1

TDSB FUNDING NEEDS

WARD COUNCIL PRESENTATION March 2011

Narrative by Trustee Irene Atkinson, Budget Committee Chair

1

22

TDSB Historical Funding Backdrop

Pre 1998•Seven local boards of education (Scarborough, North York, Toronto, Etobicoke, East York, City of York & Metro)•Boards were able to meet community expectations through the property tax base

1998•Seven local boards amalgamated into the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), the largest Canadian school board•Provincial formula funds education in Ontario•Boards must balance their budgets•Boards lost the power to tax

1998 – 2010•Despite cost saving measures, disposal of surplus properties, etc., gaps exist between student needs and funding provisions•TDSB struggles to operate within provincial funding formulas•Ministry increases provincial funding but in support of its own new initiatives•Aging inventory of buildings results in growing renewal and capital needs•Moratorium on school closures (December 12, 2003 – September 30, 2004)

3

Two Major Funding Challenges

• Operating pressures (salaries, benefits, utilities, program supports and supplies, technology, transportation)

• Capital pressures (building and renewing schools)

3

4

Increasing Operating Pressures

4

5

Boards must balance spending and revenues. In order to spend more in one area, a Board must spend less in others

For example: We use the money from Ministry grants such as our English as a Second Language (ESL) or Learning Opportunities Index (LOI) funding to pay for school based expenses such as libraries, etc.

For example: TDSB spends more on principals, vice-principals, school office, educational assistants, librarians and guidance counsellors, special education, textbooks, etc., than the funding formula allocates for these expenses

6

SUPPORTING SCHOOLS: These are the choices the Board has made to supplement the funding received from the Ministry in certain categories by spending less in

other areas.

6

Grants Reallocated Shortfall

Grants with Shortfall

School Foundation (Note 1)

Principals (5,076,700)$

Vice-Principals ($3.4M Funded by LOG) (9,795,747)

School office Clerical ($4.7M Funded by LOG) (14,929,594)

School Office Supplies ($1.9M Funded by LOG) (7,129,848)

Educational Assistants (Funded by Learning Opportunity Grant) (17,110,925)

Library & Guidance Teachers (Funded by Pupil Foundation Grant) (12,045,807)

Textbooks/Supplies (Funded by Pupil Foundation Grant) (4,786,319)

Computers (Funded by Pupil Foundation Grant) (17,037,828)

Special Education (20,782,237)

Safe Schools (6,380,066)

Adult Education, Continuing Education and Summer School (3,273,919)

Administration and Governance (13,726,941) School Operations (Caretaking and caretaking supplies etc.) - Estimated Utility Funding Shortfall (Note 3) (15,700,000)

Analysis of Grants versus Operating ExpendituresBased on 2010 - 2011 Budget*

(excludes Capital and Renewal expenditures)

* Prepared April 2010

Total Shortfall (147,775,931)

77

Notes:1) School Foundation Allocation includes funding for: principals, vice-principals, school office clerical and office supplies.

2) Pupil Foundation Allocation includes funding for: teachers, supply teachers, library & guidance, educational assistants, textbooks & supplies, computers, professionals & paraprofessionals, staff development and curriculum coordinators & consultants.

3) School Operations Allocation includes funding for caretakers, maintenance and utilities, but not capital.

This is after a reduction of $30M in maintenance from the budget to offset unfunded expenditures in all areas of the Board's operation.

