Social
Health Center
Pillar Nonprofit Network
Public Works and Government Services Canada
South West Community Care Access Centre
South West Local Health Integration Network (LHIN)
Southwest Ontario Aboriginal Health Access Centre
St. Joseph's Health Care, Regional Mental Health
Care London
Thames Valley Children's Services
The University of Western Ontario
Vanier Children's Centre
WAYS Mental Health Support
Whitehills Child Care
YMCA
Youth Opportunities Unlimited (YOU)
YWCA
APPENDIX D
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
Date of
Meeting: 2016 November 22
Item #:
REPORT TO:
☒
PUBLIC ☐
IN-CAMERA
☐
Administrative
Council
☐
Program and School Services
Advisory Committee
☐
Planning and Priorities
Advisory Committee
☒
Board
☐
Policy Working Committee
TITLE OF REPORT:
INITIAL SENIOR ADMINISTRATION’S REPORT – ELEMENTARY PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW 01
PRESENTED BY:
Kevin Bushell, Executive Officer, Facility Services and Capital Planning
PRESENTED FOR: ☒ Approval ☐ Information ☐ Advice
Recommendation(s): THAT the Board authorize Senior Administration to conduct a Pupil Accommodation
Review, based on the information provided in the attached Elementary Pupil
Accommodation Review-01 Initial Senior Administration’s Report, for the following schools:
Davenport Public School
McGregor Public School
Mitchell Hepburn Public School
New Sarum Public School
Northdale Central Public School
Port Stanley Public School
River Heights Public School
South Dorchester Public School
Sparta Public School
Springfield Public School
Summers’ Corners Public School
Westminster Central Public School
Purpose It is the policy of Thames Valley District School Board to:
provide our students with accommodation which supports student achievement, safety and
well-being;
ensure the long-term sustainability of our school system;
manage our resources effectively, in a manner which is well-informed, well-coordinated,
transparent and sustainable; and
identify opportunities for collaborative facility arrangements with community organizations.
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND BENEFITS TO LEARNING
Provincial guidelines note that school boards should make decisions about pupil accommodation
based on the following reasons:
1. “…fostering student achievement and well-being/supporting the school board’s student
achievement and well-being strategy…”
2. “…effective stewardship of school board resources/the most effective use of its school
building and funding…”
source: Ontario Pupil Accommodation Review (PAR) Guideline
As we work to develop the skills that our students require to be successful in today’s global
environment— with skills around collaboration, communication, innovation and creativity, we are
called upon to provide students with best possible programming and facilities within the resources
available. We need to create new school communities that will facilitate and support our learners to
be the best they can be. Through the implementation of the various changes proposed in the
Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review (EPAR-01), many schools will provide enhanced
educational opportunities for our students.
As stated in the Guide to Pupil Accommodation Reviews by the Ontario Ministry of Education
(2016), there are many benefits to students in schools involved in accommodation reviews.
Benefits to Students
School boards generally consolidate and close schools to enable improved educational options
and opportunities for students.
By bringing students together through a school consolidation, school boards are often able to offer
a better educational experience. Some of the potential improvements may include:
The range of programming and courses available;
The availability of specialized support services for indi vidual students or small groups;
Specialized facilities, such as gyms, libraries, design and technology, music and science
rooms;
Sufficient enrolment to support sports teams and other extracurricular activities ;
A school building in better condition than the one that is to close;
Accessibility features with respect to entry, movement within the facility and outdoor play
space.
Within Thames Valley District School Board, we see these benefits to students impacting in a
variety of ways:
The range of programming and courses available; and
The availability of specialized support services for individual students or small groups.
An increase in school size provides several benefits to students. Using a model where
multiple educators are teaching a specific grade allows for more options for student clas s
placement.
A greater staff complement provides more opportunities for students to receive support
from non-classroom teaching and support staff and better utilization of system support staff
such as teachers on special assignment, gifted itinerant teachers, English language learner
(ELL) teachers, instructional coaches and superintendents of student achievement. With
fewer schools to support, less travel time for itinerant staff leads to increased time available
to be spent with students.
We know that the greatest impact on student learning is the quality of classroom instruction
(Hattie, 2009). An increased school staff complement creates greater opportunities for
staff to co-plan, co-learn and co-teach with like-grade partners. Collaboration amongst staff
members provides dynamic and robust programming for students.
Collaboration is a key competency for today’s learners that engages them deeply an d is
transferrable to new learning situations. An increased student complement presents
students with opportunities to collaborate with a greater number and more diverse group of
peers benefitting them personally and in future business and work relationships.
Sufficient enrolment to support sports teams and other extracurricular activities.
A larger staffing complement also provides increased numbers of staff to volunteer their
time in support of a wider variety of extracurricular responsibilities on behalf of students.
As well, there would be sufficient numbers of students to support various sports teams.
Specialized facilities, such as gyms, libraries, design and technology, music and science
rooms.
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
One of the focus areas of the Accommodation Reviews is to improve the Library Learning
Commons in each of the schools involved.
Not only would the Library Learning Commons be updated, but with more students in a
school, the school would receive increased teacher librarian complement, allowing great er
access for students to this valuable space and teacher. Teacher -librarians serve to
enhance literacy instruction and learning across all subject areas when they partner with
the classroom teacher.
A school building in better condition than the one that is to close; and
Accessibility features with respect to entry, movement within the facility and outdoor play
space.
Learning environment enhancements, through capital planning initiatives, create a positive
impact on the learning environment for our students. Enhancements to natural lighting,
accessibility, display spaces, heating and ventilation, as well as the physical layout in
renovated and newly-built school settings improve the opportunities for students to focus
on collaborative, experiential and inquiry-based learning through the optimal use of all
spaces in the school.
In newly built and renovated buildings an activity room will be created. During the
instructional day the activity room may be used for, but is not limited to, physical educa tion,
large group activities, collaborative learning activities, presentations and performances.
Benefits to the Greater Community
Consolidating schools which have had a long history, memories and often generations of families
who attended them can be a difficult process. The sense of community can be greatly enhanced
with the collective creation of a new school identity. The amalgamation of school communities or
the creation of a new school community provides opportunities for renewal; the enhancement of
past traditions and establishment of new traditions. Consolidation provides schools with a wider
range of resources and an increased number of experiences to draw upon. School Councils,
teams and clubs can benefit from a greater diversity in their membership.
Enhanced facilities provide an updated venue for the community to use school facilities for
activities that occur outside of the school day. An enhanced facility can provide a space for sports
teams, clubs, and musical groups to work within the school.
A sense of connectedness is not dependent upon the size of a school. Connectedness is
developed through the creation of a culture of learning and caring and the strengthening of
community school values and can be seen in schools of all sizes.
The Thames Valley District School Board is committed to helping every child achieve success with
the primary goal to enable students to develop the knowledge, skills, and characteristics that will
lead them to be personally successful, economically productive, and actively engaged citizens. The
TVDSB is committed to further developing a culture of learning and innovation as one of its key
principles within the Board’s vision. The creation of newly built and renovated facilities is one
action that helps us work toward this commitment. Our TVDSB students deserve the very best
learning environment where they are inspired to learn and be successful.
PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW
A Pupil Accommodation Review (PAR) is a community consultation process required by the
Ministry of Education where school closure and/or consolidation is being considered to address
changing demographics, enrolment, programming, and facility condition challenges facing a school
or schools in a particular area under review.
The Initial Senior Administration’s Report (ISAR) is intended to provide information to the Board of
Trustees, and the public, regarding existing accommodation in the area, the current surplus spaces
and growth needs and opportunities to redirect fixed resources to support student achievement and
well-being in advance of the consultation process.
: The ISAR includes a School Information Profile or SIP, which contains 2015-16 background data,
for each school within the accommodation review, as well as the following:
• An analysis of the current situation;
• An accommodation proposal with accompanying rationale;
• An overview of the consultation process;
• Previous steps taken to address excess capacity within the area; and,
• Timelines for implementation of recommendations.
On 2016 April 12, the Planning Department presented the Draft Elementary Accommodation Study
to the Board of Trustees, a high-level report of observations on accommodation issues in the
TVDSB that are being monitored closely. Identified in the Study was Elgin-Middlesex 01,
consisting of:
Davenport Public School McGregor Public School
Mitchell Hepburn Public School New Sarum Public School
Northdale Central Public School Port Stanley Public School
River Heights Public School South Dorchester Public School
Sparta Public School Springfield Public School
Summers’ Corners Public School Westminster Central Public School
This is proposed to be Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review (EPAR -01).
This group of schools had a total enrolment of 3,606, total existing capacity of 4,762. For the
schools operating below 100% utilization, there are 1156 Empty Pupil Places in EPAR-01. Within
the TVDSB there were two schools operating with an enrolment of less than 100 students in 2015-
16, both of these schools are included in this proposed PAR.
2015-16 Elementary Schools by Student Enrolment
The 2014-15 Provincial School Board Efficiencies and Modernization Strategy (SBEM) emphasized
the need for school boards to make more efficient use of their facilities. As of 2015 -16, there were
8,844 empty (unfunded) Elementary pupil places across the TVDSB .
The operational costs to maintain, clean and heat these spaces are not funded by the province.
Currently this operational funding shortfall is being subsidized by the system as a whole, resulting
in fully-occupied classrooms being under allocated in funds and the dilution of resources. This
financial burden will increase over time due to enrolment decline.
It should also be noted that cost per pupil in smaller schools is greater than larger schools. The
current Board average for an elementary school is 386 students per elementary school.
There is an inequity of education opportunities for students residing within these attendance areas.
Geography, student concentration and school locations are challenges to schools located within
this region. This problem is particularly evident in the EPAR-01 area.
As a whole the EPAR-01 utilization rate was 75.76% in 2015-16, but individually the school
utilizations ranged from 27% to 111%. The following map illustrates school utilization by
attendance area.
2% 11%
25%
21%
16%
12%
13%
TVDSB
17%
17%
25%
25%
8%
8%
EPAR-01 Less than 100
101-200
201-300
301-400
401-501
501-600
Over 601
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
After further examination of the schools’ current and projected enrolment, utilization, facility
renewal/condition and funding, it was determined that a Pupil Accommodation Review is merited
as the current situation is not sustainable.
The following recommendations are proposed to resolve the accommodation issues in this region
will be included in the attached Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review-01 Initial Senior
Administration’s Report:
The closure of 5 Elementary schools: New Sarum, South Dorchester, Sparta,
Springfield and Westminster Central Public Schools.
School improvements (addition/or renovations/or program enhancements) for
Davenport, McGregor, Northdale Central, Port Stanley and Summers’ Corners Public
Schools.
The construction of 2 new Elementary schools, located in Belmont and Southeast
St. Thomas.
Re-purposing of Sparta Public Schools, following the closure of the regular track
program, to create a second Elementary French Immersion school in Elgin County.
Possible collaboration opportunities at McGregor, River Heights and Summers’
Corners Public Schools.
Possible co-build opportunities at the two new schools.
Content: See attached document
Cost/Savings: See attached document
Timeline: See attached document
Communications: N/A
Appendices: Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review-01 Initial Senior Administration’s Report
Form Revised: January 2016
Relation to Commitments:
☒ Putting students first. ☒ Actively engaging our students, staff, families and communities.
☐ Recognizing and encouraging leadership in all its forms. ☒ Being inclusive, fair, and equitable.
☒ Ensuring safe, positive learning and working environments. ☒ Inspiring new ideas and promoting innovation.
☒ Taking responsibility for the students and resources entrusted to our care.
INITIAL SENIOR
ADMINISTRATION REPORT
ELEMENTARY PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW - 01
POSTED ON THE PLANNING SERVICES WEBPAGE: 2016 NOVEMBER 15
PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES: 2016 NOVEMBER 22
REVISIONS / CORRECTIONS: 2016 DECEMBER 05
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 1 of 71
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 3
BACKGROUND TO THE PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW PROCESS .................................. 3
STUDENT ACCOMMODATION ...................................................................................................... 3
SUMMARY OF THE CURRENT SITUATION.................................................................................. 4
NOTES ............................................................................................................................................. 5
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILES ............................................................................................. 5
SECTION 2 - CURRENT ACCOMMODATION DETAILS ........................................................................... 6
DAVENPORT PUBLIC SCHOOL: ................................................................................................... 6
Mc GREGOR PUBLIC SCHOOL: .................................................................................................... 8
MITCHELL HEPBURN PUBLIC SCHOOL: ................................................................................... 10
NEW SARUM PUBLIC SCHOOL: ................................................................................................. 12
NORTHDALE CENTRAL PUBLIC SCHOOL: ................................................................................ 14
PORT STANLEY PUBLIC SCHOOL: ............................................................................................ 16
RIVER HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOL: ............................................................................................ 18
SOUTH DORCHESTER PUBLIC SCHOOL: ................................................................................. 20
SPARTA PUBLIC SCHOOL: ......................................................................................................... 22
SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL: ................................................................................................ 24
SUMMERS’ CORNERS PUBLIC SCHOOL:.................................................................................. 26
WESTMINSTER CENTRAL PUBLIC SCHOOL: ........................................................................... 28
SECTION 3 – RECOMMENDED SOLUTION ............................................................................................ 30
NORTHERN REGION: ................................................................................................................... 32
SOUTHERN REGION: ................................................................................................................... 41
EASTERN REGION: ...................................................................................................................... 45
WESTERN REGION: ..................................................................................................................... 56
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: ................................................................................................................. 63
TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION: ............................................................................................ 65
SECTION 4 - COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS & MUNICIPAL INPUT .................................................... 68
SECTION 5 - CO-BUILD AND COLLABORATION OPPORTUNITITES .................................................. 69
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 2 of 71
SECTION 6 - PAR CALENDAR & TIMELINE ............................................................................................ 70
EPAR-01 TIMELINE: ...................................................................................................................... 70
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................. 71
A. GLOSSARY
B. SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILES:
B-1 DAVENPORT PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-2 MCGREGOR PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-3 MITCHELL HEPBURN PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-4 NEW SARUM PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-5 NORTHDALE CENTRAL PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-6 PORT STANLEY PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-7 RIVER HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-8 SOUTH DORCHESTER PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-9 SPARTA PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-10 SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-11 SUMMERS’ CORNERS PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-12 WESTMINSTER CENTRAL PUBLIC SCHOOL
C. COMMUNITY PLANNING & FACILITY COLLABORATION MEETINGS INFORMATION
D. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION INPUT
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 3 of 71
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND TO THE PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW PROCESS
The School Board Efficiencies and Modernization Strategy (SBEM) was introduced to provide incentives
and supports for school boards to make more efficient use of schools. As part of this program the
Ministry of Education announced a number of funding changes (such as the reduction and elimination of
top-up funding) for operation and maintenance aimed at motivating school boards to address surplus
capacity (unfunded space). The revenue loss is in the excess of $4M.
The Ministry of Education’s Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline (2015 March) established
expectations for all school boards on managing and reviewing underutilized school space, including
potential school closures, and for the greater coordination and sharing of planning related information
between school boards and other community partners.
A Pupil Accommodation Review (PAR) is a community consultation process required by the Ministry of
Education where school closures and/or consolidations are being considered to address changing
demographics, enrolment, programming, and facility condition challenges facing a school or schools in a
particular area under review.
In order to determine the parameters of the proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review-01
(EPAR-01), the following fundamental questions were posed related to each school included in this PAR:
Have any issues been identified as a priority of the Board?
Is the current situation sustainable (with respect to enrolment projections, school utilization, and
facility renewal/condition)?
Does the current situation provide equity of programming for all of our students?
Is there an opportunity to improve student learning?
Is the current situation financially sustainable (with respect to funding available)?
Are there any potential facility collaboration opportunities with community organizations?
School consolidation can often provide opportunities to invest in enhanced learning opportunities for
students. Quality teaching and learning environments are key to effective program delivery. Schools built
50-60 years ago often do not meet the programming needs of today’s curriculum and students. Access to
up-to-date facilities with appropriate kindergarten spaces, gymnasia, learning commons with maker
spaces, are examples of enhanced learning environments that can prepare our students for the future.
The purpose of a Pupil Accommodation Review is to discuss with parents, and our greater school
communities, the Initial Senior Administration’s Report (ISAR) which focuses on a f undamental question:
Are we providing the optimal educational opportunities and facilities for our students?
STUDENT ACCOMMODATION
The schools within this accommodation study cover a vast geographical area that stretches over two
counties with smaller agricultural communities and larger cities with ongoing urban expansion. The
populations within this area have seen a shift with increasing high populations in urban areas and
declining populations in rural communities. As the demographics have changed over time the Thames
Valley District School Board has had challenges with low student enrolment in rural schools and
enrolment pressure from urban residential growth. In the following enrolment and capacity chart the
entire population of students and capacities of school facilities are compared.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 4 of 71
Although the graph indicates that the total population of students from 2010 to 2015 has declined,
additional capacity has been added to the areas of residential growth. In the past, rural schools were built
to accommodate a thriving agricultural population with more children per household. (Statistics Canada
2001, 2006, 2011) The breakdown of persons per household can be viewed on a school by school basis
in the demographics section of the School Information Profiles. Demographics also show that migration
has occurred from agricultural settlements to larger towns and cities. Some settlements within this study
area have grown to become urban outposts with thriving communities and improvements in infrastructure
for residential, commercial and industrial expansion. Some settlements have remained hamlets, and
although there is no long term plan for growth, these areas still have an appreciation of existing
community and spirit. The Board must accommodate the student population using the facts of migration,
population growth and decline, and municipal direction.
SUMMARY OF THE CURRENT SITUATION
The Draft Elementary Accommodation Study (2016 April 12) identified a number of issues in Elgin County
and Middlesex County which merit an Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review (EPAR-01), including:
historical and projected enrolment, school condition and proximity to students, as well as existing school
model organizations. More efficient accommodation and enhanced programming of students can be
achieved with fewer schools by aligning surrounding communities with the projected growth.
Through proposed school consolidations and new school openings, attendance area adjustments and
school model re-organization, the distribution of students would become more balanced, the number of
eligible walking students would increase, and school and facility operations would become more efficient.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Students (FTE) School Year
EPAR 01 - Enrolment and Capacity - Status Quo
OTG Capacity Projected Enrolment French Immersion
Projected Enrolment Holding Community Projected Enrolment Existing Community
Historical Enrolment
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 5 of 71
NOTES
All information identified in the existing situation and the School Information Profiles are based on 2015-
16 school year data.
The following Special Education assumptions have been utilized for the recommended solution:
As the student need is anticipated to remain consistent, the total Learning Support teachers and
Educational Assistants allocation has remained unchanged from the 2015-16 staffing complement and
the allocations have been distributed proportionately with the student movement.
The following Transportation assumptions have been utilized for the recommended solution:
The transportation calculations for the recommendations have been based on 2015-16 student numbers
and residences.
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILES
The School Information Profiles (SIP), located in Appendix B, provide data from the 2015-16 school year
for each of the schools involved in the EPAR-01. Each SIP provides a school overview, an instructional
profile, a facility and site profile, and a municipality and community use profile. This information is
provided to assist the Pupil Accommodation Review Committee (PARC) and the community in
understanding the context surrounding the decision to include each for the specific schools in the EPAR-
01 process.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 6 of 71
SECTION 2 - CURRENT ACCOMMODATION DETAILS
DAVENPORT PUBLIC SCHOOL:
(See also School Information Profile (SIP) for further information)
Attendance Areas - A map of the current attendance area can be found in Section A of the SIP.
Program - Davenport Public School is an English track grades 5 to 8 elementary school. A self-
contained Developmental Education program serving junior and intermediate students is also provided at
this location.
School Organization: In 2015-16, there were 10 Junior and Intermediate (grades 5 - 8) classes in the
English track program, including 1 split grade class.
In 2015-16, there was 1 Junior/Intermediate Developmental Education class. All Special Education
classes meet the Ministry of Education standards for class size.
Before & After School Program - Before and After School programs are not offered at
Junior/Intermediate schools.
Community Use - In 2015-16, 3 permits were taken out for the school building, totalling 113 booked
hours and a total revenue of $792.75 through Community Use of Schools. No permits were taken out for
the school grounds, through Community Use of Schools.
Collaborations - In 2015-16, no facility collaborations, non-school programs or services were located at
the school.
Enrolment - The enrolment for Davenport Public School is projected to decline slightly: 312 pupils in
2016; 319 pupils in 2020; and finally, 295 pupils in 2024. Enrolment charts with grade by grade data can
be found in Section B of the SIP.
Staffing Complement - In 2015-16, Davenport Public School had a total staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
allocation of 24.71.
Administrative allocation: 1 Principal and 1 Secretary.
Teacher allocation: 14.73 teachers, 1.19 Special Education teachers, 0.44 teacher-librarian, 0.4
ESL teacher and 1.2 Learning Support teachers.
Educational Assistants: 2.5.
Custodial allocation: 2.25.
Demographics - Statistics Canada Census data indicates the total population of the Davenport Public
School attendance area remained relatively stable between 2001 and 2011. However, the population of
elementary school aged children (4-13 year olds) has declined 16% between 2001 and 2006 and further
declined 7% between 2006 and 2011. A continued decline in the number of school aged children is
anticipated as indicated in the Enrolment chart found in Section B of the Davenport Public School SIP.
Development - The Official Plan for the Township of Malahide indicates that the areas east and west of
Aylmer are under consideration for growth and community expansion. Within the attendance area of
Davenport Public School there are a total of 18 Single Family units and 30 High Density units currently
circulated and under construction. The current circulated residential development plans for this
attendance area are not expected to yield a significant number of students.
Accommodations - In 2015-16, Davenport Public School was at 69.5% utilization.
The 2015-16 On-The-Ground Capacity (or OTG) of Davenport Public School was 423. As determined by
the Ministry of Education loading calculations, the loaded spaces included: 16 Standard Classrooms, 1
Science Lab, 1 Family Studies Classroom and 1 Special Education Classroom. Non-loaded space
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 7 of 71
included: a Learning Commons and computer lab, 1 Technical/Vocational Classroom, a gymnasium and
stage (used for instrumental music) and seminar rooms.
The Space Template for Davenport Public School (found in Section C of the SIP) identifies Instructional
and Operational spaces. Instructional spaces are broken down by room type, size and Ministry of
Education loading calculations. Operational spaces are broken down by space type and size. The
calculated area per pupil by OTG is 87.33 sq. ft. and the calculated area per pupil by 2015-16 enrolment
is 125.65 sq. ft.
Facility Condition & Renewal - Davenport Public School was originally built in 1955 with additions built
in 1960, 1971, and 1993. In the last 10 years, the TVDSB has invested $844,813 in renewal in the school.
This work is identified by project in the chart located in Section C of the SIP.
The Ministry of Education’s School Facility Condition Assessment Program retained third-party
consultants to inspect, assess and catalogue the condition of schools across Ontario. The school
condition data collected identified a renewal backlog of High and Urgent needs totalling $2,787,860 for
Davenport Public School.
The Facility Condition Index or FCI (snapshot in time calculation) compares the relative condition of a
building’s 5 year renewal needs and the cost to rebuild the facility. The higher the FCI, the greater the
renewal needs. The FCI for Davenport Public School is 42%. (See the SIP and Glossary for further
information on FCIs)
Transportation - Davenport Public School bus runs are shared with McGregor Public School and the
London District Catholic School Board’s Assumption Catholic School. Springfield South Dorchester
Public School is a JK-grade 6 school; the grade 7 and 8 students from Springfield South Dorchester
Public School are designated and transported to Davenport Public School. 10 vehicles were utilized to
transport 96 Davenport Public School students at a cost of $109,311 (not including specialized
transportation). The average ride time was 25 minutes.
The range of student residence proximity to Davenport Public School is 0.10 - 21.06km.
Financial Analysis of the School - Using the School based costs of Administration, Facility Services
and Information Technology, it has been calculated that in 2015-16 the average cost per student at
Davenport Public School was $1186.13 compared to the Board average cost per student of $1,416.06 as
identified in the chart found in Section C of the SIP.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 8 of 71
Mc GREGOR PUBLIC SCHOOL:
(See also School Information Profile (SIP) for further information)
Attendance Areas - A map of the current attendance area can be found in Section A of the SIP.
Program - McGregor Public School is an English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 4 elementary
school. A self-contained Developmental Education program serving primary and junior students is also
provided at this location.
School Organization - In 2015-16, there were 4 Full Day Kindergarten, 8.5 Primary (grade 1-3) and 3.5
Junior (grades 4) classes in the English track program, including 4 split grade classes. As kindergarten is
considered a two year program in the TVDSB, classes contain both junior and senior students.
In 2015-16, there was 1 Primary/Junior Developmental Education class. All Special Education classes
meet Ministry of Education standards for class size.
Before & After School Program - There was a Before and After School program available in 2015-16,
offered by the YMCA of St.Thomas Elgin with a before school start time of 7:30 am and an after school
end time of 6:00 pm. Before and After School program costs were fully recoverable. Total revenue from
this program was $1,000.
Community Use - In 2015-16, 23 permits were taken out for the school building, totalling 3,222 booked
hours and a total revenue of $1,490.23 through Community Use of Schools. There were also 6 permits
taken out for the school grounds, totalling 1,167 booked hours with no revenue, through Community Use
of Schools.
Collaborations - In 2015-16, no facility collaborations, non-school programs or services located were
located at the school.
Enrolment - The enrolment for McGregor Public School is projected to decline slightly: 352 in pupils in
2016; 334 pupils 2020; and finally, 331 pupils in 2024. Enrolment charts with student breakdown by
grade and program can be found in Section B of the SIP.
Staffing Complement - In 2015-16, McGregor Public School had a total staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
allocation of 39.39.
Administrative allocation: 1 Principal and 1 Secretary.
Teacher allocation: 22.09 teachers, 1.19 Special Education teachers, 0.56 teacher-librarian, 0.5
ESL teacher and 1.3 Learning Support teachers.
Early Childhood Educator allocation: 4.0.
Educational Assistant allocation: 5.0.
Custodial allocation: 2.75.
Demographics - Statistics Canada Census data indicates the population of the McGregor Public School
attendance area has remained relatively stable between 2006 and 2011. The number of elementary
school aged children (4 to 13 year olds) has declined 16% between 2001 and 2006 and further declined
between 2006 and 2011. A continued decline in the number of school aged children is anticipated as
indicated in the Enrolment chart found in Section B of the McGregor Public School SIP.
Development - The Official Plan for the Township of Malahide indicates that the areas east and west of
Aylmer are under consideration for growth and community expansion. Within th e attendance area of
McGregor PS there are a total of 18 Single Family units and 30 High Density units currently circulated
and under construction. The current development is not expected to yield a significant amount of
students.
Accommodations - In 2015-16, McGregor Public School was at 68.5% utilization.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 9 of 71
The On-The-Ground Capacity (or OTG) in 2015-16 for McGregor Public School was 530. As determined
by Ministry of Education loading calculations, the loaded spaces included: 5 FDK classrooms, 16
Standard Classrooms, 1 Computer lab, 1 Special Education Classroom. Non-loaded space included: 1
Learning Commons, 1 gymnasium and stage and seminar rooms.
The Space Template for McGregor Public School (found in Section C of the SIP) identifies Instructiona l
and Operational spaces. Instructional spaces are broken down by room type, size and Ministry of
Education loading calculations. Operational spaces are broken down by space type and size.
The calculated area per pupil by OTG is 88.30 sq. ft. and the calculated area per pupil by 2015-16
enrolment is 128.93 sq. ft.
Facility Condition & Renewal - McGregor Public School was originally built in 1950 with additions built
in 1968 and 2013. In the last 10 years, the TVDSB has invested $1,136,322 in renewal in the school.
This work is identified by project in the chart in Section C of the SIP.
The Ministry of Education’s School Facility Condition Assessment Program retained third-party
consultants to inspect, assess and catalogue the condition of schools across Ontario. The school
condition data collected identified a renewal backlog of High and Urgent needs totalling $3,624,354 for
McGregor Public School.
The Facility Condition Index or FCI (snapshot in time calculation) compares the relative condition of a
building’s 5 year renewal needs and the cost to rebuild the facility. The higher the FCI the greater the
renewal needs. The FCI for McGregor Public School is 48%. (See the SIP and Glossary for further
information on FCIs)
Transportation - McGregor Public School bus runs are shared with Davenport Public School and the
London District Catholic School Board’s Assumption Catholic School. 5 vehicles were utilized to transport
147 McGregor Public School students at a cost of $91,944 (not including Specialized transportation). The
average ride time was 15 minutes.
The range of student residence proximity to McGregor Public School is 0.07 - 4.89km.
Financial Analysis of the School - Using the School based costs of Administration, Facility Services
and Information Technology, it has been calculated that in 2015-16 the average cost per student at
McGregor Public School was $1,229.85 compared to the Board average cost per student of $1,416.06 as
identified in the chart found in Section C of the SIP.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 10 of 71
MITCHELL HEPBURN PUBLIC SCHOOL:
(See also School Information Profile (SIP) for further information)
Attendance Areas - A map of the current attendance area can be found in Section A of the SIP.
Program - Mitchell Hepburn Public School is an English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 8
elementary school. A self-contained Developmental Education program serving primary, junior and
intermediate students is also provided at this location.
School Organization - In 2015-16, there were 5.5 Full Day Kindergarten, 11.5 Primary (grade 1-3), and
13 Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes in the English track program, including 3.5 split grade
classes. As kindergarten is considered a two year program in the TVDSB, classes contain both junior
and senior students.
In 2015-16, there were 0.5 Primary (grade 1-3), and 2.5 Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8)
Developmental Education classes. All Special Education classes meet Ministry of Education standards
for class size.
Before & After School Program - There was a Before and After School program available in 2015-16,
offered by the YMCA of St.Thomas Elgin with a before school start time of 7:00 am and an after school
end time of 6:00 pm. Before and After School program costs were fully recoverable. Total revenue from
this program was $2,000.
Community Use - In 2015-16, 35 permits were taken out for the school building, totalling 4020 hours and
a total revenue of $1,843.85 through the Community Use of Schools. There were also 4 permits taken
out for the school grounds, totalling 615 booked hours with no revenue, through Community Use of
Schools.
Collaborations - The Board has an agreement with the City of St. Thomas for the use of the field and
parking lot. In 2015-16, there were not any non-school programs or services located at the school.
Enrolment - The enrolment for Mitchell Hepburn Public School in area population is projected to
fluctuate: 755 pupils in 2016; 775 pupils in 2020; and finally, 719 pupils in 2024. Enrolment charts with
student breakdown by grade and program can be found in Section B of the SIP.
Staffing Complement - In 2015-16, Mitchell Hepburn Public School had a total staff Full Time Equivalent
(FTE) allocation of 71.64.
Administrative allocation: 1 Principal, 1 Vice-Principal, and 1 Secretary.
Teacher allocation: 42.91 teachers, 3.57 Special Education teachers, 1.14 teacher-librarian, 0.02
ESL teacher and 2.5 Learning Support teachers.
Early Childhood Educator allocation: 5.0.
Educational Assistant allocation: 9.5.
Custodial allocation: 4.0.
Development - The current circulated residential development plans for Mitchell Hepburn Public School
attendance area are expected to yield approximately 40 students.
On 2013 November 19, the Board approved the creation of the Southeast St. Thomas Holding Zone, due
to continued development in the Mitchell Hepburn attendance area. With the current circulated residential
development there are approximately 70 students projected from this Holding Zone. The projection does
not include extended urban growth areas within this attendance area. Students residing in this Holding
Zone will be accommodated at Port Stanley Public School until permanently accommodated.
Demographics - Statistics Canada Census data indicates the population of the Mitchell Hepburn Public
School attendance area increased by 18% between 2001 and 2006. Furthermore, between 2006 and
2011 the population increased another 26%. The population of elementary school aged children, (4 to 13
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 11 of 71
year olds) has increased 14% from 2001 to 2006 and another 29% from 2006 to 2011. The number of
school aged children in this area is anticipated to have a slight decline as the existing community ages
from its boom of residential construction. This is indicated in the Enrolment chart found in Section B of
the Mitchell Hepburn Public School SIP.
Accommodations - In 2015-16, Mitchell Hepburn Public School was at 110.8% utilization.
The 2015-16 On-The-Ground Capacity (or OTG) of Mitchell Hepburn Public School was 701. As
determined by the Ministry of Education loading calculation, the loaded spaces included: 6 FDK
classrooms, 22 Standard Classrooms, 1 Learning Support room, and 1 Special Education Suite
consisting of 3 classrooms. Non-loaded space included: 1 Learning Commons, 1 gymnasium, 1 primary
activity room and stage, 1 general arts room, and seminar room. There were 5 portable classrooms.
The Space Template for Mitchell Hepburn Public School (found in Section C of the SIP) identifies
Instructional and Operational spaces. Instructional spaces are broken down by room type, size and
Ministry loading calculations. Operational spaces are broken down by space type and size.
The calculated area per pupil by OTG is 87.62 sq. ft. and the calculated area per pupil by 2015-16
enrolment is 78.89 sq. ft.
Facility Condition & Renewal - Mitchell Hepburn Public School was originally built in 2008 with an
addition in 2014. The TVDSB has invested $116,852 in the last 10 years in renewal in the school, as
identified by project in the chart in Section C of the SIP.
The Ministry of Education’s School Facility Condition Assessment Program retained third-party
consultants to inspect, assess and catalogue the condition of schools across Ontario. The school
condition data collected identified a renewal backlog of High and Urgent needs totalling $31,200 for
Mitchell Hepburn Public School.
The Facility Condition Index or FCI (snapshot in time calculation) compares the relative condition of a
building’s 5 year renewal needs and the cost to rebuild the facility. The higher the FCI, the greater the
renewal needs. The FCI for Mitchell Hepburn Public School is 1%. (see the SIP and Glossary for further
information on FCIs)
Transportation - 5 vehicles were utilized to transport 249 students to Mitchell Hepburn Public School at a
cost of $113,398 (not including specialized transportation). The average ride time was 10 minutes.
The range of student residence proximity to Mitchell Hepburn Public School is 0.01 - 2.63km.
Financial Analysis of the School - Using the School based costs of Administration, Facility Services
and Information Technology, it has been calculated that in 2015-16 the average cost per student at
Mitchell Hepburn Public School was $970.92 compared to the Board average cost average per student of
$1,416.06 as identified in the chart found in Section C of the SIP.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 12 of 71
NEW SARUM PUBLIC SCHOOL:
(See also School Information Profile (SIP) for further information)
Attendance Areas - A map of the current attendance area can be found in Section A of the SIP.
Program - New Sarum Public School is an English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 8 elementary
school. A self-contained Transition program class serving intermediate students is also located at this
school.
School Organization - In 2015-16, there were 2 Full Day Kindergarten, 4 Primary (grade 1-3), and 5
Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes in the English track program, including 1 split grade class.
As kindergarten is considered a two year program in the TVDSB, classes contain both junior and senior
students. In 2015-16, there was 1 Intermediate (grades 7-8) Transition class. All Special Education
classes meet Ministry of Education standards for class size.
Before & After School Program - There was a Before and After School program available in 2015-16,
offered by the YMCA of St.Thomas Elgin with a before school start time of 7:00 am and an after school
end time of 6:00 pm. Before and After School program costs were fully recoverable. Total revenue from
this program was $500.
Community Use - In 2015-16, 3 permits were taken out for the school building, totalling 20 hours and a
total revenue of $142.80 through the Community Use of Schools. No permits were taken out for the
school grounds, through the Community Use of Schools.
Collaborations - In 2015-16, no facility collaborations, non-school programs or services were located at
the school.
Enrolment - The enrolment for New Sarum Public School is projected to remain relatively stable: 250
pupils in 2016; 257 pupils in 2020, and finally, 260 pupils in 2024. Enrolment charts with student
breakdown by grade and program can be found in Section B of the SIP.
Staffing Complement - In 2015-16, New Sarum Public School had a total staff FTE allocation of 32.28.
Administrative allocation: 1 Principal, 0.5 Vice-Principal, and 1 Secretary.
Teacher allocation: 16.16 teachers, 1.19 Special Education teachers, 0.38 teacher-librarian, 0.3
ESL teacher and 1.5 Learning Support teachers.
Early Childhood Educator allocation: 2.0.
Educational Assistant allocation: 6.0.
Custodial allocation: 2.25.
Demographics - Statistics Canada Census data indicates the population of New Sarum Public School
attendance area increased 13% between 2001 and 2006 and further increased 3% between 2006 and
2011. The number of elementary school aged children has declined 4% between 2001 and 2006 and a
further 9% between 2006 and 2011. Relative stability of school aged children in this community is
anticipated as indicated in the Enrolment chart found in Section B of the New Sarum Public School SIP.
Development - There is no significant residential growth. The municipality of Central Elgin has no
current plans to service any of the rural communities within this attendance area.
Accommodations - In 2015-16, New Sarum Public School was at 97.3% utilization.
The 2015-16 On-The-Ground Capacity (or OTG) of New Sarum Public School was 257. As determined
by the Ministry of Education loading calculation, the loaded spaces included: 2 FDK classrooms, 8
Standard Classrooms, 1 Special Education Classroom and 1 Learning Support room. Non-loaded space
included: 1 Learning Commons, 1 gymnasium and stage, 1 general arts classroom and seminar room.
There were also 2 portable classrooms.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 13 of 71
The Space Template for New Sarum Public School (found in Section C of the SIP) identifies Instructional
and Operational spaces. Instructional spaces are broken down by room type, size and Ministry of
Education loading calculations. Operational spaces are broken down by space type and size.
The calculated area per pupil by OTG is 126.83 sq. ft. and the calculated area per pupil by 2015-16
enrolment is 130.38 sq. ft.
Facility Condition & Renewal - New Sarum Public School was originally built in 1969 with no further
additions. In the last 10 years, the TVDSB has invested $804,932 in renewal in the school. This work is
identified by project in the chart located in Section C of the SIP.
The Ministry of Education’s School Facility Condition Assessment Program retained third-party
consultants to inspect, assess and catalogue the condition of schools across Ontario. The school
condition data collected identified a renewal backlog of High and Urgent needs totalling $3,464,094 for
New Sarum Public School.
The Facility Condition Index or FCI (snapshot in time calculation) compares the relative condition of a
building’s 5 year renewal needs and the cost to rebuild the facility. The higher the FCI, the greater the
renewal needs. The FCI for New Sarum Public School is 75%. (See the SIP and Glossary for further
information on FCIs)
Transportation - 6 vehicles were utilized to transport 216 students to New Sarum Public School at a cost
of $148,132 (not including specialized transportation). The average ride time was 19 minutes.
The range of student residence proximity to New Sarum Public School is 0.02 - 13.39km.
Financial Analysis of the School - Using the School based costs of Administration, Facility Services
and Information Technology, it has been calculated that in 2015-16 the average cost per student at New
Sarum Public School was $1,513.30 $1,592.30 compared to the Board average cost average per student
of $1,416.06 as identified in the chart found in Section C of the SIP.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 14 of 71
NORTHDALE CENTRAL PUBLIC SCHOOL:
(See also School Information Profile (SIP) for further information)
Attendance Areas - A map of the current attendance area can be found in Section A of the SIP.
Program - Northdale Central Public School is an English track grade 4 to grade 8 elementary school. A
self-contained Gifted program serving Junior students is also provided at this location.
School Organization - In 2015-16, there were 14 Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes in the
English track program, including 2 split grade classes. In 2015-16, there was 1 Junior (grades 4-6) Gifted
program class. All Special Education classes meet Ministry standards for class size.
Before & After School Program - Before and After School programs are not offered at
Junior/Intermediate schools.
Community Use - In 2015-16, 17 permits were taken out for the school building, totalling 65 booked
hours and a total revenue of $146.00 through the Community Use of Schools. No permits were taken out
for the school grounds, through the Community Use of Schools.
Collaborations - In 2015-16, no facility collaborations, non-school programs or services were located at
the school.
Enrolment - The enrolment for Northdale Central Public School is projected to decline: 413 pupils in
2016; 405 pupils in 2020; and finally, 394 pupils in 2024. Enrolment charts by grade data can be found in
Section B of the SIP.
Staffing Complement - In 2015-16, Northdale Central Public School had a total staff Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) allocation of 29.76.
Administrative allocation: 1 Principal, 0.5 Vice-Principal, and 1.0 Secretary.
Teacher allocation: 19.96 teachers, 1.19 Special Education teachers, 0.61 teacher-librarian, and
1.5 Learning Support teachers.
Educational Assistants allocation: 2.0.
Custodial allocation: 2.0.
Demographics - Statistics Canada Census data indicates the population of the Northdale Central Public
School attendance area grew by 5% between 2001 and 2006, and grew again by 1% between 2006 and
2011. The number of elementary school aged children decreased by 4% between 2001 and 2006 and a
further decrease of 14% between 2006 and 2011. A continued decline of the number of school aged
children in this area is anticipated as indicated in the Enrolment chart found in Section B of the Northdale
Central Public School SIP.
Development – Within the shared attendance area of Northdale Central and River Heights Public
Schools there are a total of 433 units residential developments circulated and under construction. The
current circulated residential development plans for this attendance area are expected to yield
approximately 65 students.
The majority of the development within Northdale Central and River Heights Public Schools attendance
area is from a draft approved subdivision called The Boardwalk at Mill Pond. Although the current status
is Draft Approved the development may be delayed due to servicing constraints within the town of
Dorchester. Therefore the potential student yield from the subdivision is not expected in the near future
unless service upgrades are made.
Accommodations - In 2015-16, Northdale Central Public School was at 92.1% utilization.
The 2015-16 On-The-Ground Capacity (or OTG) of Northdale Central Public School was 446. As
determined by the Ministry of Education loading calculation, the loaded spaces included: 19 Standard
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 15 of 71
Classrooms (1 used for general arts), and 1 Special Education Classroom. Non-loaded space included: 1
Learning Commons and computer lab, 1 gymnasium and stage, and seminar rooms.
The Space Template for Northdale Central Public School (found in Section C of the SIP) identifies
Instructional and Operational spaces. Instructional spaces are broken down by room type, size and
Ministry of Education loading calculations. Operational spaces are broken down by space type and size.
The calculated area per pupil by OTG is 73.22 sq. ft. and the calculated area per pupil by 2015-16
enrolment is 79.27 sq. ft.
Facility Condition & Renewal - Northdale Central Public School was originally built in 1959 with
additions built in 1962, 1965, 1968 and 2001. In the last 10 years, the TVDSB has invested $1,035,813 in
renewal in the school. This work is identified by project in the chart in Section C of the SIP.
The Ministry of Education’s School Facility Condition Assessment Program retained third-party
consultants to inspect, assess and catalogue the condition of schools across Ontario. The school
condition data collected identified a renewal backlog of High and Urgent needs totalling $2,470,977 for
Northdale Central Public School.
The Facility Condition Index or FCI (snapshot in time calculation) compares the relative condition of a
building’s 5 year renewal needs and the cost to rebuild the facility. The higher the FCI, the greater the
renewal needs. The FCI for Northdale Central Public School is 32%. (See the SIP and Glossary for
further information on FCIs)
Transportation - Northdale Central Public School bus runs are shared the other two elementary schools
located Dorchester, River Heights Public School and the London District Catholic School Board’s St.
David’s Catholic School. 18 vehicles were utilized to transport 371 Northdale Central Public School
students at a cost of $340,193 (not including specialized transportation). The average ride time was 18
minutes.
The range of student residence proximity to Northdale Central Public School is 0.45 - 19.02km.
Financial Analysis of the School - Using the School based costs of Administration, Facility Services
and Information Technology, it has been calculated that in 2015-16 the average cost per student at
Northdale Central Public School was $1,092.65 compared to the Board average cost average per student
of $1,416.06 as identified in the chart found in Section C of the SIP.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 16 of 71
PORT STANLEY PUBLIC SCHOOL:
(See also School Information Profile (SIP) for further information)
Attendance Area - A map of the current attendance area and associated Holding Zones can be found in
Section A of the SIP.
Program - Port Stanley Public School is an English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 8 elementary
school.
School Organization - In 2015-16, there were 1 Full Day Kindergarten, 1.5 Primary (grade 1-3), and 2.5
Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes, all classes were split grade. As kindergarten is considered
a two year program in the TVDSB, classes contain both junior and senior students.
Note: In 2016-17, the intermediate French Immersion and Extended French Immersion program for Elgin
County was designated to Port Stanley Public School following an Attendance Area Review, in order to
relieve accommodation pressure at Pierre Elliott Trudeau French Immersion Public School. This was an
interim measure for French Immersion until permanent accommodation can be provided.
Before & After School Program - There was a Before and After School program available in 2015-16,
offered by Milestone Children’s Centre with a before school start time of 7:00 am and an after school end
time of 6:00 pm. Before and After School program costs were fully recoverable. Total revenue from this
program was $500.
Community Use - In 2015-16, 1 permit was taken out for the school building, totalling 93 hours and a
total revenue of $777.00 through the Community Use of Schools. No permits were taken out for the
school grounds, through the Community Use of Schools.
Collaborations - The Board has an agreement with the Port Stanley Arena Board to utilize the adjacent
arena - interior and exterior facilities. There is no revenue associated with this agreement. In 2015-16,
there were not any non-school programs or services located at the school.
Enrolment - The enrolment for Port Stanley Public School is projected to increase (due to the Southeast
St.Thomas Holding Zone students): 102 pupils in 2016; 184 pupils in 2020; and finally, 212 pupils in
2024. Enrolment charts with grade by grade data can be found in Section B of the SIP.
Staffing Complement - In 2015-16, Port Stanley Public School had a total staff Full Time Equivalent
(FTE) allocation of 12.94.
Administrative allocation: 1 Principal and 1 Secretary.
Teacher allocation: 6.57 teachers, 0.12 teacher-librarian and 0.5 Learning Support teachers
Early Childhood Educator allocation: 1.0.
Educational Assistants allocation: 0.5.
Custodial allocation: 2.25.
Demographics - Statistics Canada Census data indicates the population of Port Stanley Public School
attendance area decreased 2% between 2001 and 2006 and further decreased 8 between 2006 and
2011. The number of elementary school aged children decreased 7% between 2001 and 2006 and had a
further decrease of 35% between 2006 and 2011. The anticipated increase of school aged children can
be attributed to the Southeast St.Thomas Holding Zone as indicated in the Enrolment chart found in
Section B of the Port Stanley Public School SIP.
Development - The village of Port Stanley has residential designated lands with potential for growth, and
has been identified by the municipality of Central Elgin as an urban settlement area. The community is
fully serviced with municipal water and sanitary systems. In the next 10 years, there are approximately 20
students projected from circulated and under construction residential development located in Port
Stanley.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 17 of 71
On 2013 November 19, the Board approved the creation of the Southeast St. Thomas Holding Zone, due
to continued development in the Mitchell Hepburn attendance area. Students residing in this Holding
Zone will be accommodated at Port Stanley Public School until permanently accommodated. There are
approximately 70 students projected from this Holding Zone. There are currently no students residing in
this Holding Zone attending Port Stanley Public School.
Accommodations - In 2015-16, Port Stanley Public School was at 29.7% utilization.
The 2015-16 On-The-Ground Capacity (or OTG) of Port Stanley Public School was 317. As determined
by the Ministry of Education loading calculation, the loaded spaces included: 2 FDK classrooms, 10
Standard Classrooms, 1 Science lab and 1 Learning Support room. Non-loaded space included: 1
General Arts room, 1 Learning Commons, 1 gymnasium and stage, and seminar rooms.
The Space Template for Port Stanley Public School (found in Section C of the SIP) identifies Instructional
and Operational spaces. Instructional spaces are broken down by room type, size and Ministry loadi ng
calculations. Operational spaces are broken down by space type and size
The calculated area per pupil by OTG is 109.23 sq. ft. and the calculated area per pupil by 2015-16
enrolment is 372.34 sq. ft.
Facility Condition & Renewal - Port Stanley Public School was originally built in 1972 with no further
additions built. In the last 10 years, the TVDSB has invested $805,174 in renewal in the school. This
work is identified by project in the chart in Section C of the SIP.
The Ministry of Education’s School Facility Condition Assessment Program retained third-party
consultants to inspect, assess and catalogue the condition of schools across Ontario. The school
condition data collected identified a renewal backlog of High and Urgent needs totalling $4,305,421 for
Port Stanley Public School.
The Facility Condition Index or FCI (snapshot in time calculation) compares the relative condition of a
building’s 5 year renewal needs and the cost to rebuild the facility. The higher the FCI the greater the
renewal needs. The FCI for Port Stanley Public School is 78%. (See also the Glossary for further
information on FCIs)
Transportation - 3 vehicles were utilized to transport 98 in area students to Port Stanley Public School at
a cost of $102,160. The average ride time was 16 minutes.
The range of student residence proximity to Port Stanley Public School is 0.05 - 9.05km.
Financial Analysis of the School - Using the School based costs of Administration, Facility Services
and Information Technology, it has been calculated that in 2015-16 the average cost per student at Port
Stanley Public School was $3,614.16 compared to the Board average cost average per student of
$1,416.06 as identified in the chart found in Section C of the SIP.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 18 of 71
RIVER HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOL:
(See also School Information Profile (SIP) for further information)
Attendance Area - A map of the current attendance area can be found in Section A of the SIP.
Program - River Heights Public School is an English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 3
elementary school.
School Organization - In 2015-16, there were 5 Full Day Kindergarten and 11 Primary (grade 1-3)
classes, including 1 split grade class. As kindergarten is considered a two year program in the TVDSB,
classes contain both junior and senior students.
Before & After School Program - There was a Before and After School program available in 2015-16,
offered by London Children’s Connection with a before school start time of 7:30 am and an after school
end time of 6:00 pm. Before and After School program costs were fully recoverable. Total revenue from
this program was $1,000.
Community Use - In 2015-16, 8 permits were taken out for the school building, totalling 206 hours and a
total revenue of $720.30 through the Community Use of Schools. No permits were taken out for the
school grounds, through the Community Use of Schools.
Collaborations - In 2015-16, no facility collaborations, non-school programs or services were located at
the school.
Enrolment - The enrolment for River Heights Public School is projected to increase slightly: 340 pupils in
2016; 337 pupils in 2020; and finally, 367 pupils in 2024. Enrolment charts with grade by grade data can
be found in Section B of the SIP.
Staffing Complement - In 2015-16, River Heights Public School had a total staff Full Time Equivalent
(FTE) allocation of 34.63.
Administrative allocation: 1 Principal and 1 Secretary.
Teacher allocation: 20.62 teachers, 0.58 teacher-librarian and 1.0 Learning Support teachers.
Early Childhood Educator allocation: 5.0.
Educational Assistant allocation: 1.5.
Custodial allocation: 2.25.
Demographics - The existing community of River Heights Public School grew by 5% between 2001 and
2006, and grew again by 1% between 2006 and 2011. The number of elementary school aged children
has decreased by 4% from 2001 to 2006 and a further decrease of 14% from 2006 to 2011 The number
of school aged children in this area is anticipated to have decline as indicated in the Enrolment chart
found in Section B of the River Heights Public School SIP.
Development – Within the shared attendance area of Northdale Public School and River Heights Public
School there are a total of 433 units residential developments circulated and under construction. The
current circulated residential development plans for this attendance area are expected to yield
approximately 65 students.
The majority of the development within Northdale Central and River Heights Public Schools attendance
area is from a draft approved subdivision called The Boardwalk at Mill Pond. Although the current status
is Draft Approved the development may be delayed due to servicing constraints within the town of
Dorchester. Therefore the potential student yield from the subdivision is not expected in the near future
unless service upgrades are made.
Accommodations - In 2015-16, River Heights Public School was at 76.6% utilization.
The 2015-16 On-The-Ground Capacity (or OTG) of River Heights Public School was 461. As determined
by the Ministry of Education loading calculation, the loaded spaces included: 8 FDK classrooms and 11
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 19 of 71
Standard Classrooms. Non-loaded space included: 1 Learning Commons and computer lab, 1
gymnasium and stage, and seminar rooms.
The Space Template for River Heights Public School (found in Section C of the SIP) identifies
Instructional and Operational spaces. Instructional spaces are broken down by room type, size and
Ministry loading calculations. Operational spaces are broken down by space type and size
The calculated area per pupil by OTG is 79.08 sq. ft. and the calculated area per pupil by 2015-16
enrolment is 102.99 sq. ft.
Facility Condition & Renewal - River Heights Public School was originally built in 1958 with additions
built in 1965, 1969, and 2011. In the last 10 years, the TVDSB has invested $542,672 in renewal in the
school. This work is identified by project in the chart in Section C of the SIP.
The Ministry of Education’s School Facility Condition Assessment Program retained third-party
consultants to inspect, assess and catalogue the condition of schools across Ontario. The school
condition data collected identified a renewal backlog of High and Urgent needs totalling $2,952,789 for
River Heights Public School.
The Facility Condition Index or FCI (snapshot in time calculation) compares the relative condition of a
building’s 5 year renewal needs and the cost to rebuild the facility. The higher the FCI, the greater the
renewal needs. The FCI for River Heights Public School is 40%. (See also the Glossary for further
information on FCIs)
Transportation - River Heights Public School bus runs are shared the other two elementary schools
located Dorchester, Northdale Central Public School and the London District Catholic School Board’s St.
David’s Catholic School. 18 vehicles were utilized to transport 266 River Heights Public School students
at a cost of $192,061. The average ride time was 14 minutes.
The range of student residence proximity to River Heights Public School is 0.05 - 16.93km
Financial Analysis of the School - Using the School based costs of Administration, Facility Services
and Information Technology, it has been calculated that in 2015-16 the average cost per student at River
Heights Public School was $1,134.15 compared to the Board average cost average per student of
$1,416.06 as identified in the chart found in Section C of the SIP.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 20 of 71
SOUTH DORCHESTER PUBLIC SCHOOL:
(See also School Information Profile (SIP) for further information)
Attendance Area - A map of the current attendance area can be found in Section A of the SIP.
Program - South Dorchester Public School is a English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 6
elementary school.
School Organization - In 2015-16, there were 2 Full Day Kindergarten, 3.5 Primary (grade 1-3), and 2.5
Junior (grades 4-6) classes, including 3 split grade classes. As kindergarten is considered a two year
program in the TVDSB, classes contain both junior and senior students.
Before & After School Program - There was insufficient interest to run a Before and After School
program for 2015-16.
Community Use - In 2015-16, 1 permit was taken out for the school building, totalling 31 hours and a
total revenue of $140.75 through the Community Use of Schools. No permits were taken out for the
school grounds, through the Community Use of Schools.
Collaborations - In 2015-16, no facility collaborations, non-school programs or services were located at
the school.
Enrolment - The enrolment for South Dorchester Public School is projected to increase slightly than
remain stable: 205 pupils in 2016; 222 pupils in 2020; and finally, to 223 pupils in 2024. Enrolment
charts with grade by grade data can be found in Section B of the SIP.
Staffing Complement - In 2015-16, South Dorchester Public School had a total staff Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) allocation of 17.34.
Administrative allocation: 1 Principal and 1 Secretary.
Teacher allocation: 10.43 teachers, 0.31 teacher-librarian and 0.6 Learning Support teachers.
Early Childhood Educator allocation: 2.0.
Educational Assistant allocation: 0.5.
Custodial allocation: 1.5.
Demographics - Statistics Canada Census data indicates the total population of the South Dorchester
Public School attendance area decreased 11% between 2001 and 2006 and further decreased 2%
between 2006 and 2011. The number of elementary school aged children has decreased 3% between
2001 and 2006 and a further significant decrease of 29% between 2006 and 2011. A slight increase of
school aged children in this community is anticipated as indicated in the Enrolment chart found in Section
B of the South Dorchester Public School SIP.
Development - The village of Belmont continues to grow, and is identified by the municipality of Central
Elgin as an Urban settlement area. The community is serviced with municipal water and sanitary
systems. Approximately 30 students are projected from the 145 single family and condominium
residential units currently circulated and under construction in Belmont. The village of Belmont has
residential designated lands with potential for further growth.
Accommodations - In 2015-16, South Dorchester Public School was at 105.3% utilization.
The 2015-16 On-The-Ground Capacity (or OTG) of South Dorchester Public School was 190. As
determined by the Ministry of Education loading calculation, the loaded spaces included: 2 FDK
classrooms and 6 Standard Classrooms. Non-loaded space included: 1 Learning Commons, 1
gymnasium and stage, and seminar room. There were 3 portable classrooms.
The Space Template for South Dorchester Public School Public School (found in Section C of the SIP)
identifies Instructional and Operational spaces. Instructional spaces are broken down by room type, size
and Ministry loading calculations. Operational spaces are broken down by space type and size
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 21 of 71
The calculated area per pupil by OTG is 86.90 sq. ft. and the calculated area per pupil by 2015-16
enrolment is 82.56 sq. ft.
Facility Condition & Renewal - South Dorchester Public School Public School was originally built in
1966 and had an addition built in 1969. In the last 10 years, the TVDSB has invested $6,109 in renewal
in the school. This work is identified by project in the chart in Section C of the SIP.
The Ministry of Education’s School Facility Condition Assessment Program retained third-party
consultants to inspect, assess and catalogue the condition of schools across Ontario. The school
condition data collected identified a renewal backlog of High and Urgent needs totalling $5,346,994 for
South Dorchester Public School.
The Facility Condition Index or FCI (snapshot in time calculation) compares the relative condition of a
building’s 5 year renewal needs and the cost to rebuild the facility. The higher the FCI the greater the
renewal needs. The FCI for South Dorchester Public School is 112%. (See also the Glossary for further
information on FCIs)
Transportation - 3 vehicles were utilized to transport 202 in area students to South Dorchester Public
School at a cost of $176,737. The average ride time was 18 minutes.
The range of student residence proximity to South Dorchester Public School is 0.41 - 12.31km
Financial Analysis of the School - Using the School based costs of Administration, Facility Services
and Information Technology, it has been calculated that in 2015-16 the average cost per student at South
Dorchester Public School was $1,486.72 compared to the Board average cost average per student of
$1,416.06 as identified in the chart found in Section C of the SIP.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 22 of 71
SPARTA PUBLIC SCHOOL:
(See also School Information Profile for further information)
Attendance Area - A map of the current attendance area can be found in Section A of the SIP.
Program - Sparta Public School is a English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 8 elementary school.
School Organization - In 2015-16, there were 2 Full Day Kindergarten, 3.5 Primary (grade 1-3), and 4.5
Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes, all classes had split grades. As kindergarten is considered
a two year program in the TVDSB, classes contain both junior and senior students.
Before & After School Program - There was a Before and After School program available in 2015-16,
offered by the YMCA of St.Thomas Elgin with a before school start time of 7:00 am and an after school
end time of 6:00 pm. Before and After School program costs were fully recoverable. Total revenue from
this program was $500.
Community Use - In 2015-16, 1 permit was taken out for the school building, totalling 21 hours and a
total revenue of $95.71 through the Community Use of Schools. No permits were taken out for the school
grounds, through the Community Use of Schools.
Collaborations - In 2015-16, no facility collaborations, non-school programs or services were located at
the school.
Enrolment - The enrolment for Sparta Public School is projected to decline: 241 pupils in 2016; 231
pupils in 2020; and finally, 227 pupils in 2024. Enrolment charts with grade by grade data can be found in
Section B of the SIP.
Staffing Complement - In 2015-16, Sparta Public School had a total staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
allocation of 23.61.
Administrative allocation: 1 Principal and 1 Secretary.
Teacher allocation: 13.08 teachers, 0.38 teacher-librarian, 0.1 ESL teacher and 0.8 Learning
Support teachers.
Early Childhood Educator allocation: 2.0.
Educational Assistant allocation: 3.5.
Custodial allocation: 1.75.
Demographics - Statistics Canada Census data indicates the total population of the Sparta Public
School attendance area remained relatively stable with a decrease of 3% between 2001 and 2011. The
number of elementary school aged children has decreased 8% between 2001 and 2006 and a further
decrease of 5% between 2006 and 2011. A slight decrease of school aged children in this community is
anticipated as indicated in the Enrolment chart found in Section B of the Sparta Public School SIP..
Development - The current circulated residential development plans for this attendance area are not
expected to yield a significant number of students.
There is the potential for growth within Sparta Public School attendance area. The Village of Union has
been identified by the municipality of Central Elgin as an Urban settlement area. Although future
development is planned, municipal water and sanitary systems are not serviced in this community and
would be required. The Village of Port Bruce has been identified by the municipality of Malahide in the
official plan as a recreational settlement encouraging seasonal residents. Port Bruce is serviced with
municipal water, although sanitary systems would be required for significant expansion.
Accommodations - In 2015-16, Sparta Public School was at 79.3% utilization.
The 2015-16 On-The-Ground Capacity (or OTG) was 305. As determined by the Ministry of Education
loading calculation, the loaded spaces included: 2 FDK classrooms, 11 Standard Classrooms. Non-
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 23 of 71
loaded space included: 1 General Arts room, 1 Learning Commons and computer lab, 1 gymnasium and
stage.
The Space Template for Sparta Public School (found in Section C of the SIP) identifies Instructional and
Operational spaces. Instructional spaces are broken down by room type, size and Ministry loading
calculations. Operational spaces are broken down by space type and size.
The calculated area per pupil by OTG is 88.44 sq. ft. and the calculated area per pupil by 2015-16
enrolment is 111.46 sq. ft.
Facility Condition & Renewal - Sparta Public School was originally built in 1967 with an addition built in
1974. In the last 10 years, the TVDSB has invested $335,248 in the school. This work is identified by
project in the chart in Section C of the SIP.
The Ministry of Education’s School Facility Condition Assessment Program retained third-party
consultants to inspect, assess and catalogue the condition of schools across Ontario. The school
condition data collected identified a renewal backlog of High and Urgent needs totalling $2,785,120 for
Sparta Public School.
The Facility Condition Index or FCI (snapshot in time calculation) compares the relative condition of a
building’s 5 year renewal needs and the cost to rebuild the facility. The higher the FCI the greater the
renewal needs. The FCI for Sparta Public School is 65%. (See also the Glossary for further information
on FCIs)
Transportation - 6 vehicles were utilized to transport 248 students to Sparta Public School at a cost of
$162,434. The average ride time was 17 minutes.
The range of student residence proximity to Sparta Public School is 0.48 - 13.52km
Financial Analysis of the School - Using the School based costs of Administration, Facility Services
and Information Technology, it has been calculated that in 2015-16 the average cost per student at
Sparta Public School was $1,483.57 compared to the Board average cost average per student of
$1,416.06 as identified in the chart found in Section C of the SIP.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 24 of 71
SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL:
(See also School Information Profile (SIP) for further information)
Attendance Area - A map of the current attendance area can be found in Section A of the SIP.
Program - Springfield Public School is an English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 6 elementary
school.
School Organization - In 2015-16, there were 1.5 Full Day Kindergarten, 3.5 Primary (grade 1-3), and
2.5 Junior (grades 4-6) classes, including 4.5 split grade classes. As kindergarten is considered a two
year program in the TVDSB, classes contain both junior and senior students.
Before & After School Program - There was a Before and After School program available in 2015-16,
offered by the YMCA of St.Thomas Elgin with a before school start time of 7:00 am and an after school
end time of 6:00 pm. Before and After School program costs were fully recoverable. Total revenue from
this program was $500.
Community Use - In 2015-16, 4 permits were taken out for the school building, totalling 122 hours and a
total revenue of $483.75 through the Community Use of Schools. No permits were taken out for the
school grounds, through the Community Use of Schools.
Collaborations - In 2015-16, no facility collaborations, non-school programs or services were located at
the school.
Enrolment - The enrolment for Springfield Public School is projected to decline: 165 pupils in 2016; 149
pupils in 2020; and finally, 145 pupils in 2024. Enrolment charts showing grade by grade data can be
found in Section B of the SIP.
Staffing Complement - In 2015-16, Springfield Public School had a total staff Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
allocation of 17.04.
Administrative allocation: 1 Principal and 1.0 Secretary.
Teacher allocation: 10.43 teachers, 0.31 teacher-librarian, 0.2 ESL teacher and 0.6 Learning
Support teachers.
Early Childhood Educator allocation: 1.0
Educational Assistant allocation: 1.0.
Custodial allocation: 1.5.
Demographics - Statistics Canada Census data indicates that between 2001 and 2006 the total
population increased by 10% and then decreased 6% between 2006 and 2011. The population of
elementary school aged children (4 to 13 year olds) remained stable between 2001 and 2006 and
decreased by 3% between 2006 and 2011. A slight decrease of school aged children in this community is
anticipated as indicated in the Enrolment chart found in Section B of the Springfield Public School SIP.
Development - The current circulated residential development plans for this attendance area are not
expected to yield a significant number of students.
The Village of Springfield is labelled as a primary growth area in the Official Plan for the Township of
Malahide. At this time the village does not have the municipal services of municipal water but does have
municipal sanitary sewers.
Accommodations - In 2015-16, Springfield Public School was at 62.3% utilization.
