Minutes (yy-mm-dd) 09-05-27€¦ · 91. Committee of the Whole (Private), Report No. 8 (Part A), May 27, 2009 (see page 476) Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Bolton, moved: That

Toronto District School Board May 27, 2009

G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\090527.doc)sec.1530 465

Regular Meeting

May 27, 2009

A regular meeting was convened at 4:35 p.m. on Wednesday, May 27, 2009, in the Boardroom, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, with John Campbell, Chair of the Board, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Nadia Bello, Chris Bolton, John Campbell, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Shaun Chen, Michael Coteau, Trustee Gary Crawford, Cathy Dandy, Bruce Davis, Gerri Gershon, Howard Goodman, Scott Harrison, John Hastings, Josh Matlow, James Pasternak, Stephnie Payne, Maria Rodrigues, Mari Rutka, Chris Tonks, Sheila Ward, Soo Wong, and Student Trustee Areez Dhalwani and Gorick Ng. Trustee Davis partici-pated by electronic means.

88. Children and Youth Services

The meeting heard a presentation from the Honourable Deb Matthews, Minister of Children and Youth Services. Ms. Matthews spoke about several provincial initiatives including the Poverty Reduction Strategy and responded to questions.

89. Resolution Into Committee of the Whole (Private Session)

At 5:20 p.m., on a motion by Trustee Rutka, seconded by Trustee Harrison, the regular meeting resolved into Committee of the Whole (Private Session) to consider matters on the private agenda of the Committee of the Whole.

90. Reconvene

At 6:25 p.m., the regular meeting reconvened.

91. Committee of the Whole (Private), Report No. 8 (Part A), May 27, 2009 (see page 476)

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Bolton, moved: That Report No. 8 (Part A) of the Committee of the Whole (Private) be adopted.

A private personnel matter, as noted in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole, was carried on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 34, page 475).

The motion was carried.

92. Recess

At 6:25 p.m., on a motion of Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Payne, the meeting re-cessed.


466 G04(R:\Secretariat\Staff\g04\02\090527.doc)sec.1530

93. Reconvene and National Anthem

At 7:20 p.m. the meeting reconvened. The national anthem was performed by JAMME, a vocal music group from Earl Haig Secondary School. JAMME performed other some other selections as well.

94. Senior Staff Changes

The Director and trustees acknowledged the forthcoming retirement of Gloria Baxter and the secondment of Gen Lin Chang, superintendents of education.

95. Resolution Into Committee of the Whole (Private Session)

At 7:30 p.m., on a motion by Trustee Dandy, seconded by Trustee Chen, the regular meeting re-solved into Committee of the Whole (Private Session) to continue consideration of matters on the private agenda of the Committee of the Whole.

96. Reconvene

At 8:45 p.m., the regular meeting reconvened.

97. Committee of the Whole (Private), Report No. 8 (Part B), May 27, 2009 (see page 476)

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Dandy, moved: That Report No. 8 (Part B) of the Committee of the Whole (Private) be adopted.


98. Approval of the Agenda

Trustee Rutka, seconded by Trustee Bolton, moved: That the agenda be approved.


Later in the meeting, on motion of Trustee Payne, seconded by Trustee Rodrigues, the meeting agreed to consider School-based Staff Allocation, 2009-10: Educational Assistants after Cham-pionship-Level Playing Fields Infrastructure Funding [1432].

99. Board and School News

Trustee Rutka informed the meeting about the activities related to Asian Heritage Month (May) and National Aboriginal Day, June 21.

100. Portugal Day, June 10, 2009

During discussion of the above matter, and with the permission of the Board, Trustee Rodrigues spoke about Portugal Day in Toronto and moved, seconded by Trustee Bolton:



Whereas, the City of Toronto’s Portugal Day is being held on Saturday, June 6, 2009, and will include a parade at 11 a.m. starting at Dundas and Lansdowne; and

Whereas, Portugal Day provides an opportunity for recognition of the contributions of the Portuguese community to Canada;

Therefore, be it resolved that Wednesday, June 10, 2009, be recognized throughout the Board as Portugal Day.


Trustee Bolton informed the meeting about a forum on equity that had taken place May 23 and 24.

101. Reports From the Board’s Representatives on Other Organizations

Trustee Wong provided an update on the activities of the Board of Health, including diabetes prevention and the H1N1 virus. She also advised that $2.5 million had been given to the Toronto Foundation for Student Success.

102. Matters to be Decided Without Discussion

Trustee Chen, seconded by Trustee Matlow, moved: That the following matters presented as matters to be decided without discussion be approved or received, as appropriate:

(i) Confirmation of the Minutes of the Meeting Held on April 22 and 30, 2009

(ii) Audit Committee, Report No. 1, April 23, 2009 (For receipt) (see page 478)

(iii) Audit Committee, Report No. 2, May 12, 2009 (see page 479)

1 Appointment of Auditor

(iv) Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 4, May 6, 2009 (see page 480)

1 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1408] 2 Contract for Addition and Alteration, Crescent Town Elementary School

(Ward 16, Beaches-East York) [1413] 3 Contract for Addition and Alteration, Highfield Junior School (Ward 1,

Etobicoke North) [1412]

(v) Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 5, May 11, 2009 (see page 501)

1 Potential Programs for Students with Special Needs 2 Professional Development: Shared Solutions Workshop



(vi) Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 4, May 13, 2009 (see page 506)

2 Report of the Inner City Advisory Committee, April 2, 20091 3 Report of the Nutrition Task Force Report [1419] 4 Staff Report: Student Census Implementation [1398] 6 Use of Specialist Teachers and the Program Enhancement Grant 7 Dissolution of Safe and Caring Schools Workgroup and Establishment of

Safe and Caring Schools Advisory Committee 8 Trillium School Information System

(vii) Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 4, May 20, 2009 (see page 526)

1 Contract Awards [1420]

(viii) Memorandum re Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee Meet-ing as a Committee of the Whole Board (Special Meeting) Scheduled on May 20, 2009 (see page 559)

1 June 17, 2009, Meeting as Committee of the Whole Board


103. Standardizing Permit Fees for Toronto Lands Corporation-Managed Swim-ming Pools: Revision of Policy P011, Community Use of Board Facilities [1423]

The Board considered a staff report (see page 536) suggesting that utilization and revenue would greatly increase with a standard $50.00/hour facility fee for all TLC-managed pools and to all permit groups.

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Matlow, moved: That policy P011, Community Use of Board Facilities, be revised effective June 29, 2009 to reflect a $50.00 per hour fee for To-ronto Lands Corporation-managed swimming pools for all groups irrespective of the pool size.

Trustee Davis, seconded by Trustee Ward, moved in amendment: That the following be added: “That the Toronto Lands Corporation present a report, as part of its annual budget process, on variable pricing strategies for pool permits.”

The amendment was carried

The main motion, as amended, was carried. 1 Adopted on a separate vote at the request of Trustee Dandy.



104. Accommodation and Program Review Policy [1424]

The Board considered a staff report (see page 542) advising that the Board’s current policy does not comply with the Pupil Accommodation Review Guidelines of the Ministry of Education and presenting a new policy that consolidates all information regarding accommodation and program changes in one policy.

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Rutka, moved: That that the Accommodation and Program Review policy, as presented in the report (see page 542), be adopted.

Trustee Wong, seconded by Trustee Rodrigues, moved in amendment: That the following statement be added to the policy: “That, in consultation with the local trustee(s), staff shall provide translation of meeting notices, child care services, and interpretation services, as required.”

Trustee Ward, seconded by Trustee Harrison, moved: That the amendment be referred to staff for a report on the costs involved.

Trustee Cary-Meagher moved in amendment to the referral: That all of section 8.1 of the pol-icy be referred to staff.

The amendment to the referral failed for want of a seconder.

The motion to refer the amendment was carried.

The main motion to adopt the policy was carried.

Note: The policy as adopted by the Board is shown on page 542.

105. Championship-Level Playing Fields Infrastructure Funding [1432]

The Board considered a staff report (see page 555) advising that the Board is eligible to apply for funding for sports field upgrades as “a provincial entity that provided municipal-type services to communities” through Recreational Infrastructure Canada Program in Ontario and Ontario Rec-reation, stimulus programs intended to create jobs and to renew, rehabilitate and modernize rec-reational infrastructure, thereby encouraging higher levels of participation in physical activity and community building.

Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Tonks, moved:

(a) That an application be submitted to secure federal and provincial funding to support two-thirds of the project costs for constructing four Championship Fields and one inflatable dome on the Board’s school sites;

(b) That if it is determined that increased permit revenue cannot fund the Board’s one-third portion of the project costs, that the application be withdrawn.

The motion was carried on a recorded vote (see Recorded Vote 35, page 475).



106. School-based Staff Allocation, 2009-10: Educational Assistants

Trustee Bolton, seconded by Trustee Rodrigues, moved: That the Board reconsider its deci-sion of March 11, 2009, re School-based Staff Allocation, 2009-10, Educational Assistants, in order to consider the following:

That 150 FTE educational assistants be allocated in the regular program for the 2009-10 school year with the exception of those positions reduced through attrition.

The motion to reconsider was defeated.

107. Human Resources Committee, Report No. 3, May 6, 2009 (see page 560)

Trustee Bello, seconded by Trustee Goodman, moved: That Report No. 3 of the Human Re-sources Committee be adopted.

re Item 1, Resource Position for Earl Haig, Wexford Schools for the Arts and Rosedale Heights School of the Arts (see page 560)

Trustee Ward, seconded by Trustee Harrison, moved in amendment:

(a) That the word “two” be changed to “three”;

(b) That “and Rosedale Heights School of the Arts” be added after “Earl Haig School for the Arts.”

Trustee Gershon, seconded by Trustee Pasternak, moved: That the matter be referred to staff.

The motion to refer was defeated.

The amendment was carried.

Staff undertook to present background information concerning staffing and resources for these three schools when the matter is considered as part of the 2009-10 budget process.

re Item 2, Process for Promotion of Principals and Vice-principals [1411] (see page 560)

Trustee Davis, seconded by Trustee Ward , moved in amendment: That the word “September” be changed to “June.”

The amendment was defeated.

The main motion to adopt Report No. 3 of the Human Resources Committee, as amended, was carried.



108. Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 4, May 13, 2009 (see page 506)

Trustee Davis, seconded by Trustee Rodrigues, moved: That Items 1 and 5, Community Outreach Positions and Establishment of Fine Art Collection Reference Group and Fine Art Curator Position, respectively, of Report No. 4 of the Program and School Services Committee be approved.

re Item 1, Community Outreach Positions (see page 506)

Trustee Bello, seconded by Trustee Ward, moved in amendment: That Part (b) be deleted.

During discussion of the matter, Trustee Payne, seconded by Trustee Atkinson, moved: That the debate be ended.

The motion to end the debate was carried.


The main motion to approve Items 1 and 5 of Report No. 4 of the Program and School Services Committee, as amended, was carried.

109. Health Committee, Report No. 2, May 20, 2009 (see page 565)

Trustee Wong, seconded by Trustee Bolton, moved: That Report No. 2 of the Health Com-mittee be adopted.

re Item 1, Health Effects of Diesel Fuel and Noise Pollution (see page 565)

Trustee Campbell, seconded by Trustee Atkinson, moved in amendment: That the following be substituted for the Health Committee’s recommendation:

Whereas, the Metrolinx proposed GO Transit and Airport Rail Link Expan-sion has resulted in community concerns over noise pollution from pile-driving beyond acceptable levels, and is anticipated to create a five- to ten-fold increase in diesel train traffic along the rail corridor from 46 trains per day up to almost 500 trains per day upon completion of the Rail Link; and

Whereas, grave concern has been expressed about the negative environ-mental and health impact on the 18, 000 plus students from JK to Grade 12 in the 52 TDSB schools, and between 5,000 and 10,000 students in the 24 To-ronto Catholic District School Board schools, all of whom will be within the pollution footprint of the rail corridor that is 1.2 kilometers on each side of the rail corridor; and

Whereas, the Metrolinx proposed GO Transit and Airport Rail Link Expan-sion will impact students and residents in at least 12 municipal wards in the City of Toronto; and



Whereas, the Supreme Court of Canada has provided case law for municipalities to protect citizens from detrimental health issues; and negative health effects on the community, including respiratory and hearing, could result if the project were to continue; and

Whereas, the detrimental effects of noise and environmental pollution could be mitigated by using a different method of pile-driving and electrifying the trains;

Therefore, be it resolved:

(a) That the Chair write a letter to the Premier of Ontario expressing con-cern about the potential impact of the Metrolinx proposed GO Transit and Airport Rail Link expansion on students in Toronto and request information on the steps that are planned to be taken by the provincial government to a) assess the environmental impact of the proposed rail line and b) measures that will be taken to mitigate the impact of the re-sulting high-level construction and frequent diesel locomotive noise and diminished air quality as a resulting from use of diesel engines

(b) That copies be sent to the Minister of Education, the Minister of Health and Long-term Care, Health Promotion, Child and Youth Services, Ontario’s Child Advocate, the Canadian Hearing Society, the Toronto Catholic District School Board, and the Mayor of the City of Toronto.

(c) That the Chair, on behalf of the Board, send a communication to GO Transit to request a meeting before the end of June 2009, to discuss:

(i) electrification of the Georgetown South Service Expansion and the Pearson-Union Rail Link;

(ii) reduction of noise during the construction process and the negative effects of noise on the school community;

(iii) the increased number of diesel trains traveling along the northwest part of the city, which will significantly affect the respiratory health and hearing of students.

(d) That the Chair, on behalf of the Board, send a communication before the end of June 2009, to the Medical Officer of Health inquiring if the Officer has assessed potential negative health effects on children as a result of the railway drilling and associated sequelae for affected neighbourhood schools and request that the Medical Officer of Health include this concern in the upcoming health report, “Health Impacts of Union-Pearson Rail Link”;



(e) That the Chair, on behalf of the Board, send a communication to the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion and the Public Health Agency of Ontario before the end of June 2009, inquiring if the Agency has assessed the potential negative health effects on children as a result of the railway drilling and associated sequelae for affected neighbourhood schools.

Trustee Wong, seconded by Trustee Bolton, moved in amendment to the amendment: That the following be added: “That the Chair, on behalf of the Board, send a communication to the Mayor of the City of Toronto and City Council requesting City Council take action by any means at its disposal, before the end of June 2009, to require and enforce a significant re-duction in the noise from pile-driving and to restrict the number of diesel trains operating in the northwest part of the city part of the city.”

The amendment to the amendment was carried.


The main motion to adopt Report No. 2 of the Health Committee, as amended, was carried.

110. Extension of the Meeting

At appropriate times during the meeting, the Ending Time procedure was applied and the meet-ing was extended.

111. Motion to Adjourn

At 11:45 p.m., Trustee Dandy, seconded by Trustee Coteau, moved: That the meeting be ad-journed.

The motion was defeated.

112. Adjournment

At 12:20 a.m., Thursday, May 28, 2009, during consideration of a motion of Trustee Ward, sec-onded by Trustee Atkinson, re the censure of Trustee Matlow, a motion to extend the meeting for 30 minutes was defeated. Therefore, the meeting was adjourned.



113. Postponed Matters

Consideration of the following matters was postponed to the next meeting.

• Report No. 4 of the Operations and Facilities Management Committee, May 6, 2009 • (4) Coordination With the City of Toronto’s Initiatives to Beautify Toronto

• Censure of Trustee Josh Matlow (Trustees Ward and Atkinson) • Participation in Private Meetings of the Toronto Lands Corporation (Trustees Harrison and

Bolton) • Curriculum re Media Literacy and Advertising Awareness (Trustees Bolton and Rodrigues) • Revision of P042, Appropriate Dress (Trustees Coteau and Bolton) • Timothy Eaton: Revitalization of Site and Tracking of Students (Trustees Wong and Bolton)

John Campbell Chair



Summary of Recorded Votes

Recorded Vote Number

Trustee 34 (see p.465)

35 (see p. 469)

Atkinson Y Y Bello Y Y Bolton Y Y Campbell * * Cary-Meagher Y Y Chen A Y Coteau Y Y Crawford Y Y Dandy Y Y Davis Y A Gershon Y A Goodman Y Y Harrison N Y Hastings N Y Matlow A N Pasternak Y N Payne A N Rodrigues Y Y Rutka Y Y Tonks Y Y Ward Y Y Wong N Y

Total Y 15 16 Total N 3 3

Total A and C 3 2 Y Vote in favour N Vote against A Absent * No vote cast (the Chair). The Board’s Bylaws, Section 15.4 states: “The chair may vote once on each motion considered by the Board.”


Committee of the Whole (Private), Report No. 8, May 27, 2009


Committee of the Whole (Private)

Report No. 8

May 27, 2009

A regular meeting of the Committee of the Whole (Private Session) was convened at 5:20 p.m., Wednesday, May 27, 2009, in the Boardroom at 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario with Chris Bolton, Vice-Chair of the Board, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Nadia Bello, Chris Bolton, John Campbell, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Shaun Chen, Michael Coteau, Trustee Gary Crawford, Cathy Dandy, Bruce Davis, Gerri Gershon, Howard Goodman, Scott Harrison, John Hastings, Josh Matlow, James Pasternak, Stephnie Payne, Maria Rodrigues, Mari Rutka, Chris Tonks, Sheila Ward, and Soo Wong. Trustee Davis participated by electronic means.

Part A

1. Staff Changes

The Committee considered a report from staff presenting staff changes (attached to the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) for approval.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the staff changes be approved.

2. Principal and Vice-principal Selections, Transfers and Placements

The Committee considered a report from staff presenting selections, transfers and placements of principals and vice-principals (as shown in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) for approval.

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that the selections, transfers and placements of principals and vice-principals be approved.

Note:: A portion of the matter was adopted in public on a recorded vote (see page 465).

Part B

3. Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 4 (Private), May 6, 2009

The Committee of the Whole (Private) RECOMMENDS that Report No. 5 (Private) of the Op-erations and Facilities Management Committee (as attached to the private minutes of the Com-mittee of the Whole) be adopted, including:


Committee of the Whole (Private), Report No. 8, May 27, 2009


Surplus Declaration: Inglenook Community School

(a) That the 6,108 square feet of the Inglenook Community School property (as outlined in the report) be declared surplus for disposition, subject to the provisions of Regulation 444/98;

(b) That the Toronto Lands Corporation finalize an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to the To-ronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation based on the key business terms as presented in the report.

