Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP - Oakville planning/omb-da-153007-ws... · Witness...
Transcript of Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP - Oakville planning/omb-da-153007-ws... · Witness...
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher,
MCIP, RPP PL141318
Bronte Green
Prepared for:
Bronte Green Inc.
Prepared by:
Altus Group Economic Consulting 33 Yonge Street Toronto Ontario M5E 1G4
Phone: (416) 641‐9500 Fax: (416) 641‐9501
altusgroup.com
August 27, 2015
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
1.1 Qualifications ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Retainer .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.4 Agreed Statement of Facts ................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Summary of Opinion ............................................................................................................ 3
1.6 Documents to be Referred to in Evidence ......................................................................... 3
2 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY CONTEXT ............................................. 6
2.1 Education Act ........................................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Education Development Charge Regulation O.Reg 20/98 ............................................... 7
2.3 Planning Act .......................................................................................................................... 8
2.4 Provincial Policy Statement ................................................................................................. 9
2.5 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ..............................................................10
3 ANALYSIS OF NEED FOR SCHOOL SITE ........................................ 12
3.1 Estimated Pupil Generation by Bronte Green ..................................................................12
3.2 Capacity at Other Nearby Public Elementary Schools ....................................................13
3.3 Ministry of Education Approach to School Funding ......................................................18
3.4 Eligibility and Cost of Bussing Students to Nearby Schools ..........................................21
3.5 Practice of HDSB – Accommodating in Existing Facilities .............................................25
3.6 Development Potential of Other Lands in North West Oakville ...................................26
4 OPINION ................................................................................................... 29
5 CURRICULUM VITAE ............................................................................ 33
APPENDIX A ‐ AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
APPENDIX B ‐ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF EXPERT’S DUTY
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 QUALIFICATIONS
a) I am an urban planner and economist, and a Director at Altus Group
Economic Consulting, which is a division of Altus Group Limited. Altus
Group Economic Consulting provides advice and information to public
and private sector clients across Canada. I have been with the firm since
2007.
b) I hold a Bachelor of Arts (Honours Economics) from Wilfrid Laurier
University, and a Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning from Ryerson
University.
c) I am a full member (MCIP, RPP) of the Ontario Professional Planners
Institute and Canadian Institute of Planners.
d) I have substantial experience in the fields of education planning,
municipal finance, economics and land use planning matters.
e) I have previously been qualified to provide expert witness testimony
before the Ontario Municipal Board.
f) A copy of my curriculum vitae and examples of relevant experience are
attached to this witness statement (section 5).
1.2 RETAINER
a) Altus Group was retained by Bronte Green Inc. on October 28th, 2014 to
undertake a review of the need for a school site on the Bronte Green
lands.
1.3 BACKGROUND
1.3.1 Subject Lands
a) The subject site is located southeast of the corner of Bronte Road and
Upper Middle Road West in the Town of Oakville. The subject site has
most recently been used for the Saw‐Whet Golf Course. Figure 1 shows
the location of the subject site.
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 2
Location of Subject Site
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Google Maps
Subject Site
b) The development proposed by Bronte Green Inc. is a mixed‐use project
containing a variety of residential unit types, a mixed‐use block, and
parks. Based on the Draft Plan by SGL Planning & Design Inc., dated
April 14, 2015 (based on an assumed 100 units in the high‐density
blocks), the residential component of the development would contain 860
units:
i) 531 single‐detached units;
ii) 229 townhouse units; and
iii) 100 apartment / high‐density units (based on the size and assumed
density on the two “Main Street 1” mixed‐use blocks).
1.4 AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
a) I met with Jack Ammendolia from Watson & Associates and Laureen
Choi from Halton District School Board on July 9, 2015
b) We prepared a Statement of Agreed Facts, which was finalized on August
14, 2015. The Agreed Statement of Facts is shown in Appendix A to my
witness statement.
Figure 1
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 3
1.5 SUMMARY OF OPINION
Issue #62 Is there adequate provision for a school site(s)?
Issue #63a) Is it good planning, and would it comply with Sections 1.1, 2,
3(5) and 51 of the Planning Act, to approve the development applications
without provision for an elementary school site within the subject lands?
Issue #63b) Assuming a school site is required, where in the plan of
subdivision should it be located, and what size and configuration should it
be to ensure that it is adequate?
a) The above issues are with respect to the provision of a public elementary
school site only. The Halton Catholic District School Board has not
identified a need for a school site, and there is no need for a Secondary
school site for either the Public or Catholic Boards.
b) In my opinion, there is adequate provision for a public elementary school
site, and school facilities, elsewhere in nearby public elementary schools
that are projected to be under capacity in the near future. Therefore, the
development application should be approved without the provision for a
public elementary school site on the subject lands. There is sufficient
capacity available in other nearby schools in the North West Oakville
area to accommodate the pupils generated by development of the Bronte
Green lands.
c) It is agreed (and in the Agreed Statement of Facts) that pupils generated
by the development on the Bronte Green lands could be bussed to
schools in the surrounding area to utilize available capacity.
d) Transporting students to nearby schools with available capacity is a more
efficient use of public resources and existing community infrastructure
than opening a new school that may end up being underutilized.
e) Both the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe emphasize the need to take capacity of existing
infrastructure into account and ensure the optimal use of these assets
before giving consideration to constructing new facilities.
1.6 DOCUMENTS TO BE REFERRED TO IN EVIDENCE
a) Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, as amended;
b) Education Development Charges O. Reg. 20/98;
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 4
c) Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended;
d) Provincial Policy Statement, 2014;
e) Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006), June 2013 Office
Consolidation;
f) Town of Oakville Official Plan (2009), February 23, 2015 Office
Consolidation
g) Town of Oakville, “Town of Oakville 2011 and 2006 Census Population
by Planning Communities and Growth Areas”;
h) Halton District School Board, “Elementary Boundary Review ERA 114
and ERA 115 (NW Oakville)”, February 29, 2012;
i) Memo from Gabriel F. Sékaly, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ministry of
Education, to Directors of Education, “Request for Capital Priorities”,
March 29, 2012;
j) Halton District School Board, April 4, 2012 Meeting Minutes;
k) Watson & Associates, Town of Oakville Development Charges Background
Study, February 15, 2013;
l) Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., Halton District School Board and
Halton Catholic District School Board, Education Development Charges
Background Study, April 30, 2013;
m) Halton Student Transportation Services, Operating Procedure HS‐1‐003 –
Eligibility Factors, September 2013;
n) Halton District School Board, “2014 / 2015 Operating & Capital Budget”,
June 2014;
o) Deloitte LLP, “Ministry of Education Effectiveness & Efficiency Follow‐
up Review: Halton Student Transportation Services”, July 2014;
p) Halton Student Transportation Services, Operating Procedure HS‐1‐002 –
Transportation Eligibility, September 2014;
q) Town of Oakville, Press Release – “Kevin Flynn, Mayor Rob Burton and
Council continue to protect greenspace in Oakville”, September 3, 2014;
r) Halton Student Transportation Services, Operating Procedure HS‐3‐001 –
Service Parameters, January 2015;
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 5
s) Halton District School Board, “Long Term Accommodation Plan –
2014/2015”, April 7, 2015;
t) SGL Planning & Design Inc., Draft Plan of Subdivision, Bronte Green,
April 14, 2015;
u) Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., “Halton District School Board
Consideration of an Education Development Charge Amendment
Background Report”, May 6, 2015;
v) Memo from Gabriel F. Sékaly, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ministry of
Education, to Directors of Education, “Request for 2015 Capital Priorities
Business Cases”, May 26, 2015;
w) Altus Group Ltd., “Construction Cost Guide”, 2015; and
x) Ontario Ministry of Education, “SFIS & Business Case Manual 2015
Capital Priorities”.
