Rapport au/Report to :

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement

Planning and Environment Committee

et/au

Conseil/and Council

Le 22 mai 2007 / 22 May 2007

Soumis par/Submitted by : Nancy Schepers, Directrice municipale adjointe/

Deputy City Manager,

Urbanisme, Transport en commun et Environnement/Planning, Transit and the Environment/

Personne ressource/Contact Person : Richard Kilstrom, Gestionnaire/Manager, Aménagement et conception communautaire/Community Planning and Design, Direction de l’urbanisme/Planning Branch

(613) 580-2424 x 22653 Richard Kilstrom@ottawa.ca

Portée générale

N^o de référence : ACS2007-PTE-POL-0033

OBJET :	POLITIQUE CONCERNANT LES ÉCOLES EXCÉDENTAIRES

SUBJECT :	POLICY FOR SURPLUS SCHOOLS

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande que :

1. le Conseil donne instruction au personnel de procéder à l’évaluation et à la priorisation des terrains scolaires afin de déterminer ceux qui répondraient aux besoins de la Ville s’ils devaient être déclarés excédentaires;

2. ces priorités fassent l’objet d’un examen annuel.

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that:

1. Council direct staff to undertake an evaluation and prioritisation of school sites for the purpose of identifying sites that would meet City needs should they be declared surplus,

2. That these priorities be reviewed on an annual basis.

CONTEXTE

L’objectif du présent rapport est de répondre à l’instruction du Conseil de présenter un rapport détaillant une politique pour l’achat des terrains d’écoles excédentaires. Les politiques actuelles de la Ville relatives aux écoles et à l’acquisition de biens immobiliers sont pertinentes et ne nécessitent aucune modification ni amélioration. Cependant, le rapport recommande d’apporter des modifications au processus selon lequel la Ville évalue chacune des propriétés d’écoles quand elles sont mises en vente ainsi que l’officialisation du processus.

Ces recommandations visent les objectifs suivants :

· la rétention d’importantes propriétés d’école pour la collectivité et l’avantage des espaces verts; et

· processus d’évaluation de l’importance de la propriété d’école uniforme, transparent et conforme à la politique de la Ville en matière d’acquisition de biens immobiliers.

La Ville reconnaît le rôle que jouent les propriétés d’écoles dans les collectivités, tant en fait d’espaces ouverts qu’en ce qui a trait à l’utilisation actuelle ou possible des immeubles comme espace collectif. Dans les collectivités urbaines plus anciennes et dans la plupart des collectivités rurales, les terrains d’école servent souvent de parc et l’école elle‑même offre un espace à la collectivité, lequel serait autrement fourni par la Ville et financé par le développement, comme c’est le cas dans les emplacements urbains plus nouveaux. Par conséquent, la fermeture ou la cession de propriétés d’écoles par un conseil scolaire peut avoir une incidence importante sur certaines collectivités, particulièrement les plus anciennes. Étant donné le changement démographique, le renouveau et l’intensification des collectivités plus anciennes à l’intérieur de la ceinture de verdure, la demande relative aux commodités collectives des terrains d’écoles augmentera vraisemblablement. Le plan officiel de la Ville reconnaît le rôle que peuvent jouer les écoles et engage la Ville à travailler avec les conseils scolaires et des partenaires publics et privés à conserver les terrains d’écoles excédentaires comme propriétés publiques, dans la mesure du possible.

Selon les lois provinciales, les propriétés d’écoles déclarées excédentaires par un conseil scolaire sont offertes aux entités suivantes : les autres conseils scolaires, les collèges et universités; les niveaux de gouvernement fédéral, provinciaux et municipaux et ensuite au public, en donnant priorité aux conseils scolaires et aux collèges et universités.

En pratique, les propriétés sont offertes simultanément à tous mais on considère l’intérêt du public et des municipalités après l’intérêt des établissements d’enseignement. Si les organismes gouvernementaux et municipaux ne sont pas intéressés, alors on annonce la propriété au grand public.

Les dossiers de la Ville montre qu’entre août 1999 et novembre 2006, environ 75 propriétés des conseils scolaires (des terrains appartenant aux conseils scolaires, y compris des écoles) ont été proposées à la Ville d’Ottawa. La Ville a manifesté son intérêt pour 12 propriétés. Cependant, les conseils scolaires, qui se sont prévalu de leur droit de priorité dans le processus d’acquisition, ont acheté toutes ces propriétés à l’exception d’une seule. La Ville a acquis une partie de l’école Presault (la partie terrain de sport) en 2004, du Conseil des écoles catholiques de langue française.