4. Human Resources Committee, Report No. 3 (Private), May 6, 2009

The Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that Report No. 3 (Private) of the Human Re-sources Committee (as attached to the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole) be adopted.

5. Private Negotiations Matter

The Committee considered a matter (on file in the Director’s Office) concerning a private nego-tiations matter.

The Committee of the Whole (Private) RECOMMENDS that a private negotiations matter as contained in the private minutes of the Committee of the Whole (Private) be approved.

Chris Bolton Chair of the Committee

Adopted May 27, 2009


Audit Committee, Report No. 1, April 23, 2009


Audit Committee

Report No. 1, April 23, 2009

A meeting of the Audit Committee convened on Thursday, April 23, 2009, from 4:10 to 5:30 p.m., in the Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Soo Wong chairing.

The following committee members were present: Trustees Gary Crawford, James Pasternak, and Soo Wong. Regrets were received from Trustee Scott Harrison. Also present was Trustee John Hastings. Trustee Crawford participated by electronic means.

The Committee decided to report and recommend as follows:

No matters to report

6. Audit Committee Membership

1. Election of Committee Chair

The Committee appointed Trustee Pasternak as chair of the Committee.

2. Management Letter From the Auditor

On a motion of Trustee Wong, the Committee received the auditor’s annual management letter dated January 23, 2009 (see AC:001A, page 1).

3. Appointment of Auditor

Staff advised that a request for proposal has been issued for an auditor as the current five-year term will expire August 31, 2009. The next meeting of the Committee will involve interviewing the respondents.


James Pasternak Committee Chair

Received May 27, 2009

Part A: Committee Recommendations

Part B: Information Only

Part C: Ongoing Matters


Audit Committee, Report No. 2, May 12, 2009


Audit Committee

Report No. 2, May 12, 2009

A meeting of the Audit Committee convened on Tuesday, May 12, 2009, from 2:05 to 5:20 p.m., in the Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with James Pasternak chairing.

The following committee members were present: Trustees Gary Crawford, James Pasternak, and Soo Wong. Regrets were received from Trustee Scott Harrison.


1. Appointment of Auditor for the 2009-09 Fiscal Year

The Committee considered proposals and interviewed representatives of firms that responded to the Board’s request for proposal concerning the provision of external audit services that were short-listed for interviews.

The matter was last considered in 2004. Section 253. (1) of the Education Act states:

Every board shall appoint one or more auditors for a term not exceeding five years who shall be a person licensed under the Public Accounting Act, 2004.

On a motion of Trustee Crawford, the Audit Committee RECOMMENDS that Deloitte and Touche, LLP, be appointed as the Board’s auditor for a period not to exceed five years com-mencing with the fiscal year ending August 31, 2009, and at an approximate annual cost of $111,340.




James Pasternak Committee Chair

Received May 27, 2009





Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 4, May 6, 2009


Operations and Facilities Management Committee


A meeting of the Operations and Facilities Management Committee convened on Wednesday, May 6, 2009, from 4:02 to 6 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Mari Rutka chairing.

The following members were present: Trustees Mari Rutka (Chair), Gerri Gershon, Scott Harri-son, James Pasternak, and Soo Wong. Also present were Trustees Chris Bolton, Nadia Bello, Sheila Cary-Meagher and John Hastings. Trustee Pasternak participated by electronic means.


1. Contract Awards, Facility Services [1408]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 483) presenting contract awards. The Com-mittee received the contracts on Chart 1 and approved the contracts on Chart 2.

Committee’s recommendation or action regarding the staff recommendation:

Concur Refer Amend Postpone consideration (defer) Disregard Other

On motion of Trustee Harrison, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee REC-OMMENDS that the contracts on Chart 2 be approved.

2. Contract for Addition and Alteration, Crescent Town Elementary School (Ward 16, Beaches-East York) [1413]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 488) recommending a contractor to build an addition and alteration at Crescent Town Elementary School.







On motion of Trustee Wong, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee RECOM-MENDS that a contract with Struct-Con Construction Limited for an addition and alteration work at Crescent Town Elementary School in the amount of $4,471,718 plus GST be approved.

3. Contract for Addition and Alteration, Highfield Junior School (Ward 1, Etobi-coke North) [1412]

The Committee considered a staff (see page 490) recommending a contractor to build an addition and alteration at Highfield Junior School.



On motion of Trustee Gershon, the Operations and Facilities Management Committee REC-OMMENDS that a contract with KCL Contracting and Engineering Limited for an addition and alteration work at Highfield Junior School in the amount of $5,841,600 plus GST be approved.

4. Coordination With the City of Toronto’s Initiatives to Beautify Toronto (as re-ferred by the Board)

Due to time constraints, the Committee did not consider the following presented by Trustee Pasternak.

5. Delegation

The Committee heard the following oral delegation in accordance with the Board’s procedure for hearing delegations.

re Renewable Energy: Lessons Learned, The New Green Energy Act and Eleven New Projects [1414]

• Bill Shinas, Remarkable Energy

6. Schoolyard Improvements: Northern Secondary School (Ward 11, St. Paul’s) [1416]

On motion of Trustee Gershon, the Committee received a staff report (see page 493) providing an update on plans to upgrade the playing field and track at Northern Secondary School.





7. Renewable Energy: Lessons Learned, The New Green Energy Act and Eleven New Projects [1414]

On motion of Trustee Harrison, the Committee received a staff report (see page 495) providing information on the development of a renewable energy program.

Staff undertook to provide a report in June 2009 on plans to develop an integrated energy pro-gram, including a waste-water strategy.

The Committee expressed appreciation to staff for the work undertaken on this initiative.

8. Energy Efficient School Funding

A report from staff on funding to improve energy efficiency in schools was distributed at the meeting. However, consideration of the matter was postponed to the next meeting.

9. Pending Agenda Items: Six-Month Projection

Consideration of the matter was postponed to the next meeting.

Mari Rutka Chair of the Committee






Contract Awards, Facility Services [1408]

As presented to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on May 6, 2009 (see page 480).

In accordance with the Board's policy P.017: Purchasing, the attached charts present contracts for receipt or approval, as appropriate.

The recommended suppliers and the term of each contract are shown in the attached charts. Chart 1 outlines contract awards provided for information; Chart 2 outlines contracts requiring Operations and Facilities Management Committee approval; and Chart 3 outlines contracts re-quiring Board approval. The amounts shown are based on the estimated annual consumption unless indicated otherwise. Actual amounts depend on the volume of products/services actually used during the term of the contract.

Chart 4 is a summary of contract awards for selected Facility Service projects for the period Sep-tember 2006 to date.

The Process

Contractors bidding on Board construction/maintenance projects must be pre-qualified. Consid-eration is given to bonding ability, financial stability, depth of experience, references, on-site safety record, and proof of union affiliation (applies to projects less than $1M or additions less than 500 square feet). Issuing a market call to pre-qualify is periodically advertised in Daily Commercial News and two electronic bulletin boards (MERX and BiddinGo) to facilitate broader public access.

The lowest cost bid is accepted where quality, functional, safety, environmental and other re-quirements are met. Every effort is made to include input from the users in the development of specifications and the evaluation process. Copies of all bids received and detailed information regarding all recommended awards are available in the Purchasing and Distribution Services De-partment.


Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 4, May 6, 2009 Contract Awards, Facility Services [1408]


Chart 1: Facilities Contract Awards Provided for Information (over $50,000 and up to $250,000)

User/Budget Holder School/Department

Products/Services Details Ward Recommended Supplier

Low Bid

Objec-tions

No. of Bids Rec’d

Estimated Annual Amount

Projected Start/End Date of Contract

Customer In-volvement

Funding Source

OTHER

1 Facility Services Mould & Water Damage at Sel-wyn ES. Major leakage due to roof membrane failure.

16 Abbot Envi-ronmental Yes No 3 $57,900

November 26, 2008/ December 19, 2008

Facility Ser-vices

Good Places to Learn 3

2 Facility Services

Chemical Storage Alterations & New Staff Office at York Memo-rial CI SXM09-102T Alterations are required to upgrade facility to meet TDSB Health & Safety Standards.

6 Orlando Marchese Con-tracting

Yes No 7 $171,000 February 20, 2009/ August 15, 2009

Facility Ser-vices

Revitaliza-tion Program (SFRMP – Capital)

3 Facility Services

Walkway Replacement Asphalt Only at Zion Heights JHS STM09-103Q Deteriorated walk-way, water puddles & black ice on walkway.

12 Perrotta & Sons Paving Ltd. Yes No 1 1 $52,686

March 2009/ June 30, 2009

Facility Ser-vices

Good Places to Learn

4 Facility Services

Dust Collector Replacement at Wexford CSA SXM09-105T Unit failed beyond repair, replacement necessary to maintain program delivery.

19 Dunford-Liscio (Ont) Inc. Yes No 8 $ 169,820

March 9 2009/ August 27, 2009

Facility Ser-vices

Revitaliza-tion Program (SFRMP – Capital)

5 Facility Services Asphalt Paving at Crescent Town ES to make necessary parking and drainage improvements.

16 Perrotta & Sons Paving Ltd. Yes No 2 $199,300

September 2008/ April 30, 2009

Facility Ser-vices


1 Two pre-qualified paving contractors were invited to bid, one gave notice that they were unable to quote




Chart 2: Facilities Contracts Requiring Board Approval (over $500,000 and Consulting Services over $50,000)



Low Bid

Objec-tions

No. of Bids Rec’d




Funding Source

BOILERS

1 Facility Services

Boiler Replacement at Jarvis CI SXM09-106T The exist-ing boilers are approaching the end of their life cycle.

14 Gimco Ltd. Yes No 5 $1,761,920 May, 2009/ August 30, 2009 2

Facility Ser-vices


OTHER

2 Facility Services

STM07-078P Architectural Consulting Services Minor Projects. To have pre-qualified Architec-tural Firms of record for upcoming Facilities projects. Reporting the additional 1 (one) year extension option – original contracts approved on Report 02-07-1054. Category One projects with a total construction cost up to $300,000 and Category Two projects with a total construction cost in excess of $300,000 but less than $1,000,000

N/A

Ark Inc ATA Archi-tects Battaglia Assoc. Bill Lobb Bortolotto Cohos Evamy Ernest Hodg-son Etude Giannonne Kearns Mancini Kneider Lujaniec Montgomery Sisam NG Chee Perkins East-man Black Stafford Haen-sli Stevens Group

Yes No 34 $1,050,000 ($50,000 ea)

April 2009/ February 2010

Facility Ser-vices







Low Bid

Objec-tions

No. of Bids Rec’d




Funding Source

Taylor Smyth The Ventin Group WK Lim

3 Facility Services

STM07-084P Engineering Consulting Svcs – Structural discipline for Minor Projects. To have pre-qualified Structural firms of record for upcoming Facility Projects. Reporting the addi-tional 1 (one) year extension option – original contracts approved on Report 03-07-1076. Category One projects with a total construction cost up to $300,000 and Category Two projects with a total construction cost in excess of $300,000 but less than $1,000,000

N/A

Kremisco Eng. Alfred Tan IRC Building Sciences Ojdrovic Eng. Harcrow Yolles Urbis Eng. Barry-Bryan Assoc.

Yes No 22 $350,000 ($50,000 ea)

April 2009/ March 2010

Facility Ser-vices

Good Places to Learn 2

2 Letter of Intent issued




Chart 4: Summary of Select Facilities Contracts: (September 1, 2007 to Present)

Project Classification Total Expendi-tures

For this Report

Total Number of Projects for this Report

Total Num-ber of Pro-jects 2008/09 to date

Total 2008/09 Contract Awards Re-ported to Date

Total Number of Projects 2007/08

Total 2007/08 Contract Awards

Boilers $1,761,920 1 2 $2,283,820 2 $1,235,282

Roofing $0 0 15 $1,930,840 22 $2,677,249

Building Automation Sys-tems (BAS) $0 0 12 $1,448,338 5 $563,768

Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning (HVAC) $0 0 8 $1,128,932 22 $6,028,473

Swimming Pools $0 0 1 $105,000 0 0

Ministry Grant – Primary Class Size Cap $0 0 0 $0 3 $991,923

TOTAL $1,761,920 1 38 $6,896,930 54 $11,496,695

For the Board’s decision see page 480.


Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 4, May 6, 2009 Contract for Addition and Alteration, Crescent Town Elementary School [1413]


Contract for Addition and Alteration, Crescent Town Elementary School [1413]


The Ministry of Education has provided capital funding to build additional classroom space to accommodate the primary class size cap (PCS).

The addition and alterations at Crescent Town are eligible for PCS Ministry funding.

Crescent Town ES currently has seven stand-alone portables on site. The portables occupy a sig-nificant portion of the school’s play area and are interfering with the use of the site. Use of the school site will be significantly improved by replacing the stand-alone portables with an addi-tion.

Crescent Town ES Local School Design Committee began meeting on October 15, 2007. On April 9, 2008, the Design Committee unanimously approved the preliminary design concept. On May 1, 2008, a public community meeting hosted by local trustee was held at Crescent Town ES and the project received overwhelming support.

On June 25, 2008, the Board approved the addition of 15,946 sq. ft. and renovated area of 5,578 sq.ft to accommodate an increase in program capacity of 175 pupil places, at a cost of $4,407,140 to be funded from the Primary Class Size grant and an additional $250,000 to be funded from GPL for the Site Work. Also, the Board approved the Child Care Centre addition comprising of 2,523 sq.ft. at a cost of $1,019,090, funded by the City of Toronto.

The project was initially tendered in December 2008 and the bids were received on December 15, 2008: the lowest bid was submitted by Struct-Con Construction in the amount of $5,048,742 plus GST. Since this amount exceeded the estimated budget, a meeting was held on February 11, 2009 between the local trustee, school principal, Facility Services and design architect to re-view cost saving measures. Based on this meeting a new design was prepared and the project was retendered.

Based on the revised plans and specifications prepared by the Architect, the Bids for the reten-dered project were received on 09 April 2009 from a list of pre-qualified Contractors; the results are as follows:

Struct-Con Construction $4,471,718 Garritano Bros. Construction $4,677,000 Aquicon Construction $4,762,000 Bondfield Construction $4,895,000 The Atlas Corporation $4,980,000 Percon Construction $5,095,000 The lowest bidder is Struct-Con Construction at $4,471,718 plus GST.




The revised total project costs for the school and childcare are as follows:

Budget Based on Tender Contractor $4,471,718 Construction Contingency 447,172 Professional Fee/ Disbursement 618,848 Asbestos & Contaminated Soil 147,638 Telephone & Security 34,449 Furniture and LAN 78,740 Portable Relocation 175,197 Parking Lot 246,063 GST (1.6%) 99,517 Total Project Cost $6,319,342

4 May 2009 – Construction Start 4 May 2010 – Construction Completion Resources

Previously Estimated Approved Cost Addition and Alterations (PCS) $ 4,127,140 $4,774,783* Furniture & LAN (PCS) 80,000 80,000 Relocation of Portables (PCS) 200,000 200,000 Subtotal (PCS) $4,407,140 $5,054,783 Site Work (GPL) 250,000 250,000 Subtotal $4,657,140 $5,304,783 Child Care Centre (City of Toronto) $1,019,090 $1,014,559 Total Project Estimated Cost $5,676,230 $6,319,342 *As part of the Building Permit process, the City of Toronto has mandated additional require-ments that were not included in the original budget such as storm water management system and additional planting to satisfy the City of Toronto/Forestry . Also, due to the close proximity of the existing transformer to the new classroom, a shield has been provided to deter transmission of electro magnetic forces from the transformer.





Contract for Addition and Alteration, Highfield Junior School [1412]


The Ministry of Education has provided capital funding to build additional classroom space to accommodate the primary class size cap (PCS).

The addition and alterations at Highfield are eligible for PCS Ministry funding.

Highfield JS currently has twelve stand-alone portables on site. The portables occupy a signifi-cant portion of the school’s play area and are interfering with the use of the site. Use of the school site will be significantly improved by replacing the stand-alone portables with an addi-tion.

Highfield JS Local School Design Committee began meeting on December 12, 2007. On April 3, 2008, the Design Committee unanimously approved the preliminary design concept. On May 8, 2008, a community meeting hosted by the local trustee was held at Highfield JS and the pro-ject received support. On May 28, 2008 a public meeting was held and the project received sup-port.

On June 25, 2008, the Board approved the addition of 16,684 sq. ft. and renovated area of 926 sq. ft. to accommodate an increase in program capacity of 276 pupil places, at a cost of $5,348,000 to be funded from the Primary Class Size grant, $210,000 to be funded from energy savings, and an additional $1,460,000 to be funded from GPL for the Extraordinary Site Work and Air Conditioning of 6 classrooms. The Board, also, approved the Child Care Centre addition comprising of 2,820 sq. ft. at a cost of $1,104,000, funded by the City of Toronto.

Based on the plans and specifications prepared by the Architect, the Bids for the tendered project were received on 16 April 2009 from a list of pre-qualified Contractors; the results are as fol-lows:

* KCL Construction $5,937,500 Aquicon Construction $6,052,500 Bondfield Construction $6,181,000 Jasper Construction $6,207,000 Precon Construction Inc. No Bid Buttcon Limited No Bid Struct-Con Construction Late Bid (disqualified) * The lowest bidder is KCL Construction at $5,937,500 plus GST. The contract price was re-duced to $5,841,600 plus GST by accepting Itemized and Alternative Prices.


Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 4, May 6, 2009 Contract for Addition and Alteration, Highfield Junior School [1412]


The total project costs for the school and childcare are as follows:

Final Estimated Cost Based on Tender Contractor $5,841,600 Construction Contingency $ 428,329 Professional fees/Disbursement $ 874,458 Hazardous Materials Removal $ 68,898 Furniture and LAN $ 103,346 Portable Relocation $ 688,976 Renovation and Parking $ 418,307 GST (1.6%) $ 134,783 Total Project Cost $8,558,697 15 May 2009 – Construction Start 15 August 2010 – Construction Completion Resources

Previously Funding Approved ** Addition and Alteration $4,543,000 $4,787,440 (PCS) *** Site Work $ 0.00 $90,000 (City) Furniture & LAN $ 105,000 $105,000 (PCS) Relocation of Portables $ 700,000 $ 700,000 (PCS) Geothermal $210,000 $210,000 (Energy savings) ****Geothermal $ 0.00 $104,000 (Grants) Site Work (GPL) $1,220,000 $1,220,000 A/C 6 Classrooms (GPL) $ 240,000 $ 240,000 $7,018,000 $7,456,440 Child Care Centre $1,104,000 $1,102,257 (City ) Total Project Estimated Cost $8,558,697 **The City of Toronto, during the building permit process, mandated additional requirements not included in the original budget. Upgrades to the existing student drop off area and a new storm water management system were required by the City of Toronto before issuance of a building permit. Also, an additional piping distribution line was added to the new geothermal system to provide capacity for future expansion. The cost increase due to these requirements has been par-tially offset by the Greening grants and City of Toronto Contribution.