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 6
2 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY CONTEXT
2.1 EDUCATION ACT
a) Section 257.54 (1) of the Education Act says that school boards may
impose education development charges (EDCs) on development so as to
collect funds to be able to acquire school sites:
If there is residential development in the area of jurisdiction of a board that would increase education land costs, the board may pass by-laws for the imposition of education development charges against land in its area of jurisdiction undergoing residential or non-residential development.
b) EDCs are solely to be used for land acquisition costs (purchasing a school
site, preparing the site for development, etc.). EDCs are not to be used for
funding the construction of a new school building – the funding of which
is provided by the Ministry of Education through requests made by
school boards. Sections 257.53 (2), (3) and (4) of the Education Act clarifies
what can be included and what shall be excluded from education land
costs recovered through EDCs:
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the following are education land costs for the purposes of this Division if they are incurred or proposed to be incurred by a board:
1. Costs to acquire land or an interest in land, including a leasehold interest, to be used by the board to provide pupil accommodation.
2. Costs to provide services to the land or otherwise prepare the site so that a building or buildings may be built on the land to provide pupil accommodation.
3. Costs to prepare and distribute education development charge background studies as required under this Division.
4. Interest on money borrowed to pay for costs described in paragraphs 1 and 2.
5. Costs to undertake studies in connection with an acquisition referred to in paragraph 1.
(3) The following are not education land costs:
1. Costs of any building to be used to provide pupil accommodation.
2. Costs that are prescribed in the regulations as costs that are not education land costs.
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 7
(4) Only the capital component of costs to lease land or to acquire a leasehold interest is an education land cost.
c) Therefore, the funding of the acquisition of a school site is the
responsibility of School Boards. Funding the construction of school
buildings is the responsibility of the Province.
2.2 EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGE REGULATION O.REG 20/98
a) According to section 7 of the Education Act Regulation O. Reg. 20/98, the
calculation of an education development charge is to follow several key
steps:
7. Before an education development charge by-law is passed, the board shall do the following for the purposes of determining the education development charges:
1. The board shall estimate the number of new dwelling units in the area in which the charges are to be imposed for each of the 15 years immediately following the day the board intends to have the by-law come into force. The board’s estimate shall include only new dwelling units in respect of which education development charges may be imposed.
2. The board shall identify different types of new dwelling units and estimate, for each type, the average number of new elementary school pupils … generated by each new dwelling unit who will attend schools of the board.
3. For each of the 15 years referred to in paragraph 1, the board shall estimate the total number of new elementary school pupils … using the estimated number of new dwelling units and the estimated average number of new pupils generated by each new dwelling unit subject to the following adjustments,
i. the board shall reduce the number of new elementary school pupils by the number of existing elementary school pupil places that, in the opinion of the board, could reasonably be used to accommodate those new pupils, …
b) Based on the above, the EDC calculation can be boiled down to three key
steps for the purposes of determining the need for new pupil places and
the corresponding new school site:
i) First, the number of new dwelling units in the area over a 15‐year
horizon is estimated.
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 8
ii) Second, the number of new pupils (generated from the above 15‐
year forecast of units) who will attend schools of the Board is
estimated.
iii) Thirdly, the number of new pupil places required, only after using
places that can reasonably be used to accommodate new pupils
generated by development, is calculated.
c) The methodology in the HDSB’s 2013 Education Development Charges
Background Study is consistent with the above approach. In my opinion,
the same approach should be used in determining the need for a new
elementary school site on the Bronte Green lands.
2.3 PLANNING ACT
a) Section 1.1 of the Planning Act sets out the purposes of the Act:
1.1 The purposes of this Act are,
(a) to promote sustainable economic development in a healthy natural environment within the policy and by the means provided under this Act;
(b) to provide for a land use planning system led by provincial policy;
(c) to integrate matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions;
(d) to provide for planning processes that are fair by making them open, accessible, timely and efficient;
(e) to encourage co-operation and co-ordination among various interests;
(f) to recognize the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils in planning.
b) Section 2 of the Act sets out matters of provincial interest, which includes
the adequate provision of educational facilities, the minimization of
waste and the protection of the financial well‐being of the Province and
its municipalities:
2. The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as,
…
(g) the minimization of waste; …
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 9
(i) the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities; …
(l) the protection of the financial and economic well-being of the Province and its municipalities;
c) Under section 3 of the Planning Act, decisions by municipalities or local
boards must be consistent with provincial policy statements and conform
with provincial plans:
(5) A decision of the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Municipal Board, in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter,
(a) shall be consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection (1) that are in effect on the date of the decision; and
(b) shall conform with the provincial plans that are in effect on that date, or shall not conflict with them, as the case may be.
d) Section 51(24) of the Planning Act details the elements to be considered in
a draft plan of subdivision, which includes:
(24) In considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to, ...
(j) the adequacy of school sites
2.4 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT
a) According to section 1.1.3.2 of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS):
1.1.3.2 Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on:
a) densities and a mix of land uses which:
1. efficiently use land and resources;
2. are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available, and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion;
b) Section 1.6 of the PPS says that public service facilities shall be provided
in a coordinated and cost‐effective manner that is financially viable:
1.6.1 Infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities shall be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost-effective manner that considers impacts from climate change while accommodating projected needs.