The 2015-16 On-The-Ground Capacity (or OTG) of Springfield Public School was 268. As determined by
the Ministry of Education loading calculation, the loaded spaces included: 2 FDK classrooms, 8 Standard
Classrooms, 1 Computer lab and 1 Special Education Classroom. Non-loaded space included: 1
Learning Commons, 1 gymnasium and stage, and seminar rooms
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 25 of 71
The Space Template for Springfield Public School (found in Section C of the SIP) identifies Instructional
and Operational spaces. Instructional spaces are broken down by room type, size and Ministry loading
calculations. Operational spaces are broken down by space type and size
The calculated area per pupil by OTG is 90.13 sq. ft. and the calculated area per pupil by 2015-16
enrolment is 144.64 sq. ft.
Facility Condition & Renewal - Springfield Public School was originally built in 1974, with no further
additions built. In the last 10 years, the TVDSB has invested $518,738 in renewal in the school. This
work is identified by project in the chart in Section C of the SIP.
The Ministry of Education’s School Facility Condition Assessment Program retained third-party
consultants to inspect, assess and catalogue the condition of schools across Ontario. The school
condition data collected identified a renewal backlog of High and Urgent needs totalling $3,796,104 for
Springfield Public School.
The Facility Condition Index or FCI (snapshot in time calculation) compares the relative condition of a
building’s 5 year renewal needs and the cost to rebuild the facility. The higher the FCI the greater the
renewal needs. The FCI for Springfield Public School is 72%. (See also the Glossary for further
information on FCIs)
Transportation - 3 vehicles were utilized to transport 94 students to Springfield Public School at a cost of
$116,462. The average ride time was 23 minutes.
The range of student residence proximity to Springfield Public School is 0.02 - 12.33km
Financial Analysis of the School - Using the School based costs of Administration, Facility Services
and Information Technology, it has been calculated that in 2015-16 the average cost per student at
Springfield Public School was $1,848.90 compared to the Board average cost average per student of
$1,416.06 as identified in the chart found in Section C of the SIP.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 26 of 71
SUMMERS’ CORNERS PUBLIC SCHOOL:
(See also School Information Profile (SIP) for further information)
Attendance Area - A map of the current attendance area can be found in Section A of the SIP.
Program - Summers’ Corners Public School is an English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 8
elementary school.
School Organization - in 2015-16, there were 2 Full Day Kindergarten, 5.5 Primary (grade 1-3), and 9.5
Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes, including 4 split grade classes. As kindergarten is
considered a two year program in the TVDSB, classes contain both junior and senior students
Before & After School Program - There was a Before and After School program available in 2015-16,
offered by the YMCA of St.Thomas Elgin with a before school start time of 7:00 am and an after school
end time of 6:00 pm. Before and After School program costs were fully recoverable. Total revenue from
this program was $500.
Community Use - In 2015-16, 33 permits were taken out for the school building, totalling 959 hours and
a total revenue of $6,040.35 through the Community Use of Schools. No permits were taken out for the
school grounds, through the Community Use of Schools.
Collaborations - In 2015-16, there were no facility collaborations at the school. Non-school programs or
services located at Summers’ Corners included the Ontario Early Years Centre utilized a dedicated room
(Tuesday mornings) for playgroup. There was no revenue associated with this program
Enrolment - The enrolment for Summers’ Corners Public School is projected to decline: 411 pupils in
2016; 395 pupils in 2020; and finally, 368 pupils in 2024. Enrolment charts showing grade by grade data
can be found in Section B of the SIP.
Staffing Complement - In 2015-16, Summers’ Corners Public School had a total staff Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) allocation of 35.10.
Administrative allocation: 1 Principal, 0.5 Vice-Principal, and 1 Secretary.
Teacher allocation: 22.29 teachers, 0.66 teacher-librarian, 2.0 ESL teacher and 1.4 Learning
Support teachers.
Early Childhood Educator allocation: 2.0.
Educational Assistant allocation: 1.0.
Custodial allocation: 3.25.
Development - The rural communities within the attendance area of Summers' Corners PS are not
serviced by the township. There is no significant residential growth within the attendance area of
Summers' Corners.
Demographics – Statistics Canada Census data indicates between 2001 and 2006 the total population
within the attendance area of Summers' Corners PS decreased by 2% and then incr eased 6% between
2006 and 2011. The population of elementary school aged children (4 to 13 year olds) increased 3%
between 2001 and 2006 and further increased 8% between 2006 and 2011. Since 2011 the school’s
enrolment has decreased. A decrease of school aged children in this community is anticipated as
indicated in the Enrolment chart found in Section B of the Summers’ Corners’ Public School SIP
Accommodations - In 2015-16, Summers’ Corners Public School was at 68.2% utilization.
The 2015-16 On-The-Ground Capacity (or OTG) of Summers’ Corners Public School was 585. As
determined by the Ministry of Education loading calculation, the loaded spaces included: 3 FDK
classrooms, 19 Standard Classrooms, 1 Art Classroom, 1 Science lab and 2 Learning Support rooms.
Non-loaded space included: 1 General Arts room, 1 Learning Commons, 1 double gymnasium and stage,
and seminar rooms.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 27 of 71
The Space Template for Summers’ Corners Public School Public School (found in Section C of the SIP)
identifies Instructional and Operational spaces. Instructional spaces are broken down by room type, size
and Ministry loading calculations. Operational spaces are broken down by space type and size.
The calculated area per pupil by OTG is 105.21 sq. ft. and the calculated area per pupil by 2015-16
enrolment is 155.82 sq. ft.
Facility Condition & Renewal - Summers’ Corners Public School was originally built in 1965 with
additions built in 1989 and 1994. In the last 10 years, the TVDSB has invested $112,594 in renewal in the
school. This work is identified by project in the chart in Section C of the SIP.
The Ministry of Education’s School Facility Condition Assessment Program retained third-party
consultants to inspect, assess and catalogue the condition of schools across Ontario. The school
condition data collected identified a renewal backlog of High and Urgent needs totalling $2,336,464 for
Summers’ Corners Public School
The Facility Condition Index or FCI (snapshot in time calculation) compares the relative condition of a
building’s 5 year renewal needs and the cost to rebuild the facility. The higher the FCI, the greater the
renewal needs. The FCI for Summers’ Corners Public School is 26%. (See also the Glossary for further
information on FCIs)
Transportation - 18 vehicles were utilized to transport 94 students to Summers’ Corners Public School at
a cost of $351,430. The average ride time was 22 minutes.
The range of student residence proximity to Summers’ Corners Public School is 0.01 - 19.43km
Financial Analysis of the School - Using the School based costs of Administration, Facility Services
and Information Technology, it has been calculated that in 2015-16 the average cost per student at
Summers’ Corners Public School was $1,538.09 compared to the Board average cost average per
student of $1,416.06 as identified in the chart found in Section C of the SIP.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 28 of 71
WESTMINSTER CENTRAL PUBLIC SCHOOL:
(See also School Information Profile (SIP) for further information)
Attendance Area - A map of the current attendance area can be found in Section A of the SIP.
Program - Westminster Central Public School is an English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 8
elementary school.
School Organization - In 2015-16, there were 1 Full Day Kindergarten, 1.5 Primary (grade 1-3), and 2.5
Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes, all classes had split grades. As kindergarten is considered
a two year program in the TVDSB, classes contain both junior and senior students
Before & After School Program - There was insufficient interest run a Before and After School program
for 2015-16.
Community Use - In 2015-16, there were no permits were taken out for the school building, through the
Community Use of Schools. For the school grounds, 9 permits were taken out totalling 178 hours and a
total revenue of $552.00 through the Community Use of Schools.
Collaborations - In 2015-16, no facility collaborations, non-school programs or services were located at
the school.
Enrolment - The enrolment for Westminster Central Public School is projected to increase: 96 pupils in
2016; 179 pupils in 2020; and finally, 298 pupils in 2024. Enrolment charts showing grade by grade data
can be found in Section B of the SIP.
Staffing Complement - In 2015-16, Westminster Central Public School had a total staff Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) allocation of 13.23.
Administrative allocation: 1 Principal and 1 Secretary.
Teacher allocation: 6.59 teachers, 0.14 teacher-librarian and 0.5 Learning Support teacher.
Early Childhood Educator allocation: 1.0.
Educational Assistant allocation: 1.5.
Custodial allocation: 1.5.
Development - The current population within the attendance area of Westminster Central Public School
is expected to increase due to the planned subdivisions north of Highway 401. In the spring of 2015, the
Southeast London Attendance Area Review was conducted to create an attendance area for the new
Southeast London PS. On April 14th, 2015 a portion of Westminster Central Public School attendance
area (north of Highway 401) was approved by the Board to be included in the New Southeast London
Public School attendance area.
Within the current attendance area of Westminster Central Public School, 1355 single family, medium
density and high density residential units are currently circulated or under construction. Within the next
10 years approximately 225 students are projected to be generated from this development.
Demographics – Statistics Canada Census data indicates the total population in the attendance area of
Westminster Public School increased significantly by 41% between 2001 and 2006. Between 2006 and
2011 the population slightly increased again by 3%. The population of elementary school aged children
(4 to 13 year olds) increased 15% between 2001 and 2006 and 11% between 2006 and 2011. An
increase of school aged children in this community is anticipated as indicated in the Enrolm ent chart
found in Section B of the Westminster Central Public School SIP
Accommodations - In 2015-16, Westminster Central Public School was at 27.2% utilization.
The 2015-16 On-The-Ground Capacity (or OTG) of Westminster Central Public School was 302. As
determined by the Ministry of Education loading calculation, the loaded spaces included: 1 FDK
classroom, 12 Standard Classrooms. Non-loaded space included: 1 General Arts room, 1 Learning
Commons and computer lab, and 1 gymnasium and stage.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 29 of 71
The Space Template for Westminster Central Public School (found in Section C of the SIP) identifies
Instructional and Operational spaces. Instructional spaces are broken down by room type, size and
Ministry loading calculations. Operational spaces are broken down by space type and size.
The calculated area per pupil by OTG is 93.10 sq. ft. and the calculated area per pupil by 2015-16
enrolment is 342.87 sq. ft.
Facility Condition & Renewal - Westminster Central Public School was originally built in 1965 with an
addition built in 1968. In the last 10 years, the TVDSB has invested $90,455 in renewal in the school.
This work is identified by project in the chart located in Section C of the SIP.
The Ministry of Education’s School Facility Condition Assessment Program retained third-party
consultants to inspect, assess and catalogue the condition of schools across Ontario. The school
condition data collected identified a renewal backlog of High and Urgent needs totalling $5,176,930 for
Westminster Central Public School.
The Facility Condition Index or FCI (snapshot in time calculation) compares the relative condition of a
building’s 5 year renewal needs and the cost to rebuild the facility. The higher the FCI, the greater the
renewal needs. The FCI for Westminster Central Public School is 102%. (See also the Glossary for
further information on FCIs)
Transportation - 4 vehicles were utilized to transport 87 students to Westminster Central Public School
at a cost of $91,944. The average ride time was 20 minutes.
The range of student residence proximity to Westminster Central Public School is 0.29 - 13.54km
Financial Analysis of the School - Using the School based costs of Administration, Facility Services
and Information Technology, it has been calculated that in 2015-16 the average cost per student at
Westminster Central Public School was $4,064.89 compared to the Board average cost average per
student of $1,416.06 as identified in the chart found in Section C of the SIP.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 30 of 71
SECTION 3 – RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
The Senior Administration’s recommended changes involve a comprehensive shift in attendance areas to
align with the current and future demographic trends. It will allow for accommodation of students in the
urban areas that municipalities are directing population growth and preserve the rural community with
urban amenities. Aligning the future community direction with educational facilities will allow for a more
efficient, economical and viable solution to the changes ahead.
Based on careful consideration of demographics, program offerings, historical enrolment trends, location
of existing students and facility size/condition, the Senior Administration’s recommendations have been
developed to provide enhanced learning opportunities for students and to address the long term
accommodation needs of the Board.
The resulting combined enrolments will provide greater opportunities for students of all schools within the
Review area. The closure and disposition of four schools will assist in reducing the unfunded space
operated by the Board as well as long term renewal and operating costs.
It should be noted that as of 2019, the intermediate French Immersion and Extended French Immersion
students currently at Port Stanley Public School and the facility capacity of Sparta Public School have
been removed from the graph above. Senior Administration is recommending an Attendance Area
Review be conducted in 2018, in order to create an attendance area for a second SK-8 French Immersion
School in Elgin County, those students have yet to be determined.
The TVDSB is committed to providing quality education to students through programs and facilities that
support academic achievement and well-being and to ensuring effective stewardship of the resources of
the Board.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
Students (FTE) School Year
EPAR 01 - Enrolment and Capacity - Recommendation
OTG Capacity Historical Enrolment
Projected Enrolment Existing Community Projected Enrolment French Immersion
*Note: 259 OTG capacity has been removed for potential collaboration opportunities (2019-25)
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 31 of 71
As the Senior Administration’s recommendations for EPAR-01 are complex, the Pupil Accommodation
Review area has been broken-down into geographic regions for clarity of explanation:
Northern Region: (New Belmont and River Height/ Northdale Central Public Schools)
Creation of New Belmont Public School and attendance area;
New Sarum Public School closes, the attendance area is designated to New Belmont, New
Southeast St.Thomas, Davenport/McGregor Public Schools,
South Dorchester Public School closes and is declared surplus, the attendance area is
designated to New Belmont Public School;
A portion of Davenport Public School’s grade 7 and 8 attendance area (South Dorchester Public
School) is designated to New Belmont Public School;
Springfield Public School closes and is declared surplus, a portion of the attendance area is
designated to New Belmont Public School;
Westminster Central Public School closes and is declared surplus;
A portion of Westminster Central Public School’s attendance area is designated to New Belmont
Public School;
A portion of the River Heights Public School /Northdale Central Public School attendance area is
designated to New Belmont Public School.
Southern Region: (Port Stanley Public School)
Sparta Public School closes, the attendance area is designated to Port Stanley Public School;
French Immersion program is relocated to Sparta Public School facility;
Eastern Region: (Davenport/ McGregor and Summers’ Corners Public Schools)
McGregor Public School becomes Junior Kindergarten to grade 3;
Davenport Public School becomes grade 4 to 8;
A portion of New Sarum Public School’s attendance area is designated to Davenport/ McGregor
Public Schools;
A portion of Summers’ Corners Public School’s attendance area is designated to Davenport/
McGregor Public Schools;
A portion of Springfield Public School’s attendance area is designated to Summers’ Corners
Public School.
Western Region: (New Southeast St. Thomas and Mitchell Hepburn Public Schools)
Creation of New St. Thomas Public School and attendance area;
A portion of Mitchell Hepburn Public School’s attendance area is designated to New Southeast
St.Thomas Public School;
A portion of New Sarum Public School’s attendance area is designated to New Southeast
St.Thomas Public School.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 32 of 71
NORTHERN REGION:
The following are the Senior Administration’s recommendations with respect to the Northern Region of
EPAR-01:
THAT a new JK to grade 8 elementary school be constructed in the village of Belmont,
opening 2019 September 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital
funding;
THAT New Sarum Public School close and be declared surplus as of 2019 June 30,
contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT a portion of the New Sarum Public School students be accommodated at the new
Belmont Public School, upon closure of New Sarum Public School, as per Figure 01, as of
2019 July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT South Dorchester Public School close and be declared surplus as of 2019 June 30,
contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT South Dorchester Public School students be accommodated at new Belmont Public
School, upon closure of South Dorchester Public School, as per Figure 01, as of 2019 July
01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT Westminster Central Public Schools close and be declared surplus as of 2019 June
30, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT Westminster Central Public School students residing south of Highway 401 be
accommodated at the new Belmont Public School, upon closure of Westminster Central
Public School, as per Figure 01, as of 2019 July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education
approval of capital funding;
THAT a portion of Springfield Public School students be accommodated at the new
Belmont Public, upon closure of Springfield Public School, as per Figure 01, effective 2019
July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT River Heights Public School (JK - grade 3) students residing south of Highway 401
be accommodated at the new Belmont Public School, as per Figure 01, as of 2019 July 01,
contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT Northdale Central Public School (grades 4 -8) students residing south of Highway
401 be accommodated at the new Belmont Public School, as per Figure 01, as of 2019 July
01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT the new JK - grade 8 Belmont Public School attendance area be approved as per
Figure 01, effective 2019 July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital
funding;
THAT the River Heights Public School new attendance area be approved as per Figure 02,
effective 2019 July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT the Northdale Central Public School new attendance area be approved as per Figure
02, effective 2019 July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital
funding;
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 33 of 71
THAT a program enhancement renovation be completed at Northdale Central PS,
contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT the Northdale Central Public School grade 7 students residing in the area that will be
accommodated at the new Belmont Public School as of 2019 March 01, be provided a
“grandparenting option” that would allow them to remain at Northdale Central Public
School for the 2019-20 school year, with transportation.
THAT the Board post on-line and notify by email, the listed Community Organizations of
the potential co-build opportunity at the new Belmont Public School, contingent upon
Ministry of Education approval of capital funding.
THAT the Board post on-line and notify by email, the listed Community Organizations of
the potential collaboration opportunity at River Heights Public School, contingent upon
Ministry of Education approval of capital funding.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 34 of 71
NEW BELMONT PUBLIC SCHOOL:
Figure 01, recommended New Belmont Public School attendance area, effective 2019 July 01,
contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
New Belmont PS - Enrolment and Capacity
OTG Capacity
Projected Enrolment
Existing Community
Historical Enrolment
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 35 of 71
Development - The village of Belmont continues to grow, and is identified by the municipality of Central
Elgin as an Urban settlement area. The community is serviced with municipal water and sanitary
systems. Approximately 30 students are projected from the 145 single family and condominium
residential units currently circulated and under construction in Belmont. The village of Belmont has
residential designated lands with potential for further growth.
Enrolment Projections
Program - English track Junior Kindergarten to grade 8 elementary school.
School Organization: Projections indicate that as of 2019-20, there will be sufficient enrolment to have 4
Full Day Kindergarten, 8 Primary (grade 1-3), and 11 Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes.
Accommodations - The new school would have an OTG Capacity of 576 and consist of 4 FDK
classrooms, 20 Standard Classrooms, 1 General Arts classroom, Learning Support room, Learning
Commons, Gymnasium, Primary Activity room and stage, and seminar rooms. The new Belmont Public
School would be LEED Silver certified, AODA compliant, and available for Community Use.
Educational Opportunities and Benefits to Learning
School boards generally consolidate and close schools to enable improved educational options and
opportunities for students. By bringing students together through a school consolidation, school boards
are often able to offer a better educational experience.
A greater staff complement provides more opportunities for students to receive support from non-
classroom teaching and support staff and better utilization of system support staff such as teachers on
special assignment, gifted itinerant teachers, English Language Learners (ELL) teachers, instructional
coaches and superintendents of student achievement. With fewer schools to support, less travel time for
itinerant staff leads to increased time available to be spent with students.
We know that the greatest impact on student learning is the quality of classroom instruction (Hattie,
2009). An increased school staff complement creates greater opportunities for staff to co-plan, co-learn
and co-teach with like-grade partners. Collaboration amongst staff members provides dynamic and robust
programming for students.
Collaboration is a key competency for today’s learners that engages them deeply and is transferrable to
new learning situations. An increased student complement presents students with opportunities to
collaborate with a greater number and more diverse group of peers benefitting them personally and in
future business and work relationships.
A larger staffing complement also provides increased numbers of staff to volunteer their time in support of
a wider variety of extracurricular responsibilities on behalf of students. As well, there would be sufficient
numbers of students to support various sports teams.
A new Library Learning Commons would be created, and with more students in a school, the schoo l
would receive an increased teacher librarian complement, allowing greater access for students to this
New Belmont PS
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 SE FTE
2019 50 50 52 53 53 64 49 57 62 46 0 536
2020 51 52 51 52 54 52 65 52 55 61 0 545
2021 52 53 54 52 53 53 53 66 50 55 0 541
2022 51 53 54 53 53 53 53 55 62 51 0 538
2023 51 52 54 53 54 52 53 52 51 62 0 534
2024 51 53 52 54 53 52 50 52 50 51 0 518
2025 51 52 53 53 54 53 52 51 49 51 0 519
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 36 of 71
valuable space and teacher. Teacher-librarians serve to enhance literacy instruction and learning across
all subject areas when they partner with the classroom teacher.
During the instructional day the activity room may be used for, but is not limited to, physical education,
large group activities, collaborative learning activities, presentations and performances.
Learning environment enhancements, through capital planning initiatives, create a positive impact on the
learning environment for our students. Enhancements to natural lighting, accessibility, display spaces,
heating and ventilation, as well as the physical layout in renovated and newly-built school settings
improve the opportunities for students to focus on collaborative, experiential and inquiry-based learning
through the optimal use of all spaces in the school.
Transportation - It is anticipated that 80.7% or 455 students would be eligible for transportation, and 11
vehicles would be required. The average bus ride time would be 26 minutes. The student residence
proximity to school average distance would be 8.4km.
Grandparenting Option - Senior Administration is recommending that the 2018-19 grade 7 Northdale
Central Public School students residing in the attendance area being designated to the new Belmont
Public School be given the option to remain at Northdale Central Public School for their final grade 8 year,
with transportation.
As Westminster Central, New Sarum, South Dorchester and Springfield Public Schools are recommended
to close, the grandparenting option is not available for those 2018-19 grade 7 students.
Co-Build Opportunity - TVDSB will circulate potential Co-build opportunities to Community
Organizations at the New Belmont Public School.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 37 of 71
RIVER HEIGHTS PS and NORTHDALE CENTRAL PS
050100150200250300350400450500
River Heights PS - Enrolment and Capacity
OTG Capacity
Projected Enrolment
Existing Community
Historical Enrolment
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Northdale Central PS - Enrolment and Capacity
OTG Capacity
Projected Enrolment
Existing Community
Historical Enrolment
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 38 of 71
Figure 02, recommended River Heights Public School and Northdale Central Public School
attendance area, effective 2019 July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital
funding:
Development – By decreasing the attendance area for River Heights and Northdale Central Public
Schools, the facilities will be able to sustain the pressure of future growth within the community of
Dorchester. Currently there is a total of 433 residential developments circulated and under construction.
The current circulated residential development plans for this attendance area are expected to yield
approximately 65 students.
Although the current status of the development known as The Boardwalk at Mill Pond is Draft approved
the subdivision is not expected in the near future unless service upgrades are made.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 39 of 71
Enrolment Projections
River Heights PS
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 SE FTE
2011 77 77 70 73 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 375
2012 69 80 74 71 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 372
2013 63 79 81 83 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 379
2014 63 65 78 86 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 371
2015 67 60 68 74 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 354
2016 61 72 62 70 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 340
2017 64 63 74 63 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 334
2018 65 66 64 75 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 333
2019 58 58 59 57 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 297
2020 59 60 60 61 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 298
2021 60 61 62 62 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 306
2022 62 63 63 64 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 314
2023 63 64 64 65 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 320
2024 63 64 65 65 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 322
2025 64 65 65 66 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 325
Northdale Central PS
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 SE FTE
2011 0 0 0 0 0 83 80 86 89 82 24 444
2012 0 0 0 0 0 79 84 80 89 90 25 447
2013 0 0 0 0 0 82 77 85 83 90 25 442
2014 0 0 0 0 0 66 81 69 85 84 25 410
2015 0 0 0 0 0 76 66 85 71 89 25 412
2016 0 0 0 0 0 87 79 65 86 71 25 413
2017 0 0 0 0 0 75 87 80 66 87 25 420
2018 0 0 0 0 0 70 76 89 81 67 25 408
2019 0 0 0 0 0 49 60 65 75 73 25 347
2020 0 0 0 0 0 66 50 62 66 77 25 346
2021 0 0 0 0 0 59 67 51 64 68 25 334
2022 0 0 0 0 0 62 60 69 53 65 25 334
2023 0 0 0 0 0 63 63 62 71 55 25 339
2024 0 0 0 0 0 65 64 64 63 72 25 353
2025 0 0 0 0 0 65 65 65 66 64 25 350
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 40 of 71
Program - No changes in the school’s organizational model are recommended for River Heights Public
School (JK - grade 3) or Northdale Central Public School (grades 4 - 8).
School Organization: Projections indicate that as of 2019-20, there will be sufficient enrolment to have 4
Full Day Kindergarten, 10 Primary (grade 1-3) located at River Heights Public School and 11 Junior and
Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes located at Northdale Central Public School.
Accommodation Recommendations - Program enhancement of a General Arts room renovation is
recommended for Northdale Central Public School.
Transportation - For River Heights Public School, it is anticipated that 68.37% or 196 students would be
eligible for transportation, and 18 (shared) vehicles would be required. The average bus ride time would
be 10 minutes. The student residence proximity to school average distance would be 1.98km.
For Northdale Central Public School, it is anticipated that 93.4% or 312 students would be eligible for
transportation, and 18 (shared) vehicles would be required. The average bus ride time would be 12
minutes. The student residence proximity to school average distance would be 3.38km
Grandparenting Option - Senior Administration is recommending that the 2018-19 grade 7 Northdale
Central Public School students residing in the attendance area being designated to the new Belmont
Public school be given the option to remain at Northdale Central Public School for their final grade 8 year,
with transportation.
Collaboration Opportunity - To offset the funding gap of excess space remaining at River Heights
Public School, Senior Administration’s recommends a reduction in pupil places through collaboration. It is
estimated that approximately 6,000 sq. ft. will be available for non-board use.
As part of the 2016 Capital Priorities funding requests, the Board submitted a joint request with the
London-Middlesex Consolidated Municipal Service Managers (CMSM) for funding of 88 Child Care
spaces and 2 Child & Family Support Program Spaces. To date, the Board has not received notice from
the Ministry of a decision.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 41 of 71
SOUTHERN REGION:
The following are the Senior Administration’s recommendations with respect to the Southern Region of
EPAR-01:
THAT Sparta Public School close as of 2018 June 30;
THAT Sparta Public School students be accommodated at Port Stanley Public School,
upon closure of Sparta Public School, as per Figure 03, as of 2018 July 01;
THAT the Port Stanley Public School new attendance area be approved as per Figure 03,
effective 2018 July 01;
THAT an addition and renovations be completed for student accommodation and program
enhancement at Port Stanley Public School, contingent upon Ministry of Education
approval of capital funding;
THAT the grade 7 and 8 French Immersion and Extended French Immersion program be
relocated at from Port Stanley Public School, effective of 2018 July 01;
THAT an Attendance Area Review be completed in 2017-18 for the elementary French
Immersion program in Elgin County for the creation of a new SK-8 FI public school to be
accommodated at Sparta Public School, effective 2018 July 01;
THAT the Board post on-line and notify by email, listed Community Organization of the
potential co-build opportunity at Port Stanley Public School, contingent upon Ministry of
Education approval of capital funding.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 42 of 71
PORT STANLEY PUBLIC SCHOOL:
Figure 03, recommended Port Stanley Public School attendance area, effective 2018 July 01:
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Port Stanley PS - Enrolment and Capacity
OTG Capacity
Projected Enrolment
Holding Community
Projected Enrolment
French Immersion
Projected Enrolment
Existing Community
Historical Enrolment
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 43 of 71
Development – The new attendance area for Port Stanley PS will encompass the villages of Port
Stanley, Union and Port Bruce. The village of Port Stanley and Union have residential designated lands
with potential for growth, and have been identified by the municipality of Central Elgin as urban settlement
areas. The community of Port Stanley is fully serviced and in the next 10 years there are approximately
20 students projected from circulated and under construction residential development. The village of
Union although planned for future development would require upgrades to services to allow for growth.
The village of Port Bruce has been identified by the municipality of Malahide as a recreational settlement
which will encourage seasonal residents. Port Bruce would require services for the expansion to take
place.
Enrolment Projections
Port Stanley PS
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 SE FTE
2011 8 15 14 6 15 9 14 19 9 24 0 133
2012 13 8 11 12 5 12 8 12 15 11 0 107
2013 10 12 7 11 12 6 14 8 8 13 0 101
2014 11 7 11 6 10 8 4 12 7 8 0 84
2015 10 11 7 12 8 10 12 4 12 7 0 93
2016 14 9 10 6 11 11 12 12 85 82 0 252
2017 14 14 10 11 7 13 13 13 106 86 0 287
2018 39 36 35 36 39 35 41 41 137 125 0 564
2019 35 34 33 33 34 36 31 37 34 41 0 348
2020 36 34 35 35 35 34 37 31 35 34 0 346
2021 36 35 35 37 35 35 35 35 28 35 0 346
2022 36 35 36 37 38 36 36 34 33 28 0 349
2023 37 36 35 38 38 39 36 35 32 33 0 359
2024 36 36 35 37 38 39 38 35 32 32 0 358
2025 36 35 35 37 38 38 38 37 32 32 0 358
Program - No change in the school’s English track organizational model is recommended for Port
Stanley Public School (JK - grade 8). The French Immersion and Extended French Immersion program is
recommended to be relocated to Sparta Public School after an Attendance Area Review is conducted for
French Immersion in Elgin County.
School Organization: English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 8 elementary school. Projections
indicate that as of 2019-20, there will be sufficient enrolment to have 3 Full Day Kindergarten, 5 Primary
(grade 1-3), and 7.5 Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes.
Accommodations - Program enhancements, an addition and renovations are recommended for student
accommodation. Improvements include the addition of Learning Commons. Renovations would include
a FDK classroom and standard classrooms.
Educational Opportunities and Benefits to Learning
An increase in school size provides several benefits to students. Using a model where multiple classes
are available at each grade level allows for more options for student class placement.
A greater staff complement provides more opportunities for students to receive support from non-
classroom teaching and support staff and better utilization of system support staff such as teachers on
special assignment, gifted itinerant teachers, English Language Learners (ELL) teachers, instructional
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 44 of 71
coaches and superintendents of student achievement. With fewer schools to support, less travel time for
itinerant staff leads to increased time available to be spent with students.
We know that the greatest impact on student learning is the quality of classroom instruction (Hattie,
2009). An increased school staff complement creates greater opportunities for staff to co-plan, co-learn
and co-teach with like-grade partners. Collaboration amongst staff members provides dynamic and robust
programming for students.
Collaboration is a key competency for today’s learners that engages them deeply and is transferrable to
new learning situations. An increased student complement presents students with opportunities to
collaborate with a greater number and more diverse group of peers benefitting them personally and in
future business and work relationships.
A larger staffing complement also provides increased numbers of staff to volunteer their time in support
of a wider variety of extracurricular responsibilities on behalf of students. As well, there would be
sufficient numbers of students to support various sports teams.
One of the focus areas of the Accommodation Reviews is to improve the Library Learning Commons. Not
only would the Library Learning Commons be updated, but with more students in a school, the school
would receive increased teacher librarian complement, allowing greater access for students to this
valuable space and teacher. Teacher-librarians serve to enhance literacy instruction and learning across
all subject areas when they partner with the classroom teacher.
Learning environment enhancements, through capital planning initiatives, create a positive impact on the
learning environment for our students. Enhancements improve the opportunities for students to focus on
collaborative, experiential and inquiry-based learning through the optimal use of all spaces in the school.
Transportation - It is anticipated that 99.7% or 339 students would be eligible for transportation, and 9
vehicles would be required. The average bus ride time would be 26 minutes. The student residence
proximity to school average distance would be 7.76km.
Grandparenting Option - As Sparta Public School is recommended to close, the grandparenting opti on
is not available for those 2018-19 grade 7 students attending Sparta Public School.
The French Immersion program located at Port Stanley Public School will be relocated; therefore there is
no grandparenting option available for 2018-19 grade 7 French Immersion and Extended French
Immersion students.
Co-Build Opportunity - TVDSB will circulate potential Co-build opportunities to Community
Organizations at Port Stanley Public School.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 45 of 71
EASTERN REGION:
The following are the Senior Administration’s recommendations with respect to the Eastern Region:
THAT McGregor Public School become a Junior Kindergarten - grade 3 elementary school,
as of 2018 June 30, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT program enhancement renovations be completed at McGregor Public School,
contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT the McGregor Public School (JK - grade 3) new attendance area be approved as per
Figure 04, effective 2018 July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital
funding;
THAT a portion of New Sarum Public School students be accommodated at McGregor
Public School (JK - 3) and Davenport Public School (grades 4 - 8), upon closure of New
Sarum Public School, as per Figure 04, effective 2019 July 01, contingent upon Ministry of
Education approval of capital funding;
THAT a portion of Summers’ Corners Public School students be accommodated at
McGregor Public School (JK - 3) and Davenport Public School (grades 4 - 8), as per Figure
04, effective 2018 July 01;
THAT Davenport Public School become a grades 4 -8 Elementary School, effective 2018
June 30, , contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;;
THAT program enhancement renovations be completed at Davenport Public School,
contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT the Davenport Public School (grades 4-8) new attendance area be approved as per
Figure 05, effective 2018 July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital
funding;
THAT a portion of Davenport Public School students, residing in the South Dorchester
(JK-6) attendance area be accommodated at new Belmont Public School, as per Figure 01,
effective 2018 July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT the Davenport Public School grade 7 students residing in the area to be
accommodated at new Belmont Public School as of 2019 March 01, be provided with the a
grandparenting option to remain at Davenport Public School for the 2 019-20 school year,
with transportation, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT Springfield Public School close and be declared surplus as of 2019 June 30,
contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT a portion of Springfield Public School students be accommodated at Summers’
Corners Public School, upon closure of Springfield Public School, as per Figure 06,
effective 2019 July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding ;
THAT the Summers’ Corners Public School grade 7 students residing in the area to be
accommodated at Davenport Public School as of 2018 March 01, be provided with the a
grandparenting option to remain at Summers’ Corners Public School for the 2018-19
school year, with transportation.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 46 of 71
THAT the Summers’ Corners Public School (JK - grade 8) new attendance area be
approved as per Figure 06, effective 2018 July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education
approval of capital funding;
THAT the Board post on-line and notify by email, the listed Community Organizations of
the potential collaboration opportunity at McGregor Public School, contingent upon
Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT the Board post on-line and notify by email, the listed Community Organizations of
the potential collaboration opportunity at Summers’ Corners Public School , contingent
upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 47 of 71
McGREGOR PUBLIC SCHOOL:
Figure 05, recommended McGregor Public School attendance area, effective 2019 July 01,
contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
McGregor PS - Enrolment and Capacity
OTG Capacity
Projected Enrolment
Existing Community
Historical Enrolment
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 48 of 71
Development - The Official Plan for the Township of Malahide indicates that the areas east and west of
Aylmer are under consideration for growth and community expansion. The development within the
recommended attendance area is not expected to yield a significant amount of students. With the decline
in the urban areas encompassing the recommended attendance area and the municipalities plans to
expand the residential land designation within Aylmer the facilities of McGregor and Davenport will be
properly utilized into the future.
Program – Changes to the school organization model are recommended for McGregor Public School
from an English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 4 elementary School to an English track JK to
grade 3 elementary school.
School Organization - Projections indicate, as of 2019-20 there will be sufficient enrolment to have 5 Full
Day Kindergarten classes, 10 Primary (grade 1-3 classes).
The self-contained Developmental Education primary program class will no longer exist at McGregor
Public School and has been relocated to Summers’ Corners Public School.
Accommodations - Program enhancements and renovations are and include a new Learning Commons,
standard classrooms and General Arts room improvements. As well, renovations to the Administration
office would be completed.
Educational Opportunities and Benefits to Learning
One of the focus areas of the Accommodation Reviews is to improve the Library Learning Commons at
McGregor P.S. Not only would the Library Learning Commons be updated, but with more students in a
school, the school would receive increased teacher librarian complement, allowing greater access for
students to this valuable space and teacher. Teacher-librarians serve to enhance literacy instruction and
learning across all subject areas when they partner with the classroom teacher.
Learning environment enhancements, through capital planning initiatives, create a positive impact on the
learning environment for our students. Enhancements improve the opportunities for students to focus on
collaborative, experiential and inquiry-based learning through the optimal use of all spaces in the school.
McGregor PS
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 SE FTE
2011 58 66 54 62 67 60 0 0 0 0 7 374
2012 54 56 67 49 59 60 0 0 0 0 10 355
2013 56 58 51 67 45 56 0 0 0 0 7 340
2014 59 66 61 49 72 43 0 0 0 0 7 357
2015 52 65 62 54 52 74 0 0 0 0 4 363
2016 55 56 62 65 56 55 0 0 0 0 3 352
2017 56 59 54 60 67 56 0 0 0 0 3 355
2018 62 65 66 58 68 0 0 0 0 0 3 322
2019 66 69 66 70 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 332
2020 65 69 66 64 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 335
2021 65 68 66 64 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 328
2022 65 68 65 64 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 327
2023 65 68 65 63 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 326
2024 64 68 65 63 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 324
2025 64 67 65 63 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 323
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 49 of 71
Transportation - It is anticipated that 80.7% or 455 students would be eligible for transportation, and 5
(shared) vehicles would be required. The average bus ride time would be 23 minutes. The student
residence proximity to school average distance would be 1.9km.
Grandparenting option - As McGregor Public School has no intermediate students, there is no
grandparenting option.
Collaboration Opportunity - To offset the funding gap of excess space remaining at for McGregor Public
School, Senior Administration’s recommends a reduction in pupil places through collaboration. It is
estimated that approximately 2,100 sq. ft. will be available for non-board use
TVDSB will circulate potential Collaboration opportunities to Community Organizations for McGregor
Public School.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 50 of 71
DAVENPORT PUBLIC SCHOOL:
Figure 04, recommended Davenport Public School attendance area, effective 2019 July 01,
contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding:
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Davenport PS - Enrolment and Capacity
OTG Capacity
Projected Enrolment
Existing Community
Historical Enrolment
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 51 of 71
Development - The Official Plan for the Township of Malahide indicates that the areas east and west of
Aylmer are under consideration for growth and community expansion. The development within the
recommended attendance area is not expected to yield a significant amount of students. With the decline
in the urban areas encompassing the recommended attendance area and the municipalities plans to
expand the residential land designation within Aylmer the facilities of McGregor and Davenport will be
properly utilized into the future.
Enrolment Projections
Program – Changes to the school organization model are recommended for Davenport Public School
from an English track grade 5 to 8 to a English track grade 4 to 8 English track elementary school.
School Organization - Projections indicate that as of 2019-20, there will be sufficient enrolment to have
16.5 Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes
The self-contained Developmental Education Junior and intermediate program class will no longer exist at
Davenport Public School and has been relocated to Summers’ Corners Public School.
Accommodations - Program enhancements and renovations are recommended and would include a
Learning Commons, standard classrooms and general arts room improvements.
Educational Opportunities and Benefits to Learning
Collaboration is a key competency for today’s learners that engages them deeply and is transferrable to
new learning situations. Moving grade 4 students to a location with other junior students presents the
grade 4 students with opportunities to collaborate with a more diverse group of junior students.
A larger staffing complement also provides increased numbers of staff to volunteer their time in support of
a wider variety of extracurricular responsibilities on behalf of students. As well, there would be sufficient
numbers of students to support various sports teams.
One of the focus areas of the Accommodation Reviews is to improve the Library Learning Commons at
Davenport Public School.
Davenport PS
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 SE FTE
2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 61 92 88 14 325
2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 65 88 94 10 325
2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 68 96 90 9 321
2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 63 88 92 9 312
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 64 88 85 8 294
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 49 81 95 10 312
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 79 76 81 10 304
2018 0 0 0 0 0 74 71 69 112 86 10 422
2019 0 0 0 0 0 73 87 78 73 96 0 407
2020 0 0 0 0 0 60 78 91 80 74 0 383
2021 0 0 0 0 0 69 65 81 92 80 0 387
2022 0 0 0 0 0 64 76 68 82 92 0 382
2023 0 0 0 0 0 64 70 78 69 82 0 363
2024 0 0 0 0 0 64 70 72 80 69 0 355
2025 0 0 0 0 0 63 70 71 74 80 0 358
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 52 of 71
Not only would the Library Learning Commons be updated, but with more students in a school, the school
would receive increased teacher librarian complement, allowing greater access for students to this
valuable space and teacher. Teacher-librarians serve to enhance literacy instruction and learning across
all subject areas when they partner with the classroom teacher.
Learning environment enhancements, through capital planning initiatives, create a positive impact on the
learning environment for our students. Enhancements improve the opportunities for students to focus on
collaborative, experiential and inquiry-based learning through the optimal use of all spaces in the school.
In a renovated building a general arts room would be created. The general arts room is a multi-purpose
room. It is equipped with sound attenuation panels and increased storage for musical instruments and
visual arts supplies.
Transportation - It is anticipated that 33.8% or 130 students would be eligible for transportation, and 5
(shared) vehicles would be required. The average bus ride time would be 21 minutes. The student
residence proximity to school average distance would be 2.26km.
Grandparenting Option - Senior Administration is recommending that the 2018-19 grade 7 Summers’
Corners Public School students residing in attendance area being designated to Davenport Public School
be given the option to remain at Summers’ Corners Public School for their final year, with transportation.
Senior Administration is recommending that the 2018-19 grade 7 Davenport Public School students
residing in the South Dorchester Public School attendance area being designated to the new Belmont
Public School be given the option to remain at Davenport Public School for their final year, with
transportation.
As New Sarum and South Dorchester Public Schools are recommended to close, the grandparenting
option is not available for those 2018-19 grade 7 students.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 53 of 71
SUMMERS’ CORNERS PUBLIC SCHOOL:
Figure 06, recommended Summers’ Corners Public School attendance area, effective 2018 July
01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Summers' Corners PS - Enrolment and Capacity
OTG Capacity
Projected Enrolment
Existing Community
Historical Enrolment
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 54 of 71
Development – The new attendance area recommended for Summers Corners Public School is
realigned and will act as a community school for the surrounding rural communities. The Village of
Springfield is labelled as a primary growth area in the Official Plan for the Township of Malahide. At this
time the village does require municipal services to accommodate any expansion. All other rural
communities within the recommended attendance area of Summers' Corners PS are not serviced by the
township.
There is no significant residential growth within the recommended attendance area of Summers' Corners.
Enrolment Projections
Program - No change in the school’s organizational model are recommended for Summers’ Corners
Public School (JK - grade 8).
School Organization - Projections indicate, as of 2019-20 there will be sufficient enrolment to have 3 Full
Day Kindergarten, 6 Primary (grade 1-3), and 8.5 Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes.
The self-contained Developmental Education program classes have been relocated from Davenport and
McGregor Public Schools to Summers’ Corners Public School. Staffing allocation will remain
unchanged.
Accommodations - Program enhancements and renovations are recommended and include a new
Special Education suite, Learning Commons and general arts classroom improvements.
Educational Opportunities and Benefits to Learning
Learning environment enhancements, through capital planning initiatives, create a positive impact on the
learning environment for our students. Enhancements improve the opportunities for students to focus on
collaborative, experiential and inquiry-based learning through the optimal use of all spaces in the school.
In a renovated building a general arts room will be created. The general arts room is a multi-purpose
room. It is equipped with sound attenuation panels, storage for musical instruments and visual arts
supplies.
One of the focus areas of the Accommodation Reviews is to improve the Library Learning Commons at
Summers’ Corners Public School.
Summers' Corners PS
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 SE FTE
2011 28 34 39 37 34 39 42 39 71 72 0 435
2012 23 34 33 37 38 36 40 43 70 69 0 423
2013 20 32 30 32 37 36 41 41 66 71 0 406
2014 26 32 35 36 37 41 36 36 68 73 0 420
2015 28 28 39 33 35 37 41 33 57 64 0 395
2016 29 40 29 38 38 35 39 44 61 58 0 411
2017 28 34 42 29 39 39 36 39 59 62 0 407
2018 22 26 25 35 23 31 26 27 52 49 0 316
2019 32 37 37 35 48 33 47 40 44 44 13 410
2020 32 37 38 36 36 47 30 44 41 44 13 398
2021 32 37 38 37 37 37 46 29 46 41 13 393
2022 32 38 38 38 38 37 35 44 29 46 13 388
2023 32 38 39 38 39 38 36 33 44 29 13 379
2024 32 38 39 39 39 39 37 34 33 43 13 386
2025 32 38 39 39 40 39 37 35 35 33 13 380
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 55 of 71
Transportation - It is anticipated that 100% or 406 students would be eligible for transportation, and 9
vehicles would be required. The average bus ride time would be 23 minutes. The student residence
proximity to school average distance would be 6.88km.
Grandparenting Option - Senior Administration is recommending that the 2018-19 grade 7 Summers’
Corners Public School students residing in attendance area being designated to Davenport Public school
be given the option to remain at Summers’ Corners Public School for their final year, with transportation.
As New Sarum and Springfield Public Schools are recommended to close, the grandparenting option is
not available for those 2018-19 grade 7 students.
Collaboration Opportunity - To offset the funding gap of excess space remaining at Summers’ Corners
Public School, Senior Administration’s recommends a reduction in pupil places through collaboration. It is
estimated that approximately 3,200 sq. ft. will be available for non-board use.
TVDSB will circulate potential Collaboration opportunities to Community Organizations for Summers’
Corners Public School.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 56 of 71
WESTERN REGION:
The following are the Senior Administration’s recommendations applicable to the Western Region:
THAT a new JK to 8 elementary school be constructed in the southeastern area of the City
of St. Thomas, opening 2019 September 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education
approval of capital funding;
THAT the new JK - 8 Southeast St. Thomas Public School attendance area be approved as
per Figure 07, effective 2019 July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of
capital funding;
THAT upon the closure, a portion of the New Sarum Public School students be
accommodated to new Southeast St.Thomas Public School, as per Figure 07, as of 2019
July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT the Southeast St.Thomas Holding Zone be permanently accommodated at the New
Southeast St. Thomas Public School as of 2019 July 01, contingent upon Ministry of
Education approval of capital funding;
THAR the Southeast St.Thomas Holding Zone be dissolved as of 2019 July 01, contingent
upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT New Sarum Public School close, as of 2019 June 30, contingent upon Ministry of
Education approval of capital funding;
THAT a portion of Mitchell Hepburn Public School students be accommodated to new
Southeast St.Thomas Public School, as per Figure 08 as of 2019 July 01, contingent upon
Ministry of Education approval of capital funding;
THAT the Mitchell Hepburn Public School grade 7 students residing in the area to be
accommodated at New Southeast St. Thomas Public School as of 2019 March 01, be given
the grandparenting option to remain at Mitchell Hepburn Public School for the 2019-20
school year, with transportation if eligible, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval
of capital funding;
THAT the Mitchell Hepburn Public School new attendance area be approved as per Figure
08, effective 2019 July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital
funding;
THAT the Board post on-line and notify listed Community Organization of the potential co-
build opportunity at the new Southeast St. Thomas Public School, contingent upon
Ministry of Education approval of capital funding.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 57 of 71
NEW SOUTHEAST ST.THOMAS PUBLIC SCHOOL:
Figure 07, recommended new Southeast St. Thomas Public School attendance area, effective 2019
July 01, contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
New Southeast St. Thomas PS - Enrolment and Capacity
OTG Capacity
Projected Enrolment
Existing Community
Historical Enrolment
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 58 of 71
Development – The New Southeast St. Thomas Public School will relieve enrolment pressure from
Mitchell Hepburn Public School as well as accommodate future growth in the approved residential plans
and the lands designated for future residential expansion. New Sarum Public School students currently
residing within the City of St. Thomas or within a close proximity will also be accommodated in the new
school.
On 2013 November 19, the Board approved the creation of the Southeast St. Thomas Holding Zone, due
to continued development in the Mitchell Hepburn attendance area. Students residing in this Holding
Zone are currently accommodated at Port Stanley Public School. The Southern half of the Southeast St.
Thomas Holding Zone will be included in the recommended attendance area for the New Southeast St.
Thomas PS. There are currently 42 students proposed from future development within the next 10 years.
As more plans are circulated from the designated residential lands to the east, students will receive
proper accommodation through the enhanced program facility at the new Southeast St. Thomas Public
School.
Enrolment Projections
Program - English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 8 elementary school with one self-contained
Transition program class.
School Organization - English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 8 elementary school. Projections
indicate, as of 2019-20 there will be sufficient enrolment to have 4 Full Day Kindergarten, 6.5 Primary
(grade 1-3), and 8 Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes, and 1 self-contained Special Education
class.
The self-contained Transition program class has been relocated from New Sarum Public School to New
Southeast St.Thomas Public School. It is assumed the need for the class will continue; therefore staffing
allocation will remain unchanged.
Accommodations - The new school would have an OTG Capacity of 516 and consist of 4 FDK
classrooms, 17 Standard Classrooms, 1 General Arts classroom, Learning Support room, Learning
Commons, Gymnasium, Primary Activity room and stage, and seminar rooms.
New Southeast St. Thomas Public School would be LEED Silver certified, AODA compliant, and available
for Community Use.
Educational Opportunities and Benefits to Learning
School boards generally consolidate and close schools to enable improved educational options and
opportunities for students. By bringing students together through a school consolidation, school boards
are often able to offer a better educational experience.
A greater staff complement provides more opportunities for students to receive support from non-
classroom teaching and support staff and better utilization of system support staff such as teachers on
special assignment, gifted itinerant teachers, English Language Learners (ELL) teachers, instructional
New Southeast St. Thomas PS
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 SE FTE
2019 42 42 41 35 50 39 46 40 38 35 6 414
2020 43 43 44 41 36 52 40 47 40 40 6 432
2021 43 43 44 44 42 36 53 42 47 42 6 442
2022 43 42 44 44 44 42 36 53 42 48 6 444
2023 44 42 44 44 44 44 43 38 54 43 6 446
2024 44 43 44 44 44 44 46 45 38 56 6 454
2025 44 43 45 44 44 44 46 48 44 39 6 447
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 59 of 71
coaches and superintendents of student achievement. With fewer schools to support, less travel time for
itinerant staff leads to increased time available to be spent with students.
We know that the greatest impact on student learning is the quality of classroom instruction (Hattie,
2009). An increased school staff complement creates greater opportunities for staff to co-plan, co-learn
and co-teach with like-grade partners. Collaboration amongst staff members provides dynamic and robust
programming for students.
Collaboration is a key competency for today’s learners that engages them deeply and is transferrable to
new learning situations. An increased student complement presents students with opportunities to
collaborate with a greater number and more diverse group of peers benefitting them personally and in
future business and work relationships.
A larger staffing complement also provides increased numbers of staff to volunteer their time in support of
a wider variety of extracurricular responsibilities on behalf of students. As well, there would be sufficient
numbers of students to support various sports teams.
A new Library Learning Commons would be created, and with more students in a school, the school
would receive increased teacher librarian complement, allowing greater access for students to this
valuable space and teacher. Teacher-librarians serve to enhance literacy instruction and learning across
all subject areas when they partner with the classroom teacher.
Learning environment enhancements, through capital planning initiatives, create a positive impact on the
learning environment for our students. Enhancements to natural lighting, accessibility, display spaces,
heating and ventilation, as well as the physical layout in renovated and newly-built school settings
improve the opportunities for students to focus on collaborative, experiential and inquiry-based learning
through the optimal use of all spaces in the school.
In newly built buildings an activity room will be created. During the instructional day the activity room may
be used for, but is not limited to, physical education, large group activities, collaborative learning
activities, presentations and performances.
Transportation - It is anticipated that 43.4% or 145 students would be eligible for transportation, and 3
vehicles would be required. The average bus ride time would be 17 minutes. The student residence
proximity to school average distance would be 2.85km.
Grandparenting Option - Senior Administration is recommending that the 2018-19 grade 7 Mitchell
Hepburn Public School students residing in attendance area being designated to New Southeast
St.Thomas Public School be given the option to remain at Mitchell Hepburn Public School for their final
year, with transportation if eligible.
As New Sarum Public School is recommended to close, the grandparenting option is not available for
those 2018-19 grade 7 students.
Co-Build Opportunity - TVDSB will circulate potential Co-build opportunities to Community
Organizations for the New Southeast St. Thomas Public School.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 60 of 71
MITCHELL HEPBURN PUBLIC SCHOOL
Figure 08, recommended Mitchell Hepburn Public School attendance area, effective 2019 July 01,
contingent upon Ministry of Education approval of capital funding:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Mitchell Hepburn PS - Enrolment and Capacity
OTG Capacity
Projected Enrolment
Existing Community
Historical Enrolment
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 61 of 71
Development – Mitchell Hepburn PS was opened in 2008 to accommodate students from the growing
Orchard Park community. An addition was constructed on the school in 2014 to accommodate continued
residential growth. The residential growth in Southeast St. Thomas continues constituting a second
school within this community. The recommended attendance area will designate students from the south
portion of the Orchard Park subdivision to the new elementary school to balance the student population.
On 2013 November 19, the Board approved the creation of the Southeast St. Thomas Holding Zone, due
to continued development in the Mitchell Hepburn attendance area. Students residing in this Holding
Zone are currently accommodated at Port Stanley Public School. The Northern half of the Southeast St.
Thomas Holding Zone is included in the recommended attendance area for Mitchell Hepburn PS.
As the existing community of Mitchel Hepburn ages the newly designated residential growth will keep the
school at a continued utilized occupancy. There are currently 68 students proposed from future
development within the next 10 years. As more plans are circulated from the designated residential lands
to the east, students will receive proper accommodation through the enhanced program facility at Mitchell
Hepburn PS.
Enrolment Projections
Program – No changes are recommended to the English track Junior Kindergarten (JK) to grade 8
elementary school or the self-contained Developmental Education program serving primary, junior and
intermediate students.
School Organization - Projections indicate, as of 2019-20 there will be sufficient enrolment to have 4 Full
Day Kindergarten, 7.5 Primary (grade 1-3), and 13.0 Junior and Intermediate (grades 4-8) classes, and 3
self-contained Special Education class.
The 3 self-contained classes will remain at Mitchell Hepburn Public School. It is assumed the need for
the classes will continue; therefore staffing allocation will remain unchanged.
Accommodations - The school has an OTG Capacity of 678 and consist of 6 FDK classrooms, 22
Standard Classrooms, 1 General Arts classroom, 1 Resource room, 1 Learning Support room. Non-
loaded areas include: Learning Commons, Gymnasium, Primary Activity room and stage, and seminar
rooms.
Mitchell Hepburn PS
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 SE FTE
2011 78 74 74 54 69 62 44 48 69 53 26 651
2012 79 73 73 76 58 73 67 48 47 74 25 693
2013 77 71 77 74 77 61 71 68 50 46 24 696
2014 66 77 73 82 75 80 61 68 63 53 25 723
2015 80 64 78 74 84 67 82 62 67 70 25 753
2016 55 78 65 83 74 89 70 81 66 71 23 755
2017 64 56 81 69 85 76 92 72 83 71 23 772
2018 66 64 57 84 71 86 78 94 74 89 23 786
2019 51 49 45 44 61 54 70 60 76 64 23 597
2020 52 51 45 47 45 61 56 71 61 80 23 592
2021 54 52 47 47 48 46 63 56 72 64 23 572
2022 54 53 47 48 48 48 47 63 57 75 23 563
2023 55 53 48 48 49 48 49 47 64 59 23 543
2024 55 54 48 49 49 49 49 49 47 66 23 538
2025 55 54 49 49 50 49 50 49 49 49 23 526
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 62 of 71
Transportation - It is anticipated that 42.1% or 230 students would be eligible for transportation, and 5
vehicles would be required. The average bus ride time would be 8 minutes. The student residence
proximity to school average distance would be 0.91km.
Grandparenting Option - Senior Administration is recommending that the 2018-19 grade 7 Mitchell
Hepburn Public School students residing in attendance area being designated to New Southeast
St.Thomas Public School be given the option to remain at Mitchell Hepburn Public School for their final
year, with transportation if eligible.
As New Sarum Public School is recommended to close, the grandparenting option is not available for
those 2018-19 grade 7 students.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 63 of 71
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:
OPERATIONAL COST/SAVINGS
It has been calculated that an annual savings of $413,297 would be achieved through the recommended
consolidations.
Pre
Consolidation
Cost
Post
Consolidation
Cost
Savings /
(Cost)
Facilities $2,382,000
$2,389,064
$(7,064)
Transportation $2,678,942
$2,745,858
$(66,916)
IT $135,447
$101,709
$33,738
Staffing $25,339,703
$25,251,823
$87,880
$30,536,092
$30,488,454
$47,638
Adjusted Teacher Costs Due to Enrolment Changes once consolidations
are in place $365,659
Adjusted Annual Savings
$413,297
CAPITAL COSTS
School Project Type Estimated
Cost Description
DAVENPORT Renovations $ 711,000 Renovations for General Arts,
Learning Commons
MCGREGOR Renovations $ 702,000 Renovations for Administration,
Learning Commons
NORTHDALE CENTRAL Renovations $ 147,000 Renovations for General Arts
PORT STANLEY Addition and
Renovations $ 1,506,000 Learning Commons addition,
renovations to classrooms
SUMMERS' CORNERS Renovations $ 912,000 Renovations for Learning Commons,
General Arts, Special Education
NEW BELMONT New School $14,557,000 OTG 576 including site purchase
NEW SE ST. THOMAS New School $13,006,000 OTG 516 including site purchase
Total $31,541,000
Note: All projects contingent on Ministry of Education Capital Funding approval
The accommodation changes required as a result of the proposed consolidation recommended in EPAR-
01 deal with 3 main issues: Student Accommodation; Growth; and Program Enhancements.
It should be noted that through the proposed consolidation, closure and disposition of 4 schools, the
Board has removed $17,784,122 of high and urgent renewal needs identified at the schools
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 64 of 71
COST PER STUDENT:
Using the site base cost of School Administration, Facility Services and Information Technology, the
following costs per student were calculated EPAR 01
The Board average per elementary student is $1416.06.
CURRENT SITUATION:
School Cost
Davenport Public School $1,186.13
McGregor Public School $1,229.85
Mitchell Hepburn Public School $970.92
New Sarum Public School $1,592.30
Northdale Central Public School $1,092.65
Port Stanley Public School $3,614.16
River Heights Public School $1,134.15
South Dorchester Public School $1,486.72
Sparta Public School $1,483.57
Springfield Public School $1,848.90
Summers’ Corners Public School $1,538.09
Westminster Public School $4,064.85
As noted above, there are 7 schools which cost per student is greater than the Board Average.
The average cost per student for the current student in EPAR 01 is $1392.11.
RECOMMENDED SOLUTION:
School Cost
Davenport Public School $1,074.07
McGregor Public School $1,491.89
Mitchell Hepburn Public School $1,223.60
Northdale Central Public School $1,290.99
Port Stanley Public School $1,159.73
River Heights Public School $1,453.73
Summers’ Corners Public School
South Dorchester Public School
$1,557.38
Summers’ Corners Public School $1,302.64
Westminster Public School $1,529.02
New Belmont Public School $1,302.64
New Southeast St. Thomas Public School $1,529.02
As noted above, there will be 4 schools in the proposed recommendation that will be greater than the
Board average. As noted previously; McGregor PS, River Heights PS, and Summers’ Corners will be
circulated to Community Organizations for possible Facility Collaboration to help offset the Facility costs.
The new Southeast St. Thomas Public School will achieve its capacity through growth which will lower its
cost per student to the Board average.
The average cost per student for the students in the PAR proposed recommendation is $1190.53 which is
a saving of $201.58 per student of the current situation.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 65 of 71
TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION:
Initial implementation is proposed for September 2018, for attendance area changes and where no/or
limited capital funding is required. Full implementation would be complete for September 2019,
contingent upon Ministry of Education approval and funding. The Board is unable to fund or complete the
proposed recommendations without Ministry funding, other than as indicated below.
The transition planning will be completed in consultation with parents/guardians and school staff
Existing School Closure Consolidated
Attendance
New
Accommodation
Northdale Central PS 2019-07-01*
River Heights PS 2019-07-01*
South Dorchester PS 2019-06-30*
Springfield PS 2019-06-30*
Westminster Central PS 2019-06-30*
New Belmont 2019-07-01* 2019-09-01*
New Sarum PS 2019-06-30*
Port Stanley PS (English)2018-07-01
Port Stanley PS (FI/ Extended FI program) 2018-06-30 2018-07-01
2018-07-01*
at Sparta
Sparta PS 2018-06-30*
Davenport PS (Summers' Corners)2018-07-01
Davenport PS (Grade 4-8)2018-07-01
Davenoport PS (New Sarum)2019-07-01*
McGregor PS (Summers' Corners)2018-07-01
McGregor PS (JK -3)2018-07-01
McGregor PS (New Sarum)2019-07-01*
Summers' Corners PS (McGregor/Davenport)2018-07-01*
Summers' Corners PS (Springfield)2019-07-01*
Mitchell Hepburn PS 2019-07-01*
New SE St. Thomas 2019-07-01* 2019-09-01*
* Dates that are contingent on Ministry of Education Capital Funding Approval
Implementation Timeline by School
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 66 of 71
Grandparenting Option
Background
The Board has, on occasions, approved the grandparenting option for students, when possible. The
grandparenting option for students to remain at their existing school is available when the school remains
open and the appropriate program and grade continue to be available.
Parents are surveyed in the spring, whether their child would or would not be choosing the
grandparenting option, prior to the implemented change (September). Transportation was provided for
the first year only, afterwards parents/guardians are responsible for transportation.
Historically, new schools and consolidated schools opened without any grade eights in the initial year.
Grade 8’s have remained for their final year in elementary in order to graduate with their cohorts.
Transportation was provided for that year. Siblings of grade eights were also allowed to remain for that
year with transportation.
The grandparenting option was offered upon implementation of the elementary French Immersion
solution as well as any Attendance Area Reviews conducted since 2013-14. It has been observed that
the majority of students’, who choose the grandparenting option, do so for the first year only and transfer
to their designated school thereafter.
Challenges of Grandparenting
As the number of students opting for the grandparenting option is unknown until shortly before opening a
school, this can often complicate the initial year for all schools involved. This can lead to challenges for
both the existing school and new school in terms of funding, staffing, school budgets, school utilization
and future Board projects.
Following a capital construction project which has been approved and funded by the Ministry of
Education, the implementation and viability of the solution is assessed by the Ministry. They analyze
such matters as:
How successful was the Board in accommodating students?
Was the project completed on budget?
Was construction completed on time?
Were enrolment projections on target?
Was the school sized correctly for the number of students?
This information is utilized in the decision process when the Ministry receives new Capital Priority
business cases, requests for site acquisition funding, or seeking approval to use Board Supported Capital
by a school board. Since 2006, the TVDSB has a proven ability to open schools within Ministry
benchmarks, on budget, on time, for the right number of student in the right sized schools.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 67 of 71
For EPAR-01, Senior Administration is recommending that if and when grandparenting is a viable option
only the grade eight students be offered the grandparenting option given the challenges noted above.
The following chart summarizes the grandparenting option, with respect to the Senior Administration’s
recommendations:
Grandparenting Option Availability for Grade 7 students:
Existing School New School
Designation(s) Yes/No Rationale
Davenport PS
(4-8 attendance area) Davenport No No relocation for grade 7
Davenport PS
(South Dorchester area) New Belmont Yes School/program remains at
Davenport
McGregor PS N/A N/A No grade 7
Mitchell Hepburn PS New SE St.Thomas Yes School/program remains at
Mitchell Hepburn
New Sarum PS
(JK-8, northern portion) New Belmont No School closure
New Sarum PS
(gr 4-8, eastern portion) Davenport No School closure
New Sarum PS
(JK- 3, eastern portion) McGregor N/A No grade 7
New Sarum PS
(JK-8, western portion)
New SE St.Thomas
Port Stanley No School closure
Northdale Central PS
(portion) New Belmont Yes School/program remains at
Northdale Central
Port Stanley PS (English) Port Stanley No No relocation for grade 7
Port Stanley PS
(FI/ Extended FI program) Sparta facility No Program relocating
River Heights PS N/A N/A No grade 7
South Dorchester PS N/A N/A No grade 7
Sparta PS Port Stanley No School closure
Springfield PS N/A N/A No grade 7
Summers' Corners PS
(portion) Davenport Yes Grade 7s may remain
Summers' Corners PS
(North Springfield area) New Belmont Yes Grade 7s may remain
Summers' Corners PS
(South Springfield area) Summers' Corners No No relocation for grade 7
Westminster Central PS New Belmont No School closure
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 68 of 71
SECTION 4 - COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS & MUNICIPAL INPUT
The Board has provided opportunity for collaborations at schools within this PAR through the Facility
Organization and Collaboration Opportunity Procedure and its predecessor Encouraging Facility
Partnerships Procedure. To date, the Board has not received any interest in collaborations.
The Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Meetings were held on 2016 June 15, for the City of
London and County of Middlesex, and 2016 June 16, for the County of Elgin and County of Oxford. (See
Appendix C for the meeting invitation and agenda) Attendees were asked to provide feedback on the
information presented, as well to provide the Planning Department with any relevant planning information
of their own. The 2016 April 12, Draft Elementary Accommodation Study was shared and details were
discussed, outlining areas of existing accommodation pressure or surplus and identified future Board
needs.
In addition, on 2016 September 16, the Board of Trustees approved for Senior Administration to contact
listed Community Organizations within the region of the proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation
Reviews.
