Date:

January 18, 2016

To:

Committee II - Planning and Facilities

From:

Senior Management Committee Team

Re:

Interim Long Range Facilities Plan

ITEM 1

INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this report is for the Board of Education to approve a Long Range
Facilities Plan (LRFP), including specific directions with respect to the implementation of
the Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP) and capacity utilization of Vancouver Board of
Education (VBE) school facilities.
BACKGROUND:
The VBE and the Ministry of Education (MOE) signed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) in August, 2014 that requires the VBE to:
“Develop and submit to the Province for approval, a long range facilities
plan, with agreed upon levels of projected enrolment growth and location,
ultimately to determine how to achieve 95% capacity utilization through
the SMP and maximize the existing capacity as swing space to complete
the SMP in a manner that is as fiscally sound as possible.”
Preliminary work was undertaken in 2014/2015 and in the fall of 2015, in consultation
with MOE staff, with respect to the preparation of the LRFP. In December 2015, the
Minister of Education requested that the VBE complete its work on the LRFP and
submit a report by January 31, 2016.
The information contained in this report is intended to support the Board in its
discussion with respect to the LRFP and the consultation with stakeholders in January.
The timeline for submission of a LRFP to the Ministry does not permit public
consultation prior to submission of the plan. Accordingly, the Board intends to
undertake public consultation on the LRFP from February to June in accordance with
the Terms of Reference approved by the Board on January 11, 2016. An updated Long
Range Facilities Plan will be submitted to the Ministry by June 30, 2016.

Prepared by: Senior Management Committee Team
File: P:\COMMITTEE II\Reports\2016 Reports\2016-01-20-Jan. 20\Item 1 - Interim Long Range Facilities Plan.docx

1

 The following provides a summary of the background information presented in the
Report:
















Over the last 20 years, Vancouver’s population has been growing while VBE’s
enrolment has been declining;
Vancouver’s population is aging and, in general, families are having fewer
children;
The high cost of housing has resulted in smaller housing forms (e.g. apartments
versus single-detached housing);
The decline in enrolment is anticipated to ease and enrolment is projected to
increase slightly by 550 students (1%) over the next 15 years;
The MOE has established a capacity utilization target rate of 95% for large
school districts in order to support capital expenditure requests for seismic
mitigation and new schools;
The majority of large school districts in the province meet or exceed the 95%
capacity utilization target;
VBE currently utilizes 84.6% of its district-wide classroom operating capacity for
enrolling students, including international students;
The VBE has completed seismic mitigation on 20 schools since the inception of
the SMP;
A further 69 schools are at high risk and require seismic mitigation;
Of the 69 schools, 5 are currently under construction, 24 have been approved for
feasibility planning and 40 have not yet been supported by the Ministry of
Education;
The average age of VBE schools is 73 years with 50 schools being more than 80
years old;
The estimated cost of deferred maintenance for VBE schools exceeds $700
million;
The VBE spends $62.5 million each year on building operations and
maintenance costs (12.6% of VBE’s total budget);
If a school was closed or repurposed, on average the VBE would save annual
operating costs of $249,000 for an annex, $567,000 for an elementary main
school and $1,949,000 for a secondary school; and
If a school was closed or repurposed, one-time costs would be avoided for
deferred maintenance ($2 - $4 million for an elementary school and up to $17
million for a secondary school) and seismic mitigation ($8 - $16 million for an
elementary school and $30 - $60 million for a secondary school).

ISSUES
This Long Range Facilities Plan addresses key issues with respect to:





Capacity utilization;
Priority SMP projects;
Temporary accommodation strategies; and
The process for identifying schools for repurposing and closure.

Prepared by: Senior Management Committee Team
File: P:\COMMITTEE II\Reports\2016 Reports\2016-01-20-Jan. 20\Item 1 - Interim Long Range Facilities Plan.docx

2

 Some of the details with respect to the above noted issues and discussion with respect
to other issues such as improving facility condition, retaining heritage and alternative
use of excess space will be dealt with as part of the updated LRFP report in June 2016.
Capacity Utilization
Capacity utilization is defined for each school as the K-12 enrolment divided by the
operating capacity of the school.
The operating capacity is essentially how many students a school can accommodate
and is determined by a formula set by the MOE.
The factors that can impact capacity utilization are as follows:






Changes in enrolment;
Utilizing excess seats for temporary accommodation to support the SMP;
Right-sizing schools as part of the SMP;
Adding new schools; and
Closing and consolidating schools.