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 10
Planning for infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities shall be coordinated and integrated with land use planning so that they are:
a) financially viable over their life cycle, which may be demonstrated through asset management planning; and
b) available to meet current and projected needs.
c) Section 1.6.3 of the PPS says the use of existing infrastructure should be
optimized before consideration is given to developing new
infrastructure:
1.6.3 Before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities:
a) the use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized; and
b) opportunities for adaptive re-use should be considered, wherever feasible.
d) Section 1.7.1 of the PPS states that long‐term economic prosperity should
be supported by optimizing the use of public service facilities (among
other things):
1.7.1 Long-term economic prosperity should be supported by:
…
b) optimizing the long-term availability and use of land, resources, infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities;
e) The PPS defines “Public Service Facilities” as follows:
Public service facilities: means land, buildings and structures for the provision of programs and services provided or subsidized by a government or other body, such as social assistance, recreation, police and fire protection, health and educational programs, and cultural services. Public service facilities do not include infrastructure. (page 47)
2.5 GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE
a) Among the Guiding Principles in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe (Growth Plan, June 2013 Office Consolidation) is:
The vision for the GGH is grounded in the following principles that provide the basis for guiding decisions on how land is developed, resources are managed and public dollars invested:
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 11
Optimize the use of existing and new infrastructure to support growth in a compact, efficient form
b) Section 3.2.1 of the Growth Plan sets out policies regarding the provision
of infrastructure:
1.Infrastructure planning, land use planning, and infrastructure investment will be co-ordinated to implement this Plan. Infrastructure includes but is not limited to transit, transportation corridors, water and wastewater systems, waste management systems, and community infrastructure.
c) The Growth Plan defines “community infrastructure” as follows:
Community infrastructure refers to lands, buildings, and structures that support the quality of life for people and communities by providing public services for health, education, recreation, socio-cultural activities, security and safety, and affordable housing. (page 48)
d) Section 3.2.6 sets out the polices related to the provision of community
infrastructure:
2. Planning for growth will take into account the availability and location of existing and planned community infrastructure so that community infrastructure can be provided efficiently and effectively.
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 12
3 ANALYSIS OF NEED FOR SCHOOL SITE
3.1 ESTIMATED PUPIL GENERATION BY BRONTE GREEN
a) Figure 2 below shows the number of units in the Bronte Green plan by
unit type, and the estimated pupils generated based on pupil yield
factors provided by HDSB in March 2015 and later revised based on the
meeting of experts held on July 9th, as outlined in the Agreed Statement
of Facts.
b) The agreed upon pupil yield factors used in Figure 2 are estimates of the
number of school‐aged children that will attend HDSB elementary
schools, as generated by each unit type on the subject site and
surrounding area over the 15‐year planning forecast horizon.
Estimated HDSB Pupils Generated by Bronte Green
Units Elementary Secondary Elementary Secondary
Unit Type
Tow ns 229 0.2325 0.1148 53 26 Singles 531 0.3050 0.1076 162 57 Apartment/High-Density 100 0.0690 0.0584 7 6
Total 860 222 89
Source:
Pupil Yield Factors Pupils Generated
Pupils / Unit Pupils
Altus Group Economic Consulting based on agreed upon pupil yield factors and Draft Plan of Subdivision
c) When the agreed upon pupil yield factors are applied to the units in the
Bronte Green plan, at build‐out, there would be an estimated pupil
generation of 222 public elementary panel students, and 89 public
secondary panel students.
d) Bronte Green is currently located in the Halton District School Board’s
Elementary Review Area 114 (ERA114). The site is also in close proximity
to the adjacent elementary review area, ERA115.
e) Figure 3 shows the location of the Bronte Green lands and the boundaries
of ERA114 and ERA115.
Figure 2
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 13
Halton District School Board, Elementary Review Areas 114 & 115
Source: Watson & Associates, 2013 EDC Background Study
Captain R. Wilson PS
Emily Carr PS
Palermo PS
ERA114
ERA115Abbey Lane
West Oak
Pilgrim Wood
Heritage Glen
Forest Trail
Bronte Green
3.2 CAPACITY AT OTHER NEARBY PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
3.2.1 North West Oakville Elementary Boundary Review
a) A 2012 HDSB staff report, titled “Elementary Boundary Review ERA114
and ERA115 (NW Oakville)”, dated February 29, 2012 analyzed the
boundaries of schools in North West Oakville to ensure that
accommodation needs are sufficiently addressed in that part of the Town.
According to the staff report, the purpose of the review was to:
…address accommodation pressures at some schools (specifically
Forest Trail PS and Palermo PS) and the under‐utilization of pupil places at other schools (specifically the schools south of Upper Middle Road) to ensure that elementary pupil accommodation needs are
sufficiently addressed for the North‐West Oakville community. (page 1)
b) The report presents a number of recommendations to address the issues
raised during the Board’s Boundary Review process. The recommended
scenario was “Scenario 24”, which saw the boundaries of ERA114 and
ERA115 blended for the purposes of accommodating students in North
West Oakville.
Figure 3
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 14
c) According to the minutes of the HDSB’s April 4, 2012 meeting, the
recommended Scenario 24 was adopted through Motion M12‐0056.
Recommended School Boundaries, North West Oakville Elementary Schools
Source: Halton District School Board, Report Number 12036, February 29, 2012
d) Based on how the adopted program boundaries were drawn, and how
available capacity was used to accommodate students throughout North
West Oakville, it is apparent that the HDSB’s current practice is to utilize
capacity to accommodate students in the surrounding area, where
reasonable.
e) In addition, as per the map shown in Figure 4 above, under the adopted
Scenario 24, the Bronte Green lands are shown as being within the
program boundary for Heritage Glen Public School, which is within the
HDSB’s ERA115.
3.2.2 Long Term Accommodation Plan 2014 / 2015
a) The “Long Term Accommodation Plan – 2014/2015” (LTAP) contains the
most up‐to‐date set of enrolment projections for ERA114 and ERA115
available.
b) The LTAP shows the capacity available to accommodate students at each
school, with both OTG Capacity and Total Capacity shown. The two
measures of capacity can be roughly defined as follows:
Figure 4
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 15
i) OTG (or “On the Ground”) Capacity – the Ministry rated
permanent capacity associated with the classroom space available
at the school.
ii) Total Capacity – includes both OTG Capacity and the capacity
potential available to be provided through maximizing the
permissable usage of portables. The LTAP sets out the maximum
number of portables at each school site – most schools in North
West Oakville would allow for up to 12 portables on site.
3.2.2.1 ERA 114
a) The three elementary schools within ERA114, based on current
enrolment have a combined OTG utilization rate of 109%. However, the
level of OTG capacity utilization is projected to decrease over the 10‐year
horizon of the LTAP to 88% by 2024. Figure 5 summarizes this and other
calculations in this section of my witness statement.
b) By 2024, there would be 1,872 pupils for 2,129 pupil places ‐ meaning
there is room to accommodate 257 new pupils in the permanent capacity
of the schools in ERA114.
c) Once maximum portable capacity is accounted for, in 2024, there will be
a projected 1,872 pupils for 2,957 pupil places. The Total Capacity
utilization rate for ERA114 schools in 2024 will fall from 78% to 63%.