On 2016 September 19, an email communication was sent to all listed Community Organizations within
the regions of the proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Reviews identifying; the names of the
schools involved, any potential school closures, and any proposed student long-term accommodation.
By Thursday, October 13, 2016, Community Organizations were asked to provide the TVDSB Planning
Department, by email, with: a clear indication of any community planning or facility collaboration
opportunities the respective recipient is aware of and which relate to the schools identified; and any
relevant technical information the recipient may have and wish to provide, including but not limited to, in
the case of any municipal level of government, the municipal level of governments population and future
development projections for the affected region.
To this day, the Planning Department has received 14 communications from the Municipalities or
Community Organizations who attended and/or were notified of the meeting. The input received has been
attached as Appendix D.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 69 of 71
SECTION 5 - CO-BUILD AND COLLABORATION OPPORTUNITITES
As part of the Senior Administration’s recommendations there is opportunity for co-build(s) and
`collaboration(s) with Community Organizations. The chart below summarizes the potential opportunities
with respect to the Senior Administration’s recommendations:
Elementary School CoBuild Collaboration Collab. Space Available
Opportunity Opportunity* ~ Rooms ~ Sq. Ft.
Davenport No Yes 1 CR 994
French Immersion at Sparta No No
McGregor No Yes 3 CR 2,100
Mitchell Hepburn No No
Northdale Central No No
Port Stanley Yes No
River Heights No Yes 2 FDK + 2 CR 5,985
Summers' Corners No Yes 4 CR 3,200
New Belmont School Yes No
New SE St.Thomas School Yes No
* Or space available for Board use
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 70 of 71
SECTION 6 - PAR CALENDAR & TIMELINE
EPAR-01 TIMELINE:
In accordance with the TVDSB Pupil Accommodation and Facility Organization and the Community
Planning and Facility Collaboration Opportunities procedures and in compliance with Ministry of
Education’s Pupil Accommodation Review and Community Planning and Partnership Guidelines’
minimum and maximum timelines, Senior Administration has outlined the following proposed Elementary
Pupil Accommodation Review - 01 schedule of meetings and important dates:
Scheduled Dates Meeting
2016 December 12 Orientation Meeting (for PAR committee members)
2016 December 14 Post Determination Meeting with listed Community Organizations
2017 January 9 Initial Public Meeting of EPAR-01
2017 January 16 School Level Meeting(s) #1
2017 February 8 Second Public Meeting of EPAR-01
2017 February 13 School Level Meeting #2
2017 March 8 Final Public Meeting of EPAR-01
(presentation of each school’s reports )
2017 April 11 Final Senior Administration’s Report (FSAR) presented to the Board
(and tabled to allow for public delegation)
2017 May 2 Public Delegation Meeting
2017 May 23 FSAR including public delegation input returns to Board for
Final Decisions by the Board of Trustees
The Final Senior Administration’s Report will be posted for public viewing on the Board’s Planning
webpage and presented to the Board on 2017 April 11. It will contain the final recommendations and
include feedback received through the Pupil Accommodation Review process (a report from each School
involved in the accommodation review, and input received from listed Community Organizations and from
the public) to assist the Board with deliberation and decisions.
Following the presentation of the FSAR at a special Board meeting on 2017 May 2, public delegations will
be received. On 2017 May 23, two weeks following public delegations, the Board is scheduled to
deliberate and make final decisions regarding EPAR-01.
2016 December 05 - Corrections
Page 71 of 71
APPENDICES
A. GLOSSARY
B. SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILES:
B-1 DAVENPORT PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-2 MCGREGOR PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-3 MITCHELL HEPBURN PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-4 NEW SARUM PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-5 NORTHDALE CENTRAL PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-6 PORT STANLEY PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-7 RIVER HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-8 SOUTH DORCHESTER PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-9 SPARTA PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-10 SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-11 SUMMERS’ CORNERS PUBLIC SCHOOL
B-12 WESTMINSTER CENTRAL PUBLIC SCHOOL
C. COMMUNITY PLANNING & FACILITY COLLABORATION MEETINGS INFORMATION
D. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION INPUT
TERM DEFINITION
Activity Room Space used for the delivery of Physical Education curriculum for primary students.
Calculated space includes: gym floor area and storage. This space is not loaded by
the Ministry. The TVDSB standard for an Activity Room is 1,300 sq. ft.
Allocation of Custodial Staff The number of Custodial Staff allocated to a School is calculated using the Board’s
current staffing formula. Where a School site does not use TVDSB Custodial Staff,
the equivalent custodial full time equivalent will be calculated based on the hours
provided in the current Contract Cleaning agreement.
Annual Planning Report
(formerly Annual Pupil
Accommodation Report)
An annual report that provides a summary of the Board’s pupil accommodation
status including both accomplishments and items requiring future studies.
Attendance Area An area defined by a geographic boundary which determines students’ designation
to a particular School or program (e.g. French Immersion and Emphasis
Technology), based on primary residence within that area.
Before and After School
Program
A child minding service provided by community child care organizations occurring
within the school facility outside the instructional day during the school year.
Cohort A group of subjects who share a defining characteristic.
Collaboration Suitability How suitable a school would be to accommodate a possible facility collaboration as
deemed by TVDSB.
Community Organization Regional entities (including municipalities) within the TVDSB, as identified on the
TVDSB planning website.
Community Use of Grounds The usage of the School’s grounds is determined by the number of booked permits
through the Community Use of Schools.
Community Use of School The usage of the School building is determined by the number of booked permits
(permits issued per space) and booked hours (hours booked per space) through the
Community Use of Schools.
Computer Lab Students vacate regular classrooms for rotary computer studies in this room. When
not included in a Learning Commons, this space is loaded by the Ministry at 23.
Dwelling A type of residence.
Enrolment Total number of students that are attending a school at particular date.
Facility Condition Index
(FCI)
The FCI is a standard benchmark that is used to compare the relative condition of a
building. It compares a facility’s total five year renewal needs to the cost of
rebuilding the facility.
FCI=Five year of renewal needs (year of assessment plus four (4)) divided
Asset Replacement Value (based on Ministry Construction Benchmarks)
In general, the higher the FCI, the more renewal needs and therefore the poorer
condition of the building.
Final Senior Administration
Report (FSAR)
The Final Senior Administration Report will include the final written reports of the
applicable School PARC Subcommittees; the TVDSB Senior Administration’s final
recommendations on pupil accommodation and attendance areas, together with a
proposed timeline for implementation; advise parties wishing to make presentations
to the Trustees at the Public Delegation Meeting that they are required to submit a
presenter package as per Board procedure; and any written views and/or materials
received.
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX A
Page 1 of 5
TERM DEFINITION
Full Time Equivalent (FTE)Full-time equivalent (FTE) is defined as the total hours worked or instruction
minutes received divided by the average hours required for a full-time status.
Gymnasium Space used for the delivery of Physical Education curriculum, School assemblies,
community activities, etc. Calculated space includes; gym floor area, stage, change
rooms, and storage. This space is not loaded by the Ministry.
The TVDSB standards are based on OTG.
The standard for Elementary schools up to 360 is 4,000 sq. ft., 361-630 is 6,000 sq.
ft., and over 630 is 8,000 sq. ft.
High Density Unit Housing with a higher population density than the average (apartment buildings).
Historical Enrolment Total number of students that attended a school at particular date in the past.
Holding Zone An area defined by a geographic boundary, within an Attendance Area (usually with
high concentrations of new or imminent development), for which the Trustees have
approved that students residing in it are to attend a specified School based on
available capacity, until such time as long-term accommodation and related revised
Attendance Areas can be established.
Holding Zone Students Students who reside within a defined Holding Zone. These students attend a
Holding School.
Imputted Expenditures to
Transport Students to
School
The cost to transport students as provided by Finance.
Initial Senior Administration
Report (ISAR)
An Initial Senior Administration Report will contain a summary of accommodation
issues; recommended option(s); information on actions taken by TVDSB
Administration prior to formally submitting ISAR; School Information Profiles for
each of the Schools involved and will specify meeting dates.
Instrumental Music /
General Arts Room
An Instrumental Music Classroom has special architectural features such as sound
baffling, instrumental storage, raised flooring, etc.
A General Arts Room is a classroom which has special architectural features which
facilitate the delivery of Dance, Drama, Music (Instrumental and Vocal) and Visual
Arts.
Students vacate their regular classrooms for programming in this room. This space
is not loaded by the Ministry.
The TVDSB standard for an Instrumental Music / General Arts Room is 1,000 sq. ft.
Intramural sports Refers to (individual or team) sports conducted within the School which are in
addition to the program requirements.
Inter-School Sports Refers to (individual or team) sports conducted with other Schools which are in
addition to the program requirements.
Land Use As part of a community's' Official Plan which outlines short/long term development
goals and appropriate uses of specified lands within a community.
Learning Commons Learning Commons include a main reading area, the library collection, maker
space, an attached audio-visual (AV) room,and work room in total area. This space
is not loaded by the Ministry. The TVDSB standard for a Learning Commons is
3,200 sq. ft.
Medium Denisty Unit A type of housing where more than one home is constructed and each new home
has its own, separate footprint on the land (townhouses).
Official 2015 October 31
FTE Enrolment
Official Ministry of Education Full Time Equivalent student count as of that date,
which has been actualized.
APPENDIX A
Page 2 of 5
TERM DEFINITION
On-The-Ground Capacity
(OTG)
The Ministry has identified categories of instructional space. Each category has a
designated room capacity (this differs for elementary and secondary instructional
space). Room capacity ratings are closely associated with the student to teacher
class size ratios that have been set by the Ministry for funding purposes. The sum of
a school’s designated room capacity ratings is the school’s total capacity.
Instructional space includes classrooms, art rooms, science rooms, computer labs
and special education classrooms. Operational space, defined as space not
available for instructional purposes, is not assigned a capacity rating. This includes
staff rooms, washrooms, mechanical spaces, hallways, change rooms, staff
meeting rooms and kitchens and academic storage area.
Out of Area Students Students who do not attend their designated school.
Projected Enrolment Calculated number of students to attend a school based on demographics and
historical trends.
Pupil Accommodation
Review (PAR)
A Pupil Accommodation Review (PAR) is a community consultation process
required by the Ministry of Education where a school closure and/or consolidation is
being considered to address changing demographics, enrolment, programming, and
facility condition challenges facing a school or schools in a particular area under
review. Pupil Accommodation Reviews are governed by Ministry guidelines and
follow a Board approved policy and procedure.
Pupil Accommodation
Review Committee (PARC)
The Pupil Accommodation Review Committee (PARC) is comprised of
representatives from each school (School PARC Subcommittee) within the PAR.
Purpose built Kindergarten
classroom
Purpose built Kindergarten classrooms are spaces designed to be self-contained
and configured for the instruction of Kindergarten pupils. They include sufficient
space for programming, storage, self-contained washrooms, a coat cubby area and
a separate entrance.
The TVDSB standard for a Kindergarten classroom is 1,100 sq. ft. which is inclusive
of all the elements identified above
Replacement Value of the
School
Calculation based on the benchmark costing of a School as provided by the Ministry
of Education for new construction. The size of the School is based on current OTG.
Resource Room A space used for general instruction, having an area of approximatley 400-700 sq.ft.
and are loaded by the Ministry of Education at 12.
School Facilities Inventory
System (SFIS)
The School Facilities Inventory System (SFIS) was developed by the Ministry of
Education to compile key information on the physical inventory of all school facilities
in Ontario. The inventory information allows for the measurement of school capacity
and utilization on a consistent basis across the province and is reviewed annually.
School Information Profile
(SIP)
School information Profile (SIP) is created for each School under consideration.
Among other purposes, SIPs will serve as orientation documents for the respective
Pupil Accommodation Review Committee and the School Communities
involved.SIPs contain school specific information on Facility Profile, Instructional
Profile and Community Use Profile.
School Level Meetings The purpose of School-Level Meetings is to provide the School PARC
Subcommittee with an opportunity to explain the information received at the
respective Public Meetings and, obtain input from their School Community.
APPENDIX A
Page 3 of 5
TERM DEFINITION
Self-Contained Special
Education Classroom/Suite
Special Education rooms are teaching spaces used to provide a range of self-
contained programs for students. The provision of special education rooms varies
from school to school given the range of students needs, flexibility is critical to allow
the Board to support students.
Each Self-Contained Special Education Class is loaded by the Ministry at 9.
The TVDSB minimum standard for a Self-Contained Special Education classroom is
700 sq. ft.
A Self-Contained Special Education Suite is a cluster of classrooms and ancillary
spaces designed and built specifically for the needs of Special Education. Ancillary
spaces are not loaded.
Single Family Unit Is also called a single-detached dwelling, or separate house is a free-standing
residential building.
Special Education/Spec.
Ed. (SE)
Special education programs and services primarily consist of instruction and
assessments that are different from those provided to the general student
population. Only self-contained Special Education calsses have been identified in
enrolment.
Staff Calculation The determination of staff count is based on: Collective Agreements, Ministry of
Education Guidelines and Funding, as well as Board practices.
Standard classroom Standard Classrooms are spaces configured for general instruction, intended to
deliver programs from grades one to eight, and are loaded by the Ministry at 23.
Classroom count is based on space type, regardless of current use.
The TVDSB minimum standard for a Standard Elementary Classroom is 700 sq. ft.
Student Count Student Count is the total school enrolment as of October 31st of the school year in
which the PAR was established.
Transportation Eligibility Students attending their board-designated school are eligible for transportation
based on the following distances:
• Elementary aged students that reside greater than 1.6 kms from the school site
• Secondary aged students that reside greater than 3.2 kms from the school site
Historical “hazard designations” that pre-date the formation of Student
Transportation Services (STS) may be included in the current and “post PAR”
figures. Post PAR figures for new schools are solely distance based calculations.
Future assessment of conditional bussing will be made on actual area conditions in
advance of school openings.
Zoning In community planning, zoning by-laws contain specific, legal regulations. Zoning
establishes appropriate standards for land use, scale and intensity of development.
APPENDIX A
Page 4 of 5
Item Assessed Definition
Minimum number of pedestrian entrances required to be
barrier free
1 to 3 = 1 barrier free entrance
4 or 5 = 2 barrier free entrances
more than 5 = not less than 50% must be barrier free entrances
Designated parking space Proper size and number of spaces according to Municipal by-laws.
Accessibility signs Sign indicating location of: barrier free entrance,
parking, barrier free washroom, elevator.
Path of travel to the main entrance door
.
The provided accessible path of travel from the designated Barrier Free
Accessible parking space to an accessible building entrance is:
- A minimum of 1100 mm wide
- Includes curb cuts and ramps
- Exterior walks to be designed as a ramp where the gradient is greater
than 1 in 20
Designated entrances
The provided designated Barrier Free Accessible entrance is:
- Actual clear opening width 865mm.
- Clearly marked with a sign incorporating the international symbol of
access
- Provided with an automatic door open device
Designated Wheelchair Spaces and Adaptable seating See Table 3.8.2.1. OBC 2012
Assistive listening devices
All classrooms, auditoria, meeting rooms with an area of more than
100m2 and an occupant load of 75 shall be equipped with assistive
listening systems.
Path of travel to all floors/elevations. Including stages.
The Barrier Free Accessible path of travel is provided with either:
- An accessible ramp as per 3.8.3.4.OR
- A vertical transportation device where a floor or an elevation difference
exists (including stages)
Surface finish of ramps and stairs
Surfaces of ramps, landings and treads shall have:
- a finish that is slip-resistant
- colour contrast to demarcate leading edge
- tactile attention indicator
Passenger Elevating Devices
The provided Barrier Free Accessible Elevator has the following:
- Clear audible communication indicating floors and up/down direction
- A control panel, which is provided with Braille
- Emergency call system and where the top is at a maximum height of
1,100 mm above floor
Fire alarm system with strobe and audible signals
Fire alarm system is reported to include:
- Strobe lights
- Audible signals
Drinking Fountains Spout located not more than 915 mm above finished floor…etc.
Universal washroom
A designated Barrier Free Accessible washroom is:
- provided one per floor
- centrally located within the floor
Equipped with:
- An automatic door open device
- Grab bars
- Shelf
- Emergency call button
- Lever handle or motion sensor faucets
- A lavatory, where an insulated knee space is provided and the height
of lavatory top is a maximum of 840 mm
above the floor....etc.
- Coat hook
Thames Valley District School Board
AODA Facility Assessment - Barrier Free Design Compliance Checklist
APPENDIX A
Page 5 of 5
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILE
DAVENPORT PUBLIC SCHOOL
2015-16
ADDRESS:
80 RUTHERFORD AVENUE, AYLMER, N5H 2N8
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Davenport PS SIP ~ Page 1 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Current Attendance Area
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Davenport PS SIP ~ Page 2 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Criteria Davenport PS Board Average
Size of the school site (acres) 4.94 7.26
Year original school was built 1955 1977
Building area (square feet) 36, 941.74 44,701.66
Portable classrooms (2015-16) 0 2.86
Year addition(s) built
1960, 1971, 1993
Grade Configuration
5 - 8
Criteria Davenport PS Board Average
On-The-Ground (OTG) Capacity (2015-16) 423 444
Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Enrolment: Official 2015 October 31 294.00 385.00
Utilization factor 69.50% 87.17%
Excess or Shortage(-) of Pupil Places 129.00 58.59
Number of Holding Zone students (if any) 0
Number of out of area students 5
General Profile
Distance (km) to 5 closest
TVDSB Elementary Schools
0.85 McGregor
5.03 Summers’ Corners
8.20 New Sarum
11.29 Springfield
12.42 South Dorchester
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Davenport PS SIP ~ Page 3 of 16
96
184
Number of Students who are
Eligible for Transportation
Number of Students who are
Not Eligible for Transportation
Note
** Buses shared with Assumption
Catholic School (LDCSB), McGregor
and Summers' Corners PS and East
Elgin Secondary School
Transportation - Length of bus ride Davenport PS Board
Shortest 4.00 min 1.00 min
Longest 54.00 min 71.00 min
Average 25.00 min 16.00 min
Percentage of Students
Transported to School
34%
Number of Buses Required
10**
Distance - Proximity of Students
to existing school Davenport PS Board
Shortest 0.10km 0.01km
Longest 21.06km 67.08km
Average 3.89km 2.45km
Transportation Costs
Regular Home to School $109,311
Specialized $62,318
Total $171,629
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Transportation
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Davenport PS SIP ~ Page 4 of 16
*Information based on 2015 October 31
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8
SE FTE
2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 61 92 88 14 325
2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 65 88 94 10 325
2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 68 96 90 9 321
2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 63 88 92 9 312
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 64 88 85 8 294
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 49 81 95 10 312
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 79 76 81 10 304
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 60 98 76 10 302
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 60 92 98 10 329
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 70 84 92 10 319
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 65 96 83 10 309
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 56 96 95 10 314
2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 58 84 95 10 304
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 58 87 83 10 295
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 58 84 86 10 295
STATUS QUO - GRADES 5-8 - Davenport PS Regular Track Enrolment
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Davenport PS Enrolment
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Davenport PS SIP ~ Page 5 of 16
JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 21 6 27
2 2 1 3 2 X 8
3 28 28
4 29 29
5 29 29
6 29 29
7 29 29
8 30 30
9 28 28
10 30 30
11 27 27
TOTAL 51 65 91 87 294
School Organization
Class
Number
Enrolment By Grade (Student Count)Spec.
Ed.
Class
Total
2015-16* Staffing Allocation (FTE) Davenport PS
Principal 1.00
Vice-Principals 0.00
Secretaries 1.00
Teachers at the School 14.73
Self-Contained Special Education
Teachers 1.19
Teacher-Librarians 0.44
English as a Second
Language (ESL) Teachers 0.40
Native as a Second
Language (NSL) Teachers 0.00
Learning Support Teachers (LST) 1.20
Early Childhood Educators (ECE) 0.00
Educational Assistants (EA) 2.50
Custodial 2.25
Total 24.71
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Availability of Extra-Curricular Activities
Inter-School Sports?
YES
Intramural Sports?
YES
School Clubs?
YES
School Organization and Staffing
Programming and Course
Offering for 2015-2016
Davenport PS serves a population
of 294 students from grade 5 to
grade 8. There are 10 standard
classes and 1 specialized class
.
Specialized Service offerings
at Davenport PS
There is one Developmental
Education class at Davenport PS.
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Davenport PS SIP ~ Page 6 of 16
ft² ft²
Kindergarten Classroom - - - 26 -
Standard Classroom 16 772 12,350 23 368
Art Room - - - 23 -
Science Room 1 1,084 1,084 23 23
Music Vocal - - - 23 -
Computer Lab (included in Library) - - - 23 -
Family Studies 1 664 664 23 23
Technical/Vocational 1 1,042 1,042 - -
Special Education Area 1 1,169 1,169 9 9
General Arts / Musical Instrumental on stage - - -
Resource Room - Loaded (400-699 sf) - - - 12 -
Seminar Rooms - Unloaded (<400 sf) 2 154 308 - -
Gymnasium Area and Stage 1 4,480 4,480 - -
Change Rooms 2 631 1,262 - -
Activity / General Purpose Room - - - - -
Multiple Gymnasium - - - 23 -
Learning Commons (formerly Library) 1 2,008 2,008 - -
24,365 423
OTGInstructional Space #Size Floor Area Load
Total GFA and OTG of Instructional Area
ft² ft²
Main Office & Reception 619
Staff Room and Teacher Work Rooms 742
Servery -
Custodial Areas 390
Meeting Room -
Academic Storage 56
Washrooms 1,317
Gymnasium Storage 180
Chair Storage (in Gymnasium) -
Mechanical Spaces 741
4,045
28,410
30.03% 8,531
36,941
Total Square Feet 36,941
Gross Floor Area
Floor Area
Total Operational Area
Total Operational and Instructional
Gross Up Added
Operational Space Per Pupil
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Calculated Area per Pupil by OTG Calculated Area per Pupil by Enrolment
87.33 125.65
Facilities Space Template
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Davenport PS SIP ~ Page 7 of 16
No.Types
5
Soccer (2), Basketball court (1),
Basketball nets (2), Asphalt running
track
Outdoor Classroom/ greening project
Playing fields Other site amenities
Designed Student
Drop off/Pick up Area
No. of Buses Yes/No Assessment Note Yes/No
10**No
Insufficient.On street,
loading staggered to
accommodate number
of buses.
** Buses shared with Assumption
Catholic School (LDCSB), McGregor
and Summers' Corners PS and East
Elgin Secondary.
No
Designated School Bus Bays / Loading Zones
14,990 sq. ft.
Hard Surface
Play Area
102,614 sq. ft.
Green Space
Play Area
Barrier Free Accessibility
Criteria Yes/No
Minimum number of pedestrian entrances required to be barrier free N
Designated parking space Y
Accessibility signs Y
Path of travel to the main entrance door N
Designated entrances N
Designated Wheelchair Spaces and Adaptable seating N/A
Assistive listening devices N
Path of travel to all floors/elevations (Including stages)Y
Surface finish of ramps and stairs N
Passenger Elevating Devices N
Fire alarm system with strobe and audible signals N
Drinking Fountains Y
Universal washroom N
Standard BF Total Staff FTE Required Plus/ Minus % of Standard
31 0 31 24.71 34.71 -3.71 89.31%
Number of Existing
Parking Spaces
TVDSB
Parking Standard: Staff +10
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Facility Profile
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Davenport PS SIP ~ Page 8 of 16
Project Description Total
Asbestos Repairs 1,738$
Library Renovation 19,543$
Window Replacement - Phase 2 393,085$
Designated Substance Report 173$
Barrier Free Washroom Renovation 31,015$
Roof Moisture Survey 4,086$
1971 Steel Joist review 5,540$
Supply and install ceiling lift 10,475$
Anthes Joist Investigation 8,485$
Chimney Removal 9,605$
WIFI installation 4,781$
Roof Scan 4,495$
Replace VAT Flooring 89,680$
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review 490$
Replace Boilers and Pumps 260,434$
Exterior Lighting upgrades 1,188$
Davenport PS Total 844,813$
10 Year Repair History
Financial Analysis of School*
Cost ($) Cost per Student ($) Board Average per
Student ($)
Cost of Administration 179,970.00 612.15 612.00
Cost of Facility Services 157,506.00 535.73 774.84
Cost of Information Technology 11,246.00 38.25 29.22
Total 348,722.00 1,186.13 1,416.06
Facility Condition Index
28%
Provincial Average
37%
Board Average
50%
PAR Average
42%
Davenport PS
Replacement Value
of the School
$8,748,738
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
School Utility Costs**
Cost($) Cost per Sq. Ft.($) Board Average
per Sq. Ft. Cost per Student ($) Board Average
per Student ($)
59,343.25 1.61 1.55 202.02 1.55
Financial Profile
* Board Average for Administration and Information Technology is based on the Elementary Panel
* Board Average for Facility Services is based on all schools operated by the Board
** Included in above Facility Services costs
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Davenport PS SIP ~ Page 9 of 16
Five Year Renewal Needs
Cost Priority Action Year
Year
Renewal Requirement
$ 10,400 Urgent 2015 Roof Coverings - Skylights Renewal
$ 197,600 Urgent 2015 Roof Coverings - Section C-1 & D Renewal
$ 57,200 Urgent 2015 Replace [Hot Water Boilers ]
$ 57,200 Urgent 2015 Hot Water Boilers - Boiler 2 Renewal
$ 613,600 Urgent 2015 Heating/Chilling water distribution systems Renewal
$ 7,280 Urgent 2015 Study [Heating/Chilling water distribution systems ]
$ 390,000 Urgent 2015 Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities - Site Renewal
$ 5,200 Urgent 2015 Study [Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities - Site]
$ 52,000 High 2015 Exterior Walls - Original Building Renewal
$ 48,500 High 2005 Replace [Exterior Windows - Addition 3]
$ 12,480 High 2015 Exterior Doors - Addition 3 Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015 Partitions - Movable Partitions Renewal
$ 26,000 High 2015 Partitions - Clerestory Renewal
$ 21,840 High 2015 Fittings - Washroom Accessories Renewal
$ 104,000 High 2015 Plumbing Fixtures Renewal
$ 5,200 High 2015 Auxiliary Equipment - Chemical Treatment System Renewal
$ 15,600 High 2015 Auxiliary Equipment - HVAC Pumps Renewal
$ 26,000 High 2015 Other Heat Generating Systems - Make-Up AHU Renewal
$ 5,200 High 2015 Other Heat Generating Systems - Window A/C Renewal
$ 36,400 High 2015 Exhaust Systems Renewal
$ 104,000 High 2015 Terminal & Package Units - Perimeter Radiators Renewal
$ 124,800 High 2015 Terminal & Package Units - Unit Ventilators Renewal
$ 15,600 High 2015 Standpipe Systems Renewal
$ 74,880 High 2015 Secondary - Distribution Panels Renewal
$ 74,880 High 2015 Main Switchboards - Disconnect and Distribution Renewal
$ 5,200 High 2015 Study - Cabling Raceways & Bus Ducts, Pre-1993
$ 374,400 High 2015 Branch Wiring - Pre-1993 Renewal
$ 15,600 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Exterior Lighting Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Lighting Equipment - Emergency Lighting - Battery-Backup
Renewal
$ 166,400 High 2015 Parking Lots - Asphalt Paved Renewal
$ 78,000 High 2015 Major Repair [Site Development - Unpaved Playing Fields]
$ 41,600 High 2015 Site Development - Fencing & Gates Renewal
$ 2,787,860
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
TVDSB Five Year Renewal Needs
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Davenport PS SIP ~ Page 10 of 16
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Davenport PS SIP ~ Page 11 of 16
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Davenport PS SIP ~ Page 12 of 16
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Land Use and Zoning
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Davenport PS SIP ~ Page 13 of 16
Demographics within the Davenport PS Attendance Area
Davenport PS is a grade 5 – 8 school in the town of Aylmer and also accommodates the 7 and 8 students from
the South Dorchester PS attendance area. The school accommodates students from Aylmer, the hamlet of South
Gore and rural students of Malahide Township. Grades JK - 4 students in these areas are accommodated at
McGregor PS which has an attendance area that mirrors Davenport PS.
Within the attendance area of Davenport PS, Statistics Canada indicates that from 2001 to 2011 the total
population has remained relatively stable. However, the population of elementary school aged children (4-13
year olds) has declined 16% from 2001 to 2006 and a further 7% from 2006 to 2011.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Demographic Data for Davenport PS
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
418 1200 652 5371 1026 2775 7641 2.8 0.43 0.23
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
424 1008 568 5579 903 2808 7579 2.7 0.36 0.20
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
438 941 554 5677 872 2943 7610 2.6 0.32 0.19
Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006, 2011 Census
2001 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2006 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2011 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Davenport PS SIP ~ Page 14 of 16
Growth and Development
The Malahide Township Official Plan indicates that the areas east and west of Aylmer are under consideration for
growth and community expansion. Within the attendance area of McGregor PS and Davenport PS there are a
total of 18 Single Family units and 30 High Density units currently circulated and under construction as indicated
in the map above. The current development is not expected to yield a significant amount of students.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Residential Development
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Davenport PS SIP ~ Page 15 of 16
YES
Were Community
Use of School
costs fully
recoverable?
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Were Before and After school
programs or services (e.g., child
care) avaiable at this school
Name of Child Care Provider
Revenue from the
Before and After
school programs
Were before and after
school programs cost fully
recoverable
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
YES 3 113 792.75$
Was the School building
used by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Building Use:
Y N N Y N Y
P Y Y N/A N/A
Air Conditioning Compartmenta-
lization
Dedicated
Washroom Space
Existing Community
Use
Existing
Collaboration
Suitable Vacant
Space Parking Barrier-Free
Accessibility Municipal Services Site Size Dedicated Access
to Space
Collaboration Suitability
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Community Use Profile
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
NO 0 0 -$
Were School Grounds used
by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Grounds Use:
APPENDIX B-1
2015-16 Davenport PS SIP ~ Page 16 of 16
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILE
McGREGOR PUBLIC SCHOOL
2015-16
ADDRESS:
204 JOHN STREET SOUTH, AYLMER, N5H 2C8
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 1 of 17
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Current Attendance Area
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 2 of 17
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Criteria McGregor PS Board Average
Size of the school site (acres) 8.15 7.26
Year original school was built 1950 1977
Building area (square feet) 46,801.48 44,701.66
Portable classrooms (2015-16) 0 2.86
Year addition(s) built
1968, 2013
Grade Configuration
JK-4
Criteria McGregor PS Board Average
On-The-Ground (OTG) Capacity (2015-16) 530 444
Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Enrolment: Official 2015 October 31 363.00 385.00
Utilization factor 68.49% 87.17%
Excess or Shortage (-) of Pupil Places 167.00 58.59
Number of Holding Zone students (if any) 0
Number of out of area students 5
General Profile
Distance (km) to 5 closest
TVDSB Elementary Schools
0.85 Davenport
4.19 Summers’ Corners
8.06 New Sarum
10.46 Springfield
11.58 South Dorchester
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 3 of 17
147
212
Number of Students who are
Eligible for Transportation
Number of Students who are
Not Eligible for Transportationn
Note
** Buses shared with Assumption
Catholic School (LDCSB), Davenport
and Summers' Corners PS and East
Elgin Secondary School
Distance - Length of bus ride McGregor PS Board
Shortest 5.00 min 1.00 min
Longest 39.00 min 71.00 min
Average 15.00 min 16.00 min
Percentage of Students
Transported to School
41%
Transportation - Proximity of Students
to existing school McGregor PS Board
Shortest 0.07km 0.01km
Longest 4.89km 67.08km
Average 0.96km 2.45km
Transportation Costs
Regular Home to School $91,944
Specialized $55,166
Total $147,110
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Number of Busses Required
5**
Transportation
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 4 of 17
*Information based on 2015 October 31
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 SE FTE
2011 58 66 54 62 67 60 0 0 0 0 7 374
2012 54 56 67 49 59 60 0 0 0 0 10 355
2013 56 58 51 67 45 56 0 0 0 0 7 340
2014 59 66 61 49 72 43 0 0 0 0 7 357
2015 52 65 62 54 52 74 0 0 0 0 4 363
2016 55 56 62 65 56 55 0 0 0 0 3 352
2017 56 59 54 60 67 56 0 0 0 0 3 355
2018 56 59 56 52 61 66 0 0 0 0 3 353
2019 56 59 56 54 54 60 0 0 0 0 3 342
2020 55 59 56 54 55 52 0 0 0 0 3 334
2021 55 58 56 54 55 54 0 0 0 0 3 335
2022 55 58 55 54 55 54 0 0 0 0 3 334
2023 55 58 55 53 55 54 0 0 0 0 3 333
2024 54 58 55 53 54 54 0 0 0 0 3 331
2025 54 57 55 53 54 53 0 0 0 0 3 329
STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-4 - McGregor PS Regular Track Enrolment
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
McGregor PS Enrolment
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 5 of 17
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
2015-16* Staffing Allocation (FTE) McGregor PS
Principal 1.00
Vice-Principals 0.00
Secretaries 1.00
Teachers at the School 22.09
Self-Contained Special Education
Teachers 1.19
Teacher-Librarians 0.56
English as a Second
Language (ESL) Teachers 0.50
Native as a Second
Language (NSL) Teachers 0.00
Learning Support Teachers (LST) 1.30
Early Childhood Educators (ECE) 4.00
Educational Assistants (EA) 5.00
Custodial 2.75
Total 39.39
Availability of Extra-Curricular Activities
Inter-School Sports?
NO
Intramural Sports?
YES
School Clubs?
YES
Programming and Course
Offering for 2015-2016
McGregor PS serves a population
of 363 students from kindergarten
to grade 4. There are 16 standard
classes and 1 specialized class.
JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 14 16 30
2 12 17 29
3 15 14 29
4 11 18 29
5 6 13 19
6 18 18
7 18 18
8 20 20
9 20 20
10 11 9 20
11 10 10 20
12 13 8 21
131 2 2 X 4
14 20 20
15 22 22
16 22 22
17 22 22
52 65 62 54 54 76 0 0 0 0 363
Spec.
Ed.
Class
Total
School Organization
Class
Number
Enrolment By Grade (Student Count)
Specialized Service offerings
at McGregor PS
There is one Developmental
Education class and one Parent &
Family Literacy Centre classroom
at McGregor PS
School Organization and Staffing
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 6 of 17
ft² ft²
Kindergarten Classroom 5 1,153 5,767 26 130
Standard Classroom 16 730 11,679 23 368
Art Room - - 23 -
Science Room - - 23 -
Music Vocal - - 23 -
Computer Lab 1 705 705 23 23
Technical / Vocational - - 23 -
Special Education Area 1 847 847 9 9
General Arts / Musical Instrumental - - -
Resource Room - Loaded (400-699 sf) - - 12 -
Seminar Rooms - Unloaded (<400 sf) 2 206 412 -
Gymnasium Area and Stage 1 3,071 3,071 -
Change Rooms - - -
Activity / General Purpose Room - - -
Learning Commons (formerly Library) 1 2,674 2,674 -
25,155 530 Total GFA and OTG of Instructional Area
OTGInstructional Space #Size Floor Area Load
ft² ft²
Main Office & Reception 467
Staff Room and Teacher Work Rooms 788
Servery 377
Custodial Areas 418
Meeting Room 189
Academic Storage 639
Washrooms 1,413
Gymnasium Storage 318
Chair Storage (in Gymnasium) -
Mechanical Spaces 987
5,596
30,751
52.19% 16,050
46,801
Total Square Feet 46,801
Gross Up Added
Operational Space Per Pupil Floor Area
Total Operational Area
Total Operational and Instructional
Gross Floor Area
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Calculated Area per Pupil by OTG Calculated Area per Pupil by Enrolment
88.30 128.93
Facilities Space Template
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 7 of 17
Barrier Free Accessibility Checklist
Item Y/N
Minimum number of pedestrian entrances required to be barrier free N
Designated parking space Y
Accessibility signs Y
Path of travel to the main entrance door Y
Designated entrances Y
Designated Wheelchair Spaces and Adaptable seating N/A
Assistive listening devices Y
Path of travel to all floors/elevations. Including stages.N
Surface finish of ramps and stairs N
Passenger Elevating Devices Y
Fire alarm system with strobe and audible signals N
Drinking Fountains Y
Universal washroom Y
No.Types
1 Soccer (1)
Wall mounted Basketball nets (4), Playground
equipment (3) and Sand boxes (4)
Playing fields Other site amenities
Designed Student
Drop off/Pick up Area
No. of Buses Yes/No Assessment Note Yes/No
5** Yes
Good. Room for
additional bays to be
installed
** Buses shared with Assumption
Catholic School (LDCSB), Davenport
and Summers' Corners PS and East
Elgin Secondary School
No
Designated School Bus Bays / Loading Zones
Standard BF Total Staff FTE Required Plus/ Minus % of Standard
41 1 42 39.39 49.39 -6.39 85.04%
Number of Existing
Parking Spaces
TVDSB
Parking Standard: Staff +10
44,619 sq. ft.
Green Space
Play Area
24,108 sq. ft.
Hard Surface
Play Area
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Facilities Profile
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 8 of 17
Project Description Total
Asbestos Report - O.Reg. 278/05 973$
Asbestos Repairs 2,459$
Replace Roof D1,D2,D3,E1,E2, F1,F2 310,778$
Roof Guards 14,623$
Provide Barrier Free Door Operator 5,156$
Replace Central HVAC and Condensers 268,777$
Designated Substance Report 173$
Replace Boilers 105,830$
Replace Roof A-1,A-2, B and C 55,544$
Regulation Performance - MOE C of A 1,839$
Roof Moisture Survey 4,086$
Replace Roof A-1,A-2, B and C 172,775$
Designated Substance Report Update 306$
Replace Electrical Service 102,883$
Fire Alarm 64,324$
Roof Scan 4,495$
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review 378$
Exterior Lighting upgrades 1,188$
CCTV Installation 3,222$
School Yard Greening 16,514$
McGregor PS Total 1,136,322$
10 Year Repair History
Financial Analysis of School*
Cost ($) Cost per Student ($) Board Average per
Student ($)
Cost of Administration 179,970.00 495.79 612.00
Cost of Facility Services 255,217.00 703.08 774.84
Cost of Information Technology 11,246.00 30.98 29.22
Total 446,433.00 1229.85 1,416.06
School Utility Costs**
Cost($) Cost per Sq. Ft.($) Board Average
per Sq. Ft. Cost per Student ($) Board Average
per Student ($)
54,967.42 1.17 1.55 151.42 214.40
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Facility Condition Index
28%
Provincial Average
37%
Board Average
50%
PAR Average
48%
McGregor PS
Replacement Value
of the School
$10,813,500
Financial Profile
* Board Average for Administration and Information Technology is based on the Elementary Panel
* Board Average for Facility Services is based on all schools operated by the Board
** Included in above Facility Services costs
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 9 of 17
Five Year Renewal Needs
Cost Priority Action Year
Year
Renewal Requirement
$ 615,160 Urgent 2016 Heating water distribution systems - Piping Systems Renewal
$ 10,400 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - D304003 Heating water distribution
systems - Piping Systems - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 208,000 Urgent 2015 Panels - Distribution Equipment Renewal
$ 11,465 High 2018 Exterior Walls - Original Building Renewal
$ 33,746 High 2018 Exterior Doors - Addition 1 Renewal
$ 99,008 High 2015 Wall Finishes - Original Building Renewal
$ 108,056 High 2015 Ceiling Finishes - Original Construction to Addition 1 Renewal
$ 35,464 High 2015 Ceiling Finishes - Original Construction to Addition 1 Renewal
$ 303,784 High 2015
Air Distribution, Heating & Cooling - Insufficient Ventilation
Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D304001 Air Distribution, Heating &
Cooling - Insufficient Ventilation
$ 124,800 High 2015 Plumbing Fixtures - Washroom Fixtures Renewal
$ 211,536 High 2015 Domestic Water Distribution - Piping System Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2020 Domestic Water Distribution -
Piping System - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 211,536 High 2015 Sanitary Waste Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2030 Sanitary Waste - Beyond Rated
Useful Life
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2040 Rain Water Drainage - Beyond
Rated Useful Life
$ 211,536 High 2016 Rain Water Drainage Renewal
$ 20,800 High 2015 Auxiliary Equipment - HVAC Pumps Renewal
$ 31,200 High 2015 Exhaust Systems Renewal
$ 567,112 High 2015 Fin Tube Radiation Renewal
$ 249,600 High 2015 Controls & Instrumentation Renewal
$ 19,344 High 2015 Playing Fields - Site Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2017
Study - Replacement - G30 - Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities -
Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 499,807 High 2019 Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities - Site Renewal
$ 3,624,354
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
TVDSB Five Year Renewal Needs
Project Description Total
Asbestos Repairs $
1,738
Library Renovation $
19,543
Window Replacement - Phase 2 $
393,085
Designated Substance Report $
173
Barrier Free Washroom Renovation $
31,015
Roof Moisture Survey $
4,086
1971 Steel Joist review $
5,540
Supply and install ceiling lift $
10,475
Anthes Joist Investigation $
8,485
Chimney Removal $
9,605
WIFI installation $
4,781
Roof Scan $
4,495
Replace VAT Flooring $
89,680
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review $
490
Replace Boilers and Pumps $
260,434
Exterior Lighting upgrades $
1,188
Davenport PS Total $
844,813
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 10 of 17
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 11 of 17
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 12 of 17
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 13 of 17
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Land Use and Zoning
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 14 of 17
Demographics within the McGregor PS Attendance Area
McGregor PS is a JK - 4 school located in the town of Aylmer. The school accommodates students from Aylmer,
the hamlet of South Gore and rural students of Malahide Township. Grade 5 to 8 students in these areas are
accommodated at Davenport PS which has an attendance area that mirrors McGregor PS.
Within the attendance area of McGregor PS, Statistics Canada indicates that from 2001 to 2011 the total
population has remained relatively stable. However, the population of elementary school aged children (4-13
year olds) has declined 16% from 2001 to 2006 and a further 7% from 2006 to 2011.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Demographic Data for McGregor PS
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
418 1200 652 5371 1026 2775 7641 2.8 0.43 0.23
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
424 1008 568 5579 903 2808 7579 2.7 0.36 0.20
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
438 941 554 5677 872 2943 7610 2.6 0.32 0.19
Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006, 2011 Census
2001 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2006 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2011 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 15 of 17
Growth and Development
Within the attendance area of McGregor PS and Davenport PS there are a total of 18 Single Family units and 30
High Density units currently circulated and under construction as indicated in the map above. The current
development is not expected to yield a significant amount of students. The Malahide Township Official Plan
indicates that the areas east and west of Aylmer are under consideration for growth and commu nity expansion
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Residential Development
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 16 of 17
YES
Were Community
Use of School
costs fully
recoverable?
YES YMCA of St.Thomas-Elgin $1,000.00 Yes
Were Before and After school
programs or services (e.g., child
care) avaiable at this school
Name of Child Care Provider
Revenue from the
Before and After
school programs
Were before and after
school programs cost fully
recoverable
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
*YES 23 3222 $ 1,490.23
Was the School building
used by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Building Use:
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
YES 6 1167 $ -
Were School Grounds used
by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Grounds Use:
Y N Y Y N Y
P Y Y N/A N/A
Air Conditioning Compartmenta-
lization
Dedicated
Washroom Space
Existing Community
Use
Existing
Collaboration
Suitable Vacant
Space Parking Barrier-Free
Accessibility Municipal Services Site Size Dedicated Access
to Space
Collaboration Suitability
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Community Use Profile
APPENDIX B-2
2015-16 McGregor PS SIP ~ Page 17 of 17
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILE
MITCHELL HEPBURN PUBLIC SCHOOL
2015-16
ADDRESS:
95 RAVEN AVENUE, ST. THOMAS, N5R 0C2
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 1 of 18
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Current Attendance Area
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 2 of 18
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Criteria Mitchell Hepburn PS Board Average
Size of the school site (acres) 5.139 7.26
Year original school was built 2008 1977
Building area (square feet) 59,407.53 44,701.66
Portable classrooms (2015-16) 5 2.86
Year addition(s) built
2014
Grade Configuration
JK-8
Criteria Mitchell
Hepburn PS Board Average
On-The-Ground (OTG) Capacity (2015-16) 678 444
Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Enrolment: Official 2015 October 31 753 385.00
Utilization factor 110.77% 87.17%
Excess or Shortage (-) of Pupil Places -73 58.59
Number of Holding Zone students (if any) 0
Number of out of area students 6
General Profile
Distance (km) to 5 closest
TVDSB Elementary Schools
1.76 Elgin Court
2.55 Forest Park
2.68 P.E. Trudeau FI
4.04 John Wise
4.70 J.R. Callwood
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 3 of 18
249
475
Number of Students who are
Eligible for Transportation
Number of Students who are
Not Eligible for Transportationn
Transportation - Length of bus ride Mitchell Hepburn PS Board
Shortest 4.00 min 1.00 min
Longest 21.00 min 71.00 min
Average 10.00 min 16.00 min
Percentage of Students
Transported to School
34%
Number of Buses Required
5
Distance - Proximity of Students to
existing school Mitchell Hepburn PS Board
Shortest 0.01 km 0.01 km
Longest 2.63 km 67.08 km
Average 0.93 km 2.45 km
Transportation Costs
Regular Home to School $113,398
Specialized $169.589
Total $282.984
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Transportation
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 4 of 18
*Information based on 2015 October 31
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8
SE FTE
2011 78 74 74 54 69 62 44 48 69 53 26 651
2012 79 73 73 76 58 73 67 48 47 74 25 693
2013 77 71 77 74 77 61 71 68 50 46 24 696
2014 66 77 73 82 75 80 61 68 63 53 25 723
2015 80 64 78 74 84 67 82 62 67 70 25 753
2016 55 78 65 83 74 89 70 81 66 71 23 755
2017 64 56 81 69 85 76 92 72 83 71 23 772
2018 66 64 57 84 71 86 78 94 74 89 23 786
2019 69 66 63 59 87 72 88 79 95 78 23 779
2020 69 67 63 65 60 87 73 88 80 100 23 775
2021 70 67 64 65 66 60 88 73 89 84 23 749
2022 70 67 64 66 66 66 61 88 74 93 23 738
2023 71 67 65 66 67 66 68 61 89 77 23 720
2024 71 68 65 67 67 67 68 68 62 93 23 719
2025 71 68 66 67 68 67 69 68 68 65 23 700
STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-8 - Mitchell Hepburn PS Regular Track and Special Education Enrolment
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Mitchell Hepburn PS Enrolment
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 5 of 18
JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 17 10 27
2 13 13 26
3 14 13 27
4 17 11 28
5 19 8 27
6 9 11 20
7 5 13 18
8 21 21
9 21 21
10 20 20
11 23 23
12 23 23
13 15 6 21
14 20 20
15 20 20
16 20 20
17 18 18
18 1 1 4 X 6
19 2 2 3 2 X 9
20 24 24
21 22 22
22 21 21
23 27 27
24 28 28
25 27 27
26 1 4 5 X 10
27 31 31
28 30 30
29 27 27
30 27 27
31 13 13 26
32 28 28
33 28 28
80 64 78 74 85 70 89 64 73 74 751
School Organization
Class
Number
Enrolment By Grade (Student Count)Spec.
Ed.
Class
Total
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
School Organization and Staffing
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 6 of 18
2015-16* Staffing Allocation (FTE) Mitchell
Hepburn PS
Principal 1.00
Vice-Principals 1.00
Secretaries 1.00
Teachers at the School 42.91
Self-Contained Special Education
Teachers 3.57
Teacher-Librarians 1.14
English as a Second
Language (ESL) Teachers 0.02
Native as a Second
Language (NSL) Teachers 0.00
Learning Support Teachers (LST) 2.50
Early Childhood Educators (ECE) 5.00
Educational Assistants (EA) 9.50
Custodial 4.00
Total 71.64
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Availability of Extra-Curricular Activities
Inter-School Sports?
YES
Intramural Sports?
YES
School Clubs?
YES
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Programming and Course
Offering for 2015-2016
Mitchell Hepburn PS serves a
population of 751 students from
kindergarten to grade 8. There are
30 standard classes and 3
specialized classes.
Specialized Service offerings
at Mitchell Hepburn PS
There is one Empower class and
three Developmental Education
classes at Mitchell Hepburn PS
School Organization and Staffing
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 7 of 18
ft² ft²
Main Office & Reception 770
Staff Room and Teacher Work Rooms 1,318
Servery 113
Custodial Areas 333
Meeting Room 122
Academic Storage 461
Washrooms 1,892
Gymnasium Storage 353
Chair Storage (in Gymnasium) -
Mechanical Spaces 1,609
6,973
43,280
37.26% 16,126
59,407
Total Square Feet 59,407
Gross Up Added
Operational Space Per Pupil Floor Area
Total Operational Area
Total Operational and Instructional
Gross Floor Area
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Calculated Area per Pupil by OTG Calculated Area per Pupil by Enrolment
87.62 78.89
Facilities Space Template
ft² ft²
Kindergarten Classroom 6 1,142 6,850 26 156
Standard Classroom 22 759 16,698 23 506
Art Room - - 23 -
Science Room - - 23 -
Music Vocal - - 23 -
Computer Lab - - 23 -
Technical / Vocational - - 23 -
Special Education Area 3 717 2,151 9 27
General Arts / Musical Instrumental 1 1,081 1,081 -
Resource Room - Loaded (400-699 sf) 1 407 407 12 12
Seminar Rooms - Unloaded (<400 sf) 1 195 195 -
Gymnasium Area and Stage 1 3,923 3,923 -
Change Rooms 2 317 634 -
Activity / General Purpose Room 1 1,345 1,345 -
Learning Commons (formerly Library) 1 3,024 3,024 -
36,308 701 Total GFA and OTG of Instructional Area
OTGInstructional Space #Size Floor Area Load
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 8 of 18
Barrier Free Accessibility Checklist
Item Y/N
Minimum number of pedestrian entrances required to be barrier free Y
Designated parking space Y
Accessibility signs Y
Path of travel to the main entrance door Y
Designated entrances Y
Designated Wheelchair Spaces and Adaptable seating N/A
Assistive listening devices Y
Path of travel to all floors/elevations. Including stages.Y
Surface finish of ramps and stairs Y
Passenger Elevating Devices Y
Fire alarm system with strobe and audible signals Y
Drinking Fountains Y
Universal washroom Y
Standard BF Total Staff FTE Required Plus/ Minus % of Standard
71 2 73 71.64 81.64 -6.64 89.42%
Number of Existing
Parking Spaces
TVDSB
Parking Standard: Staff +10
85,315 sq. ft
Green Space
Play Area
15,532 sq. ft.
Hard Surface
Play Area
No.Types
2 Basketball nets (2)
Soccer field (1) on adjacent city park.
Playground equipment (1) and FDK playyard.
Playing fields Other site amenities
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Designed Student
Drop off/Pick up Area
No. of Buses Yes/No Assessment Note Yes/No
5 Yes
Insufficient. Loading
staggered to
accommodate number
of buses.
No
Designated School Bus Bays / Loading Zones
Facility Profile
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 9 of 18
Project Description Total
Designated Substance Report 173$
Barrier Free Washroom Alteration 4,752$
Expand Parking Lot 107,189$
WIFI installation 3,551$
Exterior Lighting upgrades 1,188$
Mitchell Hepburn PS Total 116,852$
10 Year Repair History
Financial Analysis of School*
Cost ($) Cost per Student ($) Board Average per
Student ($)
Cost of Administration 348,417.00 462.71 612.00
Cost of Facility Services 371,446.00 493.28 774.84
Cost of Information Technology 11,246.00 14.93 29.22
Total 731,109.00 970.92 1,416.06
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
School Utility Costs**
Cost($) Cost per Sq. Ft.($) Board Average
per Sq. Ft. Cost per Student ($) Board Average
per Student ($)
87,104.38 1.47 1.55 115.68 214.40
Facility Condition Index
28%
Provincial Average
37%
Board Average
50%
PAR Average
1%
Mitchell Hepburn PS
Replacement Value
of the School
$13,467,307
Financial Profile
* Board Average for Administration and Information Technology is based on the Elementary Panel
* Board Average for Facility Services is based on all schools operated by the Board
** Included in above Facility Services costs
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 10 of 18
Five Year Renewal Needs
Cost Priority Action Year
Year
Renewal Requirement
$ 10,400 High 2015 Study - A1030 Slab on Grade
$ 10,400 High 2017 Exterior Doors - Steel Frames Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2016 Pedestrian Paving Renewal
$ 31,200
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
TVDSB Five Year Renewal Needs
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 11 of 18
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 12 of 18
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 13 of 18
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 14 of 18
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Land Use and Zoning
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 15 of 18
Demographics within the Mitchell Hepburn PS Attendance Area
Mitchell Hepburn PS is a JK - 8 school located in southeast St. Thomas. The facility was opened in 2008 to
accommodate students from the growing Orchard Park community. An addition was constructed on the school in
2014 to accommodate continued residential growth.
Statistics Canada indicates that from 2001 to 2006 the total population, within the Mitchell Hepburn attendance
area, has increased by 18%. Furthermore, from 2006 to 2011 the population increased another 26%. These
increases are significantly higher than the 5 % growth in total population experienced by St. Thomas as a whole
for the same time frame. (Lapointe Consulting, 2015, St. Thomas Housing, Population and Employment
Projections, p.8) . The population increase is mainly due to the residential development of single family homes
attracting young families. The population of elementary school aged children, (4 to 13 year olds) has increased
14% from 2001 to 2006 and another 29% from 2006 to 2011.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Demographic Data for Mitchell Hepburn PS
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
231 616 314 3234 619 1496 4394 2.9 0.41 0.21
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
284 704 398 3805 722 1858 5192 2.8 0.38 0.21
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
374 908 424 4822 908 2362 6527 2.8 0.38 0.18
Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006, 2011 Census
2001 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2006 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2011 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 16 of 18
Growth and Development
The residential growth in Southeast St. Thomas continues. Within the current attendance area of Mitchell
Hepburn PS, 127 residential units are currently being circulated or under construction. This current new
development could potentially yield 40 students as indicated on the map above. Due to the continued
development, on November 19, 2013 the Southeast St. Thomas Holding Zone was approved within the former
attendance area of Mitchell Hepburn PS. There are 308 single family and medium density residential units within
the Holding Zone currently circulated and under construction. The approximate 70 students projected from the
development will be accommodated at Port Stanley PS until permanent accommodation can be met.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Residential Development
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 17 of 18
YES
Were Community
Use of School
costs fully
recoverable?
YES YMCA of St.Thomas-Elgin $2,000 Yes
Were Before and After school
programs or services (e.g., child
care) avaiable at this school
Name of Child Care Provider
Revenue from the
Before and After
school programs
Were before and after
school programs cost fully
recoverable
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
*YES 35 4020 $ 1,843.85
Was the School building
used by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Building Use:
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
YES 4 615 $ -
Were School Grounds used
by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Grounds Use:
N N Y Y Y N
Y N N N/A City of St. Thomas
Air Conditioning Compartmenta-
lization
Dedicated
Washroom Space
Existing Community
Use
Existing
Collaboration
Suitable Vacant
Space Parking Barrier-Free
Accessibility Municipal Services Site Size Dedicated Access
to Space
Collaboration Suitability
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Community Use
APPENDIX B-3
2015-16 Mitchell Hepburn PS SIP ~ Page 18 of 18
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILE
NEW SARUM PUBLIC SCHOOL
2015-16
ADDRESS:
9473 BELMONT ROAD, RR3, ST. THOMAS N5P 3S7
APPENDIX B-4
2015-16 New Sarum PS SIP ~ Page 1 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Current Attendance Area
APPENDIX B-4
2015-16 New Sarum PS SIP ~ Page 2 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Criteria New Sarum PS Board Average
Size of the school site (acres) 12.35 7.26
Year original school was built 1969 1977
Building area (square feet) 32,595.27 44,701.66
Portable classrooms (2015-16) 2 2.86
Year addition(s) built
Not applicable
Grade Configuration
JK-8
Criteria New Sarum PS Board Average
On-The-Ground (OTG) Capacity (2015-16) 257 444
Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Enrolment: Official 2015 October 31 250.00 385.00
Utilization factor 97.28% 87.17%
Excess or Shortage (-) of Pupil Places 7.00 -58.59
Number of Holding Zone students (if any) 0
Number of out of area students 9
General Profile
Distance (km) to 5 closest
TVDSB Elementary Schools
7.98 Forest Park
8.13 Davenport
8.72 McGregor
8.93 J.R. Callwood
9.06 P.E. Trudeau FI
APPENDIX B-4
2015-16 New Sarum PS SIP ~ Page 3 of 16
216
3
Number of Students who are
Eligible for Transportation
Number of Students who are
Not Eligible for Transportation
Transportation – Length of bus ride New Sarum PS Board
Shortest 1.00 min 1.00 min
Longest 59.00 min 71.00 min
Average 19.00 min 16.00 min
Percentage of Students
Transported to School
99%
Number of Buses Required
6
Distance - Proximity of Students to
existing school New Sarum PS Board
Shortest 0.02 km 0.01 km
Longest 13.39 km 67.08 km
Average 5.24 km 2.45 km
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Transportation Costs
Regular Home to School $148,132
Specialized $105,225
Total $253,357
Transportation
APPENDIX B-4
2015-16 New Sarum PS SIP ~ Page 4 of 16
*Information based on 2015 October 31
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8
SE FTE
2011 30 17 24 20 31 24 39 34 30 30 16 295
2012 22 26 17 22 24 29 25 36 34 26 13 274
2013 30 27 21 15 19 25 24 25 36 36 15 273
2014 26 31 30 16 16 25 27 24 24 35 13 267
2015 23 25 30 25 19 18 25 27 27 24 7 250
2016 23 27 24 33 21 17 20 28 24 27 6 250
2017 22 24 27 24 33 22 19 22 28 24 6 251
2018 24 23 24 26 23 33 23 20 21 28 6 251
2019 24 25 23 23 26 24 35 24 19 21 6 250
2020 24 25 25 22 23 26 25 38 24 19 6 257
2021 24 25 25 24 22 23 28 26 37 24 6 264
2022 24 25 25 24 24 22 25 30 26 37 6 268
2023 25 25 25 24 24 24 24 26 29 26 6 258
2024 25 26 25 24 24 24 26 25 26 29 6 260
2025 25 26 26 24 24 24 26 27 25 26 6 259
STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-8 - New Sarum PS Regular Track and Special Education Enrolment
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
New Sarum PS Enrolment
APPENDIX B-4
2015-16 New Sarum PS SIP ~ Page 5 of 16
JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 12 13 25
2 11 12 23
3 11 8 19
4 19 19
5 17 17
6 19 19
7 18 18
8 25 25
9 27 27
10 3 4 X 7
11 27 27
12 24 24
23 25 30 25 19 18 25 27 30 28 250
Enrolment By Grade (Student Count)Spec.
Ed.
School Organization
Class
Total
Class
Number
2015-16* Staffing Allocation (FTE) New Sarum PS
Principal 1.00
Vice-Principals 0.50
Secretaries 1.00
Teachers at the School 16.16
Self-Contained Special Education
Teachers 1.19
Teacher-Librarians 0.38
English as a Second
Language (ESL) Teachers 0.30
Native as a Second
Language (NSL) Teachers 0.00
Learning Support Teachers (LST) 1.50
Early Childhood Educators (ECE) 2.00
Educational Assistants (EA) 6.00
Custodial 2.25
Total 32.283
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Availability of Extra-Curricular Activities
Inter-School Sports?
YES
Intramural Sports?
YES
School Clubs?
YES
Programming and Course
Offering for 2015-2016
New Sarum PS serves a population
of 250 students from kindergarten
to grade 8. There are 11 standard
classes and one specialized class.
Specialized Service offerings
at New Sarum PS
There is one Transitions/Mental
Health class at New Sarum PS
New Sarum PS Enrolment
APPENDIX B-4
2015-16 New Sarum PS SIP ~ Page 6 of 16
ft² ft²
Kindergarten Classroom 2 1,445 2,890 26 52
Standard Classroom 8 838 6,700 23 184
Art Room - - 23 -
Science Room - - 23 -
Music Vocal - - 23 -
Computer Lab Resource + Library - 23 -
Technical / Vocational - - 23 -
Special Education Area 1 828 828 9 9
General Arts / Musical Instrumental 1 828 828
Resource Room - Loaded (400-699 sf) 1 451 451 12 12
Seminar Rooms - Unloaded (<400 sf) 1 268 268 -
Gymnasium Area and Stage 1 3,546 3,546 -
Change Rooms 2 325 650 -
Activity / General Purpose Room - - -
Learning Commons (formerly Library) 1 1,238 1,238 -
17,399 257 Total GFA and OTG of Instructional Area
OTGInstructional Space #Size Floor Area Load
ft² ft²
Main Office & Reception 663
Staff Room and Teacher Work Rooms 746
Servery 145
Custodial Areas 556
Meeting Room 25
Academic Storage 677
Washrooms 1,512
Gymnasium Storage 483
Chair Storage (in Gymnasium) -
Mechanical Spaces 1,083
5,890
23,289
39.96% 9,306
32,595
Total Square Feet 32,595
Gross Up Added
Operational Space Per Pupil Floor Area
Total Operational Area
Total Operational and Instructional
Gross Floor Area
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Calculated Area per Pupil by OTG Calculated Area per Pupil by Enrolment
126.83 130.38
Facilities Space Template
APPENDIX B-4
2015-16 New Sarum PS SIP ~ Page 7 of 16
Barrier Free Accessibility Checklist
Item Y/N
Minimum number of pedestrian entrances required to be barrier free N
Designated parking space Y
Accessibility signs N
Path of travel to the main entrance door.N
Designated entrances N
Designated Wheelchair Spaces and Adaptable seating N/A
Assistive listening devices N
Path of travel to all floors/elevations. Including stages.N
Surface finish of ramps and stairs N
Passenger Elevating Devices N
Fire alarm system with strobe and audible signals N
Drinking Fountains N
Universal washroom N
Designed Student
Drop off/Pick up Area
No. of Buses Yes/No Assessment Note Yes/No
6 Yes
Good. Fire route
utilized.No
Designated School Bus Bays / Loading Zones
4,021 sq. ft.
Hard Surface
Play Area
35,5382 sq. ft.
Green Space
Play Area Standard BF Total Staff FTE Required Plus/ Minus % of Standard
51 0 51 32.28 42.28 8.72 120.62%
Number of Existing
Parking Spaces
TVDSB
Parking Standard: Staff +10
No.Types
7 Baseball backstopS (2), Soccer (3),
Basketball court (3)
Playground equipment (4) and FDK playyard,
sandboxes (2) and long jump pits (2).