Selon les renseignements recueillis par le personnel sur les ventes de propriétés des conseils scolaires, sur l’ensemble des 75 terrains déclarés excédentaires depuis août 1999, le secteur privé a acheté approximativement 30 % des terrains. Des conseils scolaires, des établissements d’enseignement privés, des organismes communautaires et d’autres établissement ont acquis la majeure partie des autres propriétés d’écoles.

Les lois provinciales relatives à la cession de propriétés d’écoles exigent que les conseils scolaires accordent aux autres conseils, aux organismes provinciaux et à la municipalité, une période de non moins de 90 jours pour répondre. Les réponses doivent comprendre une confirmation de la volonté d’acheter et un prix d’achat. Sauf pour ce qui est des autres conseils scolaires, le prix d’achat est fondé sur la valeur marchande du terrain et de l’immeuble, laquelle est déterminée en fonction de la plus grande et de la meilleure utilisation. Dans les collectivités urbaines plus anciennes, les écoles sont habituellement plus anciennes et plus petites. Cependant, la valeur marchande du terrain est élevée. Dans les secteurs ruraux, les terrains sont habituellement plus grands mais leur valeur a tendance à être moins élevée.

DISCUSSION

Processus d’examen actuel

Le personnel de la Ville dispose du pouvoir délégué pour faire l’examen des offres de propriétés excédentaires et pour y répondre. Sur réception d’une offre relative à une propriété scolaire excédentaire, la Direction de la gestion des biens immobiliers (DGBI) transmet les détails au conseiller du quartier et à tous les services. Il faut faire parvenir un avis d’intérêt à l’égard de la propriété à la DGBI dans un délai de 30 jours et on doit faire mention des fonds disponibles. Quant plus d’un service est intéressé, la DGBI coordonne une offre conjointe ou elle détermine quel service devrait avoir priorité. Dans certains cas, un service peut souhaiter intéresser la collectivité et des partenaires privés au financement d’une offre conjointe pour le terrain. La DGBI reçoit aussi continuellement des demandes de terrains ou de locaux pour répondre à divers besoins de la Ville qui, séparément, ne justifient pas l’acquisition d’un terrain mais qui peuvent s’ajouter à un besoin de programme.

S’il y a un intérêt réel, la DGBI entreprend l’évaluation de la propriété, elle obtient une estimation de la valeur marchande, elle rédige une offre et elle répond au conseil scolaire. Si aucun service de la Ville n’a manifesté d’intérêt, ou si la partie intéressée ne dispose pas d’un financement approuvé, la DGBI informe le Conseil que la Ville n’est pas intéressée à acquérir le terrain.

Les forces et les faiblesses

Ce processus comporte des forces et des faiblesses. Les forces sont situées au niveau de la politique et sont en accord avec la politique municipale pour l’acquisition d’immeubles qui a été adoptée par le Conseil le 11 avril 2007.

Ces forces sont les suivantes :

· L’acquisition est liée à une politique ou un programme donné de la Ville.

· L’acquisition bénéficie d’un budget pour l’acquisition, l’aménagement ou le réaménagement, la programmation et l’entretien de la propriété.

· Tous les services font partie de l’examen.

Les faiblesses suivantes relèvent davantage du processus :

· On ne peut prévoir l’offre des terrains d’écoles, ce qui rend le processus actuel plus réactionnel que proactif.

· Une démarche proactive de l’évaluation des écoles excédentaires pose des difficultés parce qu’il y a peu d’évaluations fondées sur la collectivité qui reconnaissent et établissent le rôle ou le rôle possible des divers terrains d’école dans la collectivité.

· Dans la plupart des cas, les participants ne sont pas informés de la décision d’acquérir ou de ne pas acquérir le terrain ni des raisons motivant la décision.

· Le délai accordé pour présenter un avis d’intérêt et faire une offre est souvent insuffisant pour créer des partenariats, particulièrement des partenariats avec la collectivité ou des partenaires privés.

· Les services peuvent ne pas disposer des fonds nécessaires et approuvés pour acquérir les écoles.

Recommandations relatives aux politiques

Les politiques du plan officiel de la Ville (alinéa 5.2.1(4)) stipulent que la Ville peut acquérir un terrain situé dans les limites de la Ville pour l’application de toute politique du plan. De plus, la Ville dispose d’une politique municipale relative à « l’acquisition d’immeubles ». Cette politique municipale est suffisante pour orienter l’acquisition de toute terre qui correspond à un programme municipal donné, y compris les propriétés scolaires excédentaires. Étant donné que le Conseil a déjà adopté ces deux politiques, on ne considère pas qu’il est nécessaire d’adopter une politique réformée pour les propriétés scolaires.