Captain R. Wilson PS Emily Carr PS Palermo PS
Total ERA114
OTG Capacity 668 743 718 2,129 Total Capacity 944 1,019 994 2,957
2014 Enrolment 699 822 800 2,321
as % of OTG Capacity 105% 111% 111% 109%as % of Total Capacity 74% 81% 80% 78%
2024 Projected Enrolment 589 671 612 1,872
as % of OTG Capacity 88% 90% 85% 88%as % of Total Capacity 62% 66% 62% 63%
Source:
Capacity, Current Enrolment and Projected Enrolment, ERA114, Halton District School Board
Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Halton District School Board, 2014/2015 Long Term Accommodation Plan, (April 10, 2015)
Pupil Places
Pupils
Pupils
Percent
Percent
Figure 5
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 16
3.2.2.2 ERA 115
a) After accounting for a recent addition at Heritage Glen PS that will come
online for the 2015/16 school year, the elementary OTG capacity in
ERA115 is 3,340 pupil places.
b) The utilization rate of OTG capacity in ERA115 is projected to fall from
102% to 94% by 2024 at the five elementary schools in ERA115. By 2024,
there will be 187 pupil places of available OTG Capacity in ERA115, or
3,153 pupils for 3,340 pupil places.
c) Once maximum portable capacity is accounted for, in 2024, there will be
a projected 3,153 pupils for 4,536 pupil places. The Total Capacity
utilization rate for ERA114 schools will fall from 75% in 2014 to 70% in
2024.
d) Figure 6 summarizes the current and projected enrolment, for both OTG
and Total Capacity in ERA115 schools.
Abbey Lane PS
Forest Trail PS
Heritage Glen PS
Pilgrim Wood PS
West Oak PS
Total ERA115
OTG Capacity 441 708 780 708 703 3,340 Total Capacity 579 984 872 984 1,117 4,536
2014 Enrolment 354 868 702 613 880 3,417
as % of OTG Capacity 80% 123% 90% 87% 125% 102%as % of Total Capacity 61% 88% 81% 62% 79% 75%
2024 Projected Enrolment 286 762 788 603 714 3,153
as % of OTG Capacity 65% 108% 101% 85% 102% 94%as % of Total Capacity 49% 77% 90% 61% 64% 70%
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Halton District School Board, 2014/2015 Long Term Accommodation Plan, (April 10, 2015)
Capacity, Current Enrolment and Projected Enrolment, ERA115, Halton District School Board
Pupil Places
Pupils
Percent
Pupils
Percent
Figure 6
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 17
3.2.2.3 Combined ERA114 & ERA115
a) In the combined ERA114 and ERA115, or “North West Oakville”, in 2024
there are projected to be 5,025 pupils for 5,469 pupil places of OTG
capacity. This is equal to 92% OTG Capacity utilization, with a combined
444 available pupil places. The Bronte Green development would
generate 222 elementary pupils at build‐out – therefore, pupils generated
by Bronte Green would utilize roughly 50% of the available OTG capacity
in 2024.
b) North West Oakville schools are projected to see a decrease in Total
Capacity utilization from 77% in 2014 to 67% in 2024, when there would
be 5,025 pupils for 7,493 pupil places. This would mean that there would
be 2,468 pupil places of Total Capacity available to accommodate pupils
generated by new development. The 222 pupils generated by Bronte
Green would utilize roughly 9% of the available Total Capacity in 2024.
c) Figure 7 summarizes the capacity, current enrolment and projected
enrolment in the combined North West Oakville area.
ERA114 ERA115Total NW Oakville
OTG Capacity 2,129 3,340 5,469 Total Capacity 2,957 4,536 7,493
2014 Enrolment 2,321 3,417 5,738
as % of OTG Capacity 109% 102% 105%as % of Total Capacity 78% 75% 77%
2024 Projected Enrolment 1,872 3,153 5,025
as % of OTG Capacity 88% 94% 92%as % of Total Capacity 63% 70% 67%
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Halton District School Board, 2014/2015 Long Term Accommodation Plan, (April 10, 2015)
Capacity, Current Enrolment and Projected Enrolment, ERA114 & ERA115, Halton District School Board
Pupil Places
Pupils
Percent
Percent
Pupils
d) Figure 8 is a map that shows the location of the schools in ERA114 and
ERA115 along with associated capacities, current enrolments and
projected enrolments for each.
Figure 7
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 18
Projected Enrolment and Capacity, ERA 114 and ERA 115
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on HDSB Long Term Accommodation Plan –2014/2015
1. Captain R. Wilson
3. Emily Carr
2. Palermo
ERA114
ERA115
6. Abbey Lane
5. West Oak
7. Pilgrim Wood
8. Heritage Glen
4. Forest Trail
Subject Site
2024 Enrolment
2024Capacity (OTG)
2024 Capacity (Total)
2024 Utilization
Rate (OTG)
2024 Utilization
Rate (Total)
1.Captain R. Wilson
589 668 944 88% 62%
2.Palermo 612 718 994 85% 62%
3.Emily Carr
671 743 1,019 90% 60%
4.Forest Trail
762 708 984 108% 77%
5.West Oak
714 703 1,117 102% 64%
6.Abbey Lane
286 441 579 65% 49%
7.Pilgrim Wood
603 708 984 85% 61%
8.Heritage Glen
788 780 872 101% 90%
OTG Capacity vs. 2024 Enrolment Forecast
Below Capacity
Above Capacity
3.3 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION APPROACH TO SCHOOL FUNDING
a) When considering whether it is reasonable and/or efficient for the HDSB
to purchase a new school site, it is useful to review the Ministry of
Education’s criteria for review of funding requests for building new
schools.
3.3.1 May 26, 2015 Memo on Request for 2015 Capital Priorities Business Cases
a) For the HDSB to build a new school, it requires funding from the
Ministry of Education. A business case needs to be made and submitted
to the Ministry.
b) According to a memo from the Assistant Deputy Minister of Education to
Directors of Education, dated May 26, 2015, projects eligible for funding
must meet one or more of the following category descriptions:
1. Accommodation Pressure
Projects to accommodate pupils where enrolment is currently or is projected to persistently exceed capacity at a school or within a group
Figure 8
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 19
of schools, and students are currently housed in non-permanent space (e.g. portables). [emphasis added]
2. School Consolidations
Projects that reduce excess capacity in order to reduce operating and renewal costs and address renewal needs backlogs. …
3. Facility Condition
Projects to replace schools that have high renewal needs relative to the cost of an appropriately sized new facility.