Playing fields Other site amenities
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Facility Profile
APPENDIX B-4
2015-16 New Sarum PS SIP ~ Page 8 of 16
Project Description Total
Asbestos Report - O.Reg. 278/05 999$
Boys Change Room Renovation 16,582$
Replace Roof A,B 450,032$
Asbestos Abatement 1,216$
Supply and install barrier free ramp and curb cut.8,294$
Barrier Free Washroom Reno 49,218$
Roof Moisture Survey 3,810$
Masonry Repairs - Chimney and Pilasters 49,176$
HVAC unit removals 895$
Designated Substance Report 173$
Replace exterior doors.1,138$
Install Mitsubishi A/C for room 102 Phase 1 5,976$
Replace exterior doors.50,947$
Demolition of Annex Building 92,570$
Install Controls for Mitsubishi Split Rm 102 1,013$
Add receptacle to BF Washroom.303$
Boiler Vent Replacement 27,373$
Upper Gym Metal Siding over Masonry 11,232$
Replace VAT with VCT 33,608$
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review 378$
New Sarum PS Total 804,932$
10 Year Repair History
Financial Analysis of School*
Cost ($) Cost per Student ($) Board Average per
Student ($)
Cost of Administration 237,912.00 951.65 612.00
Cost of Facility Services 149,668.00 598.67 774.84
Cost of Information Technology 11,246.00 44.98 29.22
Total 398,826.00 1,595.30 1,416.06
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
48,917.74
Cost($) Cost per Sq. Ft.($) Board Average
per Sq. Ft. Cost per Student ($) Board Average
per Student ($)
48,917.74 1.50 1.55 195.67 214.40
Facility Condition Index
28%
Provincial Average
37%
Board Average
50%
PAR Average
75%
New Sarum PS
Replacement Value
of the School
$6,049,829
Financial Profile
* Board Average for Administration and Information Technology is based on the Elementary Panel
* Board Average for Facility Services is based on all schools operated by the Board
** Included in above Facility Services costs
APPENDIX B-4
2015-16 New Sarum PS SIP ~ Page 9 of 16
Five Year Renewal Needs
Cost Priority Action Year
Year
Renewal Requirement
$ 376,054 Urgent 2015 Hot Water Boilers Renewal
$ 149,760 Urgent 2015 Main Switchboards - Main Disconnect Renewal
$ 156,000 Urgent 2015 Fire Alarm Systems Renewal
$ 338,998 Urgent 2015 Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities Renewal
$ 10,400 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - G30 - Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities -
Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 50,544 High 2015 Major Repair [Exterior Walls - Original Building]
$ 140,400 High 2015 Exterior Windows - Original Building Renewal
$ 17,472 High 2015 Exterior Doors - Original Building Renewal
$ 124,800 High 2015 Partitions - Original Building - Moveable Partitiion Renewal
$ 29,952 High 2015 Interior Doors - Original Building Renewal
$ 35,880 High 2015 Classroom Sinks Renewal
$ 156,000 High 2015 Plumbing Fixtures - Washroom Fixtures Renewal
$ 186,451 High 2015 Domestic Water Distribution - Piping System Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2020 Domestic Water Distribution -
Piping System - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 12,480 High 2015 Domestic Water Distribution - Water Storage Tanks Renewal
$ 186,451 High 2015 Sanitary Waste Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2030 Sanitary Waste - Beyond Rated
Useful Life
$ 10,400 High 2015 Auxiliary Equipment - Stack & Breaching Renewal
$ 74,880 High 2015 Exhaust Systems Renewal
$ 224,640 High 2015 Air Handling Units Renewal
$ 54,912 High 2015 Fan Coil Units Renewal
$ 249,600 High 2015 Controls & Instrumentation Renewal
$ 23,920 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Exterior Lighting - Wall Mounted Renewal
$ 20,800 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Exit Lighting/Exit Signs Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D502001 Branch Wiring - Cabling,
Raceways & Bus Ducts - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 491,556 High 2015 Branch Wiring - Cabling, Raceways & Bus Ducts Renewal
$ 140,400 High 2015 Public Address Systems Renewal
$ 91,520 High 2015 Roadways - Site Renewal
$ 34,320 High 2017 Fencing & Gates Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - G40 - Aboveground Utilities - Beyond
Rated Useful Life
$ 33,904 High 2015 Aboveground Utilities Renewal
$ 3,464,094
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
TVDSB Five Year Renewal Needs
Project Description Total
Asbestos Repairs $
1,738
Library Renovation $
19,543
Window Replacement - Phase 2 $
393,085
Designated Substance Report $
173
Barrier Free Washroom Renovation $
31,015
Roof Moisture Survey $
4,086
1971 Steel Joist review $
5,540
Supply and install ceiling lift $
10,475
Anthes Joist Investigation $
8,485
Chimney Removal $
9,605
WIFI installation $
4,781
Roof Scan $
4,495
Replace VAT Flooring $
89,680
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review $
490
Replace Boilers and Pumps $
260,434
Exterior Lighting upgrades $
1,188
Davenport PS Total $
844,813
APPENDIX B-4
2015-16 New Sarum PS SIP ~ Page 10 of 16
APPENDIX B-4
2015-16 New Sarum PS SIP ~ Page 11 of 16
APPENDIX B-4
2015-16 New Sarum PS SIP ~ Page 12 of 16
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Land Use and Zoning
APPENDIX B-4
2015-16 New Sarum PS SIP ~ Page 13 of 16
Demographics within the New Sarum PS Attendance Area
New Sarum PS is a JK - 8 school within the community of New Sarum just east of St. Thomas. The school
accommodates students within the urban area of Eastwood, and the rural areas of New Sarum and Orwell within
the Municipality of Central Elgin. The school also accommodates students from the hamlet of Kingsmill Corner
within the Township of Malahide. Many rural students residing outside these communities also attend New
Sarum PS.
Within the attendance area of New Sarum PS, Statistics Canada indicates that from 2001 to 2006 the total
population increased by 13%. From 2006 to 2011 the population increased again by 3%. Although the total
population had increased the population of elementary school aged children (4 to 13 year olds) has decreased.
The decrease from 2001 to 2006 was by 4% and another 9% decrease from 2006 to 2011.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Demographic Data for New Sarum PS
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
150 490 207 2107 454 1036 2954 2.8 0.47 0.20
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
147 473 283 2427 448 1188 3330 2.8 0.40 0.24
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
158 432 245 2601 435 1263 3436 2.7 0.34 0.19
Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006, 2011 Census
2001 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2006 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2011 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
APPENDIX B-4
2015-16 New Sarum PS SIP ~ Page 14 of 16
Growth and Development
There is no significant residential growth within the attendance area of New Sarum PS. As well, the municipalities
have no current plans to service any of the rural communities within the attendance area of New Sarum PS.
Although the Eastwood subdivision is labelled as an Urban Settlement area in the Central Elgin Official, the area
is completely built out.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Residential Development
APPENDIX B-4
2015-16 New Sarum PS SIP ~ Page 15 of 16
YES
Were Community
Use of School
costs fully
recoverable?
YES YMCA of St.Thomas-Elgin $500.00 Yes
Were Before and After school
programs or services (e.g., child
care) avaiable at this school
Name of Child Care Provider
Revenue from the
Before and After
school programs
Were before and after
school programs cost fully
recoverable
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
YES 3 20 $ 142.80
Was the School building
used by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Building Use:
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
NO 0 0 $ -
Were School Grounds used
by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Grounds Use:
N Y N N Y Y
N Y N N/A N/A
Air Conditioning Compartmenta-
lization
Dedicated
Washroom Space
Existing
Community Use
Existing
Collaboration
Suitable Vacant
Space Parking Barrier-Free
Accessibility Municipal Services Site Size Dedicated Access
to Space
Collaboration Suitability
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Community Use Profile
APPENDIX B-4
2015-16 New Sarum PS SIP ~ Page 16 of 16
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILE
NORTHDALE CENTRAL PUBLIC SCHOOL
2015-16
ADDRESS:
3860 CATHERINE STREET, DORCHESTER, N0L 1G0
APPENDIX B-5
2015-16 Northdale Central PS SIP ~ Page 1 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Current Attendance Area
APPENDIX B-5
2015-16 Northdale Central PS SIP ~ Page 2 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Criteria Northdale Central PS Board Average
Size of the school site (acres) 9.46 7.26
Year original school was built 1959 1977
Building area (square feet) 32,657.70 44,701.66
Portable classrooms (2015-16) 0 2.86
Year addition(s) built
1962, 1965, 1968, 2001
Grade Configuration
4-8
Criteria Northdale Central
PS Board Average
On-The-Ground (OTG) Capacity (2015-16) 446 444
Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE): Enrolment Official 2015 October 31 411 385.00
Utilization factor 92.15% 87.17%
Excess or Shortage (-) of Pupil Places 35.00 58.59
Number of Holding Zone students (if any) 0
Number of out of area students 1
General Profile
Distance (km) to 5 closest
TVDSB Elementary Schools
2.13 River Heights
8.40 J.P. Robarts
8.72 Bonaventure Meadows
9.33 Tweedsmuir
9.67 Fairmont
APPENDIX B-5
2015-16 Northdale Central PS SIP ~ Page 3 of 16
371
14
Number of Students who are
Eligible for Transportation
Number of Students who are
Not Eligible for Transportation
Note
** Buses shared with St.David Catholic
School (LDCSB) and River Heights PS.
Transportation - Length of bus ride Northdale Central PS Board
Shortest 5.00 min 1.00 min
Longest 52.00 min 71.00 min
Average 18.00 min 16.00 min
Percentage of Students
Transported to School
96%
Number of Buses Required
18**
Distance Proximity of Students to
existing school Northdale Central PS Board
Shortest 0.45 km 0.01 km
Longest 19.02 km 67.08 km
Average 5.02 km 2.45 km
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Transportation Costs
Regular Home to School $340,193
Specialized $200,234
Total $540,427
Transportation
APPENDIX B-5
2015-16 Northdale Central PS SIP ~ Page 4 of 16
*Information based on 2015 October 31
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8
SE FTE
2011 0 0 0 0 0 83 80 86 89 82 24 444
2012 0 0 0 0 0 79 84 80 89 90 25 447
2013 0 0 0 0 0 82 77 85 83 90 25 442
2014 0 0 0 0 0 66 81 69 85 84 25 410
2015 0 0 0 0 0 76 66 85 71 89 25 412
2016 0 0 0 0 0 87 79 65 86 71 25 413
2017 0 0 0 0 0 75 87 80 66 87 25 420
2018 0 0 0 0 0 70 76 89 81 67 25 408
2019 0 0 0 0 0 63 70 77 90 82 25 407
2020 0 0 0 0 0 75 64 72 78 91 25 405
2021 0 0 0 0 0 66 76 66 74 80 25 387
2022 0 0 0 0 0 71 68 78 67 76 25 385
2023 0 0 0 0 0 72 72 69 80 69 25 387
2024 0 0 0 0 0 73 72 73 70 81 25 394
2025 0 0 0 0 0 74 74 73 74 72 25 392
STATUS QUO - GRADES 4-8 - Northdale Central PS Regular Track and Special Education Enrolment
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Northdale Central PS Enrolment
APPENDIX B-5
2015-16 Northdale Central PS SIP ~ Page 5 of 16
JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 28 28
2 28 28
3 20 5 25
4 5 24 29
5 13 12 X 25
6 28 28
7 27 27
8 30 30
9 31 31
10 24 24
11 23 23
12 24 24
13 30 30
14 29 29
15 30 30
0 0 0 0 0 76 78 97 71 89 411
Class
Number
Enrolment By Grade (Student Count)Spec.
Ed.
Class
Total
School Organization
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
2015-16* Staffing Allocation (FTE) Northdale
Central PS
Principal 1.00
Vice-Principals 0.50
Secretaries 1.00
Teachers at the School 19.96
Self-Contained Special Education
Teachers 1.19
Teacher-Librarians 0.61
English as a Second
Language (ESL) Teachers 0.00
Native as a Second
Language (NSL) Teachers 0.00
Learning Support Teachers (LST) 1.50
Early Childhood Educators (ECE) 0.00
Educational Assistants (EA) 2.00
Custodial 2.00
Total 29.76
Availability of Extra-Curricular Activities
Inter-School Sports?
YES
Intramural Sports?
YES
School Clubs?
YES
Specialized Service offerings
at Northdale Central PS
There is one system Gifted Class at
Northdale Central PS.
Programming and Course
Offering for 2015-2016
Northdale Central PS serves a
population of 411 students from
grade 4 to grade 8. There are 14
standard classes and 1 specialized
class.
School Organization and Staffing
APPENDIX B-5
2015-16 Northdale Central PS SIP ~ Page 6 of 16
ft² ft²
Main Office & Reception 500
Staff Room and Teacher Work Rooms 607
Servery -
Custodial Areas 302
Meeting Room -
Academic Storage 321
Washrooms 883
Gymnasium Storage 577
Chair Storage (in Gymnasium) -
Mechanical Spaces 486
3,676
24,849
31.42% 7,808
32,657
Total Square Feet 32,657
Gross Up Added
Operational Space Per Pupil Floor Area
Total Operational Area
Total Operational and Instructional
Gross Floor Area
ft² ft²
Kindergarten Classroom - - 26 -
Standard Classroom 19 810 15,388 23 437
Art Room - - 23 -
Science Room - - 23 -
Music Vocal - - 23 -
Computer Lab in Library - 23 -
Technical / Vocational - - 23 -
Special Education Area 1 810 810 9 9
General Arts / Musical Instrumental - - -
Resource Room - Loaded (400-699 sf) - - 12 -
Seminar Rooms - Unloaded (<400 sf) 2 294 588 -
Gymnasium Area and Stage 1 2,759 2,759 -
Change Rooms - - -
Activity / General Purpose Room - - -
Learning Commons (formerly Library) 1 1,628 1,628 -
21,173 446 Total GFA and OTG of Instructional Area
OTGInstructional Space #Size Floor Area Load
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Calculated Area per Pupil by OTG Calculated Area per Pupil by Enrolment
73.22 79.27
Facilities Space Template
APPENDIX B-5
2015-16 Northdale Central PS SIP ~ Page 7 of 16
Barrier Free Accessibility Checklist
Item Y/N
Minimum number of pedestrian entrances required to be barrier free N
Designated parking space Y
Accessibility signs Y
Path of travel to the main entrance door.Y
Designated entrances Y
Designated Wheelchair Spaces and Adaptable seating N/A
Assistive listening devices N
Path of travel to all floors/elevations. Including stages.N/A
Surface finish of ramps and stairs N/A
Passenger Elevating Devices N/A
Fire alarm system with strobe and audible signals N
Drinking Fountains Y
Universal washroom Y
Standard BF Total Staff FTE Required Plus/ Minus % of Standard
53 4 57 29.76 39.76 21.24 143.36%
Number of Existing
Parking Spaces
TVDSB
Parking Standard: Staff +10
No.Types
11
Soccer (3), Basketball courts (2),
Basketball nets (4), Baseball backstop
(2)
Wooden Pagoda seating area, Long Jump Pit,
playground equipment (2)
Playing fields Other site amenities
41,175 sq. ft.
Hard Surface
Play Area
30,6237 sq. ft.
Green Space
Play Area
Designed Student
Drop off/Pick up Area
No. of Buses Yes/No Assessment Note Yes/No
18** Yes
Insufficient. Loading
staggered to
accommodate number
of buses.
** Buses shared with St.David Catholic
School (LDCSB) and River Heights PS.No
Designated School Bus Bays / Loading Zones
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Facility Profile
APPENDIX B-5
2015-16 Northdale Central PS SIP ~ Page 8 of 16
Project Description Total
Asbestos Report - O.Reg. 278/05 799$
Divide Library and Comp. Lab 5,606$
Window Replacement - Phase 2 186,234$
Pave Damaged Areas and Additional Parking Area 34,348$
Moisture Survey 3,567$
Asbestos Abatement 696$
Replace Roof D2 302,820$
Designated Substance Report 173$
Repave Playground Asphalt 38,078$
Replace Water Service 22,242$
New Parking and Drop Off 259,382$
New Long Jump Runway and Pit/Playround Asphalt 20,036$
Renovations for Special Needs washroom.69,071$
Supply and Install New Sump Pump 47,433$
Roof Moisture Survey 4,495$
Replace Exterior Door 15,185$
Replace Heat Exchangers 25,158$
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review 490$
Northdale Central PS Total 1,035,813$
10 Year Repair History
Financial Analysis of School*
Cost ($) Cost per Student ($) Board Average per
Student ($)
Cost of Administration 237,912.00 577.46 612.00
Cost of Facility Services 201,012.00 487.89 774.84
Cost of Information Technology 11,246.00 27.30 29.22
Total 450,170 1,092.65 1,416.06
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
School Utility Costs**
Cost($) Cost per Sq. Ft.($) Board Average
per Sq. Ft. Cost per Student ($) Board Average
per Student ($)
53,908.60 1.65 1.55 130.85 214.40
Facility Condition Index
28%
Provincial Average
37%
Board Average
50%
PAR Average
32%
Northdale Central PS
Replacement Value
of the School
$9,320,076
Financial Profile
* Board Average for Administration and Information Technology is based on the Elementary Panel
* Board Average for Facility Services is based on all schools operated by the Board
** Included in above Facility Services costs
APPENDIX B-5
2015-16 Northdale Central PS SIP ~ Page 9 of 16
Five Year Renewal Needs
Cost Priority Action Year
Year
Renewal Requirement
$ 270,385 Urgent 2015 Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities Renewal
$ 10,600 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - G30 - Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities -
Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 254,400 Urgent 2015 Septic Tanks Renewal
$ 10,600 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - G302005 Septic Tanks - Beyond Rated
Useful Life
$ 17,808 High 2015 Major Repair
$ 11,024 High 2015 Major Repair
$ 10,600 High 2015 Major Repair [Partitions]
$ 84,800 High 2015 Interior Doors - Original Construction to Addition 3 Renewal
$ 25,440 High 2015
Interior Doors Hardware - Original Construction to Addition 3
Renewal
$ 114,480 High 2015 Wall Finishes - Original Construction to Addition 3 Renewal
$ 188,680 High 2015 Ceiling Finishes - Original Construction to Addition 3 Renewal
$ 127,200 High 2015 Plumbing Fixtures - Washroom Fixtures Renewal
$ 10,600 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2020 Domestic Water Distribution -
Piping System - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 10,600 High 2015 Domestic Water Distribution - Domestic Water Heaters Renewal
$ 148,718 High 2015 Domestic Water Distribution - Piping System Renewal
$ 10,600 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2030 Sanitary Waste - Beyond Rated
Useful Life
$ 148,718 High 2015 Sanitary Waste Renewal
$ 12,720 High 2015 Exhaust Systems Renewal
$ 305,280 High 2015 Air Handling Units Renewal
$ 111,544 High 2015 Fin Tube Radiation Renewal
$ 254,400 High 2015 Controls & Instrumentation Renewal
$ 24,380 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Exterior Lighting - Wall Mounted Renewal
$ 143,100 High 2015 Telecommunications Systems - Telephone System Renewal
$ 143,100 High 2015 Public Address Systems Renewal
$ 21,200 High 2015 Security Systems Renewal
$ 2,470,977
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
TVDSB Five Year Renewal Needs
Project Description Total
Asbestos Repairs $
1,738
Library Renovation $
19,543
Window Replacement - Phase 2 $
393,085
Designated Substance Report $
173
Barrier Free Washroom Renovation $
31,015
Roof Moisture Survey $
4,086
1971 Steel Joist review $
5,540
Supply and install ceiling lift $
10,475
Anthes Joist Investigation $
8,485
Chimney Removal $
9,605
WIFI installation $
4,781
Roof Scan $
4,495
Replace VAT Flooring $
89,680
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review $
490
Replace Boilers and Pumps $
260,434
Exterior Lighting upgrades $
1,188
Davenport PS Total $
844,813
APPENDIX B-5
2015-16 Northdale Central PS SIP ~ Page 10 of 16
APPENDIX B-5
2015-16 Northdale Central PS SIP ~ Page 11 of 16
APPENDIX B-5
2015-16 Northdale Central PS SIP ~ Page 12 of 16
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Land Use and Zoning
APPENDIX B-5
2015-16 Northdale Central PS SIP ~ Page 13 of 16
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
390 1485 760 6650 1280 3145 9285 3.0 0.47 0.24
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
450 1420 760 7130 1225 3375 9760 2.9 0.42 0.23
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
420 1270 805 7370 1050 3521 9865 2.8 0.36 0.23
Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006, 2011 Census
2001 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2006 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2011 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
Demographics within the Northdale Central PS Attendance Area
Northdale Central PS is a grade 4-8 school within the town of Dorchester. JK-3 students are accommodated at
River Heights PS. The attendance area for River Heights PS mirrors the attendance area of Northdale Central
PS. Both schools accommodate students from the Town of Dorchester and the areas of Avon, Crampton,
Harrietsville, Gladstone and Mossley within the Municipality of Thames Centre.
Statistics Canada indicates that from 2001 to 2006 the total population, within the attendance area of Northdale
Central PS, has increased by 5%. From 2006 to 2011 the population increased again by 1%. Although the total
population had increased the population of elementary school aged children (4 to 13 year olds) has decrease d
by 4% from 2001 to 2006 and from 2006 to 2011 a further 14% decrease.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Demographic Data for Northdale Central PS
APPENDIX B-5
2015-16 Northdale Central PS SIP ~ Page 14 of 16
Growth and Development
Within the attendance area of River Heights PS and Northdale Central PS there are a total of 433 units circulated
and under construction. Within the next 10 years approximately 65 students are projected to be generated from
these developments. The majority of the development within River Heights and Northdale Central Public Schools
attendance area is from a draft approved subdivision called The Boardwalk at Mill Pond (39T-TC1001). Although
the current status is draft approved, the development may be delayed due to servicing constraints. Therefore the
potential student yields from the subdivision are not expected in the near future or until service upgrades are
made.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Residential Development
APPENDIX B-5
2015-16 Northdale Central PS SIP ~ Page 15 of 16
YES
Were Community
Use of School
costs fully
recoverable?
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Were Before and After school
programs or services (e.g., child
care) avaiable at this school
Name of Child Care Provider
Revenue from the
Before and After
school programs
Were before and after
school programs cost fully
recoverable
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
YES 17 65 $ 146.00
Was the School building
used by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Building Use:
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
NO 0 0 $ -
Were School Grounds used
by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Grounds Use:
N N Y Y Y Y
P Y N N/A N/A
Air Conditioning Compartmenta-
lization
Dedicated
Washroom Space
Existing
Community Use
Existing
Collaboration
Suitable Vacant
Space Parking Barrier-Free
Accessibility Municipal Services Site Size Dedicated Access
to Space
Collaboration Suitability
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Community Use Profile
APPENDIX B-5
2015-16 Northdale Central PS SIP ~ Page 16 of 16
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILE
PORT STANLEY PUBLIC SCHOOL
2015-16
ADDRESS:
350 CARLOW ROAD, PORT STANLEY, N5L 1B6
APPENDIX B-6
2015-16 Port Stanley PS SIP ~ Page 1 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Current Attendance Area
APPENDIX B-6
2015-16 Port Stanley PS SIP ~ Page 2 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Criteria Port Stanley PS Board Average
Size of the school site (acres) 7.41 7.26
Year original school was built 1972 1977
Building area (square feet) 34,627.50 44,701.66
Portable classrooms (2015-16) 0 2.86
Year addition(s) built
Not Applicable
Grade Configuration
JK-8
Criteria Port Stanley PS Board Average
On-The-Ground (OTG) Capacity (2015-16) 317 444
Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE): Enrolment Official 2015 October 31 94.00 385.00
Utilization factor 29.65% 87.17%
Excess or Shortage (-) of Pupil Places 223 58.59
Number of Holding Zone students (if any) 0
Number of out of area student 0
General Profile
Distance (km) to 5 closest
TVDSB Elementary Schools
12.52 John Wise
12.89 Elgin Court
13.01 Sparta
13.21 M. Hepburn
13.57 P.E. Trudeau FI
APPENDIX B-6
2015-16 Port Stanley PS SIP ~ Page 3 of 16
98
1
Number of Students who are
Eligible for Transportation
Number of Students who are
Not Eligible for Transportation
Transportation - Length of bus ride Port Stanley PS Board
Shortest 4.00 min 1.00 min
Longest 22.00 min 71.00 min
Average 16.00 min 16.00 min
Percentage of Students
Transported to School
99%
Number of Buses Required
3
Distance - Proximity of Students to
existing school Port Stanley PS Board
Shortest 0.05 km 0.01 km
Longest 9.05 km 67.08 km
Average 2.00 km 2.45 km
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Transportation Costs
Regular Home to School $102,160
Specialized $4,597
Total $106,757
Transportation
APPENDIX B-6
2015-16 Port Stanley PS SIP ~ Page 4 of 16
*Information based on 2015 October 31
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Port Stanley PS Enrolment
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8
SE FTE
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 61 0 125
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 64 0 140
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 76 0 151
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 75 0 154
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 79 0 154
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 75 0 143
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 68 0 134
2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 66 0 125
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 59 0 119
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 60 0 119
2016-2025 - STATUS QUO - GRADES 7-8 - Port Stanley PS French Immersion Program
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8
SE FTE
2011 8 15 14 6 15 9 14 19 9 24 0 133
2012 13 8 11 12 5 12 8 12 15 11 0 107
2013 10 12 7 11 12 6 14 8 8 13 0 101
2014 11 7 11 6 10 8 4 12 7 8 0 84
2015 10 11 7 12 8 10 12 4 12 7 0 93
2016 14 9 10 6 11 11 12 12 5 12 0 102
2017 14 14 10 11 7 13 13 13 13 6 0 114
2018 17 16 15 12 14 10 15 15 15 15 0 144
2019 19 18 18 18 15 16 12 17 17 17 0 167
2020 22 20 19 19 20 16 18 14 18 18 0 184
2021 23 22 20 20 20 21 18 19 15 19 0 197
2022 23 22 21 20 21 21 22 18 19 15 0 202
2023 24 23 21 21 21 21 21 22 18 19 0 211
2024 24 23 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 18 0 212
2025 24 23 21 21 21 21 21 21 20 21 0 214
STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-8 - Port Stanley PS Existing Community
AND Southeast St. Thomas Holding Zone Regular Track Enrolment
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8
SE FTE
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 9 0 25
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 16 0 33
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 16 0 34
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 17 0 34
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 17 0 33
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 0 32
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 15 0 32
2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 16 0 34
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 17 0 35
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 17 0 35
2016-2025 - STATUS QUO - GRADES 7-8 - Port Stanley PS Extended French Immersion Program
APPENDIX B-6
2015-16 Port Stanley PS SIP ~ Page 5 of 16
JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 10 12 22
2 7 12 19
3 8 10 18
4 12 4 16
5 12 7 19
10 12 7 12 8 10 12 4 12 7 94
School Organization
Class
Number
Enrolment By Grade (Student Count)Spec.
Ed.
Class
Total
2015-16* Staffing Allocation (FTE) Port Stanley PS
Principal 1.00
Vice-Principals 0.00
Secretaries 1.00
Teachers at the School 6.57
Self-Contained Special Education
Teachers 0.00
Teacher-Librarians 0.12
English as a Second
Language (ESL) Teachers 0.00
Native as a Second
Language (NSL) Teachers 0.00
Learning Support Teachers (LST) 0.50
Early Childhood Educators (ECE) 1.00
Educational Assistants (EA) 0.50
Custodial 2.25
Total 12.94
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Availability of Extra-Curricular Activities
Inter-School Sports?
YES
Intramural Sports?
YES
School Clubs?
YES
Programming and Course
Offering for 2015-2016
Port Stanley PS serves a
population of 94 students from
kindergarten to grade 8. There are
5 standard classes.
Specialized Service offerings
at Port Stanley PS
There are no specialized service
offerings at Port Stanley PS
School Organization and Staffing
APPENDIX B-6
2015-16 Port Stanley PS SIP ~ Page 6 of 16
ft² ft²
Kindergarten Classroom 2 1,214 2,429 26 52
Standard Classroom 10 787 7,872 23 230
Art Room - - - 23 -
Science Room 1 869 869 23 23
Music Vocal - - - 23 -
Computer Lab - - - 23 -
Technical / Vocational - - - 23 -
Special Education Area - - - 9 -
General Arts / Musical Instrumental 1 986 986 -
Resource Room - Loaded (400-699 sf) 1 691 691 12 12
Seminar Rooms - Unloaded (<400 sf) 2 230 460 -
Gymnasium Area and Stage 1 3,782 3,782 -
Change Rooms 2 337 675 -
Activity / General Purpose Room - - - -
Learning Commons (formerly Library) 1 1,287 1,287 -
19,050 317 Total GFA and OTG of Instructional Area
OTGInstructional Space #Size Floor Area Load
ft²
Main Office & Reception 964
Staff Room and Teacher Work Rooms 949
Servery 215
Custodial Areas 449
Meeting Room 102
Academic Storage 706
Washrooms 1,119
Gymnasium Storage 314
Chair Storage (in Gymnasium) -
Mechanical Spaces 1,060
5,877
24,927
38.92% 9,700
34,627
Total Square Feet 34,627
Gross Up Added
Operational Space Floor Area
Total Operational Area
Total Operational and Instructional
Gross Floor Area
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Calculated Area per Pupil by OTG Calculated Area per Pupil by Enrolment
109.24 372.34
Facilities Space Template
APPENDIX B-6
2015-16 Port Stanley PS SIP ~ Page 7 of 16
13,824 sq. ft.
Hard Surface
Play Area
330,657 sq. ft.
Green Space
Play Area
No.Types
6
Basketball court (1), Basketball
nets(2), Soccer/Football (1), Baseball
backstop (2)
None
Playing fields Other site amenities
Standard BF Total Staff FTE Required Plus/ Minus % of Standard
30 0 30 12.94 22.94 7.06 130.78%
Number of Existing
Parking Spaces
TVDSB
Parking Standard: Staff +10
Designed Student
Drop off/Pick up Area
No. of Buses Yes/No Assessment Note Yes/No
3 Yes Good.No
Designated School Bus Bays / Loading Zones
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Barrier Free Accessibility Checklist
Item Y/N
Minimum number of pedestrian entrances required to be barrier free N
Designated parking space N
Accessibility signs N
Path of travel to the main entrance door.N
Designated entrances N
Designated Wheelchair Spaces and Adaptable seating N/A
Assistive listening devices N
Path of travel to all floors/elevations. Including stages.N
Surface finish of ramps and stairs N
Passenger Elevating Devices N
Fire alarm system with strobe and audible signals N
Drinking Fountains N
Universal washroom N
Facility Profile
APPENDIX B-6
2015-16 Port Stanley PS SIP ~ Page 8 of 16
Project Description Total
Asbestos Report - O.Reg. 278/05 846$
Asbestos Abatement 1,009$
replacement of urinal flushing 1,381$
Designated Substance Report 173$
Roof Moisture Survey 4,775$
Anthes Joist Review 14,073$
Roof Deck Repairs 7,670$
Replace Roof A, B 466,686$
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review 490$
Electrical Service Replacement 10,451$
Fire Alarm Replacement 10,451$
Replace existing windows and doors 285,982$
Exterior Lighting upgrades 1,188$
Port Stanley PS Total 805,174$
10 Year Repair History
Financial Analysis of School*
Cost ($) Cost per Student ($) Board Average per
Student ($)
Cost of Administration 179,970.00 1,935.16 612.00
Cost of Facility Services 144,901.00 1,558.08 774.84
Cost of Information Technology 11,246.00 120.92 29.22
Total 336,117.00 3,614.16 1,416.02
School Utility Costs**
Cost($) Cost per Sq. Ft.($) Board Average
per Sq. Ft. Cost per Student ($) Board Average
per Student ($)
43,934.50 1.27 1.55 472.42 214.40
Facility Condition Index
28%
Provincial Average
37%
Board Average
50%
PAR Average
78%
Port Stanley PS
Replacement Value
of the School
7,265,866
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Financial Profile
* Board Average for Administration and Information Technology is based on the Elementary Panel
* Board Average for Facility Services is based on all schools operated by the Board
** Included in above Facility Services costs
APPENDIX B-6
2015-16 Port Stanley PS SIP ~ Page 9 of 16
Five Year Renewal Needs
Cost Priority Action Year
Year
Renewal Requirement
$ 709,592 Urgent 2015 Roof Coverings - Original Building (Section A, B, C) Renewal
$ 208,000 Urgent 2015 Electrical Service and Distribution - Original Building Renewal
$ 364,000 Urgent 2015
Main Switchboards - Main Disconnect (600V to 220/120V)
Renewal
$ 156,000 Urgent 2015 Fire Alarm Systems Renewal
$ 374,558 Urgent 2018 Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities - Site Renewal
$ 10,400 Urgent 2017
Study - Replacement - G30 - Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities -
Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 119,080 High 2015 Ceiling Finishes - Original Building Renewal
$ 19,656 High 2015 Ceiling Finishes - Original Building Renewal
$ 124,800 High 2015 Plumbing Fixtures - Washroom Fixtures Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2020 Domestic Water Distribution -
Piping System - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 198,120 High 2016 Domestic Water Distribution - Piping System Renewal
$ 198,120 High 2016 Sanitary Waste - Original Building Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2030 Sanitary Waste - Beyond Rated
Useful Life
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2040 Rain Water Drainage - Beyond
Rated Useful Life
$ 198,120 High 2016 Rain Water Drainage - Original Building Renewal
$ 388,856 High 2015 Air Distribution, Heating & Cooling - Ductwork Renewal
$ 31,200 High 2015 Exhaust Systems - Original Building Renewal
$ 37,856 High 2015 Electric Heating - Space Heater Renewal
$ 522,184 High 2016 Branch Wiring - Cabling, Raceways & Bus Ducts Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D502001 Branch Wiring - Cabling,
Raceways & Bus Ducts - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 33,800 High 2015
Lighting Equipment - Emergency Lighting - Battery Back-ups
Renewal
$ 140,400 High 2015 Public Address Systems Renewal
$ 20,800 High 2015 Security Systems Renewal
$ 141,440 High 2015 Parking Lots - Site Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2017
Study - Replacement - G40 - Aboveground Utilities - Beyond
Rated Useful Life
$ 4,048,982
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
TVDSB Five Year Renewal Needs
Project Description Total
Asbestos Repairs $
1,738
Library Renovation $
19,543
Window Replacement - Phase 2 $
393,085
Designated Substance Report $
173
Barrier Free Washroom Renovation $
31,015
Roof Moisture Survey $
4,086
1971 Steel Joist review $
5,540
Supply and install ceiling lift $
10,475
Anthes Joist Investigation $
8,485
Chimney Removal $
9,605
WIFI installation $
4,781
Roof Scan $
4,495
Replace VAT Flooring $
89,680
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review $
490
Replace Boilers and Pumps $
260,434
Exterior Lighting upgrades $
1,188
Davenport PS Total $
844,813
APPENDIX B-6
2015-16 Port Stanley PS SIP ~ Page 10 of 16
APPENDIX B-6
2015-16 Port Stanley PS SIP ~ Page 11 of 16
APPENDIX B-6
2015-16 Port Stanley PS SIP ~ Page 12 of 16
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Land Use and Zoning
APPENDIX B-6
2015-16 Port Stanley PS SIP ~ Page 13 of 16
Demographics within the Port Stanley PS Attendance Area
Port Stanley PS is a JK - 8 school within the town of Port Stanley. The school accommodates students from Port
Stanley within the Municipality of Central Elgin as well as rural students within Southwold Township. On
November 19, 2013 the Southeast St. Thomas Holding Zone was approved within the former attendance area of
Mitchell Hepburn PS. Students from the Holding zone will be accommodated at Port Stanley until permanent
accommodation can be made. As well, on January 12th, 2016 the Board approved that grade 7 and 8 French
Immersion students and 7 and 8 extended French Immersion from Elgin County be accommodated at Port
Stanley PS for the interim to relieve pressure on Pierre Elliot Trudeau FI PS.
Within the attendance area of Port Stanley PS, Statistics Canada indicates that from 2001 to 2006 the total
population decreased by 2%. From 2006 to 2011 the population decreased again by 8%. More significantly, the
population of elementary school aged children (4 to 13 year olds) decreased by 7% from 2001 to 2006 and from
2006-2011 a further 35%.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Demographic Data for Port Stanley PS
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
81 302 176 2331 334 1207 2891 2.4 0.25 0.15
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
51 280 162 2337 284 1241 2830 2.3 0.23 0.13
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
52 183 142 2227 213 1185 2604 2.2 0.15 0.12
Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006, 2011 Census
2001 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2006 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2011 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
APPENDIX B-6
2015-16 Port Stanley PS SIP ~ Page 14 of 16
Growth and Development
The community of Port Stanley is fully serviced and is labelled in the Central Elgin Official Plan as an urban
settlement area. The village of Port Stanley has residential designated lands with potential for growth. Within the
attendance area of Port Stanley PS there are a total of 130 units circulated and under construction. Within the
next 10 years approximately 20 students are projected to be generated from these developments.
The Municipality is in the planning stages for a Harbor Front Secondary Plan. While there will likely be a
residential component, there are limited details at this time. The Southeast St. Thomas Holding Zone currently
has 308 single family and medium density residential units circulated and under construction. The approximate
70 students projected from the development will be accommodated at Port Stanley PS until permanent
accommodation can be met.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Residential Development
APPENDIX B-6
2015-16 Port Stanley PS SIP ~ Page 15 of 16
YES
Were Community
Use of School
costs fully
recoverable?
YES Milestone Children's Centre $500.00 Yes
Were Before and After school
programs or services (e.g., child
care) avaiable at this school
Name of Child Care Provider
Revenue from the
Before and After
school programs
Were before and after
school programs cost fully
recoverable
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
YES 1 93 $ 777.00
Was the School building
used by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Building Use:
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
NO 0 0 $ -
Were School Grounds used
by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Grounds Use:
NYNYYN
YNNN/APort Stanley
Arena Board
Air Conditioning Compartmenta-
lization
Dedicated
Washroom Space
Existing
Community Use
Existing
Collaboration
Suitable Vacant
Space Parking Barrier-Free
Accessibility Municipal Services Site Size Dedicated Access
to Space
Collaboration Suitability
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Community Use Profile
APPENDIX B-6
2015-16 Port Stanley PS SIP ~ Page 16 of 16
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILE
RIVER HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOL
2015-16
ADDRESS:
4269 HAMILTON ROAD, DORCHESTER, N0L 1G3
APPENDIX B-7
2015-16 River Heights PS SIP ~ Page 1 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Current Attendance Area
APPENDIX B-7
2015-16 River Heights PS SIP ~ Page 2 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Criteria River Heights PS Board Average
Size of the school site (acres) 7.37 7.26
Year original school was built 1958 1977
Building area (square feet) 36,458.44 44,701.66
Portable classrooms (2015-16) 0 2.86
Year addition(s) built
1965, 1969, 2011
Grade Configuration
JK-3
Criteria River Heights PS Board Average
On-The-Ground (OTG) Capacity (2015-16) 461 444
Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE): Enrolment Official 2015 October 31 353.00 385.00
Utilization factor 76.57% 87.17%
Excess or Shortage (-) of Pupil Places 108.00 58.59
Number of Holding Zone students (if any) 0
Number of out of area students 0
General Profile
Distance (km) to 5 closest
TVDSB Elementary Schools
2.13 Northdale Central
10.52 J.P. Robarts
10.84 Bonaventure Meadows
11.46 Tweedsmuir
11.8 Fairmont
APPENDIX B-7
2015-16 River Heights PS SIP ~ Page 3 of 16
266
90
Number of Students who are
Eligible for Transportation
Number of Students who are
Not Eligible for Transportation
Note
** Buses shared with St.David Catholic
School (LDCSB) and Northdale Central
PS.
Transportation - Length of bus ride River Heights PS Board
Shortest 1.00 min 1.00 min
Longest 58.00 min 71.00 min
Average 14.00 min 16.00 min
Percentage of Students
Transported to School
75%
Number of Buses Required
18**
Distance - Proximity of Students to
existing school River Heights PS Board
Shortest 0.05 km 0.01 km
Longest 16.93 km 67.08 km
Average 3.46 km 2.45 km
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Transportation Costs
Regular Home to School $192,061
Specialized $4,904
Total $196,965
General Profile
APPENDIX B-7
2015-16 River Heights PS SIP ~ Page 4 of 16
*Information based on 2015 October 31
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8
SE FTE
2011 77 77 70 73 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 375
2012 69 80 74 71 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 372
2013 63 79 81 83 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 379
2014 63 65 78 86 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 371
2015 67 60 68 74 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 354
2016 61 72 62 70 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 340
2017 64 63 74 63 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 334
2018 65 66 64 75 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 333
2019 66 66 67 65 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 338
2020 67 68 68 69 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 337
2021 68 70 71 70 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 348
2022 70 71 72 72 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 356
2023 71 72 73 73 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 362
2024 71 73 73 74 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 364
2025 72 73 74 74 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 367
STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-3 - River Heights PS Regular Track Enrolment
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
River Heights PS Enrolment
APPENDIX B-7
2015-16 River Heights PS SIP ~ Page 5 of 16
JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 13 12 25
2 14 12 26
3 11 14 25
4 15 11 26
5 14 11 25
6 20 20
7 20 20
8 20 20
9 8 12 20
10 22 22
11 20 20
12 20 20
13 20 20
14 21 21
15 22 22
16 23 22
TOTAL 67 60 68 74 86 0 0 0 0 0 354
School Organization
Class
Number
Enrolment By Grade (Student Count)Spec.
Ed.
Class
Total
2015-16* Staffing Allocation (FTE) River Heights PS
Principal 1.00
Vice-Principals 0.00
Secretaries 1.00
Teachers at the School 20.62
Self-Contained Special Education
Teachers 0.00
Teacher-Librarians 0.58
English as a Second
Language (ESL) Teachers 0.00
Native as a Second
Language (NSL) Teachers 0.00
Learning Support Teachers (LST) 1.00
Early Childhood Educators (ECE) 5.00
Educational Assistants (EA) 1.50
Custodial 2.25
Total 32.95
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Availability of Extra-Curricular Activities
Inter-School Sports?
YES
Intramural Sports?
YES
School Clubs?
YES
Specialized Service offerings
at River Heights PS
There are no specialized service
offerings at River Heights PS
Programming and Course
Offering for 2015-2016
River Heights PS serves a
population of 354 students from
kindergarten to grade 3. There are
16 standard classes.
School Organization and Staffing
APPENDIX B-7
2015-16 River Heights PS SIP ~ Page 6 of 16
ft² ft²
Main Office & Reception 843
Staff Room and Teacher Work Rooms 639
Servery 97
Custodial Areas 557
Meeting Room 134
Academic Storage 95
Washrooms 1,578
Gymnasium Storage 119
Chair Storage (in Gymnasium) -
Mechanical Spaces 419
4,481
27,661
31.80% 8,797
36,458
Total Square Feet 36,458
Gross Floor Area
Floor Area
Total Operational Area
Total Operational and Instructional
Gross Up Added
Operational Space Per Pupil
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Calculated Area per Pupil by OTG Calculated Area per Pupil by Enrolment
79.09 102.99
Facilities Space Template
ft² ft²
Kindergarten Classroom 8 1,141 9,129 26 208
Standard Classroom 11 799 8,788 23 253
Art Room - - 23 -
Science Room - - 23 -
Music Vocal - - 23 -
Computer Lab in Library - 23 -
Technical / Vocational - - 23 -
Special Education Area - - 9 -
General Arts / Musical Instrumental - - -
Resource Room - Loaded (400-699 sf) - - 12 -
Seminar Rooms - Unloaded (<400 sf) 5 247 1,235 -
Gymnasium Area and Stage 1 2,110 2,110 -
Change Rooms - - -
Activity / General Purpose Room - - -
Learning Commons (formerly Library) 1 1,918 1,918 -
23,181 461
OTGInstructional Space #Size Floor Area Load
Total GFA and OTG of Instructional Area
APPENDIX B-7
2015-16 River Heights PS SIP ~ Page 7 of 16
Barrier Free Accessibility Checklist
Item Y/N
Minimum number of pedestrian entrances required to be barrier free N
Designated parking space Y
Accessibility signs N
Path of travel to the main entrance door.Y
Designated entrances Y
Designated Wheelchair Spaces and Adaptable seating N/A
Assistive listening devices Y
Path of travel to all floors/elevations. Including stages.N
Surface finish of ramps and stairs N
No.Types
2 Baseball backstop (1), Soccer FIELD
(1)Playground equipment (2) and sand boxes (3)
Playing fields Other site amenities
Standard BF Total Staff FTE Required Plus/ Minus % of Standard
53 2 55 32.95 42.95 14.05 128.06%
Number of Existing
Parking Spaces
TVDSB
Parking Standard: Staff +10
17,389 sq. ft.
Hard Surface
Play Area
187,441 sq. ft.
Green Space
Play Area
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Designed Student
Drop off/Pick up Area
No. of Buses Yes/No Assessment Note Yes/No
18** Yes
Insufficient. Loading
staggered to
accommodate number
of buses.
** Buses shared with St.David Catholic
School (LDCSB) and Northdale Central
PS.
No
Designated School Bus Bays / Loading Zones
Facility Profile
APPENDIX B-7
2015-16 River Heights PS SIP ~ Page 8 of 16
Project Description Total
Replace Roof E,F, B(cut out)131,528$
Window Replacement - Phase 2 233,704$
Additional Asphalt and Catch Basin 14,829$
Replace Water Main 10,447$
Designated Substance Report 173$
Roof Scan 4,495$
Replace Roof A-1 and Partial Replacement Roof D 125,106$
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review 490$
Upper Masonry Brick Replacement 21,899$
River Heights PS Total 542,672$
10 Year Repair History
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Financial Analysis of School*
Cost ($) Cost per Student ($) Board Average per
Student ($)
Cost of Administration 179,970.00 508.39 612.00
Cost of Facility Services 210,272.00 593.99 774.84
Cost of Information Technology 11,246.00 31.77 29.22
Total 401,488.00 1,134.15 1,416.02
School Utility Costs**
Cost($) Cost per Sq. Ft.($) Board Average
per Sq. Ft. Cost per Student ($) Board Average
per Student ($)
43,989.99 1.21 1.55 124.27 214.40
Facility Condition Index
28%
Provincial Average
37%
Board Average
50%
PAR Average
40%
River Heights PS
Replacement Value
of the School
$9,764,983
Financial Profile
* Board Average for Administration and Information Technology is based on the Elementary Panel
* Board Average for Facility Services is based on all schools operated by the Board
** Included in above Facility Services costs
APPENDIX B-7
2015-16 River Heights PS SIP ~ Page 9 of 16
Five Year Renewal Needs
Cost Priority Action Year
Year
Renewal Requirement
$ 10,600 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - D304003 Heating water distribution
systems - Piping Systems - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 442,868 Urgent 2015 Heating Water Distribution Systems Renewal
$ 10,600 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - G30 - Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities -
Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 276,819 Urgent 2015 Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities - Site Renewal
$ 254,400 Urgent 2015 Septic Tanks Renewal
$ 10,600 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - G302005 Septic Tanks - Beyond Rated
Useful Life
$ 26,288 High 2015 Major Repair
$ 130,910 High 2014 Roof Coverings - Section A-1 Renewal
$ 129,850 High 2015 Wall Finishes - Original Building to Addition 2 Renewal
$ 250,160 High 2015 Ceiling Finishes - Original Building to - Addition 2 Renewal
$ 16,960 High 2015 Domestic Water Distribution - Domestic Water Heaters Renewal
$ 10,600 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2020 Domestic Water Distribution -
Piping System - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 152,269 High 2015
Domestic Water Distribution - Piping System - 1958-1969
Renewal
$ 10,600 High 2016 Auxiliary Equipment - Stack & Breaching Renewal
$ 437,303 High 2015
Air Distribution, Heating & Cooling - Insufficient Ventilation
Renewal
$ 10,600 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D304001 Air Distribution, Heating &
Cooling - Insufficient Ventilation
$ 133,560 High 2015 Exhaust Systems - 1958-1961 Renewal
$ 114,215 High 2015 Fin Tube Radiation - 1958-1969 Renewal
$ 254,400 High 2015 Controls & Instrumentation Renewal
$ 24,380 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Exterior Lighting - Wall Mounted Renewal
$ 104,357 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Interior Lighting Fixtures Renewal
$ 34,450 High 2015
Lighting Equipment - Emergency Lighting - Battery Back-ups
Renewal
$ 50,880 High 2015 Parking Lots Renewal
$ 44,520 High 2015 Playing Fields - Site Renewal
$ 10,600 High 2015 Site Development Renewal
$ 2,952,789
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
TVDSB Five-Year Renewal Needs
APPENDIX B-7
2015-16 River Heights PS SIP ~ Page 10 of 16
APPENDIX B-7
2015-16 River Heights PS SIP ~ Page 11 of 16
APPENDIX B-7
2015-16 River Heights PS SIP ~ Page 12 of 16
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Land Use and Zoning
APPENDIX B-7
2015-16 River Heights PS SIP ~ Page 13 of 16
Demographics within the River Heights Attendance Area
River Heights PS is a JK - 3 school located within the town of Dorchester. Grade 4 to 8 students are
accommodated at Northdale Central PS. The attendance area for River Heights PS mirrors the attendance area
of Northdale Central PS. Both schools accommodate students from the Town of Dorchester and the areas of
Avon, Crampton, Harrietsville, Gladstone and Mossley within the Municipality of Thames Centre.
Statistics Canada indicates that from 2001 to 2006 the total population within the attendance area of River
Heights PS, has increased by 5%. From 2006 to 2011 the population increased again by 1%. Although the total
population had increased the population of elementary school aged children (4 to 13 year olds) has decreased
by 4% from 2001 to 2006 and from 2006 to 2011 a further 14% decrease.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Demographic Data for River Heights PS
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
390 1485 760 6650 1280 3145 9285 3.0 0.47 0.24
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
450 1420 760 7130 1225 3375 9760 2.9 0.42 0.23
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
420 1270 805 7370 1050 3521 9865 2.8 0.36 0.23
Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006, 2011 Census
2001 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2006 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2011 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
APPENDIX B-7
2015-16 River Heights PS SIP ~ Page 14 of 16
Growth and Development
Within the attendance area of River Heights PS and Northdale Central PS there are a total of 433 units circulated
and under construction. Within the next 10 years approximately 65 students are projected to be generated from
these developments. The majority of the development within River Heights and Northdale Central PSs’
attendance area is from a draft approved subdivision called The Boardwalk at Mill Pond (39T-TC1001). Although
the current status is draft approved, the development may be delayed due to servicing constraints. Therefore the
potential student yields from the subdivision are not expected in the near future or until service upgrades are
made.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Residential Development
APPENDIX B-7
2015-16 River Heights PS SIP ~ Page 15 of 16
YES
Were Community
Use of School
costs fully
recoverable?
YES London Children's Connection $1,000.00 Yes
Were Before and After school
programs or services (e.g., child
care) avaiable at this school
Name of Child Care Provider
Revenue from the
Before and After
school programs
Were before and after
school programs cost fully
recoverable
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
*YES 8 206 $ 720.30
Was the School building
used by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Building Use:
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
NO 0 0 $ -
Were School Grounds used
by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Grounds Use:
Y Y Y Y Y Y
P Y N N/A N/A
Air Conditioning Compartmenta-
lization
Dedicated
Washroom Space
Existing
Community Use
Existing
Collaboration
Suitable Vacant
Space Parking Barrier-Free
Accessibility Municipal Services Site Size Dedicated Access
to Space
Collaboration Suitability
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Community Use Profile
APPENDIX B-7
2015-16 River Heights PS SIP ~ Page 16 of 16
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILE
SOUTH DORCHESTER PUBLIC SCHOOL
2015-16
ADDRESS:
48614 CROSSLEY HUNTER LINE, RR1, BELMONT N0L 1B0
APPENDIX B-8
2015-16 South Dorchester PS SIP ~ Page 1 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Current Attendance Area
APPENDIX B-8
2015-16 South Dorchester PS SIP ~ Page 2 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Criteria South
Dorchester PS Board Average
Size of the school site (acres) 9.88 7.26
Year original school was built 1966 1977
Building area (square feet) 16,511.84 44,701.66
Portable classrooms (2015-16) 3 2.86
Year addition(s) built
1969
Grade Configuration
JK-6
Criteria South
Dorchester PS Board Average
On-The-Ground (OTG) Capacity (2015-16) 190 444
Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE): Enrolment Official 2015 October 31 200.00 385.00
Utilization factor 105.26% 87.17%
Excess or Shortage (-) of Pupil Places -10.00 58.59
Number of Holding Zone students (if any) 0
Number of out of area students 2
General Profile
Distance (km) to 5 closest
TVDSB Elementary Schools
10.24 Springfield
11.58 McGregor
12.43 Davenport
13.83 New Sarum
15.41 Summers' Corners
APPENDIX B-8
2015-16 South Dorchester PS SIP ~ Page 3 of 16
202
0
Number of Students who are
Eligible for Transportation
Number of Students who are
Not Eligible for Transportation
Transportation - Length of bus ride South Dorchester PS Board
Shortest 1.00 min 1.00 min
Longest 33.00 min 71.00 min
Average 18.00 min 16.00 min
Number of Students
Transported to School
100%
Number of Buses Required
4
Distance - Proximity of Students to
existing school South Dorchester PS Board
Shortest 0.41 km 0.01 km
Longest 12.31 km 67.08 km
Average 8.79 km 2.45 km
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Transportation Costs
Regular Home to School $176,737
Specialized $0
Total $176,737
Transportation
APPENDIX B-8
2015-16 South Dorchester PS SIP ~ Page 4 of 16
*Information based on 2015 October 31
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8
SE FTE
2011 31 31 27 18 28 24 26 26 0 0 0 211
2012 19 33 25 27 19 27 24 27 0 0 0 201
2013 21 21 30 25 26 20 25 24 0 0 0 192
2014 25 22 22 30 25 26 18 23 0 0 0 191
2015 25 28 23 23 30 24 28 19 0 0 0 200
2016 25 25 30 24 23 32 19 27 0 0 0 205
2017 23 27 27 31 25 24 33 20 0 0 0 210
2018 25 25 29 27 32 25 24 33 0 0 0 220
2019 25 26 26 29 28 32 25 25 0 0 0 216
2020 26 27 27 26 30 28 32 26 0 0 0 222
2021 27 27 28 28 27 30 28 33 0 0 0 228
2022 27 28 28 28 28 27 30 29 0 0 0 225
2023 27 28 28 28 28 28 27 30 0 0 0 224
2024 27 28 28 29 28 28 28 27 0 0 0 223
2025 27 28 28 29 28 28 28 28 0 0 0 224
STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-6 - South Dorchester PS Regular Track Enrolment
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
South Dorchester PS Enrolment
APPENDIX B-8
2015-16 South Dorchester PS SIP ~ Page 5 of 16
JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 11 16 27
2 14 12 26
3 23 23
4 23 23
5 20 20
6 10 13 23
7 11 18 29
8 10 19 29
TOTAL 25 28 23 23 30 24 28 19 0 0 200
School Organization
Class
Number
Enrolment By Grade (Student Count)Spec.
Ed.
Class
Total
2015-16* Staffing Allocation (FTE) South
Dorchester PS
Principal 1.00
Vice-Principals 0.00
Secretaries 1.00
Teachers at the School 10.43
Self-Contained Special Education
Teachers 0.00
Teacher-Librarians 0.31
English as a Second
Language (ESL) Teachers 0.00
Native as a Second
Language (NSL) Teachers 0.00
Learning Support Teachers (LST) 0.60
Early Childhood Educators (ECE) 2.00
Educational Assistants (EA) 0.50
Custodial 1.50
Total 17.34
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Availability of Extra-Curricular Activities
Inter-School Sports?
YES
Intramural Sports?
YES
School Clubs?
YES
Specialized Service offerings
at South Dorchester PS
There are no specialized service
offerings at South Dorchester PS.
Programming and Course
Offering for 2015-2016
South Dorchester PS serves a
population of 200 students from
kindergarten to grade 6. There are
8 standard classes.
School Organization and Staffing
APPENDIX B-8
2015-16 South Dorchester PS SIP ~ Page 6 of 16
ft² ft²
Kindergarten Classroom 2 995 1,990 26 52
Standard Classroom 6 839 5,031 23 138
Art Room - - 23 -
Science Room - - 23 -
Music Vocal - - 23 -
Computer Lab - - 23 -
Technical / Vocational - - 23 -
Special Education Area - - 9 -
General Arts / Musical Instrumental - - -
Resource Room - Loaded (400-699 sf) - - 12 -
Seminar Rooms - Unloaded (<400 sf) 2 228 456 -
Gymnasium Area and Stage 1 2,172 2,172 -
Change Rooms - - -
Activity / General Purpose Room - - -
Learning Commons (formerly Library) 1 833 833 -
10,482 190 Total GFA and OTG of Instructional Area
OTGInstructional Space #Size Floor Area Load
ft² ft²
Main Office & Reception 261
Staff Room and Teacher Work Rooms 445
Servery 65
Custodial Areas 65
Meeting Room -
Academic Storage 188
Washrooms 669
Gymnasium Storage 50
Chair Storage (in Gymnasium) -
Mechanical Spaces 280
2,023
12,505
32.03% 4,006
16,511
Total Square Feet 16,511
Gross Up Added
Operational Space Per Pupil Floor Area
Total Operational Area
Total Operational and Instructional
Gross Floor Area
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Calculated Area per Pupil by OTG Calculated Area per Pupil by Enrolment
86.90 82.56
Facilities Space Template
APPENDIX B-8
2015-16 South Dorchester PS SIP ~ Page 7 of 16
Barrier Free Accessibility Checklist
Item Y/N
Minimum number of pedestrian entrances required to be barrier free N
Designated parking space Y
Accessibility signs N
Path of travel to the main entrance door.N
Designated entrances N
Designated Wheelchair Spaces and Adaptable seating N/A
Assistive listening devices N
Path of travel to all floors/elevations. Including stages.N
Surface finish of ramps and stairs N
Passenger Elevating Devices N
Fire alarm system with strobe and audible signals N
Drinking Fountains N
Universal washroom N
Standard BF Total Staff FTE Required Plus/ Minus % of Standard
27 2 29 17.34 27.34 3.66 106.07%
Number of Existing
Parking Spaces
TVDSB
Parking Standard: Staff +10
No.Types
5 Baseball backstop (1), Soccer (3),
Basketball court (1)Outdoor Classroom/ greening project
Playing fields Other site amenities 16,601 sq. ft.
Hard Surface
Play Area
273,034 sq. ft.
Green Space
Play Area
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Designed Student
Drop off/Pick up Area
No. of Buses Yes/No Assessment Note Yes/No
4 Yes
Good. Fire route
utilized.No
Designated School Bus Bays / Loading Zones
Facility Profile
APPENDIX B-8
2015-16 South Dorchester PS SIP ~ Page 8 of 16
Project Description Total
Asbestos Report - O.Reg. 278/05 404$
Asbestos Abatement 1,232$
Roof Moisture Survey 3,810$
Designated Substance Report 173$
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review 490$
South Dorchester PS Total 6,109$
10 Year Repair History
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Financial Analysis of School*
Cost ($) Cost per Student ($) Board Average per
Student ($)
Cost of Administration 179,970.00 899.85 612.00
Cost of Facility Services 106,127.00 530.64 774.84
Cost of Information Technology 11,246.00 56.23 29.22
Total 297,343.00 1,486.72 1,416.02
School Utility Costs**
Cost($) Cost per Sq. Ft.($) Board Average
per Sq. Ft. Cost per Student ($) Board Average
per Student ($)
26,522.15 1.61 1.55 132.61 214.40
Facility Condition Index
28%
Provincial Average
37%
Board Average
50%
PAR Average
112%
South Dorchester PS
Replacement Value
of the School
$5,266,168
Financial Profile
* Board Average for Administration and Information Technology is based on the Elementary Panel
* Board Average for Facility Services is based on all schools operated by the Board
** Included in above Facility Services costs
APPENDIX B-8
2015-16 South Dorchester PS SIP ~ Page 9 of 16
Five Year Renewal Needs
Cost Priority Action Year
Year
Renewal Requirement
$ 78,926 Urgent 2015 Hot Water Boilers Renewal
$ 2,439,050 Urgent 2015 Heating water distribution systems - Piping Systems Renewal
$ 10,400 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - D304003 Heating water distribution
systems - Piping Systems - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 208,000 Urgent 2015 Main Switchboards - Main Distribution Panel Renewal
$ 149,760 Urgent 2015 Main Switchboards - Main Disconnect Renewal
$ 156,000 Urgent 2015 Fire Alarm Systems Renewal
$ 171,725 Urgent 2015 Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities Renewal
$ 10,400 Urgent 2015 Study - G30 - Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities
$ 83,200 Urgent 2015 Well Systems - Drilled Wells Renewal
$ 10,400 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - G301001 Well Systems - Drilled Wells -
Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 12,480 High 2017 Major Repair
$ 16,640 High 2015 Major Repair
$ 10,816 High 2015 Exterior Windows - Addition 1 Renewal
$ 54,080 High 2015 Exterior Doors - Original Construction to Addition 1 Renewal
$ 13,728 High 2015
Exterior Door Hardware - Original Construction to Addition 1
Renewal
$ 266,240 High 2017 Roof Coverings - Section A, Part B (Original Building) Renewal
$ 59,280 High 2017 Roof Coverings - Section Part B (Addition 1) Renewal
$ 58,240 High 2015 Interior Doors - Original Construction to Addition 1 Renewal
$ 17,472 High 2015
Interior Door Hardware - Original Construction to Addition 1
Renewal
$ 78,000 High 2015 Plumbing Fixtures - Washroom Fixtures Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2020 Domestic Water Distribution -
Piping System - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 10,400 High 2015 Domestic Water Distribution - Domestic Water Heaters Renewal
$ 94,484 High 2015 Domestic Water Distribution - Piping System Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015 Auxiliary Equipment - Stack & Breaching Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D304001 Air Distribution, Heating &
Cooling - Insufficient Ventilation
$ 271,326 High 2015
Air Distribution, Heating & Cooling - Insufficient Ventilation
Renewal
$ 81,120 High 2015 Exhaust Systems Renewal
$ 70,845 High 2015 Fin Tube Radiation Renewal
$ 249,600 High 2015 Controls & Instrumentation Renewal
$ 249,007 High 2015 Branch Wiring - Cabling, Raceways & Bus Ducts Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D502001 Branch Wiring - Cabling,
Raceways & Bus Ducts - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 23,920 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Exterior Lighting - Wall Mounted Renewal
$ 20,800 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Exit Lighting/Exit Signs Renewal
$ 140,400 High 2015 Telecommunications Systems - Telephone System Renewal
$ 140,400 High 2015 Public Address Systems Renewal
$ 20,800 High 2015 Security Systems Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015 Branch Wiring - Inadequate GFCI Protection Renewal
$ 17,056 High 2015 Pedestrian Paving Renewal
$ 5,346,994
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
TVDSB Five Year Renewal Needs
Project Description Total
Asbestos Repairs $
1,738
Library Renovation $
19,543
Window Replacement - Phase 2 $
393,085
Designated Substance Report $
173
Barrier Free Washroom Renovation $
31,015
Roof Moisture Survey $
4,086
1971 Steel Joist review $
5,540
Supply and install ceiling lift $
10,475
Anthes Joist Investigation $
8,485
Chimney Removal $
9,605
WIFI installation $
4,781
Roof Scan $
4,495
Replace VAT Flooring $
89,680
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review $
490
Replace Boilers and Pumps $
260,434
Exterior Lighting upgrades $
1,188
Davenport PS Total $
844,813
APPENDIX B-8
2015-16 South Dorchester PS SIP ~ Page 10 of 16
APPENDIX B-8
2015-16 South Dorchester PS SIP ~ Page 11 of 16
APPENDIX B-8
2015-16 South Dorchester PS SIP ~ Page 12 of 16
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Land Use and Zoning
APPENDIX B-8
2015-16 South Dorchester PS SIP ~ Page 13 of 16
Demographics within the South Dorchester PS Attendance Area
South Dorchester PS is a JK - 6 school with grade 7 and 8 students accommodated at Davenport PS in the Town
of Aylmer. The school accommodates students from the Village of Belmont, Lyons and Kingsmill Corners and
rural students within Central Elgin and Malahide Township.
From 2001 to 2006 the total population within the South Dorchester PS attendance area has decreased by 11%.
From 2006 to 2011 the population decreased again by 2%. The population of elementary school aged children (4
to 13 year olds) decreased by 3% from 2001 to 2006 and from 2006 to 2011 a significant decrease of 29%.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Demographic Data for South Dorchester PS
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
134 443 233 1920 441 912 2730 3.0 0.49 0.25
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
119 429 239 1964 378 943 2751 2.9 0.46 0.25
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
117 347 232 1965 324 958 2662 2.8 0.36 0.24
Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006, 2011 Census
2001 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2006 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2011 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
APPENDIX B-8
2015-16 South Dorchester PS SIP ~ Page 14 of 16
Growth and Development
Although the overall population within the South Dorchester PS attendance area has experienced a decline, the
Village of Belmont will continue to grow and it is labelled in the Official Plan for Central Elgin as an urban
settlement area. The community is serviced with municipal piped water and sanitary sewer disposal systems.
The Village of Belmont has residential designated lands with potential for growth. Within the attendance area of
South Dorchester PS there are a total of 145 single family and condominium units circulated and under
construction as indicated on the map above. Within the next 10 years approximately 30 students are projected to
be generated from these developments.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Residential Development
APPENDIX B-8
2015-16 South Dorchester PS SIP ~ Page 15 of 16
YES
Were Community
Use of School
costs fully
recoverable?