The following table provides a summary of the projected changes in capacity utilization
for the VBE to 2030 in order to achieve the 95% capacity utilization target set by the
MOE.
Summary of Projected Changes in Capacity Utilization to 2030
Enrolment

Operating
Capacity

Capacity
Utilization

50,387

59,585

84.6%

50,937

59,585

85.5%

50,937

56,085

90.8%

Right-Sizing (1,000 seats)

50,937

55,085

92.5%

New Schools (3,700 seats)

50,937

58,785

86.6%

Remaining Capacity Reduction to be
achieved through school closure
(5,167 seats)

50,937

53,618

95.0%

Current Capacity Utilization
Enrolment Growth
(550 students)
Temporary Accommodation
(3,500 seats)

In order to achieve the 95% capacity utilization target set by the MOE, the VBE would
need to close the equivalent of 11 – 12 elementary schools and 1 secondary school
over the next 15 years. These closures would be in addition to the up to 8 school sites
(potentially 6 elementary and 2 secondary schools) that may be repurposed for
temporary accommodation to support the SMP.
Apart from the schools that would be repurposed or closed, implementing a plan to
Prepared by: Senior Management Committee Team
File: P:\COMMITTEE II\Reports\2016 Reports\2016-01-20-Jan. 20\Item 1 - Interim Long Range Facilities Plan.docx

3

 achieve the 95% utilization target set by the MOE would result in the following impacts:






VBE schools not identified for closure or repurposing would be seismically
upgraded by 2030 or earlier;
VBE’s requests for new schools in areas of significant growth may be considered
more favourably by the MOE;
Annual savings in VBE operating costs of up to $16 million;
One-time savings in avoided deferred maintenance costs (up to $100 million) and
SMP capital costs (up to $200 million); and
The VBE would maintain its role in setting priorities for SMP projects and new
schools.

If the VBE does not commit to a plan to work towards achieving a 95% capacity
utilization target, the MOE will not likely fund seismic upgrades for every existing school
that is at high seismic risk. This could place the VBE in a position of either keeping high
risk schools with low capacity utilization open, without being seismically upgraded, or
funding the cost of seismic mitigation for these schools from VBE funding sources.
Priority SMP Projects
Completion of a seismic mitigation project can take up to 4 – 5 years for an elementary
school and up to 5 – 6 years for a secondary school after the Ministry of Education has
supported initial feasibility (project definition) planning. It is important to keep projects
flowing through the various stages to ensure that overall target dates are met and to
provide a balanced workload for the Vancouver Seismic Project Office.
In setting project priorities for the SMP, it is proposed that the following factors be
considered:








High seismic risk school;
Planned capacity utilization will be approximately 95% or greater;
High deferred maintenance;
School will not be needed for temporary accommodation;
School will not be identified for closure;
Will support a plan to have sufficient schools usable after a major
earthquake in all areas of the district; and
Work has already begun on a Project Definition Report for the school.

Based on the above factors, the LRFP recommends that immediate priority be given to
14 schools for completion of their seismic mitigation. This is in addition to the five
schools currently under construction. The viability of an additional 11 schools would be
reviewed as part of zone planning in order to implement the LRFP.

Prepared by: Senior Management Committee Team
File: P:\COMMITTEE II\Reports\2016 Reports\2016-01-20-Jan. 20\Item 1 - Interim Long Range Facilities Plan.docx

4

 Temporary Accommodation Strategies
The VBE currently has two temporary accommodation sites. It is estimated that an
equivalent of up to 8 additional sites will be required to support the SMP.
Several strategies can be utilized to provide temporary accommodation sites, including
the following:






Clusters of host schools;
Vacated and replaced schools;
Repurpose annexes;
Repurpose elementary schools; and
Repurpose a secondary school.