… (page 2)
3.3.2 March 29, 2012 Memo on Requests for Capital Priorities
a) An earlier memo from the Ministry of Education to Directors of
Education regarding Requests for Capital Priorities set out additional
criteria for considering business cases made for Ministry funding of new
school buildings.
b) Under “Accommodation Pressure”, Boards are asked to demonstrate that:
In explaining the capital project, the board should demonstrate:
that there is not sufficient surplus capacity at nearby schools to accommodate the excess enrolment at the school(s), and
that this issue is expected to persist for the next 10 years. (page 1)
c) The memo also contains a section on the “Effective Use of Capital
Investments” and states that the Ministry reviews the availability of
space in neighbouring schools when assessing business cases:
…the Ministry is responsible to all Ontarians for ensuring the effective use of capital investments and capital facilities. As a result, we ask that school boards be mindful of these considerations when determining Capital Priorities and preparing business cases. ...
As part of ongoing practice, the Ministry reviews the availability of space in neighbouring schools when assessing business cases. The Ministry wants to underscore that available space in both panels will be considered. … (pages 3 and 4)
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 20
3.3.3 Business Case Manual – 2015 Capital Priorities
a) The SFIS & Business Case Manual 2015 Capital Priorities (“Capital
Priorities Manual”) details the various inputs required from school
boards for their requests for capital funding for new schools. One of the
inputs to the Ministry’s decision‐making process is the “Closest School
Facilities”. The Capital Priorities Manual clarifies that these are simply
the closest schools by proximity, presumably whether they are inside the
same review area as the proposed capital project or not:
Boards are to have considered the enrolment impacts on facilities in proximity to the project site in the rationale for the proposed project.
The initial list of closest school facilities will not be the exact list of schools that should be included in the analysis of the proposed project. It is simply your board’s closest 9 schools, within a 40km radius, to the SFIS number identified. (page 16)
b) Another input to the Ministry’s decision is both OTG capacity
(permanent capacity) and temporary capacity:
For the selected schools, the board is required to input enrolment, OTG and temporary capacity data for the required year of the proposed project, as well as four and eight years after the required year. (page 18)
c) It is noteworthy that the capacity criteria looks not just at current
enrolment and both permanent and temporary capacity, but also the
projections of each four and eight years after the year the project is
required.
d) It is also important to note that temporary capacity, such as that provided
through portables, is considered by the Ministry in evaluating the
business cases made for new school funding.
3.3.4 Conclusions Regarding Business Case for a School Site on Bronte Green Lands as to
how it relates to Ministry Criteria for Funding
a) Based on the review of the data provided by the HDSB in its 2013 EDC
Study, the North West Oakville Boundary Review and the 2014/15 Long
Term Accommodation Plan, there is not a persistent projection of
overcapacity in either of the North West Oakville review areas
(separately or combined), even with development on the Bronte Green
lands.
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 21
b) The HDSB’s 2014/15 LTAP report noted that both ERA114 and ERA115
will be under OTG capacity starting in 2019 (ERA114 is expected to be
under OTG capacity starting in 2018). To build a new school when most
other schools in the surrounding area are under OTG capacity is not an
efficient use of public resources. Further, projected enrolment is well
below the Total Capacity of schools in North West Oakville – there is
ample room to accommodate students from Bronte Green in existing
schools.
3.4 ELIGIBILITY AND COST OF BUSSING STUDENTS TO NEARBY
SCHOOLS
3.4.1 Costs of Bussing Students vs. Costs of School Site Acquisition and Construction
a) Figure 9 shows a cost analysis, comparing three scenarios for
accommodating pupils generated by the Bronte Green development, as
summarized below:
i) Scenario 1 ‐ where Bronte Green pupils are accommodated in
nearby schools and generate transportation needs to/from those
area schools; and
ii) Scenario 2 ‐ a school site is set aside by Bronte Green, acquired by
the HDSB, with a new school building funded by the Ministry of
Education. This new school is assumed to have a capacity of 450
pupil places. There are two alternatives for accommodation at this
new school:
a. Scenario 2a) ‐ the school is only used by the 207 pupils generated
by Bronte Green (based on the revised 811‐unit plan with a school
block included, as per the Agreed Statement of Facts), none of
whom would require transportation to/from the school. All other
program boundaries in North West Oakville would remain the
same as they currently are, and no pupils from elsewhere in
North West Oakville would be bussed in. The new school on the
Bronte Green lands would therefore only be 46% occupied (207
pupils for 450 pupil places). This means that the only costs would
be land acquisition costs and school construction costs;
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 22
b. Scenario 2b) ‐ the school is used by 207 pupils generated from
Bronte Green and 243 other pupils from surrounding areas that
will be bussed in so as to fully utilize the new school. Therefore,
in addition to land acquisition and school construction costs,
these 243 pupils will also generate transportation costs (assuming
they were not already bussed to their existing school).
1. Cost of Bussing: Bussing Costs for Pupils Generated by Bronte Green to Nearby Schools
Bussing Costs Pupils
Elementary Pupils Generated by Bronte Green 222
Dollars per Pupil
Multiplied by: Annual Transportation Cost per Pupil 543 *
Number of Years
Multiplied by: Planning Forecast Horizon 15
Dollars
Costs for Bussing Students from Bronte Green W 1,809,837
2. Cost of New School: Land Acquisition Costs, School Construction Costs, Bussing Costs for Pupils Nearby to Bronte Green School
Land Acquisition Costs Acres
Land for a 450-pupil School 5.18
Dollars per Acre
Multiplied by: per Acre Land Costs in 2015 HDSB Amendment Report 1,440,000
Dollars
Land Acquisition Costs X 7,459,200
School Construction Costs Square Feet
Building Space for a 450-pupil School 50,000
Dollars per Square Foot
Multiplied by: per square foot Building Costs in 2015 Altus Group Cost Guide 155 - 175 **
Dollars
School Construction Costs Y 8,250,000
Bussing Costs Pupils
Number of Pupils Commuting to Bronte Green School (450 pupils - 207 Bronte Green pupils) 243
Dollars per Pupil
Multiplied by: Annual Transportation Cost per Pupil 543 *
Number of Years
Multiplied by: Planning Forecast Horizon 15
Dollars
Estimated 15-Year Bussing Costs Z 1,981,037
Dollars
Scenario 1 - Total Costs for Bussing Bronte Green Students to Existing Schools W 1,809,837
Scenario 2A - Total Costs for a New School X + Y 15,709,200
Scenario 2B - Total Costs for a New School X + Y + Z 17,690,237
Source:
Cost of Bussing vs. Cost of New School
* Annual Transportation Cost per Pupil is based on Pupil Transportation expense show n in 2014 / 2015 Budget and the number of students w ho w ere provided w ith transportation service according to 2014 Deloitte Report.** Construction Costs for Elementary School in GTA
Altus Group Economic Consulting based on 2015 HDSB EDC Amendment Report, May 2015, HDSB 2014 / 2015 Operating & Capital Budget, June 2014, Deloitte, Ministry of Education Effectiveness & Efficiency Follow -up Review : Halton Student Transportation Services, July 2014
Figure 9
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 23
b) Based on the analysis presented in Figure 9, the costs would be
substantially lower for the HDSB and Province if the pupils generated by
Bronte Green were accommodated in capacity available at nearby
schools:
i) For Scenario 1 – the bussing costs for 222 Public Elementary pupils
generated by the proposed development and requiring bussing
would be approximately $1.8 million over 15 years.1
ii) For Scenario 2 ‐ if a school gets built within the subject site, land
acquisition costs and construction costs for the new school would
be approximately $7.5 million and $8.25 million, respectively. In
addition, there may be variable transportation costs:
a. Scenario 2a) ‐ if the HDSB chooses to not bus students in from
other areas of North West Oakville and leave the school occupied
by only the 207 pupils (at 46% capacity) generated from Bronte
Green, it would not incur any transportation costs. Thus, the total
land and construction costs would amount to $15.7 million.
