Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP - Oakville planning/omb-da-153007-ws... · Witness...

Witness Statement of Daryl

Keleher, MCIP, RPP

PL141318

Bronte Green

August 27, 2015

Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher,

MCIP, RPP PL141318

Bronte Green

Prepared for:

Bronte Green Inc.

Prepared by:

Altus Group Economic Consulting 33 Yonge Street Toronto Ontario M5E 1G4

Phone: (416) 641‐9500 Fax: (416) 641‐9501

[email protected]

altusgroup.com

August 27, 2015

August 27, 2015

Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting

PL141318 Bronte Green Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1

1.1 Qualifications ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Retainer .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.4 Agreed Statement of Facts ................................................................................................... 2

1.5 Summary of Opinion ............................................................................................................ 3

1.6 Documents to be Referred to in Evidence ......................................................................... 3

2 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY CONTEXT ............................................. 6

2.1 Education Act ........................................................................................................................ 6

2.2 Education Development Charge Regulation O.Reg 20/98 ............................................... 7

2.3 Planning Act .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.4 Provincial Policy Statement ................................................................................................. 9

2.5 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ..............................................................10

3 ANALYSIS OF NEED FOR SCHOOL SITE ........................................ 12

3.1 Estimated Pupil Generation by Bronte Green ..................................................................12

3.2 Capacity at Other Nearby Public Elementary Schools ....................................................13

3.3 Ministry of Education Approach to School Funding ......................................................18

3.4 Eligibility and Cost of Bussing Students to Nearby Schools ..........................................21

3.5 Practice of HDSB – Accommodating in Existing Facilities .............................................25

3.6 Development Potential of Other Lands in North West Oakville ...................................26

4 OPINION ................................................................................................... 29

5 CURRICULUM VITAE ............................................................................ 33

APPENDIX A ‐ AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

APPENDIX B ‐ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF EXPERT’S DUTY

August 27, 2015


PL141318 Bronte Green Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 QUALIFICATIONS

a) I am an urban planner and economist, and a Director at Altus Group

Economic Consulting, which is a division of Altus Group Limited. Altus

Group Economic Consulting provides advice and information to public

and private sector clients across Canada. I have been with the firm since

2007.

b) I hold a Bachelor of Arts (Honours Economics) from Wilfrid Laurier

University, and a Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning from Ryerson

University.

c) I am a full member (MCIP, RPP) of the Ontario Professional Planners

Institute and Canadian Institute of Planners.

d) I have substantial experience in the fields of education planning,

municipal finance, economics and land use planning matters.

e) I have previously been qualified to provide expert witness testimony

before the Ontario Municipal Board.

f) A copy of my curriculum vitae and examples of relevant experience are

attached to this witness statement (section 5).

1.2 RETAINER

a) Altus Group was retained by Bronte Green Inc. on October 28th, 2014 to

undertake a review of the need for a school site on the Bronte Green

lands.

1.3 BACKGROUND

1.3.1 Subject Lands

a) The subject site is located southeast of the corner of Bronte Road and

Upper Middle Road West in the Town of Oakville. The subject site has

most recently been used for the Saw‐Whet Golf Course. Figure 1 shows

the location of the subject site.

August 27, 2015



Location of Subject Site

Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Google Maps

Subject Site

b) The development proposed by Bronte Green Inc. is a mixed‐use project

containing a variety of residential unit types, a mixed‐use block, and

parks. Based on the Draft Plan by SGL Planning & Design Inc., dated

April 14, 2015 (based on an assumed 100 units in the high‐density

blocks), the residential component of the development would contain 860

units:

i) 531 single‐detached units;

ii) 229 townhouse units; and

iii) 100 apartment / high‐density units (based on the size and assumed

density on the two “Main Street 1” mixed‐use blocks).

1.4 AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

a) I met with Jack Ammendolia from Watson & Associates and Laureen

Choi from Halton District School Board on July 9, 2015

b) We prepared a Statement of Agreed Facts, which was finalized on August

14, 2015. The Agreed Statement of Facts is shown in Appendix A to my

witness statement.

Figure 1

August 27, 2015



1.5 SUMMARY OF OPINION

Issue #62 Is there adequate provision for a school site(s)?

Issue #63a) Is it good planning, and would it comply with Sections 1.1, 2,

3(5) and 51 of the Planning Act, to approve the development applications

without provision for an elementary school site within the subject lands?

Issue #63b) Assuming a school site is required, where in the plan of

subdivision should it be located, and what size and configuration should it

be to ensure that it is adequate?

a) The above issues are with respect to the provision of a public elementary

school site only. The Halton Catholic District School Board has not

identified a need for a school site, and there is no need for a Secondary

school site for either the Public or Catholic Boards.

b) In my opinion, there is adequate provision for a public elementary school

site, and school facilities, elsewhere in nearby public elementary schools

that are projected to be under capacity in the near future. Therefore, the

development application should be approved without the provision for a

public elementary school site on the subject lands. There is sufficient

capacity available in other nearby schools in the North West Oakville

area to accommodate the pupils generated by development of the Bronte

Green lands.

c) It is agreed (and in the Agreed Statement of Facts) that pupils generated

by the development on the Bronte Green lands could be bussed to

schools in the surrounding area to utilize available capacity.

d) Transporting students to nearby schools with available capacity is a more

efficient use of public resources and existing community infrastructure

than opening a new school that may end up being underutilized.

e) Both the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater

Golden Horseshoe emphasize the need to take capacity of existing

infrastructure into account and ensure the optimal use of these assets

before giving consideration to constructing new facilities.

1.6 DOCUMENTS TO BE REFERRED TO IN EVIDENCE

a) Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, as amended;

b) Education Development Charges O. Reg. 20/98;

August 27, 2015



c) Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended;

d) Provincial Policy Statement, 2014;

e) Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006), June 2013 Office

Consolidation;

f) Town of Oakville Official Plan (2009), February 23, 2015 Office

Consolidation

g) Town of Oakville, “Town of Oakville 2011 and 2006 Census Population

by Planning Communities and Growth Areas”;

h) Halton District School Board, “Elementary Boundary Review ERA 114

and ERA 115 (NW Oakville)”, February 29, 2012;

i) Memo from Gabriel F. Sékaly, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ministry of

Education, to Directors of Education, “Request for Capital Priorities”,

March 29, 2012;

j) Halton District School Board, April 4, 2012 Meeting Minutes;

k) Watson & Associates, Town of Oakville Development Charges Background

Study, February 15, 2013;

l) Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., Halton District School Board and

