Good Places to Learn: Stage 1 Funding Allocation English

209 Pages·2016·11.85 MB·English

Good Places to Learn:
Stage 1 Funding Allocation
This paper and the following tables were amended in February, 2006. Memo B4 of
March 18, 2005 requested boards to review calculations and contact the Ministry if there
were any errors or omissions in the calculations. The figures provided here indicate the
adjusted calculation of Stage I allocations.
Introduction
As part of the Facilities Policy Review, the Minister of Education announced on
February 17, 2005 an investment of $280 million in annual funding increases for school
renewal and new school construction. This amount includes $200 million to support
repair and renovation projects that had been announced by the Premier last year as
part of the Good Places to Learn initiative and $80 million to enable boards to construct
new school facilities to provide the additional classroom space that will be needed to
accommodate smaller classes in primary grades. It is anticipated that this increase in
annual funding will enable boards to undertake capital projects in their schools that are
valued at almost $4 billion.
Funding for the Good Places to Learn initiative will be allocated in two stages, beginning
with an initial allocation to enable boards to address an estimated $1 billion in
immediate and urgent renewal needs. A table is provided in Appendix A summarizing
each board’s annual allocation under this initial stage.
As indicated in Memorandum 2005: B4, funding for Stage 2 will be determined following
a consultation and the submission of long term capital plans to the Ministry of
Education. These plans are due on January 31, 2006.
Overview of School Inspection Process and Identification of Renewal
Needs
This renewal iniative began with the detailed inspections of each school by building
professionals, and the acquisition of standard asset management software for
installation in each board.
The consulting firm contracted for this process was Physical Planning Technologies
Incorporated (PPTI), a facilities management consulting company based in Richmond
Hill. The inspection process was completed in December 2003 and PPTI submitted
findings to the Minister of Education on March 31, 2004.
1
Significant care was taken to ensure that each school in the province was assessed in
the same way. This has allowed funding to be designated to each District School Board
with respect to the renewal needs of their inventory of school facilities.
The purpose of the following is to identify the calculations used to determine board
allocations based on Ministry analysis of the inspection data and the renewal needs as
identified for each District School Board.
Ministry Analysis of Renewal Needs
A total of 4,994 school facilities as identified in the School Facilities Inventory System1

(SFIS) were part of the inspection process.

Adjustments to the figures reported by PPTI are required for a number of reasons as to
reflect current utilization of facilities, cost sharing agreements between boards for
shared facilities or funding already allocated to boards in recognition of facilities deemed
prohibitive to repair. These adjustments are explained below.
Boards are advised to review this material carefully and advise the Business
Services Branch by April 15, 2005 if there are any errors and omissions. Issues
identified will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Any adjustments deemed
appropriate will be taken into consideration in the allocation of funds under Stage
2 of this initiative.
FCI of 65% of over
The renewal needs of facilities that have been identified as having a facilities condition
index (FCI) of 65% or greater have been removed from the calculation. An estimated
$50 million will be allocated in respect of replacing approximately 120 of these facilities.
Details will be provided to boards at a later date
Operating Facilities
Adjustments to the figures reported by PPTI are required for a number of reasons such
that the funding allocated under the Good Places to Learn initiative reflects boards’
inventory as recorded in the SFIS for 2004-05. Some of the facilities inspected may

1 The SFIS is an on-line database administered by the Ministry of Education compiling detailed
information about each of a board’s school facilities (school capacity, address, elementary or secondary,
operating status, etc.) School boards maintain this information. A unique number, the ‘SFIS number’,
identifies each facility. The ReCAPP databases (see “Next Steps”) have identified assets by Campus ID –
a number that is unique to each building asset. For example, a single school building will have one
Campus ID number but if the facility is shared between an elementary and secondary program, two SFIS
numbers are associated with the building, one for each program.
2
have been leased to a third party, are used as administrative facilities, or have been left
vacant.
Accordingly, funding is based only on schools offering a regular day school program in
2004-05. Specifically, of the schools inspected, the renewal needs of only those
facilities operating an elementary or secondary day school program as reported in
Appendix C of the 2004-05 Revised Estimates are recognized in the funding
calculations. The renewal needs for school facilities that are reporting no enrolment in
2004-05 are not recognized.