NO YMCA St. Thomas-Elgin N/A N/A
Were Before and After school
programs or services (e.g., child
care) avaiable at this school
Name of Child Care Provider
Revenue from the
Before and After
school programs
Were before and after
school programs cost fully
recoverable
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
YES 1 31 $ 140.75
Was the School building
used by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Building Use:
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
NO 0 0 $ -
Were School Grounds used
by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Grounds Use:
N Y N N Y Y
N Y N N/A N/A
Air Conditioning Compartmenta-
lization
Dedicated
Washroom Space
Existing
Community Use
Existing
Collaboration
Suitable Vacant
Space Parking Barrier-Free
Accessibility Municipal Services Site Size Dedicated Access
to Space
Collaboration Suitability
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Community Use Profile
APPENDIX B-8
2015-16 South Dorchester PS SIP ~ Page 16 of 16
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILE
SPARTA PUBLIC SCHOOL
2015-16
ADDRESS:
45885 SPARTA LINE, RR4, ST. THOMAS, N5P 3S8
APPENDIX B-9
2015-16 Sparta PS SIP ~ Page 1 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Current Attendance Area
APPENDIX B-9
2015-16 Sparta PS SIP ~ Page 2 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Criteria Sparta PS Board Average
Size of the school site (acres) 4.94 7.26
Year original school was built 1967 1977
Building area (square feet) 26,974.36 44,701.66
Portable classrooms (2015-16) 0 2.86
Year addition(s) built
1974
Grade Configuration
JK-8
Criteria Sparta PS Board Average
On-The-Ground (OTG) Capacity (2015-16) 305 444
Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Enrolment: Official 2015 October 31 242.00 385.00
Utilization factor 79.34% 87.17%
Excess or Shortage (-) of Pupil Places 63.00 58.59
Number of Holding Zone students (if any) 0
Number of out of area students 0
General Profile
Distance (km) to 5 closest
TVDSB Elementary Schools
10.85 New Sarum
11.99 Mitchell. Hepburn
13.02 Port Stanley
14.13 Forest Park
14.21 P.E. Trudeau FI
APPENDIX B-9
2015-16 Sparta PS SIP ~ Page 3 of 16
248
0
Number of Students who are
Eligible for Transportation
Number of Students who are
Not Eligible for Transportation
Transportation Length of bus ride Sparta PS Board
Shortest 1.00 min 1.00 min
Longest 43.00 min 71.00 min
Average 17.00 min 16.00 min
Percentage of Students
Transported to School
100%
Number of Buses Required
6
Distance - Proximity of Students to
existing school Sparta PS Board
Shortest 0.48 km 0.01 km
Longest 13.52 km 67.08 km
Average 6.92 km 2.45 km
Transportation Costs
Regular Home to School $162,434
Specialized $48,015
Total $210,449
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
General Profile
APPENDIX B-9
2015-16 Sparta PS SIP ~ Page 4 of 16
*Information based on 2015 October 31
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 SE FTE
2011 25 26 23 27 29 30 31 31 31 38 0 291
2012 22 21 28 24 27 29 31 27 31 35 0 275
2013 21 22 21 31 25 26 26 26 24 31 0 253
2014 20 21 21 24 31 25 24 24 24 25 0 239
2015 19 21 24 23 27 33 26 24 22 23 0 242
2016 19 21 22 24 26 27 33 23 24 22 0 241
2017 20 19 22 24 25 27 27 32 21 24 0 241
2018 22 20 20 24 25 25 26 26 29 21 0 238
2019 22 22 21 21 24 25 25 25 23 29 0 237
2020 22 22 23 23 22 24 25 24 23 23 0 231
2021 22 22 23 25 23 22 24 23 21 23 0 228
2022 22 22 23 25 25 23 22 23 21 21 0 227
2023 22 22 22 25 25 26 23 21 21 21 0 228
2024 21 22 22 24 25 26 25 22 19 21 0 227
2025 21 21 22 24 25 25 25 24 20 19 0 226
STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-8 - Sparta PS Regular Track Enrolment
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Sparta PS Enrolment
APPENDIX B-9
2015-16 Sparta PS SIP ~ Page 5 of 16
JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 10 11 21
2 9 10 19
3 13 10 23
4 11 8 19
5 5 15 20
6 12 9 21
7 24 6 30
8 20 10 30
9 14 15 29
10 7 23 30
TOTAL 19 21 24 23 27 33 26 24 22 23 242
Class
Number
Enrolment By Grade (Student Count)Spec.
Ed.
Class
Total
School Organization
2015-16* Staffing Allocation (FTE) Sparta PS
Principal 1.00
Vice-Principals 0.00
Secretaries 1.00
Teachers at the School 13.08
Self-Contained Special Education
Teachers 0.00
Teacher-Librarians 0.38
English as a Second
Language (ESL) Teachers 0.10
Native as a Second
Language (NSL) Teachers 0.00
Learning Support Teachers (LST) 0.80
Early Childhood Educators (ECE) 2.00
Educational Assistants (EA) 3.50
Custodial 1.75
Total 23.61
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Availability of Extra-Curricular Activities
Inter-School Sports?
YES
Intramural Sports?
YES
School Clubs?
YES
Programming and Course
Offering for 2015-2016
Sparta PS serves a population of
242 students from kindergarten to
grade 8. There are 10 standard
classes.
Specialized Service offerings
at Sparta PS
There are no specialized service
offerings at Sparta PS.
School Organization and Staffing
APPENDIX B-9
2015-16 Sparta PS SIP ~ Page 6 of 16
ft² ft²
Kindergarten Classroom 2 1,016 2,031 26 52
Standard Classroom 11 831 9,144 23 253
Art Room - - 23 -
Science Room - - 23 -
Music Vocal - - 23 -
Computer Lab in Library - 23 -
Technical / Vocational - - 23 -
Special Education Area - - 9 -
General Arts / Musical Instrumental 1 828 828 -
Resource Room - Loaded (400-699 sf) - - 12 -
Seminar Rooms - Unloaded (<400 sf) - -
Gymnasium Area and Stage 1 2,534 2,534 -
Change Rooms 2 183 367 -
Activity / General Purpose Room - - -
Learning Commons (formerly Library) 1 1,378 1,378 -
16,281 305 Total GFA and OTG of Instructional Area
OTGInstructional Space #Size Floor Area Load
ft² ft²
Main Office & Reception 276
Staff Room and Teacher Work Rooms 394
Servery 81
Custodial Areas 435
Meeting Room -
Academic Storage 105
Washrooms 1,213
Gymnasium Storage 184
Chair Storage (in Gymnasium) -
Mechanical Spaces 473
3,161
19,442
38.74% 7,532
26,974
Total Square Feet 26,974
Gross Up Added
Operational Space Per Pupil Floor Area
Total Operational Area
Total Operational and Instructional
Gross Floor Area
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Calculated Area per Pupil by OTG Calculated Area per Pupil by Enrolment
88.44 111.46
Facilities Space Template
APPENDIX B-9
2015-16 Sparta PS SIP ~ Page 7 of 16
Barrier Free Accessibility Checklist
Item Y/N
Minimum number of pedestrian entrances required to be barrier free N
Designated parking space Y
Accessibility signs Y
Path of travel to the main entrance door.N
Designated entrances Y
Designated Wheelchair Spaces and Adaptable seating N/A
Assistive listening devices N
Path of travel to all floors/elevations. Including stages.N
Surface finish of ramps and stairs N/A
Passenger Elevating Devices N
Fire alarm system with strobe and audible signals Y
Drinking Fountains N
Universal washroom Y
Designed Student
Drop off/Pick up Area
No. of Buses Yes/No Assessment Note Yes/No
6 Yes
Good. Fire route
utilized.No
Designated School Bus Bays / Loading Zones
23,639 sq. ft
Hard Surface
Play Area
223,528 sq. ft.
Green Space
Play Area
No.Types
8 Basketball courts (3),Soccer fields (3)
Baseball backstops (2)
Playground equipment (7) and sand box (1),
Outdoor Classroom/ greening project?
Playing fields Other site amenities
Standard BF Total Staff FTE Required Plus/ Minus % of Standard
29 0 29 23.61 33.61 -4.61 86.28%
Number of Existing
Parking Spaces
TVDSB
Parking Standard: Staff +10
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Facility Profile
APPENDIX B-9
2015-16 Sparta PS SIP ~ Page 8 of 16
Project Description Total
Asbestos Report - O.Reg. 278/05 660$
Renovate Storage Room 754$
Window Replacement 182,081$
Asbestos Abatement 1,092$
Moisture Survey 3,567$
Designated Substance Report 173$
Construct BF Washroom 58,222$
Barrier Free ramp.2,401$
Roof Moisture Survey 4,495$
Boiler Vent Replacement 24,866$
Natural Gas metering- Phase 1 3,156$
Replace VAT with new VCT 48,951$
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review 378$
Natural gas metering- Phase 2 4,452$
Sparta PS Total 335,248$
10 Year Repair History
Financial Analysis of School*
Cost ($) Cost per Student ($) Board Average per
Student ($)
Cost of Administration 179,970.00 743.68 612.00
Cost of Facility Services 167,808.00 693.42 774.84
Cost of Information Technology 11,246.00 46.47 29.22
Total 359,024.00 1,483.57 1,416.02
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
School Utility Costs**
Cost($) Cost per Sq. Ft.($) Board Average
per Sq. Ft. Cost per Student ($) Board Average
per Student ($)
33,221.29 1.42 1.55 137.28 214.40
Facility Condition Index
28%
Provincial Average
37%
Board Average
50%
PAR Average
65%
Sparta PS
Replacement Value
of the School
$7,027,386
Financial Profile
* Board Average for Administration and Information Technology is based on the Elementary Panel
* Board Average for Facility Services is based on all schools operated by the Board
** Included in above Facility Services costs
APPENDIX B-9
2015-16 Sparta PS SIP ~ Page 9 of 16
Five Year Renewal Needs
Cost Priority Action Year
Year
Renewal Requirement
$ 582,400 Urgent 2015 Roof Coverings - All Sections Renewal
$ 5,200 Urgent 2015 Study [Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities - Site]
$ 520,000 Urgent 2015 Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities - Site Renewal
$ 10,400 Urgent 2015 Septic Tanks - Site Renewal
$ 5,200 Urgent 2015 .Study [Septic Tanks - Site]
$ 5,200 High 2015 .Study [Structural Frame - Original Building]
$ 52,000 High 2015 Structural Frame - Original Building Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015 Exterior Walls - Metal Panels Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015 Chimney Renewal
$ 24,960 High 2015
Interior Doors - Interior Door Hardware - Original Building
Renewal
$ 83,200 High 2015 Interior Doors - Original Building Renewal
$ 88,400 High 2015 Hot Water Boilers Renewal
$ 88,400 High 2015 Hot Water Boilers Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015 Auxiliary Equipment - Chemical Feed System Renewal
$ 15,600 High 2015 Auxiliary Equipment - HVAC Pumps Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015 Other Heat Generating Systems - Window Unit A/C Renewal
$ 364,000 High 2015 Heating/Chilling water distribution systems Renewal
$ 5,200 High 2015 Study - Heating Piping System
$ 49,920 High 2015 Air Handling Units - Gym Supply Renewal
$ 49,920 High 2015 Air Handling Units - Boiler Room Renewal
$ 52,000 High 2015 Terminal & Package Units - Perimeter Radiators Renewal
$ 249,600 High 2015 Controls & Instrumentation Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Exterior Lighting Renewal
$ 5,200 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Exit Lighting Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Lighting Equipment - Emergency Lighting - Battery Back-ups
Renewal
$ 46,800 High 2015 Public Address Systems Renewal
$ 72,800 High 2015 Roadways - Gravel Paved Renewal
$ 88,400 High 2015
Parking Lots - Asphalt Paved (East Lot) & Gravel Paved (West
Lot) Renewal
$ 18,720 High 2015
Site Development - Chain Link Fencing & Barb Wire Fencing
Renewal
$ 239,200 High 2015 Site Development - Asphalt Paved Playing Field Renewal
$ 2,785,120
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
TVDSB Five Year Renewal Needs
Project Description Total
Asbestos Repairs $
1,738
Library Renovation $
19,543
Window Replacement - Phase 2 $
393,085
Designated Substance Report $
173
Barrier Free Washroom Renovation $
31,015
Roof Moisture Survey $
4,086
1971 Steel Joist review $
5,540
Supply and install ceiling lift $
10,475
Anthes Joist Investigation $
8,485
Chimney Removal $
9,605
WIFI installation $
4,781
Roof Scan $
4,495
Replace VAT Flooring $
89,680
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review $
490
Replace Boilers and Pumps $
260,434
Exterior Lighting upgrades $
1,188
Davenport PS Total $
844,813
APPENDIX B-9
2015-16 Sparta PS SIP ~ Page 10 of 16
APPENDIX B-9
2015-16 Sparta PS SIP ~ Page 11 of 16
APPENDIX B-9
2015-16 Sparta PS SIP ~ Page 12 of 16
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Land Use and Zoning
APPENDIX B-9
2015-16 Sparta PS SIP ~ Page 13 of 16
Demographics for the Sparta PS Attendance Area
Sparta PS is a JK - 8 school located just west of the Village of Sparta. The school accommodates students from
the rural settlement areas of Sparta and Union in the Municipality of Central Elgin and the Village of Port Bruce in
the Township of Malahide.
Within the attendance area of Sparta PS, Statistics Canada indicates that the total population has remained
relatively stable from 2001 to 2011 with a small decrease of 3%. The population of elementary school aged
children (4 to 13 year olds) decreased by 8% from 2001 to 2006 and another 5% from 2006 to 2011.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Demographic Data for Sparta PS
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
137 502 292 2849 466 1318 3780 2.9 0.38 0.22
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
122 460 278 2831 415 1321 3691 2.8 0.35 0.21
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
140 436 258 2832 354 1316 3666 2.8 0.33 0.20
Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006, 2011 Census
2001 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2006 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2011 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
APPENDIX B-9
2015-16 Sparta PS SIP ~ Page 14 of 16
Growth and Development
The potential for residential growth exists within some communities in Sparta PS's attendance area. Union has
been designated by the Municipality of Central Elgin as an Urban Settlement area with unbuilt lands zoned
residential within the settlement boundary. Although future growth within the community has been planned,
sanitary sewage and municipal piped water services are still required. In the Malahide Official Plan, the Village of
Port Bruce is designated as a recreational settlement with seasonal residents being encouraged. The Village of
Port Bruce is serviced with municipal water but would require servicing for sanitary. Currently there are no
significant residential developments within Sparta PS' attendance area.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Residential Development
APPENDIX B-9
2015-16 Sparta PS SIP ~ Page 15 of 16
YES
Were Community
Use of School
costs fully
recoverable?
YES YMCA St. Thomas-Elgin $500.00 Yes
Were Before and After school
programs or services (e.g., child
care) avaiable at this school
Name of Child Care Provider
Revenue from the
Before and After
school programs
Were before and after
school programs cost fully
recoverable
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
YES 1 21 $ 95.71
Was the School building
used by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Building Use:
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
NO 0 0 $ -
Were School Grounds used
by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Grounds Use:
Y Y Y N Y Y
N Y N N/A N/A
Air Conditioning Compartmenta-
lization
Dedicated
Washroom Space
Existing
Community Use
Existing
Collaboration
Suitable Vacant
Space Parking Barrier-Free
Accessibility Municipal Services Site Size Dedicated Access
to Space
Collaboration Suitability
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Community Use Profile
APPENDIX B-9
2015-16 Sparta PS SIP ~ Page 16 of 16
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILE
SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL
2015-16
ADDRESS:
51336 RON MCNEIL LINE, SPRINGFIELD, N0L 2J0
APPENDIX B-10
2015-16 Springfield PS SIP ~ Page 1 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Current Attendance Area
APPENDIX B-10
2015-16 Springfield PS SIP ~ Page 2 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Criteria Springfield PS Board Average
Size of the school site (acres) 2.47 7.26
Year original school was built 1974 1977
Building area (square feet) 24,154.21 44,701.66
Portable classrooms (2015-16) 0 2.86
Year addition(s) built
Not Applicable
Grade Configuration
JK-6
Criteria Springfield PS Board Average
On-The-Ground (OTG) Capacity (2015-16) 268 444
Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Enrolment: Official 2015 October 31 167 385.00
Utilization factor 62.31% 87.17%
Excess or Shortage (-) of Pupil Places 101.00 58.59
Number of Holding Zone students (if any) 0
Number of out of area students 0
General Profile
Distance (km) to 5 closest
TVDSB Elementary Schools
8.19 Summers' Corners
10.24 South Dorchester
10.46 McGregor
11.30 Davenport
16.24 Westfield
APPENDIX B-10
2015-16 Springfield PS SIP ~ Page 3 of 16
94
78
Number of Students who are
Eligible for Transportation
Number of Students who are
Not Eligible for Transportation
Transportation - Length of bus ride Springfield PS Board
Shortest 2.00 min. 1.00 min
Longest 60.00 min 71.00 min
Average 23.00 min 16.00 min
Number of Students
Transported to School
55%
Number of Buses Required
3
Distance - Proximity of Students to
existing school Springfield PS Board
Shortest 0.02 km 0.01 km
Longest 12.33 km 67.08 km
Average 3.40 km 2.45 km
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Transportation Costs
Regular Home to School $116,462
Specialized $0
Total $116,462
Transportation
APPENDIX B-10
2015-16 Springfield PS SIP ~ Page 4 of 16
*Information based on 2015 October 31
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8
SE FTE
2011 23 32 17 16 21 24 22 25 0 0 4 184
2012 28 23 32 20 18 23 22 21 0 0 4 191
2013 21 26 21 32 21 19 21 21 0 0 2 184
2014 26 21 28 23 32 19 23 20 0 0 0 192
2015 14 23 19 26 24 27 15 19 0 0 0 167
2016 16 15 23 21 27 23 27 13 0 0 0 165
2017 18 17 15 24 22 26 23 26 0 0 0 171
2018 17 19 17 15 25 21 25 21 0 0 0 160
2019 18 18 19 17 16 24 20 24 0 0 0 156
2020 18 19 18 19 18 15 23 19 0 0 0 149
2021 18 19 19 18 20 17 15 22 0 0 0 148
2022 17 19 19 19 19 19 16 14 0 0 0 142
2023 17 18 19 19 20 18 18 16 0 0 0 145
2024 17 18 18 19 20 19 17 17 0 0 0 145
2025 17 18 18 18 20 19 18 17 0 0 0 145
STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-6 - Springfield PS Regular Track Enrolment and past Special Education Enrolment
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Springfield PS Enrolment
APPENDIX B-10
2015-16 Springfield PS SIP ~ Page 5 of 16
JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 14 14 28
2 9 8 17
3 11 7 18
4 19 19
5 18 18
6 6 16 22
7 11 11 22
8 4 19 23
TOTAL 14 23 19 26 24 27 15 19 0 0 167
Class
Number
Enrolment By Grade (Student Count)Spec.
Ed.
Class
Total
School Organization
2015-16* Staffing Allocation (FTE) Springfield PS
Principal 1.00
Vice-Principals 0.00
Secretaries 1.00
Teachers at the School 10.43
Self-Contained Special Education
Teachers 0.00
Teacher-Librarians 0.31
English as a Second
Language (ESL) Teachers 0.20
Native as a Second
Language (NSL) Teachers 0.00
Learning Support Teachers (LST) 0.60
Early Childhood Educators (ECE) 1.00
Educational Assistants (EA) 1.00
Custodial 1.50
Total 17.04
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Availability of Extra-Curricular Activities
Inter-School Sports?
YES
Intramural Sports?
YES
School Clubs?
YES
Programming and Course
Offering for 2015-2016
Springfield PS serves a population
of 167 students from kindergarten
to grade 6. There are 8 standard
classes.
Specialized Service offerings
at Springfield PS
There are no specialized service
offerings at Springfield PS
School Organization and Staffing
APPENDIX B-10
2015-16 Springfield PS SIP ~ Page 6 of 16
ft² ft²
Kindergarten Classroom 2 1,083 2,167 26 52
Standard Classroom 8 704 5,634 23 184
Art Room - - 23 -
Science Room - - 23 -
Music Vocal - - 23 -
Computer Lab 1 1,161 1,161 23 23
Technical / Vocational - - 23 -
Special Education Area 1 824 824 9 9
General Arts / Musical Instrumental - - -
Resource Room - Loaded (400-699 sf) - - 12 -
Seminar Rooms - Unloaded (<400 sf) 1 326 326 -
Gymnasium Area and Stage 1 3,372 3,372 -
Change Rooms - - -
Activity / General Purpose Room - - -
Learning Commons (formerly Library) 1 1,353 1,353 -
14,838 268
OTGInstructional Space #Size Floor Area Load
Total GFA and OTG of Instructional Area
ft² ft²
Main Office & Reception 414
Staff Room and Teacher Work Rooms 595
Servery 144
Custodial Areas 261
Meeting Room -
Academic Storage 451
Washrooms 829
Gymnasium Storage 155
Chair Storage (in Gymnasium) -
Mechanical Spaces 243
3,093
17,931
34.71% 6,224
24,154
Total Square Feet 24,154
Gross Up Added
Operational Space Per Pupil Floor Area
Total Operational Area
Total Operational and Instructional
Gross Floor Area
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Calculated Area per Pupil by OTG Calculated Area per Pupil by Enrolment
90.13 144.64
Facilities Space Template
APPENDIX B-10
2015-16 Springfield PS SIP ~ Page 7 of 16
Barrier Free Accessibility Checklist
Item Y/N
Minimum number of pedestrian entrances required to be barrier free N
Designated parking space N
Accessibility signs Y
Path of travel to the main entrance door.Y
Designated entrances Y
Designated Wheelchair Spaces and Adaptable seating N/A
Assistive listening devices N
Path of travel to all floors/elevations. Including stages.N
Surface finish of ramps and stairs N
Passenger Elevating Devices Y
Fire alarm system with strobe and audible signals N
Drinking Fountains N
Universal washroom Y
Standard BF Total Staff FTE Required Plus/ Minus % of Standard
23 0 23 17.04 27.04 -4.04 85.06%
Number of Existing
Parking Spaces
TVDSB
Parking Standard: Staff +10
17,411 sq. ft.
Hard Surface
Play Area
103,456 sq. ft.
Green Space
Play Area
No.Types
4 Basketball court (1), Soccer (2),
baseball backstop(1)
Playground equipment (3), covered sand pits
(2) and where is the Outdoor Classroom/
greening project
Playing fields Other site amenities
Designed Student
Drop off/Pick up Area
No. of Buses Yes/No Assessment Note Yes/No
3 Yes Good.No
Designated School Bus Bays / Loading Zones
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Facility Profile
APPENDIX B-10
2015-16 Springfield PS SIP ~ Page 8 of 16
Project Description Total
Asbestos Report - O.Reg. 278/05 591$
Install UV System 6,853$
Replace Roof B 261,568$
Repair Damaged Asphalt and Entrance 16,448$
Asbestos Abatement 2,193$
Designated Substance Report 173$
Structural Roof Deck Repair 17,235$
Roof Moisture Survey 4,495$
Partial Replacement of Roof A 15,770$
Replace Roof A and D 101,152$
Lighting Replacement (PCB's)84,351$
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review 378$
School Yard Greening 7,533$
Springfield PS Total 518,738$
10 Year Repair History
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Financial Analysis of School*
Cost ($) Cost per Student ($) Board Average per
Student ($)
Cost of Administration 179,970.00 1,077.66 612.00
Cost of Facility Services 117,552.00 703.90 774.84
Cost of Information Technology 11,246.00 67.34 29.22
Total 308,768.00 1,848.90 1,416.02
School Utility Costs**
Cost($) Cost per Sq. Ft.($) Board Average
per Sq. Ft. Cost per Student ($) Board Average
per Student ($)
34,323.86 1.42 1.55 205.53 214.40
Facility Condition Index
28%
Provincial Average
37%
Board Average
50%
PAR Average
72%
Springfield PS
Replacement Value
of the School
$6,281,994
Financial Profile
* Board Average for Administration and Information Technology is based on the Elementary Panel
* Board Average for Facility Services is based on all schools operated by the Board
** Included in above Facility Services costs
APPENDIX B-10
2015-16 Springfield PS SIP ~ Page 9 of 16
Five Year Renewal Needs
Cost Priority Action Year
Year
Renewal Requirement
$ 208,000 Urgent 2015 Roof Coverings - Section A, B, C, D (Original Building) Renewal
$ 149,188 Urgent 2015 Hot Water Boilers Renewal
$ 401,960 Urgent 2015 Heating water distribution systems - Piping Systems Renewal
$ 10,400 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - D304003 Heating water distribution
systems - Piping Systems - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 449,280 Urgent 2015 Main Switchboards - Main Disconnect Renewal
$ 97,344 High 2017 Exterior Windows - Original Building Renewal
$ 26,208 High 2015 Exterior Door Hardware - Original Building Renewal
$ 84,240 High 2015 Exterior Doors - Original Building Renewal
$ 13,728 High 2015 Ceiling Finishes - Original Building Renewal
$ 43,680 High 2015 Ceiling Finishes - Original Building Renewal
$ 124,800 High 2015 Plumbing Fixtures - Washroom Fixtures Renewal
$ 18,720 High 2015
Domestic Water Distribution - Gas-Fired Water Heaters
Renewal
$ 138,164 High 2015 Domestic Water Distribution - Piping System Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2020 Domestic Water Distribution -
Piping System - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 52,000 High 2015
Domestic Water Distribution - Water Treatment Systems
Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2040 Rain Water Drainage - Beyond
Rated Useful Life
$ 202,748 High 2015 Rain Water Drainage Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015 Auxiliary Equipment - HVAC Pumps Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015 Auxiliary Equipment - Stack & Breaching Renewal
$ 44,928 High 2015 Air Distribution - Ductwork Renewal
$ 99,840 High 2015 Exhaust Systems Renewal
$ 49,920 High 2015 Air Handling Units Renewal
$ 72,436 High 2015 Fin Tube Radiation Renewal
$ 249,600 High 2015 Controls & Instrumentation - HVAC Controls Renewal
$ 208,000 High 2015 Panels Renewal
$ 364,312 High 2015 Branch Wiring - Cabling, Raceways & Bus Ducts Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D502001 Branch Wiring - Cabling,
Raceways & Bus Ducts - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 27,040 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Exterior Lighting - Pole Mounted Renewal
$ 20,800 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Exit Lighting / Signs Renewal
$ 33,800 High 2015
Lighting Equipment - Emergency Lighting - Battery Back-ups
Renewal
$ 52,000 High 2015 Information Technology Systems Renewal
$ 65,000 High 2015 Clock and Program Systems Renewal
$ 49,920 High 2015 Parking Lots - Site Renewal
$ 12,480 High 2015 Pedestrian Paving Renewal
$ 62,400 High 2015 Playing Fields - Site Renewal
$ 49,504 High 2015 Fencing & Gates Renewal
$ 251,264 High 2017 Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2016
Study - Replacement - G30 - Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities -
Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 3,796,104
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
TVDSB Five Year Renewal Needs
Project Description Total
Asbestos Repairs $
1,738
Library Renovation $
19,543
Window Replacement - Phase 2 $
393,085
Designated Substance Report $
173
Barrier Free Washroom Renovation $
31,015
Roof Moisture Survey $
4,086
1971 Steel Joist review $
5,540
Supply and install ceiling lift $
10,475
Anthes Joist Investigation $
8,485
Chimney Removal $
9,605
WIFI installation $
4,781
Roof Scan $
4,495
Replace VAT Flooring $
89,680
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review $
490
Replace Boilers and Pumps $
260,434
Exterior Lighting upgrades $
1,188
Davenport PS Total $
844,813
APPENDIX B-10
2015-16 Springfield PS SIP ~ Page 10 of 16
APPENDIX B-10
2015-16 Springfield PS SIP ~ Page 11 of 16
APPENDIX B-10
2015-16 Springfield PS SIP ~ Page 12 of 16
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Land Use and Zoning
APPENDIX B-10
2015-16 Springfield PS SIP ~ Page 13 of 16
Demographics within the Springfield PS Attendance Area
Springfield PS is a JK - 6 school with grade 7 to 8 students accommodated at Summers' Corners PS. The school
is located in the Village of Springfield within the Township of Malahide. The school accommodates students from
the Village of Springfield, and the Hamlets of Lyons and Avon as well as rural residents in the township of
Malahide.
Within the attendance area for Springfield PS, Statistics Canada indicates that from 2001 to 2006 the total
population increased by 10% and then decreased from 2006-2011 by 6%. The population of elementary school
aged children (4 to 13 year olds) remained stable from 2001 to 2006 and decreased by 3% from 2006 to 2011.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Demographic Data for Springfield PS
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
144 364 179 1357 288 650 2044 3.1 0.56 0.28
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
157 365 180 1551 304 733 2253 3.1 0.50 0.25
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
151 354 145 1471 265 719 2121 3.0 0.49 0.20
Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006, 2011 Census
2001 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2006 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2011 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
APPENDIX B-10
2015-16 Springfield PS SIP ~ Page 14 of 16
Growth and Development
The village of Springfield is labelled as a primary growth area in the Malahide Township Official Plan. At this time
the village does not have the municipal water services but does have municipal sanitary sewers. Currently there
is no significant residential development within the Springfield PS attendance area.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Residential Development
APPENDIX B-10
2015-16 Springfield PS SIP ~ Page 15 of 16
YES
Were Community
Use of School
costs fully
recoverable?
YES YMCA St. Thomas-Elgin $500.00 Yes
Were Before and After school
programs or services (e.g., child
care) avaiable at this school
Name of Child Care Provider
Revenue from the
Before and After
school programs
Were before and after
school programs cost fully
recoverable
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
YES 4 122 $ 483.75
Was the School building
used by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Building Use:
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
NO 0 0 $ -
Were School Grounds used
by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Grounds Use:
Y Y N N N Y
P Y Y N/A N/A
Air Conditioning Compartmenta-
lization
Dedicated
Washroom Space
Existing
Community Use
Existing
Collaboration
Suitable Vacant
Space Parking Barrier-Free
Accessibility Municipal Services Site Size Dedicated Access
to Space
Collaboration Suitability
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Community Use Profile
APPENDIX B-10
2015-16 Springfield PS SIP ~ Page 16 of 16
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILE
SUMMERS’ CORNERS PUBLIC SCHOOL
2015-16
ADDRESS:
50576 TALBOT STREET EAST, RR1, AYLMER, N5H 2R1
APPENDIX B-11
2015-16 Summers' Corners PS SIP ~ Page 1 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Current Attendance Area
APPENDIX B-11
2015-16 Summers' Corners PS SIP ~ Page 2 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Criteria Summers’
Corners PS Board Average
Size of the school site (acres) 9.88 7.26
Year original school was built 1965 1977
Building area (square feet) 61,548.04 44,701.66
Portable classrooms (2015-16) 0 2.86
Year addition(s) built
1989, 1994
Grade Configuration
Jk-8
Criteria Summers’
Corners PS Board Average
On-The-Ground (OTG) Capacity (2015-16) 585 444
Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Enrolment: Official 2015 October 31 399.00 385.00
Utilization factor 68.21% 87.17%
Excess or Shortage (-) of Pupil Places 186.00 58.59
Number of Holding Zone students (if any) 0
Number of out of area students 14
General Profile
Distance (km) to 5 closest
TVDSB Elementary Schools
4.19 McGregor
5.03 Davenport
8.19 Springfield
12.54 New Sarum
14.06 Straffordville
APPENDIX B-11
2015-16 Summers' Corners PS SIP ~ Page 3 of 16
404
0
Number of Students who are
Eligible for Transportation
Number of Students who are
Not Eligible for Transportation
Note
** Buses shared with Assumption
Catholic School (LDCSB), Davenport
and McGregor PSs and East Elgin
Secondary School
Transportation – Length of bus ride Summers’ Corners PS Board
Shortest 2.00 min 1.00 min
Longest 43.00 min 71.00 min
Average 22.00 min 16.00 min
Percentage of Students
Transported to School
100%
Number of Buses Required
18**
Distance - Proximity of Students to
existing school Summers’ Corners PS Board
Shortest 0.01 km 0.01 km
Longest 19.43 km 67.08 km
Average 7.55 km 2.45 km
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Transportation Costs
Regular Home to School $351,430
Specialized $14,302
Total $365,732
Transportation
APPENDIX B-11
2015-16 Summers' Corners PS SIP ~ Page 4 of 16
*Information based on 2015 October 31
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8
SE FTE
2011 28 34 39 37 34 39 42 39 71 72 0 435
2012 23 34 33 37 38 36 40 43 70 69 0 423
2013 20 32 30 32 37 36 41 41 66 71 0 406
2014 26 32 35 36 37 41 36 36 68 73 0 420
2015 28 28 39 33 35 37 41 33 57 64 0 395
2016 29 40 29 38 38 35 39 44 61 58 0 411
2017 28 34 42 29 39 39 36 39 59 62 0 407
2018 28 32 35 41 30 39 39 36 66 59 0 405
2019 28 32 33 34 42 30 40 39 58 67 0 403
2020 28 32 33 32 35 42 30 40 64 59 0 395
2021 27 32 33 32 33 35 43 30 60 65 0 390
2022 27 32 33 33 33 33 36 43 52 61 0 383
2023 27 32 33 33 34 33 34 35 57 53 0 371
2024 27 32 33 33 34 34 34 33 51 57 0 368
2025 27 32 33 33 34 34 34 33 51 52 0 363
STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-8 - Summers Corners' PS Regular Track Enrolment
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Summers’ Corners PS Enrolment
APPENDIX B-11
2015-16 Summers' Corners PS SIP ~ Page 5 of 16
JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 13 15 28
2 15 13 28
3 20 20
4 20 20
5 19 19
6 15 2 17
7 13 10 23
8 20 20
9 27 27
10 26 26
11 16 10 26
12 24 24
13 25 25
14 25 25
15 7 17 24
16 23 23
17 24 24
TOTAL 28 28 40 34 35 37 42 34 57 64 399
Class
Code
Enrolment By Grade (Student Count)Spec.
Ed.
Class
Total
School Organization
2015-16* Staffing Allocation (FTE) Summers’
Corners PS
Principal 1.00
Vice-Principals 0.50
Secretaries 1.00
Teachers at the School 22.29
Self-Contained Special Education
Teachers 0.00
Teacher-Librarians 0.66
English as a Second
Language (ESL) Teachers 2.00
Native as a Second
Language (NSL) Teachers 0.00
Learning Support Teachers (LST) 1.40
Early Childhood Educators (ECE) 2.00
Educational Assistants (EA) 1.00
Custodial 3.25
Total 35.10
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Availability of Extra-Curricular Activities
Inter-School Sports?
YES
Intramural Sports?
YES
School Clubs?
YES
Specialized Service offerings
at Summers’ Corners PS
There are 2 ESL LEARN classes
offered at Summers’ Corners PS
Programming and Course
Offering for 2015-2016
Summers’ Corners PS serves a
population of 399 students from
kindergarten to grade 8. There are
17 standard classes and 2
specialized classes.
School Organization and Staffing
APPENDIX B-11
2015-16 Summers' Corners PS SIP ~ Page 6 of 16
ft² ft²
Kindergarten Classroom 3 1,162 3,486 26 78
Standard Classroom 19 810 15,388 23 437
Art Room 1 1,235 1,235 23 23
Science Room 1 1,442 1,442 23 23
Music Vocal - - 23 -
Computer Lab - - 23 -
Technical / Vocational - - 23 -
Special Education Area - - 9 -
General Arts / Musical Instrumental 1 1,469 1,469 -
Resource Room - Loaded (400-699 sf) 2 511 1,022 12 24
Seminar Rooms - Unloaded (<400 sf) 3 137 411 -
Gymnasium Area and Stage 1 7,917 7,917 -
Change Rooms 2 519 1,037 -
Activity / General Purpose Room - - -
Learning Commons (formerly Library) 1 2,159 2,159 -
35,567 585 Total GFA and OTG of Instructional Area
OTGInstructional Space #Size Floor Area Load
ft² ft²
Main Office & Reception 1,043
Staff Room and Teacher Work Rooms 844
Servery 105
Custodial Areas 482
Meeting Room -
Academic Storage 732
Washrooms 2,290
Gymnasium Storage 579
Chair Storage (in Gymnasium) -
Mechanical Spaces 1,782
7,858
43,425
41.74% 18,123
61,548
Total Square Feet 61,548
Gross Floor Area
Floor Area
Total Operational Area
Total Operational and Instructional
Gross Up Added
Operational Space Per Pupil
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Calculated Area per Pupil by OTG Calculated Area per Pupil by Enrolment
105.21 155.82
Facilities Space Template
APPENDIX B-11
2015-16 Summers' Corners PS SIP ~ Page 7 of 16
Barrier Free Accessibility Checklist
Item Y/N
Minimum number of pedestrian entrances required to be barrier free N
Designated parking space Y
Accessibility signs Y
Path of travel to the main entrance door.N
Designated entrances Y
Designated Wheelchair Spaces and Adaptable seating N/A
Assistive listening devices N
Path of travel to all floors/elevations. Including stages.Y
Surface finish of ramps and stairs Y
Passenger Elevating Devices N
Fire alarm system with strobe and audible signals N
Drinking Fountains Y
Universal washroom Y
47,959 sq. ft.
Hard Surface
Play Area
276,636 sq. ft.
Green Space
Play Area
No.Types
10
Soccer (2),football (1), Basketball nets
(4), Volleyball (1), Baseball backstops
(2)
Playground equipment (4) and sand boxes (3)
Playing fields Other site amenities
Standard BF Total Staff FTE Required Plus/ Minus % of Standard
87 0 87 35.10 45.10 41.90 192.90%
Number of Existing
Parking Spaces
TVDSB
Parking Standard: Staff +10
Designed Student
Drop off/Pick up Area
No. of Buses Yes/No Assessment Note Yes/No
18** Yes Good.
** Buses shared with Assumption
Catholic School (LDCSB), Davenport
and McGregor PSs and East Elgin
Secondary.
No
Designated School Bus Bays / Loading Zones
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Facility Profile
APPENDIX B-11
2015-16 Summers' Corners PS SIP ~ Page 8 of 16
Project Description Total
Metal Siding over 2nd Level Brick 12,828$
Designated Substance Report 173$
Replace domestic HW boilers 14,127$
Replace Shingled Roof Section /Roof Moisture
Survey of School Roof 26,346$
Provide auto-door operator 6,661$
Roof Scan 4,495$
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review 378$
Improve Sanitary Wetwell Interior Coating 46,399$
Exterior Lighting upgrades 1,188$
Summers’ Corners PS Total 112,594$
10 Year Repair History
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Financial Analysis of School*
Cost ($) Cost per Student ($) Board Average per
Student ($)
Cost of Administration 237,912.00 602.31 612.00
Cost of Facility Services 358,387.00 907.31 774.84
Cost of Information Technology 11,246.00 28.47 29.22
Total 607,545.00 1,538.09 1,416.06
School Utility Costs**
Cost($) Cost per Sq. Ft.($) Board Average
per Sq. Ft. Cost per Student ($) Board Average
per Student ($)
121,211.91 1.97 1.55 306.87 214.40
Facility Condition Index
28%
Provincial Average
37%
Board Average
50%
PAR Average
26%
Summers’ Corners PS
Replacement Value
of the School
$11,830,445
Financial Profile
* Board Average for Administration and Information Technology is based on the Elementary Panel
* Board Average for Facility Services is based on all schools operated by the Board
** Included in above Facility Services costs
APPENDIX B-11
2015-16 Summers' Corners PS SIP ~ Page 9 of 16
Five Year Renewal Needs
Cost Priority Action Year
Year
Renewal Requirement
$ 15,600 Urgent 2014 Roof Coverings - Roof Section C Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015 Repair [Standard Foundations - Parging Repairs]
$ 520,000 High 2015 Major Repair [Exterior Walls - South and East Elevation]
$ 26,000 High 2015 Exterior Windows - 1965 Lobby CR05 Renewal
$ 5,200 High 2015 Study [Exterior Windows - 1965 Lobby CR05]
$ 520,000 High 2015
Roof Coverings - Roof Section A, B, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N
Renewal
$ 80,704 High 2015 Partitions - Moveable Partition Renewal
$ 43,680 High 2015 Fittings - Washroom Partitions Renewal
$ 208,000 High 2015 Wall Finishes - Painted Wall Coverings Renewal
$ 31,200 High 2015 Floor Finishes - Carpet Flooring Renewal
$ 28,080 High 2015 Domestic Water Distribution - Water Storage Tanks Renewal
$ 67,600 High 2015 Hot Water Boilers - Boiler 1 Renewal
$ 67,600 High 2015 Hot Water Boilers - Boiler 2 Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015 Auxiliary Equipment - Chemical Feed System Renewal
$ 20,800 High 2015 Auxiliary Equipment - HVAC Pumps Renewal
$ 208,000 High 2015 Chilled Water Systems - Cooling Tower Renewal
$ 74,880 High 2015 Main Switchboards - Main Switchgear and Disconnect Renewal
$ 10,400 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Exterior - Wall Mounted Renewal
$ 13,520 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Emergency Lighting Renewal
$ 62,400 High 2015 Fire Alarm Systems Renewal
$ 52,000 High 2015 Site Development - Playing Fields Renewal
$ 260,000 High 2015 Septic Tanks - Septic Tanks Renewal
$ 2,336,464
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
TVDSB Five Year Renewal Needs
Project Description Total
Asbestos Repairs $
1,738
Library Renovation $
19,543
Window Replacement - Phase 2 $
393,085
Designated Substance Report $
173
Barrier Free Washroom Renovation $
31,015
Roof Moisture Survey $
4,086
1971 Steel Joist review $
5,540
Supply and install ceiling lift $
10,475
Anthes Joist Investigation $
8,485
Chimney Removal $
9,605
WIFI installation $
4,781
Roof Scan $
4,495
Replace VAT Flooring $
89,680
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review $
490
Replace Boilers and Pumps $
260,434
Exterior Lighting upgrades $
1,188
Davenport PS Total $
844,813
APPENDIX B-11
2015-16 Summers' Corners PS SIP ~ Page 10 of 16
APPENDIX B-11
2015-16 Summers' Corners PS SIP ~ Page 11 of 16
APPENDIX B-11
2015-16 Summers' Corners PS SIP ~ Page 12 of 16
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Land Use and Zoning
APPENDIX B-11
2015-16 Summers' Corners PS SIP ~ Page 13 of 16
Demographics within the Summers’ Corners Attendance Area
Summers' Corners PS is a JK - 8 school that also accommodates grade 6 to 8 students from the Springfield PS
attendance area. The school is located in the Hamlet of Summers Corners in the Township of Malahide. The
school accommodates students from parts of Aylmer, and the Hamlets of Summers Corners, Luton, Mount
Salem, Calton and Copenhagen, as well as rural residents in the township of Malahide.
Within the attendance area of Summers' Corners PS from 2001 to 2006 the total population has decreased by 2%
and then increased from 2006 to 2011 by 6%. The population of elementary school aged children (4 to 13 year
olds) increased 3% from 2001 to 2006 and 8% from 2006 to 2011.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Demographic Data for Summers’ Corners PS
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
333 887 479 2993 622 1329 4693 3.5 0.67 0.36
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
276 917 429 2996 566 1322 4619 3.5 0.69 0.32
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
341 994 471 3174 564 1405 4980 3.5 0.71 0.34
Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006, 2011 Census
2001 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2006 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2011 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
APPENDIX B-11
2015-16 Summers' Corners PS SIP ~ Page 14 of 16
Growth and Development
The rural communities within the attendance area of Summers' Corners PS are not serviced by the township.
There is currently one subdivision under construction that consists of 48 single family units within the Hamlet of
Copenhagen. The remaining build out will not have significant impact on the enrolment at Summers’ Corners PS.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Residential Development
APPENDIX B-11
2015-16 Summers' Corners PS SIP ~ Page 15 of 16
YES
Were Community
Use of School
costs fully
recoverable?
YES YMCA St. Thomas-Elgin $500.00 Yes
Were Before and After school
programs or services (e.g., child
care) avaiable at this school
Name of Child Care Provider
Revenue from the
Before and After
school programs
Were before and after
school programs cost fully
recoverable
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
YES 33 959 $ 6,040.35
Was the School building
used by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Building Use:
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
NO 0 0 $ -
Were School Grounds used
by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Grounds Use:
Y Y N N Y Y
N Y Y Ontario Early
Years Centre N/A
Air Conditioning Compartmenta-
lization
Dedicated
Washroom Space
Existing
Community Use
Existing
Collaboration
Suitable Vacant
Space Parking Barrier-Free
Accessibility Municipal Services Site Size Dedicated Access
to Space
Collaboration Suitability
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Community Use Profile
APPENDIX B-11
2015-16 Summers' Corners PS SIP ~ Page 16 of 16
SCHOOL INFORMATION PROFILE
WESTMINSTER CENTRAL PUBLIC SCHOOL
2015-16
ADDRESS:
2835 WESTMINSTER DRIVE, LONDON, N6N 1L7
APPENDIX B-12
2015-16 Westminster PS SIP ~ Page 1 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Current Attendance Area
APPENDIX B-12
2015-16 Westminster PS SIP ~ Page 2 of 16
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Criteria Westminster
Central PS Board Average
Size of the school site (acres) 12.4 7.26
Year original school was built 1965 1977
Building area (square feet) 28,115.33 44,701.66
Portable classrooms (2015-16) 0 2.86
Year addition(s) built
1968
Grade Configuration
JK-8
Criteria Westminster
Central PS Board Average
On-The-Ground (OTG) Capacity (2015-16) 302 444
Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Enrolment: Official 2015 October 31 82.00 385.00
Utilization factor 27.15% 87.17%
Excess or Shortage (-) of Pupil Places 222.00 58.59
Number of Holding Zone students (if any) 0
Number of out of area students 1
General Profile
Distance (km) to 5 closest
TVDSB Elementary Schools
5.28 Nicholas Wilson
5.60 Rick Hansen
5.84 Wilton Grove
5.95 White Oaks
6.87 Ashley Oaks
APPENDIX B-12
2015-16 Westminster PS SIP ~ Page 3 of 16
87
0
Number of Students who are
Eligible for Transportation
Number of Students who are
Not Eligible for Transportation
Transportation - Length of bus ride Westminster Central PS Board
Shortest 2.00 min 1.00 min
Longest 63.00 min 71.00 min
Average 20.00 min 16.00 min
Number of Students
Transported to School
100%
Number of Buses Required
4
Distance - Proximity of Students to
existing school Westminster Central PS Board
Shortest 0.29 km 0.01 km
Longest 13.54 km 67.08 km
Average 6.03 km 2.45 km
SECTION A
SCHOOL OVERVIEW
Transportation Costs
Regular Home to School $91,944
Specialized $18,389
Total $110,333
General Profile
APPENDIX B-12
2015-16 Westminster PS SIP ~ Page 4 of 16
*Information based on 2015 October 31
Year JK SK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 SE FTE
2011 11 6 10 7 14 6 9 7 8 9 0 87
2012 7 11 7 10 6 14 8 8 5 9 0 85
2013 7 8 10 10 12 6 14 9 8 4 0 88
2014 5 8 10 11 9 11 6 12 8 9 0 89
2015 8 3 8 9 9 8 11 7 12 7 0 82
2016 12 7 4 8 8 10 11 12 9 15 0 96
2017 13 13 8 5 9 9 11 12 13 10 0 103
2018 15 15 15 10 7 10 11 13 14 15 0 125
2019 18 18 18 18 12 9 13 14 16 17 0 153
2020 21 21 20 20 20 15 12 16 16 18 0 179
2021 26 25 23 23 22 23 18 15 19 19 0 213
2022 28 29 26 26 25 25 25 21 18 22 0 245
2023 31 31 29 28 27 27 27 28 23 20 0 271
2024 33 33 30 30 29 29 29 30 30 25 0 298
2025 34 34 31 31 31 30 30 31 31 31 0 314
STATUS QUO - GRADES JK-8 - Westminster Central PS Regular Track Enrolment
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Westminster Central PS Enrolment
APPENDIX B-12
2015-16 Westminster PS SIP ~ Page 5 of 16
JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 8 3 11
2 8 9 17
3 9 8 17
4 11 7 18
5 12 7 19
TOTAL 8 3 8 9 9 8 11 7 12 7 82
Class
Number
Enrolment By Grade (Student Count)Spec.
Ed.
Class
Total
School Organization
2015-16* Staffing Allocation (FTE) Westminster
Central PS
Principal 1.00
Vice-Principals 0.00
Secretaries 1.00
Teachers at the School 6.59
Self-Contained Special Education
Teachers 0.00
Teacher-Librarians 0.14
English as a Second
Language (ESL) Teachers 0.00
Native as a Second
Language (NSL) Teachers 0.00
Learning Support Teachers (LST) 0.50
Early Childhood Educators (ECE) 1.00
Educational Assistants (EA) 1.50
Custodial 1.50
Total 13.23
SECTION B
STUDENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE
Availability of Extra-Curricular Activities
Inter-School Sports?
YES
Intramural Sports?
YES
School Clubs?
YES
Programming and Course
Offering for 2015-2016
Westminster Central PS serves a
population of 82 students from
kindergarten to grade 8. There are
5 standard classes.
Specialized Service offerings
at Westminster Central PS
There are no specialized service
offerings at Westminster PS.
School Organization and Staffing
APPENDIX B-12
2015-16 Westminster PS SIP ~ Page 6 of 16
ft² ft²
Kindergarten Classroom 1 1,501 1,501 26 26
Standard Classroom 12 783 9,399 23 276
Art Room - 23 -
Science Room - 23 -
Music Vocal - 23 -
Computer Lab in Library - 23 -
Technical / Vocational - 23 -
Special Education Area - 9 -
General Arts / Musical Instrumental 1 1,039 1,039 -
Resource Room - Loaded (400-699 sf) - - 12 -
Seminar Rooms - Unloaded (<400 sf) - -
Gymnasium Area and Stage 1 2,531 2,531 -
Change Rooms - - -
Activity / General Purpose Room - - -
Learning Commons (formerly Library) 1 1,609 1,609 -
16,079 302
OTGInstructional Space #Size Floor Area Load
Total GFA and OTG of Instructional Area
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Calculated Area per Pupil by OTG Calculated Area per Pupil by Enrolment
93.10 342.87
Facilities Space Template
ft² ft²
Main Office & Reception 331
Staff Room and Teacher Work Rooms 673
Servery 96
Custodial Areas 435
Meeting Room -
Academic Storage 112
Washrooms 1,416
Gymnasium Storage 201
Chair Storage (in Gymnasium) -
Mechanical Spaces 471
3,734
19,813
41.90% 8,302
28,115
Total Square Feet 28,115
Gross Up Added
Operational Space Per Pupil Floor Area
Total Operational Area
Total Operational and Instructional
Gross Floor Area
APPENDIX B-12
2015-16 Westminster PS SIP ~ Page 7 of 16
Barrier Free Accessibility Checklist
Item Y/N
Minimum number of pedestrian entrances required to be barrier free N
Designated parking space N
Accessibility signs N
Path of travel to the main entrance door.Y
Designated entrances N
Designated Wheelchair Spaces and Adaptable seating N/A
Assistive listening devices Y
Path of travel to all floors/elevations. Including stages.N
Surface finish of ramps and stairs N
Passenger Elevating Devices N
Fire alarm system with strobe and audible signals Y
Drinking Fountains N
Universal washroom Y
Standard BF Total Staff FTE Required Plus/ Minus % of Standard
32 1 33 13.23 23.23 10.77 142.06%
Number of Existing
Parking Spaces
TVDSB
Parking Standard: Staff +10
28,560 sq. ft.
Hard Surface
Play Area
356,790 sq. ft.
Green Space
Play Area
No.Types
6
Soccer (2), Baseball baskstops (2),
Basketball court (1) and Basketball net
(1)
Playground equipment (1) and sand box (1)
Playing fields Other site amenities
Designed Student
Drop off/Pick up Area
No. of Buses Yes/No Assessment Note Yes/No
4 Yes Good.No
Designated School Bus Bays / Loading Zones
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Facility Profile
APPENDIX B-12
2015-16 Westminster PS SIP ~ Page 8 of 16
Project Description Total
Asbestos Report - O.Reg. 278/05 688$
Asbestos Abatement 459$
Asbestos Abatement 968$
Replace Well Pump 27,800$
Replace Roof A 40,380$
Designated Substance Report 173$
Replace exterior door.457$
Replace Exterior Door.9,262$
Chimney Removal 10,269$
Westminster Central PS Total 90,455$
10 Year Repair History
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
Financial Analysis of School*
Cost ($) Cost per Student ($) Board Average per
Student ($)
Cost of Administration 179,970.00 2,194.76 612.00
Cost of Facility Services 142,104.00 1,732.98 774.84
Cost of Information Technology 11,246.00 137.15 29.22
Total 333,320.00 4,064.89 1,416.06
School Utility Costs**
Cost($) Cost per Sq. Ft.($) Board Average
per Sq. Ft. Cost per Student ($) Board Average
per Student ($)
21,706.80 0.77 1.55 264.72 214.40
Facility Condition Index
28%
Provincial Average
37%
Board Average
50%
PAR Average
102%
Westminster Central PS
Replacement Value
of the School
$6,742,864
Financial Profile
* Board Average for Administration and Information Technology is based on the Elementary Panel
* Board Average for Facility Services is based on all schools operated by the Board
** Included in above Facility Services costs
APPENDIX B-12
2015-16 Westminster PS SIP ~ Page 9 of 16
Five Year Renewal Needs
Cost Priority Action Year
Year
Renewal Requirement
$ 118,800 Urgent 2015 Hot Water Boilers Renewal
$ 2,345,240 Urgent 2015 Heating water distribution systems - Piping Systems Renewal
$ 10,000 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - D304003 Heating water distribution
systems - Piping Systems - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 216,000 Urgent 2015
Main Switchboards - Main Disconnect (600V to 220/120V)
Renewal
$ 10,000 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - G30 - Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities -
Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 281,160 Urgent 2015
Replacement - G30 - Site Civil/Mechanical Utilities - Beyond
Rated Useful Life
$ 10,000 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - G301001 Well Systems - Drilled Wells -
Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 80,000 Urgent 2015 Well Systems - Drilled Wells Renewal
$ 10,000 Urgent 2015
Study - Replacement - G302005 Septic Tanks - Beyond Rated
Useful Life
$ 240,000 Urgent 2015 Septic Tanks - Site Renewal
$ 68,000 High 2015 Major Repair
$ 156,000 High 2015 Exterior Windows - Original Construction to Addition 1 Renewal
$ 12,100 High 2015
Exterior Doors Hardware - Original Construction to Addition 1
Renewal
$ 30,000 High 2015
Exterior Doors - Original Building - Original Construction to
Addition 1 Renewal
$ 39,600 High 2015
Interior Doors Hardware - Original Construction to Addition 1
Renewal
$ 132,000 High 2015 Interior Doors - Original Construction to Addition 1 Renewal
$ 126,400 High 2015 Wall Finishes - Original Construction to Addition 1 Renewal
$ 83,500 High 2015 Ceiling Finishes - Original Construction to Addition 1 Renewal
$ 150,000 High 2015 Plumbing Fixtures - Washroom Fixtures Renewal
$ 16,000 High 2015 Domestic Water Distribution - Domestic Water Heaters Renewal
$ 10,000 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D2020 Domestic Water Distribution -
Piping System - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 154,640 High 2015 Domestic Water Distribution - Piping System Renewal
$ 10,000 High 2015 Auxiliary Equipment - Stack & Breaching Renewal
$ 10,000 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D304001 Air Distribution, Heating &
Cooling - Insufficient Ventilation
$ 55,300 High 2015
Air Distribution, Heating & Cooling - Insufficient Ventilation - Gym
Renewal
$ 54,000 High 2015 Exhaust Systems Renewal
$ 240,000 High 2015 Controls & Instrumentation Renewal
$ 10,000 High 2015 Lighting Equipment - Stage lighting Renewal
$ 32,500 High 2015
Lighting Equipment - Emergency Lighting - Battery Back-ups
Renewal
$ 407,690 High 2015 Branch Wiring - Cabling, Raceways & Bus Ducts Renewal
$ 10,000 High 2015
Study - Replacement - D502001 Branch Wiring - Cabling,
Raceways & Bus Ducts - Beyond Rated Useful Life
$ 48,000 High 2017 Fencing & Gates Renewal
$ 5,176,930
SECTION C
FACILITY AND SITE PROFILE
TVDSB Five Year Renewal Needs
Project Description Total
Asbestos Repairs $
1,738
Library Renovation $
19,543
Window Replacement - Phase 2 $
393,085
Designated Substance Report $
173
Barrier Free Washroom Renovation $
31,015
Roof Moisture Survey $
4,086
1971 Steel Joist review $
5,540
Supply and install ceiling lift $
10,475
Anthes Joist Investigation $
8,485
Chimney Removal $
9,605
WIFI installation $
4,781
Roof Scan $
4,495
Replace VAT Flooring $
89,680
Phase 1 AODA Compliance Review $
490
Replace Boilers and Pumps $
260,434
Exterior Lighting upgrades $
1,188
Davenport PS Total $
844,813
APPENDIX B-12
2015-16 Westminster PS SIP ~ Page 10 of 16
APPENDIX B-12
2015-16 Westminster PS SIP ~ Page 11 of 16
APPENDIX B-12
2015-16 Westminster PS SIP ~ Page 12 of 16
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Land Use and Zoning
APPENDIX B-12
2015-16 Westminster PS SIP ~ Page 13 of 16
Demographics for the Westminster Central PS Attendance Area
Westminster Central PS is a JK - 8 school located in the southern rural area of the City of London. The school
currently accommodates students from new developments adjacent to Commissioners Road, as well as rural
areas within the City of London.
Within the attendance area of Westminster PS from 2001 to 2006 the total population increased significantly by
41%. From 2006 to 2011 the population slightly increased again by 3%. The population of elementary school
aged children (4 to 13 year olds) increased 15% from 2001 to 2006 and decreased 11% from 2006 to 2011
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Demographic Data for Westminster Central PS
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
27 125 63 706 127 327 921 2.8 0.38 0.19
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
54 144 93 1004 158 484 1295 2.7 0.30 0.19
Yrs 0 - 3 Yrs 4 - 13 Yrs 14 - 18 OVER 18
Females
25-44
Occupied
Dwellings
Total
Population Total Elem Sec
44 128 97 1067 135 515 1336 2.6 0.25 0.19
Source: Statistics Canada 2001, 2006, 2011 Census
2001 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2006 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
2011 Census -AGE COHORTS AND DWELLINGS Person Per Unit
APPENDIX B-12
2015-16 Westminster PS SIP ~ Page 14 of 16
Growth and Development
The current population within the attendance area of Westminster Central PS is expected to grow due to the
planned subdivisions north of Highway 401.
Within the current attendance area of Westminster Central PS, 1355 single family, medium density and high
density residential units are currently circulated or under construction as indicated on the above map. Within the
next 10 years approximately 225 students are projected to be generated from these developments.
In the spring of 2015, the Southeast London Attendance Area Review was conducted to create an attendance
area for the new Southeast London PS. On April 14th, 2015 part of the Westminster attendance area north of
Highway 401 was approved by the Board to be included in the New Southeast PS attendance area. Ministry
Capital funding has not yet been received for the new school.
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Residential Development
APPENDIX B-12
2015-16 Westminster PS SIP ~ Page 15 of 16
YES
Were Community
Use of School
costs fully
recoverable?
NO YMCA of Western Ontario NIL
Were Before and After school
programs or services (e.g., child
care) avaiable at this school
Name of Child Care Provider
Revenue from the
Before and After
school programs
Were before and after
school programs cost fully
recoverable
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
NO N/A N/A N/A
Was the School building
used by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Building Use:
Number of
permits
Booked hours
per year Total revenue
YES 9 178 552.00$
Were School Grounds used
by community groups
through Community Use of
Schools?
School Grounds Use:
Y Y N N Y Y
N Y N N/A N/A
Air Conditioning Compartmenta-
lization
Dedicated
Washroom Space
Existing
Community Use
Existing
Collaboration
Suitable Vacant
Space Parking Barrier-Free
Accessibility Municipal Services Site Size Dedicated Access
to Space
Collaboration Suitability
SECTION D
MUNICIPALITY AND COMMUNITY USE PROFILE
Community Use Profile
APPENDIX B-12
2015-16 Westminster PS SIP ~ Page 16 of 16
You Are Invited to Attend Our
Annual Community Planning and Facility
Collaboration Meeting
Meeting: County of Elgin Municipalities
Date: 2016 June 16
Time: 9:00am – 10:30am
Location: Thames Valley District School Board
Education Centre Board Room
1250 Dundas Street, London ON
The objective of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for TVDSB to share information on
its long-term accommodation planning; and receive from listed Community Organizations
information which may assist with the management of excess space, projected future
needs, and otherwise help identify opportunities for facility collaborations.
Information sharing will allow the TVDSB and Community Organizations (which includes
Municipalities) to work together to the benefit of the board, students and the community, and
to optimize the use of public assets.
Please RSVP to planning@tvdsb.on.ca by
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Please ensure that your RSVP includes the full name and position of the Community
Organization representative(s) who will attend the meeting. Community Organizations
are entitled to have two representatives attend the meeting.
If you wish to share relevant information and/or make a presentation at the meeting, please submit the
information to TVDSB, by email, addressed to planning@tvdsb.on.ca, by Tuesday, May 31, 2016. Please
bring to the meeting four copies of any of the above indicated planning information.
Any planning information provided in electronic format by a listed Community Organization will be posted
on TVDSB’s website, until the next scheduled annual meeting for that region.
For further information please visit our website at www.tvdsb.ca/planning
APPENDIX C
Page 1 of 9
You Are Invited to Attend Our
Annual Community Planning and Facility
Collaboration Meeting
Meeting: County of Elgin Community Organizations
Date: 2016 June 16
Time: 11:00am – 12:30pm
Location: Thames Valley District School Board
Education Centre Board Room
1250 Dundas Street, London ON
The objective of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for TVDSB to share information on
its long-term accommodation planning; and receive from listed Community Organizations
information which may assist with the management of excess space, projected future
needs, and otherwise help identify opportunities for facility collaborations.
Information sharing will allow the TVDSB and Community Organizations (which includes
Municipalities) to work together to the benefit of the board, students and the community, and
to optimize the use of public assets.
Please RSVP to planning@tvdsb.on.ca by
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Please ensure that your RSVP includes the full name and position of the Community
Organization representative(s) who will attend the meeting. Community Organizations
are entitled to have two representatives attend the meeting.
If you wish to share relevant information and/or make a presentation at the meeting, please submit the
information to TVDSB, by email, addressed to planning@tvdsb.on.ca, by Tuesday, May 31, 2016. Please
bring to the meeting four copies of any of the above indicated planning information.
Any planning information provided in electronic format by a listed Community Organization will be posted
on TVDSB’s website, until the next scheduled annual meeting for that region.
For further information please visit our website at www.tvdsb.ca/planning
APPENDIX C
Page 2 of 9
Annual Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Meeting
Between the TVDSB and the County of Elgin
Date: 2016 June 16
Time: 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Location:
Thames Valley District School Board
Education Centre, Board Room
1250 Dundas Street, London ON
A G E N D A
1. Introduction
2. Ministry of Education Information Guidelines and Initiatives
3. Thames Valley District School Board Pupil Accommodation Policy and Procedures
4. Thames Valley District School Board Planning Information
a. Student Programs
b. Enrolment Projections
c. Current Enrolment and Accommodation
d. Financial Impacts of Declining Enrolment
e. Renewal Needs and Facility Conditions
f. Collaboration Opportunities
g. Status of TVDSB Surplus Space for Sale
h. Elementary Accommodation
i. Rethink Secondary Learning
j. Planning Website
5. Questions and comments
6. Adjournment
APPENDIX C
Page 3 of 9
You Are Invited to Attend Our
Annual Community Planning and Facility
Collaboration Meeting
Meeting: City of London Municipalities
Date: 2016 June 15
Time: 9:00am – 10:30am
Location: Thames Valley District School Board
Education Centre Board Room
1250 Dundas Street, London ON
The objective of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for TVDSB to share information on
its long-term accommodation planning; and receive from listed Community Organizations
information which may assist with the management of excess space, projected future
needs, and otherwise help identify opportunities for facility collaborations.
Information sharing will allow the TVDSB and Community Organizations (which includes
Municipalities) to work together to the benefit of the board, students and the community, and
to optimize the use of public assets.
Please RSVP to planning@tvdsb.on.ca by
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Please ensure that your RSVP includes the full name and position of the Community
Organization representative(s) who will attend the meeting. Community Organizations
are entitled to have two representatives attend the meeting.
If you wish to share relevant information and/or make a presentation at the meeting, please submit the
information to TVDSB, by email, addressed to planning@tvdsb.on.ca, by Tuesday May 31, 2016. Please
bring to the meeting four copies of any of the above indicated planning information.
Any planning information provided in electronic format by a listed Community Organization will be posted
on TVDSB’s website, until the next scheduled annual meeting for that region.
For further information please visit our website at www.tvdsb.ca/planning
APPENDIX C
Page 4 of 9
You Are Invited to Attend Our
Annual Community Planning and Facility
Collaboration Meeting
Meeting: City of London Community Organizations
Date: 2016 June 15
Time: 11:00am – 12:30pm
Location: Thames Valley District School Board
Education Centre Board Room
1250 Dundas Street, London ON
The objective of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for TVDSB to share information on
its long-term accommodation planning; and receive from listed Community Organizations
information which may assist with the management of excess space, projected future
needs, and otherwise help identify opportunities for facility collaborations.
Information sharing will allow the TVDSB and Community Organizations (which includes
Municipalities) to work together to the benefit of the board, students and the community, and
to optimize the use of public assets.
Please RSVP to planning@tvdsb.on.ca by
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Please ensure that your RSVP includes the full name and position of the Community
Organization representative(s) who will attend the meeting. Community Organizations
are entitled to have two representatives attend the meeting.
If you wish to share relevant information and/or make a presentation at the meeting, please submit the
information to TVDSB, by email, addressed to planning@tvdsb.on.ca, by Tuesday, May 31, 2016. Please
bring to the meeting four copies of any of the above indicated planning information.
Any planning information provided in electronic format by a listed Community Organization will be posted
on TVDSB’s website, until the next scheduled annual meeting for that region.