Halton Catholic District School Board, Education Development Charges

Background Study, April 30, 2013;

m) Halton Student Transportation Services, Operating Procedure HS‐1‐003 –

Eligibility Factors, September 2013;

n) Halton District School Board, “2014 / 2015 Operating & Capital Budget”,

June 2014;

o) Deloitte LLP, “Ministry of Education Effectiveness & Efficiency Follow‐

up Review: Halton Student Transportation Services”, July 2014;

p) Halton Student Transportation Services, Operating Procedure HS‐1‐002 –

Transportation Eligibility, September 2014;

q) Town of Oakville, Press Release – “Kevin Flynn, Mayor Rob Burton and

Council continue to protect greenspace in Oakville”, September 3, 2014;

r) Halton Student Transportation Services, Operating Procedure HS‐3‐001 –

Service Parameters, January 2015;

August 27, 2015



s) Halton District School Board, “Long Term Accommodation Plan –

2014/2015”, April 7, 2015;

t) SGL Planning & Design Inc., Draft Plan of Subdivision, Bronte Green,

April 14, 2015;

u) Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., “Halton District School Board

Consideration of an Education Development Charge Amendment

Background Report”, May 6, 2015;

v) Memo from Gabriel F. Sékaly, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ministry of

Education, to Directors of Education, “Request for 2015 Capital Priorities

Business Cases”, May 26, 2015;

w) Altus Group Ltd., “Construction Cost Guide”, 2015; and

x) Ontario Ministry of Education, “SFIS & Business Case Manual 2015

Capital Priorities”.

August 27, 2015



2 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY CONTEXT

2.1 EDUCATION ACT

a) Section 257.54 (1) of the Education Act says that school boards may

impose education development charges (EDCs) on development so as to

collect funds to be able to acquire school sites:

If there is residential development in the area of jurisdiction of a board that would increase education land costs, the board may pass by-laws for the imposition of education development charges against land in its area of jurisdiction undergoing residential or non-residential development.

b) EDCs are solely to be used for land acquisition costs (purchasing a school

site, preparing the site for development, etc.). EDCs are not to be used for

funding the construction of a new school building – the funding of which

is provided by the Ministry of Education through requests made by

school boards. Sections 257.53 (2), (3) and (4) of the Education Act clarifies

what can be included and what shall be excluded from education land

costs recovered through EDCs:

(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the following are education land costs for the purposes of this Division if they are incurred or proposed to be incurred by a board:

1. Costs to acquire land or an interest in land, including a leasehold interest, to be used by the board to provide pupil accommodation.

2. Costs to provide services to the land or otherwise prepare the site so that a building or buildings may be built on the land to provide pupil accommodation.

3. Costs to prepare and distribute education development charge background studies as required under this Division.

4. Interest on money borrowed to pay for costs described in paragraphs 1 and 2.

5. Costs to undertake studies in connection with an acquisition referred to in paragraph 1.

(3) The following are not education land costs:

1. Costs of any building to be used to provide pupil accommodation.

2. Costs that are prescribed in the regulations as costs that are not education land costs.

August 27, 2015



(4) Only the capital component of costs to lease land or to acquire a leasehold interest is an education land cost.

c) Therefore, the funding of the acquisition of a school site is the

responsibility of School Boards. Funding the construction of school

buildings is the responsibility of the Province.

2.2 EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGE REGULATION O.REG 20/98

a) According to section 7 of the Education Act Regulation O. Reg. 20/98, the

calculation of an education development charge is to follow several key

steps:

7. Before an education development charge by-law is passed, the board shall do the following for the purposes of determining the education development charges:

1. The board shall estimate the number of new dwelling units in the area in which the charges are to be imposed for each of the 15 years immediately following the day the board intends to have the by-law come into force. The board’s estimate shall include only new dwelling units in respect of which education development charges may be imposed.

2. The board shall identify different types of new dwelling units and estimate, for each type, the average number of new elementary school pupils … generated by each new dwelling unit who will attend schools of the board.

3. For each of the 15 years referred to in paragraph 1, the board shall estimate the total number of new elementary school pupils … using the estimated number of new dwelling units and the estimated average number of new pupils generated by each new dwelling unit subject to the following adjustments,

i. the board shall reduce the number of new elementary school pupils by the number of existing elementary school pupil places that, in the opinion of the board, could reasonably be used to accommodate those new pupils, …

b) Based on the above, the EDC calculation can be boiled down to three key

steps for the purposes of determining the need for new pupil places and

the corresponding new school site:

i) First, the number of new dwelling units in the area over a 15‐year

horizon is estimated.

August 27, 2015



ii) Second, the number of new pupils (generated from the above 15‐

year forecast of units) who will attend schools of the Board is

estimated.

iii) Thirdly, the number of new pupil places required, only after using

places that can reasonably be used to accommodate new pupils

generated by development, is calculated.

c) The methodology in the HDSB’s 2013 Education Development Charges

Background Study is consistent with the above approach. In my opinion,

the same approach should be used in determining the need for a new

elementary school site on the Bronte Green lands.

2.3 PLANNING ACT

a) Section 1.1 of the Planning Act sets out the purposes of the Act:

1.1 The purposes of this Act are,

(a) to promote sustainable economic development in a healthy natural environment within the policy and by the means provided under this Act;

(b) to provide for a land use planning system led by provincial policy;

(c) to integrate matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions;

(d) to provide for planning processes that are fair by making them open, accessible, timely and efficient;

(e) to encourage co-operation and co-ordination among various interests;

(f) to recognize the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils in planning.

b) Section 2 of the Act sets out matters of provincial interest, which includes

the adequate provision of educational facilities, the minimization of

waste and the protection of the financial well‐being of the Province and

its municipalities:

2. The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as,

…

(g) the minimization of waste; …

August 27, 2015



(i) the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities; …

(l) the protection of the financial and economic well-being of the Province and its municipalities;

c) Under section 3 of the Planning Act, decisions by municipalities or local

boards must be consistent with provincial policy statements and conform

with provincial plans:

(5) A decision of the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Municipal Board, in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter,

(a) shall be consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection (1) that are in effect on the date of the decision; and

(b) shall conform with the provincial plans that are in effect on that date, or shall not conflict with them, as the case may be.

d) Section 51(24) of the Planning Act details the elements to be considered in

a draft plan of subdivision, which includes:

(24) In considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to, ...

(j) the adequacy of school sites

2.4 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT

a) According to section 1.1.3.2 of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS):

1.1.3.2 Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on:

a) densities and a mix of land uses which:

1. efficiently use land and resources;

2. are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available, and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion;

b) Section 1.6 of the PPS says that public service facilities shall be provided

in a coordinated and cost‐effective manner that is financially viable:

1.6.1 Infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities shall be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost-effective manner that considers impacts from climate change while accommodating projected needs.