Reallocated Shortfall

Grants ReallocatedPupil Foundation and Other Classroom Grants (Note 2) 45,862,587$

(used to support Library, Guidance, Textbooks, Computers)

LanguageFrench as a Second Language 2,598,685 English as a Second Language 15,055,361

Learning Opportunity 27,425,475

(used to support Ed. Assistants, VPs and School Offices)

Transportation 418,824 School Operations - 23,800,543 Community Use of Schools - Declining Enrolment Adjustment 3,711,267 Program Enhancement 5,404,000

Totals 124,276,742$ (147,775,931)$ Net Deficit (23,499,189)

Projected Working Funds Reserve 5,769,538 Projected Net Deficit (17,729,651)$

Analysis of Grants versus Operating Expenditures, cont’dBased on 2010 – 2011 Budget

8

Current Strategies for Addressing Operating Pressures

• Closed eight properties in 2010/11 and will realize $2.5M in annual operational savings

• Appointed a Chief Enrolment Officer to develop more financial partnerships and recruit students from abroad

• Regular review of all areas of operations and service delivery to identify efficiencies and cost savings thereby reducing budgets

• Working with Ontario Public School Boards Association (OPSBA) to advocate for improvements to the funding formula

8

9

Increasing Capital Pressures

9

Capital costs include: repairing existing schools; building or upgrading classrooms, portions of a school or a full school; repairing or upgrading plumbing, wiring and heating, etc; repairing structural problems; and repairing or upgrading school grounds including sport fields, playgrounds, fences and asphalt surfaces, etc.

1010

TDSB Historical Capital Funding Backdrop

Pre 1998•During the 1950s, 60s and 70s, major construction is undertaken in what is now the City of Toronto to build enough learning spaces for baby boomers.•Local boards of education have access to local property tax base to assist with construction and renewal needs

1998•Province introduces a province-wide funding formula that does not provide funding to the TDSB to build new schools due to “pocket” enrolment growth or purchase land through Education Development Charges (EDCs)•School boards’ ability to raise revenues through the property tax base is removed.

1998 – 2010•Boards with growing populations are provided dollars to help construct new schools.•Ministry changes funding formula to allow boards with declining enrolment to close under-subscribed schools and generate funding to build schools where there are pockets of enrolment growth•Ministry provides funding to rebuild schools they deem too expensive to repair.•Ministry provides Good Places to Learn funding for four years to help Boards deal with aging buildings.•Toronto’s aging infrastructure requires more funding for renewal than the Board receives.•TDSB begins to reduce its space inventory to reduce expenses and generate capital dollars to reinvest into the system.

Today•TDSB still has pressures in both the operating and capital budgets.

11

Over 300 schools were built in

20 years.

Now they have to be retrofitted.

Sch

oo

l S

pac

e C

on

stru

cted

(00

0’s

ft2)

1212

TDSB Historical Capital Funding Backdrop

Pre 1998•During the 1950s, 60s and 70s, major construction is undertaken in what is now the City of Toronto to build enough learning spaces for baby boomers.•Local boards of education have access to local property tax base to assist with construction and renewal needs

1998•Province introduces a province-wide funding formula that does not provide funding to the TDSB to build new schools due to “pocket” enrolment growth or purchase land through Education Development Charges (EDCs)•School boards’ ability to raise revenues through the property tax base is removed.

1998 – 2010•Boards with growing populations are provided dollars to help construct new schools.•Ministry changes funding formula to allow boards with declining enrolment to close under-subscribed schools and generate funding to build schools where there are pockets of enrolment growth•Ministry provides funding to rebuild schools they deem too expensive to repair.•Ministry provides Good Places to Learn funding for four years to help Boards deal with aging buildings.•Toronto’s aging infrastructure requires more funding for renewal than the Board receives.•TDSB begins to reduce its space inventory to reduce expenses and generate capital dollars to reinvest into the system.

Today•TDSB still has pressures in both the operating and capital budgets.

13

Over 300 schools were built in

20 years.

Now they have to be retrofitted.

Sch

oo

l S

pac

e C

on

stru

cted

(00

0’s

ft2)

1414

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Bill

ion

s o

f d

olla

rs

Year

2015?

$3 billion

$960 million

Building systems in over 450 schools each over 40 years old have surpassed the end of their average 35 year designed life cycle.

$3 Billion Renewal Backlog*

Note:

1. This backlog includes the funds needed for replacement of building systems (structural, mechanical, electrical and civil).