For further information please visit our website at www.tvdsb.ca/planning
APPENDIX C
Page 5 of 9
Annual Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Meeting
Between the TVDSB and the City of London
Date: 2016 June 15
Time: 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Location:
Thames Valley District School Board
Education Centre, Board Room
1250 Dundas Street, London ON
A G E N D A
1. Introduction
2. Ministry of Education Information Guidelines and Initiatives
3. Thames Valley District School Board Pupil Accommodation Policy and Procedures
4. Thames Valley District School Board Planning Information
a. Student Programs
b. Enrolment Projections
c. Current Enrolment and Accommodation
d. Financial Impacts of Declining Enrolment
e. Renewal Needs and Facility Conditions
f. Collaboration Opportunities
g. Status of TVDSB Surplus Space for Sale
h. Elementary Accommodation
i. Rethink Secondary Learning
j. Planning Website
5. Questions and comments
6. Adjournment
APPENDIX C
Page 6 of 9
You Are Invited to Attend Our
Annual Community Planning and Facility
Collaboration Meeting
Meeting: County of Middlesex Municipalities
Date: 2016 June 15
Time: 1:00pm – 2:30pm
Location: Thames Valley District School Board
Education Centre Board Room
1250 Dundas Street, London ON
The objective of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for TVDSB to share information on
its long-term accommodation planning; and receive from listed Community Organizations
information which may assist with the management of excess space, projected future
needs, and otherwise help identify opportunities for facility collaborations.
Information sharing will allow the TVDSB and Community Organizations (which includes
Municipalities) to work together to the benefit of the board, students and the community, and
to optimize the use of public assets.
Please RSVP to planning@tvdsb.on.ca by
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Please ensure that your RSVP includes the full name and position of the Community
Organization representative(s) who will attend the meeting. Community Organizations
are entitled to have two representatives attend the meeting.
If you wish to share relevant information and/or make a presentation at the meeting, please submit the
information to TVDSB, by email, addressed to planning@tvdsb.on.ca, by Tuesday, May 31, 2016. Please
bring to the meeting four copies of any of the above indicated planning information.
Any planning information provided in electronic format by a listed Community Organization will be posted
on TVDSB’s website, until the next scheduled annual meeting for that region.
For further information please visit our website at www.tvdsb.ca/planning
APPENDIX C
Page 7 of 9
You Are Invited to Attend Our
Annual Community Planning and Facility
Collaboration Meeting
Meeting: County of Middlesex Community Organizations
Date: 2016 June 15
Time: 3:00pm – 4:30pm
Location: Thames Valley District School Board
Education Centre Board Room
1250 Dundas Street, London ON
The objective of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for TVDSB to share information on
its long-term accommodation planning; and receive from listed Community Organizations
information which may assist with the management of excess space, projected future
needs, and otherwise help identify opportunities for facility collaborations.
Information sharing will allow the TVDSB and Community Organizations (which includes
Municipalities) to work together to the benefit of the board, students and the community, and
to optimize the use of public assets.
Please RSVP to planning@tvdsb.on.ca by
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Please ensure that your RSVP includes the full name and position of the Community
Organization representative(s) who will attend the meeting. Community Organizations
are entitled to have two representatives attend the meeting.
If you wish to share relevant information and/or make a presentation at the meeting, please submit the
information to TVDSB, by email, addressed to planning@tvdsb.on.ca, by Tuesday, May 31, 2016. Please
bring to the meeting four copies of any of the above indicated planning information.
Any planning information provided in electronic format by a listed Community Organization will be posted
on TVDSB’s website, until the next scheduled annual meeting for that region.
For further information please visit our website at www.tvdsb.ca/planning
APPENDIX C
Page 8 of 9
Annual Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Meeting
Between the TVDSB and the County of Middlesex
Date: 2016 June 15
Time: 1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.
Location:
Thames Valley District School Board
Education Centre, Board Room
1250 Dundas Street, London ON
A G E N D A
1. Introduction
2. Ministry of Education Information Guidelines and Initiatives
3. Thames Valley District School Board Pupil Accommodation Policy and Procedures
4. Thames Valley District School Board Planning Information
a. Student Programs
b. Enrolment Projections
c. Current Enrolment and Accommodation
d. Financial Impacts of Declining Enrolment
e. Renewal Needs and Facility Conditions
f. Collaboration Opportunities
g. Status of TVDSB Surplus Space for Sale
h. Elementary Accommodation
i. Rethink Secondary Learning
j. Planning Website
5. Questions and comments
6. Adjournment
APPENDIX C
Page 9 of 9
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
Date of
Meeting: 2016 November 08
Item #:
REPORT TO:
☐
PUBLIC ☐
IN-CAMERA
☐
Administrative
Council
☐
Program and School Services
Advisory Committee
☒
Planning and Priorities
Advisory Committee
☐
Board
☐
Policy Working Committee
TITLE OF REPORT:
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION CONSULTATION INPUT RECEIVED FOR THE
PROPOSED ELEMENTARY PUPIL ACCOMODATION REVIEW 01
PRESENTED BY:
Kevin Bushell, Executive Officer, Facility Services and Capital Planning
PRESENTED FOR: ☐ Approval ☒ Information ☐ Advice
Recommendation(s):
Purpose: To present to the Board the input received, within the deadline, from Community Organizations, in
regards to the Proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 01, as requested in the
attached correspondence sent to listed Community Organizations on 2016 September 19.
Following the deadline, input was received, and has been noted and attached to this report.
Content: As stated in the Pupil Accommodation and Facility Organization Procedure (No.4015a), listed
Community Organizations were given an opportunity to provide Senior Administration with input to
be included in the upcoming Initial Senior Administration Report.
The input requested from Community Organizations (see Appendix A: Community Organization
Consultation) asked for the following:
A clear indication of any community planning or facility collaboration opportunities
which relate to the schools identified; and
Any relevant technical information they may have and wish to provide including, but not
limited to, in the case of any municipal level of government, the municipal level of
government’s population and future development projections for the affected region.
As requested by the Trustees, the enclosed attachments include the input received from
Community Organizations listed in the Community Planning and Facility Collaboration
Opportunities Procedure (4015b).
Cost/Savings: N/A
Timeline: N/A
Communications: N/A
APPENDIX D
Page 1 of 79
Appendices: A. Community Organization Consultation (2016 SEPT 13)
B. EPAR 01: Email correspondence requesting Community Organizations input (2016 SEPT 19)
C. EPAR 01: Community Organization Input Received
D. EPAR 01: Listed Community Organizations
Form Revised: January 2016
Relation to Commitments:
☐ Putting students first. ☒ Actively engaging our students, staff, families and communities.
☐ Recognizing and encouraging leadership in all its forms. ☐ Being inclusive, fair, and equitable.
☐ Ensuring safe, positive learning and working environments. ☐ Inspiring new ideas and promoting innovation.
☒ Taking responsibility for the students and resources entrusted to our care.
APPENDIX D
Page 2 of 79
We build each student’s tomorrow, every day
Date of
Meeting: 2016 September 13
Item #:
REPORT TO:
☒
PUBLIC ☐
IN-CAMERA
☐
Administrative
Council
☐
Program and School Services
Advisory Committee
☒
Planning and Priorities
Advisory Committee
☐
Board
☐
Policy Working Committee
TITLE OF REPORT: COMMUNITY ORGANZATIONS CONSULTATION
PRESENTED BY:
Kevin Bushell, Executive Officer, Facility Services and Capital Planning
PRESENTED FOR: ☒ Approval ☐ Information ☐ Advice
Recommendation(s): THAT Senior Administration contact listed Community Organizations, within the region of the
proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 01 to inform them of a Pupil Accommodation
Review recommended to the Board for approval on 2016 November 22 for the following schools:
Davenport Public School
McGregor Public School
Mitchell Hepburn Public School
New Sarum Public School
Northdale Central Public School
Port Stanley Public School
River Heights Public School
South Dorchester Public School
Sparta Public School
Springfield Public School
Summers’ Corners Public School
Westminster Central Public School
THAT Senior Administration contact listed Community Organizations, within the region of the
proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 02 to inform them of a Pupil Accommodation
Review recommended to the Board for approval on 2016 November 22 for the following sch ools:
Fairmont Public School
Tweedsmuir Public School
Purpose: As stated in the Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Opportunities Procedure, (No.
4015b), Senior Administration requires authorization to contact listed Community Organizations for
a proposed Pupil Accommodation Review.
Content: On 2016 April 12, the Board received a document titled Draft Elementary Accommodation Study
Report, in which the above named schools were reviewed.
As outlined in the Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Opportunities Procedure (No.
4015b);
APPENDIX D
Page 3 of 79
Section 7.1 states that:
Before presenting a recommendation to the Trustees to undertake a Pupil Accommodation
Review, TVDSB Administration must have sought and the obtained approval of the Trustees to
contact the Community Organizations then listed on TVDSB’s website as being entitled to receive
Notices and who are otherwise identified as being with in the affected region, and advise them that
TVDSB is considering a Pupil Accommodation R eview in that region.
Section 7.2 states that:
When contacting listed Community Organizations, TVDSB Administration will identify: the names
of the schools involved; any potential school closures; and, any proposed student long -term
accommodation.
TVDSB will request recipients to provide TVDSB, by email addressed to planning@tvdsb.on.ca,
within ten (10) business days of the date of TVDSB’s email to such Community Organizations,
with:
A clear indication of any community planning or facility collaboration opportunities the
respective recipient is aware of and which relate to the schools identified; and
any relevant technical information the recipient may have and wish to provide, including,
but not limited to, in the case of any municipal level of government, the municipal level of
government’s population and future development projections for the affected region.
TVDSB Administration will contact, by email, listed Community Organizations on 2016 September
28. Any communication received from listed Community Organizations will be included in a report
to the Board on 2016 November 22.
Cost/Savings: N/A
Timeline: 2016 September 28 – Email sent to listed Community Organizations
2016 October 13 – Deadline for input from Community Organizations
2016 November 22 – Report presented to the Board
Communications: As Noted
Appendices: N/A
Form Revised: January 2016
Relation to Commitments:
☐ Putting students first. ☒ Actively engaging our students, staff, families and communities.
☐ Recognizing and encouraging leadership in all its forms. ☐ Being inclusive, fair, and equitable.
☒ Ensuring safe, positive learning and working environments. ☐ Inspiring new ideas and promoting innovation.
☒ Taking responsibility for the students and resources entrusted to our care.
APPENDIX D
Page 4 of 79
Printed by: Planning Department Wednesday, October 19, 2016 1:49:46 P
Title: Proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 01 (EP...Page 1 of 3
Monday, September 19, 2016 1:16:04 PM
Proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 01 (EPAR 01)
From:Theresa Levschuk
Subject:
To:
Cc:
EPAR 01 - 2016/17
Trustees2014 Planning Department Claudia Wiercinski
Dear Community Partner:
In compliance with the TVDSB Community Planning and Facility Collaboration
Opportunities Procedure (No. 4015b), TVDSB is required to contact listed Community
Organizations, when proposing to conduct a Pupil Accommodation Review.
Senior Administration is proposing the following Elementary Pupil Accommodation
Review, be approved by the Board on November 22, 2016, for the following schools:
Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 01:
Davenport Public School
McGregor Public School
Mitchell Hepburn Public School
New Sarum Public School
Northdale Central Public School
Port Stanley Public School
River Heights Public School
South Dorchester Public School
Sparta Public School
Springfield Public School
Summers’ Corners Public School
Westminster Central Public School
The Draft Elementary Accommodation Study (2016 April 12) identified a number of
issues in Elgin County which merit an Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review
(EPAR-01): projected enrolment, school condition and proximity to students, as well as
existing school model organizations. Future enrolment projections suggest that fewer
and more central schools could be used to accommodate these students. Through
proposed school consolidations and new school openings, attendance area adjustments
and school model re-organization, the distribution of students would become more
balanced, the number of eligible walking students would increase, and school and facility
operations would become more efficient.
APPENDIX D
Page 5 of 79
Printed by: Planning Department Wednesday, October 19, 2016 1:49:46 P
Title: Proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 01 (EP...Page 2 of 3
The following proposed solution to the accommodation issues in this region will be
presented in an Initial Senior Administration Report:
Attendance area adjustments to Davenport PS, McGregor PS, Mitchell Hepburn PS
Northdale Central PS, Port Stanley PS, River Heights PS and Summers’ Corners
PS;
Modification of the school model organizations of Davenport PS and McGregor PS;
Closure and disposition of South Dorchester PS, Springfield PS, Westminster
Central PS and New Sarum PS;
Repurposing of a school (Sparta PS) for the creation of a second SK-8 (single
track) French Immersion elementary school in Elgin County;
Possible school improvements (such as renovations or program enhancements)
may be required at Davenport PS, McGregor PS and Port Stanley PS;
Two new JK-8 elementary schools located in Belmont and Southeast St.Thomas
areas.
Your organization has the opportunity to provide to the Board, by email addressed to
planning@tvdsb.on.ca, the following:
a A clear indication of any community planning or facility collaboration opportunities
which relate to the schools identified; and
bany relevant technical information you may have and wish to provide including, but
not limited to, in the case of any municipal level of government, the municipal level
of government’s population and future development projections for the affected
region.
Please respond to TVDSB, by email, with your information no later than Thursday,
October 13, 2016.
Laura Elliott
Director of Education
Theresa Levschuk
Executive Assistant to the Director
Thames Valley District School Board
1250 Dundas Street
London, Ontario N6A 5L1
Ph: 519-452-2000 ext. 20222 Fax: 519-452-2396
email: t.levschuk@tvdsb.on.ca
APPENDIX D
Page 6 of 79
Printed by: Planning Department Wednesday, October 19, 2016 1:49:46 P
Title: Proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 01 (EP...Page 3 of 3
Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the
use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or personal information that
may be subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the
intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete the message and any attachments.
APPENDIX D
Page 7 of 79
Printed by: Planning Department Thursday, September 29, 2016 2:11:12 PM
Title: feedback from the YWCA : FirstClass Page 1 of 1
9/26/2016 2:01:01 PM
feedback from the YWCA
From:"Lindsay Rice" <lr.ywca@bellnet.ca>
Subject:
To:Planning Department
The YWCA St. Thomas‐Elgin provides school age childcare before and after school for children ages 3.5‐12
across Elgin County. Several of our schools appear to be impacted by the upcoming Pupil Accommodation
Review including: Mitchell Hepburn, New Sarum, Sparta, Springfield, Summers’ Corners, McGregor & South
Dorchester. We would like to be included in conversations & decisions about childcare collaboration at
these schools and the new schools identified for southeast St. Thomas and Belmont area. The YWCA
would like to continue delivering childcare services at these schools and the new schools impacting our
school communities such as Sparta. Please feel welcome to contact me by email or phone. We look
forward to being a part of the process moving forward, but are unable to attend the meeting Sept 29th.
Lindsay Rice
Director of Community Programming
YWCA St. Thomas-Elgin
(519)631-9800 x225
Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and/or privileged subject matter. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized
representative of the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
message and any attachments.
APPENDIX D
Page 8 of 79
APPENDIX D
Page 9 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 10 of 79
Printed by: Planning Department Thursday, October 13, 2016 2:08:44 P
Title: EPAR-01 : FirstClass Page 1 of 1
10/4/2016 3:43:29 ...
EPAR-01
From:Cora Burns <cburns@milestonescc.ca>
Subject:
To:Planning Department
Good Afternoon,
See the following, in regards to a letter received on September 19, 2016 in reference to the proposed
Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review, particularly for Port Stanley Public School and for new school
construction.
Milestones Children's Centre is the operator of the Before and After School Age program for Port Stanley
Public School and we support a proposed attendance area adjustment review with possible school
improvements. At the completion of the process, MCC will continue to support the members of the
community by providing Before and After School Age care for children aged 3.8 through 12 years of age.
In addition to the proposed two new elementary schools in Belmont and Southeast St. Thomas,
Milestones Children's Centre support the construction and will apply to provide Before and After School
Age care as we currently do in 5 public schools in Elgin County.
Providing a service to the families of Elgin County through collaboration with the TVDSB has been a
successful experience and we look forward to continued and future opportunities.
Should you required any further information, I would be happy to provide it.
Respectfully,
APPENDIX D
Page 11 of 79
October 7, 2016
Email: planning@tvdsb.on.ca
Laura Elliott
Director of Education
Thames Valley District School Board
1250 Dundas Street
London, ON N6A 5L1
RE: Proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review
At its regular meeting held on October 6, 2016, the Malahide Township Council
reviewed your email correspondence, dated September 19, 2016, regarding the
proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review.
In response to your request for technical information regarding the municipality’s
population and future development projections, the Township wishes to provide you with
the enclosed Background/Discussion Paper entitled “Residential Growth/ Economic
Development (5 Year Official Plan Review)”. This document was prepared in
conjunction with the Township’s 5 Year Official Plan Review process.
In addition, the Malahide Township Council expressed concerns regarding the proposed
Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review and passed the following Resolution:
“THAT, in response to the correspondence received from the Thames Valley
District School Board (TVDSB) regarding the proposed Elementary Pupil
Accommodation Review, the TVDSB be advised that, while it is recognized and
acknowledged that the main purpose of the correspondence is to seek technical
information on future development and community planning opportunities, the
Malahide Township Council is concerned about the criteria used to determine
pupil accommodation;
AND THAT the Township Council wishes to emphasize the importance of
schools as hubs in communities, the economic benefits of schools and the
connection to residential development, the social impacts of dislocating students
and transferring them to other schools, the unique programs offered in rural
schools, such as environmental programs; and requests that any accommodation
review be cognizant of these broader impacts and not just be focused on the
bottom line;
APPENDIX D
Page 12 of 79
AND THAT, in an effort for the Township Council to have a better understanding
of the reasoning behind any recommendations, the TVDSB be requested to
provide the Township with the rationale for the various suggested school
closings, boundary adjustments, and other proposed changes;
AND THAT the TVDSB be requested to ensure continued consultation with the
Township of Malahide throughout the proposed Elementary Pupil
Accommodation Review process.”
Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you require any further information or
documentation.
Yours very truly,
TOWNSHIP OF MALAHIDE
M. CASAVECCHIA-SOMERS, D.P.A., C.M.O., CMM III
Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk
c. Jessica Goodwill, Springfield Save Our School Committee,
Email: njgoodwill@hotmail.com
APPENDIX D
Page 13 of 79
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5
YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
DISCUSSION PAPER #2
NOVEMBER 2008
APPENDIX D
Page 14 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1
2. PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT 2005.............................................................................2
2.1 Intensification and Redevelopment.....................................................................................................2
2.2 Planned and Existing Infrastructure....................................................................................................3
2.3 Specialty Crop Soils / Prime Agricultural Areas.................................................................................3
2.4 Agricultural Operations........................................................................................................................4
3. SERVICING..............................................................................................................................4
4. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS....................................................................................................5
5. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................6
5.1 Avon.......................................................................................................................................................6
5.2 Lyons......................................................................................................................................................7
5.3 Kingsmill Corner ...................................................................................................................................7
5.4 Orwell.....................................................................................................................................................8
5.5 Summers Corners.................................................................................................................................8
5.6 South Gore.............................................................................................................................................8
5.7 Luton......................................................................................................................................................9
5.8 Mount Salem..........................................................................................................................................9
5.9 Calton...................................................................................................................................................10
5.10 Copenhagen.........................................................................................................................................10
5.11 Port Bruce............................................................................................................................................10
5.12 Springfield............................................................................................................................................11
6. INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNER REQUESTS..............................................................................12
6.1 Expansion of Mount Salem (Pt Lot 20, Conc 4)................................................................................12
7. ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION / SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE / SMART
GROWTH................................................................................................................................12
APPENDIX D
Page 15 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008 Page 2
8. RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................13
9. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................15
10. NEXT STEPS..........................................................................................................................15
APPENDIX D
Page 16 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this discussion paper is to study the potential for additional residential / employment
area growth and/or urban boundary re-organization stemming from how growth has occurred over
the last five years under the current Official Plan. New statistical information will be reviewed to
determine if further growth is warranted. The Provincial Policy Statement 2005 states that
settlement areas may only be expanded at the time of a comprehensive review of an Official Plan.
The Township has experienced residential growth to some extent in all of its various urban areas
which include the hamlets of Avon, Lyons, Kingsmill Corner, Orwell, Summers Corners, South
Gore, Luton, Mount Salem, Calton, and Copenhagen; as well as the Villages of Springfield and Port
Bruce. Most growth has occurred through the consent process in the form of single detached
residential building lots being created in groups of 1-5 lots at a time. There has been limited
interest in employment area growth, or multi-lot residential development, through subdivision
development.
As per the policies of the Official Plan, the preferred form of development in the Township is to allow
small amounts of residential infilling to occur in the various hamlets within their specified
boundaries, and direct the majority of residential growth to areas where municipal services are
readily available. Due to changes in the Provincial Policy Statement specifically relating to
servicing, the development patterns preferred by the Township can not be realized without
significant investments in public water services in certain areas. This will be discussed in greater
detail later in the report.
Some observations regarding growth in the Municipality over the last few years are as follows:
• The new hamlet of Luton has quickly maximized the majority of its infilling
opportunities;
• The remaining hamlets have all seen scattered infill development take place to
some degree;
• Areas designated for growth through plan of subdivision have been slow to
develop mainly due to servicing constraints.
The existing servicing situation combined with Provincial policy direction and emphasis on
sustainability have combined to create a situation in the Municipality that cannot maximize its
potential for residential growth based on current settlement area boundaries.
APPENDIX D
Page 17 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008 Page 2
This Growth Study discussion paper is divided into several parts that will form the basis for
determining new or revised settlement area boundaries included as part of the Five-Year Review
Official Plan amendments. These sections include:
• Provincial Policy Statement 2005;
• Servicing;
• Quantitative Analysis (statistical growth / future projections);
• Qualitative Analysis (market interests)
2. PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT 2005
Section 1.1.3.9 of the Provincial Policy Statement states that a planning authority may identify a
new settlement area or expansion of an existing settlement area only at the time of comprehensive
review and subject to the following criteria:
• Sufficient opportunities for growth through intensification, redevelopment, and
existing growth areas are not available;
• The planned or existing infrastructure are suitable to accommodate public health
and safety;
• The lands do not comprise a specialty crop area, avoid prime agricultural areas
where possible, or avoid highest classification of prime agricultural land
surrounding a settlement area;
• That any impacts on agricultural operations are mitigated to the greatest extent
possible.
2.1 Intensification and Redevelopment
Policy 1.6.4.2 specifically states that intensification and redevelopment should be promoted on
existing municipal water and sewage systems where available. Given the existing servicing
situation, opportunities intensification and redevelopment are limited to the Village of Springfield,
being the only urban area with municipal sewers.
Within the Village of Springfield there is some room for redevelopment and intensification through
infilling on the existing street network and intensifying of single unit dwellings to multi-unit dwellings
provided they can obtain a private potable water supply.
There are also significant amounts of vacant agricultural land that has been designated for urban
growth within Springfield. Of the approximately 540 lots and 127 hectares of land identified in the
background studies to the Official Plan for long-term growth in Springfield, none has been
APPENDIX D
Page 18 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008 Page 3
developed. This includes large portions of land in the areas northeast, southeast, and southwest of
existing built-up areas.
There are no other settlement areas with municipal sewers in the Township. Areas that are partially
serviced by municipal water but rely on private sewage disposal systems will not be considered for
large-scale redevelopment or intensification for environmental and public health reasons. As such,
intensification and redevelopment in other areas with partial or private services could only occur at a
rate at which private services could effectively accommodate growth while ensuring a maximum
level of public health and safety. This would predominately take the form of infilling with new single
detached dwellings on frontages within the growth boundaries, or on oversized residential lots.
2.2 Planned and Existing Infrastructure
The existing piped infrastructure for the Township of Malahide is as follows:
Settlement Area Sanitary Sewage Treatment and Disposal Potable Water Supply
Springfield Public Piped Sewers Private Well
Port Bruce Private Septic Public Piped Water
Orwell Private Septic Public Piped Water
Copenhagen Private Septic Public Piped Water
Avon Private Septic Private Well
Lyons Private Septic Private Well
Kingsmill Corner Private Septic Private Well
Orwell Private Septic Private Well
Summers Corners Private Septic Private Well
South Gore Private Septic Private Well
Luton Private Septic Private Well
Mount Salem Private Septic Private Well
Calton Private Septic Private Well
As such there are four urban areas that may become fully serviced through future infrastructure
developments. Currently there are no plans to undertake major infrastructure development.
2.3 Specialty Crop Soils / Prime Agricultural Areas
Specialty crop soils and prime agricultural lands form significant portions of Malahide and contribute
greatly to agriculture being the prime economic force in the Township. The Province has placed a
greater emphasis on protecting specialty crop soils from encroachment by urban development. As
APPENDIX D
Page 19 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008 Page 4
part of the Background Study to the Official Plan, specialty crop soils (ie soils suitable for tobacco)
and soil classifications were mapped indicating that the majority of the land base in Malahide is
considered prime agricultural land, including those specialty crop soils areas. Pockets of non-prime
agricultural lands are found within the Township east of Luton around Silver Creek; southwest of
Aylmer in the South Gore area; and north of Port Bruce around the lower reaches of Catfish Creek.
Not coincidentally, these areas generally contain significant natural heritage features reflecting the
general absence of agricultural activities on such lands.
When considering urban boundary expansions into prime agricultural areas, municipalities must a)
avoid specialty crop soils; b) look at options that first avoid prime agricultural areas, or c) if avoiding
prime agricultural areas is not possible, then look at opportunities on lower priority agricultural lands
within the prime agricultural area. Since the entire Township is considered a prime agricultural
area, the Provincial Policy Statement requires that the Township look at expansion onto lower
priority agricultural lands within the prime agricultural area when considering an expansion.
2.4 Agricultural Operations
Generally, the types of agricultural operations that would most impact, and/or be impacted by urban
expansion are livestock operations. The exact location of current livestock operations has not been
undertaken. Previous research on this matter undertaken in the 1980’s indicated there were
buildings capable of housing livestock all across the municipality. Since this criterion does not limit
urban expansion, but rather requires consideration to mitigation measures between two land uses,
a more detailed review of such uses would be considered upon final determination of any proposed
urban expansions.
3. SERVICING
As noted, there are no settlement areas with full municipal services. Areas with full services are the
preferred areas for growth as they can accommodate a higher range of residential dwelling types at
higher density ranges; allow for maximum protection of public health and safety through protection
of drinking water; and have the least amount of impact on the environment through the treatment of
sewage effluent.
The next most desirable areas to accommodate growth would be those areas with partial services
where public sanitary sewage disposal is provided, and potable water is acquired through private
wells. This would include the Village of Springfield. The Province indicates that growth may occur
in such areas provided that it is within the reserve sewage capacity of the system, and that site
conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services. Scattered infill development
APPENDIX D
Page 20 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008 Page 5
has occurred in the past five years but no large-scale developments through plan of subdivision
have been undertaken.
The final consideration for servicing development is both private sewage disposal and private water
supply. This servicing is applicable most of the hamlets. The current Official Plan policies, restrict
major residential development through plan of subdivision, while allowing some infilling within the
existing growth boundaries.
A form of servicing that is discouraged by the Province is partial servicing where public water is
supplied, but sewage treatment and disposal is by private septic systems. This relates to Orwell,
Copenhagen, and Port Bruce. Problems associated with this type of servicing relate to private
septic systems not being able to accommodate large volumes of wastewater which may occur
where residents are not as concerned with limiting water use. Such volumes may be handled by
private septic systems where lot density is low and scattered, but problematic at higher densities.
4. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
The overall population increase from the 2001 – 2006 period was 51 persons, from a population of
8777 to 8828 according to Statistics Canada. This indicates an annual growth rate of 0.12%.
StatsCan also indicates that the total number of households increased from 2844 in 2001 to 2889 in
2006, or 45 dwellings. This indicates an average annual increase of 9 dwellings over a five year
period. The difference in population growth and total number of households is negligible with
similar sizes of 3.06 persons per household in 2001 and 2006.
Table 1 illustrates the projected growth rates for the next 10 year period of 2008 to 2018. The
projections are based on assumed annual population growth rates of 0.1%, 0.25%, and 0.5%.
Table 1 – Future Population of the Township of Malahide at Selected
Annual Growth Rates: 2008 – 2018 (2006 Assessed Population:
8828)
Projected Increases – Average Annual Growth Rate Year
0.1% 0.25% 0.5%
2008 8837 8850 8872
2009 8846 8872 8917
2010 8855 8894 8961
2011 8863 8917 9006
2012 8872 8939 9051
2013 8881 8961 9096
2014 8890 8984 9142
2015 8899 9006 9187
APPENDIX D
Page 21 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008 Page 6
2016 8908 9029 9233
2017 8917 9051 9279
2018 8926 9074 9326
At 0.12%, annual growth was far less than anticipated in the background study to the Official Plan
undertaken in 2001 (a rate of 0.8% was used for growth forecasts for the 1999 – 2009 period).
However, population projections are almost exact when looking at the projected population used in
the background study (8845 in 2009), and the 2009 population using the current growth rate of
0.12% (8846 in 2009). This would suggest that growth was greater between 1996 and 2001 to
make up for slower growth between 2001 and 2006 census periods. Assuming a similar growth
rate over the next 10 years, the Municipality could anticipate a 2018 population ranging between
8926 and 9074. This scenario presently appears as the most probable population growth rate for
the next planning period to the year 2018.
Such projections would translate to approximately 9 to 23 new people every year. With an average
household size of 3.06 persons in 2006, This would result in the need for 3 to 8 new dwellings per
year.
It can be concluded that, notwithstanding undue influences such as severe economic recession,
nearby plant closures or openings, fluctuations in agricultural markets or unusual development
pressure, the population growth of Malahide should continue to increase at a slow rate. This growth
is measurable in terms of both total population and total number of households.
5. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
In the past five years growth has occurred in each of the individual settlement areas, albeit at
different rates. This section will look at each settlement area from the perspective of recent growth,
perceived desirability for further growth based on recent trends, and forces which may affect future
growth.
5.1 Avon
The un-serviced Hamlet of Avon with a land area of approximately 32 hectares and a density of 0.6
units per hectare has not experienced any significant growth over the last five years. The existing
development pattern consists of development fronting onto Avon Drive and Putnam Road. The
lands are conveniently located in proximity to Highway No. 3 and larger urban centres including
Tillsonburg and Ingersoll.
APPENDIX D
Page 22 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008 Page 7
Approximately 22 short-term lots were accommodated for in Avon along existing road frontages,
with a further 135 lots possible through plan of subdivision on large vacant interior parcels of land.
Current Provincial policy discourages development through plan of subdivision due to the lack of
public water and sewer services in Avon, thereby limiting potential to infill growth and subdivisions
of five lots or less. The hamlet is also located in the midst of prime agricultural areas, thereby
limiting its desirability to expand. The likelihood of municipal sewer and/or water services in the
hamlet is low given its size and geographic location.
5.2 Lyons
The un-serviced Hamlet of Lyons with a land area of approximately 56 hectares and a density of
approximately 1.0 unit per hectare has not experienced any significant growth over the last five
years. The existing development pattern consists of development fronting onto Imperial Road, and
Lyons Line with some interior road network in the s/w corner and a large mobile home park in the
north end. The lands are conveniently located in proximity halfway between Aylmer and Highway
401.
Approximately 28 short-term lots were accommodated for in Lyons along existing road frontages,
with a further 50 lots possible through plan of subdivision on large vacant interior parcels of land.
Current Provincial policy discourages development through plan of subdivision due to the lack of
public water and sewer services in Lyons, thereby limiting potential to infill growth and subdivisions
of five lots or less. The hamlet is located in the midst of prime agricultural areas, thereby limiting its
desirability to expand. The likelihood of municipal sewer and/or water services in the hamlet is low
given its size and geographic location.
5.3 Kingsmill Corner
The un-serviced Hamlet of Kingsmill Corner with a land area of approximately 32 hectares and a
density of approximately 1.5 units per hectare has experienced infill growth over the last five years
and is nearing its developable limit. The hamlet was included at the time of adoption of the Official
Plan to recognize the amount of existing development and allow for infilling within this area. The
existing development pattern consists of development fronting onto Springwater Road, Ron McNeil
Line, Dorchester Road, and College Line.
Approximately 26 short-term lots were accommodated for in Lyons along existing road frontages.
No long term growth was expected or accommodated for in this hamlet. The hamlet is located in
the midst of prime agricultural areas, thereby limiting its desirability to expand. The likelihood of
municipal sewer and/or water services in the hamlet is low given its size and geographic location.
APPENDIX D
Page 23 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008 Page 8
5.4 Orwell
The partially serviced Hamlet of Orwell with a land area of approximately 43 hectares and a density
of approximately 1.5 units per hectare has not experienced any significant growth over the last five
years. The existing development pattern consists of development fronting onto Springwater Road,
and Talbot Line with some interior road network north and south of this intersection. The lands are
conveniently located near Aylmer along Highway 3 and are partially serviced by municipal water.
Approximately 15 short-term lots were accommodated for in Orwell through infilling, with a further
25 lots possible through plan of subdivision on interior parcels of land south of Talbot Line. Current
Provincial policy discourages development through plan of subdivision due to the lack of public
sewer services in Orwell, thereby limiting potential to infill growth and subdivisions of five lots or
less. The hamlet is located in the midst of prime agricultural areas, thereby limiting its desirability to
expand. The likelihood of municipal sewer services in the hamlet is moderate given its existing
public water services, major arterial road access and proximity to larger urban centres.
5.5 Summers Corners
The un-serviced Hamlet of Summers Corners with a land area of approximately 48 hectares and a
density of less than 1.0 unit per hectare has not experienced any significant growth over the last
five years. The existing development pattern consists of development fronting onto Talbot Line and
Springfield Road. The lands are conveniently located in close proximity to Aylmer and include an
elementary school. There are also two large livestock operations to the east of the hamlet
boundary.
Approximately 7 short-term lots were accommodated for in Summers Corners along existing road
frontages, with a further 50 lots possible through plan of subdivision on large vacant interior parcels
mainly to the southwest. Current Provincial policy discourages development through plan of
subdivision due to the lack of public water and sewer services in Summers Corners, thereby limiting
potential to infill growth and subdivisions of five lots or less. There has been some minor interest in
pursuing such smaller plans of subdivision in this area, while other interior areas have been
converted to institutional / recreational uses. The hamlet is located in the midst of prime agricultural
areas, and with active livestock uses in proximity, there is limited desirability to expand. The
likelihood of municipal sewer and/or water services in the hamlet is low given its size.
5.6 South Gore
The un-serviced Hamlet of South Gore with a land area of approximately 33 hectares and a density
of less than 1.25 units per hectare has not experienced any significant growth over the last five
APPENDIX D
Page 24 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008 Page 9
years. The existing development pattern consists of development fronting onto Imperial Road and
Conservation Line. The lands are conveniently located in close proximity to Aylmer.
Approximately 21 short-term lots were accommodated for in South Gore along existing road
frontages, with a further 10 lots possible through small plans of subdivision on vacant interior
parcels to the southwest. Current Provincial policy discourages development through plan of
subdivision due to the lack of public water and sewer services in South Gore, thereby limiting
potential to infill growth and subdivisions of five lots or less. The main reason for inclusion of South
Gore as a hamlet was to recognize existing growth and allow for some limited infill development.
The hamlet is surrounded by lower priority agricultural soils, but is actively farmed. Public water
does extend through the area to access Port Bruce and Copenhagen, which makes the likelihood of
full municipal services in the hamlet slightly higher than other small hamlets given its location on
Imperial Road.
5.7 Luton
The un-serviced Hamlet of Luton with a land area of approximately 78 hectares and a density of
approximately 1.5 units per hectare has experienced significant infill growth over the last five years
and is nearing its developable limit. The hamlet was included at the time of adoption of the Official
Plan to recognize the amount of existing development and allow for infilling mostly along both sides
of Hacienda Road, between John Wise Line in the north and Calton Line in the south.
Approximately 38 short-term lots were accommodated for in Luton along existing road frontages.
No long term growth was expected or accommodated for in this hamlet. The hamlet is located in
the midst of prime agricultural lands; active farming operations on non-prime lands; and is buffered
by natural barriers in some areas, thereby limiting its desirability to expand. The likelihood of
municipal sewer and/or water services in the hamlet is low given its geographic location.
5.8 Mount Salem
The un-serviced Hamlet of Mount Salem with a land area of approximately 76 hectares and a
density of approximately 1.25 units per hectare has experienced some growth over the last five
years through infilling opportunities. The existing development pattern consists of development
fronting onto Calton Line and Springfield Road with no current internal road network. The lands are
located far from most urban centres and serve almost entirely as residential enclave.
Approximately 20 short-term lots were accommodated for along existing road frontages, with a
further 50 lots possible through plan of subdivision on various remnant interior parcels. Current
Provincial policy discourages development through plan of subdivision due to the lack of public
water and sewer services in Mount Salem, thereby limiting potential to infill growth and subdivisions
APPENDIX D
Page 25 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008 Page 10
of five lots or less. There has been some minor interest in pursuing such smaller plans of
subdivision in this area, while other interior areas have been proposed for institutional / recreational
uses. The hamlet is located in the midst of prime agricultural areas, thus providing little desirability
to expand beyond its current boundary. The likelihood of municipal sewer and/or water services in
the hamlet is low given its remote geographic location.
5.9 Calton
The un-serviced Hamlet of Calton with a land area of approximately 21 hectares and a density of
approximately 1.0 unit per hectare has experienced very limited infill growth over the last five years.
The hamlet includes a small amount of residential development along Calton Line and Richmond
Road.
Approximately 7 short-term lots were accommodated for in Calton along existing road frontages
with some larger interior portions included to accommodate approximately 50 lots on a future road
network. The hamlet is located in the midst of prime agricultural lands and is geographically
isolated, thereby limiting its desirability to expand. The likelihood of municipal sewer and/or water
services in the hamlet is low given its remote location.
5.10 Copenhagen
The partially serviced Hamlet of Copenhagen with a land area of approximately 88 hectares and a
current density of just over 1.0 unit per hectare has not experienced any significant growth over the
last five years but does include two draft plans of subdivision which would significantly increase the
density and size (84 lots) of development upon full build out. The existing development pattern
consists of development fronting onto Imperial Road and Copenhagen Road.
Approximately 20 short-term lots were accommodated for in Copenhagen along existing road
frontages, with a further 100 lots possible through plans of subdivision on vacant interior parcels in
each corner of the hamlet. Current Provincial policy discourages development through plan of
subdivision due to the lack of public sewer services in Copenhagen, thereby limiting potential to infill
growth and development on the two aforementioned subdivisions. However, the likelihood of full
services is slightly higher in Copenhagen, given its current access to public water and proximity to
Port Bruce, which may in the long-term future warrant public sewers.
5.11 Port Bruce
The partially serviced Village of Port Bruce with a land area of over 200 hectares and a current
density of just over 1.5 units per hectare has not experienced significant growth over the last five
years but has continued to thrive as a seasonal residential community with some infilling and
APPENDIX D
Page 26 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008 Page 11
redevelopment occurring in older areas of the Village. The existing development pattern consists of
most development occurring between Lake Erie and Catfish Creek, with some slower development
occurring north of the Creek along Rush Creek Line and Imperial Road. Development is limited in
the older areas of the Village by flooding hazards associated with the Creek. Most new
development will occur in the areas further from the Lake on higher ground.
Approximately 70 short-term lots were estimated to exist in Port Bruce along existing road
frontages, with a further 60 lots possible through plans of subdivision on vacant interior parcels on
the aforementioned higher areas of the Village off Imperial Road and Rush Creek Line. Current
Provincial policy discourages development through plan of subdivision due to the lack of public
sewer services in Copenhagen, thereby limiting potential to infill growth and future plans of
subdivisions of five lots or less. However, the likelihood of full services is slightly higher in Port
Bruce, given its current access to public water and higher population levels which may in the long-
term future warrant public sewers. It is unknown if flooding hazards will restrict sewers in the
Village, which would certainly impact on long-term growth in the area.
5.12 Springfield
The partially serviced Village of Springfield with a land area of over 170 hectares and a current
density of approximately 1.4 units per hectare has experienced some growth over the last five years
through infilling on the existing street network which is the most advanced of any urban area in the
Township. The Village also offers the highest range of different land use types; has the most
amount of vacant land to accommodate future development; and is the only urban area serviced by
public sewers.
As such, previous estimates for growth were based on reserve sewage capacity. In 2001 it was
estimated that 22 lots (or 10% of the existing 220 serviced lots) could be created in Springfield
without need to expand the municipal sewage system. If sewage capacity were not an issue it was
estimated that approximately 540 additional residential lots could be created through various plans
of subdivision. Current Provincial policy discourages development through plan of subdivision due
to the lack of public water services in Springfield, but the Province has given indications that larger
subdivisions could be considered on public sewers, where there is proof of an adequate water
supply provided through private or communal wells. The likelihood of full services is highest in
Springfield, given its current access to public sewers, high population levels, and varied land base.
APPENDIX D
Page 27 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008 Page 12
6. INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNER REQUESTS
Relatively few requests to expand growth areas have come forward from individuals or groups of
landowners in leading up to this Official Plan Review. The following details the only proposal
received to date.
6.1 Expansion of Mount Salem (Pt Lot 20, Conc 4)
This request involves a minor boundary expansion to the Hamlet of Mount Salem which would
include 84 metres (276‘) of additional frontage on the west side of the Hamlet along the south side
of Calton Line. This would include enough frontage to accommodate three (3) new building lots.
The owners have also suggested that at the same time a large interior portion of lands they own
within the Hamlet boundary are removed due to their lack of ability to be properly developed on
municipal services as encouraged by the Province.
This proposal better reflects Provincial policy in terms of allowing for a limited amount of infill growth
in unserviced areas, while directing long-term growth to serviced areas. Lands directly to the north
are already developed for residential purposes.
7. ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION / SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE /
SMART GROWTH
Changes to the agricultural industry have had a significant impact on Malahide and other areas of
Elgin County traditionally involved in the farming of tobacco. In addition, changes to Provincial
policy and funding programs regarding smart growth and sustainability, have made it more
important than ever to consider policy changes that consider:
• economic diversification;
• long-term protection of agricultural resources; and
• promoting focused future growth that utilizes infrastructure and minimizes servicing costs.
As part of earlier workshop discussions, Council and staff have illustrated a desire to position
Malahide to attract large-scale secondary employment uses that would rely on, collaborate with,
and benefit from the strong primary agricultural base of the Township. The Township currently has
similar policies intended to attract large-scale energy employment uses to the Township. However,
the concern with the current policies is that the Province has not allowed the Township to permit
such uses to be permitted through a local Zoning By-law amendment process in order to expedite
APPENDIX D
Page 28 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008 Page 13
timelines and attract business. There are opportunities the Township can look at to ensure timelier
approvals including the pre-designation of lands for such employment uses.
Along with such changes, the Township should consider new sustainable agriculture policies to
protect and promote the primary industry of farming as a viable and integral part of local economies.
As part of this initiative we have included a complete draft set of policies related to sustainability in
agriculture to illustrate how changes to the current “Agriculture” policies found in the Official Plan
should be revised (see Appendix 1).
Finally, as recent initiatives have indicated (ie. funding, asset management), the Province is urging
municipalities to look at policy direction which ensures that land use planning decisions are done in
a manner that is sustainable by focusing growth in areas that utilizes existing infrastructure and
investments made to servicing. As indicated in Section 5.12 above, the Village of Springfield
currently offers the most attractive scenario for growth within the Township given its municipal
sewer system, advanced road network, varied land uses, and level of services, most notably the
Springfield Public School.
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are included in a manner which addresses the major issues
identified in this discussion paper. They are as follows:
1. Consider reducing various hamlet boundaries – Where long-term development is
limited on large interiors parcels of land that have been traditionally included within
Hamlet boundaries, Council should consider re-designating these lands to the
Agriculture designation (ie. similar to the landowner request in Section 6.1). This
serves the purpose of protecting agriculture, and directing growth to areas where it is
preferred (ie. Springfield). The other advantage this approach has is to “swap”
development areas, when statistical information may not necessarily warrant
straightforward growth of urban areas, without in turn offering protection to agricultural
lands. An example of this approach would be the Hamlet of Avon as shown in Figure 1
below, where the thick line indicates the current hamlet boundary and the hatched
areas could be re-designated Agriculture, while still retaining some opportunities for
infilling or development of lands on existing road frontages.
APPENDIX D
Page 29 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008 Page 14
Figure 1
2. Include policies for large-scale agriculturally-related employment uses. Such
policies would take a similar approach as those developed for renewable and
alternative energy systems pursued through OPA #8. While this may not expedite
timelines, it would show potential developers that Malahide is receptive to development
that can collaborate with the developed agricultural economic base of the Township.
3. Pre-designate lands for large-scale agriculturally-related employment uses.
Adding an area of the township as a major employment area either within or adjacent
to the Village of Springfield would assist in expediting timelines for approval of major
development, which may prove encouragement to attracting development investment.
A location in proximity to Springfield reinforces the objective of focusing growth in this
area.
4. Add policies which ensure Springfield becomes the focus of any growth and
investment in services and infrastructure. Such policies will assist in future
APPENDIX D
Page 30 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008 Page 15
decision-making regarding “hard” and “soft” servicing priorities that are both
sustainable and supportive of the existing investments and facilities found in
Springfield. Policy changes of this nature support future funding from senior levels of
government and provide clearer direction on issues relating to piped infrastructure,
transportation/roads/bridges, energy planning, and solid waste management.
9. CONCLUSION
The proposed changes make more effective use of the existing road work; while recognizing the
limitations of privately serviced areas; and simultaneously reinforcing the goals and objectives of the
Township and the Province to provide long-term protection of agricultural lands; opportunities for
economic diversification; and promotion of growth in serviced urban areas.
The quantitative analysis undertaken would not provide sufficient justification for a significant net
increase to urban land use designations without some consideration of re-designating lands for
agricultural purposes. The re-organization of some of the urban boundaries provides for the most
efficient use of lands consistent with the goals and objectives of the Official Plan.
In summary, the Township of Malahide has an opportunity to maximize investment and protect
existing services in the Village of Springfield, which should position the Township to make the best
of opportunities in encouraging local employment investments and achieve funding for sustainable
infrastructure requirements.
10. NEXT STEPS
Following this discussion paper we will undertake a review of all remaining matters that Council may
wish to consider as amendments to the Official Plan that have not yet been considered. Following
this step, a draft of all the amendments to the Official Plan will be prepared for Council and staff
review.
J:\3405\377 OP Review\PTRdisc2_growth2008-10-30.doc\2008-11-10\DD
APPENDIX D
Page 31 of 79
IBI GROUP DISCUSSION PAPER #2
Township of Malahide
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (5 YEAR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW)
November 2008
APPENDIX 1 – SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE POLICIES
APPENDIX D
Page 32 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 33 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 34 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 35 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 36 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 37 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 38 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 39 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 40 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 41 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 42 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 43 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 44 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 45 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 46 of 79
APPENDIX D
Page 47 of 79
1
Suggestions and Rationale for Thames Valley District School Board Elementary Pupils Accommodation Issues
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback with regards to the proposed solutions to accommodate issues with
schools in Belmont and St. Thomas. Please see the information below in answer to your two questions:
1. A clear indication of any community planning or facility collaboration opportunities which relate to the schools
identified; and
2. Any relevant technical information you may have and wish to provide including, but not limited to, in the case of any
municipal level of government, the municipal level of government’s population and future development projections
for the affected region.
1. Collaborative Opportunities
Suggestion Rationale Contact Person
Community planning regarding
establishing hubs
The provincial government has
requested that community partners
establish community hubs which
could be in schools. There is
funding for this initiative through
Ontario Works. A proposal is to be
written by May 2017 for Ontario
Early Years Child and Family
Centres (hubs).
Such hubs could be multi-
generational and/or provide day
care within the school for the ease
of the parents and to increase the
mental well-being of children and
grandparents.
Darrell Jutzi – 519-631-9900 ext 1249
APPENDIX D
Page 48 of 79
2
Community planning regarding access
to enough, healthy food for everyone
(Food for All Network and Eat2Learn)
To help students and their families
access enough healthy food and to
teach students about food, nutrition,
and basic food preparation,
consider what other schools have
done: designate an appropriate
plot of land to plant a school garden
and/or fruit trees (with some of the
harvest being used within student
nutrition programs and cooking
programs) and ensure there is an
approved kitchen that is stocked
with basic kitchen equipment to
ensure the school’s ability to offer a
school nutrition breakfast, lunch
and/or snack program and to be a
forum for cooking opportunities for
students.
Food for All – Kendall Chambers; 519-
631-9900 ext 1279
Eat2Learn – Cathy Macpherson; 519-
631-9900 ext 1251
School travel planning to increase safe
active transportation for students via
the work of Active and Safe Routes to
school. This could include a walkabout
for any new school location to identify
areas for safety improvement.
To identify walking/biking safety
concerns and barriers, a survey of
parents and students is done, along
with a walkabout with community
partners like police.
It encourages changes to signage,
sidewalks, etc in order to boost
safety which is why municipal
representatives are included
Pam Ewart – 519-631-9900 ext 1258
Healthy Communities Partnership and
Active Elgin work together to increase
Municipal staff & politicians have
suggested partnering with the
Jessica Lang, Health Promoter &
Coordinator for Healthy Communities
APPENDIX D
Page 49 of 79
3
access to affordable recreation. Principal Association as the
gatekeepers of the schools in Elgin.
There is interest in utilizing
gymnasiums and playgrounds for
community use after school hours
in a coordinated fashion that can be
used by and accessible to all
residents.
Increase connectivity of schools to
Elgin St. Thomas Cycling Master
Plan and promote cycling to school
Partnership, 631-9900 ext.1304
2. School Building
Suggestion Rationale
A clear indication of any community planning or facility collaboration
opportunities which relate to the schools also identified below
Supporting
Documents/Websites
Infection Prevention and Control - Indoor Air Quality
Ventilation system
(Air Circulating
systems) vented to
the outside instead
of into other
classrooms
-Decreases the spread of illness from one class to another or one
section of students.
-The survival, dispersal, and removal of airborne pathogens are
affected by relative humidity, ventilation rate, and the percentage of
recirculated air in the air supply. Increased ventilation rates have
been shown to speed the dilution and removal of viral material. The
use of displacement ventilation and the reduction of the percentage
of recirculated air in the air supply have the potential to reduce
building occupants’ exposures to airborne pathogens.
Building Characteristics and the
Spread of Infectious Diseases
https://www.nap.edu/read/11756/ch
apter/9
Association of classroom ventilation
with reduced illness absence: a
prospective study in California
elementary schools
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.
APPENDIX D
Page 50 of 79
4
-See checklist:
1) Ventilation Checklist from Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools
https://www.epa.gov/iaq-schools/ventilation-checklist-indoor-air-
quality-tools-schools
1111/ina.12042/full
More Fresh Air in Classrooms
Means Fewer Absences
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2013/06/05
/more-fresh-air-in-classrooms-
means-fewer-absences/
Mould contamination in schools and
health effects on children
www.moldbacteria.com/mold/mould
-contamination-in-schools-and-
health-effects-on-children.html
Preventing Occupational
Respiratory Disease from
Exposures Caused by Dampness in
Office Buildings, Schools, and Other
Nonindustrial Buildings
www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2013-
102/pdfs/2013-102.pdf
EPA Guides for Renovation, New
Schools and Energy 2015
http://casle.ca/epa-guides-
renovation-new-schools-energy-
2015/
Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools
Approach
https://www.epa.gov/sites/productio
n/files/2015-
10/documents/iaq_management_fra
mework_success_3_pager_2014.pd
f
Windows that open -Improved ventilation in classrooms may reduce student
absenteeism due to illness (see comments under “ventilation
system”)
Mould prevention -Moulds can be found almost anywhere, both in indoors and
outdoors. Damp school buildings support the growth of indoor
moulds. Many schools have plumbing problems, leaky roofs or
poor ventilation systems and the resulted moisture problems
favours mould growth. Delay in fixing the problems makes mould
growth worse.
-Occupants within damp office buildings, schools, and other
nonindustrial buildings may develop respiratory symptoms and
disease.
-Ongoing inspection and monitoring plays an important role in fixing
the mould problems.
-See checklists:
1) Building and Grounds Maintenance Checklist from Indoor Air
Quality Tools for Schools
https://www.epa.gov/iaq-schools/building-and-grounds-
maintenance-checklist-indoor-air-quality-tools-schools
2) Molds at School
www.healthyschools.org/downloads/Mold_At_School.pdf
Avoid Carpets -Carpets are not recommended related to cleaning difficulties and
allergy risks.
-If carpet is desired, consider carpet tiles. Choose non-abrasive
materials with a non-slip backing. Care should be taken that carpet
APPENDIX D
Page 51 of 79
5
edges are bound and flat to avoid tripping. Secure area rugs to
prevent tripping hazards. Area rugs in kindergarten allows for
rooms to be rearranged as needed
-All flooring requires daily attention to ensure cleanliness. Contact
floor suppliers or manufacturers for recommended maintenance
techniques and follow specific guidelines for properly m aintaining
carpets. Determine the appropriate frequency of vacuuming
required for each area.
Infection Prevention and Control – School Nutrition Program
Designated hand-
washing basin in
kitchen or nutrition
room
-A single hand-washing sink must be present in a convenient
location to the food preparation area with liquid soap and
disposable paper towels in dispensers.
Teachers to clean-up
Allergy considerations
Wash hands
Refer to Food Premise Regulation
562 under the Health Protection and
Promotion Act
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulati
on/900562
Adequate
dishwashing
facilities for school
nutrition program
If all dishes used for the school nutrition program are disposable
then there has to be a two-compartment sink installed. If there are
multi-service utensils being used such as bowls, plates etc. then a
three- compartment sink must be installed or a two-compartment
sink with a commercial dishwasher.
Floors, walls and
ceilings must be
smooth in kitchen
To make surfaces easily cleanable
Adequate
ventilation in
kitchen or nutrition
room for school
nutrition program,
To remove fumes after cooking food in the kitchen
Adequate
refrigeration in
School Nutrition programs require a dedicated refrigerator in which
only food served in the school nutrition program is stored. Space
APPENDIX D
Page 52 of 79
6
kitchen or nutrition
room
should be allocated for such a unit even if one isn’t provided at time
of construction.
Adequate storage
of cleaning and
sanitizing
chemicals for
school nutrition
program
All sanitizers should be kept in minimal quantities needed for the
purpose prescribed and they should be stored separately from food
items. A locked storage cabinet is needed for these supplies.
Infection Prevention and Control – Hand Hygiene
Sinks in
classrooms
-Hand hygiene can prevent illness related absenteeism in schools
-The American Cleaning Institute has been teaching handwashing
in schools since 1926, linking student hygiene to their health. In
2003 ACI joined forces with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention to award students for creative handwashing programs
The Healthy Schools, Healthy People program continues to reach
hundreds of schools each year in an effort to improve hand hygiene
habits among students to help prevent the spread of infectious
disease and reduce related absenteeism.
-Sinks in classrooms and access to soap and water or alcohol-
based hand sanitizer promotes hand washing and decreases the
spread of germs/ illness.
-Sinks in classrooms support prevention of allergic reactions among
children with sensitivities in the classroom and allows for closer
monitoring of students keeping them in the classroom instead of
sending them to the washrooms
-The use of no-touch faucets, doorways, receptacles, and
equipment seems to be a reasonable, though unproven, method for
infection control (refer to study/link).
Healthy Schools, Healthy People.
It’s a SNAP
www.cleaninginstitute.org/clean_livi
ng/handwashing_can_prevent_abse
nteeism_in_school.aspx
Comparative studies of hand
disinfection and handwashing
procedures as tested by pupils in
intervention programs.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2180
2616
Access to soap and
water/alcohol-
based hand
sanitizer
Washrooms
equipped with
hands free water
dispensing and
soap dispensers
and paper towels
Post instructional
signage about
hand hygiene in
kitchens and
washrooms.
APPENDIX D
Page 53 of 79
7
Infection Prevention and Control – Infectious Diseases
Provide a quiet
isolation area for a
sick child
-Space should
provide privacy
when needed.
-Room for desk,
chair, record
storage and
resource material.
-Place for a cot for
a child who is ill.
-Many childhood infections are communicable (passed from one
person to another). Effectively managing infection means taking
steps to prevent it from spreading. One strategy is to contain
infection be separating one or more sick children from the rest of
the group. This step is usually taken to control the spread of
serious illnesses, but it may also be useful for containing milder
contagious infections, such as conjunctivitis (pinkeye).
-Space should be available for temporarily isolating a child who
becomes ill at school. There should be sufficient staff for at least
one adult to stay with the sick child until the child is picked up.
Well Beings: A Guide to Health in
Childcare, 3rd ed.
Canadian Paediatric Society
Infection Prevention and Control – Environmental Cleaning
It is important that
all facilities are free
from garbage,
debris, filth, and
potentially
infectious
materials.
-Regular and thorough cleaning and building maintenance can
prevent pest problems, minimize irritants and allergens and create
healthier learning and working environments for children and staff.
-A good operations and maintenance plan includes procedures for
cleaning all parts of the school facility and maintaining the entire
building infrastructure: the foundation, exterior and interior walls,
windows and doors, and roofing.
Sanitation and Infection Control for
Cleaning Staff
www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/hsprogr
ams/cleaning_staff.html
ISSA CLEAN STANDARD
Measuring the Cleanliness of K-12
Schools
www.issa.com/certification-
standards/issa-clean-
standards/clean-standard-k-
12.html#.V-7HASErLcs
Support for the Mental Health of Students and Staff
Support mental
wellness through
Poor mental health is increasing in students and access to services
can be poor in some areas. Students’ having improved access to
Ready, Set, Go! Building
Healthy Schools in Ontario
APPENDIX D
Page 54 of 79
8
quiet space, colour
and light.
services in the community within the school is important. A
community room for services coming into school such as mental
health services that provides a quiet space for students is essential
in order for service providers to see them in private and in an
environment conducive to counselling.
http://www.peopleforeducation.c
a/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/Healthy
-Schools-2013-WEB.pdf
Architectural Design Considerations
Planning and Design for Child Care
Centres
www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/parents/pla
nning_and_design.pdf
Large windows with
adequate filters for
light and UV in
classrooms
Promotes natural sunlight but decreases the UV harm for students
near the windows and reduces straining of eyes due to bright
sunlight.
Coat hooks and
boxes for each
student for
hats/helmets
Head lice concerns, place to put helmets that they are not thrown
around. Keeps rooms more organized and safe.
Sound barriers
between floors
Stop travel of sound from class above doing QDPA, distractions.
Gym and separate
activity
room/primary gym
To be used for snack program, before and after school program,
multipurpose room for dental screening, immunization clinics,
QDPA or physical education in two areas simultaneously.
Increases accessibility of gym time allocation for a large school.
Kindergarten room Washrooms available adjacent to or within the classroom that
indicate when they are occupied. Classroom larger than a regular
classroom to promote active centres, low shelving for organization
of centres and supplies. Height appropriate and safe coat hooks
and cubicles
Accessibility issues
for all students
Gender neutral bathrooms
APPENDIX D
Page 55 of 79
9
Closets and
storage areas
Prevent injuries by adequate shelving and storage areas
Water fountains
accessible outside.
Decrease students travelling unsupervised into the school and
promotes water consumption.
Privacy curtains in
change rooms
Promotes certain students concerned about changing in front of
classmates who do not participate in gym to have the privacy to
change
Bulletin Boards in
staff room for
Health and Safety
and Staff Wellness
Promotes awareness of issues.
Public Health messaging space in staffroom and front lobby. Cork
board is preferred. ESTPH uses this space for health walls that
school staff have expressed a need for. Our 2015-2016 School
Year-End Survey showed 17 out of 23 schools found our health
walls worked well to provide clear and meaningful communications
to the school community.
Kitchen for food
skill education that
is large enough and
sufficiently stocked
with basic kitchen
equipment
(including the same
infection prevention
and control
requirements for
the Student
Nutrition Program
described above) to
accommodate up to
16 students at a
time.
To have a location in the school where children can learn food skills
and apply their nutrition knowledge learned in the classroom.
In a new build school, it would make the most sense for the kitchen
for the student nutrition program and the kitchen for food skill
teaching be one and the same and in close proximity to the exit to
the school community garden.
Involve volunteers who work in the Student Nutrition Program and
food skill education for input.
Health Canada, Improving cooking
and food preparation skills.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-
an/alt_formats/pdf/nutrition/child-
enfant/cfps-acc-synthes-eng.pdf
Conference Board of Canada,
What’s to Eat? Improving Food
Literacy in Canada.
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/t
emp/a5b53134-6b43-4d71-829f-
25fd9d323bf6/14-
091_whatstoeat_cfic_rpt.pdf
APPENDIX D
Page 56 of 79
10
A designated
location to plant a
school garden
(minimum 6 hours
sun, protection
from wind, good
soil quality, near
water supply, close
to student nutrition
program/student
kitchen).
School gardens are a valuable platform for student learning. It can
provide authentic learning about healthy eating, science, the
environment and can help students make meaningful connections
between classroom concepts and life skills. Not only can the
garden be used as a teaching tool for students, it can also help to
supply produce to the school’s student nutrition program.
Durham Region Health Department,
A Guide to School Gardens.
http://www.durham.ca/departments/
health/food_nutrition/healthy_eating
/schoolGarden.pdf
Power Up for Health, Evidence
Synthesis for Community Gardens
and Local Food Procurement.
https://powerupforhealth.files.wordp
ress.com/2016/05/final_communityg
ardenslocalfoodprocurement.pdf
3. Outdoor Playground Area
Shade in
schoolyards &
outdoor classrooms
in the area that
children spend their
time
In relation to Cancer prevention and sun safety. Designing shade
areas including outdoor classroom or covered area during peak sun
hours – natural or manmade structures. Planned tree areas close
to school to decrease on heat caused by asphalt- functionally
located in the back playground area.
Shaded naturalized schoolyards improve socialization, reduce
aggression, decrease skin cancer risk and reduce the heat island
effect of a flat roofed structure surrounded by cut turf and asphalt
(reducing heating and cooling costs).
Toyota Evergreen Learning
Grounds www.evergreen.ca
Adam Bienstock
www.naturalplaygrounds.ca
TD Friends of the Environment
grants for school yards and outdoor
classrooms.
Developing an Outdoor Classroom
(includes curriculum connections)
http://www.yrdsb.ca/schools/cor
nellvillage.ps/Documents/Outdo
or%20Classroom%20Newsletter
%20FINAL%20COPY.pdf
APPENDIX D
Page 57 of 79
11
www.earthscapeplay.com
Shade Sails—
http://www.ray-catchers.com/
A good resource about heat islands,
the research was done in SW
Ontario.
http://www.moogk-soulis.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/05/Moogk-
Soulis.pdf
Playground Layout Include CSA approval for playground structures and surfacing.
Design a playground which would target promotion of physical
activities and age groupings.
Outdoor
playground and
yard surfacing
Appropriate playground yard surfacing to prevent injuries.
Provide playground equipment and shade for full day kindergarten
yards as many tend to be empty lots.
Peaceful
Playgrounds
Peaceful playgrounds – pavement markings to increase physical
educations while learning topics covered in curriculum (ie;
geography – mapping; math; etc). Great way to turn boring black
top into a colourful learning experience every time they go outside
at school.
http://peacefulplaygrounds.com/
Fencing around
yard
Safety
APPENDIX D
Page 58 of 79
12
4. School Built Environment
Making the health
of student’s and the
built environment a
priority when
making decisions
about boundary
changes, school
closures,
relocation/
amalgamations and
new schools.
Healthy children are better learners.
The needs of children and youth should be put first at every
stage of transport and land use planning process.
In Canada, 25% of 5 to 17 year olds typically use active
modes of transportation 58% use mainly inactive modes and
17% use a combination of active and inactive modes of
transportation for getting to and from school.
Only 7% of 5-19 year olds take 12, 000 steps on every day
of the week which is the approximate amount of physical
activity recommended in the Canadian 24-Hour Movement
guidelines.
According to the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS)
2009–2011, nearly one-third of Canadian children and youth
were overweight or obese.
Being overweight or obese and lack of physical activity puts
children and youth at risk for heart disease, stroke,
cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and various cancers. In
Canada, incidences of Type 2 diabetes in children and
youth, is appearing to rise in parallel with obesity rates.
Active transportation is recognized as an increasingly
relevant issue in light of ever increasing traffic congestion
issues and environmental concerns as well as the rise in
obesity and chronic diseases associated with a lack of
physical activity, and the need for personal mobility choices .
Walking is the most accessible, affordable and easiest way
for children to increase their physical activity levels. Physical
activity has shown to improve a student’s focus, memory and
Canadian Child- And Youth-Friendly
Land-Use and Transport Planning
Guidelines. April 2010.
http://www.kidsonthemove.ca/uploa
ds/Canadian%20Guidelines,%202.p
df
ParticipACTION. Are Canadian kids
too tired to move? The 2016
ParticipACTION Report Card on
Physical Activity and Youth.