August 27, 2015



Planning for infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities shall be coordinated and integrated with land use planning so that they are:

a) financially viable over their life cycle, which may be demonstrated through asset management planning; and

b) available to meet current and projected needs.

c) Section 1.6.3 of the PPS says the use of existing infrastructure should be

optimized before consideration is given to developing new

infrastructure:

1.6.3 Before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities:

a) the use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized; and

b) opportunities for adaptive re-use should be considered, wherever feasible.

d) Section 1.7.1 of the PPS states that long‐term economic prosperity should

be supported by optimizing the use of public service facilities (among

other things):

1.7.1 Long-term economic prosperity should be supported by:

…

b) optimizing the long-term availability and use of land, resources, infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities;

e) The PPS defines “Public Service Facilities” as follows:

Public service facilities: means land, buildings and structures for the provision of programs and services provided or subsidized by a government or other body, such as social assistance, recreation, police and fire protection, health and educational programs, and cultural services. Public service facilities do not include infrastructure. (page 47)

2.5 GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE

a) Among the Guiding Principles in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden

Horseshoe (Growth Plan, June 2013 Office Consolidation) is:

The vision for the GGH is grounded in the following principles that provide the basis for guiding decisions on how land is developed, resources are managed and public dollars invested:

August 27, 2015



Optimize the use of existing and new infrastructure to support growth in a compact, efficient form

b) Section 3.2.1 of the Growth Plan sets out policies regarding the provision

of infrastructure:

1.Infrastructure planning, land use planning, and infrastructure investment will be co-ordinated to implement this Plan. Infrastructure includes but is not limited to transit, transportation corridors, water and wastewater systems, waste management systems, and community infrastructure.

c) The Growth Plan defines “community infrastructure” as follows:

Community infrastructure refers to lands, buildings, and structures that support the quality of life for people and communities by providing public services for health, education, recreation, socio-cultural activities, security and safety, and affordable housing. (page 48)

d) Section 3.2.6 sets out the polices related to the provision of community

infrastructure:

2. Planning for growth will take into account the availability and location of existing and planned community infrastructure so that community infrastructure can be provided efficiently and effectively.

August 27, 2015



3 ANALYSIS OF NEED FOR SCHOOL SITE

3.1 ESTIMATED PUPIL GENERATION BY BRONTE GREEN

a) Figure 2 below shows the number of units in the Bronte Green plan by

unit type, and the estimated pupils generated based on pupil yield

factors provided by HDSB in March 2015 and later revised based on the

meeting of experts held on July 9th, as outlined in the Agreed Statement

of Facts.

b) The agreed upon pupil yield factors used in Figure 2 are estimates of the

number of school‐aged children that will attend HDSB elementary

schools, as generated by each unit type on the subject site and

surrounding area over the 15‐year planning forecast horizon.

Estimated HDSB Pupils Generated by Bronte Green

Units Elementary Secondary Elementary Secondary

Unit Type

Tow ns 229 0.2325 0.1148 53 26 Singles 531 0.3050 0.1076 162 57 Apartment/High-Density 100 0.0690 0.0584 7 6

Total 860 222 89

Source:

Pupil Yield Factors Pupils Generated

Pupils / Unit Pupils

Altus Group Economic Consulting based on agreed upon pupil yield factors and Draft Plan of Subdivision

c) When the agreed upon pupil yield factors are applied to the units in the

Bronte Green plan, at build‐out, there would be an estimated pupil

generation of 222 public elementary panel students, and 89 public

secondary panel students.

d) Bronte Green is currently located in the Halton District School Board’s

Elementary Review Area 114 (ERA114). The site is also in close proximity

to the adjacent elementary review area, ERA115.

e) Figure 3 shows the location of the Bronte Green lands and the boundaries

of ERA114 and ERA115.

Figure 2

August 27, 2015



Halton District School Board, Elementary Review Areas 114 & 115

Source: Watson & Associates, 2013 EDC Background Study

Captain R. Wilson PS

Emily Carr PS

Palermo PS

ERA114

ERA115Abbey Lane

West Oak

Pilgrim Wood

Heritage Glen

Forest Trail

Bronte Green

3.2 CAPACITY AT OTHER NEARBY PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

3.2.1 North West Oakville Elementary Boundary Review

a) A 2012 HDSB staff report, titled “Elementary Boundary Review ERA114

and ERA115 (NW Oakville)”, dated February 29, 2012 analyzed the

boundaries of schools in North West Oakville to ensure that

accommodation needs are sufficiently addressed in that part of the Town.

According to the staff report, the purpose of the review was to:

…address accommodation pressures at some schools (specifically

Forest Trail PS and Palermo PS) and the under‐utilization of pupil places at other schools (specifically the schools south of Upper Middle Road) to ensure that elementary pupil accommodation needs are

sufficiently addressed for the North‐West Oakville community. (page 1)

b) The report presents a number of recommendations to address the issues

raised during the Board’s Boundary Review process. The recommended

scenario was “Scenario 24”, which saw the boundaries of ERA114 and

ERA115 blended for the purposes of accommodating students in North

West Oakville.

Figure 3

August 27, 2015



c) According to the minutes of the HDSB’s April 4, 2012 meeting, the

recommended Scenario 24 was adopted through Motion M12‐0056.

Recommended School Boundaries, North West Oakville Elementary Schools

Source: Halton District School Board, Report Number 12036, February 29, 2012

d) Based on how the adopted program boundaries were drawn, and how

available capacity was used to accommodate students throughout North

West Oakville, it is apparent that the HDSB’s current practice is to utilize

capacity to accommodate students in the surrounding area, where

reasonable.

e) In addition, as per the map shown in Figure 4 above, under the adopted

Scenario 24, the Bronte Green lands are shown as being within the

program boundary for Heritage Glen Public School, which is within the

HDSB’s ERA115.

3.2.2 Long Term Accommodation Plan 2014 / 2015

a) The “Long Term Accommodation Plan – 2014/2015” (LTAP) contains the

most up‐to‐date set of enrolment projections for ERA114 and ERA115

available.

b) The LTAP shows the capacity available to accommodate students at each

school, with both OTG Capacity and Total Capacity shown. The two

measures of capacity can be roughly defined as follows:

Figure 4

August 27, 2015



i) OTG (or “On the Ground”) Capacity – the Ministry rated

permanent capacity associated with the classroom space available

at the school.

ii) Total Capacity – includes both OTG Capacity and the capacity

potential available to be provided through maximizing the

permissable usage of portables. The LTAP sets out the maximum

number of portables at each school site – most schools in North

West Oakville would allow for up to 12 portables on site.