*** The City of Toronto promised funds to contribute to the Highfield Park development.




**** Grants from various organizations such as Friends of the Environment Foundation, City of Toronto Neighbourhood Beautification Program, Hydro One Power Play Community Fund, Shell Community Investment Program, and TRCA Stormwater Management Fund.



Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 4, May 6, 2009 Schoolyard Improvements: Northern Secondary [1416]


Schoolyard Improvements: Northern Secondary School [1416]

As received by the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on May 6, 2009 (see page 481).

In December 2005, representatives of the Northern Secondary School (NSS) Parent Council, community and staff requested staff help develop a plan to upgrade the playing field and track to artificial turf playing field and a new track. The following is the rationale for the upgrade:

• there is a strong desire by the school and community to partner to contribute to the health of youth through upgraded physical fitness and outdoor activity facilities;

• NSS is a school consisting of a culturally and economically diverse group of 1,900 students. Many students from the immediate area reside in apartment buildings and have limited ac-cess to outdoor play spaces. Out of district students come to NSS from areas of the City as far as Toronto Island to the south, Regent Park to the east and Bathurst St to the west. NSS special education programs include: • 350 students in special education classes and 300 students with exceptions in their learn-

ing environments; • Deaf and Hard of Hearing Programs; • Technical Education Programs; • Co-operative Education.

• NSS students are very active in physical education programs including football, soccer, rugby and track and field;

• Due to the intensity of use, Facility Services must provide a high level of grounds mainte-nance to keep the field serviceable. Despite this investment of effort, staff is not confident that the condition of the existing field can be kept consistently adequate for the program needs of the school.

Funding Available:

Northern SS Foundation in Trust $240,000 City of Toronto Section 37 Funding – 150 Roehampton Ave $130,000 K&G Developments re: 299 Roehampton Ave $500,000 TDSB, in lieu of future field maintenance* $130,000 TOTAL Available $1,000,000 *Staff estimates that currently required field upgrades and annual maintenance over a 5-year pe-riod will cost approximately $130,000, and recommends that the Board contribute this amount from Renewal. Project Costs: Artificial Grass Field $777,000 Asphalt Running Track $92,000


Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 4, May 6, 2009 Schoolyard Improvements: Northern Secondary [1416]


Field Accessories $9,000 Storm Water Management $41,000 Contingency (@ 7%) $64,330 Subtotal $983,330 GST $15,733 Total Costs $999,063 In addition, it is recommended that the existing parking garage located beneath the field be re-paired and an existing retaining wall along Rawlinson Avenue be replaced at a cost of $171,765, funded from Renewal.



Operations and Facilities Management Committee, Report No. 4, May 6, 2009 Renewable Energy: Lessons Learned, The New Green Energy Act and Eleven New Projects


Renewable Energy: Lessons Learned, The New Green Energy Act and Eleven New Projects [1414]

As received by the Operations and Facilities Management Committee on May 6, 2009 (see page 482).

At its November 2006 meeting, the Board passed a motion supporting the development of a re-newable energy pilot project at Hillcrest Junior Public School.

Since then, Facility Services and School Services have been working collaboratively to develop a significant renewable energy program. Projects with a 15-year payback period would be consid-ered financially viable.

Work-To-Date

Two studies were undertaken to better understand the various technologies on the market and to explore ways to pay for them.

Investment Grade Renewable Energy Feasibility Study, William Lyon Mackenzie C.I—Toronto Hydro Energy Services Incorporated

A consultant worked with TDSB technical staff and a team of students to study the cost, payback period, and feasibility of attracting private investment to pay for the installation of four tech-nologies: a major installation of solar photovoltaic (PV), solar thermal, vertical-axis wind tur-bines, and a green roof. The study concluded that the payback periods for all of the technologies under consideration would greatly exceed 15-years. It also found that the return-on-investment would not be high enough to attract third-party investment.

Geothermal Heating and Cooling Feasibility Analysis: Cameron PS, Beverley Heights MS, and Finch PS—GeoXperts Energy

Retrofitting existing schools with geothermal technology has tremendous potential. Geothermal energy can provide heating in winter and cooling in summer. It can significantly reduce a school’s consumption of natural gas thereby reducing operating costs and greenhouse gas emis-sions. The ability to tap low impact, low cost geothermal energy for cooling schools will become increasingly important as our climate changed summers and “shoulder seasons” grow warmer in coming years.

The Consultant studied the feasibility of retrofitting existing schools to utilize geothermal energy to provide heating and cooling. The three schools selected represent building types that would provide the most favourable conditions for a geothermal retrofit.

The study showed two major costs: first, the cost of installing the underground pipes (the “en-ergy field”) and the heat pumps used to convert the energy in the fluid to a form usable for space conditioning. The second cost is retrofitting the existing heating system within the school (the “perimeter units”).




The cost of the energy field itself would be manageable within a 15-year payback. However, adding the cost of retrofitting the existing system increases the total payback to between 20 and 37 years, depending on the school and the assumptions made about how quickly the cost of natu-ral gas will rise in the future.

The study helps explain why geothermal is financially viable in new schools and/or major addi-tions, but not yet for retrofits to existing schools. In a new building it is necessary to pay for a heating and cooling system anyway. A geothermal system adds the cost of the energy field, which falls within the 15-year payback threshold. Once the upfront investment has been paid back through energy savings, geothermal systems can heat and cool schools at low cost and re-duced greenhouse gas emissions for many years.

Projects underway

Geothermal System, Highfield – Incorporated into the design of this school’s new addition. Con-struction will begin this Spring.

Solar thermal system, Hillcrest Community School – Fifty-five solar thermal panels will use the heat from the sun to heat 80% of the water for the school’s pool and the domestic hot water used in the school. The system will be installed by this summer.

Solar photovoltaic (PV), WL Mackenzie CI – A 10 kilowatt system consisting of 50 panels will use the energy from the sun to generate 12,000 kWh of electricity annually (an average Toronto home uses 10,000 kWh a year). This system will be connected to the electricity grid so that the Board can sell the power to the Ontario Power Authority under a 20 year contract for $0.802 per kWh. This revenue will be used to pay the $110,000 capital cost within the 15-year payback pe-riod (for more information, see the Green Energy Act below). The system will be installed this summer.

Landmark Legislation

The Green Energy Act—Implications for Schools

On March 12 2009, the Ontario government introduced the Green Energy Act. This legislation establishes a guaranteed pricing structure—called a feed-in tariff (FIT)—for energy generated from renewable sources, including wind, hydroelectric, and solar.

Solar photovoltaic (PV) is the technology most applicable for schools. The proposed prices for solar PV are on a sliding scale from $0.802/kWh for small projects to $0.539 for very large sys-tems.

The new FIT program completely changes the financial viability of installing solar PV systems on schools. By taking advantage of this significant revenue stream, the payback period for projects is expected to fall well within a 15-year payback period (see Proposed Feed-In Tariff Prices for Re-newable Energy Projects in Ontario, below, for details on proposed prices.




The FIT program is being administered by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA). To participate, the Board would sign a 20-year contact with the OPA whereby we commit to supplying the green power generated in return for a fixed price.

The OPA has undertaken an 8-week consultation session slated for completion by the middle of May. At that time, we anticipate that the proposed prices will be finalized.

The TDSB is closely monitoring all of the OPA’s consultation sessions.

Planned Actions

1. The design and installation of solar PV projects at ten schools and one outdoor education school.

Two years have been invested in carefully studying the feasibility of renewable energy. The three pilot projects described above are underway. The Green Energy Act now allows the Board to take a bold new step—the design and installation of 10 kW solar PV projects at 10 schools and one outdoor education school.

The eleven projects will generate 131,000 kWh hours per year in total—equivalent to taking a small elementary school off the electricity grid.

The estimated capital cost is about $1.2 million. The payback period will be less than 15-years.

In consultation with the Board’s Environmental Sustainability Steering Committee, criteria have been developed to guide the selection of the schools. To review the criteria, (see General Outline of School Selection Criteria below).

Using the non-technical criteria, an initial short-list of thirty-seven schools has been created. Fa-cility Services is currently assessing each school using the technical criteria. The technical as-sessment will help narrow the list of schools down to the final ten schools and one outdoor edu-cation school.

Facility Services will report back to trustees in September 2009 with more technical and finan-cial details.

2. Working toward “carbon-neutral” schools.

The main purpose of generating green energy is to help us significantly reduce our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Installing renewable energy projects is not an end in itself, but the means to reducing our emissions to combat climate change.

What we really want are “carbon-neutral” schools—buildings that do not add any GHG emis-sions to the atmosphere. We can’t achieve this ambitious goal with renewables alone. The only way to reach it is through an aggressive strategy that employs every means possible to reduce




consumption and then generate the remaining power through renewables such as a combination of geothermal and solar PV.

For this reason, it is important that the Board develop a more holistic approach to upgrading its buildings, where the interaction of conservation education (EcoSchools), efficiency measures, and the generation of green power enhance one another.

Facility Services will report back to trustees in June 2009 with a more detailed plan to develop an integrated energy program that helps take schools as close to carbon neutral as possible while still working within established payback criteria (15 year payback for renewables and 8 year payback for conventional projects).

Proposed Feed-In Tariff Prices

for Renewable Energy Projects in Ontario

Technology Proposed size tranches Proposed ¢/kWh

Biomass*

Any size 12.2

Biogas*

≤ 5 MW 14.7

> 5 MW 10.4

Waterpower*

≤ 50 MW 12.9

Community Based ≤ 2 MW 13.4

Landfill gas*

≤ 5MW 11.1

> 5 MW 10.3

Solar PV

Rooftop ≤10 kW 80.2

10 – 100 kW 71.3

100 – 500 kW 63.5

> 500 kW 53.9

Ground Mounted ≤ 10 MW 44.3




Proposed Feed-In Tariff Prices

for Renewable Energy Projects in Ontario

Wind

Onshore Any size 13.5

Offshore Any size 19.0

Community Based ≤ 10 MW 14.4

General Outline of School Selection Criteria

STEP 1

Twelve to fifteen schools will be shortlisted based on the following criteria:

1. EcoSchools certification

• Is the school certified? • Has it applied for platinum certification? If so, what are the results of its interim audit?

2. Electricity consumption

• Has the school reduced its electricity consumption?

3. Technical considerations

• What is the condition of the school’s roof? • Would its existing structure support an installation without costly reinforcement? • Does the school have an unobstructed south-facing wall (at least 2 storeys in height) that

would be suitable for a wall mounted system? • What is the distance between the possible location of the panels and the school’s existing

electrical room? • How accessible is the roof from ground level? (In other words, how vulnerable would a sys-

tem be to vandalism?) • Is there an existing or planned BAS?

4. 2009 Learning Opportunities Index (LOI)

• There will be a balance of high, medium and low needs schools selected as defined by the 2009 LOI




5. Geographic distribution

• The selected schools will represent 10 different Families of Schools distributed throughout the four regions of the city

• Existing and other planned renewable energy/LEED projects will be taken into account when identifying Families in greatest need of a project

STEP 2

The top 10 schools chosen will be invited to participate in the program, but must agree to the fol-lowing conditions (some schools may already have completed some of these steps):

1. The schools must pledge to conserve energy by working with the Board to:

(a) Replace incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent lights

(b) Make sure that its lighting levels do not exceed Ministry guidelines

(c) Consolidate its appliances

2. The schools must also identify a team who will develop and implement an educational and communication plan for the project. At least two members of the team will be teachers who will be released to participate in 3 half-day PD/planning sessions next year.

If schools decline to participate, then the other schools on the short list will be invited to partici-pate as needed.



Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 5, May 11, 2009


Special Education Advisory Committee


A meeting of the Special Education Advisory Committee was convened on Monday, May 11, 2009 at 7:05 p.m., in the Boardroom, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Clovis Grant presiding.

The following committee members were present: Diana Avon, Loris Bennett, Christina Buczek, Richard Carter, Elizabeth Fisher, Dr. Norm Forman, Dr. Robert Gates, Clovis Grant, Susan Musgrave, Rebecca Rycroft, Tammy Simon, Paula Surdin, Ann Szabo and Trustee John Hast-ings.

Regrets were received from Scott Bridges and Tina Shier.

1. Recommendation 1: Potential Programs for Students with Special Needs

The Committee considered a staff report (see agenda) on the feasibility and cost of introducing pilot programs re Fast ForWard, Cogmed, Arrowsmith and Wasdell SMaRts programs.

Staff reported that an accountability audit on the programs offered by the Toronto Catholic Dis-trict School Board including Arrowsmith was currently underway, the results of which will be shared with the TDSB.

On motion of Christina, Buczek, seconded by Rebecca Rycroft, the Special Education Advisory Committee RECOMMENDS:

(a) That staff present a report on a feasibility study of the Fast ForWard and Empower pro-grams;

(b) That staff present a report analyzing the results of the Arrowsmith program feasibility study that was undertaken by the Toronto Catholic District School Board and include rec-ommendations re introduction of a TDSB pilot program.

2. Recommendation 2: Professional Development: Shared Solutions Workshop

The topic of the Shared Solutions Workshop was discussed during presentation of the central co-ordinating principal’s report.

On motion of Paula Surdin, seconded by Liz Fisher, the Special Education Advisory Committee RECOMMENDS that the Shared Solutions Workshop be offered to all administrators and Legal Services staff.





3.

3. ASPIRE, Shirley Chan, Central Coordinating Principal, Schools for the Future

The Committee heard a presentation from Shirley Chan, Central Coordinating Principal, Schools for the Future on ASPIRE, which provides for the access and sharing of program and partner-ship data that will impact on student achievement, engagement and success. An information brochure was provided for members.

Staff undertook to manually input all programs for students with special needs, such as DIB-BLES etc. and to add a searchable component from the school profile. Staff would also look into the use of icons and ready access to translation information.

Members were invited to send further suggests to Shirley Chan.

4. Barrier-free Initiative at Oriole Park

Tammy Simon presented a report (see agenda) on the community consultation regarding the pro-posed changes to Oriole Park.

5. Response on the Audit Work Plan

Staff presented a report (see agenda) on the draft work plan in response to the 2008 audit of the Special Education Department.

On motion of Tammy Simon, seconded by Rebeccca Rycroft, SEAC affirmed the draft work plan and decided that the work plan remain the same and not be substantially changed.

6. Trustee’s Report

Trustee Hastings reported:

• That the motion regarding playground retrofits was passed at Board and the letter of support for playground retrofits was sent to the local city councilor and other city officials.

• He would participate in the Ontario Walk Now for Autism on June 7, 2009.

7. Subcommittee Reports and Updates

The Communications Subcommittee will meet prior to the next meeting. Members are Ann Szabo, Dr. Norm Forman, Richard Carter and Clovis Grant. The Chair will send an email to subcommittee members to initiate the scheduling of the meeting.





8. Correspondence

The following correspondence was included in members’ folders:

(a) Memorandum from the Ministry of Education dated April 8, 2009 re Annual Monitoring of the Implementation of PPM 140 by School Boards

(b) Memorandum from the Ministry of Education dated May 7, 2009 re Collaboration Proto-cols/Student Mental Health.

(c) Correspondence from Community Living dated re Inclusionary Awards for Community Living

9. Senior Superintendent’s Report

Senior Superintendent Karen Forbes presented a report (see page 504) to the Committee.

10. Professional Support Services Report

Dave Johnston presented a report (see page 505) to the Committee.

11. Local SEAC Association Reports

(a) Autism Society of Ontario (Toronto Chapter)

Information on the Fifth Annual Ontario Walk for Autism was included in members’ folders.

(b) Invitation to Get-together

An invitation was extended to members to meet with staff for refreshments prior to the start of the next meeting on June 8, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. in Committee Room A, Main Floor, 5050 Yonge Street.

Clovis Grant Co-chair



Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 5, May 11, 2009 Professional Support Services Report


Senior Superintendent’s Report

Best Practices – Home School to Program School Distance

In response to SEAC’s request for a report on the best practices when transporting students with special needs, you will find a briefing note on the subject in your folders. There was little infor-mation about best practices but other Boards were contacted and information from the Ministry of Education was used. Michael Young has offered to attend the next SEAC meeting if that would be helpful to respond to the briefing note. Please let the chair know if you want Michael to attend in June.

It was acknowledged that the report would be more in the nature of delineating student needs rather than an investigation but the decision to generate a report was made. The second part of the motion was referred to the budget process.

Board Decision to Inventory Special Education Programs

I am responding to the motion that the TDSB review and provide a summary of all programs be-ing offered that assist the TDSB in fulfilling specific mandated requirements such as Daily Physical Activity for students with special needs and that a policy and procedure be developed to ensure the delivery of these programs.

This evening you received a presentation on the data base, ASPIRE, that inventories all programs that are being offered in TDSB. We updated you on the status of special education programs be-ing added to the data base. A number of programs for students with special needs were picked up from School Profiles and now the department is adding any programs that we support or sponsor that were missed.

Last month I explained that the TDSB has a policy and process in the eventuality that a manda-tory program is being supplemented by an external source and the external source can no longer offer the program. In summary, schools must ensure that all mandatory programs are provided by either their staff or by another external source which can be arranged by the school or de-partment in collaboration with the Partnership Development Office.

Variety Village Programs

A request was made to talk to appropriate staff from neighbouring school boards in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) to ask about the impact of Variety Village cancelling their programs and how the boards had mitigated against the loss. The Peel District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) indicated that they had programs in their schools from Variety Village with the majority being in the TCDSB. Both Boards indicated that the schools had replaced the Variety Village programs with internal programming. The TCDSB inferred from a presentation from Variety Village that some programs might be offered again in the fu-ture.