Toronto: ParticipACTION; 2016.
https://www.participaction.com/en-
ca/thought-leadership/report-
card/2016
Addressing Obesity in Children and
Youth: Evidence to Guide Action for
Ontario Summary Report
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/e
n/eRepository/Addressing_Obesity_
Children_Youth-
SUMMARY_Sept2013.pdf
Planning Healthy Communities Fact
Sheet Series No. 2. Active Living,
Children & Youth: What is the
Canadian evidence saying?
https://www.cip-icu.ca/Files/Healthy-
Communities/FACTSHEETS-
ChildrenYouth-FINALenglish.aspx
Healthy Communities and Planning
APPENDIX D
Page 59 of 79
13
improve academic performance. Walking to and from school
also improves their mental health, connects them to their
community and decrease vehicle traffic and congestion
which improves traffic safety and air quality around the
school.
for Active Transportation Planning
and Implementing Active
Transportation in Ontario
Communities A Call to Action
http://ontarioplanners.ca/PDF/Healt
hy-Communities/2012/Planning-
and-Implementing-Active-
Transportation-in.aspx
Active and Safe Routes to School
St. Thomas Elgin London Middlesex
Oxford
http://www.activesaferoutes.ca/scho
ol-travel-plans/benefits-to-stp-and-
asrts/
Work in
collaboration with
amulti-disciplinary
team including:
engineers, urban
designers,
architects,
landscape
architects, public
health
professionals,
politicians and
members of the
community,
together with
planners.
Active transportation planning and design requires a multi-
disciplinary team as facilities can be retrofitted to
accommodate active modes of travel but it is costs more
than upfront planning.
It is important to incorporate active transportation elements
into plans at both the site plan and secondary plan level.
Community partners in Elgin-St. Thomas have been working
together and have developed a Cycling Master Plan
Healthy Communities and Planning
for Active Transportation Planning
and Implementing Active
Transportation in Ontario
Communities A Call to Action
http://ontarioplanners.ca/PDF/Healt
hy-Communities/2012/Planning-
and-Implementing-Active-
Transportation-in.aspx
Elgin-St. Thomas Cycling Master
Plan
http://www.activeelgin.ca/sites/defa
ult/files/documents/Final%20Master
%20Plan%20%28single%20sided%
29%20-
%20September%202014_0.pdf
APPENDIX D
Page 60 of 79
14
Location of school
should be away
from major streets
if possible and a
walking/biking
distance.
Important factors in school travel choices are the students’
proximity to school and the quality of the built environment.
A distance of one kilometre or less is especially supportive
for active transportation.
High traffic volumes and major streets to cross significantly
reduce the likelihood of children walking home from school.
Supportive built environments with traffic calming and safe
crossings around schools may encourage students to use
active travel as well as lower speed limits within the
surrounding school area.
Planning Healthy Communities Fact
Sheet Series No. 2. Active Living,
Children & Youth: What is the
Canadian evidence saying?
https://www.cip-icu.ca/Files/Healthy-
Communities/FACTSHEETS-
ChildrenYouth-FINALenglish.aspx
Canadian Child-And Youth-Friendly
Land-Use And Transport Planning
Guidelines
http://www.kidsonthemove.ca/uploa
ds/Canadian%20Guidelines,%202.p
df
Plan school bus
routes that limits
the time and
kilometres students
spend on the
school bus and if
possible,
This will lessen their exposure to poor air quality inside the
school bus, bullying and spending long periods of time
sitting.
Canadian Child-And Youth-Friendly
Land-Use And Transport Planning
Guidelines
http://www.kidsonthemove.ca/uploa
ds/Canadian%20Guidelines,%202.p
df
Healthy community
design features that
support active
travel may include:
may include
visually clear signs,
safer narrower
streets crossings
with median
According to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation’s Transit
Supportive Guidelines, sidewalks, on-road bicycle lanes, off-
road trails, multi-use pathways, bike parking facilities, and
crosswalks are all part of the active transportation network.
Infrastructure that supports active modes of travel
encourages physical activity, improves pedestrian, bike and
traffic safety, and reduces the risk of injury for children and
youth.
It also influences how parents perceive neighbourhood
Healthy Communities and Planning
for Active Transportation Planning
and Implementing Active
Transportation in Ontario
Communities A Call to Action
http://ontarioplanners.ca/PDF/Healt
hy-Communities/2012/Planning-
and-Implementing-Active-
Transportation-in.aspx
Planning Healthy Communities Fact
APPENDIX D
Page 61 of 79
15
refuges, sidewalks,
well-lit sidewalks,
bike lanes, and
other clamming
measures and
space reallocation
safety which is a key predictor for parents/caregivers when it
comes to decision-making for letting their child use active
travel to and from school.
Sheet Series No. 2. Active Living,
Children & Youth: What is the
Canadian evidence saying?
https://www.cip-icu.ca/Files/Healthy-
Communities/FACTSHEETS-
ChildrenYouth-FINALenglish.aspx
Bus area separate
from Parking lot
To decrease student pedestrians in parking lot. Prevent
potential injuries related to students walking between buses
to get to parents in parked cars and vehicles entering and
leaving parking lot.
Planning bus stops that are a little distance from the school
entrances reduce exposure to exhaust and increase walking
of students into the school. Use of safety patrollers could
reduce fear of parents regarding safety of their children if
walking is required.
Bike racks For students and teachers to encourage active
transportation.
ESTPH has a collaborative agreement with East Elgin
Secondary School and Parkside to make bike racks so it
would be a win:win to use these bike racks at schools.
They should be installed in places that are visible to school
traffic and offices, as it is more likely that bikes will be stolen
when hidden behind a school and/or shrubs.
Establish complete
tobacco and e-
cigarette free
building and
grounds
Tobacco whether inhaled or chewed is harmful to health.
Chewing tobacco also can make an incredible mess for
maintenance workers.
E-cigarette use in young people is escalating and considered
harmful to their health due to exploding e-cigarettes and the
potential to adopt smoking through the behaviour of vaping.
We anticipate full implementation of the E-Cigarette Act early
APPENDIX D
Page 62 of 79
16
in 2017 so it will be a requirement to prohibit use in schools
and on school property.
APPENDIX D
Page 63 of 79
Dear TVDSB Planning Department, Senior Administration and Trustees,
The Belmont School Alliance is a group of parents whose children attend South
Dorchester PS and Westminster Central PS. We self-indentify Belmont as our
community. We strongly support amalgamating both school boundaries in their
entirety if/when the proposed Belmont school is built. We would like to see all of the
current South Dorchester PS and Westminster Central PS, as well as the South
Dorchester students who are bussed to Davenport for their grade seven and eight
school years to attend the proposed Belmont school. The following list details why
we think this is a positive solution for the TVDSB and the children of Westminster
Central PS and South Dorchester PS.
1) First and foremost, it puts the needs of our children first. It recognizes and
embraces the rural diversity that exists in our community. It keeps our children
in their community.
2) As we know, parent involvement plays an important role in student success.
We know that parent involvement will remain high and in fact may increase
with a school in Belmont as we already self-identify Belmont as our
community. This is where many of our parents work, where we grocery shop
and where many of our younger children attend childcare facilities. As parents
we are already in the community. We support the Board’s Parent Involvement
initiatives and agree that the need for parent involvement is a huge asset not
only to our schools but to the academic success of our children.
3) Currently the Westminster Central PS and South Dorchester PS students are
being bussed out of Belmont to their current schools. A school in Belmont
would bring the children together; together in the community where they
already play soccer, hockey, take music lessons, go to church, attend parks,
splash pads, parades, and other community activities. Moreover, South
Dorchester students would no longer be bussed further out of their community
to Davenport PS in Aylmer for grade 7 and 8.
4) A new K-8 public school in Belmont would allow the board to close two
schools. The first school being Westminster Central - a school currently under
capacity. We understand that the financial needs of the Board are structured
around funding that is provided on a per pupil basis. Amalgamating
Westminster Central PS and South Dorchester PS would decrease the number
of empty places in the school board by approximately 200. This supports their
financial needs to decrease these costs while continuing to provide our students
with an educational environment that better suits the rural needs of our school.
The second school being South Dorchester - a school currently comprised of
K-6 students. Closing this school supports the Board’s preferred K-8 delivery
APPENDIX D
Page 64 of 79
model for its elementary schools and allows the grade 7 and 8 students from
South Dorchester to remain in their community.
5) It has been stated by Senior Administration that schools on wells and septic
tanks are a liability. A school in Belmont would have access to Municipal water
and sewer, alleviating the concerns associated with schools currently on wells
and septic tanks.
6) Depending on the location of the proposed new school, this option opens up
the possibility for students to walk to school. Having children walking to
school will help strengthen the existing community ties. This will also decrease
the number of school buses required and will decrease the School Board’s
transportation costs. The environment will also benefit as a result of less
school vehicles on the roads.
7) “The Ministry does not view school sizes as an overriding determinant of
education quality”
(http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/renfrew/summary.html).
There is no policy at the Ministry level to suggest that a specified number of
students are required to build a school.
Thank you for taking the time to consider our position regarding the proposed
Belmont School.
Kindly,
Sarah Fletcher, Belmont School Alliance Chair
APPENDIX D
Page 65 of 79
October 12, 2016
Ms. Tisdale and Trustees
Thames Valley District School Board
1250 Dundas Street
London, Ontario
N5W 5P2
Dear Ms. Tisdale and Trustees:
I am writing to you in regards to the proposal of building a new school in Belmont.
This discussion has been ongoing for sometime now and I believe the time is right for a more serious
look at the advantages of such a proposal.
Belmont is a growing community literally on the door step of London. We have new homes being built
on a continuing basis with Belmont Meadows subdivision near completion and Robin's Ridge steadily
expanding. With these new homes comes a steady influx of young families, which of course will put
more pressure on the already limited resources of South Dorchester public school.
I believe this presents us with an opportunity to reduce costs, modernize infrastructure and centralize
education by amalgamating both South Dorchester and Westminster public schools into one new
facility located in Belmont. Not only do we have the updated sewer and water capacity to support such
a project but the families from both schools readily identify with Belmont as their community through
activities such as hockey, soccer, church attendance and a myriad of service groups and social
interaction.
The community as a whole supports this proposal and I believe if it is not acted on at this juncture, in a
pragmatic and logical manner, it will become a necessity at a later date at much greater cost.
For your consideration.
Sincerely,
Fiona Roberts
Councillor Ward 5
Municipality of Central Elgin
519-852-2921
APPENDIX D
Page 66 of 79
October 13, 2016
Thames Valley District School Board
1250 Dundas Street
P.O. Box 5888, London, ON
N6A 5L1
To whom it may concern,
On behalf of City of London as the Consolidated Service System Manager for London and Middlesex, and
in accordance with the Thames Valley District School Board’s (TVDSB) Community Planning and Facility
Collaboration Opportunities Procedure, we would like to explore community planning and facility
collaboration opportunities for River Heights Public School. The City of London has for years worked in
partnership with the TVDSB on community planning and facility collaboration opportunities, most recently
including the new Northeast and Northwest facilities that received significant capital support from the
Ministry of Education.
We are interested in discussing the inclusion of an 88-space Child Care space and a small Family Support
Program space at River Heights PS, it being noted that we have previously worked with the TVDSB to
submit a capital request to the Ministry of Education for this same purpose.
As part of the Province’s modernization of child care, the Child Care and Early Years Act (2014) gives
responsibility for integrated planning, notably including the management of Family Support Programs and
Child Care, to the City of London as the Consolidated Municipal Service Manager for London and
Middlesex. Currently, our data suggest there are insufficient child care spaces available in the Dorchester
area to support the growing number of families in the area. Additionally, the opportunity to align with
the Ministry of Education’s vision for a seamless, integrated high quality system of supports for families
makes River Heights PS an ideal location for the establishment of an Ontario Early Years Child and Family
Centre in the Dorchester area, should capital funding be provided by the Ministry of Education.
The Child Care would potentially operate weekdays from 7:30am-6:00pm and include: one infant room;
two toddler rooms; and two preschool rooms that would provide quality licensed early childhood
education. An Ontario Early Years Child and Family Centre, if implemented, would provide early learning
and parenting supports for families with children 0-12 years old.
APPENDIX D
Page 67 of 79
The inclusion of licensed Child Care and Early Years programming within the school setting in the
Dorchester community would provide quality early learning experiences that have been proven to lead to
improved readiness to learn and educational outcomes for future students of the TVDSB and the
community.
We look forward to exploring this opportunity further, subject to available resources, with the TVDSB;
please contact Trevor Fowler at your earliest convenience to begin the planning process.
Please note that this submission focuses on community planning and facility collaboration opportunities;
the City of London intends to provide additional comments regarding the current Pupil Accommodation
Review process and potential school closures.
Sincerely,
Lynne Livingstone
Managing Director
Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services
C. Gregg Barrett, City of London, Manager, Long Range Planning and Research
John M. Fleming, City of London, Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, Planning and
Development
Cindy Howard, Middlesex County, Director of Social Services
APPENDIX D
Page 68 of 79
APPENDIX D
Page 69 of 79
Next to Mom Inc. Child Care and School Age Programs
231 College Street, PO Box 249
Belmont ON N0L 1B0
Phone: 519-644-0201 Fax: 519-644-1494
www.nexttomom.ca
October 13, 2016
Laura Elliott
Thames Valley District School Board
1250 Dundas Street
London ON
N6A 5L1
Dear Ms. Elliott and Trustees
I am writing you today in response to the request for input regarding collaboration
opportunities and relevant information regarding a new JK-8 Elementary School to be located in
Belmont.
While I do not oppose the school coming to Belmont, as the only licensed child care operator in
the area, I have some concerns regarding the inclusion of a child care facility within the school.
I have personally met with personnel from Thames Valley and although my concerns were
heard, they could not do anything to alleviate my concerns.
The first question I asked was regarding background information in order to determine the
viability of adding another child care centre into the village. I was told there was no viability
study completed nor was there one in the works. I have been in operation in this village for 10
years. We opened our doors with 10 children and have grown to be able to accommodate 68
full day child care spaces and 49 before and after school spaces. In order to show the bank, this
was indeed a good investment and opportunity for this community, I had to complete a
business plan that would show viability. As you can appreciate there has been talk about this
new school coming to Belmont and in speaking with parents, they feel that our great
reputation, along with our personalized and flexible care far exceeds anywhere they have
toured or taken their children to previously. Parents have said that they will continue to support
our child care centre as long as we are here. Parents have also expressed that us not being able
to oversee the care of their children is frankly something very scary for them and something
that they do not want to give up.
APPENDIX D
Page 70 of 79
Next to Mom Inc. Child Care and School Age Programs
231 College Street, PO Box 249
Belmont ON N0L 1B0
Phone: 519-644-0201 Fax: 519-644-1494
www.nexttomom.ca
The second question I asked was regarding the co-exisitng of two child care centres in the
village. I was told that currently there is no contingency for existing child care operators in the
same area. As mentioned above, I have spaces for 68 full day children. Although I have been
close, I have never been at capacity in the 10 years of operation. The Board is being mandated
by the Province to have a child care in the school and I am reluctant to believe that another 88
child care spaces are needed in this community.
Thirdly, I was told that I am not able to put forth a submission to operate a child care centre in
the school as I am a for profit Centre. I was told by the Board that it is not allowed because they
deem for profit centres to be of lesser quality and they tend to focus on profit rather than
quality. I challenge this... as a for profit centre operator:
a) I take a similar wage that is close to those of my supervisors,
b) I have been told by parents that meals served to the children are far superior to those of any
other child care centre.
c) My fees for child care are less than those of non-profit centre. I have compared my Centre to
St. Thomas, Aylmer and London child care centres closest to Belmont.
d) Because I am a for profit business, I am not eligible for many grants that non-profit centres
are eligible for and yet I manage to provide one of the most up kept, clean, and engaged child
care centres in the area in which I do not have to get board approval to repair and upgrade
supplies / furnishings and equipment.
These are just a few items.
I was also asked by a Board member how my licensing standards differ from that of a not for
profit centre. The answer to that is there is no difference. I follow the same rules and
regulations of any child care centre in the province.
Again, I have no objection to having a school come into Belmont. A new school has been
needed for many years. Even though I will lose my 49 before and after school spaces (which
account for half of my licensed spaces / income) I am not opposed.
My concerns lie in the fact that a child care centre will be added to this school without any
viability study, without any concessions being made to work with the existing child care centre
APPENDIX D
Page 71 of 79
Next to Mom Inc. Child Care and School Age Programs
231 College Street, PO Box 249
Belmont ON N0L 1B0
Phone: 519-644-0201 Fax: 519-644-1494
www.nexttomom.ca
because I operate a for profit centre and new school builds are mandated through provincial
APPENDIX D
Page 72 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 73 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 74 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 75 of 79
APPENDIX DPage 76 of 79
Last Updated: September 2016
County of Elgin
Anago Resources
Best Buddies Canada
Big Brothers Big Sisters of St. Thomas-Elgin
Central Community Health Centre
Child and Parent Resource Institute
Chippewa of the Thames
City of St. Thomas
College Boreal
Community Living Ontario
Conseil Scolaire Catholique Providence
Conseil Scolaire Viamonde
County of Elgin
Craigwood Youth Services
Dutton Child Care
Early Learning Centre
Elgin St.Thomas Public Health
Family & Children's Services of St. Thomas and Elgin
County (Children's Aid Society)
Family Service Thames Valley
Fanshawe College
Infrastructure Ontario - Ontario Lands Division
Strategic Asset Planning
London District Catholic School Board
London Health Sciences Centre
Merrymount Children's Centre
Milestones Children's Centre
Municipality of Bayham
Municipality of Central Elgin
Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich
Municipality of West Elgin
Munsee Delaware Nation
Next to Mom Inc
NSTEP Registered Charity (Nutrition, Students,
Teachers Exercising with Parents)
Oneida Nation of the Thames
Ontario Early Years Centre (OEYC)
Oxford-Elgin Child & Youth Centre
Public Works and Government Services Canada
South West Community Care Access Centre
South West Local Health Integration Network (LHIN)
Southwest Ontario Aboriginal Health Access Centre
St. Thomas-Elgin Consolidated Municipal Service
Manager (CMSM)
Thames Valley Children's Services
The University of Western Ontario
Tiny Tots Co-Operative Nursery School of Aldborough
Town of Aylmer
Township of Malahide
Township of Southwold
Vanier Children's Centre
WAYS Mental Health Support
YMCA
YWCA
APPENDIX D
Page 77 of 79
Last Updated: September 2016
City of London
Anago Resources
ATN Access for Persons with Disabilities Inc. (ATN
Access Inc.)
Best Buddies Canada
Big Brothers Big Sisters of London & Area
Central Community Health Centre
Child and Parent Resource Institute
Childreach
Children's Aid Society of London & Middlesex
Children's Health Foundation
Chippewa of the Thames
Chippewa of the Thames Health Centre
City of London
College Boreal
Community Living London
Community Living Ontario
Conseil Scolaire Catholique Providence
Conseil Scolaire Viamonde
Craigwood Youth Services
Family Service Thames Valley
Fanshawe College
Growing Chefs! Ontario Society
Infrastructure Ontario - Ontario Lands Division
Strategic Asset Planning
John Howard Society of London & District
Let's Talk Science
London Bridge Child Care Services Inc
London Children's Connection
London District Catholic School Board
London Health Sciences Centre
London InterCommunity Health Centre
London Public Library
London-Middlesex Consolidated Municipal Service
Manager (CMSM)
Merrymount Children's Centre
Middlesex-London Health Unit
Munsee Delaware Nation
Munsee Delaware's Health Program
NSTEP Registered Charity (Nutrition, Students,
Teachers Exercising with Parents)
Oneida Nation of the Thames
Oneida Nation of the Thames Health Centre
Oneida Nation of the Thames Mental Health/Social
Health Center
Pillar Nonprofit Network
Public Works and Government Services Canada
South West Community Care Access Centre
South West Local Health Integration Network (LHIN)
Southwest Ontario Aboriginal Health Access Centre
St. Joseph's Health Care, Regional Mental Health
Care London
Thames Valley Children's Services
The University of Western Ontario
Vanier Children's Centre
WAYS Mental Health Support
Whitehills Child Care
YMCA
Youth Opportunities Unlimited (YOU)
YWCA
APPENDIX D
Page 78 of 79
Last Updated: September 2016
County of Middlesex
Anago Resources
Best Buddies Canada
Big Brothers Big Sisters of London & Area
Central Community Health Centre
Child and Parent Resource Institute
Children's Aid Society of London & Middlesex
Chippewa of the Thames
Chippewa of the Thames Health Centre
College Boreal
Community Living Ontario
Conseil Scolaire Catholique Providence
Conseil Scolaire Viamonde
County of Middlesex
Craigwood Youth Services
Dorchester Block Parents
Family Service Thames Valley
Fanshawe College
Infrastructure Ontario - Ontario Lands Division
Strategic Asset Planning
John Howard Society of London & District
Let's Talk Science
London Children's Connection
London District Catholic School Board
London Health Sciences Centre
London-Middlesex Consolidated Municipal Service
Manager (CMSM)
Merrymount Children's Centre
Middlesex-London Health Unit
Municipality of Middlesex Centre
Municipality of North Middlesex
Municipality of Southwest Middlesex
Municipality of Thames Centre
Munsee Delaware Nation
Munsee Delaware's Health Program
NSTEP Registered Charity (Nutrition, Students,
Teachers Exercising with Parents)
Oneida Nation of the Thames
Oneida Nation of the Thames Health Centre
Oneida Nation of the Thames Mental Health/Social
Health Center
Public Works and Government Services Canada
South West Community Care Access Centre
South West Local Health Integration Network (LHIN)
Southwest Ontario Aboriginal Health Access Centre
St. Joseph's Health Care, Regional Mental Health
Care London
Thames Valley Children's Services
The University of Western Ontario
Thorndale Optimist Club
Township of Lucan Biddulph
Township of Adelaide Metcalfe
Township of Strathroy-Caradoc
Vanier Children's Centre
Village of Newbury
WAYS Mental Health Support
Whitehills Child Care
YMCA
YWCA
APPENDIX D
Page 79 of 79
REPORT OF THE FIRST NATIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (FNAC) MEETING
2016 October 18
3:05 p.m. to 4:40 p.m.
MEMBERS ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
P. Schuyler, Chair
J. Bennett, Trustee
A. Morell, Trustee
B. Summers, Oneida Nation of the Thames
F. Huff, Chippewas of the Thames
M. Fisher, Munsee- Delaware Nation
O. Correia, Munsee-Delaware Nation
Regrets:
D. Grosbeck, Chippewas of the Thames
P. McKenzie, Superintendent of Student Achievement
P. Skinner, FNMI Learning Supervisor
S. McGahey-Albert, FNMI Education Advisor
L. Abell, Corporate Services Assistant
C. Friesen, Principal B. Davison S.S.
B. Nielsen, Principal S.D.C.I.
B. White, Saunders S.S.
J. Patterson, Vice-Principal Saunders S.S.
P. Spicer, Principal Delaware Central P.S.
L. Williams, Principal Lambeth P.S.
Guests:
D. Dolson, Chippewa Secondary School Counsellor
A. Gilbert, Learning Co-ordinator Literacy K-8
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting convened at 3:05 p.m. at the Oneida Nation of the Thames Community Centre, Bear’s
Den, 2017 Ballpark Road, Southwold.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – The agenda was approved on motion.
3. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST – none declared
4. REPORT OF MEETING- 2016 SEPTEMBER 20 – provided for information.
5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES
More information was requested regarding the new literacy model at Saunders Secondary School
(agenda item #9.d). The program was described as a one on one support model to identify literacy
gaps, determine intervention steps and support students.
6. PROGRAM SPOTLIGHT
a. Community Visit
P. Skinner described the First Nations Community Visit that took place on 2016 October 12.
Oneida Nation of the Thames, Munsee-Delaware Nation and Chippewas of the Thames
communities welcomed over eighty Thames Valley District School Board educators. The tour
provided an opportunity to learn about the three First Nations communities’ distinct history,
culture, language and geographic location. Folders containing details of the visit were given to the
committee members. The feedback that was received through twitter was assembled into a
package and distributed at the meeting. The feedback was positive and expressed appreciation
for the visit. A.Gilbert joined the meeting and shared reflections and comments about the positive
experience of visiting the three First Nations communities on the same day. Stories shared by
speakers at each community inspired conversations around partnering and supporting educators
in the communities on a day-to-day basis.
7. LEARNING SUPPORT SERVICES UPDATE
a. Cultural Funds
P. Skinner reviewed the Cultural Funds with the Committee. Principals shared the various ways
that cultural funds are used at the schools through inviting Elders of the communities to speak to
the students; purchasing books and literacy resources; organizing beading classes and visiting
the First Nations communities.
b. Board Action Plan (BAP) Updates
P. McKenzie shared the Board Action Plan (BAP) (item 7.b) updates. Distributed at the meeting
was the 2016-2017 Board Action Plan on First Nation, Métis and Inuit Education. The 2016-2017
15.a
Board Action Plan on First Nation, Métis, and Inuit Education Summary was distributed to the
members in advance of the meeting.
It was advised that the action plan includes all First Nation, Métis and Inuit students. Community
members were asked to share this document with their First Nations communities. A summary of
the types of items to share will be assembled for the next meeting.
c. FNAC Annual Work Plan 2016-17 Draft
P. McKenzie advised that the draft FNAC Annual Work Plan 2016-2017 will include a month by
month summary from the First Nations Advisory Committee (FNAC) for areas of inclusion under
program spotlights. The FNMI Student Achievement committee will be re-established to set goals
and collaborate with FNAC.
d. Teacher on Assignment (TOSA) position
P. McKenzie shared the status regarding the Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) position. It
was described as an opportunity to support student success. The TOSA position has been
posted. In response to a question it was noted that the TOSA will work with multiple schools.
M. Ferdinand provided an update around the FNMI Counsellor position. The hiring process is
moving forward and an update will be provided at the November FNAC meeting.
8. PRINCIPALS’ UPDATE
a. B. Davison Secondary School
Principal C. Friesen referred to the written report as attached (FNMI 1) and provided to the
Committee in advance of the meeting. Highlighted was the team building for grade nine students.
Staff members accompanied over forty students on London Transit Busses to attend a football
game at TD stadium.
In response to a question it was advised that First Nations students are able to attend
Remembrance Day ceremonies in their own communities.
b. Delaware Central Public School
Principal P. Spicer referred to the written report as attached (FNMI 2) and provided to the
Committee in advance of the meeting. It was advised that students working together on the
Student Nutrition plan are learning life skills and building relationships.
c. H.B. Beal Secondary School
The report is attached (FNMI 3) and was provided to the Committee in advance of the meeting.
d. Lambeth Public School
Principal L. Williams referred to the written report as attached (FNMI 4) and provided to the
Committee in advance of the meeting. Highlighted was the Oneida Language teacher who is also
a prep teacher providing support in Full Day Kindergarten to build cultural capacity with teachers
and students. The Collaborative Inquiry Team has been formed.
e. Saunders Secondary School
Vice-Principal J. Patterson referred to the written report as attached (FNMI 5) and provided to the
Committee in advance of the meeting. It was advised that the grade nine parent night was well
attended by parents and students. The Martin Family Initiative is running again this year.
f. Strathroy District Collegiate Institute
Principal B. Nielsen referred to the written report as attached (FNMI 6) and provided to the
Committee in advance of the meeting. Highlighted was the participation of eight students in the
4th R Peer Mentorship program. The OSSLT pilot test runs on October 20 for grade 10 students.
The Commencement and awards night is scheduled for November 4.
B. Nielsen and B. White provided information regarding transition planning for grade eight
students. Parents and students have multiple points throughout the year to visit and learn about
the secondary schools. Classroom teachers and guidance counsellors visit elementary schools in
the spring.
9. COMMUNITY UPDATE
a. Oneida Nation of the Thames
B. Summers shared the Oneida Nation of the Thames update. Language acquisitions and second
language teachings are priorities. Master speakers at community schools are being used to
immerse students in their own languages. A trip for students to visit Oneida New York is being
planned. Parental engagement is taking place around cyber bullying including providing parents
with supports to address bullying. An awards night for grades seven to grade twelve students is
taking place on October 20 at the Standing Stone School. There is a vacant student advocate
position. Negotiations continue on the tuition agreement with Thames Valley District School
Board.
b. Chippewas of the Thames First Nation
F. Huff provided the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation update. The Chippewa Youth Peer
Council students are meeting and talking about their communities and roles. Teachings of First
Nation languages are starting in the early years. Parent engagement methods are being
explored.
c. Munsee-Delaware Nation
The Munsee-Delaware Nation update was provided by M. Fisher and O. Correia. M. Fisher
advised Munsee-Delaware Nation is holding an education committee meeting. O. Correia shared
that he has been meeting with the Principals of secondary schools. It was noted that the
community visit provided a First Nations experience that should be extended to Principals, Vice-
Principals and teaching staff.
10. ADDITIONAL ITEMS
a. Membership
Oneida Nation of the Thames has two vacancies.
11. FUTURE MEETING DATES
All Meetings start at 3:00 p.m.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. by motion.
Recommendations: None
P. Schuyler
Committee Chair
Tuesday, 2016 November 15 H.B. Beal Secondary School
Tuesday, 2016 December NO MEETING
Tuesday, 2017 January 17 Saunders Secondary School
Tuesday, 2017 February 21 Lambeth Public School
Tuesday, 2017 March 21 Delaware Central Public School
Tuesday, 2017 April 18 B. Davison Secondary School
Tuesday, 2017 May 16 Strathroy District Collegiate Institute
Tuesday, 2017 June 20 Munsee-Delaware Nation
Page 1 of 6
Thames Valley District School Board
2016-17 Board Action Plan on First Nation, Métis, and Inuit Education
Summary
Framework
Implementation Board
Strategies
Programs and Initiatives
1. Through board planning
processes, identify resources
and supports that will help
improve the engagement,
learning, achievement, and
well-being of First Nation,
Métis, and Inuit students
The Board has identified FNMI Education as a priority and to support
the system has appointed the following positions: Superintendent of
Student Achievement with FNMI portfolio, Learning Supervisor with
FNMI portfolio, FNMI/EIE Learning Coordinator, FNMI Education
Advisor, FNMI Re-Engagement Attendance Counsellor, two First
Nations Counsellors, Social Worker, five Native Language Teachers,
and a Student Success School Support Initiative position.
In addition, two Elementary Schools and one Secondary School with a
high FNMI student population and low reading scores will be
implementing an intensive reading intervention program entitled
Empower Reading.
2. Collect, analyse, and report
on data for self-identified
Aboriginal students, to inform
targeted strategies for
increasing Aboriginal student
achievement and success
Aboriginal Student Self- Identification Brochure and Poster
TVDSB has a brochure and poster which provides information to
students and parents regarding the voluntary, confidential Aboriginal
Student Self-Identification.
FNMI Student Achievement Committee
Re-establish the FNMI Student Achievement Committee: the
committee will meet four times, set goals, and collaborate with the
First Nation Advisory Committee (FNAC).
3. Engage with local First
Nation, Métis, and Inuit
parents and communities to
build understanding of
Aboriginal student self-
identification and to increase
the number of
students/families that choose
to self-identify
7.b
Page 2 of 6
Thames Valley District School Board
2016-17 Board Action Plan on First Nation, Métis, and Inuit Education
Summary
Framework
Implementation Board
Strategies
Programs and Initiatives
4. Engage with local First
Nation, Métis, and Inuit
parents, communities, and/or
organizations to explore
opportunities for reciprocal
data sharing to support a
shared understanding of
student demographics and of
the successes and challenges
experienced by Aboriginal
learners
First Nations Advisory Committee (FNAC) As a part of the tuition
agreements with our three local First Nations communities, a Board
committee (FNAC) meets monthly. Membership on this committee
includes representatives from the three local First Nations
communities, the principals of the schools where the tuition paying
students attend, Board trustees, FNMI Supervisory Officer, FNMI
Learning Supervisor, FNMI/EIE Learning coordinator and the FNMI
Education Advisor. Members share information and seek input. The
meetings are chaired by the First Nations Trustee.
5. Increase First Nation, Métis,
and Inuit student participation
in elementary and secondary
school programs and services
that have proved to be
effective
FNMI Services
A partnership with Western University – Faculty of Education Centre
for School Mental Health has been established to deliver the following
programs: Peer Mentoring, Elementary Peer Mentoring, FNMI Cultural
Leadership Conference, and the FNMI Student Leadership Council.
6. Enhance the inclusion of
First Nation, Métis, and Inuit
students’ needs and
experiences in board and
school initiatives that promote
safe and accepting schools
Visiting Elders and Cultural Teachers Program
Every school in TVDSB is able to invite an Elder or Cultural Teacher to
work with students in various capacities. Schools cover half of the
costs associated with the stipend that is offered to the Elder or Cultural
Teacher and the System covers the other half. Connecting the
Elder/Cultural Teacher with the school, providing tobacco, offering any
other support is done at the System level.
FNMI Elementary/Secondary Learning Experiences
FNMI focussed learning experiences will be offered to elementary and
secondary schools including Visiting Elders and Cultural Teachers
Program.
Dramatic Arts Initiative
Students will work with Cultural Teacher/Production Director in
creating a set design and stage production for a future play “Where
the Blood Mixes” that will bring awareness about residential schools.
Page 3 of 6
Thames Valley District School Board
2016-17 Board Action Plan on First Nation, Métis, and Inuit Education
Summary
Framework
Implementation Board
Strategies
Programs and Initiatives
7. Increase opportunities for
the participation of First
Nation, Métis, and Inuit
students in student voice,
student engagement, and
peer-to-peer mentoring
activities
FNMI Student Leader Posters
Printing and distribution of FNMI Student Leader Posters to all schools.
FNMI Cultural Camp
TVDSB and LCDSB have partnered to organize an FNMI cultural camp.
The camp will take place at Onondaga Farms on April 11 to 13, 2017.
Start2Finish Program
Transportation will be provided to students at one elementary school
to participate in the Start2Finish reading and running mentorship
program.
8. Work in collaboration with
community partners to
identify and address topics
relevant to the health,
including mental health, and
well-being of First Nation,
Métis, and Inuit students
FNMI Cultural Programming
A partnership will be established with Southwest Ontario Aboriginal
Health Access Centre (SOAHAC) to provide cultural programming for
10 schools.
9. Increase opportunities for
Native languages and Native
studies education, based on
local demographics and
student and community needs
Educational Opportunities
Provide educational opportunities for our Native Language and FNMI
Studies classes.
Indigenous Arts Initiative
This funding will be used in the fall to provide workshops in the area of
the arts to a Secondary School.
Resource Support for Native Languages
Provide resources in support of Community-based language initiatives.
Page 4 of 6
Thames Valley District School Board
2016-17 Board Action Plan on First Nation, Métis, and Inuit Education
Summary
Framework
Implementation Board
Strategies
Programs and Initiatives
10. Focus on supporting
successful transitions for First
Nation, Métis, and Inuit
students
Grade 8 Transitions
Secondary staff will outreach to FNMI grade 8 students and parents to
discuss their transition to secondary school.
FNMI Secondary Students Transitions
This funding will be used to provide transportation for FNMI secondary
students to attend a conference on Post-Secondary Education.
FNMI School Within A College (SWAC)
TVDSB has partnered with Fanshawe College to offer a Day Away
Program to FNMI senior students who have 22 credits or more.
Students in this program are able to complete their OSSD and begin
taking College level courses. They have access to the FNMI Centre at
Fanshawe College as well as other courses. Transportation to and
from our local First Nations Community is provided for these students.
11. Continue to work with
local First Nations to
implement successful
Education Service Agreements
and to support successful
transitions for First Nation
students
Transition Support
We will provide training support to a local First Nation school to offer
the Elementary Mentoring Program.
12. Facilitate professional
development opportunities
for teaching staff to assist
them in incorporating
culturally appropriate
pedagogy into practice to
support Aboriginal student
achievement, well-being, and
success
Support for Native Language and FNMI Studies Teachers
Meetings and workshops to discuss strategies to assist in the planning
and development of language courses and FNMI studies, and
supporting FNMI students in the classroom.
13. Provide professional
development opportunities
that enable teachers and
board leaders to increase their
knowledge and awareness of
FNMI Teacher Champion Training and Support
Each top 10 FNMI student populated elementary and secondary
schools will identify two FNMI Teacher Champions, based on the FNMI
student population. This year Teacher Champions will focus on
student-led initiatives within their school community.
Page 5 of 6
Thames Valley District School Board
2016-17 Board Action Plan on First Nation, Métis, and Inuit Education
Summary
Framework
Implementation Board
Strategies
Programs and Initiatives
Aboriginal cultures, histories,
traditions, and perspectives
and enhance their capacity to
support Aboriginal learners
more effectively
FNMI Speaker Series
Provide professional learning for all staff that promotes FNMI inclusion
in the classroom. Focussed professional learning on treaties, diversity
kit, FNMI Math, and Indigenous Teaching Strategies.
FNMI Student Focussed Collaborative Inquiry
4 Elementary schools with a high FNMI student population have
participated in the FNMI student focussed collaborative inquiry where
they have worked as school teams to address an FNMI problem of
practice. These 4 school teams will be participating in this initiative
once again this year.
14. Support an increased focus
on Aboriginal education by
inviting board-designated
Aboriginal Education Leads to
participate in regional Literacy
and Numeracy Secretariat
and Student Success
initiatives and other
professional learning
opportunities
FNMI team members made up of Supervisory Officer, FNMI Learning
Supervisor, FNMI Learning Coordinator and FNMI Education Advisor
will attend LNS meetings as determined by Ministry dates.
15. Engage with local First
Nation, Métis, and Inuit
parents, communities, and
organizations to build
understanding of Aboriginal
student self-identification and
to increase the number of
students/families that choose
to self-identify
Page 6 of 6
Thames Valley District School Board
2016-17 Board Action Plan on First Nation, Métis, and Inuit Education
Summary
Framework
Implementation Board
Strategies
Programs and Initiatives
16. Collaborate with First
Nation, Métis, and Inuit
parents and communities to
enhance communications on
progress related to Aboriginal
student achievement and
success
Urban FNMI Student Achievement Celebration
In collaboration with N’Amerind Friendship Centre host an evening to
celebrate the success of urban FNMI students in Thames Valley.
Thames Valley District School Board Laura Elliott, Director of Education and Secretary
B. Davison Secondary School
785 Trafalgar Street, London, Ontario N5Z 1E6
Telephone: (519) 452-2880 Fax: (519) 452-2899
Web site: www.tvdsb.on.ca/davison
Chris Friesen, B.Sc., B.Ed., M..Ed., Principal ~ Melanie Seifert., B.A, B.Ed., M.Ed., Vice-Principal
Carrie Rogers, First Nations Counsellor
Report to First Nations Advisory Council
Date: Monday, October 17,
2016
Student Engagement:
The former Principal’s Student Advisory Group has been renamed Student Voice as
the emphasis will be on helping the students take ownership over this group with
help from the Principal and the Head of Guidance
o There are currently 15 members with Grade 9’s to be added shortly
o Their focus will be a short and longer term project that will improve their
engagement; we will be meeting twice a month
Two staff members have stayed on as our FNMI school contacts. Ms. Kim
Alexander and Ms. Carrie Rogers
A number of grade 9 orientation activities centered on inclusion and acceptance
have occurred including a morning of get-to-know-you games and a full day with
an environmental focus on Westminster Ponds
We had a school-wide afternoon of team building activities in late September
We brought 43 students (via city bus!!) to the United Way Game, had our Terry Fox
Run (90 students) and hosted a Slo-Pitch tournament
We continue to pilot the Empower Literacy program
We have started exploring the concept of Project-Based Learning with a vision that
this would be the mode of operation for most/all learning in our school
Cultural Initiatives:
Ms. Rogers and our Student Success Team are meeting regularly to discuss
supports for a number of our First Nations students.
Our First Nations course NAC201 is comprised of students across all grades and it
will run in Semester 2
Ms. Rogers indicated that she is starting beading classes pending approval FNMI
funding. In addition she has started Sharing Circles on Fridays with Smudge.
Ms. Rowe and Ms. Alexander’s classes participated in the Orange Shirt Day. As
well, we had an informative announcement read both on the 29th and the 30th.
Importance Dates:
Early Warning reports will be distributed on Thursday, October 13. Every student
will be provided with a Markbook printout for every course.
Plans have already started for the preparation of our Remembrance Day assembly,
help during period 2 on November 11.
Our grade 11 and 12 students will be taking part in our two-week work experience
program. Work experience will commence on Monday, November 21 and will
wrap-up on Friday, December 2. This program allows our senior students to put into
practice what they have learned in their various academic and technology
classrooms. Traditionally, our students have been highly successful.
Delaware Central Public School
14 Osborne Street, Delaware, Ontario, N0L 1E0
Telephone: (519) 652-5371 Fax: (519) 652-3578
Email: delawarecentral@tvdsb.on.ca
Website: www.tvdsb.ca/delawarecentral.cfm
Ms. P. Spicer
Principal
Mrs. G. Vangreuningen
Secretary
Report to First Nations Advisory Council
October 2016
TRANSITION MEETINGS and TIMELINES
The “Meet the Staff BBQ and Open House” held on September 15th was well attended.
We have met with Oscar Correia, Education Coordinator for Munsee-Delaware Nation,
to review students’ learning profiles.
We have worked with Lisa Williams, Principal of Lambeth P.S., Mabel Doxtator, Student
Advocate for Oneida Nation of the Thames, and Bette Summers, Administrator, Life-
Long Learning Division, Oneida Nation of the Thames, to plan a Parent and Child
‘information night' for Standing Stone School's current grade 5 and 6 students. The
event is scheduled for Wednesday, November 16.
A second transition team planning meeting has been scheduled for November 2.
INITIATIVES TO SUPPORT STUDENTS IN THEIR LEARNING
Program Development Team meetings have begun for those students who have
previously identified exceptional needs and/or have an Individual Education Plan
(October 6)
Students in grades 1-8 have completed two math assessments that are currently being
scored. Results will be used to plan instruction.
A student nutrition program is being added to our Healthy Schools
Initiatives. Delaware
Central staff is working with Mabel Doxtator and Oscar Correia to assess student needs,
review resources and create an actionable plan. A meeting has been scheduled for
Friday, October 14.
The Fourth R Program – Strategies for Healthy Youth Relationships is being facilitated
by Michael Cywink. All students eligible to participate have returned signed consent
forms.
Our School-Based Indigenous Education-Focused Collaborative Inquiry Team is
meeting on Wednesday, October 12 to reflect upon last year’s learning outcomes and
plan this year’s work.
CULTURAL INITIATIVES
Our opening exercises/announcements continue to include a blessing recited in
Oneida.
Staff and students participated in ‘Orange Shirt Day’ by wearing orange clothing,
reading stories written to teach elementary aged students about residential schools in
Canada, and engaging in age-appropriate and cross-grade activities intended to
reinforce our belief that ‘every child matters.’
An Elder has been invited to our first Character Recognition and Celebration Assembly
of the year, scheduled for October 27. It is our hope that the Elder will open the
assembly with a greeting and speak to our staff and students about the Seven
Grandfather Teachings.
THAMES VALLEY DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
LAURA ELLIOTT, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND SECRETARY
Report to First Nations Advisory Council
October 2016
TRANSITION MEETINGS AND TIMELINES
Beal is planning to host grade 7 and 8 students for a blended day of learning and fun to
experience high school. This will be done through our grade 9 Dean and transitions team and will
include different program elements from the school.
INITIATIVES TO SUPPORT STUDENTS IN THEIR LEARNING
See below
CULTURAL INITIATIVES
On Wednesday September 28, 2016, a group of Beal's FNMI students attended bestselling author
Joseph Boyden's, King's College visit. The student's got a chance to meet to Mr. Boyden - speak,
read, lecture and advocate. They were also provided with a tour of the campus and given an
opportunity to speak with First Nations students currently studying at Kings.
On Thursday September 29th, leading up to Orange Shirt Day several classes were invited to
view the film "Our Healing Journey". It was well attended & received by Beal students & staff.
Two of Beal's First Nations students introduced the film and explained what Orange Shirt Day
was about.
The goal of the film was to increase awareness of staff and students on how First Nations
Residential schools had directly impacted First Nations peoples. To build community - the film
represented a local perspective on First Nations Residential schools and provided a knowledge
base for all members of the Beal School Community.
On September 30th, 2016, many staff and student's wore their Orange shirts for "National
Orange Shirt Day" to acknowledge & honour survivors of Indian Residential schools and
Remembering Those Who Never Made it Home.
ON-GOING INITIATVES
Our peer mentor group began this past week and was very well attended.
FUTURE DATES
Oct 18 Early Progress Reports
Oct 20 Literacy Test (on-line)
Oct 25 Awards Ceremony
Oct 26 Parent Teacher Night 6-8pm
H.B. Beal Secondary School
525 Dundas Street
London, Ontario
N6B 1W5
Phone: 519-452-2700
Fax: 519-452-2729
www.tvdsb.ca/beal.cfm
Email: beal@tvdsb.on.ca
Mr. Michael Deeb, B.L.S., H.B.A., M.A., Principal
Mr. Matthew Bradacs, B.A., B.Ed., M.Ed., Vice-Principal
Mr. Michael Barry, B.A., B.Comm., B.Ed., Vice-Principal
Ms. Tammy Vacante, B.A., B.Ed., M.A., Vice-Principal
Report to First Nations Advisory Council- October, 2016
*************************************************************************************
Welcome to our new students and their families!!!
Intermediate Division has 3 grade 7 and 3 grade 8 classes.
Grade 7 Registrations: 21
Grade 8 Registrations: 20
Initiatives to Support Students In Their Learning
We have 3 Oneida language classes being offered this year.
Oneida Language teacher is also a prep teacher at our school and is providing
support in the FDK division, building cultural capacity with teachers and
students.
Collaborative Inquiry Team for Lambeth has been formed. We have 6 teachers
from grades 5-8 and our Learning Support Teacher participating in this learning
experience.
We had several of our students attend the Aboriginal Youth Apprenticeship
Conference. Excellent feedback from the students on this event.
Our resource team has reviewed all student records for our new students and
have implemented programming and next steps to support their learning.
We had a planning meeting for grade 6 student and family connections on
October 5, 2016 and are looking forward to some new and exciting events.
Cultural Initiatives
The Fourth R cultural and social skills program will start on
October 12, 2016.
Fourth R Group Sessions- October 12, 2016
REPORT to FIRST NATIONS ADVISORY COUNCIL
Saunders Secondary School
October 18th, 2016
TRANSITION MEETINGS AND TIME LINES
Parents’ Night
On October 13th, we held our Parent – Teacher interviews for students in all grades.
This provided an opportunity for parents to talk with teachers about their child’s
progress and recent progress reports.
Gr.9 Parent Night
On September 15th, we held a Gr. 9 Family Night at the school, which was well-
attended by parents and students. Parents enjoyed the opportunity to meet their
child’s teachers and visit their classrooms.
INITIATIVES TO SUPPORT STUDENTS IN THEIR LEARNING
FNSST
Progress reports were issued on October 6th. The marks reported provide a
snapshot of the students’ progress in their courses. We will utilize the data obtained
from the progress reports as well as student attendance to brainstorm strategies to
help those students who are struggling.
Specialist High Skills Major (SHSM) Programs
Our Construction and Manufacturing SHSM programs are up and running this year.
We’re pleased to offer all students access to these fantastic programs. We have
added a 3rd SHSM which has just started this year – our Arts and Culture SHSM. Our
lead teachers have already begun to plan extracurricular activities and certification
training for the students who signed up last year.
CULTURAL INITIATIVES
Martin Family Initiative - (Formally Paul Martin Accounting Mentoring Program)
Currently recruiting 2-3 candidates for the mentoring program. The orientation
session for our candidates will be held in the next couple of weeks at Saunders S. S.
4th R Program
The 4th R program is up and running again this year. We’re looking forward to the
opportunity for our students to complete the program.
4th R Program Activities
o Wednesday October 5th, 15 students attended 4th R Mentor training with Cassie
Tamminga at Western.
o Friday October 7th - 4th R class went to Vansittart Outdoor Ed Centre for a full
day Adventure Challenge in order to develop deeper relationships and build a
stronger sense of team.
o October 11th- was first of 8 lunches for the 4th R Mentors with their Grade 9
Mentees.
o Friday October 21st- 4th R class is going to Boler Mountain to participate in full
day High Ropes Course to challenge themselves personally and focus on healthy
risk-taking.
o The leadership class is collaborating with a Grade 12 Drama class to give
direction to this year's Haunted Classroom. They will guide the League of Nations
volunteers in leading this initiative. Students will be collecting canned goods for
At^Lahosa Native Family Healing Centre.
o Students in my leadership class are reviewing the script for Remembrance Day
(as prepared by the History Department) to give feedback about the script. 3 or 4
student volunteers will be reading the script in both assemblies on Remembrance
Day.
FNMI Student Leadership Council
Applications are being encouraged from our Grade 10, 11, 12 students for involvement
in the FNMI Student Leadership Council. Several came in today and will be forwarded
by the October 27th deadline.
IMPORTANT DATES:
October 13th, 2016 - Parent/Teacher Interviews
October 20th, 2016 - Ontario Secondary Literacy Test
October 27th, 2016 - Awards Night
October 28th, 2016 - PA Day
November 2nd, 2016 - Take Our Kids to Work Day
November 3rd, 2016 - Music Night
November 9th 2016 - Term 1 Ends
November 11th, 2016 - Remembrance Day
November 28th, 2016 - PA Day
November 23rd, 2016 - Mid-Term Report Cards Distributed
First Nations Advisory Council
Principal Report – SDCI
Transition Meetings and Timelines
November 2, students from Grade 8 invited to SDCI to spend morning meeting teachers and learning
about elective course offerings – we will have them back a number of times over the year to assist in
transitions- feedback from students and parents is welcome as we plan these events for the year.
Initiatives to Support Students In Their Learning
Sept 23- staff PD Day focused on, among other things, ways to sustain and improve a welcoming and
positive school community for all staff and students at SDCI; more to come.
October 14th- early progress reports handed out to students
OSSLT preparation going well- SDCI will be ready to go on the 20th- practice test on the 18th to
prepare first-time writers
Cultural Initiatives
Joseph Boyden event – 8 students attended from SDCI, very much enjoyed his presentation and
discussion.
Orange Shirt Day -wide participation at SDCI – morning TV announcement with a brief overview of
the orange shirt origin, as per TVDSB release, majority of staff and large number of students
participated.
4th R Peer Mentorship Program – again, 8 students from SDCI attended, lots of interest from
students and parents. They had a good day with M.Cywink and others, engaged in some excellent
activities.
FNMI Students Leadership Council – several applications handed out to students- looking forward to
getting several involved.
Upcoming events/dates
Parent Teacher Interviews October 19, 5-7 pm
Awards Night and Commencement Friday, November 4
Mid Term reports go home week of November 21
REPORT OF THE CHAIR’S COMMITTEE
2016 October 25
12:16 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS
G. Hart B. McKinnon
A. Morell M. Reid
R. Tisdale (Chair)
ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
L. Elliott B. Williams
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda, as amended, was approved by motion.
2. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST – none declared
3. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE ADVISORY AGENDAS FOR 2016 NOVEMBER 1 AND 8
The 2016 November 1 Program and School Services Advisory Committee agenda and the 2016
November 8 Planning and Priorities Advisory agenda were reviewed, discussed, and amended.
The schedule of agenda items for Advisory Committees and the list of items identified by trustees for
future agenda items were reviewed. It was determined the trustee request for a future report on safe
schools and special education be reviewed in greater detail at the next Chair’s Committee meeting.
4. CORRESPONDENCE
A letter to the Chair from the Municipality of Southwest Middlesex commending Administration for
their efforts during Ekcoe Central’s temporary relocation was received. It was determined a copy of
the letter be included on the 2016 November 22 Board meeting agenda under Correspondence.
A copy of a letter sent to the Minister of Education from Peel District School Board concerning the
discontinuation of top-up funding was received. The letter is to be forwarded to all trustees for
information.
A copy of a letter and resolution sent to Premier Kathleen Wynne from the Corporation of the
Municipality of Thames Centre regarding Pupil Accommodation Reviews was received. The letter is
to be forwarded to all trustees for information.
A memo from the Ministry of Education regarding Treaties Recognition Week scheduled for
November 6-12, 2016 was received. The memo is to be forwarded to all trustees for information.
A copy of a letter and resolution to the Minister of Education from the Township of Malahide
concerning Pupil Accommodation Reviews was received. The letter is to be forwarded to all trustees
for information.
Correspondence from OPSBA regarding the Public Education Symposium (PES) and the offer of
complimentary registration for Student Trustees was received. The letter is to be forwarded to all
trustees for information.
A letter to the Chair and Board of Trustees from MPP Jeff Yurek regarding the Pupil Accommodation
Review and the response letter from Chair Tisdale were received. It was determined copies of the
letters be included on the 2016 November 22 Board meeting agenda under Correspondence.
5. BOARD COMMITTEES
The current list of Board committees was reviewed in preparation for the new trustee year effective
December 1, 2016.
6. REMEMBRANCE DAY SERVICES – FOLLOW UP
Arrangements made for the participation of Thames Valley District School Board in laying of a wreath
at the various ceremonies held across the Thames Valley district on Remembrance Day were
discussed and confirmed.
15.b
7. TRUSTEE GOAL SETTING
It was determined continued discussion on trustee goal setting be placed on the agenda of a future
professional development activity to be planned for trustees in 2017.
8. TRUSTEE BUDGET UPDATE
The current year budget and expenses to date were provided for information.
9. REQUEST FOR BACK SUPPORTS
Requests for back supports on the Board room chairs were reviewed. Information will come back to
the next meeting of the Chair’s Committee for consideration and decision.
10. UPCOMING EVENTS/INITIATIVES
Pillar Innovation Awards – 2016 November 23
Joint Board-Municipal meeting with Elgin County – 2017 February 8 (10 a.m.)
11. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Pupil Accommodation Review (PAR) Process and Communications
It was agreed that correspondence received outside of the formal PAR process and responses to
the correspondence be deposited into a First Class folder for Trustee reference. It was clarified
community input received through the formal process would be included in Board reports from
Administration as per the procedure.
Discussion considered the PAR process. Further information concerning the process and
communication strategy will be discussed at the 2016 November 8 Planning and Priorities
meeting.
12. DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING
The next Chair’s Committee meeting was confirmed for 2016 November 15, 12 p.m.
13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. by motion.
RECOMMENDATIONS: None
RUTH TISDALE
Chairperson
REPORT OF THE PROGRAM & SCHOOL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2016 November 1
6:05 p.m. – 8:27 p.m.
Members: Trustee J. Bennett, Trustee R. Campbell, Trustee C. Goodall, Trustee P. Jaffe, Trustee B.
McKinnon (-7:00), Trustee A. Morell, Trustee S. Polhill, Student Trustee A. Pucchio, Trustee M. Reid,
Trustee P. Schuyler, Trustee J. Skinner, Student Trustee S. Suvajac, Trustee R. Tisdale (+6:30)
Regrets: Trustee G. Hart, Trustee J. Todd
Administration: V. Nielsen (Associate Director), L. Abell (Corporate Services), R. Culhane
(Superintendent) (-6:54), E. Alexander (Learning Coordinator) (-6:54), T. Brown (Learning Coordinator
(-6:54), K. Edgar (Superintendent), M. Ferdinand (Coordinator School Counselling and Social Work
Services), M. Watson (Social Worker/Attendance Counsellor) (-7:42), R. Kuiper (Superintendent),
D. Macpherson (Superintendent), M. Moynihan (Superintendent), K. Wilkinson (Superintendent)
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – The agenda was approved on motion.
2. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST – none declared
3. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of 2016 October 4 were provided for information.
4. BUSINESS ARISING - none
5. ROBOTICS INITIATIVE
R. Culhane, E. Alexander and T. Brown provided an update regarding the robotics initiative.
Highlighted in the presentation were the FIRST and 21st Century Competencies, funding
support, School FIRST teams and dates for information sessions.
Administration responded to questions of clarification around the criteria to run and sustain a robotics
team at a school. A multi-disciplinary team is needed at the school to sustain the club and the
investment of equipment and resources. The addition of three more schools with robotics teams this
year is a significant increase. Promoting the value of robotics teams continues through various forms
of communication.
Discussion ensued around promoting robotics at the elementary level through the use of maker kits,
mentoring with secondary school students and promoting science and technology at elementary
science fairs.
Corporate donors and additional funding resources were discussed. A request to the Thames Valley
Education Foundation to explore further fundraising for robotics teams will be explored.
6. REPORT ON RESILIENCY AND MENTAL WELL-BEING WORKSHOP
K. Edgar was joined by M. Ferdinand and M. Watson to report on the resiliency and mental well-
being workshops and materials presented to Oxford County students and parents in response to the
Oxford County youth suicide cluster. Implementation, strategies and timelines were shared.
In response to a question, Administration advised that the goal is to deliver workshops to all schools
in Oxford County between now and Christmas. After an evaluation, the presentations will be
expanded to further areas of the Board. It was noted the information has been shared with the First
Nations Social Workers.
15.c
7. SUPERVISED ALTERNATIVE LEARNING
V. Nielsen and R. Kuiper presented the Supervised Alternative Learning Overview and
Administrative Guidelines. In September 2010, Ontario Regulation 374/10, “Supervised
Alternative Learning” (SAL) was filed, which allows students 14 – 17 years old, who have significant
difficulties with regular attendance at school to be excused from compulsory attendance at school.
Through SAL, students can legally be excused from regular attendance at school with permission of
the SAL committee.
R. Kuiper highlighted changes to the process as noted in the draft document provided to Trustees in
advance of the meeting. The draft document was reviewed by Senior Administration and several
secondary administrators. It will be presented to other groups and committees, including the Equity
Inclusive Education (EIE) committee prior to being implemented in 2017.
Administration responded to questions of clarification regarding past practices and various programs.
Further statistics concerning attendance rates (i.e. attending fewer than three classes daily) will be
provided at a future meeting. Suggested revisions to the document were noted by Administration.
8. OTHER BUSINESS - none
9. DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, December 6 at 6:00 p.m., in the London Room.
10. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - none
11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
RECOMMENDATIONS: none
A. MORELL
Chairperson
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2016 November 7
6:32 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
MEMBERS ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
Association for Bright Children, C. Thammavonga
Association for Bright Children, S. Weis (alternate)
Autism Ontario, S. Young
Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex, M. Cvetkovich
Chippewas of the Thames, C. Dendias
Council of Home and School, J. Nuyens (alternate)
Easter Seals, A. Morse
Epilepsy Support Centre, B. Harvey
FASD E.L.M.O., T. Grant (Chair)
Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario (LDAO), P. Cook
OPACC, L. Turner-Otte
Thames Valley Children’s Centre, J. Gritzan
Trustee J. Bennett
Vanier Children’s Services, S. Walker (alternate)
VIEWS, J. Schaeffer
Voice for Hearing Impaired Children, M. Barbeau
Regrets:
Chair of the Board, R. Tisdale
Trustee C. Goodall
S. Builder , Superintendent of Special Education
A. Leatham, Learning Supervisor
M. Chevalier, Elementary Principal
R. Lee, Elementary Principal
T. Birtch, Secondary Principal
L. Abell , Corporate Services
J. Capaldi, Communication Specialist
Guests:
G. Lalonde, Mental Health Lead (+7:40, -8:00)
R. Culhane, Superintendent (-7:40)
B. Mai, Association for Bright Children
D. Lavell, Parent
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair T. Grant called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. in the London Room at the Education Centre.
2. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved on motion and carried.
3. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST – none
4. MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS FROM 2016 OCTOBER 11
5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES OF 2016 OCTOBER 11
In response to a question, it was advised presentations given at Special Education Advisory
Committee (SEAC) meetings are posted on the Board’s website for future reference. They can be
found under the tabs Board, Board Committees, and Special Education Advisory Committee. A link to
the presentations will be sent to the Committee through email.
6. MISSION/VISION FOR BIPSA
R. Culhane provided an update of the Board Improvement Plan. Ideas and feedback may be sent to
M. Deman, Superintendent of Student Achievement.
7. RENEWED MATH STRATEGY
R. Culhane shared a presentation regarding the Renewed Math Strategy.
Objectives and feedback regarding the presentation topics were discussed in groups. The groups
shared the results of the group discussions. Parent involvement was discussed as an objective for the
success of the renewed math strategy. Changing the attitude towards math can be accomplished
through elementary specialized training that flows from educators to parents. Measuring the impact
that math has on student well-being would be beneficial. Teaching how math applies in the real world
was suggested. Further suggestions can be sent to Superintendent S. Builder.
15.d
2016 November 7…2
An open letter from Director Elliott to the Thames Valley District School Board community around the
renewed math strategy can be viewed on the Board’s website.
8. MENTAL HEALTH KITS
G. Lalonde joined the meeting to share information regarding the mental health kits. The mental
health kits contain five resource texts and fifteen mentor texts. All schools received a mental health
kit. It was advised that part of the goal is to embed mental health and well-being in the curriculum so
that it becomes everyday practice in the classroom.
Resources are available online on the Board website under the Program tab, Mental Health and Well-
being. The mental health strategic plan is available on the website.
9. TVPIC SYMPOSIUM
T. Grant and S. Builder advised that the TVPIC Symposium is being held on November 12 at Clarke
Road Secondary School. The keynote speaker is Ann Douglas, an author of parenting books.
The Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) will hold a session at the TVPIC symposium and
distribute resources. Pre-registration online for the workshops is required. Everyone is welcome.
S. Builder demonstrated the steps to sign up for push emails. To sign up go to the Board’s website.
On the right hand side bottom of the page, under Media Centre, select Sign Up for E-News.
10. 2017 SEAC HANDBOOK COMMITTEE MEETING DATES/TIMES
The 2017 SEAC Handbook Committee meeting dates and times were reviewed.
Jan 10 - 3:00 - 4:30 (Handbook)
Feb 7 - 3:00 - 4:30 (Handbook)
March 6 - 5:00 - 6:30 (Special Education Plan Standards)
April 4 - 3:00 - 4:30 (Special Education Plan Standards)
May 1 - 5:00 - 6:30 (Special Education Plan Standards)
May 30 - 3:00 - 4:30
June 5 - 5:00 - 6:30
The development of a survey to obtain feedback from parents regarding the Special Education Plan
was discussed. A draft survey will be brought to the January SEAC meeting for feedback. T. Grant
and S. Young will work with S. Builder and J. Capaldi on the survey.
11. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION LETTER 2016 September 29
T. Grant shared the Ministry of Education Letter of 2016 September 29 regarding the collection of
email addresses to develop a directory of SEAC Chairs and Co-Chairs. A request will be made to
setup a First Class email account directed to the chair.
12. EXCEPTIONALITY DATA AND TRENDS
S. Builder shared the number of students by exceptionality and gender report and the number of
students by exceptionality and grade report. The reports were distributed to the committee at the
meeting. In response to a request from the committee for trends, Research and Assessment created
distribution of exceptionality reports for overall, elementary and secondary. These reports were
shared with the committee.
Administration responded to questions regarding the determination of the primary exceptionality. A
breakdown of multiple exceptionalities was requested.
13. SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRIORITIES (STANDING ITEM)
It was advised that meetings are set in January to bring back the draft parent engagement.
2016 November 7…3
14. SPECIAL NEEDS STRATEGY UPDATE (STANDING ITEM)
A. Morse advised a Special Needs strategy teleconference with the Ministry is happening soon.
Updates will be sent out by email if they have to be shared prior to the next SEAC meeting in
January.
15. SPECIAL EDUCATION PLAN (STANDING ITEM) - none
16. MODIFIED DAY GUIDELINES (STANDING ITEM) 74 students
The tracking of students requiring Educational Assistant support to attend full days continues.
17. CORRESPONDENCE (STANDING ITEM) - none
18. OTHER BUSINESS - none
19. FORUM: ASSOCIATION UPDATES
The Passages workshop is being held in the Thames Room on November 9, 4:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
20. MEETING DATES
2016-2017 Meeting Dates – London Room
Tuesday, January 10 12:15pm
Tuesday, February 7 12:15pm
Monday, March 6 6:30pm
Tuesday, April 4 12:15pm
Monday, May 1 6:30pm
Tuesday, May 30 12:15pm (Dundas Room)
Monday, June 5 6:30pm
21. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
IPRC Waivers
Special Education Classroom Placements
Mental Health Literacy Kits (Fall)
Exceptionality Data & Trends (December & May)
IEP Report Summary (May)
Informal Suspension (ongoing)
Creating a Survey for Gifted Program (D. Ensing)
Mental Health Supports/Community Update (K. Edgar, Oct.)
SAL
Modified Day Updates
Behaviour Review Status/Meetings/Membership (Oct.)
Mission/Vision for BIPSA (Oct.)
22. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. by motion.
TRACY GRANT
CHAIRPERSON
RECOMMENDATIONS: none
REPORT OF THE PLANNING AND PRIORITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2016 November 8
6:08 p.m. – 7:11 p.m.
Members: Trustees J. Bennett, R. Campbell, C. Goodall, G. Hart (Chair), P. Jaffe, B. McKinnon, A.