b. Scenario 2b) ‐ if students from other areas were bussed in to the
new school on the Bronte Green lands, bussing costs for 243
public elementary pupils who would need transportation to
commute to the new school (assuming they did not require
bussing at their original school) would be approximately $1.9
million over 15 years. In total, after including land acquisition
and construction costs, the cost of a new school would amount to
approximately $17.7 million.
3.4.2 Transportation Criteria
a) As per the Agreed Statement of Facts, there are no physical or
geographical impediments that would prevent the Board from providing
transportation to elementary students generated by development on the
Bronte Green lands, provided that they meet the transportation criteria
set out by Halton Transportation Services.
1 The average per student expense for transportation is based on the 2014/15 HDSB Budget, page 29
($15,122,190) and estimates of the number of students that use transportation from the Deloitte
Ministry of Education Effectiveness & Efficiency Follow‐Up Review, page 21 (27,824 pupils);
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 24
b) According to Halton Student Transportation Services (HSTS) Operating
Procedure HS‐1‐002, dated September 2014, which deals with
Transportation Eligibility, the distance requirements are as follows:
In accordance with the respective school board’s Transportation Policies, students may access transportation services if they meet the following minimum distance requirements:
Grades JK-8 – Greater than 1.6km (page 1)
c) For students who live closer than 1.6km, HSTS Operating Procedure HS‐
1‐002 includes “Other Eligibility Criteria” which states that:
Students who reside less than the minimum distance may be transported where deemed appropriate by HSTS as detailed in Operating Procedure HS-1-003 – Eligibility Factors (page 2)
d) According to HSTS Operating Procedure HS‐1‐003, Eligibility Factors,
these other criteria include instances where students may be:
Crossing a multi-lane street with or without signals or crossing guards – students in Grades JK to 8 are not expected to cross a multi-lane road of more than four lanes without the presence of either an adult crossing guard or traffic signals with a pedestrian crossing signal. (page 1)
e) According to HSTS Operating Procedure HS‐3‐001, Service Parameters,
distance measures are based on the shortest distance on public road or
walkways from the student’s property line to the property line of the
designated school.
f) Depending on the exact location of a given housing unit on the Bronte
Green lands, most, if not all, of the existing schools in North West
Oakville would exceed the 1.6km distance requirement, making students
from the Bronte Green lands eligible for transportation to other schools
under the Board’s jurisdiction.
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 25
3.5 PRACTICE OF HDSB – ACCOMMODATING IN EXISTING
FACILITIES
a) In the 2013 Education Development Charges Background Study (“2013
EDC Study”), prepared by Watson & Associates, there are several review
areas across the HDSB jurisdiction where there was either no capacity
available, or insufficient capacity to accommodate pupils generated by
development, but where it was recommended that these pupils be
“Accommodated in Existing Facilities” in Form G of the EDC Study. This
approach was taken in ERA113, ERA119 and ERA123, among other
review areas.
b) For example, in ERA119 (Old Milton):
i) As of the current school year (as of the time of the study – 2012/13)
– there were 2,350 pupils for 2,161 pupil places. Therefore, the
schools in ERA119 were at 109% of capacity.
ii) At the end of the 15‐year EDC forecast period, enrolment in the
existing community was projected to fall to 2,020 pupils, for 2,161
pupil places, leaving 141 pupil places available to accommodate
pupils from new growth.
iii) The EDC Study projected an additional 480 new pupils from
growth, meaning that in 2027/2028, there will be a total of 2,500
pupils for 2,161 pupil places. Therefore, the schools in ERA119 will
be a combined 339 pupils above capacity.
iv) Despite ERA119 being projected to be 339 pupils above capacity,
the EDC Study did not recommend a new school site as being
required. Instead, it recommended that these students be
“accommodated in existing facilities” as shown in Form G of the
EDC Study.
c) Similarly, ERA113 in Oakville had no projected capacity available in
2027/2028 to accommodate 266 pupils generated from new growth. There
was no new school site recommended to accommodate these new pupils
– rather, the new pupils will also be accommodated in existing facilities.
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 26
d) Further, according to the LTAP 2014/15, the HDSB does take into account
both OTG capacity and portable capacity when making decisions about
the need for new schools. When discussing the need for a new, third
Secondary School in Milton, the LTAP discussed the relationship of
enrolment to both OTG capacity and portable capacity:
The utilization rate of all secondary schools in Milton is projected to be 160% by 2024, with the need to accommodate an additional 1334 pupils. The existing building and portable capacity of the two secondary schools in Milton would be unable to accommodate these students, and therefore, the need for a third secondary school in Milton is justified. (page 9)
3.6 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF OTHER LANDS IN NORTH WEST
OAKVILLE
a) The vast majority of North West Oakville (ERA114 & ERA115) is built‐
out. There are several parcels that are thought to have development
potential, but they ultimately will have limited impact on the need for an
additional Public Elementary school in the area:
i) Infrastructure Ontario Lands – the “IO” lands, currently leased in
part to the Town of Oakville and the Deerfield Golf Course, had
previously submitted a planning application for part of their lands.
However, according to a press release from the Town of Oakville
dated September 3, 2014, that planning application has been
withdrawn.