Special Education Advisory Committee, Report No. 5, May 11, 2009 Senior Superintendent’s Report


Professional Support Services Report

Service Statistics, April 2009

Psychology Social Work Attendance Speech/Language OT/PT

Referrals 7851 7669 2870 4829 1022

Completed 3925 271 127 2370 486

Wait List 2164 99 269 1019 44


Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 4, May 13, 2009


Program and School Services Committee


A meeting of the Program and School Services Committee convened on Wednesday May 13, 2009, from 6:45 to 10:50 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Cathy Dandy chairing.

Committee members present: Trustees Cathy Dandy (Chair), Gary Crawford, Josh Matlow and Maria Rodrigues. Regrets were received from Trustee John Hastings. Also present were Trus-tees, Chris Bolton, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Shaun Chen, Howard Goodman, Mari Rutka and Soo Wong.


1. Community Outreach Positions (amended by the Board)

The Committee considered a report from the Community Use of Schools Advisory Committee, March 25, 2009 (see page 516) recommending the addition of staff position to support the com-munity use of schools function.

On motion of Trustee Rodrigues, and amended by Trustees Dandy and Rodrigues, the Program and School Services Committee RECOMMENDS (as amended by the Board, see page 471):

(a) That the community outreach coordinator positions, as mandated by the Ministry of Educa-tion in February 2008, and as supported by the Executive Planning and Priorities Commit-tee, be hired as follows:

(i) one Community Use of Schools manager;

(ii) four Community Use of Schools facilitators;

At the Committee meeting, on amendment of Trustee Dandy, “and as supported by the Executive Planning and Priorities Committee” were added to Part (a) (i).

At the Committee meeting, on amendment of Trustee Rodrigues:

(i) Part (a) (i) was amended by substituting “Community Use of Schools central man-ager” with “manager”;

(ii) Part (a) (ii) was amended by substituting “two field coordinators” with “four Com-munity Use of Schools facilitators”;





(iii) Part (a) (ii) as follows was deleted: “two administrative positions, as supported by the Executive Planning and Priorities Committee, with a portion of the administra-tive time allocated to support the Community Use of Schools Advisory Committee;”

(iv) Part (b) was amended by adding the following: “and other related activities as de-cided by the Community Use of Schools Advisory Committee.”

The Board deleted the following Committee recommendation (see page 471): That the addi-tional funds that was not used for Community Outreach Coordinators between September 2008 and April 2009 be used for intensive community use of schools outreach and other related activi-ties as decided by the Community Use of Schools Advisory Committee.

2. Report of the Inner City Advisory Committee, April 2, 2009

The Committee considered a report from the Inner City Advisory Committee, April 2, 2009 (see page 519), recommending funding for continuing Model Schools for InnerCities initiatives.

On a motion of Trustee Crawford (on behalf of Trustee Gershon), the Program and School Ser-vices Committee RECOMMENDS that the report be referred to staff for comment and recom-mendation.

Note: The ICAC recommendation will also be considered by the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee special meeting on May 20, 2009.

Minority Report: Trustee Dandy and Trustee Cary-Meagher disagree with the decision of the majority of the Committee to refer the matter and recommend instead that the Committee con-sider the matter.

3. Report of the Nutrition Task Force Report [1419]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 523) presenting recommendations based on a report of the Nutrition Task Force.



On a motion of Trustee Matlow (on behalf of Trustee Coteau), and amended by Trustees Bolton and Matlow, the Program and School Services Committee:




(PART ONE) RECOMMENDS:

(a) That the report of the “Nutrition Task Force Report, April 2009,” be endorsed2;

(b) That the commitment to student nutrition programs and continued to advocacy for funding with all levels of government be affirmed;

(c) That a communication be sent to the Minister of Children and Youth Services outlining the difficulties low-income school communities have bridging the 85 percent gap between provincial funding and the cost of providing healthy morning meals and that a meeting be requested for Ministry staff to meet with the School Nutrition Advisory Committee to ad-dress these issues;

(d) That a communication be sent to all federal party leaders calling for a national student nu-trition program;

(e) That nutrition education be embedded in curriculum resources for students;

(f) That information packages be developed for use on parent information nights and posted on the Board’s website;

(g) That the criteria for cafeteria contracts be expanded to include additional healthy choices for students;

(h) That the Nutrition Services department continue to be operated on a not-for-profit basis;

(i) That cafeteria kitchens, serveries and seating areas be included in Facility Services’ long-term capital planning;

(j) That a marketing strategy to promote healthy food choices to students be developed for implementation in the Board’s cafeterias by the fall of 2010;

(k) That fresh produce from Ontario farmers be purchased whenever possible and taken into consideration during all the Board’s purchasing processes, including Requests For Propos-als;

(l) That staff present a report in June 2009 on the proposed nutrition policy as presented in the report of the Nutrition Task Force;

(m) That consideration of the following be postponed pending approval of the renewal of the contracts for the provision of cafeteria services:

2 Number in brackets indicates corresponding recommendation of the Task Force.




That an additional supervisory position be added to the Nutrition Services department’s complement to ensure that cafeterias run by contract caterers are audited yearly and that contractors meet their obligations

(n) That the Nutrition Task Force become a community advisory committee and report to the Health Committee.

(PART TWO) REFERS WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION (not adopted by the Board)

(o) That a .5 FTE community coordinator be assigned to the School Nutrition Advi-sory Committee, if established . [see note below]

Note: Staff undertook to provide information on the Board ‘s decision re the matter of commu-nity support for community advisory committees.

At the Committee meeting:

1. Part (c) was amended on motion of Trustee Bolton by adding “and that a meeting be re-quested for Ministry staff to meet with the School Nutrition Advisory Committee to ad-dress these issues”

2. Part (f) was amended on motion of Trustee Bolton by adding “and posted on the Board’s website.”

3. Part (j) was amended on motion of Trustee Bolton by adding “for implementation in the Board’s cafeterias by the fall of 2010.”

4. Part (l) was amended on motion of Trustee Matlow by adding “in June 2009’”

5. Part (n) was amended on motion of Trustee Matlow by deleting: “That the following be referred to the Planning and Priorities Committee.”

6. The following recommendation was deleted on amendment of Trustee Crawford:

That the following be referred to staff for review and comment: That the Board require middle and junior high school students to stay on school property during lunch periods unless specific permission to leave the school is granted by the parents or guardians.

7. Part (o) was added on amendment of Trustee Rodrigues (on behalf of Trustee Cary-Meagher).

Minority Report: Trustee Dandy disagrees with the recommendation of the majority of the Committee and recommends instead: That the following be referred to staff for review and comment: That the Board require middle and junior high school students to stay on school prop-erty during lunch periods unless specific permission to leave the school is granted by the parents or guardian.




4. Student Census Implementation [1398]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 525) presenting recommendations for timing of future censuses. Staff also gave a presentation at the Committee meeting about how informa-tion from the previous census is being used, together with other data, to develop and enhance programs and activities for students. Some examples are a comprehensive leadership program for disenfranchised students, Grades 4 to 12 and students developing projects based on the estab-lishment of Smart Goals, and also addressing issues re parental involvement.



On motion of Trustee Crawford, the Program and School Services Committee RECOM-MENDS:

(a) That the Student Census and Parent Survey be implemented on a five-year cycle;

(b) That the next Student Census and Parent Survey be conducted in school year 2011-12.

At the Committee meeting, an amendment of Trustee Rodrigues (on behalf of Trustee Bolton) to amend Part (a) by substituting “Five-year” with “four-year” and Part (b) be substituting “2011-12” with “2010-11” was defeated.

5. Establishment of Art Collection Reference Group and Fine Art Curator Posi-tion

On motion of Trustee Crawford, and amended by Trustee Matlow, the Program and School Ser-vices Committee RECOMMENDS:

Whereas, the Board’s Fine Art Management Plan involves a four-step process: (1) Complete districtwide inventory of all schools and administrative locations, (2) Conduct appraisal process of items valued at more than $5,000, (3) Address conservation and security issues, (4) Return and reinstallation of removed fine art where applicable; and (5) Create better access by integrat-ing a stronger curriculum connection and garnering community support; and

Whereas, much of the groundwork has been completed to achieve the larger goal of providing a more accessible and properly protected fine art collection; and

Whereas, the plan is presently in the third step that of addressing conservation and security issues of an immediate nature and is dealing with issues relating to the fourth step while quickly mov-ing toward the fifth step that of creating greater equitable access to students, staff and communi-ties; and




Whereas, some of the conservation and security issues are large in scale and cost it has been sug-gested that an art collection committee should assist in providing direction and support for the major conservation and security projects as well as providing direction with curriculum connec-tions and funding issues by bringing additional art-related subject specialities to the table; and

Whereas, the work has been hampered by the lack of a curator to provide the professional sup-port and direction required to manage an art collection of this national importance particularly in the area of art education and connections to other areas of the curriculum; and

Whereas, the plan is presently in the third step, that of addressing conservation and security is-sues of an immediate nature and is quickly moving into the fourth step of creating greater equita-ble access to students, staff and communities;

Therefore it be resolved:

(a) That a community-based Fine Art Collection Reference Group be established in September 2009 as follows:

Membership: To be considered by the Trustees’ Stewardship of Fine Arts Workgroup and presented in September 2009

Mandate

(i) to develop recommendations for an art collection management process that would ensure increased student access, proper security and environmental conditions, a strong curriculum connection, possible rotating exhibition schedule, additional cen-tral funding, community-based support, and possible external funding;

(ii) to review fundraising ideas, both professional and grassroots, and present a full and more integrated “Vision Package” for the marketing and conservation of the Board’s fine art collection;

(iii) to present recommendations for ongoing financial support of an additional staff posi-tion (see Part (c) below);

(iv) to report to the Trustees’ Stewardship of Fine Arts Workgroup

(b) That the following be referred to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Commit-tee:

(i) That an experienced temporary fine art curator be hired for a one-year term to assist staff and the Art Collection Reference Group in promoting attention to the Board’s art collection and lobby for funding;

(ii) That $75,000 be allocated for a salary at a level to attract experienced profes-sionals (maximum salary of $65,000.00) and related costs to support the posi-tion ($10,000.00).




At the Committee meeting, on amendment of Trustee Matlow, the two matters in Part (b) were referred.

6. Use of Specialist Teachers and the Program Enhancement Grant

On motion of Trustee Crawford, the Program and School Services Committee RECOM-MENDS:

Whereas, in the spring of 2005 the Ministry of Education affirmed it’s commitment to funding “specialist teachers” in elementary schools; and

Whereas, under the terms of the 2008 PDT agreements, Boards shall have the flexibility to as-sign additional teaching staff generated by the increase in elementary teacher preparation time above the 2008-09 level to enable teachers to be assigned full-time in the Arts in more than one school; and

Whereas, the new elementary collective agreements will be generating the equivalent of 267.5 teachers over the 4-year term of the contract; and

Whereas, the Ministry allocated $4.2 million in 2007-08 and $5.4 million in 2008-09 through the Program Enhancement Grant to support the Arts, Physical Education and Outdoor Education;

Therefore be it resolved:

(a) That the newly generated preparation time in the assignment of specialist teachers for the delivery of Arts and Music be actively utilized and that staff present a report on that utili-zation on a yearly basis;

(b) That staff conduct a review of the delivery of Music programming and present a report in November 2009;

(c) That the entire Program Enhancement Grant continue to be used for the Arts, Music, Physical Education and Outdoor Education, and that staff present a report on the utilization of the grant.

7. Dissolution of Safe and Caring Schools Workgroup and Establishment of Safe and Caring Schools Advisory Committee

On motion of Trustee Matlow (on behalf of Trustee Rutka), the Program and School Services Committee RECOMMENDS:

Whereas, the discussion of policies, procedures and issues concerning Safe and Caring Schools in the Toronto District School Board has benefited from the existence of the Safe Schools Task Force, the Safe and Caring Schools Workgroup and the Safe and Caring Schools Trustee Com-




mittee and would continue to benefit through permanent support, information sharing, and com-munity involvement:


(a) That the current Safe and Caring Schools Workgroup be dissolved;

(b) That a Safe and Caring Schools Advisory Committee be established as follows:

(i) Membership

Trustee and Community Members

• members of the former Safe and Caring Schools Workgroup see footnote 3 • and additional members so that the entire membership includes:

• one trustee co-chair • one community member co-chair • one or more representatives from schools’ safe and caring schools committees • representatives from the Board’s other advisory committees, at the invitation

of the Committee • one or more students, to be appointed by the Student SuperCouncil • new members from agencies and community organizations concerned with

safe and caring schools issues, at the invitation of the Committee

Employee Groups (to be appointed by the appropriate association)

• one elementary teacher representative • one secondary teacher representative • one CUPE representative

Resource Staff (to be appointed by the Director)

• staff members from the following departments, if possible: Safe and Caring Schools, Equity, Legal, Guidance, Psych. and Social Work, Programs, Special Education

• one principal from each quadrant • one or more superintendents • staff person to provide administrative support for the Committee, preferably from

the Safe Schools department

Note: Where the term one or more is used, the number shall be determined by the Committee

3 Many members of the current workgroup will continue and will fill some of the positions listed for the new advisory committee. Trustee Rutka will clarify at the meeting.




(ii) Mandate

• to discuss matters pertaining to developing issues related to safe and caring schools including policies, procedures, and concerns

• to provide input on these matters to the Board • to support the sharing of information on matters related to safe and caring

schools with the public

(iii) Meeting Schedule: To meet at least three times per year, with additional meetings if required

(c) That Trustee Rutka be appointed to the position of trustee co-chair of the Safe and Caring Schools Advisory Committee;

(d) That the staff responsibility for this advisory committee’s support rest with the superinten-dent in charge of Safe Schools matters;

(e) That funding be provided to supply coverage for union representatives at scheduled meet-ings.

Note: Part (e) will also be considered by the Administration, Finance and Accountability Com-mittee for consideration during the 2009-10 budget process.

Part (a) was amended by Trustee Wong by adding “one or more students, to be appointed by the Student SuperCouncil” to the membership.

Part (c) was added on amendment of Trustee Matlow.

8. Trillium School Information System

On motion of Trustee Crawford (on behalf of Trustee Bolton) the Program and School Services Committee RECOMMENDS that the Trillium school information system be examined for the possibility of developing processes that would assist the staff of small schools.

\

9. Delegations

Oral Delegations

The Committee heard the following oral delegations in accordance with the Board’s procedure for hearing delegations.





Opportunity for Oral or Written Update From Co-chairs of Advisory Committees

• Lise Snelgrove, Co-chair, French as a Second Language Advisory Committee • Ann Fitzpatrick, Community Use of Schools Advisory Committee Member

Inner City Advisory Committee Report, April 2, 2009

• Thuy Ngyuen, Parent, Bala Avenue Public School • Michael Alex Griesz, Guidance Counsellor, City Adult Learning Centre and ICAC Member

Utilization of Program Enhancement Grant

• Heather Ioannou, Alliance for Music Education Ontario • Joyce Phillips Nitsos, Toronto Music Coalition

Written Submissions

The following written submissions were received:

• Heather Ioannou, Alliance for Music Education Ontario • Joyce Phillips Nitsos, Toronto Music Coalition • Thuy Ngyuen, Parent, Bala Avenue Public School

10. List of Pending Staff Reports

On motion of Trustee Rodrigues, a staff report providing a list of pending staff reports was re-ceived.


Cathy Dandy Chair of the Committee

Adopted, as amended, May 27, 2009



Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 4, May 13, 2009 Community Outreach Positions


Community Outreach Positions

As presented to the Program and School Services Committee on May 13, 2009 (see page 506).

Community advisory committee:

Community Use of Schools Advisory Committee

Meeting held on: March 25 2009

Time: From: 6:00 p.m.. To: 8:30 p.m.

Location: 5050 Yonge Street, 3rd Floor Committee Room

Chair: Lorna Weigand

Members present: Marcos Amaral (United Way of Greater Toronto, Community In-vestment Manager), Ann Fitzpatrick (SPACE Coalition; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto), Lesley Johnston (Community Social Plan-ning Council of Toronto), Gerry Lang (Citizens for Lifelong Learn-ing), James Pasternak (TDSB Trustee, Ward 5, York Centre), Lorna Weigand (Middle Childhood Matters). Also present was Trustee Chris Bolton

Members not present: Chris Brillinger (City of Toronto, Community Development), Maria Bernard (Canadian Tamil Youth Development Centre), Trustee Cathy Dandy (Co-Chair), Susan Fletcher (Applegrove Community Complex; SPACE Coalition; Co-Chair of the Committee) Lynn Manning (Girl Guides of Canada – Ontario Council).

The committee decided to make the following recommendations:

1. Community Outreach Coordinators

The Community Use of Schools Advisory Committee:

(a) That the Community Outreach Coordinator positions, as mandated by the Ministry of Edu-cation in February 2008, be hired as follows:

(i) one Community Use of Schools central manager,

(ii) two field coordinators;

(iii) two administrative positions, as supported by the Executive Planning and Priorities Committee, with a portion of the administrative time allocated to support the Com-munity Use of Schools Advisory Committee;




(b) That the additional funds that was not used for Community Outreach Coordinators between September 2008 and April 2009 be used for intensive community use of schools outreach.


(a) That the Community Use of Schools Advisory Committee be given the opportunity to re-view and make recommendations to amend the list of priority schools submitted to the Ministry of Education;

(b) That Community Use of Schools Advisory Committee be given the opportunity to provide feedback on a mid-year evaluation of the priority schools initiative before a staff report is finalized;

(c) That the Director ensure that senior staff share information on new programs announced by the Ministry with appropriate advisory committees in a timely fashion.

2. Staff Resources for Community Use of Schools Advisory Committee

Whereas, the Community Use of Schools Advisory Committee was established by the Board;

Whereas, the terms of reference for the Community Use of Schools Advisory Committee include making recommendations to the Board in order to:

• Increase the accessibility and use of school facilities by community groups • Increase the concurrent use of school facilities by multiple community groups • Increase revenues from the Province of Ontario to support CUS • Improve and streamline the permit application process and reduce barriers to access. • Ensure access and equity considerations re CUS • Consider the work of other initiatives within TDSB as they impact on CUS: e.g. Model

schools project, Focus on Youth program, service integration pilot project, Continuing Education, access to pools, Toronto Land corporation re: community use.