Recommandations relatives au processus

Il est cependant nécessaire d’améliorer le processus actuel d’évaluation des terrains d’écoles excédentaires et de dégager du financement pour acquérir ces terrains quand ils répondent à des besoins établis de la Ville. On peut remédier à la situation en prenant les moyens suivants :

1. Augmenter le délai alloué pour examiner les acquisitions possibles et pour créer des partenariats :

Le personnel de la Ville peut commencer l’évaluation des terrains scolaires et l’établissement des priorités quand les conseils scolaires déterminent les groupes d’écoles visées par d’éventuelles fermetures et approfondir ensuite l’examen quand on ferme les écoles. Cette présélection permet d’établir des priorités de haut niveau en ce qui a trait aux terrains et procure un délai supplémentaire pour affiner les priorités avant que les écoles soient déclarées excédentaires et qu’elles soient vendues.

Le personnel recommande la mise en œuvre de cette évaluation proactive des écoles prioritaires. Puisque ce ne sont pas toutes les écoles qui sont déclarées excédentaires à leur fermeture, on peut examiner annuellement les priorités de la Ville et cet examen permettra aux services d’ajuster leurs programmes et leur financement en conséquence.

2. Améliorer l’uniformité au niveau de l’évaluation des écoles effectuée par la Ville

On peut arriver à uniformiser la façon dont les terrains d’écoles sont évalués par la Ville en passant d’un examen réactionnel à un examen proactif au moyen de critères unanimement reconnus. Bon nombre de critères font déjà partie des politiques du plan officiel de la Ville ou des programmes et des plans à long terme de l’ensemble de la Ville. À titre d’exemple, le plan officiel établit les niveaux voulus en matière de parcs et d’espaces verts dans les collectivités; la stratégie des terrains de sports détermine la demande en matière de terrains de sports dans différents secteurs de la Ville; et la Ville a adopté une politique de « Priorité au logement » relative à ses propres terres qui peut aussi servir à évaluer les propriétés scolaires. Il y a aussi un certain nombre de services de la Ville qui offrent des services d’urgence et autres services semblables fondés sur des critères de population ou d’emplacement et qui ont besoin de terrains, de temps en temps. La compilation des critères est déjà commencée et on recommande que ce travail soit terminé pour constituer la base des critères d’évaluation qui servira au processus de présélection et d’établissement des priorités en matière de terrains scolaires.

3. Donner une rétroaction après la prise de décisions

Présentement, le conseiller du quartier et les services sont informés en début de processus, à l’étape de la diffusion à l’échelle des services, de la disponibilité d’une propriété scolaire excédentaire. Après la diffusion, il n’y a aucune rétroaction au conseiller ou au personnel qui a participé au processus. Les autres conseillers et certains membres du personnel auront seulement vent des résultats si un rapport est présenté au Comité des services généraux en ce qui a trait à une acquisition proposée. S’il n’y a aucune manifestation d’intérêt pour le terrain, on informe uniquement le conseil scolaire. On pourrait améliorer ce processus afin d’informer tous les conseillers visés par la diffusion initiale et pour veiller à informer ceux qui ont participé des résultas de la diffusion, qu’on recommande ou non d’acquérir le terrain.

On recommande que la DGBI modifie le processus actuel de diffusion de la Ville pour élargir la consultation et pour inclure une rétroaction.

CONSULTATION AUPRÈS DU PERSONNEL ET DES CONSEILLERS

Pour rédiger ce rapport, le personnel a consulté d’autres services, ainsi que la Direction de la gestion des biens immobiliers, et ils sont d’accord avec les recommandations contenues dans le présent document.

Parce qu’il est à l’origine de l’instruction au Conseil municipal à l’intention du personnel, le personnel a discuté des recommandations du présent rapport avec le conseiller municipal Cullen, qui a recommandé au personnel d’adopter une démarche différente. Cette démarche reconnaît que la Ville a uniquement le droit d’acquérir des terrains d’écoles excédentaires qui ne sont plus utilisés à des fins éducatives mais elle propose un modèle d’acquisition plus agressif qui ne dépend pas de programmes existants ou de budgets approuvés. Selon ce modèle, la promesse d’acquisition serait presque automatique, alors que la Ville ferait des offres d’acquisition pour chaque école annoncée excédentaire. On présenterait un rapport au Comité et au Conseil pour l’acquisition de chaque terrain d’école excédentaire et pour l’approbation d’un mécanisme de financement. On tiendrait ensuite une consultation publique pour discuter de la réutilisation possible de la propriété après la conclusion de l’achat.