Shared Facilities
In some instances, facilities are shared either between coterminous boards or between
panels. The cost of renewal work as presented by PPTI may not reflect the cost sharing
arrangements that exist between boards sharing (or leasing) a facility. In the case of
facilities shared between two or more boards, boards were asked as part of
Memorandum 2004:SB3 sent on March 24, 2004 to submit information regarding their
cost sharing agreements. Based on the information received, a percentage of the
renewal needs was attributed to one or more of the facilities sharing a building.
Where no information was submitted, renewal needs were attributed to each shared
facility based on each board’s share of the total on-the-ground capacity (OTG) reported
for the facility in the SFIS for 2004-05.
Phase I Prohibitive to Repair
Renewal needs for any facilities that were declared Prohibitive to Repair as a result of
Phase I of the School Renewal Initiative inspection process were also not recognized
since funding was allocated toward the replacement of these facilities in 2003-04.
Phase I and the identification of Prohibitive to Repair facilities are documented in the
School Renewal Initiative: Identification of “Prohibitive-to-Repair” Schools, 2003-04.
This document is available for download at the Ministry’s FTP site at the following
address: ftp://ftp.edu.gov.on.ca/April2003/documents.
Calculation of Allocations
The inspection process identified renewal work to be undertaken over the 5-year period
2003 to 2007. Allocations are based on high and urgent priority needs identified in the
first two years, 2003 and 2004, of the 5-year period as determined by PPTI. Priority was
based on the condition of building component requiring repair/replacement as
determined by the building inspectors and the component’s criticality to the operation of
the school building as determined by PPTI.
3
Each board’s allocation is calculated to provide financing, as communicated in
Memorandum 2005:B2 of February 18, 2005, to address approximately 40% of a base
figure for renewal needs. The base figure is calculated as 39.45% of the total high and
urgent needs for 2003 and 2004. If total high and urgent needs are less than 40% of
total repair needs for those two years, the base renewal figure is calculated as 39.45%
of 40% of the total renewal needs for 2003 and 2004. Allocations were calculated as the
amount required to finance this amount of renewal needs assuming an interest rate of
5.25% and an amortization period of 25 years.
Two examples of the calculation are provided below.
Example 1
For the years 2003 and 2004, a board has total renewal needs of $40 million. Of these,
$25 million have been identified as high and urgent. The calculation of the board’s
allocation is as follows:
Total Total High % of Total Base Figure 39.45% of Projected Good
Renewal & Urgent Renewal for Renewal Base Figure Financed Places to
Needs Renewal Needs for Needs for Renewal Amount for Learn
Identified Needs 2003 & Needs High & Stage I
for 2003 & Identified 2004 Urgent Allocation
2004 for 2003 & Identified Projects
2004 as High & that may
Urgent be
Undertaken
with the
Allocation
$40,000,000 $25,000,000 62.5% $25,000,000 $9,862,500 $9,862,500 $ 717,405
Example 2
For the years 2003 and 2004, a board has total renewal needs of $40 million. Of these,
$15 million have been identified as high and urgent. The calculation of the board’s
allocation is as follows:
Total Total High % of Total Base Figure 39.45% of Projected Good
Renewal & Urgent Renewal for Renewal Base Figure Financed Places to
Needs Renewal Needs for Needs for Renewal Amount for Learn
Identified Needs 2003 & 2004 Needs High & Stage I
for 2003 & Identified Identified as Urgent Allocation
2004 for 2003 & High & Projects
2004 Urgent that may
be
Undertaken
with the
Allocation
$40,000,000 $15,000,000 37.5% $16,000,000 $6,312,000 $6,312,000 $ 459,139
4
Next Steps
Renewal Databases
The Good Places to Learn initiative was not only an effort to address current needs but
also an effort to support good management practices and decision-making in the future.
Accordingly, part of the initiative was the installation of facilities management software
and the creation of databases for each board. ReCAPP asset management software,
supported by PPTI, was the database program selected as it was already in use by
boards having over 50 percent of the existing school area.
The facilities management software is a tool designed to help boards identify renewal
needs for the capital planning cycle. It will also allow consistent reporting across the
province with respect to school condition.