Whereas Community Use of Schools funding now totals approximately $9.8M including funding for Community Outreach Coordinators, the Priority Schools Initiative, Focus on Youth and school-year community use of schools; and

Whereas the CUSAC requires consistent staffing with outreach and community work expertise to fulfill its mandate;


(a) That the Director assign one part-time coordinator to the Community Use of Schools Advi-sory Committee on an ongoing, 12-month basis with appropriate skills to support the terms of reference of the Committee;




(b) That the Director assign the Community Use of Schools manager (when appointed) to at-tend Community Use of Schools Advisory Committee meetings and provide monthly up-dates.



Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 4, May 13, 2009 Report of the Inner City Advisory Committee, April 2, 2009


Report of the Inner City Advisory Committee, April 2, 2009


Referred by the Board, see page 507.

Community Advisory Inner City Advisory Committee Committee:

Meeting held on: Thursday April 2nd, 2009

Time: 6:30 pm – 9:30 pm

Location: 5050 Yonge St., Boardroom

Chair: Trustee Chris Tonks, Co-chair

Members present: Trustee Chris Tonks, Liz Janzen, Nathan Gilbert, Dr. Siva Gulasingam, Mok-ther Hussain, Lesley Johnston, Margaret McIntosh, Trustee Sheila Cary-Meagher, Don Dippo, George Martell, Michael Griesz, Anne Sheppard, Laurie Green, Michael Kerr, Chris Penrose, Cassie Bell

Members not present: Nanci Goldman, Freda Trattner, Joy Reiter, Waveney Job, Susan Yun, Mary-Ann Cheung, Paula Jarrett, Heather Groves, Gorick Ng, Areez Dhalwani, Jillian Julien (Cluster 5), Jerry Xiong (Cluster 6), Frances Hamilton (Cluster 5), Carmin Edwards (Cluster 5), Lula Bestman (Cluster 3), Hitesh Shah (Cluster 2), Rebecca Foster (Cluster 4), Susan Hoenhous (Cluster 4), Lisa Watson, Roberta Bustard

The ICAC decided to make the following recommendations:

1. Budget for the Model Schools for InnerCities Initiative (referred by the Board, see page 507)

Recommendation from the March 4, 2009, Inner City Advisory Committee meeting:

Whereas one in four city of Toronto families is living in poverty (28.8%), and

Whereas Toronto is one of the most expensive cities in which to reside in all of Canada, and

Whereas the rate of poverty in Toronto has been increasing for more than the past decade and at a greater rate than the rest of Canada, and

Whereas poverty rates are likely to increase during the current economic crisis, and

Whereas the Board has previously made it a priority to achieve equity of outcomes in the educa-tion of its neediest students through a number of programs, including, particularly the Model




Schools for Inner Cities initiative which is focused on improving the success of our neediest stu-dents, and

Whereas the Model Schools for Inner Cities initiative has been instrumental in changing the way in which inner city education is delivered in the TDSB, and

Whereas interim research results are reflecting improved growth and achievement over time, as well as important progress in decreasing behavioural (suspension/expulsion/absenteeism) and tardiness issues in the Model Schools, and

Whereas Staff have been able to develop an effective and exciting program to allow the creation of 12 “model” schools at the middle school level, and

Whereas last year the Inner City Advisory Committee (ICAC) supported a consultative process to develop a plan to support unmet needs at the secondary school level, and

Whereas “the strength of the Model Schools for Inner Cities initiative is its ‘bottom up’ focus that centres upon messaging and ownership for change and implementation”*, and

Whereas “at the grassroots level, all key implementers are at the ground level and closest to the target (i.e., students and student learning)...meaning (sic) recommendations for change grow up-ward and as a result change the culture of the institution, making it more reflective of the com-munity it serves”4 ,


(a) That $8.5 million be dedicated in the Board’s budget to maintain the Model Schools for InnerCities Initiative;

(b) That $1.0 million be added to the Model Schools for InnerCities Initiative budget to allow the support of up to 24 model middle schools;

(c) That $2.5 million be added to expand the program to serve up to 30 secondary schools;

(d) That the present Model Schools for InnerCities organizational structure continue un-changed.

ICAC Meeting April 2, 2009

(a) That as the next administrative model (i.e., terms of reference, guiding principles etc.) be developed in consultation with the ICAC and as early as possible

4 Excerpt from the External Review, Executive Summary Report, page 8, Dr. Helen Bochar of “Beyond the Basics Educational Consulting Inc., February 18, 2009




(b) That the people who have built the Model Schools for InnerCities Initiative be substan-tively integrated into the building of this administrative model, including the current steer-ing committee members, and various other groups which have become engaged in this ini-tiative;

(c) That 51 of the 55 teachers removed from the elementary class size cap for inner city schools be redirected to the top 150 elementary Learning Opportunities Index schools for allocation through Family of Schools, superintendents etc.;

(d) Whereas the Inner City Advisory Committee applauds the information stemming from the Learning Opportunities Index review and new policy (including its current investigation to include a variable reflecting race), and

Whereas the true impact of the LOI policy comes from its allocation as directed by the LOI procedure document,

Therefore, it is moved that the ICAC request that the TDSB make public the formulae and the total staff and resources to be allocated according to these documents on a yearly basis

(e) Whereas the Inner City Advisory Committee applauds the TDSB Learning Opportunities Index procedure document for including a research component to evaluate the effective-ness of LOI staff and resource allocations within the board; and

Whereas the research design is not outlined in the procedure document,

Therefore, it is moved that the ICAC request that the TDSB consult with their research de-partment to a) design such a methodology with appropriate statistical rigor as to be able to determine the efficacy of such LOI allocations and b) investigate the use of achievement data beyond EQAO in order to capture a more comprehensive measure of student success

(f) Whereas, the Ministry of Education has publicly stated its commitment to equity and di-versity and is about to release its new provincial "equity framework", and

Whereas, the foundation of equity in public education is inclusion and fairness, and

Whereas, the Ministry of Education's proposed "School Information Finder" would likely prove divisive and encourage exclusion,

Therefore the Inner City Advisory Committee recommends:

(i) That trustees be strongly urged:

• to communicate their strong disagreement to the Ministry of Education with the proposed "School Information Finder" website tool;

• to urge the Ministry of Education to remove the student demographic information completely from the site and replace it with relevant and useful information to




parents (i.e., daycares in schools etc.), in consultation with other school boards, OPSBA, Parent Involvement Committees (PICs), and appropriate equity-seeking groups

(ii) That senior staff pursue a path of appropriate advocacy concerning this issue as quickly as possible.



Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 4, May 13, 2009 Report of the Nutrition Task Force [1419]


Report of the Nutrition Task Force [1419]


In March 2007, the Board approved the establishment of the Nutrition Task Force with the fol-lowing mandate:

(i) to examine the Board’s student nutrition Programs

(ii) to conduct criteria –based surveys and examine existing programs

(iii) to make recommendations on the organization of student nutrition programs

Membership of the NTF included trustees and students as well as parental, community, CUPE and school representation.

In the course of its work, the NTF reviewed the Board’s nutrition programs and cafeteria ser-vices. Further, the NTF conducted an international literature review, surveyed thousands of stu-dents to assess eating habits and food choices on and off school property, and implemented four pilot projects to improve student knowledge about, and access to, healthy food. This work is presented in the Nutrition Task Force Report, April 20095

In addition, the NTF, in consultation with stakeholders, reviewed the Nutrition Foundation Statement and developed a draft Nutrition Policy to guide the Board in the area of student nutri-tion. The proposed policy is contained in the NTF report. This draft policy should be referred to staff for review to ensure that there are no other board policies that need to be aligned and report back to the Board in the Board’s standard format for approval.

As well, the NTF reviewed the impact of removing junk food from middle school cafeterias and learned that this alone was not an effective way of encouraging students to embrace healthy food choices. What they found was that, in many middle and junior high schools, students simply left school property and flocked to local convenience stores to purchase the chips, candy, soft drinks, etc. that could no longer be purchased on school property. In fact, many local stores encouraged students to buy from them by offering low cost specials including patties, chocolate bars and pop.

It is apparent that education and marketing efforts alone cannot be successful in encouraging healthy eating habits, if students leave school property in search of junk food. Therefore, the NTF is recommending that students stay on school property during lunch periods unless there is written permission from parents or guardians. While the motivation behind this recommendation is laudable, the impact of keeping the students on school property, in terms of supervision, cafe-

5 The document will be maintained in Board Services for a limited time.


Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 4, May 13, 2009 Report of the Nutrition Task Force [1419]


teria capacity, and other issues has not been assessed. Therefore staff is recommending further review.

The Nutrition Task Force is recommending that an additional supervisory position be added to the Nutrition Services department to oversee the cafeteria caterers and ensure that contractors meet their respective contract obligations. We are recommending that this be deferred pending the consideration and approval of the cafeteria contracts in June, 2009. This will enable staff to more accurately define what the need and responsibilities of the additional position will be.

Although a great deal of work has been done, the Nutrition Task Force believes that there is more to do. Therefore, it is recommending that the NTF be established as an Advisory Commit-tee of the Board reporting through the Health Committee. The recommendation should be re-ferred to the Planning and Priorities Committee for consideration of the establishment of an Ad-visory Committee including what its mandate and reporting relationship should be.

One Schedule II-4 Nutrition Services Supervisor

$60,000 to be funded through the Nutrition Services budget which is not-for-profit (cost-recovery based).



Program and School Services Committee, Report No. 4, May 13, 2009 Student Census Implementation [1398]


Student Census Implementation [1398]


On 11 February 2009, the Board decided that “the Student Census continue to be delivered at regular intervals, as determined by staff, to provide a richer foundation for impact on the Learn-ing Opportunities Index (LOI).”

The student census and parent survey data contain a range of demographic data that includes fac-tors such as racial background, language, country of origin of student and parent, family struc-ture, parent education and parent income, as well as student and parents perceptions of school life and life outside of school. The systematic linking of this data presented on a school by school basis and the LOI will provide a sound basis for program, resource allocation and policy decisions.

With regard to frequency, the staff recommends that the Student Census and Parent Survey be conducted on five-year cycle. This cycle would permit the time required for research (both in-ternal and external research) to analyze and draw conclusions from the findings, and for staff to implement changes based on findings. This is consistent with the approach taken by Statistics Canada with its census.

Pending approval of this report, staff will undertake the next cycle of this data collection for the entire school continuum, JK- Grade 12, in 2011-12.

Budget to be allocated for the 2011-12 school year.

A Student Census Steering Committee will be established with appropriate representation from relevant departments to plan and implement the Student Census and Parent Survey.



Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 4, May 20, 2009


Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee


A meeting of the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee was convened on Wednesday, May 20, 2009, from 2:08 to 2:25 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Sheila Cary-Meagher chairing.

The following members were present: Trustees Irene Atkinson, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Shaun Chen and Michael Coteau. Regrets were received from Trustee Bruce Davis. Trustees Atkinson and Chen participated by electronic means.


1. Contract Awards [1420]

The Committee considered a staff report (see page 528) presenting contracts for products and/or services used by schools and administrative departments. The Committee received the contracts on Chart 1.

At the Committee meeting, staff advised that two items on Chart 2 were being withdrawn (see attached).



On motion of Trustee Atkinson, the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee RECOMMENDS that the contracts on Chart 2, as attached, be approved.

2. Contract Awards: Summer Approval Process, 2009 [1421]

On motion of Trustee Atkinson, the Committee received a staff report providing information on the contract approval process during the summer period.




Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 4, May 20, 2009


3. Speed Limiters on School Buses [1422]

On motion of Trustee Atkinson, the Committee received a staff report (see page 534) providing information on the use of speed limiters on school buses.

4. Revision of Policy P016, Trustee Expenses: Addition of Eligible Expense

On motion of Trustee Chen, the Committee postponed consideration of the matter pending staff and Ministry of Education response re the appropriateness of trustee gifts to schools being an eligible expense for reimbursement.

Bruce Davis Chair of the Committee




Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 4, May 20, 2009 Contract Awards [1420]


Contract Awards [1420]

As presented to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on May 20, 2009 (see page 526).

In accordance with the Board's policy P.017: Purchasing, the attached charts present con-tracts for receipt or approval, as appropriate.

Contracts related to the Board’s Facility Services function are presented separately to the Operations and Facilities Management Committee.

The recommended suppliers and the term of each contract are shown in the attached charts. Chart 1 outlines contract awards provided for information, Chart 2 outlines con-tracts requiring Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee approval, and Chart 3 outlines contracts requiring Board approval. The amounts shown are based on the estimated annual consumption unless indicated otherwise. Actual amounts depend on the volume of products/services actually used during the term of the contract.

The Process

Purchasing and Distribution Services, where possible, invited bids from a minimum of three firms. Requirements expected to exceed $100,000 were also posted on two elec-tronic bulletin boards (MERX and BiddinGo) to facilitate broader public access.

The lowest cost bid is accepted where quality, functional, safety, environmental and other requirements are met. Every effort is made to include input from the users in the devel-opment of specifications and the evaluation process. Copies of all bids received and de-tailed information regarding all recommended awards are available in the Purchasing and Distribution Services Department.


Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Contract Awards [1420]


Chart 1: Contract Awards Provided for Information (contracts over $50,000 and up to $175,000)



Low Bid Objections

No. of Bids Rec’d




1 Payroll

Pressure Seal System to replace existing worn out system and is beyond repair. Equipment re-quired for payroll stubs, T4 slips, etc.

N/A Moore Wallace Inc. Yes No 3 $56,895 May, 2009

Purchasing, Payroll, and Printing Ser-vices Staff

2 Distribution Cen-tre

Classroom Supplies for Stock JL09-064T

N/A

Baldwin School Supply Supreme Learn-ing Business Sta-tioners

Yes 1 No 6

$69,000 2 $42,082 2 $34,000 2

May, 2009/ April, 2011

Purchasing & DC Staff

Some lower dollar items were disqualified due to quality. Represents an overall savings of approximately 20% compared to previous contract.

Chart 2: Contracts Requiring Board Approval (contracts over $250,000 and Consulting Services over $50,000)



Low Bid

Objec-tions

No. of Bids Rec’d




1 All Schools

Provision of Cafeteria Tables, as and when re-quired, MCS09-110P

N/A Alpha Vico Ltd. Yes No 5 $141,000 3 June, 2009/ May, 2013 N/A

2 IT Services Maintenance and updates of Help Desk Apropos Software

N/A Syntellect Inc. N/A N/A N/A $97,570 U.S. March, 2009/ February, 2012

Enterprise Help Desk and Pur-chasing Staff






Low Bid

Objec-tions

No. of Bids Rec’d




See information below

3 Central Transcript Office

Document Management System for storage and management of TDSB’s Ontario Student Records (OSR). RD09-072P See information below

N/A Entire Imaging Solutions Inc. Yes No 15 $54,000

June 1, 2009/ May 31, 2014

Central Transcript Office, Informa-tion Technology Services, Strategy, Policy & Plan-ning, Purchasing Staff

4 All Schools

Various Classroom Furni-ture, ordered as and when required MCS09-091P

N/A

Alpha Vico Ltd. Alumni Classroom Furniture DSA Furnishings Schoolhouse Prod-ucts Asco Manufactur-ing

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No 8

$188,399 3 $62,330 3 $56,344 3 $97,676 3 $151,613 3

June, 2009/ May, 2013 Purchasing Staff

3n. Represents a 2% increase over current contract pricing

4. Five (5) firms invited to bid; one (1) responded




Maintenance and Updates of Help Desk Apropos Software

In 2001, the Board approved a contract award to eCommerce+ (an LGS business unit) to pro-vide, install, and support a Computer Telephony Integration (CTI) system. The Apropos system integrates the Board’s computers with the telephony system in use at the TDSB Enterprise Help Desk, SIS, SmartFind Teaching and Support, ESHR and Facilities Call Centre to improve pro-ductivity and effectively support all users.

In January 2009, staff became aware that Apropos was purchased by Syntellect Inc. and its main-tenance and support agreement with LGS (an IBM company) was severed. Our current software maintenance provider, LGS, had provided maintenance and support of the Apropos CTI system since 2001.

The agreement with Syntellect will provide software updates, full 24 X 7 support, and additional licenses, if required. The annual cost of support is $97,570 U.S. and represents savings of ap-proximately $58,000 per year compared to the previous agreement with LGS.

Document Management System for Ontario Student Records

Under the Education Act, Ontario Student Records (OSR’s) are to be retained for a period of fifty-five (55) years. Legacy Board practices included physical storage of OSR’s and microfilm-ing.

Since amalgamation, legacy records have been microfilmed with the original OSR’s destroyed upon quality verification. Microfilming, while effective, is a very expensive process and was discontinued in May 2008, pending a review of the document management process. The average annual cost of microfilming over the past five (5) years has been $411,280.

Currently, all OSR’s are physically stored in the basement of 140 Borough Drive. Several To-ronto Fire Service “Notice of Violation” citations have been received by the Central Transcript Office regarding the potential fire hazard of improper storage and retrieval methods.

In November 2008, a committee was formed with representatives from the Central Transcript Office, Information Technology Services, Strategy, Policy & Planning, and Purchasing Distribu-tion Services. The mandate of the committee was to participate in the Request for Proposals process by assisting in: a) preparation of specifications; b) review of bid submissions; c) recom-mendation for award.

Selection Process

Request for Proposals RD09-072P was issued in December 2008, to consider other available document management options. The RFP was advertised on two (2) electronic bulletin boards, MERX and BiddinGo, to facilitate greater market exposure. Responses were received from the following firms:

• Ash Conversions • Data Repro Com Ltd • Entire Imaging Solutions




• FileBank Professional Services • HOV Services/Lason Canada • HTC Global (Canada) • Iron Mountain Canada Corp • MES Hybrid Document Systems • Microimage Technologies Ltd • Octacom Ltd • Perimeter Digital • RecordXPress • Salumatics Inc. • Southport Data Systems • 4 Mode Global Logistics Inc.

Short-Listing of Bidders

Different methods of document management processes were proposed, including physical off-site storage of OSR’s, microfilming, and digital storage and retrieval systems. The evaluating committee considered the financial implications of each and determined that a digital storage and retrieval system would best meet the needs of the Board. The high costs associated with physical document storage and retrieval as well as microfilming services which would require expensive replacement technology to read/print microfilm precluded further consideration of these options.

Based on a thorough review of those firms offering digital document management technology, the number of firms was short-listed to four (4). The short-listed firms were invited to make a presentation to the evaluating committee, and the highest bidder of the grouping received no fur-ther consideration.