Le modèle pourrait inclure des mécanismes selon lesquels le personnel pourrait s’opposer à un tel achat quand il y a une surabondance de parcs ou de terrains de sports à proximité ou quand il y a trop d’espaces d’agrément pour la collectivité. Cependant, il s’agirait d’une exception au présent scénario, un immeuble, même en mauvais état, ne devrait pas constituer une raison de rejet d’un achat, puisque l’immeuble peut être rénové ou démoli. Le terrain qui reste (et ses aménagements connexes) pourrait toujours servir de parc pour la collectivité. Une autre variation du présent modèle consisterait à suivre une voie distincte, en utilisant la démarche recommandée par le personnel, pour les propriétés d’écoles secondaires qui sont plus vastes, qui offrent considérablement plus d’espace, qui sont beaucoup plus coûteuses à l’achat et qui sont rarement visées par une fermeture.

On a suggéré d’utiliser la dette (obligation) pour acquérir ces propriétés plutôt que d’établir un fonds de réserve. Il s’agit d’un emprunt d’une durée déterminée (10 à 20 ans), et à la fin de cette période, le terrain appartient à la Ville (c.àd. au public) et son coût a été acquitté. En revanche, un fonds de réserve place une contrainte sur le nombre (s’il y a lieu) d’écoles qui peuvent être achetées en tout moment, en fonction du niveau de financement accessible.

La démarche « d’acquisition globale » présente un certain nombre d’inconvénients qui laissent entendre qu’on ne devrait pas recommander cette démarche :

Cette démarche sera beaucoup plus coûteuse pour les raisons qui suivent :

· La Ville devra effectuer des évaluations détaillées et des estimations de la valeur marchande pour chaque terrain annoncé à la Ville.

· Les données historiques laissent entendre qu’on se défait en moyenne de quatre terrains par année dont la valeur marchande moyenne se chiffre à environ 2 millions de dollars.

· La Ville assumera tous les frais provisoires et toutes les responsabilités associés à la propriété, à l’amélioration ou à la démolition, et à la gestion permanente du terrain même s’il n’y a aucun programme d’utilisation du terrain et/ou de l’immeuble dans un proche avenir.

Cette démarche présente les caractéristiques suivantes :

· Elle est en opposition à la façon dont la Ville acquiert tous les autres terrains municipaux à l’exception des emprises de chemin de fer qui ont moins d’utilisateurs éventuels, et pour lesquelles on dispose d’un plus long délai pour obtenir des fonds.

· Elle suppose que la propriété du terrain devrait être le catalyseur pour la fourniture de services et de programmes de la Ville et non l’inverse.

· Elle élimine la délégation en ce qui a trait au personnel et nécessite l’endossement de chaque réponse aux conseils scolaires par le Conseil, qui approuvera aussi la dette supplémentaire.

· Elle suppose que les plus petits terrains d’école sont toujours utiles à l’aménagement communautaire, alors que la démarche préférée consiste à évaluer tous les terrains et à établir des priorités en fonction des coûts et avantages.

RÉPERCUSSIONS FINANCIÈRES

Le budget de 2007 ne prévoit aucun fonds pour cette initiative. La DGBI examinera les coûts relatifs à une évaluation de haut niveau et ils feront partie du processus budgétaire de 2008.

DOCUMENTS JUSTIFICATIFS

S.O.

DISPOSITION

Le personnel de DGBI prend des mesures pour modifier le processus actuel utilisé pour examiner les propriétés scolaires excédentaires conformément aux recommandations retenues par le Conseil dans le présent rapport.

agriculture and rural affairs Comité de l’agriculture et

committee des questions rurales

Extract of Draft Extrait de l’Ébauche du

Minutes 10 Procès-verbal 10

June 25, 2007 le 25 juin 2007

POLICY FOR SURPLUS SCHOOLS

POLITIQUE CONCERNANT LES ÉCOLES EXCÉDENTAIRES

ACS2007-PTE-POL-0033 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Deferred from the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meeting of 14 June 2007

Reporté de la réunion du 14 juin 2007 du Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales

Bruce Finlay, Planner, Planning/Environment/Infrastructure and Policy Branch, briefly spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which served to provide the Committee with a concise overview of the staff report. A copy of this presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

Councillor J. Harder stated that this was an important issue and that the City is changing. She remarked that Ottawa is not the hotbed of new immigrants unlike other cities, but it does have unique needs. She inquired as to how long it would take to put together review criteria for surplus school purchases. Mr. Finlay stated that the listing already exists and that an advisory group had been established to review and discuss needs. This is then given over to RPAM (Real Property and Asset Management) to review.