As indicated in Memorandum 2005:B4, boards will have access to their individual
ReCAPP databases upon signing their licensing agreements with PPTI. This access will
allow boards to update their school building condition assessment information
developed from the inspections of all schools and will also assist boards in project
selection and in developing effective school renewal programs. In conjunction with the
development of long-term capital plans, it is expected that school boards will update
their databases to reflect current renewal projects as well as aid in the planning
process.
Beginning in 2004-05, district school boards have received additional funding through
the Grant for School Operations for the ongoing licensing and hosting fees associated
with the RECAPP software package. Boards will receive the lesser of the amount
specified in Table 8 of the 2004-05 Grant Regulation, Amount for Renewal Software
Licensing Fee, and the amount actually expended by the boards for the licensing and
hosting fees as reported in the 2004-05 Financial Statements.
Capital Planning
The government, working with school board representatives, is exploring options to
arrange long-term financing at the most favourable rates so that school board will have
funds at their disposal and can begin renewal work as early as summer, 2005. Boards
are to provide the Ministry with information regarding the specific projects that they plan
to complete before classes resume in September. This information is to be provided to
the Ministry by June 15 using the existing reporting structure within the School Facility
Inventory System (SFIS).
To ensure the greatest possible benefit from this investment, funds are to be used only
in schools that will continue to remain open for at least the next ten years. Boards will
be required to prepare public reports at the conclusion of their planning cycle to
5
illustrate how they intend to use the funds allocated under this initiative to repair their
schools. In addition, boards will also be required to prepare public reports that
document exactly how these funds were used and the improvements made to each
school.

6
Appendix A: Summary of Annual Allocation for Stage 1 (revised February, 2006)
DSB Board Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
Total Renewal Total High & % of Total Base Renewal Allocation to
Needs for 2003 & Urgent Renewal Renewal Figure (39.45% Address High
2004 Needs Identified Needs for of Column 2 or & Urgent
for 2003 & 2004 2003 & 39.45% of 40% of Priority
2004 Column 1) Projects
Identified
as High &
Urgent
2 Algoma District School Board $53,994,229 $21,714,571 40.2% $8,566,032 $623,099
55 Algonquin and Lakeshore $30,230,882 $13,994,981 46.3% $5,520,784 $401,585
Catholic District School
Board
8 Avon Maitland District School $64,936,443 $39,892,531 61.4% $15,736,931 $1,144,715
Board
7 Bluewater District School $65,048,968 $36,464,641 56.1% $14,384,686 $1,046,352
Board
51 Brant Haldimand Norfolk $17,322,058 $9,472,485 54.7% $3,736,736 $271,813
Catholic District School
Board
35 Bruce-Grey Catholic District $4,337,096 $3,679,461 84.8% $1,451,485 $105,582
School Board
59 Conseil de district des ecoles $28,763,734 $15,906,609 55.3% $6,274,889 $456,440
publiques de langue
francaise No 59
60.1 Conseil scolaire de district $27,152,097 $12,786,559 47.1% $5,044,082 $366,910
catholique des Grandes
Rivieres
64 Conseil scolaire de district $30,641,303 $16,660,862 54.4% $6,572,429 $478,083
catholique Centre-Sud
7
DSB Board Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
Total Renewal Total High & % of Total Base Renewal Allocation to
Needs for 2003 & Urgent Renewal Renewal Figure (39.45% Address High
2004 Needs Identified Needs for of Column 2 or & Urgent
for 2003 & 2004 2003 & 39.45% of 40% of Priority
2004 Column 1) Projects
Identified
as High &
Urgent
65 Conseil scolaire de district $62,327,780 $28,016,605 45.0% $11,052,079 $803,935