Proof of Concept

Site visits of the remaining three (3) short-listed firms included a demonstration of their solution both in test and production environments. Security, proven technical expertise and the ability to perform the services within specified time periods were considered as part of the evaluation.

Entire Imaging Solutions Inc., established in 1968, provided a successful proof of concept of its digital storage and retrieval solution. Their current clients include Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One Networks, Government Services Canada, Region of Peel, and Honeywell Aerospace Canada. Entire Imaging offered the lowest bid among the short-listed firms.

The five (5) year contract period includes digitizing the backlog of 420,000 OSR records, digitiz-ing approximately 37,000 OSR records annually going forward, one-time retrieval software in-cluding maintenance and support, and retrieval services. Total costs are $270,000 for the five (5) year period.

The project will be funded from the operating budget of the Central Transcript Office utilizing funds formerly used for microfilming.






Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Speed Limiters on School Buses [1422]


Speed Limiters on School Buses [1422]

As presented to the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee on May 20, 2009 (see page 527).

At its meeting held on April 22, 2009, the Board decided that the following be referred to staff:

Whereas, in June, 2008 the Government of Ontario passed a bill to cap the speed of most large trucks at 105 kilometres per hour through mandatory speed limiters;

Whereas, speed limiters help to improve road safety as well as decrease maintenance costs and increase fuel efficiency in vehicles;

Whereas, the Toronto District School Board values the safety of its staff and students, in-cluding their transportation to and from school;

Therefore, be it resolved that speed limiter use is mandatory in all school buses used by the Board to cap speeds at 90 kilometres per hour.

Statistical Data

Based upon a survey of the contracted carriers and the TDSB School Bus Fleet, the percentage of travel that would be affected by a speed limit cap of 90 km/hr, would amount to 4% of all student transportation. This is extremely low due to the minimal time on the highway of the buses and the fact that during rush hour many travel less than the speed limit of 100 km/hr. With respect to field trips and outdoor education, 5.6% and 6.7% respectively would be affected.

Safety Issues

The TDSB Transportation Safety Officer reports that the law for truck limiters came after years of consultation and research. Trucks with heavier loads were capped at 105 km/hr. If a cap of 90 km/hr is implemented for school buses, it is 15 km/hr less than the trucks and 10 km/hr less than the 400 series highways that service Toronto. This would put those buses in conflict with larger and faster vehicles on the highways that can only use the two right lanes. Trucks regularly overtaking and passing school buses could cause a danger since it would restrict the bus driver’s ability to keep up with the flow of traffic. In bad weather or poor visibility, the spray or wash from the trucks could affect the handling of the bus on the road.

The Ontario School Bus Association stated that although buses are not included in the current Speed Limiter regulation, it is any bus operator's prerogative to set the governed speed as they see fit. Most operators, who have set the limit, cap it at 105 km/hr so charter buses traveling on a 400 series highway can keep up at a reasonable speed.

Contracted Carriers

First Student Canada’s policy limits their 72-passenger vehicles to a maximum of 105 km/hr. Factory specifications are provided when First Student orders their vehicles. Setting the limit to 105 km/hr enables vehicles to safely keep with the flow of traffic. Any suggested or mandated changes would have to be sanctioned as an entire policy change within First Student Canada.


Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Speed Limiters on School Buses [1422]


Should the Board mandate a cap of 90 km/hr, it would impact First Student’s current practice and it is not part of the contractual agreement with the TDSB. First Student would also need to investigate further the time involved to implement and all added costs should it become feasible; and

Stock vehicles do not have speed limiters and Stock is not currently planning to add them. Lim-iters are not noted in the contract agreement with the TDSB. Adding speed limiters would cost an estimated $500 per vehicle. There are 688 contracted vehicles with Stock for 2008-09 for a total estimated cost of $344,000.

TDSB School Bus Fleet

Currently, the Fleet utilizes speed limiters to cap the speed at 105 km/hr which allows flexibility for the drivers while travelling on highways should they need to take evasive action. Lowering the speed to 90 km/hr could result in our buses becoming a hazard on the highway.

In summary, based on the analysis and finds set out above, staff conclude that speed limiter use not be required for school buses used by the Board that cap speeds at 90 kilometres per hour.



Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Standardizing Permit Fees for Toronto Lands Corporation-Managed Swimming Pools: Revision of Pol-icy P011, Community Use of Board Facilities [1423]


Standardizing Permit Fees for Toronto Lands Corporation-Managed Swimming Pools: Revision of Policy P011, Community Use of Board Facilities [1423]

As presented to the Board on May 27, 2009, (see page 468).

The Aquatic Working Group (AWG) has met with pool permit holders and they agree that utili-zation and revenue would greatly increase with a standard $50.00 / hour facility fee for all TLC-managed pools and to all permit groups. TLC has received numerous expressions of interest to increase pool permitting and believe that the increased revenue will cover the incremental oper-ating costs.

The Pool Permit Fee of $50.00 /hour is proposed across all user groups regardless of pool size.

Charges for caretaking, administration fees and liability insurance as outlined in Appendix 1 would remain.

AWG is actively pursuing permit revenue to fund the incremental pool costs for the 39 TLC pools.

Implementing the $50.00 / hour flat fee is conditional on confirmation through the AWG that all affected stakeholders agree to the blended rate. Some permit holders will realize an increase while others realize a reduction in rate.

Swimming Pool Fee Schedule 2008-09

Community: Youth & Seniors Type Of Facility and Pool Size Code Monday thru

Saturday Sundays/Holidays

Community: Adult

Registered Non-Profit

Pool, S1 $50.00/hr $50.00/hr $50.00/hr $50.00/hr

Pool, S2 $50.00/hr $50.00/hr $50.00/hr $50.00/hr

Pool, S3 $50.00/hr $50.00/hr $50.00/hr $50.00/hr

Pool, S4 $50.00/hr $50.00/hr $50.00/hr $50.00/hr

Caretaking Ser-vices (if applica-ble)

$36.00/hr $48.00/hr $36.00/hr (M-S)

$48.00/hr (S&H)

$36.00/hr

(M-F)

$48.00/hr

(S&H)

Hourly (open time, duration, cleanup and close) if applicable as noted above.


Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Standardizing Permit Fees for Toronto Lands Corporation-Managed Swimming Pools: Revision of Pol-icy P011, Community Use of Board Facilities [1423]


Administration Fee

$21.00 (GST included) per application for permit.

Liability Insur-ance

User Group Insurance (e.g. $172.50 one time *seasonal fee) for groups that do not carry their own liability insurance.

*Season 1 = School Year and Season 2 = Summer S1 = under 6,000 sq. ft. S2 = 6,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. S3 = 10,001 to 14,000 sq. ft.

S4 = over 14,000 sq. ft.

Note: *Charges for caretaking services apply for the use of school pools, as follows:

• Season 1: School Year (September to June): • Caretaking service changes apply weekday morning prior to 7:00 a.m. • No additional caretaking service charges during the evenings 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday • Season 2: Summer (Monday to Friday) – caretaking service charges apply after 5:00 p.m.

Weekends

Seasons 1and 2: Caretaking service charges apply if there is no other permit activity in the building and/or if additional caretaking services are required to facilitate the Pool permit.



Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Standardizing Permit Fees for Toronto Lands Corporation-Managed Swimming Pools: Revision of Policy P011, Community Use of Board Facili-ties [1423]


TLC Pool Cost / Revenue

SCHOOL Pool Area

Ft2 $

Operating Base $6.80 /

SF $

Operating Incr. Cost $5.21/SF

$

Aquatic Staff Allo-

cation $

Total Operat-ing Cost

$

TDSB Permit

Revenue Actual

08-09 $

Operating Cost Net of

TDSB Permit Revenue

$

AWG Permit

Revenue Forecast

$ Allenby Jr PS (Ward 8) 4,883.00 33,204.40 25,440.43 99,668.00 158,312.83 15,055.00 143,257.83 55,800.00AY Jackson SS (Ward 12) 7,597.00 51,659.60 39,580.37 41,865.00 133,104.97 87,118.00 45,986.97 98,275.00Deer Park Jr & Sr PS (Ward 11) 9,017.00 61,315.60 46,978.57 99,668.00 207,962.17 40,109.00 167,853.17 47,450.00

Glenview Sr PS (Ward 8) 20,964.00 142,555.20 109,222.44 99,668.00 351,445.64 63,133.00 288,312.64 56,700.00Harbord CI (Ward 10) 11,690.00 79,492.00 60,904.90 41,865.00 182,261.90 30,812.00 151,449.90 48,000.00Keele Street Jr PS & City Com.Ctr (Ward 7) 15,685.00 106,658.00 81,718.85 99,668.00 288,044.85 4,000.00 284,044.85 35,000.00

Lawrence Park CI (Ward 8) 10,925.00 74,290.00 56,919.25 41,865.00 173,074.25 15,139.00 157,935.25 54,725.00Newtonbrook SS (Ward 12) 7,593.00 51,632.40 39,559.53 41,865.00 133,056.93 97,932.00 35,124.93 95,850.00Northern SS (Ward 11) 5,526.00 37,576.80 28,790.46 41,865.00 108,232.26 4,225.00 104,007.26 19,250.00RH King Academy (Ward 18) 11,530.00 78,404.00 60,071.30 41,865.00 180,340.30 0.00 180,340.30 62,000.00Riverdale CI (Ward 15) 13,543.00 92,092.40 70,559.03 83,555.00 246,206.43 20,063.00 226,143.43 66,400.00Stephen Leacock CI (Ward 20) 14,255.00 96,934.00 74,268.55 41,865.00 213,067.55 1,584.00 211,483.55 20,000.00

Westview Centennial SS (Ward 4) 12,391.00 84,258.80 64,557.11 41,865.00 190,680.91 882.00 189,798.91 20,000.00

Subtotal 990,073.20 758,570.79 817,147.00 2,565,790.99 380,052.00 2,185,738.99 679,450.00





SCHOOL Pool Area

Ft2 $


SF $


$

Aquatic Staff Alloca-

tion $

Total Oper-ating Cost

$

TDSB Permit

Revenue Actual

08-09 $


TDSB Permit Revenue

$ Pools to be Deferred (19) Carleton Village Sr PS (Ward 9)* 11,502.00 78,213.60 59,925.42 99,668.00 237,807.02 0.00 237,807.02

Central Technical School (B) (Ward 10) 13,828.00 94,030.40 72,043.88 41,865.00 207,939.28 0.00 207,939.28

Downsview SS (Ward 5) 6,881.00 46,790.80 35,850.01 41,865.00 124,505.81 0.00 124,505.81Earl Grey Sr PS (Ward 15)* 10,737.00 73,011.60 55,939.77 99,668.00 228,619.37 0.00 228,619.37Fern Avenue Jr & Sr PS (Ward 7) 5,746.00 39,072.80 29,936.66 99,668.00 168,677.46 3,100.00 165,577.46

Forest Hill CI (Ward 11) 15,794.00 107,399.20 82,286.74 41,865.00 231,550.94 12,324.00 219,226.94George Harvey CI (Ward 6) 13,843.00 94,132.40 72,122.03 41,865.00 208,119.43 0.00 208,119.43George S Henry Academy (Ward 17)* 6,613.00 44,968.40 34,453.73 41,865.00 121,287.13 28,525.00 92,762.13

Humberside CI (Ward 7)* 10,530.00 71,604.00 54,861.30 41,865.00 168,330.30 0.00 168,330.30Jarvis CI (Ward 14) 13,243.00 90,052.40 68,996.03 41,865.00 200,913.43 1,843.00 199,070.43Kensington Community School Jr (Ward 10)* 9,216.00 62,668.80 48,015.36 99,668.00 210,352.16 0.00 210,352.16

Malvern CI (Ward 16) 8,874.00 60,343.20 46,233.54 41,865.00 148,441.74 0.00 148,441.74




SCHOOL Pool Area

Ft2 $


SF $


$

Aquatic Staff Alloca-

tion $


$

TDSB Permit

Revenue Actual

08-09 $


TDSB Permit Revenue

$ Monarch Park (Ward 15) 13,767.00 93,615.60 71,726.07 41,865.00 207,206.67 0.00 207,206.67North Toronto CI (Ward 11)* 8,016.00 54,508.80 41,763.36 41,865.00 138,137.16 1,053.00 137,084.16Queen Alexandra Sr PS (Ward 15)* 7,061.00 48,014.80 36,787.81 99,668.00 184,470.61 0.00 184,470.61

Rosedale Heights SS(Ward 14) 17,373.00 118,136.40 90,513.33 41,865.00 250,514.73 0.00 250,514.73

SATEC @ WA Porter CI (Ward 18) 10,181.00 69,230.80 53,043.01 41,865.00 164,138.81 0.00 164,138.81

Western Tech.Com. School (A) (Ward 7) 15,552.00 105,753.60 81,025.92 41,865.00 228,644.52 0.00 228,644.52

Winona McMurrich Jr PS (Ward 11)* 14,641.00 99,558.80 76,279.61 99,668.00 275,506.41 0.00 275,506.41

Subtotal 1,451,106.40 1,111,803.58 1,142,253.00 3,705,162.98 46,845.00 3,658,317.98 Total 2,839,945.00 2,175,899.00 2,310,258.00 7,326,102.00 426,897.00 6,899,205.00 *Identified as probationary pools in the Aquatic Report.






SCHOOL Pool Area

Ft2 $


SF $


$

Aquatic Staff Allo-

cation $


$

TDSB Permit

Revenue Actual

08-09 $

Operating Cost Net of TDSB Permit Reve-

nue $

Pools to be Closed (7) Bickford Centre (Ward 9) 18,477 125,643.60 96,265 99,668 321,577 0 321,576.77Bloor CI (Ward 9) 8,636 58,724.80 44,994 41,865 145,583 0 145,583.36Central Commerce Collegiate (Ward 10) 8,000 54,400.00 41,680 41,865 137,945 0 137,945.00

Danforth Collegiate & Tech Insti. (Ward 15) 4,063 27,628.40 21,168 41,865 90,662 0 90,661.63

Oakwood CI (Ward 9) 8,970 60,996.00 46,734 41,865 149,595 0 149,594.70Parkdale CI (Ward 7) 7,061 48,014.80 36,788 41,865 126,668 0 126,667.61Western Technical (UFA) (B) (Ward 7) 3,435 23,358.00 17,896 41,865 83,119 0 83,119.35

Subtotal 398,765.60 305,525 350,858 1,055,148 0 1,055,148.42


Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Accommodation and Program Review Policy [1424]


Accommodation and Program Review Policy [1424]


The Board’s current policy does not comply with the Pupil Accommodation Review Guidelines of the Ministry of Education.

The Board’s current policies concerning different kinds of decisions affecting pupil accommoda-tion and program changes are found in different documents. Some practices do not have corre-sponding policies.

The new Accommodation and Program Review policy consolidates all information regarding accommodation and program changes in one policy. It provides guidance and sets parameters for processes leading to changes in the configuration or location of schools and programs.

An earlier version of this policy was considered by the Board on April 22, 2009. The Board de-cided to defer decision to allow an opportunity for trustees to provide comment. A briefing note was sent to trustees on May 1, 2009 inviting them to send further suggestions for change. All comments received have been addressed in the current version.

The proposed policy found in Appendix A also reflects changes requested by trustees at the Planning and Priorities meeting on April 16, 2009 and the Board meeting on April 22, 2009.

Accommodation and Program Review Policy

Objective

To provide guidance and to set parameters for processes leading to changes in the location of schools and programs, consolidation of schools, and changes in the configuration of grades and/or programs within specific schools

Definitions

Affected parents and students: In this policy, “affected parents and students” means parents of students under 16 years of age, and students at least 16 years of age and their parents, where stu-dents are enrolled in a program or school that will be affected by a decision concerning configu-ration or location of the program or school.

Alternative school: A school that is unique in pedagogy, form of governance, and staff involve-ment; has strong parental and/or student involvement; and provides an educational experience suited to individual learning styles/preferences and/or needs.

Attendance boundary: The geographical limits that define the area served by a school or a pro-gram.

Facility: A building/site in which a school operates.




Intensive support program: A special education program for students with one or more excep-tionalities, in which students are enrolled for more than half of the instructional program on a school day.

Parents: Includes legal guardians.

School: A body of elementary or secondary students that is organized as a unit for educational purposes by the TDSB, and includes the teachers and other staff members associated with the unit and the lands and premises used in connection with the unit.

Specialized program: A program with a particular curricular focus that has unique admission criteria and specific program requirements. The attendance boundary of specialized programs is the city so that students throughout the city may apply for admission. “Specialized programs” do not include French Immersion or Extended French programs or programs for students with ex-ceptionalities. [Note: a policy to formally define a specialized program (codifying current prac-tice) will be developed and cross-referenced here.]

Policy

1. The Board is committed to providing excellent educational programs in schools that are as accessible as practicable to students intended to be served by the school.

2. To the extent possible, the Board will provide fair and reasonable access to programs, staff, resources, and facilities, taking into consideration student population, program needs, policies established by the Board, the preferences of parents and communities, and available resources.

The Board will make effective and efficient use of facilities to maximize the effective-ness of programs and to ensure that resources are available for programs and supports for students.

4. Whenever the Toronto District School Board considers changes in the location or configuration of programs and schools, staff shall ensure that those who could be most affected have an opportunity to comment on proposed changes.

(a) The opportunity to comment on proposed changes shall be provided to students, parents, staff, and members of the community who could be most affected by changes under consideration.

(b) Public notice shall be provided in advance of decisions to the extent that is neces-sary and practicable. It is recognized that the requirements of staffing allocation and other operational requirements may make it difficult to provide a significant period of notice, or make it impracticable in some instances to provide an opportu-nity for comment in advance of decisions.




5. The processes to provide an opportunity to comment shall differ according to the nature of the changes under consideration.

6. For consideration of decisions concerning consolidation of two or more schools; closure of a school; or relocation of a grade, grades, or program where the change would affect more than 50% of the enrolment of a school, an Accommodation Review Commit-tee shall be established in accordance with section 5.0 of this policy.

7. For consideration of changing the grade configuration of a school6, or the estab-lishment of new schools and new specialized programs, a Program Area Review Team shall be established in accordance with sections 6.0 or 7.0 of this policy.

8. For consideration of changes to attendance boundaries of schools, a public meet-ing shall be held in accordance with section 8.0 of this policy.