Councillor Harder felt that there was a problem with this process as it is appears to be done in isolation. The Councillor suggested that a small diverse group, including councillors, from throughout region might be better to review surplus schools purchases. She further inquired if staff has discussed this policy with school boards yet?

Mr. Finlay stated that he is not involved with the steering group but that the school boards are contacted through RPAM.

Councillor Harder emphasized that needs are not RPAM driven but people driven. She said that she has scrambled to find locations to suit various groups such as a large Muslim group in Barrhaven. One example mentioned was Merivale Public School (off slack road), which has been closed for some time and would be a prime location to be used by other groups. She stated that there was little or no awareness on the part of RPAM of community needs and it is very segmented. The report is timely in that it creates discussion potential. The Councillor stated the need for a strong policy that looks beyond the City’s present scope. What is the next step?

Mr. Finlay in response stated that the policy for city to acquire property is established through acquisition of real property program and that changes can be made to the process for evaluative purposes. He asked the Councillor is she was suggesting that the City buy the properties and then they are for the City’s use as it sees fit? Councillor Harder stated that options were needed and that the scope of interest must be greater than just RPAM.

Chair Jellett emphasized that the community need should be driving the acquisitions. In many instances when rural schools close down, the heart of the community goes with it as they tend to be the focal centre. He gave an example of the school in Sarsfield which closed and was purchased by the community with the assistance of the City and is being used a community resource centre. The Chair inquired if the policy would be retroactive?

Mr. Finlay stated that the purpose of the report was to deal with initial process; does the City buy the property or not, and in doing so try to standardize the approach to decision making.

In response to Chair Jellett’s question on if the ranking is based on where the school is located and approach the same, Mr. Finlay responded stating that to the best of his knowledge this would be the case as there are communities in all parts of Ottawa that have attachments to their schools. As for the approach, he stated that it depended on ranking of criteria. At the present time in the urban area, the City has 90 days to make a decision. The priority is to get a process that allows for prediction with greater certainty.

The Chair inquired if the Councillors would get to see the criteria as he felt that their ability for input would be helpful. Mr. Finlay responded that there was no reason why Councillors could not see the listing.

Councillor E. El-Chantiry commented that it was not reasonable to adopt a policy where the City is stuck with a piece of land that even the community does not want. He is not in favour of one policy that says we have to buy every school site and would prefer flexibility. Mr. Finlay agreed and noted the concern with the « buy-all » process. He would suggest that it be circulated to all Councillors and they could identify areas that are of particular interest to communities and community groups. The questioned to be answered is: Do we buy them all or buy the ones we can identify a specific need for? The policy needed is one to buy strategically.

In response to Councillor El-Chantiry’s question on whether this was the present policy, Mr. Finlay stated that the internal process needed to be improved.

Councillor A. Cullen spoke on the reasoning to his motion, which had originally been circulated to the Planning and Environment Committee. He stated that he has seen school sites closed and lost to development and the community loses amenities that were suppose to supplement the community. He feels that staff response at the present time is better than what it used to be and feels that the problem with strategic buying is that that it does not meet community needs. The community needs and wants its green space maintained. He went on to state that acquisition does not mean that it will sit empty. There is a demand for sports fields. He indicated that the motion he is proposing is better as we get to maintain a community asset and the actual building part can be ‘hived off’ if necessary but the City can retain the green space. The key part of his motion he stated, was the purchasing and to challenge staff to determine possible uses of the building such as childcare, leasing to community groups and if the community is consulted there will be lots of ideas.

He stated that the difference between his proposal and the staff recommendation is that his is bolder and allows for maintenance of community amenities as intensification happens. He noted that once lost, you couldn’t get it back. If there are no uses for the building, tear it down and keep the land. He indicated that he had crafted a motion for the Committee and hoped that someone would move it.

Councillor B. Monette remarked that in theory it was a good idea, however, for practical reasons he felt it flawed. He believed that if the City tells all school boards that when property is vacant and becomes available, the City will buy, the boards would sell at top rate. This will be an expensive proposition.