The leases on the Town portions of the property run to 2040 and
the lease for the Deerfield Golf Course runs to 2022. According to
the Press Release, the Ontario Government is encouraging IO to
extend the Deerfield lease beyond 2022. Therefore, the IO lands
have no short‐term development potential and assumptions of the
long‐term development potential on these lands are highly
speculative.
Under such circumstances, it is not typical to include such highly
speculative assumptions in determining school needs. As such, the
Agreed Statement of Facts states that development on the IO lands
is not part of the HDSB’s enrolment projections in the 2014‐2015
Long Term Accommodation Plan.
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 27
ii) Palermo Village – according to the Town of Oakville Official Plan, the
Palermo Village Growth Area is targeted to accommodate 5,200
residents, including existing residents. According to research
prepared by the Town of Oakville2, as of 2011 the population in
Palermo Village was 2,578 persons, leaving room for an additional
population growth of 2,622 persons.
There are currently four development applications in the Palermo
Village Growth Area boundaries, which combine for 1,197 units
(251 medium‐density and 946 high‐density units):
(a) Bronte Community Corp – 2343 Khalsa Gate – 318
apartment units (22 pupils);
(b) Ballantry Homes – 2390 Khalsa Gate – 123 townhouses,
248 apartment units (46 pupils);
(c) New Horizon Development Group – 2480 Old Bronte
Road – 380 apartment units (26 pupils); and
(d) Fox Farm Developments – 2441 Greenwich Drive – 128
townhouse units (30 pupils).
Using the agreed upon pupil yield factors, these 1,197 units, when
built‐out, would generate 124 additional public elementary pupils.
The nearby Palermo PS is forecast to be 106 pupils below OTG
capacity in 2024 (612 pupils for 718 permanent pupil places), so it
appears that the HDSB would be able to accommodate these pupils
in that existing facility, and would not generate the need for an
additional school site in North West Oakville.
Based on average household size factors from the Town of
Oakville’s 2013 Development Charges Background Study, these
1,197 units would generate 2,371 persons, which represents 90% of
the additional population needed to meet the growth targets for
Palermo Village. Therefore, there is unlikely to be additional
significant development over the medium‐ to long‐term in Palermo
Village that would significantly affect the enrolment projections or
the need for additional school sites.
2 Town of Oakville 2011 and 2006 Census Population by Planning Communities and Growth Areas,
Community Planning Commission, Strategic Business Support
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 28
iii) Enns Property – the Enns property is part of a small group of land
parcels in the Merton Planning area located immediately west of
the subject site on the opposite side of Bronte Road. There are
currently no development applications for these sites, with the
exception of the Bronte Green OPA which includes these lands. I
am advised by Ruth Victor, of Ruth Victor & Associates, that the
assumed development potential of the available and vacant parts of
these lands over the long‐term is approximately 14 townhouse
units and 24 single‐detached units. These 38 units would generate
11 pupils based on the agreed upon pupil yield factors. Therefore,
development of these lands is unlikely to have any significant
impact on the need for a new school in North West Oakville.
b) Based on the Town of Oakville’s Active Development Application
website, there are a few other development applications scattered
throughout North West Oakville:
i) An application for 22 townhouse units by Stateview Homes (Ivory
Oak) at 2295‐2307 Khalsa Gate;
ii) An 88‐unit apartment development by Creekbank Development
Ltd. (The Balmoral Condo) at 2300 Upper Middle Road West; and
iii) A 75‐unit townhouse development at 3340 Dundas Street West.
c) Combined, at build‐out, these three developments would add
approximately 29 elementary pupils.
d) Therefore, there does not appear to be any significant developments in
the short‐, medium‐ or long‐term in the area surrounding Bronte Green
that would significantly affect my conclusions that a school is not needed
on the Bronte Green lands, and that available capacity in other schools in
the North West Oakville area could and should be utilized instead.
e) In total, assuming all of the above developments were not already
considered in the HDSB’s enrolment projections, the 386 elementary
pupils combined to be generated over the long‐term by Bronte Green
(222 pupils), Palermo Village (124 pupils), Enns Property (11 parcels) and
Other Developments (29 pupils) will be able to be accommodated within
the 444 OTG capacity pupil places, or the 2,568 Total Capacity pupil
places available in North West Oakville elementary schools.
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 29
4 OPINION
This section of my witness statement provides my opinion on the issues
related to the provision of a school site on the subject lands.
Issue #62 Is there adequate provision for a school site(s)?
a) In my opinion, there is no need for an elementary school site on the
Bronte Green lands (and thereby, no provision of a new school site is
adequate provision), for the following reasons:
i) With development on the prospective school block on the Bronte
Green lands, there would be 222 elementary pupils generated from
development of the 860 housing units.
ii) According to the HDSB’s Long Term Accommodation Plan for
2014/15, by 2024, the schools in North West Oakville are projected
to be operating at 92% of permanent capacity, and there would be
444 pupil places available to accommodate new growth within the
permanent capacity of schools in the North West Oakville Area.
iii) When Total Capacity is considered, the schools in North West
Oakville are projected to be at just 67% capacity in 2024. In this
case, there would be 2,468 available pupil places to accommodate
the 222 pupils generated by Bronte Green.
b) Correspondence from the Ministry of Education has made it clear that
the Ministry will only approve funding for projects where enrolment is
projected to persistently exceed capacity at a school or group of schools
for a period of the next 10 years. As the schools in the North West
Oakville area are projected to be under capacity by the 2019 school year
and out to 2024, there is not a persistent capacity issue at the schools in
the area around Bronte Green. If anything, there is a persistent shortfall
in the usage of schools in North West Oakville over the long term.
c) The Ministry of Education has also stated that in making the business
case for funding for a particular project, Boards should demonstrate that
there is not sufficient surplus capacity at nearby schools. It is clear that
there is surplus capacity at most schools in the surrounding area in the
near future and in the long‐term.