3.2.2.1 ERA 114

a) The three elementary schools within ERA114, based on current

enrolment have a combined OTG utilization rate of 109%. However, the

level of OTG capacity utilization is projected to decrease over the 10‐year

horizon of the LTAP to 88% by 2024. Figure 5 summarizes this and other

calculations in this section of my witness statement.

b) By 2024, there would be 1,872 pupils for 2,129 pupil places ‐ meaning

there is room to accommodate 257 new pupils in the permanent capacity

of the schools in ERA114.

c) Once maximum portable capacity is accounted for, in 2024, there will be

a projected 1,872 pupils for 2,957 pupil places. The Total Capacity

utilization rate for ERA114 schools in 2024 will fall from 78% to 63%.

Captain R. Wilson PS Emily Carr PS Palermo PS

Total ERA114

OTG Capacity 668 743 718 2,129 Total Capacity 944 1,019 994 2,957

2014 Enrolment 699 822 800 2,321

as % of OTG Capacity 105% 111% 111% 109%as % of Total Capacity 74% 81% 80% 78%

2024 Projected Enrolment 589 671 612 1,872

as % of OTG Capacity 88% 90% 85% 88%as % of Total Capacity 62% 66% 62% 63%

Source:

Capacity, Current Enrolment and Projected Enrolment, ERA114, Halton District School Board

Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Halton District School Board, 2014/2015 Long Term Accommodation Plan, (April 10, 2015)

Pupil Places

Pupils

Pupils

Percent

Percent

Figure 5

August 27, 2015



3.2.2.2 ERA 115

a) After accounting for a recent addition at Heritage Glen PS that will come

online for the 2015/16 school year, the elementary OTG capacity in

ERA115 is 3,340 pupil places.

b) The utilization rate of OTG capacity in ERA115 is projected to fall from

102% to 94% by 2024 at the five elementary schools in ERA115. By 2024,

there will be 187 pupil places of available OTG Capacity in ERA115, or

3,153 pupils for 3,340 pupil places.

c) Once maximum portable capacity is accounted for, in 2024, there will be

a projected 3,153 pupils for 4,536 pupil places. The Total Capacity

utilization rate for ERA114 schools will fall from 75% in 2014 to 70% in

2024.

d) Figure 6 summarizes the current and projected enrolment, for both OTG

and Total Capacity in ERA115 schools.

Abbey Lane PS

Forest Trail PS

Heritage Glen PS

Pilgrim Wood PS

West Oak PS

Total ERA115

OTG Capacity 441 708 780 708 703 3,340 Total Capacity 579 984 872 984 1,117 4,536

2014 Enrolment 354 868 702 613 880 3,417

as % of OTG Capacity 80% 123% 90% 87% 125% 102%as % of Total Capacity 61% 88% 81% 62% 79% 75%

2024 Projected Enrolment 286 762 788 603 714 3,153

as % of OTG Capacity 65% 108% 101% 85% 102% 94%as % of Total Capacity 49% 77% 90% 61% 64% 70%

Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Halton District School Board, 2014/2015 Long Term Accommodation Plan, (April 10, 2015)

Capacity, Current Enrolment and Projected Enrolment, ERA115, Halton District School Board

Pupil Places

Pupils

Percent

Pupils

Percent

Figure 6

August 27, 2015



3.2.2.3 Combined ERA114 & ERA115

a) In the combined ERA114 and ERA115, or “North West Oakville”, in 2024

there are projected to be 5,025 pupils for 5,469 pupil places of OTG

capacity. This is equal to 92% OTG Capacity utilization, with a combined

444 available pupil places. The Bronte Green development would

generate 222 elementary pupils at build‐out – therefore, pupils generated

by Bronte Green would utilize roughly 50% of the available OTG capacity

in 2024.

b) North West Oakville schools are projected to see a decrease in Total

Capacity utilization from 77% in 2014 to 67% in 2024, when there would

be 5,025 pupils for 7,493 pupil places. This would mean that there would

be 2,468 pupil places of Total Capacity available to accommodate pupils

generated by new development. The 222 pupils generated by Bronte

Green would utilize roughly 9% of the available Total Capacity in 2024.

c) Figure 7 summarizes the capacity, current enrolment and projected

enrolment in the combined North West Oakville area.

ERA114 ERA115Total NW Oakville

OTG Capacity 2,129 3,340 5,469 Total Capacity 2,957 4,536 7,493

2014 Enrolment 2,321 3,417 5,738

as % of OTG Capacity 109% 102% 105%as % of Total Capacity 78% 75% 77%

2024 Projected Enrolment 1,872 3,153 5,025

as % of OTG Capacity 88% 94% 92%as % of Total Capacity 63% 70% 67%

Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Halton District School Board, 2014/2015 Long Term Accommodation Plan, (April 10, 2015)

Capacity, Current Enrolment and Projected Enrolment, ERA114 & ERA115, Halton District School Board

Pupil Places

Pupils

Percent

Percent

Pupils

d) Figure 8 is a map that shows the location of the schools in ERA114 and

ERA115 along with associated capacities, current enrolments and

projected enrolments for each.

Figure 7

August 27, 2015



Projected Enrolment and Capacity, ERA 114 and ERA 115

Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on HDSB Long Term Accommodation Plan –2014/2015

1. Captain R. Wilson

3. Emily Carr

2. Palermo

ERA114

ERA115

6. Abbey Lane

5. West Oak

7. Pilgrim Wood

8. Heritage Glen

4. Forest Trail

Subject Site

2024 Enrolment

2024Capacity (OTG)

2024 Capacity (Total)

2024 Utilization

Rate (OTG)

2024 Utilization

Rate (Total)

1.Captain R. Wilson

589 668 944 88% 62%

2.Palermo 612 718 994 85% 62%

3.Emily Carr

671 743 1,019 90% 60%

4.Forest Trail

762 708 984 108% 77%

5.West Oak

714 703 1,117 102% 64%

6.Abbey Lane

286 441 579 65% 49%

7.Pilgrim Wood

603 708 984 85% 61%

8.Heritage Glen

788 780 872 101% 90%

OTG Capacity vs. 2024 Enrolment Forecast

Below Capacity

Above Capacity

3.3 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION APPROACH TO SCHOOL FUNDING

a) When considering whether it is reasonable and/or efficient for the HDSB

to purchase a new school site, it is useful to review the Ministry of

Education’s criteria for review of funding requests for building new

schools.

3.3.1 May 26, 2015 Memo on Request for 2015 Capital Priorities Business Cases

a) For the HDSB to build a new school, it requires funding from the

Ministry of Education. A business case needs to be made and submitted

to the Ministry.

b) According to a memo from the Assistant Deputy Minister of Education to

Directors of Education, dated May 26, 2015, projects eligible for funding

must meet one or more of the following category descriptions:

1. Accommodation Pressure

Projects to accommodate pupils where enrolment is currently or is projected to persistently exceed capacity at a school or within a group

Figure 8

August 27, 2015



of schools, and students are currently housed in non-permanent space (e.g. portables). [emphasis added]

2. School Consolidations

Projects that reduce excess capacity in order to reduce operating and renewal costs and address renewal needs backlogs. …

3. Facility Condition

Projects to replace schools that have high renewal needs relative to the cost of an appropriately sized new facility.