Councillor Harder advised that she could not support the motion as presented. She felt that as written, it puts the cart before the horse and that what had to change was that community consultation needed to take place prior to discussions of buying the property and should also include secondary schools. She stated that if the motion were to be re-worded, she would move it.

Councillor Brooks stated that the concept has merit, but can’t support it since he is faced with a similar dilemma with five historical buildings in his ward and has 12 months to raise $1.2M or they go into private hands. He feels that they are an asset as much as schools may be and therefore is unable to support Councillor Cullen’s motion. He also stated that when looking at schools closing he is surprised that the City is not also looking at churches closing and their property.

Councillor Hunter pointed out a quick correction that the old Merivale Public School and Confederation High School are on NCC land and not for sale. He raised a question to staff present if they knew of examples where school sites have been used as the 5% parkland in the community development? Mr. J. Moser, Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals stated that the City does not use school sites as part of the 5% open space.

Councillor Hunter went on to explain that if a community is developed on a 200 acre site, and requires a minimum 5% dedication for parkland and the school site is not is not taken into consideration for the 5% then you may have a situation where one community has a school closing and parkland and adjacent community only has parkland but must now help to pay for added green space in the other community which he feels unfair. He stated that not every situation across the city is the same and he rejects the notion of purchasing first and asking questions later. He feels that this is not right for taxpayers in any community. He noted that in many instances school sites have closed, developers come in and there may be objections at first from immediate neighbours but soon thereafter people don’t realize there were schools there in the first place. Life goes on.

Councillor El-Chantiry emphasized that the City needs to do this on a case-by-case basis. He gave examples in his ward where they could have had a school for $1, but maintenance costs would have been prohibitive and the community rejected the idea.

He stated that he cannot support the motion as it stands as he feels we cannot have a broad policy that makes us buy every piece of property that becomes available rather he is looking for flexibility.

Councillor Harder noted that she is not suggesting we buy schools that become available, but when alerted prior to decisions being made to close, we should have criteria to measure decision to see if the City is interested.

Councillor Cullen stated that all the discussion is good and wanted to address a few of the issues raised.

· On Councillor Monette’s statement on the boards asking for top dollar: the process is governed by procedures related to property assessment. The boards cannot hold us for ransom.

· On Councillor Harder’s three-stage process: the process should be that we show interest, the 90 days kicks in, then we consult with community within the 90 days. In the past, process hasn’t been flexible enough.

· On Councillor Brooks’ comments on his heritage buildings: this motion is not in competition with other worthwhile purchases.

· On Councillor Hunter’s comments regarding 5% parkland: all communities have elementary schools, therefore these communities already have the asset and the City is just maintaining it.

· On the issue of case-by-case: Councillor Cullen is confident that 90% of the time the City would purchase the asset. He stated that when school closures are proposed, what is community reaction? They want to keep the school site. He suggests that the City go through community consultations; if they refuse, fine; he’s confident it will pass.

Councillor Hunter commented that the Committee go along with the staff recommendation. He stated there was a need inventory and recognize what is out there and what it would cost us. He feels that the staff recommendation is the prudent one for the taxpayers and potential users of site. He brought out the example of Laurentian High School and how many millions it would cost and how would affect the market.

Councillor Cullen stated that in the case of the Laurentian site, the City looked at it but that 90 days is not a long enough period to evaluate and do consultation. He feels that it would have been a good site to maintain. He spoke in support of Councillor Harder’s motion but would prefer a bolder move.

Chair Jellett inquired of staff if sites already declared surplus and on the market now would be looked at. Mr Finlay stated that the criteria have yet to be initiated. The Chair stated that he would like to see those sites included.

Councillor Harder strongly suggested that a recreation master plan was needed especially in light of this motion and project.

Councillor Brooks stated that at the time of amalgamation, the City identified all disposal sites in city and felt that the City does not have the money now to maintain what it has now let alone purchase more assets such as schools. He feels that many of these surplus schools will cost much more that $200,000 to fix and maintain. The heritage properties he is concerned with will cost an estimated $500,000 or more for the stone work alone. He noted that it was a good idea, but the City does not have the money.

Moved by Councillor J. Harder:

That Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend that Council adopt the following policy:

1. That where a school board within the City of Ottawa offers a school site as surplus to its educational needs, the City of Ottawa indicate an interest in acquiring this site on a case by case basis;

2. and that Council direct staff to establish criteria for the evaluation of surplus schools sites for review and approval by the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee, Planning and Environment Committee and Council after which staff be directed to undertake an evaluation and prioritisation of school sites for the purpose of identifying sites that would meet City needs should they be declared surplus or are already surplus.