The LRFP identifies proposed factors to be considered in identifying schools to be
repurposed. In addition, the Board may wish to establish a policy and process with
respect to repurposing schools.
School Closure
The VBE currently has a school closure policy. The policy, however, does not include
factors to be considered in identifying schools to be closed. The LRFP identifies
proposed factors that could be considered.
The LRFP also proposes that a zone (area) planning process be developed and
implemented to support identification of future SMP priorities and schools to be closed
or repurposed. As noted in the report, each area of the district has different profiles and
capacity utilization rates.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT:
1.

Given that the district currently has surplus school capacity, as defined by
the Ministry of Education, the Board agree to work towards achieving a
district-wide average capacity utilization of 95% through the implementation
of the Seismic Mitigation Plan (SMP), in order to comply with the Ministry of
Education’s requirement for large school districts. This would be achieved
through a combination of the following:

Increased enrolment;

Right-sizing schools as part of the SMP;

Repurposing schools for temporary accommodation purposes to
support the SMP; and

School closures

Prepared by: Senior Management Committee Team
File: P:\COMMITTEE II\Reports\2016 Reports\2016-01-20-Jan. 20\Item 1 - Interim Long Range Facilities Plan.docx

5

 2.

That the Board approve the following guiding principles included in the Long
Range Facilities Plan:

Safe and sustainable schools;

Facilities that support innovative, educational approaches, ultimately
providing effective learning environments;

Schools located where they can support school-aged populations
now and in the future;

Planning that takes into account economic, community and
environmental benefits for students, families and all citizens of
Vancouver; and

Improved facility conditions.

3.

That the Board request staff to consider the following factors when
recommending the priority for SMP projects:

High seismic risk school;

Planned capacity utilization will be approximately 95% or greater;

High deferred maintenance;

School will not be needed for temporary accommodation;

School will not be identified for closure;

Will support a plan to have sufficient schools usable after a major
earthquake in all areas of the district; and

Work has already begun on a Project Definition Report for the school.

4.

Based on the above factors, that the Board request staff to provide
immediate priority to the following SMP projects:

Cavell Elementary

Wolfe Elementary

Prince of Wales Secondary

Tennyson Elementary

Maple Grove Elementary

Weir Elementary

Jamieson Elementary

Thompson Secondary

Bayview Elementary

Point Grey Secondary

Hamber Secondary

Killarney Secondary

Lloyd George Elementary

Kingsford-Smith Elementary

Prepared by: Senior Management Committee Team
File: P:\COMMITTEE II\Reports\2016 Reports\2016-01-20-Jan. 20\Item 1 - Interim Long Range Facilities Plan.docx

6

 5.

Based on the factors outlined in recommendation #3 above, that the Board
request staff to review the viability of these projects as part of zone planning
in order to implement the Long Range Facilities Plan:
 Waverley Elementary
 Grenfell Elementary
 Begbie Elementary
 Mackenzie Elementary
 John Oliver Secondary
 Renfrew Elementary
 Templeton Secondary
 Carleton Elementary
 Livingstone Elementary
 Hudson Elementary
 False Creek Elementary

6.

That further to the information presented in this report, the Board request
staff to develop proposed policy and processes with respect to temporary
accommodation strategies, and identify factors that would impact the
repurposing of schools for temporary accommodation purposes, as part of
the updated Long Range Facilities Plan for June 2016.

7.

That further to the information presented in this report, the Board request
staff to develop proposed factors for school closure and recommend any
amendments to the current School Closure Policy, as part of the updated
Long Range Facilities Plan in June 2016.

8.

That further to the information presented in this report, the Board request
staff to develop a process and timeline for zone planning as part of the
updated Long Range Facilities Plan in June 2016 in order to support the
SMP and capacity utilization goals.

9.

That the Board request staff to prepare an updated Long Range Facilities
Plan by June 2016 after public consultation and further analysis with respect
to remaining items.

10.

That the Board request staff to update the Board on an annual basis, or as
appropriate, as to the progress achieved with respect to the SMP and
capacity utilization goals and update or revise the Long Range Facilities
Plan as appropriate.

11.

That the Board approve this Long Range Facilities Plan and submit it to the
Minister of Education by January 31, 2016.

Prepared by: Senior Management Committee Team
File: P:\COMMITTEE II\Reports\2016 Reports\2016-01-20-Jan. 20\Item 1 - Interim Long Range Facilities Plan.docx

7