… (page 2)

3.3.2 March 29, 2012 Memo on Requests for Capital Priorities

a) An earlier memo from the Ministry of Education to Directors of

Education regarding Requests for Capital Priorities set out additional

criteria for considering business cases made for Ministry funding of new

school buildings.

b) Under “Accommodation Pressure”, Boards are asked to demonstrate that:

In explaining the capital project, the board should demonstrate:

that there is not sufficient surplus capacity at nearby schools to accommodate the excess enrolment at the school(s), and

that this issue is expected to persist for the next 10 years. (page 1)

c) The memo also contains a section on the “Effective Use of Capital

Investments” and states that the Ministry reviews the availability of

space in neighbouring schools when assessing business cases:

…the Ministry is responsible to all Ontarians for ensuring the effective use of capital investments and capital facilities. As a result, we ask that school boards be mindful of these considerations when determining Capital Priorities and preparing business cases. ...

As part of ongoing practice, the Ministry reviews the availability of space in neighbouring schools when assessing business cases. The Ministry wants to underscore that available space in both panels will be considered. … (pages 3 and 4)

August 27, 2015



3.3.3 Business Case Manual – 2015 Capital Priorities

a) The SFIS & Business Case Manual 2015 Capital Priorities (“Capital

Priorities Manual”) details the various inputs required from school

boards for their requests for capital funding for new schools. One of the

inputs to the Ministry’s decision‐making process is the “Closest School

Facilities”. The Capital Priorities Manual clarifies that these are simply

the closest schools by proximity, presumably whether they are inside the

same review area as the proposed capital project or not:

Boards are to have considered the enrolment impacts on facilities in proximity to the project site in the rationale for the proposed project.

The initial list of closest school facilities will not be the exact list of schools that should be included in the analysis of the proposed project. It is simply your board’s closest 9 schools, within a 40km radius, to the SFIS number identified. (page 16)

b) Another input to the Ministry’s decision is both OTG capacity

(permanent capacity) and temporary capacity:

For the selected schools, the board is required to input enrolment, OTG and temporary capacity data for the required year of the proposed project, as well as four and eight years after the required year. (page 18)

c) It is noteworthy that the capacity criteria looks not just at current

enrolment and both permanent and temporary capacity, but also the

projections of each four and eight years after the year the project is

required.

d) It is also important to note that temporary capacity, such as that provided

through portables, is considered by the Ministry in evaluating the

business cases made for new school funding.

3.3.4 Conclusions Regarding Business Case for a School Site on Bronte Green Lands as to

how it relates to Ministry Criteria for Funding

a) Based on the review of the data provided by the HDSB in its 2013 EDC

Study, the North West Oakville Boundary Review and the 2014/15 Long

Term Accommodation Plan, there is not a persistent projection of

overcapacity in either of the North West Oakville review areas

(separately or combined), even with development on the Bronte Green

lands.

August 27, 2015



b) The HDSB’s 2014/15 LTAP report noted that both ERA114 and ERA115

will be under OTG capacity starting in 2019 (ERA114 is expected to be

under OTG capacity starting in 2018). To build a new school when most

other schools in the surrounding area are under OTG capacity is not an

efficient use of public resources. Further, projected enrolment is well

below the Total Capacity of schools in North West Oakville – there is

ample room to accommodate students from Bronte Green in existing

schools.

3.4 ELIGIBILITY AND COST OF BUSSING STUDENTS TO NEARBY

SCHOOLS

3.4.1 Costs of Bussing Students vs. Costs of School Site Acquisition and Construction

a) Figure 9 shows a cost analysis, comparing three scenarios for

accommodating pupils generated by the Bronte Green development, as

summarized below:

i) Scenario 1 ‐ where Bronte Green pupils are accommodated in

nearby schools and generate transportation needs to/from those

area schools; and

ii) Scenario 2 ‐ a school site is set aside by Bronte Green, acquired by

the HDSB, with a new school building funded by the Ministry of

Education. This new school is assumed to have a capacity of 450

pupil places. There are two alternatives for accommodation at this

new school:

a. Scenario 2a) ‐ the school is only used by the 207 pupils generated

by Bronte Green (based on the revised 811‐unit plan with a school

block included, as per the Agreed Statement of Facts), none of

whom would require transportation to/from the school. All other

program boundaries in North West Oakville would remain the

same as they currently are, and no pupils from elsewhere in

North West Oakville would be bussed in. The new school on the

Bronte Green lands would therefore only be 46% occupied (207

pupils for 450 pupil places). This means that the only costs would

be land acquisition costs and school construction costs;

August 27, 2015



b. Scenario 2b) ‐ the school is used by 207 pupils generated from

Bronte Green and 243 other pupils from surrounding areas that

will be bussed in so as to fully utilize the new school. Therefore,

in addition to land acquisition and school construction costs,

these 243 pupils will also generate transportation costs (assuming

they were not already bussed to their existing school).

1. Cost of Bussing: Bussing Costs for Pupils Generated by Bronte Green to Nearby Schools

Bussing Costs Pupils

Elementary Pupils Generated by Bronte Green 222

Dollars per Pupil

Multiplied by: Annual Transportation Cost per Pupil 543 *

Number of Years

Multiplied by: Planning Forecast Horizon 15

Dollars

Costs for Bussing Students from Bronte Green W 1,809,837

2. Cost of New School: Land Acquisition Costs, School Construction Costs, Bussing Costs for Pupils Nearby to Bronte Green School

Land Acquisition Costs Acres

Land for a 450-pupil School 5.18

Dollars per Acre

Multiplied by: per Acre Land Costs in 2015 HDSB Amendment Report 1,440,000

Dollars

Land Acquisition Costs X 7,459,200

School Construction Costs Square Feet

Building Space for a 450-pupil School 50,000

Dollars per Square Foot

Multiplied by: per square foot Building Costs in 2015 Altus Group Cost Guide 155 - 175 **

Dollars

School Construction Costs Y 8,250,000

Bussing Costs Pupils

Number of Pupils Commuting to Bronte Green School (450 pupils - 207 Bronte Green pupils) 243

Dollars per Pupil

Multiplied by: Annual Transportation Cost per Pupil 543 *

Number of Years

Multiplied by: Planning Forecast Horizon 15

Dollars

Estimated 15-Year Bussing Costs Z 1,981,037

Dollars

Scenario 1 - Total Costs for Bussing Bronte Green Students to Existing Schools W 1,809,837

Scenario 2A - Total Costs for a New School X + Y 15,709,200

Scenario 2B - Total Costs for a New School X + Y + Z 17,690,237

Source:

Cost of Bussing vs. Cost of New School

* Annual Transportation Cost per Pupil is based on Pupil Transportation expense show n in 2014 / 2015 Budget and the number of students w ho w ere provided w ith transportation service according to 2014 Deloitte Report.** Construction Costs for Elementary School in GTA

Altus Group Economic Consulting based on 2015 HDSB EDC Amendment Report, May 2015, HDSB 2014 / 2015 Operating & Capital Budget, June 2014, Deloitte, Ministry of Education Effectiveness & Efficiency Follow -up Review : Halton Student Transportation Services, July 2014

Figure 9

August 27, 2015



b) Based on the analysis presented in Figure 9, the costs would be

substantially lower for the HDSB and Province if the pupils generated by

Bronte Green were accommodated in capacity available at nearby

schools:

i) For Scenario 1 – the bussing costs for 222 Public Elementary pupils

generated by the proposed development and requiring bussing

would be approximately $1.8 million over 15 years.1

ii) For Scenario 2 ‐ if a school gets built within the subject site, land

acquisition costs and construction costs for the new school would

be approximately $7.5 million and $8.25 million, respectively. In

addition, there may be variable transportation costs:

a. Scenario 2a) ‐ if the HDSB chooses to not bus students in from

other areas of North West Oakville and leave the school occupied

by only the 207 pupils (at 46% capacity) generated from Bronte

Green, it would not incur any transportation costs. Thus, the total

land and construction costs would amount to $15.7 million.

b. Scenario 2b) ‐ if students from other areas were bussed in to the

new school on the Bronte Green lands, bussing costs for 243

public elementary pupils who would need transportation to

commute to the new school (assuming they did not require

bussing at their original school) would be approximately $1.9

million over 15 years. In total, after including land acquisition

and construction costs, the cost of a new school would amount to

approximately $17.7 million.

3.4.2 Transportation Criteria

a) As per the Agreed Statement of Facts, there are no physical or

geographical impediments that would prevent the Board from providing

transportation to elementary students generated by development on the

Bronte Green lands, provided that they meet the transportation criteria

set out by Halton Transportation Services.

1 The average per student expense for transportation is based on the 2014/15 HDSB Budget, page 29

($15,122,190) and estimates of the number of students that use transportation from the Deloitte

Ministry of Education Effectiveness & Efficiency Follow‐Up Review, page 21 (27,824 pupils);

August 27, 2015



b) According to Halton Student Transportation Services (HSTS) Operating

Procedure HS‐1‐002, dated September 2014, which deals with

Transportation Eligibility, the distance requirements are as follows:

In accordance with the respective school board’s Transportation Policies, students may access transportation services if they meet the following minimum distance requirements:

Grades JK-8 – Greater than 1.6km (page 1)

c) For students who live closer than 1.6km, HSTS Operating Procedure HS‐

1‐002 includes “Other Eligibility Criteria” which states that:

Students who reside less than the minimum distance may be transported where deemed appropriate by HSTS as detailed in Operating Procedure HS-1-003 – Eligibility Factors (page 2)

d) According to HSTS Operating Procedure HS‐1‐003, Eligibility Factors,

these other criteria include instances where students may be:

Crossing a multi-lane street with or without signals or crossing guards – students in Grades JK to 8 are not expected to cross a multi-lane road of more than four lanes without the presence of either an adult crossing guard or traffic signals with a pedestrian crossing signal. (page 1)

e) According to HSTS Operating Procedure HS‐3‐001, Service Parameters,

distance measures are based on the shortest distance on public road or

walkways from the student’s property line to the property line of the

designated school.

f) Depending on the exact location of a given housing unit on the Bronte

Green lands, most, if not all, of the existing schools in North West

Oakville would exceed the 1.6km distance requirement, making students

from the Bronte Green lands eligible for transportation to other schools

under the Board’s jurisdiction.

August 27, 2015



3.5 PRACTICE OF HDSB – ACCOMMODATING IN EXISTING

FACILITIES

a) In the 2013 Education Development Charges Background Study (“2013

EDC Study”), prepared by Watson & Associates, there are several review

areas across the HDSB jurisdiction where there was either no capacity

available, or insufficient capacity to accommodate pupils generated by

development, but where it was recommended that these pupils be

“Accommodated in Existing Facilities” in Form G of the EDC Study. This

approach was taken in ERA113, ERA119 and ERA123, among other

review areas.

b) For example, in ERA119 (Old Milton):

i) As of the current school year (as of the time of the study – 2012/13)

– there were 2,350 pupils for 2,161 pupil places. Therefore, the

schools in ERA119 were at 109% of capacity.

ii) At the end of the 15‐year EDC forecast period, enrolment in the

existing community was projected to fall to 2,020 pupils, for 2,161

pupil places, leaving 141 pupil places available to accommodate

pupils from new growth.

iii) The EDC Study projected an additional 480 new pupils from

growth, meaning that in 2027/2028, there will be a total of 2,500

pupils for 2,161 pupil places. Therefore, the schools in ERA119 will

be a combined 339 pupils above capacity.

iv) Despite ERA119 being projected to be 339 pupils above capacity,

the EDC Study did not recommend a new school site as being

required. Instead, it recommended that these students be

“accommodated in existing facilities” as shown in Form G of the

EDC Study.

c) Similarly, ERA113 in Oakville had no projected capacity available in

2027/2028 to accommodate 266 pupils generated from new growth. There

was no new school site recommended to accommodate these new pupils

– rather, the new pupils will also be accommodated in existing facilities.

August 27, 2015



d) Further, according to the LTAP 2014/15, the HDSB does take into account

both OTG capacity and portable capacity when making decisions about

the need for new schools. When discussing the need for a new, third

Secondary School in Milton, the LTAP discussed the relationship of

enrolment to both OTG capacity and portable capacity:

The utilization rate of all secondary schools in Milton is projected to be 160% by 2024, with the need to accommodate an additional 1334 pupils. The existing building and portable capacity of the two secondary schools in Milton would be unable to accommodate these students, and therefore, the need for a third secondary school in Milton is justified. (page 9)

3.6 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF OTHER LANDS IN NORTH WEST

OAKVILLE

a) The vast majority of North West Oakville (ERA114 & ERA115) is built‐

out. There are several parcels that are thought to have development

potential, but they ultimately will have limited impact on the need for an

additional Public Elementary school in the area:

i) Infrastructure Ontario Lands – the “IO” lands, currently leased in

part to the Town of Oakville and the Deerfield Golf Course, had

previously submitted a planning application for part of their lands.

However, according to a press release from the Town of Oakville

dated September 3, 2014, that planning application has been

withdrawn.