Morell, S. Polhill, M. Reid, P. Schuyler, J. Skinner, R. Tisdale, J. Todd; Student Trustees A. Pucchio and
S. Suvajac
Administration: C. Beal (Superintendent), K. Bushell (Executive Officer), L. Elliott (Director), H. Gerrits
Manager), S. Macey (Manager, -6:35), D. Macpherson (Superintendent), P. McKenzie (Superintendent),
D. Munroe (Supervisor, -6:35), S. Powell (Superintendent), J. Pratt (Associate Director), K. Wilkinson
(Superintendent), H. Hoffman (Coordinator, -7:06), T. Testa (Manager, -7:06), B. Williams (Supervisor)
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – The agenda was approved on motion.
2. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST – none declared
3. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING – provided for information.
4. BUSINESS ARISING
In response to a question concerning item #5 Southwest Transportation Services Update, C. Beal
provided a summary of recent activity regarding charter bussing including correspondence sent to
school administrators. The shortage of bus drivers in the system both in Thames Valley and across
the province was identified. Key strategies to address the issue were outlined. There was a request
that the Q and A correspondence sent to school administrators be forwarded to Trustees.
The impact of limited charter bus availability on community services such as the Children’s Safety
Village was described.
Trustees were asked to follow up with C. Beal regarding specific issues raised related to the booking
of charter busses.
5. BUDGET
a. 2017-2018 Preliminary Budget Document
C. Beal presented for review the 2017-2018 Preliminary Budget Assumptions and Process and
the Guiding Principles for the Annual Thames Valley District School Board Operational Budget .
There were no suggested changes; the documents will be presented to the Board for final
approval at their 2016 November 22 public board meeting.
In reference to the guiding principles document, there was a request to identify board strategic
commitments as they relate to program expenses during the budget preparation process.
6. PAR COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY
T. Testa presented for information the communication plan for the pupil accommodation review (PAR)
process should Trustees decide to move forward with both or either of the two proposed PARs on
2016 November 22.
The draft School Planning and Community Engagement website was highlighted as a means to share
easy-to-read/navigate information concerning the pupil accommodation review process. It was noted
twitter and facebook social media channels will be integrated on the site.
The website will be promoted on tvdsb.ca and TVDSB social media channels. The website will be
used for the pupil accommodation review process only. It will run parallel to the planning webpage.
There was a suggestion that trustees be provided with business cards with the website address in
order to help direct constituents to the site.
15.e
Trustees further were advised correspondence received outside of the established PAR process is
being posted to the First Class conference to ensure all trustees have the same information.
Discussion ensued regarding the trustee role in the PAR process and guidelines for attending
meetings and for communicating with constituents throughout the process.
The importance of trustees not attending meetings/having conversations outside of the established
process was emphasized. Individuals wishing to meet with trustees should be encouraged to
participate in the public input process and/or email their comments; this will ensure all trustees are
privy to the same information.
Attendance at the school-level meetings and public meetings established as part of the process was
discussed. It was noted trustee attendance at meetings is not required nor do trustees have an
official role at the meetings. Discussion considered whether trustees ought to attend any of these
meetings. Attendance at the school-level meetings was identified as problematic for a number of
reasons. Should trustees attend the public meetings, they were cautioned to attend only as a
listener. All reports coming from meetings established as part of the process will be shared with
trustees.
The trustee role as an objective decision maker was identified; the role is not to rationalize or explain
senior administration recommendations.
7. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTATION INPUT RECEIVED FOR THE PROPOSED
ELEMENTARY PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW 01
K. Bushell presented the input received from community organizations in regards to the Proposed
Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 01. Correspondence received was included in the agenda
package provided to Trustee in advance of the meeting.
K Bushell confirmed all reports/correspondence received through the established process will be
provided to trustees.
8. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTATION INPUT RECEIVED FOR THE PROPOSED
ELEMENTARY PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW 02
K. Bushell presented the input received from community organizations in regards to the Proposed
Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 02. Correspondence received was included in the agenda
package provided to Trustee in advance of the meeting.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
Trustees advised printed invitations to the inaugural meeting were not required; all invitations will be
sent by email.
10. DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, January 10 at 6:00 p.m.
11. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Report of the STS Conditional Bussing Work Group
12. ADJOURNMENT
On motion the committee adjourned at 7:11 p.m.
RECOMMENDATIONS: None
G. HART
Committee Chair
REPORT OF THE THAMES VALLEY PARENT INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE
2016 November 10
6:37 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
MEMBERS ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
L. Honsinger, Co-Chair
A. Willsher, Co-Chair
R. Tisdale, Chair of the Board
R. Kuiper, Superintendent
D. Parsons, Parent Member
S. Vries, French Immersion Representative
S. Thomson, Thames Valley Council of Home & School Associations
L. Gonzales, Thames Valley Council of Home & School Associations
J. Asselin, Parent Member
S. Bantam, Parent Member
M. Bayes, Parent Member
M. Holmes, Parent Member
J. Kappers, Parent Member
J. Pollard, Parent Member
J. Schweitzer, Parent Member
C. Walker, Parent Member
Absent:
C. Saaken, International Representative
L. Elliott, Director
B. Cumming, Administrative Assistant
S. Tucker, Operator, Graphic Services
C. Cordes, Principal, Thames Valley
Administrator’s Committee Elementary
M. Flumerfelt, Thames Valley Secondary
School Administrators’ Council
L. Abell, Corporate Services
Guests:
M. McKenzie, Senior Development Officer
United Way
K. Hersey, TD Bank, United Way
S. Gowdey, Parent
L. Stephenson, Parent
C. Schouw, Parent
Z. Azad, Parent
1. CALL TO ORDER
R. Kuiper, Superintendent of Student Achievement called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. in the
London Room of the Education Centre and provided opening remarks to welcome the new members
and thank the out-going members of the Thames Valley Parent Involvement Committee.
2. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
The agenda, as amended was approved by motion.
3. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
S. Thomson and L. Gonzales, representatives of the Thames Valley Council of Home and School
Associations, declared a conflict of interest with respect to agenda item #13.
4. ELECTION OF CHAIR/CO-CHAIR
R. Kuiper opened the election of the Thames Valley Parent Involvement Committee co-chairs.
A. Willsher and L. Honsinger accepted the positions of co-chair.
D. Parsons will continue with the committee as past chair.
5. MINUTES OF THE MEETING FROM 2016 October 13 - provided for information
6. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES OF 2016 October 13 - none
7. UNITED WAY PRESENTATION
M. McKenzie and K. Hersey shared the United Way presentation and extended a thank you to the
Thames Valley District School Board for their support of the 2016-2017 United Way campaign.
8. TVPIC FALL SYMPOSIUM MATH NIGHT WITH DR. MARION SMALL
The feedback received from parents who attended the TVPIC Fall Symposium Math Night with Dr.
Marion Small was summarized by the Research and Assessment department and provided to
members in advance of the meeting.
15.g
9. PARENT INVOLVEMENT FUNDS AND PARENT REACHING OUT GRANTS – CALENDAR OF
KEY DATES
The draft Parent Involvement Funds and Parent Reaching Out Grants calendar of key dates was
provided to the committee in advance of the meeting. It provides the reporting, meetings and
deadlines for sharing financial information and reporting back through the school board to the Ministry.
10. MEMBER UPDATE FROM TVDSB REPRESENTATIVES
a. Director of Education
R. Kuiper led the committee in a group activity to share TVPIC accomplishments and gather ideas
for the future.
The TVPIC fall symposium starts at 8:45 a.m. on November 12 at Clarke Road Secondary
School.
It was advised that a parent engagement review is in the preliminary planning stages. A steering
committee will be formed to develop focus groups and surveys for obtaining a variety of voices.
The representation of the committee was described.
Director L. Elliott advised that schools are doing a lot of work in mathematics and working on the
four strategic priorities. Information Technology Services have been upgrading the wifi in all
schools. An action plan is being developed around the rethink secondary learning report. The
report is available to be viewed on the Boards’ website.
b. Trustee
R. Tisdale shared the Trustee update highlighting fall events; rededications of schools, secondary
school commencements and the 25 year recognition celebration.
It was advised that two Pupil Accommodation Reviews (PAR) will be presented to the board on
November 22. One PAR includes schools in Middlesex, South London and Elgin. The second
proposed PAR includes two London Schools. If the Trustees approve the recommendations on
November 22, the process will start and the required committees will be formed.
A brief update was provided regarding the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test. It was
advised that tests will be marked for the students who completed the test. The test will be re-
administered in the spring.
11. MEMBERSHIP
A committee will be formed to select three community representatives from the 21 applications
received. The committee will consist of the Co-chairs, Superintendent and one parent member. M.
Holmes agreed to be the parent member on the committee.
12. CORRESPONDENCE - none
13. FINANCIAL REPORT
D. Parsons shared the financial report. The report was provided to the committee in advance of the
meeting.
The following motion was moved and CARRIED:
That $5,000.00 be used for the Raising Resilient Children Ready to Thrive in Anxious Times
event being offered in collaboration with the Thames Valley Council of Home and School
Associations.
M. Holmes agreed to be the parent member on the finance committee. The structure of the finance
committee was described. A draft budget should be ready for the January TVPIC meeting.
14. SYMPOSIUM – PARENT INFORMATION NIGHTS
D. Parsons provided an update on the TVPIC Symposium taking place on November 12.
15. TVDSB SUPPORT UPDATES
S. Tucker provided the TVDSB support updates highlighting the creation of a new TVDSB website.
16. OTHER BUSINESS
S. Gowdey provided an update regarding the joint regional parent reaching out grant event that took
place in Woodstock on November 5. The research and assessment department is compiling the
feedback. The next event is scheduled for January 17 in Elgin County.
There was a request to add upcoming events on the agenda as a standing item.
17. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT UPDATES
a. Award of Distinction - none
b. Active & Safe Routes to School - none
c. Community Partners - none
d. Education Week – none
e. Environmental Education Management
S. Gowdey advised the Environmental Education Management committee meets four times a
year on Fridays from 8:30 a.m. -11:30 a.m. Information will be forwarded to anyone interested in
being on this committee.
f. Public Affairs & Communication – none
g. Think About It
L. Stephenson advised the Think About It committee meets during the day. More information will
be provided to the member interested in being on the committee. It is about the teenage brain and
brain development.
h. Thames Valley Administrators’ Committee – Elementary
C. Cordes shared the Thames Valley Administrators’ Committee update highlighting that students
are preparing for Remembrance Day services. Many schools open the doors for parents to attend
the services. Progress reports are going out and parent teacher interviews are on the
Professional Activity day, November 18. It was advised that this is a good time of the year to talk
to your Principal about the school improvement plans. Math is the major focus for all schools.
Many schools are taking part in the Do 1 Thing Challenge.
i. Thames Valley Secondary School Administrators’ Council
M. Flumerfelt provided the Thames Valley Secondary School Administrators’ Council update
advising the committee received a presentation regarding the challenges of charter bussing. The
presentation put the issues into perspective. Other topics discussed included professional
development planning best practices, school improvement teams and the renewed math strategy.
j. Thames Valley Council of Home and School
S. Thomson provided the Thames Valley Council of Home and School Associations update
advising the next meeting is in Innerkip on November 29. Invitations are sent to Principals inviting
a representative to the monthly Thames Valley Council of Home and School meetings. The goal
is to have every school represented at the meetings. The committee meets on the fourth Monday
of the month.
18. FUTURE MEETING DATES
All meetings will be held in the London Room at the Education Centre 6:30 pm.
2017 January 12
2017 February 9
2017 April 6
2017 May 11
2017 June 8
19. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Fundraising FAQ’s (May 2014)
Internal Audits (May 2013)
Copyright
Support Document for Parents (Future)
Webinar (Future)
TVPIC Volunteer Recognition (Future)
TVPIC Annual Report (2016 Sept. 8, item #5.e)
Parent Resource Guide Funding (Future)
20. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. by motion.
RECOMMENDATIONS: none
L. HONSINGER & A. WILLSHER
CO-CHAIRS
REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE 2016 November 15
3:30 – 5:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
A. Morell
M. Reid
R. Tisdale (Chair)
R. Robertson
R. Kent
C. Beal
L. Elliott
J. Pratt
J. Knight
S. Macey
P. Hearse
C. Temple, Deloitte
C. Dowding, Deloitte
J. Berkin
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair Tisdale.
2 APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved by motion.
3 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ‐ none declared
4 REPORT OF 2016 OCTOBER 11 MEETING
For information only.
5 REVIEW OF THE AUDIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED 2016 AUGUST 31
C. Dowding, Deloitte, distributed the report and the draft consolidated financial statements of Thames
Valley District School Board, August 31, 2016 (attached). He advised that Deloitte staff did not identify
any significant deficiencies in internal control. There were no corrected or uncorrected misstatements
and the audit was conducted in accordance with Canadian GAAS.
As communicated in the Audit Plan, areas of significant risk were identified as school cash receipts,
revenue from the Ministry of Education and Municipal Government and expense reports. Areas of audit
focus were cut‐off of expenses and salaries and benefits.
In describing consideration of internal control matters, C. Dowding advised that the business cycle for
the current year rotation tested operating effectiveness of Payroll.
Audit scope matters such as materiality were discussed. Work performed by non‐member firms related
to Southwestern Ontario Student Transportation Services (STS) was highlighted and confirmation of
audit independence was received. C. Dowding and C. Temple, Deloitte, responded to questions of
clarification.
6 2015‐2016 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Supt. Beal reviewed the 2015‐2016 Audited Financial Statements, noting the consolidated statements
include Thames Valley Education Foundation, School generated funds and STS. She reminded the
members that the report is PSAB based and in compliance with Ministry of Education financial
requirements. The unqualified audit opinion and reporting requirements of deferred capital
contributions were highlighted.
15.h
Administration responded to questions and captured suggested revisions for clarity from Committee
members. Discussion regarding the transfer of TVDSB’s employee benefit plans into benefit trusts in
2016‐17 occurred.
Some minor edits to the draft Audited Financial Statements report wording were discussed and it was
agreed that those amendments would be incorporated into the report.
The following motion was moved and carried:
That the Audit Committee recommend to the Board that the 2015‐2016 Audited Financial
Statements, as amended, be approved.
Manager Macey reviewed the accumulated surplus appropriations described in Chart 1 (attached).
Discussion regarding a Ministry change to the reporting structure related to student achievement
amounts took place. Administration responded to the Committee’s concerns regarding the change in
process. It was agreed that additional detail would be added to the charts to identify funds that were
previously reported as accumulated surplus appropriations, and are now reported as deferred
revenues.
The following motion was moved and carried:
That the Audit Committee recommend to the Board the 2015‐2016 internal appropriations of
accumulated surplus available for compliance of $4,757,259 and $187,599 for Thames Valley
Education Foundation as outlined in Chart 1, be approved.
Manager Macey reviewed the capital surplus/deficit described in Chart 2 (attached). Assoc. Director
Pratt spoke to Administration’s efforts in reducing the capital deficit.
The EPO grants described in Chart 3 (attached) were highlighted.
7 IN‐CAMERA
The Committee moved in‐camera at 5:00 p.m. It reconvened in public session at 5:26 p.m.
8 COMMUNITY MEMBER RECRUITMENT STATUS
Supt. Beal advised the members of the results of the initial posting and that the recruitment message is
posted again, to close on November 28. Appreciation was expressed to the current members.
9 AUDIT COMMITTEE SELF‐ASSESSMENT
Completed forms were collected. Members who have not yet completed the form were asked to submit
their assessments prior to the December break.
10 ADDITIONAL ITEMS
Trustee Morell described her attendance at a recent professional development session and her interest
in future opportunities. Further opportunities specific to audit committees will be shared by Deloitte
and other members.
11 FUTURE MEETING DATES AND TIMES
The next meeting is scheduled for 2017 January 10 at 3:30 p.m.
12 ADJOURNMENT
A motion to adjourn was approved at 5:33 p.m.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the 2015-2016 Audited Financial Statements, as amended, be approved.
That the 2015-2016 internal appropriations of accumulated surplus available for compliance of $4,757,259
and $187,599 for Thames Valley Education Foundation as outlined in Chart 1, be approved.
RUTH TISDALE
Chairperson
Report and consolidated financial statements of
Thames Valley District
School Board
August 31, 2016
Thames Valley District School Board
August 31, 2016
Table of contents
Management Report ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Independent Auditor’s Report ............................................................................................................................ 2-3
Consolidated statement of financial position ......................................................................................................... 4
Consolidated statement of operations ................................................................................................................... 5
Consolidated statement of cash flows ................................................................................................................... 6
Consolidated statement of changes in net debt .................................................................................................... 7
Notes to the consolidated financial statements ................................................................................................ 8-25
Management Report
Management’s Responsibility for the Consolidated Financial Statements
The accompanying consolidated financial statements of the Thames Valley District School Board
(“Board”) are the responsibility of the Board’s management and have been prepared in accordance with
the Financial Administration Act, supplemented by Ontario Ministry of Education memorandum 2004:B2
and Ontario Regulation 395/11 of the Financial Administration Act, as described in Note 1 to the
consolidated financial statements.
The preparation of consolidated financial statements necessarily involves the use of estimates based on
management’s judgment, particularly when transactions affecting the current accounting period cannot be
finalized with certainty until future periods.
Board management maintains a system of internal controls designed to provide reasonable assurance that
assets are safeguarded, transactions are properly authorized and recorded in compliance with legislative
and regulatory requirements, and reliable financial information is available on a timely basis for
preparation of the consolidated financial statements. These systems are monitored and evaluated by
management.
The Audit Committee of the Board meets with management and the external auditors to review the
consolidated financial statements and discuss any significant financial reporting or internal control
matters prior to the Board’s approval of the consolidated financial statements.
The consolidated financial statements have been audited by Deloitte LLP, independent external auditors
appointed by the Board. The accompanying Independent Auditor’s Report outlines their responsibilities,
the scope of their examination and their opinion on the Board’s consolidated financial statements.
_________________________ _________________________
Laura Elliott Jeff Pratt
Director of Education Associate Director & Treasurer
November 23, 2016
Deloitte LLP
One London Place
255 Queens Avenue
Suite 700
London ON N6A 5R8
Canada
Tel: 519-679-1880
Fax: 519-640-4625
www.deloitte.ca
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Board of Trustees of
Thames Valley District School Board
We have audited the accompanying consolidated financial statements of the Thames Valley District
School Board, which comprise the consolidated statement of financial position as at August 31, 2016 and
the consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and changes in net debt for the year then ended, and
a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information.
Management’s Responsibility for the Consolidated Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation of these consolidated financial statements in accordance
with the basis of accounting described in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, and for such
internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of consolidated
financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those
standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free from material
misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in
the consolidated financial statements. The procedures selected depend on our judgment, including the
assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to
fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, we consider internal control relevant to the entity’s
preparation of the consolidated financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are
appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of
the entity’s internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies
used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the
overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for
our audit opinion.
Page 3
Opinion
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements of the Thames Valley District School Board as at
and for the year ended August 31, 2016 are prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the basis
of accounting described in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements.
Emphasis of Matter
Without modifying our opinion, we draw attention to Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements
which describes the basis of accounting used in the preparation of these consolidated financial statements
and the significant differences between such basis of accounting and Canadian public sector accounting
standards.
Chartered Professional Accountants
Licensed Public Accountants
November 23, 2016
Thames Valley District School Board
Consolidated statement of financial position
as at August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
2016 2015
$$
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents 45,153 36,367
Accounts receivable 27,647 28,155
Accounts receivable - Government of Ontario (Note 2)199,265 190,201
Investments (Note 4)6,664 6,578
278,729 261,301
Liabilities
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 36,196 31,112
Deferred revenue (Note 8)16,572 12,411
Retirement and other employee future benefits (Note 10)18,915 21,095
Long-term liabilities (Note 11)174,430 180,544
Deferred capital contributions (Note 9)571,464 556,029
817,577 801,191
Net debt (538,848) (539,890)
Contractual obligations and contingent liabilities (Note 15)
Non-financial assets
Prepaid expenses 1,736 2,528
Inventories of supplies 72 55
Tangible capital assets (Note 6)615,427 597,611
Assets held for sale (Note 5)102 819
617,337 601,013
Accumulated surplus (Note 7)78,489 61,123
The accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements are an integral part of
this consolidated financial statement.
Page 4
Thames Valley District School Board
Consolidated statement of operations
year ended August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
2016 2016 2015
Approved
budget
(Note 1)
$$$
Revenue
Provincial grants - Grants for Student Needs 778,776 794,655 785,256
Provincial grants - other 7,460 9,840 9,893
Federal grants and fees 3,436 3,738 3,639
Other revenues - school boards 106 143 195
Other fees and revenues 3,140 8,827 7,866
Interest income 750 800 931
School generated funds (Note 22)17,000 15,954 16,758
Amortization of deferred capital contributions 25,912 29,366 26,252
836,580 863,323 850,790
Expenses (Note 13)
Instruction 641,416 651,810 639,051
Administration 21,663 20,965 21,747
Transportation 36,319 36,077 35,184
Pupil accommodation 110,973 112,618 107,935
Other 9,332 8,554 8,826
School funded activities (Note 22)17,000 15,933 17,187
836,703 845,957 829,930
Annual (deficit) surplus (123) 17,366 20,860
Accumulated surplus, beginning of year 47,667 61,123 40,263
Accumulated surplus, end of year (Note 7)47,544 78,489 61,123
The accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements are an integral part of
this consolidated financial statement.
Page 5
Thames Valley District School Board
Consolidated statement of cash flows
year ended August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
2016 2015
$$
Operating activities
Annual surplus 17,366 20,860
Sources and (uses)
Non-cash items
Amortization of tangible capital assets 30,106 27,462
Loss (gain) on sale of tangible capital assets 324 (9)
Revenue recognized in period for deferred capital contributions (28,939) (26,252)
Deferred gain on disposal of restricted assets (1,165) (1,281)
Decrease in accounts receivable 508 1,351
Decrease in assets held for sale 717 133
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable and accrued liabilities 5,084 (2,604)
Increase (decrease) in deferred revenue - operating 1,983 (1,284)
Decrease in retirement and other employee future benefits (2,180) (2,896)
Decrease in prepaid expenses 792 189
(Increase) decrease in inventories of supplies (17) 9
24,579 15,678
Capital activities
Proceeds on sale of tangible capital assets 2,809 2,164
Acquisition of tangible capital assets (49,890) (49,891)
(47,081) (47,727)
Investing activities
Proceeds on sale of investments 333 508
Purchase of investments (419) (659)
(86) (151)
Financing activities
Debt repayments (6,618) (6,337)
Increase in capital leases 504 -
(Increase) decrease in accounts receivable - Government of Ontario -
Approved capital (9,064) 16,425
Additions to deferred capital contributions 44,374 44,054
Increase (decrease) in deferred revenues - capital 2,178 (1,092)
31,374 53,050
Change in cash 8,786 20,850
Cash, beginning of year 36,367 15,517
Cash, end of year 45,153 36,367
The accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements are an integral part of
this consolidated financial statement.
Page 6
Thames Valley District School Board
Consolidated statement of changes in net debt
year ended August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
2016 2016 2015
Approved
budget
(Note 1)
$$$
Annual (deficit) surplus (123) 17,366 20,860
Tangible capital asset activity
Amortization of tangible capital assets 29,567 30,106 27,462
Acquisition of tangible capital assets (48,235) (49,890) (49,891)
Loss (gain) on sale of tangible capital assets - 324 (9)
Proceeds on sale of tangible capital assets 534 2,809 2,164
Gains on sale allocated to deferred revenue (534) (1,165) (1,281)
(18,668) (17,816) (21,555)
Other non-financial asset activity
(Increase) decrease in inventories of supplies - (17) 9
Decrease in assets held for sale - 717 133
Decrease in prepaid expenses - 792 189
- 1,492 331
Decrease/(increase) in net debt (18,791) 1,042 (364)
Net debt, beginning of year (539,890)(539,890) (539,526)
Net debt, end of year (558,681)(538,848) (539,890)
The accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements are an integral part of
this consolidated financial statement.
Page 7
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 8
1. Significant accounting policies
The consolidated financial statements are prepared by management in accordance with the basis of
accounting described below:
Basis of accounting
The consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the financial reporting
provision of the Financial Administration Act supplemented by Ontario Ministry of Education
memorandum 2004:B2 and the accounting requirements of Ontario Regulation 395/11 of the Financial
Administration Act.
The Financial Administration Act requires that the consolidated financial statements be prepared in
accordance with the accounting principles determined by the relevant Ministry of the Province of
Ontario. A directive was provided by the Ontario Ministry of Education within memorandum 2004:B2
requiring school boards to adopt Canadian public sector accounting standards commencing with their
year ended August 31, 2004 and that changes may be required to the application of these standards as
a result of regulation.
In 2011, the government passed Ontario Regulation 395/11 of the Financial Administration Act. The
Regulation requires that contributions received or receivable for the acquisition or development of
depreciable tangible capital assets and contributions of depreciable tangible capital assets for use in
providing services, be recorded as deferred capital contributions and be recognized as revenue in the
statement of operations over the periods during which the asset is used to provide service at the same
rate that amortization is recognized in respect of the related asset. The regulation further requires that if
the net book value of the depreciable tangible capital asset is reduced for any reason other than
depreciation, a proportionate reduction of the deferred capital contribution along with a proportionate
increase in the revenue be recognized. For Ontario school boards, these contributions include
government transfers, externally restricted contributions and, historically, property tax revenue.
The accounting policy requirements under Regulation 395/11 are significantly different from the
requirements of Canadian public sector accounting standards which require that
government transfers, which do not contain a stipulation that creates a liability, be recognized as
revenue by the recipient when approved by the transferor and the eligibility criteria have been met in
accordance with public sector accounting standard PS3410;
externally restricted contributions be recognized as revenue in the period in which the resources are
used for the purpose or purposes specified in accordance with public sector accounting standard
PS3100; and
property taxation revenue be reported as revenue when received or receivable in accordance with
public sector accounting standard PS3510.
As a result, revenue recognized in the statement of operations and certain related deferred revenues
and deferred capital contributions would be recorded differently under Canadian public sector
accounting standards.
Reporting entity
The consolidated financial statements reflect the assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses and fund
balances of the reporting entity. The reporting entity is comprised of all organizations accountable for the
administration of their financial affairs and resources to the Board, including the following:
Thames Valley Education Foundation (“Foundation”)
School generated funds
Southwestern Ontario Student Transportation Services
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 9
1. Significant accounting policies (continued)
Reporting entity (continued)
As detailed in Note 17, decisions related to the financial and operating activities of the Southwestern
Ontario Student Transportation Services are shared. No partner is in a position to exercise unilateral
control. School generated funds, which include the assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses and fund
balances of various organizations that exist at the school level and which are controlled by the Board,
have been reflected in the consolidated financial statements.
Interdepartmental and inter-organizational transactions and balances between these organizations are
eliminated
Trust funds
The Board’s trust funds for scholarships and awards (excluding scholarships and awards included in the
Foundation) are not included in the consolidated financial statements as the Board does not control
them according to PSAB Section 1300. These trust funds are administered and maintained by the Board
according to the terms and conditions specified by the donor. Specifically, the Board’s trust funds
include both the Student Awards/Scholarships and Self-Funded Leaves. The total assets of each fund
amount to $1,988 (2015 - $2,032) and $2,002 (2015 - $1,583) respectively.
Cash and cash equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents comprise of cash on hand, demand deposits and short-term investments.
Short-term investments are highly liquid, subject to insignificant risk of changes in value and have a
short maturity term of less than 90 days.
Investments
Temporary investments consist of marketable securities which are liquid short-term investments with
maturities of between three months and one year at the date of acquisition, and are carried on the
consolidated statement of financial position at the lower of cost or market value.
Long-term investments consist of investments that have maturities of more than one year. Long-term
investments are recorded at cost, and assessed regularly for permanent impairment.
A write-down of the carrying value is charged against income when evidence indicates a permanent
decline in the underlying value and earnings. Gains and losses on disposition of investments are
determined on a completed transaction basis. The Board’s investments are governed by the Education
Act while the Foundation’s investments are governed by policies approved by the Foundation’s Board of
Directors.
Tangible capital assets
Tangible capital assets are recorded at historical cost less accumulated amortization. Historical cost
includes amounts that are directly attributable to acquisition, construction, development or betterment of
the asset, as well as interest related to financing during construction. When historical cost records were
not available, other methods were used to estimate the costs and accumulated amortization.
Leases which transfer substantially all the benefits and risks incidental to ownership of property are
accounted for as leased tangible capital assets. All other leases are accounted for as operating leases
and the related payments are charged to expenses as incurred.
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 10
1. Significant accounting policies (continued)
Tangible capital assets (continued)
Tangible capital assets, except land, are amortized on a straight line basis over their estimated useful
lives as follows:
Asset Estimated useful life in years
Land improvements with finite lives 15
Buildings and building improvements 40
Portable structures 20
Other buildings 20
Equipment 5-15
First-time equipping of schools 10
Furniture 10
Computer hardware 5
Computer software 5
Equipment under capital leases Over the lease term
Leasehold improvements Over the lease term
Assets under construction are not amortized until the asset is available for productive use.
Land permanently removed from service and held for resale is recorded at the lower of cost and net
realizable value. Cost includes amounts for improvements to prepare the land for sale or servicing.
A building permanently removed from service ceases to be amortized. Tangible capital assets which
meet the criteria for financial assets are reclassified as “assets held for sale” on the consolidated
statement of financial position.
Works of art and cultural and historic assets are not recorded as assets in these consolidated financial
statements.
Deferred revenue
Certain revenue amounts are received pursuant to legislation, regulation or agreement and may only be
used in the conduct of certain programs or in the delivery of specific services and transactions. These
amounts are recognized as revenue in the fiscal year the related expenses are incurred or services
performed.
Retirement and other employee future benefits
The Board provides defined retirement and other future benefits to specified employee groups. These
benefits include pension, life insurance and health care benefits, dental benefits, retirement gratuities
and workers’ compensation. The Board has adopted the following policies with respect to accounting for
these employee benefits:
(i) The costs of self-insured retirement and other employee future benefit plans are actuarially
determined using management’s best estimate of salary escalation, accumulated sick days at
retirement, insurance and health care cost trends, disability recovery rates, long-term inflation rates
and discount rates. The cost of retirement gratuities are actuarially determined using the employee’s
salary, banked sick days and years of service as at August 31, 2012 and the actuary’s best estimate
of discount rates, Any actuarial gains and losses arising from changes to the discount rate are
amortized over the expected average remaining service life of the employee group.
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 11
1. Significant accounting policies (continued)
Retirement and other employee future benefits (continued)
(i) (continued)
For self-insured retirement and other employee future benefits that vested or accumulated over the
periods of service provided by employees, such as life insurance and health care benefits for
retirees, the cost is actuarially determined using the projected benefits method prorated on service.
Under this method, the benefit costs are recognized over the expected average service life of the
employee group.
For those self-insured benefit obligations that arise from specific events that occur periodically, such
as obligations for workers’ compensation and long-term disability, the cost is recognized
immediately in the period the events occur. Any actuarial gains and losses that are related to these
benefits are recognized immediately in the period they arise.
(ii) The costs of multi-employer defined pension plan benefits, such as the Ontario Municipal
Employees Retirement System pensions, are the employer’s contributions due to the plan in the
period.
(iii) The costs of insured benefits are the employer’s portion of insurance premiums owed for coverage
of employees during the period.
Deferred capital contribution
Contributions received or receivable for the purpose of acquiring or developing a depreciable tangible
capital asset for use in providing services, or any contributions in the form of depreciable tangible assets
received or receivable for use in providing services, shall be recognized as deferred capital contribution
as defined in Ontario Regulation 395/11 of the Financial Administration Act. These amounts are
recognized as revenue at the same rate as the related tangible capital asset is amortized. The following
items fall under this category
(i) Government transfers received or receivable for capital purpose
(ii) Other restricted contributions received or receivable for capital purpose
(iii) Property taxation revenues which were historically used to fund capital assets
Government transfers
Government transfers, which include legislative grants, are recognized in the consolidated financial
statements in the period in which events giving rise to the transfer occur, providing the transfers are
authorized, any eligibility criteria have been met and reasonable estimates of the amount can be made.
If government transfers contain stipulations which give rise to a liability, they are deferred and
recognized in revenue when the stipulations are met.
Government transfers for capital are deferred as required by Regulation 395/11, recorded as deferred
capital contributions (DCC) and recognized as revenue in the consolidated statement of operations at
the same rate and over the same periods as the asset is amortized.
Investment income
Investment income earned on surplus operating funds and capital funds are reported as revenue in the
period earned.
Investment income earned on externally restricted funds such as proceeds of disposition is added to the
fund balance and forms part of the respective deferred revenue balances.
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 12
1. Significant accounting policies (continued)
Budget figures
Budget figures have been provided for comparison purposes and have been derived from the budget
approved by the Trustees on June 16, 2015. The budget approved by the Trustees is developed in
accordance with the provincially mandated funding model for school boards and is used to manage
program spending within the guidelines of the funding model. Given differences between the funding
model and the basis of accounting used in the preparation of the consolidated financial statements, the
budget figures presented have been adjusted to conform with this basis of accounting as it is used to
prepare the consolidated financial statements.
Use of estimates
The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with the basis of accounting
described in this note above, requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the
reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of
the consolidated financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the
year. Actual results could differ from these estimates. Accounts subject to significant estimates include
accrued liabilities (general & capital), useful lives of tangible capital assets, employee future benefits and
contingent liabilities.
Property tax revenue
Under Public Sector Accounting Standards, the entity that determines and sets the tax levy records the
revenue in the financial statements, which in the case of the Board, is the Province of Ontario. As a
result, property tax revenue received from the municipalities is recorded as part of Provincial grants -
Grants for Student Needs.
2. Accounts receivable - Government of Ontario
The Province of Ontario (the “Province”) has replaced variable capital funding with a one-time debt
support grant in 2009-10. The Board received a one-time grant that recognized capital debt as at
August 31, 2010 that is supported by the existing capital programs. The Board receives this grant in
cash over the remaining term of the existing capital debt instruments. The Board may also receive yearly
capital grants to support capital programs, which would be reflected in this accounts receivable.
As at August 31, 2016, the Board has an accounts receivable from the Province of $199,265
(2015 - $190,201) with respect to approved capital expenditures that is expected to be received as
follows:
$
2016/17 32,102
2017/18 7,092
2018/19 7,432
2019/20 7,789
2020/21 8,162
Thereafter 136,688
199,265
3. Borrowing facility
The Board has a bank overdraft which bears interest at prime less 0.65%. The balance drawn on the
overdraft at August 31, 2016 was $Nil (2015 - $Nil).
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 13
4. Investments
The investment portfolio includes equity and guaranteed investment certificates.
Market Market
Cost value Cost value
$$$$
Thames Valley District School Board
Guaranteed Investment Certificates 50 50 50 50
Thames Valley Education Foundation
Guardian Capital Inc.6,497 7,489 6,411 7,235
Guaranteed Investment Certificates 117 117 117 117
6,664 7,656 6,578 7,402
2016 2015
5. Assets held for sale
As at August 31, 2016, $102 (2015 - $819) related to buildings was recorded as assets held for sale.
During the year, two (2015 - one) properties were sold. Net proceeds of $1,041 (2015 - $132) were
received on the sale of these properties, which had a carrying value of $717 (2015 - $133), resulting in a
net gain of $324 (2015 - $1 loss). The full amount of the 2015-16 net proceeds was transferred to
deferred capital contributions to fund prior capital expenditures according to Ontario Regulation 193/10.
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 14
6. Tangible capital assets
Cost
Disposals, Transfer to
Opening Additions and write downs assets held Closing
balance transfers and transfers for sale balance
$$$$$
Land 14,807 3,566 - - 18,373
Land improvements 8,971 566 - - 9,537
Buildings 809,120 54,583 - - 863,703
Other buildings 98 - - - 98
Portable structures 5,954 662 - - 6,616
Equipment 11,955 1,485 664 - 12,776
First-time equipping of schools 9,521 305 - - 9,826
Furniture 627 213 - - 840
Computer hardware 3,397 407 491 - 3,313
Computer software 817 604 170 - 1,251
Assets permanently
removed from service 4,625 - 4,352 - 273
Assets under construction 28,356 (12,945) - - 15,411
Pre-acquisition costs 86 (60) - - 26
Equipment under capital leases 830 504 757 - 577
899,164 49,890 6,434 - 942,620
Accumulated amortization
Disposals, Transfer to
Opening write downs assets held Closing
balance Amortization and transfers for sale balance
$$$$$
Land - - - - -
Land improvements 3,344 662 - - 4,006
Buildings 280,526 25,853 - - 306,379
Other buildings 7 5 - - 12
Portable structures 1,676 310 - - 1,986
Equipment 6,345 1,209 665 - 6,889
First-time equipping of schools 3,850 967 - - 4,817
Furniture 303 70 - - 373
Computer hardware 1,776 691 491 - 1,976
Computer software 387 187 170 - 404
Assets permanently
removed from service 2,656 - 2,383 - 273
Assets under construction - - - - -
Pre-acquisition costs - - - - -
Equipment under capital leases 683 152 757 - 78
301,553 30,106 4,466 - 327,193
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 15
6. Tangible capital assets (continued)
Net book value
2016 2015
$$
Land 18,373 14,807
Land improvements 5,531 5,627
Buildings 557,324 528,594
Other buildings 86 91
Portable structures 4,630 4,278
Equipment 5,887 5,610
First-time equipping of schools 5,009 5,671
Furniture 467 324
Computer hardware 1,337 1,621
Computer software 847 430
Assets permanently removed from service - 1,969
Assets under construction 15,411 28,356
Pre-acquisition costs 26 86
Equipment under capital leases 499 147
615,427 597,611
Adjustments, totalling $2,082 (2015 - $1,865), relate to the removal of assets that are fully depreciated
and represent a non-cash transaction that is not recorded in the consolidated statement of cash flows.
Assets under construction
Assets under construction having a value of $15,411 (2015 - $28,356) have not been amortized.
Amortization of these assets will commence when the asset is put into service.
Write-down of tangible capital assets
The write-down of tangible capital assets during the year was $Nil (2015 - $Nil).
Assets permanently removed from service
The Board has identified one building property that qualifies as “assets permanently removed from
service” totaling $Nil (2015 - $1,969) and has been included in the net book value ending balance as of
August 31, 2016.
Capital leases
The Board has obligations under capital leases for vehicles and photocopiers. The leases contain no
renewal options and the assets revert to the leasing company at the termination of the leases. Lease
obligations are included in Note 11.
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 16
7. Accumulated surplus
Accumulated surplus consists of the following:
2016 2015
$$
Total operating accumulated surplus - unappropriated 23,693 16,685
Available for budget compliance - internally appropriated
Multi-purpose reserve 2,228 2,228
School carry-forwards 3,521 3,752
Other internal appropriations 33,408 28,421
Thames Valley Education Foundation 6,563 6,375
45,720 40,776
Total accumulated surplus available for budget compliance 69,413 57,461
Unavailable for budget compliance
Employee future benefits (12,322) (14,063)
Other unavailable for compliance (2,401) (2,487)
Revenues recognized for land 18,361 14,796
School generated funds 5,438 5,416
9,076 3,662
78,489 61,123
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 17
8. Deferred revenue
Revenues received and that have been set aside for specific purposes by legislation, regulation or
agreement are included in deferred revenue and reported on the consolidated statement of financial
position.
Deferred revenue set aside for specific purposes by legislation, regulation or agreement as at
August 31, 2016 is comprised of:
Contributions Transfers to
and Revenue deferred
Opening investment recognized capital Ending
balance income in the period contributions balance
$$$$$
Operating Grants for
Student Needs (GSN’s)3,124 102,845 101,405 - 4,564
Other Ministry of Education
operating grants 482 5,646 5,836 - 292
Other provincial
operating grants 186 265 157 - 294
Third party - operating 2,437 4,207 3,582 - 3,062
Ministry of Education
capital grants 4,606 41,776 26,729 12,079 7,574
Proceeds of disposition - 3,849 179 3,660 10
Assets held for sale 819 (717) - - 102
Third party - capital 757 690 - 773 674
12,411 158,561 137,888 16,512 16,572
9. Deferred capital contributions (“DCC”)
Deferred capital contributions include grants and contributions received that are used for the acquisition
of tangible capital assets in accordance with regulation 395/11 that have been expended by year end.
The contributions are amortized into revenue over the life of the asset acquired.
2016 2015
$$
Opening balance 556,029 538,227
Additions to DCC 42,682 42,610
Revenue recognized in the period (28,939) (26,253)
Proceeds of disposition 3,660 2,288
Disposals/transfers to financial assets (1,968) (843)
Closing balance 571,464 556,029
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 18
10. Retirement and other employee future benefits
Retirement and other employee future benefit liabilities
2016 2015
Other Total Total
employee employee employee
Retirement future future future
benefits benefits benefits benefits
$$$$
Accrued employee future benefit
obligations, end of year 8,130 11,579 19,709 21,778
Unamortized actuarial loss (794) - (794) (683)
Total employee future benefit
liability, end of year 7,336 11,579 18,915 21,095
Retirement and other employee future benefit expenses
2016 2015
Other Total Total
employee employee employee
Retirement future future future
benefits benefits benefits benefits
$$$$
Current year benefit cost 39 2,012 2,051 533
Change due to voluntary early payout (127) - (127) -
Interest on accrued benefit obligation 232 273 505 637
Recognized actuarial gain (86) (319) (405) (63)
Employee future benefits expense 58 1,966 2,024 1,107
The amounts above exclude pension contributions to the Ontario Municipal Employee Retirement
System (“OMERS”), a multi-employer pension plan, described below.
Retirement benefits
Ontario Teacher’s Pension Plan
Teachers and related employee groups are eligible to be members of Ontario Teacher’s Pension Plan.
Employer contributions for these employees are provided directly by the Province of Ontario. The
pension costs and obligations related to this plan are a direct responsibility of the Province of Ontario.
Accordingly, no costs or liabilities related to this plan are included in the Board’s consolidated financial
statements.
Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System
All non-teaching employees of the Board are eligible to be members of the OMERS, a multi-employer
pension plan. The plan provides defined pension benefits to employees based on their length of service
and rates of pay. For 2016, eligible employees contributed at rates of up to 14.6% (2015 - 14.6%) of
earnings. The Board contributions equal the employee contributions to the plan. During the year ended
August 31, 2016, the Board contributed $10,614 (2015 - $10,388) to the plan. As this is a multi-employer
pension plan, these contributions are the Board’s pension benefit expenses. No pension liability for this
type of plan is included in the Board’s consolidated financial statements.
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 19
10. Retirement and other employee future benefits (continued)
Retirement benefits (continued)
Retirement gratuities
The Board provides retirement gratuities to certain groups of employees hired prior to specified dates.
The amount of the gratuities paid to eligible employees at retirement is based on their salary,
accumulated sick days, and years of service at retirement. The Board provides these benefits through
an unfunded defined benefit plan. The benefit costs and liabilities related to this plan are included in the
Board’s consolidated financial statements. The amount of the gratuities payable to eligible employees at
retirement is based on their salary, accumulated sick days, and years of service at August 31, 2012.
1. Voluntary retirement gratuity early payout provision
During 2015-16, OSSTF, ETFO and CUPE ratified agreements at the local and central level, which
included a voluntary retirement gratuity early payout provision. The provision provided OSSTF,
ETFO and CUPE members the option of receiving a discounted frozen retirement gratuity
benefit payment by August 31, 2016 and the first pay period in September 2016 for CUPE.
This provision was also made available to all non-unionized school board employees, including
principals and vice-principals. These payments were be made by August 31, 2016.
Some employees took the early payouts, which were discounted from the current financial
statement carrying values. As a result, the reduction in the liability for those members who took the
voluntary retirement gratuity early payout option was accompanied by actuarial gain in the board’s
2015-16 year financial statements. This resulted in the board’s employee future benefit liability
decreasing by $127.
Retirement life insurance and health care benefits
The Board continues to provide life insurance, dental and health care benefits to certain employee
groups after retirement until the members reach 65 years of age. The premiums are based on the
Board’s experience and retirees’ premiums may be subsidized by the Board. The benefit costs and
liabilities related to the plan are provided through an unfunded defined benefit plan and are included in
the Board’s consolidated financial statements. Effective September 1, 2013, employees retiring on or
after this date, will no longer qualify for board subsidized premiums or contributions.
Other employee future benefits
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board obligations
The Board is a Schedule 2 employer under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (“the Act”) and, as
such, assumes responsibility for the payment of all claims to its injured workers under the Act. The
Board does not fund these obligations in advance of payments made under the Act. The benefit costs
and liabilities related to this plan are included in the Board’s consolidated financial statements. School
boards are required to provide salary top-up to a maximum of 4 ½ years for employees receiving
payments from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, where the collective agreements negotiated
prior to 2012 included such a provision.
The Board’s liability as at August 31, 2016 for worker’s compensation is $9,702 (2015 - $9,267) and is
included in the retirement and other employee future benefits figure in the Board’s statement of financial
position.
Sick leave top-up benefits
A maximum of 11 unused sick leave days from the current year may be carried forward into the following
year only, to be used to top-up salary for illnesses paid through the short-term leave and disability plan
in that year. The sick leave benefit costs expensed in the financial statements are $462 (2015 - $458).
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 20
10. Retirement and other employee future benefits (continued)
Other employee future benefits (continued)
Sick leave top-up benefits (continued)
For accounting purposes, the valuation of the accrued benefit obligation for the sick leave top-up is
based on actuarial assumptions about future events determined as at August 31, 2016 (the date at
which the probabilities of usage were determined) and is based on the average daily salary and banked
sick days of employees as at August 31, 2016.
Long-term disability life insurance and health care benefits
The Board may provide life insurance, dental and health care benefits to employees on long-term
disability leave at their request; however employees are directly responsible for any associated costs.
The costs of salary compensation paid to employees on long-term disability leave are fully insured and
not included in this plan.
Actuarial assumptions
The accrued benefit obligations for employee future benefit plans as at August 31, 2016 are per an
actuarial valuation for accounting purposes as of August 31, 2016. These actuarial valuations were
based on assumptions about future events. The economic assumptions used in these valuations are the
actuary’s best estimate of expected rates of:
2016 2015
%%
Inflation 1.50 1.50
Discount rate 2.05 2.45
Wage and salary escalation - retirement gratuity - -
Wage and salary escalation - sick leave top-up benefits 2.00 2.00
Health care cost escalation 8.00-4.00 8.50-4.00
Dental care cost escalation 4.00-3.00 4.50-3.00
WSIB only
Inflation 2.00 2.00
Discount rate 2.05 2.45
Benefit Plan Future Changes
Currently, the Board provides health, dental and life insurance benefits for certain employees and retired
individuals from school boards and has assumed liability for payment of benefits under these plans. As
part of ratified labour collective agreements for unionized employees that bargain centrally and ratified
central discussions with the principals and vice-principals associations, Employee Life and Health Trusts
(“ELHTs”) will be established in 2016-17 for the following employee groups: ETFO, OSSTF,
OSSTF-EW, CUPE, and non-unionized employees (including principals and vice-principals). The ELHTs
will provide health, life and dental benefits to teachers (excluding daily occasional teachers), education
workers (excluding casual and temporary staff), other school board staff and retired individuals up to a
school board’s participation date into the ELHT. These benefits will be provided through a joint
governance structure between the bargaining/employee groups, school board trustees associations and
the Government of Ontario. By August 31, 2017, the Board will no longer be responsible to provide
benefits to the groups mentioned above. The Board will transfer to the ELHTs an amount per full-time
equivalency based on the 2014-15 actual benefit costs + 8.16% representing inflationary increases for
2015-16 and 2016-17. In addition, the Ministry of Education will provide an additional $300 per FTE for
active employees to the school board. These amounts will then be transferred to the Trust for the
provision of employee and retiree benefits.
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 21
11. Long-term liabilities
Long-term liabilities reported on the consolidated statement of financial position is comprised of the
following:
2016 2015
$$
Ontario Financing Authority 2006 - 4.56%, due November 2031 17,934 18,716
Ontario Financing Authority 2008 - 4.90%, due March 2033 26,163 27,148
Ontario Financing Authority 2008 - 5.05%, due November 2028 14,310 15,114
Ontario Financing Authority 2009 - 5.06%, due March 2034 11,449 11,837
Ontario Financing Authority 2010 - 4.56%, due November 2026 9,042 9,701
Ontario Financing Authority 2010 - 5.23%, due April 2035 23,976 24,705
Ontario Financing Authority 2011 - 4.833%, due March 2036 44,311 45,621
Ontario Financing Authority 2011 - 3.97%, due November 2036 1,979 2,041
Ontario Financing Authority 2012 - 3.564%, due March 2037 7,427 7,664
Ontario Financing Authority 2013 - 3.799%, due March 2038 17,341 17,844
Capital leases 498 153
Balance as at August 31 174,430 180,544
Principal and interest payments relating to Long-term liabilities of $174,430 outstanding as at August 31,
2016 are due as follows:
Interest Principal Total
$$$
2016/17 8,142 6,873 15,015
2017/18 7,816 7,193 15,009
2018/19 7,474 7,533 15,007
2019/20 7,116 7,892 15,008
2020/21 6,740 8,250 14,990
Thereafter 47,744 136,689 184,433
Net long-term liabilities 85,032 174,430 259,462
12. Debt charges, capital loans and leases interest
The payments for debt charges, capital loans and capital lease interest includes principal and interest
payments as follows:
2016 2015
$$
Principal payments on long-term liabilities 6,459 6,164
Interest payments on long-term liabilities 8,443 8,738
Interest payments on temporary financing of capital projects 204 393
Principal payments on capital leases 159 173
Interest payments on capital leases 4 6
15,269 15,474
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 22
13. Expenses by object
The following is a summary of the operating, capital and school funded activities expenses reported on
the consolidated statement of operations by object:
2016 2016 2015
Approved
budget
(Note 1)
$$$
Expenses
Salary and wages 586,973 601,090 589,778
Employee benefits 82,806 82,350 80,225
Staff development 1,590 1,559 1,539
Supplies and services 52,652 51,864 51,069
Interest 8,729 8,566 9,065
Rental expenditures 1,358 805 786
Fees and contractual services 43,519 44,552 43,852
Other 11,979 8,704 8,966
Amortization, writedowns and losses on disposal 30,097 30,534 27,463
School funded activities (Note 22)17,000 15,933 17,187
836,703 845,957 829,930
14. Ontario School Board Insurance Exchange
The board is a member of the Ontario School Board Insurance Exchange (“OSBIE”), a reciprocal
insurance company licensed under the Insurance Act. OSBIE insures general public liability, property
damage and certain other risks. Liability insurance is available to a maximum of $24,000 per
occurrence.
The ultimate premiums over a five year period are based on the actual claims experience of OSBIE and
the Board. Periodically, the Board may receive a refund or be asked to pay an additional premium based
on its pro rata share of claims experience. The current five year term expires December 31, 2016 and
the parties have renewed the agreement for a further five years, extending the term to December 31,
2021.
15. Contractual obligations and contingent liabilities
In the normal course of operations, the Board becomes involved in various claims and legal
proceedings. While the final outcome with respect to claims and legal proceedings pending at
August 31, 2016 cannot be predicted with certainty, it is the opinion of the Board that their resolution will
not have a material adverse effect on the Board’s financial position or results of operations.
The Board is committed to capital expenditures in the amount of $28,669.
The Board has committed to five contracts to purchase natural gas for specified delivery periods into the
future. The sum of $1,420 is payable with respect to these contracts during the next three years.
$
2016/17 945
2017/18 415
2018/19 60
1,420
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 23
15. Contractual obligations and contingent liabilities (continued)
The Board has ongoing commitments under operating leases for buildings, office equipment and
vehicles. The sum of $4,091 is payable with respect to these operating leases during the next five years
as follows:
$
2016/17 1,043
2017/18 832
2018/19 780
2019/20 727
2020/21 709
4,091
16. Liability for contaminated sites
A liability for contaminated sites, $210 was recognized due to contaminated soil from a leaking oil tank
at August 31, 2015. The liability was estimated based on the projected expense to remediate the site.
The remediation of this site was completed during this fiscal year at a cost of $184.
17. Transportation consortium
On July 1, 2010, the Board entered into an agreement with the London District Catholic School Board in
order to provide common administration of student transportation in the Region. This agreement was
executed in an effort to increase delivery efficiency and cost effectiveness of student transportation for
each of the following Boards: Thames Valley District School Board, London District Catholic School
Board, Conseil scolaire de district des écoles catholiques du Sud-Ouest, and Conseil scolaire de district
du Centre-Sud-Ouest. Under the agreement, decisions related to the financial and operating activities of
the Southwestern Ontario Student Transportation Services are shared. No partner is in a position to
exercise unilateral control.
As of September 1, 2010, the partnership only included the Thames Valley District School Board and the
London District Catholic School Board.
The Board’s consolidated financial statements reflect proportionate consolidation, whereby they include
the assets that it controls, the liabilities that it has incurred, and its pro-rata share of revenues and
expenses. Inter-organizational transactions and balances have been eliminated.
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 24
17. Transportation consortium (continued)
The following provides condensed financial information.
2016 2015
Board Board
Consortium portion
Total portion
$$$$
Financial position
Assets 407 310 863 658
Liabilities 407 310 863 658
- - - -
Operations
Revenue 46,216 35,147 44,830 34,200
Expenses 46,216 35,147 44,830 34,200
- - - -
18. Thames Valley Education Foundation
The Foundation supports programs and initiatives that directly benefit students and that promote equity
across Thames Valley. The Foundation was incorporated in Ontario on September 22, 1997 as
a not-for-profit organization and is a registered charity under the Income Tax Act. The Foundation’s
mission is to provide enhanced learning opportunities for students across the District. The goal of the
Foundation is to improve the quality of public education by fostering parent, community and business
support and attracting resources that complement provincial funding and local school fundraising.
The Foundation has been consolidated in the Board’s financial statements. A financial summary of the
Foundation for the year ended August 31, 2016 is as follows:
2016 2015
$$
Financial assets
Cash 251 219
Accounts receivable 2 2
Investments 6,614 6,528
6,867 6,749
Liabilities 258 344
Deferred revenue 46 30
Accumulated surplus 6,563 6,375
6,867 6,749
Operations
Revenue 762 753
Expenses 574 639
Annual surplus 188 114
Thames Valley District School Board
Notes to the consolidated financial statements
August 31, 2016
(In thousands of dollars)
Page 25
19. Repayment of “55 School Board Trust” funding
On June 1, 2003, the Board received $107,066 from the “55 School Board Trust” for its capital related
debt eligible for provincial funding support pursuant to a 30-year agreement it entered with the trust. The
“55 School Board Trust” was created to refinance without recourse the outstanding not permanently
financed (“NPF”) debt of participating boards who are beneficiaries of the trust. Under the terms of the
agreement, the “55 School Board Trust” repaid the Board’s debt in consideration for the assignment by
the Board to the trust of future provincial grants payable to the Board in respect of the NPF debt.
The flow-through of $7,976 (2015 - $7,976) in respect of the above agreement for the year ended
August 31, 2016, is recorded in these consolidated financial statements.
20. Government of Canada
The Board received tuition fees for Native pupils attending the Board as follows:
2016 2015
$$
Chippewas of the Thames First Nation 577 499
Oneida Nation of the Thames 1,460 1,418
Munsee-Delaware Nation 321 353
2,358 2,270
21. Letters of credit
The Board has letters of credit outstanding at August 31, 2016 in the amount of $2,902 (2015 - $2,321).
22. School generated funds and funded activities
The following is a summary of the school generated funds and school funded activities reported in the
consolidated statement of operations.
2016 2015
School
councils
Schools and other Total
Total
$$$$
School generated funds
Field trips / excursions 4,039 - 4,039 4,429
Fundraising for external charities 417 - 417 528
Student activities and resources
(including fees)7,786 - 7,786 8,226
Other 1,211 2,501 3,712 3,575
13,453 2,501 15,954 16,758
School funded activities
Field trips / excursions 4,658 - 4,658 4,434
Donations to external charities 409 - 409 526
Student activities and resources 7,481 - 7,481 8,247
Other 882 2,503 3,385 3,980
13,430 2,503 15,933 17,187
Chart 1
Accumulated Surplus Appropriations
Balance Balance
August 31, 2015 In-Year Change August 31, 2016
Available for Compliance - Unappropriated ( Utilized only by Board motion )
Operating Accumulated Surplus 16,685,065 7,007,762 23,692,827
Available for Compliance - Internally Appropriated
Amounts to be Brought Forward Only by Board Motion
Multi-Purpose 2,228,129 0 2,228,129
Committed Capital Projects(Future Amortization)23,448,622 3,471,941 26,920,563
Amounts to Fund Approved Budget in Future Years
Information Technology - ICT Strategic Plan 1,004,212 1,611,390 2,615,602
Website Development 0 350,000 350,000
FDK Staff Development 380,398 (45,000)335,398
Amounts to be Brought Forward as Revised Budget After Revised Estimates
Staff Development / Professional Development
Trustee Professional Development 15,000 (15,000)0
Director & S.O Staff Development 54,013 (8,591)45,422
Principal & Vice-Principal Staff Development 448,898 0 448,898
Managers' Staff Development 19,891 3,745 23,636
Staff Development / Professional Development 14,646 (14,646)0
Classroom Expenditures and Other
Elementary School Carry Forward 2,340,065 (126,623)2,213,442
Secondary School Carry Forward 1,411,890 (104,025)1,307,865
Trustees' Office Carry Forward 0 21,349 21,349
Ontario Parent Involvement 220,262 22,633 242,895
Unspent Project Funding 198,390 448,948 647,338
Capital Planning Capacity 35,198 37,142 72,340
FDK Sheds and Fences 335,620 (120,620)215,000
Safe Schools 566,278 (35,324)530,954
Promote Positive Behaviour 367,187 227,405 594,592
Urban & Priority Schools 0 2,863 2,863
OFIP Investment in Tutoring*29,713 (29,713)0
Student Pathways*769,898 (769,898)0
Cafeteria Rebates 43,244 (11,133)32,111
School Effectiveness Framework*169,757 (169,757)0
Specialist High Skills Major*25,685 (25,685)0
Behaviour Expertise Amount 133,692 119,910 253,602
Secondary Athletics 139,956 (84,052)55,904
Total Internally Appropriated 34,400,644 4,757,259 39,157,903
Thames Valley Education Foundation 6,374,905 187,599 6,562,504
Total Available for Compliance for Ministry Purposes 57,460,614 11,952,620 69,413,234
Unavailable for Compliance
Employee Future Benefits - retirement gratuity liability (1,495,454)1,495,454 0
Retirement Health, Dental, Life Insurance Plans etc.(197,629)197,629 0
Employee Future Benefits - other than retirement gratuity (12,370,017)48,203 (12,321,814)
Interest to be Accrued (2,486,428)85,471 (2,400,957)
School Generated Funds 5,416,109 21,442 5,437,551
Revenues recognized for land 14,795,934 3,565,399 18,361,333
Total Unavailable for Compliance 3,662,515 5,413,598 9,076,113
Total Accumulated Surplus/(Deficit)61,123,129 17,366,218 78,489,347
*Beginning in 15/16, these GSN amounts are formally enveloped as student achievement by the ministry. As a result, the unspent
funds of $1.1M now are reflected as deferred revenue rather than appropriation of accumulated surplus.
Chart 2BalanceBalanceAugust 31, 2015August 31, 2016Accumulated Surplus Appropriated for Capital23,448,622 3,471,941 26,920,563Accumulated Board Supported Spending on Capital26,786,033(1,184,881)25,601,152Capital Surplus / ( Deficit ) (3,337,411)4,656,8221,319,411 Balance August 31, 2016 Balance August 31, 2016 EPO GrantsGSN GrantsTeacher Learning Leadership Projects ( 6 Schools )129,947 Special Education - SEA2,984,942 Student Success School Support Initiatve 64,382 Student Achievement ( see details below )1,103,918 Student Success School Support Initiatve - FNMI38,211 Regional Internal Audit453,149 Student-Led Teacher Facilitated Projects 19,699 Mental Health Leader21,354 Career / Life Planning18,618 Math AQ Courses13,050 Early Years Leadership Strategy6,874 K-12 International Education1,181 Total EPO Grants Deferred291,962 4,563,363 Total Grants Deferred4,855,325 Student Achievement Grants - DetailsGSN GrantsSpecialist High Skills Major25,685 539,372 565,057 565,05700Student Pathways for Success769,898 2,622,354 3,392,2522,763,500 628,7520School Effectiveness Framework169,757 371,316 541,073247,086 293,9870OFIP Tutoring29,713 305,676 335,389199,184 136,2050Literacy and Math Outside the School Day0 251,509 251,509206,535 44,97400Total995,0534,090,2275,085,2803,981,3621,103,9180Capital Surplus / ( Deficit )In-Year ChangeDeferred Revenue at August 31, 2016Appropriation of Accumulated Surplus at August 31, 2016Appropriation of Accumulated Surplus at August 31, 20152015-2016 GSN FundingChart 3Deferred RevenuesTotal GSN Grants DeferredTotal Funding Available for 2015-20162015-2016 Expenses
REPORT OF THE CHAIR’S COMMITTEE
2016 November 15
12:11 p.m. – 1:20 p.m.
MEMBERS
B. McKinnon A. Morell
M. Reid R. Tisdale (Chair)
Regrets: G. Hart
ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
L. Elliott B. Williams
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved by motion.
2. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST – none declared
3. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE 2016 NOVEMBER 22 BOARD AGENDAS
The in-camera and public board meeting agendas for 2016 November 22 were reviewed and
discussed.
4. CORRESPONDENCE
A copy of a letter from Elgin County, Office of the Warden sent to Premier Wynn regarding the
proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review was received. The letter is to be forwarded to all
trustees for information.
A Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration letter to the Chair regarding the 2016-17 Adult Non-Credit
Language Training Program grant was received. It was determined to include a copy of the letter on
the 2016 November 22 Board meeting agenda under Correspondence.
5. TRUSTEE FORUMS AD HOC COMMITTEE
The following recommendation was moved and carried:
That Trustees A. Morell, J. Bennett, and R. Tisdale be appointed to the Trustee Forums Ad
Hoc Committee.
6. PUBLIC INPUT REQUEST
A request for public input was received and reviewed. The request was approved for presentation at
the 2016 December 20 Board meeting.
7. PARENT ENGAGEMENT REVIEW – TRUSTEE REPRESENTATIVES
Director Elliott reported Senior Administration is planning to complete a review of parent engagement.
A steering committee will be formed to develop the parameters of review; two trustee representatives
were requested to sit on the steering committee. The review is expected to be completed in the
spring with a report coming forward in September 2017.
A call for trustee representation on the steering committee will go out with an electronic vote for
approval in order to facilitate a meeting of the steering committee before the end of the year.
8. PAR – TRUSTEES’ ROLE
As a follow up to the discussion at the 2016 November 8 Planning and Priorities Advisory Committee
meeting regarding the trustee role in the new Pupil Accommodation Review (PAR) process, as it
relates to attendance at the school-level meetings and public/committee meetings established as part
of the PAR process, the Chair’s Committee put forward a number of recommendations.
Based on the discussions at the Advisory meeting, and due to the nature and purpose of school-
based meetings, it is strongly recommended that trustees not attend school-based meetings. It
further is recommended that should trustees attend the public/committee meetings, they attend only
as a listener. The importance of maintaining objectivity was emphasized.
15.i
9. JOINT MPP/TRUSTEE MEETING
In response to an MPP request for a joint meeting, it was determined to schedule meetings in June
2017 to follow the PAR decisions.
10. OMBUDSMAN ANNUAL REPORT
Discussion centered on investigations/formal inquiries completed by the Ombudsman in Ontario.
Director Elliott offered to follow up to determine how many may have been carried out by the
Ombudsman in response to complaints about the Thames Valley District School Board.
11. TRUSTEE REQUESTS FOR REPORTS
Trustees are reminded to bring forward requests for reports of Administration through Advisory
Committees or through Board.
12. INAUGURAL MEETING OF THE BOARD
The draft agenda for the Inaugural meeting of the Board was reviewed.
13. UPCOMING EVENTS/INITIATIVES
Pillar Innovation Awards – 2016 November 23
Chair/Vice-Chair Elections – 2016 December 1
Inaugural Meeting of the Board of Trustees – 2016 December 13
2017 OPSBA Public Education Symposium – 2017 January 19-21
Joint Board-Municipal meeting with Elgin County – 2017 February 8 (10 a.m.)
14. OTHER BUSINESS
a. In Camera
The committee moved in camera at 1:06 p.m. to discuss personal matters reconvening in public
session at 1:20 p.m.
15. DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING
The next Chair’s Committee meeting was confirmed for 2016 November 29, 12 p.m.
16. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. by motion.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Trustees A. Morell, J. Bennett, and R. Tisdale be appointed to the Trustee Forums Ad
Hoc Committee.
RUTH TISDALE
Chairperson