9. For consideration of all other decisions affecting the configuration and location of programs, notice shall be given to parents, students, and school councils in accordance with section 9.0 of this policy.

10. Nothing in this policy shall prevent a more extensive engagement of those af-fected by a change in programs or accommodation, where the Director of Education or the Board determines that a more extensive process of engagement is warranted by the circumstances or the potential impact of changes.

11. The Director of Education shall establish operational procedures for Accommodation Review Committees that meet all the requirements of the Pupil Accommodation Review Guidelines of the Ministry of Education and ensure that Accommodation Review Com-mittees follow these operational procedures.

12. The Director of Education shall establish operational procedures for Program Area Review Teams and ensure that Program Area Review Teams follow these procedures. Operational procedures for Program Area Review Teams shall allow for significant flexi-bility in processes and time frames to support effective and efficient development of rec-ommendations.

13. This policy shall not apply to any programs or services operated by external agencies provided in TDSB facilities.

Purpose Of Engagement

1. Effective engagement with those affected by decisions is intended to ensure that the deci-sions of the Director of Education and the Board are fully informed and carefully considered. 6 Excluding changes to grade configurations of French Immersion or Extended French programs and pro-grams for students with exceptionalities.




Effective engagement is also intended to support accountability of staff and the Board, and give confidence to those affected that decisions were made on a sound basis.

2. Staff shall engage students, parents, staff, and members of the community to help ensure that:

(a) The school community has an opportunity to request and contribute information relevant to the decision, and the Board receives information relevant to the decision;

(b) The school community has an opportunity to contribute to the identification of an appro-priate range of options, and the Board has an opportunity to consider an appropriate range of options;

(c) The school community has an opportunity to contribute to the identification of potential impacts of options under consideration, and the Board has an opportunity to consider the potential impact of options under consideration;

(d) Persons affected by decisions have an opportunity to understand the reasons for recom-mendations and decisions.

Accommodation Review Committees

1. An Accommodation Review Committee (ARC) shall be established where changes under consideration include consolidation of two or more schools; closure of a school; or relocation of a grade, grades, or program where the change would affect more than 50% of the enrolment of a school.7

2. The Board shall approve the establishment of an ARC for a group of schools or for a single school.

3. Parents, school council members, staff, and residents within the attendance boundaries8 of schools included in an ARC shall be informed in a timely manner in writing of the Board’s deci-sion to establish an ARC. Information shall be provided through affected schools and other ap-propriate service providers (such as public libraries and childcare providers). The Board’s deci-sion to establish an ARC shall be posted on the Board’s website.

The ARC shall ensure that those most affected by possible decisions have access to information which is being used to develop options and recommendations. Staff shall develop options for consideration of the ARC, and identify at least one option that staff considers to be advisable. The ARC shall ensure that those most affected have opportuni-ties to explore options presented by staff and to propose reasonable alternatives. 7 Some exceptions apply. These exceptions are set out in the Pupil Accommodation Review Guidelines of the Ministry of Education. (This document is attached as Appendix A.) 8 For schools with Citywide boundaries, staff shall determine an appropriate boundary adjacent to the schools within which to provide information.




6. The ARC shall provide information to the school communities of schools included in the ARC in a timely and ongoing manner.

7. The ARC shall provide the Director of Education a report with the ARC’s recommenda-tions, including the reasons and evidence for each recommendation.

8. A member of the ARC may submit a dissenting report if he or she disagrees with the ARC’s recommendations.

9. The Director shall provide the ARC’s report and recommendations to the Board (exactly as provided by the ARC under section 6, including dissenting reports from ARC members if ap-plicable). The Director shall also ensure that the Board has ready access to information provided to the ARC by staff, minutes of the ARC’s meetings, and any material provided to the ARC or to the Board from the public.

10. After receipt of the ARC’s report, a trustee may provide comments to staff concerning the recommendations of an ARC for consideration by staff in the development of their recommenda-tions.

11. Staff shall review the ARC’s recommendations and trustees’ comments and provide recom-mendations to the Director of Education. Staff recommendations may differ from those of the ARC.

12. Staff recommendations shall be provided to the members of the ARC and to the public in accordance with the Board’s procedures.

13. The Director of Education shall provide recommendations to the Board.

14. If a trustee has provided comments to staff concerning the ARC’s recommendations, and if the trustee so requests, staff shall include the trustee’s comments to the Board as part of the re-port with staff recommendations.

1 The ARC, and members of the public who wish to comment on the recommendations of the ARC report and staff recommendations, shall be permitted to make delegations to an appropriate committee of the Board, or (at the Board’s discretion) to the Board through another process de-termined by the Board, before the Board considers the recommendations of the ARC.

16. The Board shall approve decisions concerning matters addressed by an ARC.

17. The Board may make a decision concerning schools under review by an ARC that differs from the ARC’s recommendations or staff recommendations.

18. Current information about the ARC’s meetings, its report and recommendations, and the Board’s decision shall be posted on the Board’s website.




19. A copy of the current guidelines and regulations of the Ministry of Education that govern pu-pil accommodation reviews shall be attached to this policy and be posted on the Board’s website as part of this policy.

Program Area Review Teams For Decisions Requiring Approval Of Board

1. The Director of Education shall approve the establishment of a Program Area Review Team (PART) where changes under consideration include:

(a) Establishment of a new school;

(b) Establishment of a new alternative school;

(c) Establishment of a single-track French Immersion/Extended French school;

(d) Any other program or accommodation change where the Director decides that a PART is required and where the Director determines it is appropriate to seek approval of the Board for decisions arising from on the PART, or

(e) Any other program or accommodation change where the Board decides that a PART is re-quired.

2. The PART shall have opportunity to explore and develop reasonable alternatives.

3. The PART shall ensure that those most affected by possible decisions have access to infor-mation which is being used to develop options and recommendations.

4. Trustees of wards in which schools are affected by decisions set out in section 1 shall be in-vited to participate on the PART.

5. A Superintendent of Education responsible for schools included in the PART shall chair the PART and lead the development of recommendations.

A member of a PART may submit a dissenting report if he or she disagrees with the PART’s recommendations.

7. Trustees of wards in which schools are affected by decisions of a PART shall have an oppor-tunity to comment on draft recommendations before they are provided to the Director for ap-proval. If a trustee has provided comments to staff concerning the PART’s recommendations, and if the trustee so requests, staff shall include the trustee’s comments to the Board as part of the report with staff recommendations.

8. Staff shall review the recommendations made by the PART and provide staff recommen-dations to the Board, after approval of the Director of Education. A dissenting report, if submit-ted, shall be provided to Board with the staff’s recommendations.\




9. The PART, and members of the public who wish to comment on the recommendations of the PART report, shall be permitted to make a delegation to an appropriate committee of the Board before the Board considers recommendations arising from the PART.

10. Approval of the Board is required for decisions arising from a PART that is established under section 1 above.

11. Current information about the PART’s meetings, its report and recommendations, and the Board’s decision shall be posted on the Board’s website.

Program Area Review Teams For Decisions Requiring Approval Of The Director

1. The Director of Education shall establish a Program Area Review Team (PART) where changes under consideration include:

(a) Relocation of a grade or grades9 where the change would affect less than 50% of the en-rolment of a school; or

(b) Establishment of a new specialized program.

2. The Director of Education may require the formation of a PART in other circumstances, where warranted by the scope or potential impact of decisions under consideration.

3. Trustees of wards in which schools are affected by decisions set out in section 1 shall be in ted to participate on the PART.

4. The PART shall have opportunity to explore and develop reasonable alternatives.

5. The PART shall ensure that those most affected by possible decisions have access to in-formation which is being used to develop options and recommendations.

6. A Superintendent of Education responsible for schools included in the PART shall chair the PART and lead the development of recommendations.

7. A member of a PART may submit a dissenting report if he or she disagrees with the PART’s recommendations.

8. Trustees of wards in which schools are affected by decisions of a PART shall have an opportunity to comment on draft recommendations before they are provided to the Director for approval. A trustee’s comments, if provided, shall be provided to the Director with staff recom-mendations.

9 Excluding French Immersion or Extended French programs and programs for students with exception-alities.




9. Staff shall provide recommendations to the Director of Education. A dissenting report, if submitted, shall be provided to the Director of Education with the staff’s recommendations.

10. Current information about the PART’s meetings, its report and recommendations, and the Director’s decision shall be posted on the Board’s central website.

The Director shall provide reports to the Board on a regular basis concerning PARTs established under this section, addressing the status of PARTS that are underway and decisions from PARTs that have been concluded.

If a trustee has provided comments concerning recommendations of a PART under section 7.8, and if the trustee so requests, staff shall include the trustee’s comments as part of a report to Board under section 7.11.

Changes To Attendance Boundaries

1. Staff shall provide public notice and conduct at least one public meeting where changes to a school’s attendance boundaries are under consideration.

(a) The public notice shall be provided to parents, students, and the school councils of the schools that could be affected by the decision. Notice shall be provided through affected schools and other appropriate service providers (such as public libraries and childcare pro-viders). At the discretion of staff, notice may also be provided to residents within the at-tendance boundaries that could be affected by a change. The public notice shall include in-formation about the time and location of a public meeting to address the proposed change.

(b) Notice may be provided in a variety of ways, including but not limited to letters, notices posted in schools or on the schools’ websites. Notice shall also be posted on the Board’s website.

(c) Notice shall be provided in advance of decisions related to changes to attendance bounda-ries to the extent that is practicable. It is recognized that the requirements of staffing allo-cation and other operational requirements may make it difficult to provide a significant pe-riod of notice.

2. Staff shall provide notice to trustees of wards in which affected schools are located of the in-tent to consider changes to attendance boundaries and provide an opportunity to comment on proposed changes in advance of the public meeting. Staff shall invite trustees of wards in which affected schools are located to participate in the public meeting.

3. The public meeting shall provide the relevant information which was used to develop the proposed change, and address the options that were considered. The public meeting shall pro-vide an opportunity for those present to ask questions and suggest alternatives.

4. The trustees of wards in which affected schools are located shall have an opportunity to comment on draft recommendations before they are approved by the Director. If a trustee has




provided comments to staff, and if the trustee so requests, staff shall include the trustee’s com-ments to the Board as part of the report with staff recommendations.

5. Staff shall provide recommendations to the Board following the public meeting and approval of the Director of Education.

6. The Board shall approve a change in an attendance boundary of a school.

Other Decisions

1. The Director may make decisions concerning the location or configuration of programs in specific schools other than those decisions addressed in the above sections of this policy.

2. Decisions referred to in section 1 include but are not limited to:

(a) Relocation of a specialized program or replication of a specialized program in an addi-tional site;

(b) Establishment of a new site or relocation of a site for a French Immersion or Extended French program;10

(c) The attendance boundary of a site for a French Immersion or Extended French program;

(d) Expansion or contraction of classes in a site of a French Immersion or Extended French program;

(e) Establishment, relocation, expansion, or contraction of sites for intensive support programs for students with exceptionalities;

(f) Establishment, relocation, expansion, or contraction of sites for Literacy Enrichment Aca-demic Programs (LEAP), self-contained English as a Second Language classes, Safe and Caring Schools alternative programs, Supervised Alternative Learning for Excused Pupils (SALEP) programs, and programs provided through the Continuing Education and Con-tracted Services departments.

3. Staff shall provide trustees of wards in which schools are affected with timely information regarding the changes under consideration.

4. With respect to decisions referred to in section 2, staff shall provide notice to affected parents, students and school councils.

10 Establishment and relocation of French Immersion and Extended French programs are addressed by the Program Review of Dual Track Schools policy (PR577).




5. Notice may be provided in a variety of ways, including but not limited to letters, notices posted in schools, or notices on the schools’ websites.

6. Notice shall be provided in advance of decisions referred to in section 2 to the extent that is practicable. It is recognized that the requirements of staffing allocation and other operational requirements may make it difficult to provide a significant period of notice.

7. In some instances, due to the requirements of staffing allocation and other operational requirements, it may not be practicable to provide any notice in advance of decisions referred to in section 2.

Delegation Of Authority

The Director of Education may delegate authority to staff to make a decision that he or she is au-thorized to make under this policy.

Summary

1. The following table is a summary of the directions established by this policy, organized by type of decision.

2. This table is provided only to facilitate reference to the policy. If there is any conflict be-tween the table and the sections set out above, the sections above prevail.

Changes under consideration Process to be followed Section number

Affecting elementary or secondary regular day-school programs Consolidation of two or more schools; Closure of a school; or Relocation of a grade, grades, or program where the change would affect more than 50% of the enrolment of a school.

Accommodation Review Committee Comment by affected trus-tee(s) Approval by Board

Section 5

Establishment of a new school; or Establishment of a new alternative school.

Program Area Review Team Comment by affected trus-tee(s) Approval by Board

Section 6





Relocation of a grade or grades where the change would affect less than 50% of the enrolment of a school; or Establishment of a new specialized pro-gram.

Program Area Review Team Comment by affected trus-tee(s) Approval by Director or des-ignate

Section 7

Relocation of a specialized program; or Replication of an existing specialized pro-gram in another site.

Notice to affected parents, students, and school council Comment by affected trus-tee(s) Approval by Director or des-ignate

Section 9

Attendance boundaries of a school. Comment by affected trus-tee(s) Public notice and at least one public meeting Approval by Board

Section 8

Affecting French Immersion and Extended French programs Relocation of a grade, grades, or program where the change would affect more than 50% of the enrolment of a school. Closure of a single track French Immer-sion/Extended French school.


Section 5

Establishment of a single-track French Im-mersion/Extended French school.

Program Area Review Team Comment by affected trus-tee(s) Approval by Board

Section 6





Establishment of a new site for a French Immersion or Extended French program. Relocation of a site for a French Immersion or Extended French program. Attendance boundaries of sites for French Immersion or Extended French programs. Expansion or contraction of classes in a site for a French Immersion or Extended French program.

Notice to affected parents, students, and school council Comment by affected trus-tee(s) Approval by Director or des-ignate

Section 9

Affecting Intensive Support Programs for students with exceptionalities Relocation of a grade, grades, or program where the change would affect more than 50% of the enrolment of a school.


Section 5

Establishment of a new site for an intensive support program. Relocation of site for an intensive support program. Expansion or contraction of the number of classes in a site of an intensive support pro-gram.

Notice to affected parents, students, and school council Information to affected trus-tee(s); comment by affected trustee(s) Approval by Director or des-ignate

Section 9

Affecting all other programs Establishment, relocation, expansion, or contraction of sites for Literacy Enrichment Academic Programs (LEAP), self-contained English as a Second Language classes, Safe and Caring Schools alternative programs, Supervised Alternative Learning for Ex-cused Pupils (SALEP) programs, and pro-grams provided through the Continuing Education and Contracted Services depart-ments. Any other decisions affecting the configura-tion or location of programs and schools not addressed in this policy.

Notice to parents, students, and school council Information to affected trus-tee(s); comment by local trus-tee(s) Approval by Director or des-ignate

Section 9

Specific Directive




The Director is authorized to issue operational procedures to implement this policy.

For the Board’s decision see page 469


Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee, Report No. 5 (Part 1), April 25, 2007 Championship-Level Playing Fields Infrastructure Funding [1432]


Championship-Level Playing Fields Infrastructure Funding [1432]


On Thursday, 21 May 2009, staff confirmed that the Board is eligible to apply for Federal and Provincial infrastructure funding for recreational infrastructure projects.

The Board is eligible to apply for funding for sportsfield upgrades as “a provincial entity that provided municipal-type services to communities” through Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) Program in Ontario and Ontario Recreation (Ontario REC), stimulus programs intended to create jobs and to renew, rehabilitate and modernize recreational infrastructure, thereby en-couraging higher levels of participation in physical activity and community building.

Eligible projects must “be for the rehabilitation or repair of existing infrastructure, including new construction that adds to or replaces existing recreational infrastructure capacity, and be incre-mental (the project would not have occurred as proposed without support from the programs).”

The funding is conditional on:

• An application being filed by May 29, 2009 with a Board resolution approving the submis-sion;

• The projects being 50% spent by March 2010; • The projects being complete by March 31, 2011.

On April 16, 2008, staff provided a briefing note on a Joint Field Strategy proposing a grid of artificial turf Championship Fields to:

• Improve the access and enhance programming opportunities for TDSB students; • Provide suitable facilities to host TDSB District Sport competitions; • Extend the hours of play and provide greater access to a variety of users; • Maximize playing time on turf fields: schools use during the daytime and community use

during evenings and weekends; • Develop a funding model that will facilitate implementation of artificial turfs across the City

for all users, rather than public institutions competing for limited capital resources; • Compliment an inventory of natural fields; • Reduce the long term maintenance cost associated with natural fields.

Four Championship Field sites have been selected to provide equitable distribution of amenity across the Board. They are:

• Lester B. Pearson C.I.; • Monarch Park C.I.; • Newtonbrook S.S.; • West Humber C.I.

Refer to Appendix A for locations and site characteristics.




Staff is also recommending that the funding application include an inflatable dome at Lakeshore C.I. to compliment site upgrades proposed to be funded from a TDSB previously approved part-nership with Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment.

Resources

Lester B. Pearson C.I., Field and Upgraded Track $2.46M Monarch Park C. I., Field and Upgraded Track $2.46M Newtonbrook S.S., Field and Upgraded Track $2.46M West Humber C.I., Field and Upgraded Track $2.46M Lakeshore C. I., Inflatable Dome $2.50M Total; Costs $12.34M

Revenues

Federal RInC Funding (1/3) $4.11 Million Ontario Rec Funding (1/3) $4.11 Million *TDSB Funding (1/3) $4.11 Million

*It is proposed that the TDSB 1/3 portion of the project costs be funded from increased permit revenues. Staff will analyze the viability of generating sufficient increased permit revenue to cover TDSB project costs and ongoing field maintenance & replacement costs. If it is deter-mined that it is not possible to generate the permit revenue to fund the Board’s costs then the ap-plication will be withdrawn.

Staff will apply for funding from RInC and Ontario REC by the submission deadline of May 29, 2009. Upon approval of this report, staff recommends that design consultants be selected from the pre-approved vendor-of-record list. The programs require projects to be complete by March 31, 2011 and that progress reports be submitted every three months until project completion.