The leases on the Town portions of the property run to 2040 and

the lease for the Deerfield Golf Course runs to 2022. According to

the Press Release, the Ontario Government is encouraging IO to

extend the Deerfield lease beyond 2022. Therefore, the IO lands

have no short‐term development potential and assumptions of the

long‐term development potential on these lands are highly

speculative.

Under such circumstances, it is not typical to include such highly

speculative assumptions in determining school needs. As such, the

Agreed Statement of Facts states that development on the IO lands

is not part of the HDSB’s enrolment projections in the 2014‐2015

Long Term Accommodation Plan.

August 27, 2015



ii) Palermo Village – according to the Town of Oakville Official Plan, the

Palermo Village Growth Area is targeted to accommodate 5,200

residents, including existing residents. According to research

prepared by the Town of Oakville2, as of 2011 the population in

Palermo Village was 2,578 persons, leaving room for an additional

population growth of 2,622 persons.

There are currently four development applications in the Palermo

Village Growth Area boundaries, which combine for 1,197 units

(251 medium‐density and 946 high‐density units):

(a) Bronte Community Corp – 2343 Khalsa Gate – 318

apartment units (22 pupils);

(b) Ballantry Homes – 2390 Khalsa Gate – 123 townhouses,

248 apartment units (46 pupils);

(c) New Horizon Development Group – 2480 Old Bronte

Road – 380 apartment units (26 pupils); and

(d) Fox Farm Developments – 2441 Greenwich Drive – 128

townhouse units (30 pupils).

Using the agreed upon pupil yield factors, these 1,197 units, when

built‐out, would generate 124 additional public elementary pupils.

The nearby Palermo PS is forecast to be 106 pupils below OTG

capacity in 2024 (612 pupils for 718 permanent pupil places), so it

appears that the HDSB would be able to accommodate these pupils

in that existing facility, and would not generate the need for an

additional school site in North West Oakville.

Based on average household size factors from the Town of

Oakville’s 2013 Development Charges Background Study, these

1,197 units would generate 2,371 persons, which represents 90% of

the additional population needed to meet the growth targets for

Palermo Village. Therefore, there is unlikely to be additional

significant development over the medium‐ to long‐term in Palermo

Village that would significantly affect the enrolment projections or

the need for additional school sites.

2 Town of Oakville 2011 and 2006 Census Population by Planning Communities and Growth Areas,

Community Planning Commission, Strategic Business Support

August 27, 2015



iii) Enns Property – the Enns property is part of a small group of land

parcels in the Merton Planning area located immediately west of

the subject site on the opposite side of Bronte Road. There are

currently no development applications for these sites, with the

exception of the Bronte Green OPA which includes these lands. I

am advised by Ruth Victor, of Ruth Victor & Associates, that the

assumed development potential of the available and vacant parts of

these lands over the long‐term is approximately 14 townhouse

units and 24 single‐detached units. These 38 units would generate

11 pupils based on the agreed upon pupil yield factors. Therefore,

development of these lands is unlikely to have any significant

impact on the need for a new school in North West Oakville.

b) Based on the Town of Oakville’s Active Development Application

website, there are a few other development applications scattered

throughout North West Oakville:

i) An application for 22 townhouse units by Stateview Homes (Ivory

Oak) at 2295‐2307 Khalsa Gate;

ii) An 88‐unit apartment development by Creekbank Development

Ltd. (The Balmoral Condo) at 2300 Upper Middle Road West; and

iii) A 75‐unit townhouse development at 3340 Dundas Street West.

c) Combined, at build‐out, these three developments would add

approximately 29 elementary pupils.

d) Therefore, there does not appear to be any significant developments in

the short‐, medium‐ or long‐term in the area surrounding Bronte Green

that would significantly affect my conclusions that a school is not needed

on the Bronte Green lands, and that available capacity in other schools in

the North West Oakville area could and should be utilized instead.

e) In total, assuming all of the above developments were not already

considered in the HDSB’s enrolment projections, the 386 elementary

pupils combined to be generated over the long‐term by Bronte Green

(222 pupils), Palermo Village (124 pupils), Enns Property (11 parcels) and

Other Developments (29 pupils) will be able to be accommodated within

the 444 OTG capacity pupil places, or the 2,568 Total Capacity pupil

places available in North West Oakville elementary schools.

August 27, 2015



4 OPINION

This section of my witness statement provides my opinion on the issues

related to the provision of a school site on the subject lands.

Issue #62 Is there adequate provision for a school site(s)?

a) In my opinion, there is no need for an elementary school site on the

Bronte Green lands (and thereby, no provision of a new school site is

adequate provision), for the following reasons:

i) With development on the prospective school block on the Bronte

Green lands, there would be 222 elementary pupils generated from

development of the 860 housing units.

ii) According to the HDSB’s Long Term Accommodation Plan for

2014/15, by 2024, the schools in North West Oakville are projected

to be operating at 92% of permanent capacity, and there would be

444 pupil places available to accommodate new growth within the

permanent capacity of schools in the North West Oakville Area.

iii) When Total Capacity is considered, the schools in North West

Oakville are projected to be at just 67% capacity in 2024. In this

case, there would be 2,468 available pupil places to accommodate

the 222 pupils generated by Bronte Green.

b) Correspondence from the Ministry of Education has made it clear that

the Ministry will only approve funding for projects where enrolment is

projected to persistently exceed capacity at a school or group of schools

for a period of the next 10 years. As the schools in the North West

Oakville area are projected to be under capacity by the 2019 school year

and out to 2024, there is not a persistent capacity issue at the schools in

the area around Bronte Green. If anything, there is a persistent shortfall

in the usage of schools in North West Oakville over the long term.

c) The Ministry of Education has also stated that in making the business

case for funding for a particular project, Boards should demonstrate that

there is not sufficient surplus capacity at nearby schools. It is clear that

there is surplus capacity at most schools in the surrounding area in the

near future and in the long‐term.

August 27, 2015



Issue #63a) Is it good planning, and would it comply with Sections 1.1, 2,

3(5) and 51 of the Planning Act, to approve the development applications

without provision for an elementary school site within the subject lands?

a) In my opinion, approval of the development application without

provision for an elementary school site on the subject lands would

comply with the above quoted sections of the Planning Act, in that:

i) there is an adequate amount of school capacity for prospective

elementary school students generated from Bronte Green elsewhere

in North West Oakville (section 2(i) of Planning Act).

ii) utilizing existing available capacity in surrounding schools, and

avoiding the need for the HDSB to acquire an expensive site, and

for the Ministry of Education to fund the construction of a school

building on the prospective school site, helps protect the financial

and economic well‐being of the Province, and minimizes waste

(section 2(g) and 2(l) of the Planning Act).

iii) approving the development application without a school site

would be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement as per

section 3(5)(a) of the Planning Act, particularly with regard for the

following sections of the PPS:

a. Section 1.1.3.2a).1 which calls for land use patterns and land uses

that efficiently use land and resources;

b. Section 1.6.1, which states that public service facilities, such as

schools, be provided in an efficient and cost‐effective manner,

and that the planning for these facilities be financially viable over

their life cycle;

c. Section 1.6.3 which requires that the use of existing public service

facilities be optimized before consideration be given to

developing new facilities;

d. Section 1.7.1, which ties the long‐term economic prosperity of the

Province to the optimal use of public service facilities, such as

schools.

iv) proceeding without a school site would conform to the Growth Plan

for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (as per section 3(5)(b) of the Planning

Act), in that:

August 27, 2015



a. it would be consistent with the one of the Growth Plan’s Guiding

Principles, which calls for the optimal use of existing and new

infrastructure to support efficient growth; and

b. it would take into account and utilize the existing available

community infrastructure as per section 3.2.6 of the Growth Plan.