catholique de l'est Ontarien
62 Conseil scolaire de district $2,078,799 $1,365,885 65.7% $538,819 $39,194
catholique des Aurores
boreales
66 Conseil scolaire de district $35,117,140 $18,940,650 53.9% $7,471,767 $543,501
catholique du Centre-Est de
l'Ontario
61 Conseil scolaire de district $30,062,972 $19,414,349 64.6% $7,658,633 $557,094
catholique du Nouvel-Ontario
60.2 Conseil scolaire de district $13,998,276 $9,057,009 64.7% $3,572,837 $259,891
catholique Franco-Nord
63 Conseil scolaire de district $18,342,743 $10,049,646 54.8% $3,964,416 $288,374
des ecoles catholiques du
Sud-Ouest
58 Conseil scolaire de district du $31,845,399 $19,285,193 60.6% $7,607,684 $553,388
Centre Sud-Ouest
57 Conseil scolaire de district du $12,286,143 $6,480,924 52.7% $2,556,615 $185,970
Grand Nord de l'Ontario
56 Conseil scolaire de district du $2,207,251 $982,630 44.5% $387,631 $28,197
Nord-Est de l'Ontario
22 District School Board of $169,339,763 $126,683,143 74.8% $49,974,365 $3,635,168
Niagara
8
DSB Board Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
Total Renewal Total High & % of Total Base Renewal Allocation to
Needs for 2003 & Urgent Renewal Renewal Figure (39.45% Address High
2004 Needs Identified Needs for of Column 2 or & Urgent
for 2003 & 2004 2003 & 39.45% of 40% of Priority
2004 Column 1) Projects
Identified
as High &
Urgent
1 District School Board Ontario $35,492,686 $12,888,352 36.3% $5,600,507 $407,385
North East
43 Dufferin Peel Catholic District $54,412,927 $33,586,575 61.7% $13,249,338 $963,766
School Board
45 Durham Catholic District $17,653,343 $6,661,050 37.7% $2,785,579 $202,625
School Board
13 Durham District School $118,468,090 $86,640,446 73.1% $34,178,196 $2,486,144
Board
52 Eastern Ontario Catholic $27,395,422 $15,767,307 57.6% $6,219,937 $452,442
District School Board
38 English-language Separate $22,517,868 $14,584,017 64.8% $5,753,149 $418,488
District School Board No. 38
23 Grand Erie District School $98,632,242 $50,339,025 51.0% $19,857,897 $1,444,476
Board
9 Greater Essex County $107,640,390 $69,254,350 64.3% $27,319,674 $1,987,251
District School Board
46 Halton Catholic District $9,869,346 $3,113,088 31.5% $1,557,316 $113,280
School Board
20 Halton District School Board $93,938,955 $51,316,705 54.6% $20,243,575 $1,472,531
47 Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic $35,660,802 $20,188,366 56.6% $7,963,970 $579,304
District School Board
21 Hamilton-Wentworth District $149,722,496 $86,450,870 57.7% $34,103,412 $2,480,705
School Board
9
DSB Board Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
Total Renewal Total High & % of Total Base Renewal Allocation to
Needs for 2003 & Urgent Renewal Renewal Figure (39.45% Address High
2004 Needs Identified Needs for of Column 2 or & Urgent
for 2003 & 2004 2003 & 39.45% of 40% of Priority
2004 Column 1) Projects
Identified
as High &
Urgent
29 Hastings and Prince Edward $72,742,175 $45,016,235 61.9% $17,758,146 $1,291,739
District School Board
36 Huron-Perth Catholic District $6,409,975 $2,841,080 44.3% $1,120,758 $81,525
School Board
31 Huron-Superior Catholic $18,452,689 $8,959,784 48.6% $3,534,484 $257,101
District School Board
14 Kawartha Pine Ridge District $108,086,275 $50,817,580 47.0% $20,046,679 $1,458,209
School Board
5.1 Keewatin-Patricia District $20,883,995 $10,637,110 50.9% $4,196,161 $305,231
School Board
33.2 Kenora Catholic District $2,467,795 $617,705 25.0% $389,401 $28,325
School Board
6.1 Lakehead District School $36,262,735 $9,609,215 26.5% $5,722,015 $416,223
Board
10 Lambton Kent District School $69,508,441 $35,314,290 50.8% $13,930,892 $1,013,342
Board
27 Limestone District School $88,056,926 $58,409,776 66.3% $23,041,672 $1,676,066
Board
4 Near North District School $64,698,476 $28,956,393 44.8% $11,422,809 $830,903
Board
50 Niagara Catholic District $66,628,366 $43,782,469 65.7% $17,271,446 $1,256,336
School Board
10