Site Characteristics Of Proposed Championship Fields

Lester B. Pearson C.I. Located in NE Quadrant Regulation field with track 2nd smaller field Adequate parking TTC Access Priority neighbourhood Monarch Park C.I. Located in SW Quadrant Currently being touted for Field Hockey centre Adequate parking Access to TTC Permanent Bleachers




Newtonbrook S.S. Located in NE Quadrant Adequate parking TTC access Regulation field with track 2nd field without track Large number of elementary and secondary schools in the area West Humber C.I. Located in NW Quadrant Regulation Field With Track & lights Adequate parking TTC access Close proximity to tennis courts Lakeshore C.I. Located in SW Quadrant Currently negotiations ongoing with MLSE Regulation field and track Close proximity to pool, arena, tennis courts TTC access Adequate parking Championship Field Costing

Quantity Unit Rate Total $ Notes

Excavation Field 2,377 M3 $50 118,872 10" deep Storm Water 1 Allow. $40,000 40,000

Turf Playing field 9360 M2 $92 861,120 Based on mid-range estimate with +15% escalation

New 6-lane latex track over existing 4 lane track 5046 M2 $100 504,600

Based on mid-range cost for latex surface

Long Jump / Pole Vault 50 M2 $115 5,750 Long Jump Sand Pit 22 M2 $35 770 Latex Shot Put Circle 15 M2 $115 1,725 Rubberized Discus Circle 5 M2 $115 575 Rubberized Javelin Runway 120 M2 $115 13,800




Quantity Unit Rate Total $ Notes

Chain Link Fencing 1 Allow. $20,000 20,000 Partial Lighting 1 Allow. $150,000 150,000 Electronic Score Board 1 Allow. $10,000 10,000 Supplier's estimate

Field Accessories 1 Allow. $20,000 20,000 Supplier's estimate 18K

Bleacher 1 Allow. $80,000 80,000 Subtotal 1,668,340 Contractor Mark-up 10% 166,834 Design Contingency 5% 83,417 Construction Contingency 8% 133,467 23% 383,718 Total 2,052,058 GST 2% 32,833 Total 2,084,891 Fees 8% 166,791 Other Soft Costs 10% 208,489 Total Estimated Project Cost 2,460,172





Memorandum re Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee Meeting as a Commit-tee of the Whole Board (Special Meeting) Scheduled on May 20, 2009

As presented to the Board on May 27, 2009 (see page 468).

A meeting of the Administration, Finance and Accountability Committee Meeting as a Commit-tee of the Whole Board (Special Meeting) scheduled on May 20, 2009 (as per Board resolution of April 22, 2009) was not held for want of a quorum.

The following trustees were present at the time quorum was required in order for the meeting to take place: Trustees Bruce Davis (Chair), Irene Atkinson, Chris Bolton, Sheila Cary-Meagher, Shaun Chen, Howard Goodman, John Hastings, Maria Rodrigues, Mari Rutka, Chris Tonks and Soo Wong.

It was intended that the Committee would consider the following matters:

• 2009-10 Budget Shortfall: Review of material prepared by staff • Highlights of Public Consultations and the Detailed Budget Review • Staff’s Recommended Options for Expenditure Reductions and Revenue Generation • Matters Referred by the Board to the 2009-10 Budget Process • Further Budgetary Matters Suggested by Trustees for Staff to Review • Matters Related to the New Fiscal Directions • Next Steps: The Chair and staff are recommending that AFAC meet as a Committee of the

Whole Board on June 17, 2009, to consider the 2009-10 budget.

Informally, the members present heard the following delegations re the 2009-10 budget.

1. Miriam DiGiuseppe and Mary El Milosh, Social Planning Toronto

2. Jean Rajotte, Sally Potter, Mark Jackson, Domenic Bellisimo, on behalf of residents in Wards 7, 9, 10 and 15

3. Tam Goossen, Vice President, Urban Alliance on Race Relations

4. Giselle Burton, Vice-president, Unit C, CUPE, Local 4400 and Glen Amiro, Unit D

5. Laurie Green, Inner City Advisory Committee



Human Resources Committee, Report No. 3, May 6, 2009


Human Resources Committee


A meeting of the Human Resources Committee convened on Wednesday, May 6, 2009, from 6:10 to 8:40 p.m. in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Nadia Bello, Chair, presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Nadia Bello (Chair), Howard Goodman, Steph-nie Payne, Chris Tonks and Sheila Ward. Also present were Trustees Chris Bolton and Scott Harrison. Trustee Goodman participated by electronic means.


1. Resource Position for Earl Haig and Wexford Schools for the Arts and Rose-dale Heights School of the Arts (amended by the Board)

On a motion of Trustee Ward (on behalf of Trustee Harrison), the Human Resources Committee RECOMMENDS:

Whereas, the Board’s arts schools are financially supported and resourced at different levels across the system; both in staffing and funding; and

Whereas, the arts schools deliver similar theatre and music performances as part of their spe-cialty programs;

Therefore, be it resolved that (as amended by the Board, see page 470) three centrally funded resource positions be established, such as a music accompanist or stage technician, for school Earl Haig School for the Arts, Wexford Collegiate School for the Arts, and Rosedale Heights School of the Arts, subject to budget considerations for 2009-10.

2. Process for Promotion of Principals and Vice-principals [1411]

The Committee considered a staff report presenting two options for transferring and placing school principals and vice-principals.







On a motion of Trustee Goodman, the Human Resources Committee RECOMMENDS that the matter be referred back to staff for presentation of a report by the end of September 2009 and that the report be based on thorough consultation with all trustees.

At the Committee meeting, before the motion to refer was adopted, Trustee Tonks moved that Option 1, as presented in the staff report, be approved. Then Trustee Ward moved in amend-ment, that Option 1 be replaced with the following process for the selection of school principals and vice-principals:

1. When a vacancy is declared, the superintendent of education and local trustee convene a meeting with parents to develop a profile outlining the desired qualifications for the school’s principal or vice-principal.

2. The superintendent of education and Human Resources staff develop a short-list of candi-dates based on the profile.

3. The school’s parents appoint one parent to serve on the selection committee.

4. The local trustee and parent have the deciding votes on the selection committee.

3. Delegations

The following delegations were heard in accordance with the Board’s procedure for hearing delegations:

re Process for Promotion of Principals and Vice-principals

• Laurie Green, Parent

re Retraining of Educational Assistants and Bloorview MacMillan School Authority’s Educa-tional Assistants

• John Weatherup, President, CUPE, Local 4400

re Resource Position for Earl Haig and Wexford Schools for the Arts

• John Panjer, Claude Watson Artistic Director and Jan Kish, ACL of the Arts, Earl Haig S.S.

• Andrew Dick, the ACL of Performing Arts at Wexford Collegiate School for the Arts





4. Scented Product Awareness: Maintenance and Construction Measures

On motion of Trustee Goodman, the Committee received the staff report (see page 563) provid-ing measures that Facility Services has instituted to inform schools and parents when mainte-nance and constructions projects are planned that may cause discomfort to people with sensitivi-ties to scented products.

5. Retraining of Educational Assistants

Staff presented an oral report on progress that is being made to achieve partnerships and finan-cial support for retraining of educational assistants. At the present time, the possibility of orga-nizing full-day certification programs in Early Childhood Education and/or Developmental Sup-port Worker are being investigated.

6. Flu Pandemic Response Plan

The Associate Director provided an oral update on the various plans in place and communica-tions that have been sent with regards to the recently well publicized cases of the H1N1 flu virus. Staff are in daily contact with Toronto Public Health. At this time, Health Canada and the TPH are not recommending that a school be closed if a student is identified as having the virus.

The Committee expressed admiration of the job that staff are doing with regards to this important issue.

7. Pending Agenda Items: Six-Month Projection

On motion of Trustee Bello, the Human Resources Committee received a summary of matters that will be presented to the Committee for consideration in the next six-month period.


Nadia Bello Chair of the Committee




Human Resources Committee, Report No. 3, May 6, 2009 Scented Product Awareness: Maintenance and Construction Measures


Scented Product Awareness: Maintenance and Construction Measures

As received by the Human Resources Committee on May 6, 2009 (see page 562).

The Facilities Scented Products Awareness Committee was formed with representation from all unions, Health and Safety, Business Services and Facility Services staff. Committee members have agreed to the following as its mandate:

• identify products used by the caretaking and maintenance staff such as cleaning products, gym floor varnish, paint, carpet, caulking and roofing;

• identify opportunities to purchase products with less volatile material if possible; • study and analyze the cost impact of alternatives; • recommend the use of alternative products and steps to minimize chemical use in schools; • recommend process which leads to decreasing exposure by staff and students.

Action Taken

The Facilities Scented Product Awareness Committee has met several times and performed the following steps.

• identified products used by Caretaking and maintenance staff; • where possible identified the Volatile Organic Compound level for those products being

used; • determined whether alternate products with lower VOC should be considered or available; • recommended that processes should be in place that will lead to decreasing exposure to staff

and students.

Conclusion

• a review of the chemicals that are being used by Caretaking staff revealed that 60% of the products have no added scent or fragrance;

• Facility Services has been reviewing and testing environmentally responsible products that are “Ecologo” approved, which is the Canadian Standard . At present, five Ecologo products are in use and plans for further testing continues for other chemicals and cleaners;

• Business Services considers factors such as: scent free, environmentally responsible, effec-tiveness and cost when tendering for products;

• the number of chemicals that caretaking staff may use has been greatly reduced over the years and Facility Services will continue to replace current products with environmentally re-sponsible products whenever they become available;

• the Material Safety Data Sheet for all products is available on the internal Web site as well as in the binder in the caretaking office area. Product information is available in the product catalogues in the caretaking offices and further questions or requests for information can be directed to the Family Team Leader;

• it was determined that there was no acceptable level of VOC that would work for all staff and students. Some people are more sensitive to odors than others and therefore the solution to this problem is to have a Board approved Protocol;


Human Resources Committee, Report No. 3, May 6, 2009 Scented Product Awareness: Maintenance and Construction Measures


• it was determined that there were three major areas of concern in the use of maintenance and construction products: Paints, Roofing Tar and Adhesives used in flooring products (carpets, Vinyl Composite Tile (VCT) or base boards);

• Facility Services would continue to search for acceptable products with lower VOC levels than those presently being used;

• a communication protocol would be developed for each of the three areas identified (Paint-ing, Roofing and Flooring) to inform the school Principal, Staff and the Community of the planned work;

• the Committee recommended that standard letters be developed to provide sufficient notice to staff and the community to collectively take the appropriate steps to reduce exposure. Ap-pendices A, B, C, D, E and F;

• during the planning for these three types of work, Facility Services staff will ensure that odours are contained and adequate ventilation is provided.


Health Committee, Report No. 2, May 20, 2009


Health Committee


A special meeting of the Health Committee was convened on Wednesday, May 20, 2009, from 3:38 to 4:15 p.m., in Committee Room A, 5050 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, with Soo Wong presiding.

The following members were present: Trustees Nadia Bello, Chris Bolton, Shaun Chen and Soo Wong. Also present were Trustees Irene Atkinson, Gerri Gershon, Maria Rodrigues and Chris Tonks. Trustee Bello participated by electronic means.


1. Health Effects of Diesel Fuel and Noise Pollution (amended by the Board)

At the Committee meeting, staff distributed information related to the matter (see page 568).

On motion of Trustee Chen, amended by Trustee Bolton, the Health Committee received a report from staff (see attached) on actions taken to understand the anticipated impact of the proposed Metrolinx rail service and RECOMMENDS:

Whereas, the Metrolinx proposed GO Transit and Airport Rail Link Expansion has resulted in community concerns over noise pollution from pile-driving beyond acceptable levels, and is an-ticipated to create a five- to ten-fold increase in diesel train traffic along the rail corridor from 46 trains per day up to almost 500 trains per day upon completion of the Rail Link; and

Whereas, grave concern has been expressed about the negative environmental and health impact on the 18, 000 plus students from JK to Grade 12 in the 52 TDSB schools, and between 5,000 and 10,000 students in the 24 Toronto Catholic District School Board schools, all of whom will be within the pollution footprint of the rail corridor that is 1.2 kilometers on each side of the rail corridor; and

Whereas, the Metrolinx proposed GO Transit and Airport Rail Link Expansion will impact stu-dents and residents in at least 12 municipal wards in the City of Toronto; and

Whereas, the Supreme Court of Canada has provided case law for municipalities to protect citi-zens from detrimental health issues; and negative health effects on the community, including respiratory and hearing, could result if the project were to continue; and

Whereas, the detrimental effects of noise and environmental pollution could be mitigated by us-ing a different method of pile-driving and electrifying the trains;






(a) That the Chair write a letter to the Premier of Ontario expressing concern about the poten-tial impact of the Metrolinx proposed GO Transit and Airport Rail Link expansion on stu-dents in Toronto and request information on the steps that are planned to be taken by the provincial government to a) assess the environmental impact of the proposed rail line and b) measures that will be taken to mitigate the impact of the resulting high-level construc-tion and frequent diesel locomotive noise and diminished air quality as a resulting from use of diesel engines

(b) That copies be sent to the Minister of Education, the Minister of Health and Long-term Care, Health Promotion, Child and Youth Services, Ontario’s Child Advocate, the Cana-dian Hearing Society, the Toronto Catholic District School Board, and the Mayor of the City of Toronto.

(c) That the Chair, on behalf of the Board, send a communication to GO Transit to request a meeting before the end of June 2009, to discuss:

(i) electrification of the Georgetown South Service Expansion and the Pearson-Union Rail Link;

(ii) reduction of noise during the construction process and the negative effects of noise on the school community;

(iii) the increased number of diesel trains traveling along the northwest part of the city, which will significantly affect the respiratory health and hearing of students.

(d) That the Chair, on behalf of the Board, send a communication before the end of June 2009, to the Medical Officer of Health inquiring if the Officer has assessed potential negative health effects on children as a result of the railway drilling and associated sequelae for af-fected neighbourhood schools and request that the Medical Officer of Health include this concern in the upcoming health report, “Health Impacts of Union-Pearson Rail Link”;

(e) That the Chair, on behalf of the Board, send a communication to the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion and the Public Health Agency of Ontario before the end of June 2009, inquiring if the Agency has assessed the potential negative health effects on children as a result of the railway drilling and associated sequelae for affected neighbourhood schools.

Note: The matter as shown above varies somewhat from the Committee’s recommendation and was moved and amended by the Board (see page 471).






Soo Wong Chair of the Committee





Health Committee, Report No. 2, May 20, 2009 Health Effects of Diesel Fuel and Noise Pollution


Health Effects of Diesel Fuel and Noise Pollution

As presented to the Health Committee on May 20, 2009 (see page 565).

Impacts of Proposed New Metrolinx Service

The purpose of this briefing note is to inform trustees of actions taken to date to understand what impacts may be anticipated from proposed new Metrolinx rail service between Union Station and LB Pearson Airport.

Background Information

In September, 2005, staff responded to GO Transit’s Environmental Assessment (EA) applica-tion for an expansion of the Georgetown line by engaging an Environment Consultant. The Con-sultant was tasked to determine potential impacts of the proposed increases in passenger rail traf-fic could have on local schools. For context, staff reviewed the proximity of all schools near railway corridors across the City.

Two schools closest to the rail line were analysed by the Consultant. HJ Alexander CS, and CR Marchant MS, in Ward 6, are located approximately 100 metres from the rail corridor, not im-mediately adjacent the rail line. CR Marchant is buffered by industrial uses and HJ Alexander by a TCDSB School abutting the rail line. The consultant determined that exterior noise levels measured 3 metres from the buildings exceeded Ministry approved criteria of 55 dB by 9.3%. They advised that physical noise control measures may be required for the outdoor locations. In-door noise levels were not measured, but are considered in the model. It is anticipated that indoor noise levels will comply with Ministry approved criteria, but it is recommended that actual meas-ures be taken, once actual operating levels have been reached. Neither emissions nor construc-tion impacts were considered in the 2005 study.

In November 2008, Metrolinx adopted The Big Move, a regional Transportation Plan for Greater Toronto. A new Union–Pearson Rail Link will operate on tracks that have thus far served the Georgetown Go Train line. This service will have the effect of increasing the traffic on the line as well as introduce new tracks, building or rebuilding bridges and underpasses. The project’s environmental impact will be assessed under Ontario’s Transit Project Assessment Process (Regulation 231/08 under the Environmental Assessment Act). On April 14, 2009, Metrolinx published a draft Environmental Project Report.

Metrolinx has begun construction of grade separations in the Davenport/Lansdowne area (known as the West Diamond). Noise levels caused by construction methods including pile driving, has led to considerable public controversy in this neighbourhood. However, local schools, including Carleton Village J&S PS, Lucy McCormick Sr PS and Indian Road Cres JPS have confirmed that noise levels are not interfering with their programming.


Health Committee, Report No. 2, May 20, 2009 Health Effects of Diesel Fuel and Noise Pollution


Implications

Staff have determined that a number of schools will experience varying degrees of impact from this new service, and that CR Marchant M.S. and H.J. Alexander C.S., both in Ward 6, may be affected to the degree that mitigating measures will be required. In order to fully understand the impacts on these schools, the following activities will be required:

• Field sampling of existing air quality conditions; • Generation of computer models for the impact of increased diesel train traffic at the site and

in the school.

Next Steps

An EA report will be circulated to the TDSB for review and comments 120 days after com-mencement of the EA, April 2nd, 2009. Under the Regulations, Metrolinx must consult with pub-lic agencies and stakeholders. Metrolinx has demonstrated a willingness to consult with TDSB throughout the process. They have expressed a desire to complete consultation by the end of June for inclusion in the Environmental Assessment Report. Staff will coordinate an internal review and consult with schools before consolidating comments. Formal submissions must be received by the end of August, 2009, and may the form of requested conditions, approval or request for additional information or study.

Staff will seek mitigation measures, including associated costs from the proponent for noise im-pacts at HJ Alexander CS and CR Marchand. Staff recommend engaging an environmental con-sulting firm to establish anticipated emissions impacts. Due to the complexity of work, it is rec-ommended that proposals be requested from several qualified firms. It is anticipated that a con-sultant will be selected by June 1, 2009 and the report received by the end of June, 2009.




Blank Page

Documents

Minutes (yy-mm-dd) 09-05-27€¦ · 91. Committee of the Whole (Private), Report No. 8 (Part A), May 27, 2009 (see page 476) Trustee Atkinson, seconded by Trustee Bolton, moved: That