The building of a school that is not required would not represent

the most efficient use of scarce public resources.

v) Further, the approval of the development application without a

school site would comply with section 51 of the Planning Act,

particularly subsection 24(j), in that there is adequate provision of

school sites and school facilities for students generated by

development on the subject lands given the available capacity in

nearby elementary schools in North West Oakville.

Issue #63b) Assuming a school site is required, where in the plan of

subdivision should it be located, and what size and configuration should it

be to ensure that it is adequate?

a) I am advised by Paul Lowes that the following lots could be the location

of a school site should one be deemed to be required:

i) Lots 61‐64

ii) Lots 109‐141

iii) Lots 314‐325

iv) Section of Street “H”, from Lot 314 in the south to Lot 123 in the

north

b) Combined, the land areas summarized above would have an area of 2.10

hectares / 5.18 acres. Based on Education Development Charges

regulation O.Reg 20/98, this site size would allow the HDSB to build an

elementary school with a capacity of between 401‐500 pupil places.

c) This prospective school site is located adjacent to a Neighbourhood Park

(Block 571) that would be 2.06 hectares / 5.09 acres in size.

August 27, 2015



d) The removal of these lots (49 single‐detached lots) would reduce the

pupil generation from the Bronte Green lands from 222 to 207 elementary

pupils (as per the Agreed Statement of Facts). This reduced pupil

generation would only strengthen my opinion that the pupils from

Bronte Green could and should be accommodated elsewhere in the North

West Oakville area.

_________________________________ August 27, 2015

Daryl Keleher Date

August 27, 2015



5 CURRICULUM VITAE

DARYL KELEHER, MCIP, RPP, B.A., B.U.R.PL.

Responsibilities

Mr. Keleher is an urban planner with a specialization in land

economics and municipal finance. He is a Director at Altus Group

Economic Consulting (formerly Clayton Research). His areas of

expertise include:

Housing, municipal finance, demographic, economic and socio‐

economic impact analysis;

Development Charge background study and by‐law reviews;

Education Development Charge background study and by‐law

reviews;

Provincial and municipal planning policy analysis;

Fiscal impact studies; and

Residential and employment land need analyses.

He has been with Altus Group Economic Consulting for nearly 8

years, joining in December 2007. Prior to his time at Altus Group, Mr.

Keleher was employed by the Canadian Urban Institute and by AC

Nielsen Canada.

Mr. Keleher has provided expert witness testimony before the

Ontario Municipal Board.

Education

Wilfrid Laurier University – Honours Economics – B.A., 2002

Ryerson University – Urban and Regional Planning – B.U.R.Pl., 2007

Memberships

Full Member of Canadian Institute of Planners and Ontario

Professional Planners Institute (MCIP, RPP)

Member of Association of Ontario Land Economists (PLE)

Member of Ontario Expropriation Association

Member of Building Industry and Land Development Association

Speaking Engagements

August 27, 2015



Speaker: Watson & Associates Education Development Charges

Seminar (September 16, 2014) Mississauga ON;

Speaker/Panelist: Ontario Association of Architects, Site Plan

Symposium (October 10, 2013) Toronto ON.

Examples of Experience

a) Mr. Keleher has undertaken numerous reviews of municipal

development charge (DC) and education development charge (EDC)

policies and provided strategic advice to developer and homebuilder

groups across Ontario. He has reviewed education development charge

background studies for clients in Halton, Peel, York, Toronto, Simcoe,

Durham, Hamilton and Niagara.

His clients on DC and EDC reviews have included:

i) BILD (formerly the Greater Toronto Home Builders’ Association

and UDI), including local chapters in Halton, Peel, York, Durham,

the City of Toronto and Simcoe County;

ii) Kingston Home Builders’ Association;

iii) Hamilton‐Halton Home Builders’ Association;

iv) Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association;

v) Niagara Home Builders Association; and

vi) Development companies in the Town of Bradford West

Gwillimbury, the Town of Innisfil, the Township of Springwater,

the Township of Oro‐Medonte, Muskoka District, the City of

Toronto, the City of Kitchener, the Town of Midland, the Town of

Aurora, etc.

b) Mr. Keleher appeared before the Ontario Municipal Board regarding

how the City of Toronto’s development charges by‐law relates to the use

of potential section 37 funds by the City;

c) Mr. Keleher provided testimony to the Ontario Municipal Board related

to a development charges complaint about the treatment of storage

buildings in the City of Kawartha Lakes’ DC by‐law and other municipal

planning documents;

August 27, 2015



d) He has prepared numerous fiscal impact studies reviewing the impact of

new developments on both the operating and capital budgets of

municipalities such as Centre Wellington, Erin, and Brant County;

e) Mr. Keleher prepared a report for the City of Vaughan that reviewed

various financial incentives and planning tools available to the City to

help attract office development to the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre, and

to make office development more feasible in the City as a whole;

f) He has undertaken a study for the City of Guelph reviewing the

economic benefits associated with development scenarios of the Baker

Street parking lot in Downtown Guelph;

g) Mr. Keleher prepared a study for BILD reviewing the government

charges and fees on new homes in the Greater Toronto Area;

h) He was retained by the Ontario Association of Architects to review the

costs associated with the site plan process. In particular, he quantified the

cost of delays associated with gaining approval and meeting the

conditions of site plan approval, and estimating the impact of these costs

on developers, homebuyers and end users; and

i) Mr. Keleher worked on an economic implications report for the

redevelopment of the former Globe and Mail site in the City of Toronto,

reviewing the economic benefits associated with the development, and

how it would fulfil a need for new retail and office space in the

Downtown, particularly in the area west of Spadina Avenue.

Appendix A

Agreed Statement of Facts

Appendix B

Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty

Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP - Oakville planning/omb-da-153007-ws... · Witness...

Documents

Transcript of Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP - Oakville planning/omb-da-153007-ws... · Witness...