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 30
Issue #63a) Is it good planning, and would it comply with Sections 1.1, 2,
3(5) and 51 of the Planning Act, to approve the development applications
without provision for an elementary school site within the subject lands?
a) In my opinion, approval of the development application without
provision for an elementary school site on the subject lands would
comply with the above quoted sections of the Planning Act, in that:
i) there is an adequate amount of school capacity for prospective
elementary school students generated from Bronte Green elsewhere
in North West Oakville (section 2(i) of Planning Act).
ii) utilizing existing available capacity in surrounding schools, and
avoiding the need for the HDSB to acquire an expensive site, and
for the Ministry of Education to fund the construction of a school
building on the prospective school site, helps protect the financial
and economic well‐being of the Province, and minimizes waste
(section 2(g) and 2(l) of the Planning Act).
iii) approving the development application without a school site
would be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement as per
section 3(5)(a) of the Planning Act, particularly with regard for the
following sections of the PPS:
a. Section 1.1.3.2a).1 which calls for land use patterns and land uses
that efficiently use land and resources;
b. Section 1.6.1, which states that public service facilities, such as
schools, be provided in an efficient and cost‐effective manner,
and that the planning for these facilities be financially viable over
their life cycle;
c. Section 1.6.3 which requires that the use of existing public service
facilities be optimized before consideration be given to
developing new facilities;
d. Section 1.7.1, which ties the long‐term economic prosperity of the
Province to the optimal use of public service facilities, such as
schools.
iv) proceeding without a school site would conform to the Growth Plan
for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (as per section 3(5)(b) of the Planning
Act), in that:
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 31
a. it would be consistent with the one of the Growth Plan’s Guiding
Principles, which calls for the optimal use of existing and new
infrastructure to support efficient growth; and
b. it would take into account and utilize the existing available
community infrastructure as per section 3.2.6 of the Growth Plan.
The building of a school that is not required would not represent
the most efficient use of scarce public resources.
v) Further, the approval of the development application without a
school site would comply with section 51 of the Planning Act,
particularly subsection 24(j), in that there is adequate provision of
school sites and school facilities for students generated by
development on the subject lands given the available capacity in
nearby elementary schools in North West Oakville.
Issue #63b) Assuming a school site is required, where in the plan of
subdivision should it be located, and what size and configuration should it
be to ensure that it is adequate?
a) I am advised by Paul Lowes that the following lots could be the location
of a school site should one be deemed to be required:
i) Lots 61‐64
ii) Lots 109‐141
iii) Lots 314‐325
iv) Section of Street “H”, from Lot 314 in the south to Lot 123 in the
north
b) Combined, the land areas summarized above would have an area of 2.10
hectares / 5.18 acres. Based on Education Development Charges
regulation O.Reg 20/98, this site size would allow the HDSB to build an
elementary school with a capacity of between 401‐500 pupil places.
c) This prospective school site is located adjacent to a Neighbourhood Park
(Block 571) that would be 2.06 hectares / 5.09 acres in size.
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 32
d) The removal of these lots (49 single‐detached lots) would reduce the
pupil generation from the Bronte Green lands from 222 to 207 elementary
pupils (as per the Agreed Statement of Facts). This reduced pupil
generation would only strengthen my opinion that the pupils from
Bronte Green could and should be accommodated elsewhere in the North
West Oakville area.
_________________________________ August 27, 2015
Daryl Keleher Date
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 33
5 CURRICULUM VITAE
DARYL KELEHER, MCIP, RPP, B.A., B.U.R.PL.
Responsibilities
Mr. Keleher is an urban planner with a specialization in land
economics and municipal finance. He is a Director at Altus Group
Economic Consulting (formerly Clayton Research). His areas of
expertise include:
Housing, municipal finance, demographic, economic and socio‐
economic impact analysis;
Development Charge background study and by‐law reviews;
Education Development Charge background study and by‐law
reviews;
Provincial and municipal planning policy analysis;
Fiscal impact studies; and
Residential and employment land need analyses.
He has been with Altus Group Economic Consulting for nearly 8
years, joining in December 2007. Prior to his time at Altus Group, Mr.
Keleher was employed by the Canadian Urban Institute and by AC
Nielsen Canada.
Mr. Keleher has provided expert witness testimony before the
Ontario Municipal Board.
Education
Wilfrid Laurier University – Honours Economics – B.A., 2002
Ryerson University – Urban and Regional Planning – B.U.R.Pl., 2007
Memberships
Full Member of Canadian Institute of Planners and Ontario
Professional Planners Institute (MCIP, RPP)
Member of Association of Ontario Land Economists (PLE)
Member of Ontario Expropriation Association
Member of Building Industry and Land Development Association
Speaking Engagements
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 34
Speaker: Watson & Associates Education Development Charges
Seminar (September 16, 2014) Mississauga ON;
Speaker/Panelist: Ontario Association of Architects, Site Plan
Symposium (October 10, 2013) Toronto ON.
Examples of Experience
a) Mr. Keleher has undertaken numerous reviews of municipal
development charge (DC) and education development charge (EDC)
policies and provided strategic advice to developer and homebuilder
groups across Ontario. He has reviewed education development charge
background studies for clients in Halton, Peel, York, Toronto, Simcoe,
Durham, Hamilton and Niagara.
His clients on DC and EDC reviews have included:
i) BILD (formerly the Greater Toronto Home Builders’ Association
and UDI), including local chapters in Halton, Peel, York, Durham,
the City of Toronto and Simcoe County;
ii) Kingston Home Builders’ Association;
iii) Hamilton‐Halton Home Builders’ Association;
iv) Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association;
v) Niagara Home Builders Association; and
vi) Development companies in the Town of Bradford West
Gwillimbury, the Town of Innisfil, the Township of Springwater,
the Township of Oro‐Medonte, Muskoka District, the City of
Toronto, the City of Kitchener, the Town of Midland, the Town of
Aurora, etc.
b) Mr. Keleher appeared before the Ontario Municipal Board regarding
how the City of Toronto’s development charges by‐law relates to the use
of potential section 37 funds by the City;
c) Mr. Keleher provided testimony to the Ontario Municipal Board related
to a development charges complaint about the treatment of storage
buildings in the City of Kawartha Lakes’ DC by‐law and other municipal
planning documents;
August 27, 2015
Witness Statement of Daryl Keleher, MCIP, RPP Altus Group Economic Consulting
PL141318 Bronte Green Page 35
d) He has prepared numerous fiscal impact studies reviewing the impact of
new developments on both the operating and capital budgets of
municipalities such as Centre Wellington, Erin, and Brant County;
e) Mr. Keleher prepared a report for the City of Vaughan that reviewed
various financial incentives and planning tools available to the City to
help attract office development to the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre, and
to make office development more feasible in the City as a whole;
f) He has undertaken a study for the City of Guelph reviewing the
economic benefits associated with development scenarios of the Baker
Street parking lot in Downtown Guelph;
g) Mr. Keleher prepared a study for BILD reviewing the government
charges and fees on new homes in the Greater Toronto Area;
h) He was retained by the Ontario Association of Architects to review the
costs associated with the site plan process. In particular, he quantified the
cost of delays associated with gaining approval and meeting the
conditions of site plan approval, and estimating the impact of these costs
on developers, homebuyers and end users; and
i) Mr. Keleher worked on an economic implications report for the
redevelopment of the former Globe and Mail site in the City of Toronto,
reviewing the economic benefits associated with the development, and
how it would fulfil a need for new retail and office space in the
Downtown, particularly in the area west of Spadina Avenue.