CARRIED

YEAS (4): Councillors B. Monette, J. Harder, E. El-Chantiry, R. Jellett

NAYS (2): Councillors G. Hunter, G. Brooks

That Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend that Council approve the following:

1. That where a school board within the City of Ottawa offers a school site as surplus to its educational needs, the City of Ottawa indicate an interest in acquiring this site on a case by case basis;

2. That Council direct staff to establish criteria for the evaluation of surplus schools sites for review and approval by the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee, Planning and Environment Committee and Council after which staff be directed to undertake an evaluation and prioritisation of school sites for the purpose of identifying sites that would meet City needs should they be declared surplus or are already surplus; and,

3. That these priorities be reviewed on an annual basis.

CARRIED as amended

planning and Environment committee

extract of

DRAFT Minutes 12

26 june 2007

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement

extrait dE L’ÉBAUCHE

Du ProcÈs-verbal 12

26 juin 2007

POLICY FOR SURPLUS SCHOOLS

POLITIQUE CONCERNANT LES ÉCOLES EXCÉDENTAIRES

ACS2007-PTE-POL-0033 CITY-WIDE

Deferred from the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of 12 June 2007

Reporté de la réunion du 12 juin 2007 du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement

Mr. Bruce Finlay, Planner, Community Planning and Design Division, outlined the report by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk. In his presentation, Mr. Finlay covered the existing policy as outlined in the 2003 Official Plan, the school board process, the City’s procedures and the challenges posed by the current process. Mr. Finlay provided details related to the options of buying strategic sites, buying all sites and exploring the need afterwards and undertaking a review of the process to improve its effectiveness.

The Director, Parks and Recreation Programs, Dr. Aaron Burry, was also present to respond to questions related to his Branch.

Subsequent to this, Councillor Alex Cullen read out the following Motion which Councillor Holmes moved on his behalf:

That Planning & Environment Committee recommend that Council adopt the following policy:

1. That where a school board within the City of Ottawa offers an elementary school site as surplus to its educational needs, the City of Ottawa indicate an interest in acquiring this site.

2. That where no other school board, college, university, provincial government, or federal government indicates an interest in acquiring the surplus school site, the City of Ottawa purchase the surplus school site, financed through debenture.

3. That upon acquisition of the surplus school site, the City, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, engage in a community consultation process to determine the best use (or uses) of the school building to meet local community and/or City needs. Such consultation process shall consider the use of community partnerships, seek to retain heritage characteristics where applicable, and consider the possibility of severing the building in order to invest in community infrastructure if desirable.

Councillor Jan Harder submitted the following Motion which was approved by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee on 25 June 2007:

That Council adopt the following policy:

2. That Council direct staff to establish criteria for the evaluation of surplus schools sites for review and approval by the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee, Planning and Environment Committee and Council after which staff be directed to undertake an evaluation and prioritization of school sites for the purpose of identifying sites that would meet City needs should they be declared surplus or are already surplus.

Committee members posed a number of questions to clarify the intent of both motions. Staff provided information on how the policy fits into intensification through the Greenspace Master Plan, how the school boards should monitor their sites for intensification purposes and how the City could tie some properties into the programs it actually runs. Staff also recommended that the time period to review the properties that are being offered be extended in order to complete the evaluation and appraisal process.

The Committee then heard from Mr. Brian Tansey, who pointed out that this issue was beyond the City’s jurisdiction, in that it lies with the Province and the school boards. He cited the example of the loss of a school in Ottawa South, calling it an irreversible transfer of a public resource out of the public domain. Mr. Tansey said the City was to have petitioned the Ontario Government, but to-date, no answer had been received. He posited that these are public assets and that municipalities should not let them fall off the table. He concluded his presentation by stating that a Master Plan on Institutional Spaces including those in greenspace lands, was required, and he requested that the Committee recommend Council approve Councillor Cullen’s Motion.

Councillor Alex Cullen called schools a non-renewable asset, and school buildings themselves are not obsolete to the needs of the community. He also pointed out that neighbourhood schools enhance property values. The Councillor suggested that the City should be purchasing schools for child care centres, community programs and other purposes, but regrettably, the budgets held by the departments for this purpose are not sufficient. Councillor Cullen thought the City should go after the Province to see if the process could be simplified, and he asked that the Committee support his Motion, as put forward by Councillor Holmes.