2. It does not include funds needed for program changes and code-compliance.

3. Projections based on exponential pattern of growth suggest the backlog alone could reach $6 billion by 2015.

*as of September 22, 2011

15

Facilities Condition Report Card

2019 Forecast of FCI by Ward

2010 FCI by Ward

With no increase in funding for renewal, by 2019 only six schools will be considered to be in good condition.

Lowest Renewal Backlog

Highest Renewal Backlog

1616

Bottom line: Almost all of our schools will require a deep retrofit over the next 15 years

Basic facility needs – light, heat and water.

Excellent, modern, and efficient program spaces

Level of Investment

We need to ensure that schools have light, heat and water – and, at the same time, retrofit our classrooms and schools for 21st Century learning.

Respond to emergencies

Replace some building systems

Engage communities in rebuilding schools through deep retrofits

We value sustainability: It is both economically and ecologically efficient to retrofit our existing buildings. This deep retrofit approach allows us to look at the whole picture. We will rethink and reorganize spaces within schools and on grounds to make the most of students’ learning environments. At the same time, we will make much needed repairs and also bring our buildings up to today’s standards (e.g. safety codes, access for the disabled). This also allows us to preserve our city’s architectural history wherever possible.

1717

Estimate of Total Cost to Deep Retrofit ALL our Schools in 2011 Dollars

Panel

Current area of instructional space (million ft2)

Estimated total cost of deep retrofits

Elementary 25.7 $4.84 billion

Secondary 16.8 $3.38 billion

Total 42.5 $8.22 billion

Note:• This total projected cost of $8.22 billion in today’s dollars does not include:

•Natural price escalations (inflation)•Cost of emergency repairs and health and safety projects over the next 15 years to keep schools open•Cost of additions and new buildings required for some pocket areas of residential growth across the City

If we reduce the number of schools in the system:• deep retrofit costs will go down proportionally• costs associated with emergency and health and safety projects will decrease• growth of the backlog will rise more slowly

A Societal Investment for TDSB’s Future Learners

Area of Instructional Space and Number of Elementary and Secondary Schools Constructed from 1887-2010

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Decade of Construction

Are

a o

f In

stru

ctio

nal

Sp

ace

000'

s ft

2

2012-13 Develop Sustainable Deep Retrofit Strategy

2013-14Design/First Phase Construction

2014-16 Ongoing Design and Construction

2029 and Beyond

The Legacy: Regular Building Renewal

Normalized construction; sustainable capital plans and construction practices; affordable program renewal resulting from flexible designs implemented in deep retrofits

Deep retrofits will have to

follow pattern of construction in

the 50’s and 60’s

2017-2029

Accelerated construction to address post-war construction boom, incorporating best practice sustainable design

2012-2029 and BeyondTDSB’s aging infrastructure

18

1919

Strategies for Addressing Capital Pressures

1. Address underutilized surplus school space by selling buildings/properties to generate capital funding. Since 2007, through the Toronto Lands Corporation (TLC), $95M in sales have been generated with a further $39M pending. Redevelopment and sales over the next five years will generate an additional $222M.

2. Generate revenue through renewable energy programs to reduce utility costs

3. Investigate capital redevelopment where feasible (e.g. North Toronto CI, Claude Watson School for the Arts)

4. Explore other funding sources (e.g. potential access to the tax base via the private member’s bill just introduced, provincial debentures)

* The Board’s Five Year Capital Building Program and Go Green: Climate Change Action Plan are both available on the Board’s website at www.tdsb.on.ca.

20

The pieces are coming together but we can’t do it alone.

Federal

infrastructure

funding and

provincial

debentures

Money from surplus

buildings and leasing

properties

Ministry of Education capital

funding

Renewable energy

Public/private

partnerships

Access to tax base

We need a societal commitment to rebuild our schools for our 21st century learners