Councillor Harder asked that the Committee support the Motion approved by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee on 25 July. She commended Councillor Cullen for raising this issue and said she was grateful that staff had done its due diligence in evaluating the proposal.

The Councillor alluded to the Strategic Planning Sessions undertaken by Council, and she asked that Committee members not forget the magnitude of the City’s financial problems. She suggested that additional information was required, such as information on demographics, and that municipalities should be able to purchase school and other institutional facilities for a nominal fee. The City should also consider a contingency plan for emerging situations.

Chair Peter Hume pointed out that the City has a policy guiding the purchase of surplus properties, and would acquire some if it had sufficient funding. He thought that, to this end, a capital reserve fund could be created, along with funds for the operating side.

Councillor Bob Monette said he was pleased that the discussion is taking place, as at least one school in his ward may be closing soon. He spoke in support of Councillor Harder’s motion. The Councillor does not agree with the blanket statement about purchasing through debentures because this would send the wrong message to the school boards. He also pointed out that many of these buildings need refurbishing which adds to the cost of acquiring the property.

Councillor Clive Doucet said he did not believe that Council was ready to support acquiring all school properties. He admitted being in a quandary as to how to proceed, as he believes that schools in the older, more established wards would be at a disadvantage. Councillor Doucet reiterated that residents of Ottawa have already paid for these buildings and they should be made available for a nominal sum. He indicated his intent to craft a Motion calling for the creation of a reserve fund for this purpose.

Councillor Holmes suggested a friendly amendment, the deletion of the word “elementary” in Councillor Cullen’s Motion. She pointed out that the Province does not want to put more money into education and is under-funding school boards. The Councillor added that many buildings are in prime locations and that the City is competing against condominium developers to purchase these sites.

Councillor Gord Hunter posited that the policy is working against the City’s interests in that there is limited urban growth and a severe shortage of land in urban areas. He expressed the view that taxpayers were not enamoured with Councillor Cullen’s approach. In addition, not every community has surplus schools and this would be asking residents in other areas to pay for the older, more established neighbourhoods. The Councillor agreed with the idea of a case-by-case evaluation. He also suggested the discussion move In-Camera, as he felt that the other parties were being given an undue advantage. Councillor Hunter agreed that some disaffected schools could be useful to the City, and he advised that he supported the staff recommendations.

The Committee Vice Chair, Peggy Feltmate, pointed out that, to illustrate how the system is broken, the school boards have asked for thirteen different sites through the Fernbank Community Design Plan process. The Councillor surmised that most of these would never be built. She added that, whereas a facility like Fisher Park was built on thirteen acres, twenty acres are now required for suburban facilities.

She felt the City has to have the capability to purchase some sites to alleviate the lack of meeting spaces and similar infrastructure. Councillor Feltmate suggested that staff be instructed to look at a priority listing and that a funding mechanism be put in place.

Chair Hume posited that no policy change is required, but the City has to put funding in place. He suggested that the Committee direct the creation of a funding source to deal with future situations, as well as developing a funding strategy for consideration as part of the 2008 budget. Councillor Doucet put forward a Motion calling for the process described by Chair Hume to be adopted.

The Committee discussed the order of consideration of the Motions. After some discussions, and questions of clarification to Mr. Burry, the Committee then considered the following:

Moved by D. Holmes

That Planning & Environment Committee recommend Council adopt the following policy:

1. That where a school board within the City of Ottawa offers an elementary school site as surplus to its educational needs, the City of Ottawa indicate an interest in acquiring this site;

LOST

NAYS (8): M. Bellemare, S. Desoches, P. Feltmate, J. Harder, G. Hunter, B. Monette,

S. Qadri, P. Hume

YEAS (2): C. Doucet, D. Holmes

Moved by D. Holmes

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend:

1. That Council direct staff to undertake an evaluation and prioritization of school sites for the purpose of identifying sites that would meet City needs should they be declared surplus.

2. That these priorities be reviewed on an annual basis.

CARRIED

Moved by J. Harder

3. That Council direct staff to establish criteria for the evaluation of surplus schools sites for review and approval by the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee, Planning and Environment Committee and Council after which staff be directed to undertake an evaluation and prioritization of school sites for the purpose of identifying sites that would meet City needs should they be declared surplus or are already surplus.

CARRIED

Moved by C. Doucet

4. WHEREAS the city presently evaluates school board property for various community and recreational uses needed by residents but lacks the funds to purchase properties that qualify;

AND WHEREAS a revision of the Official Plan will likely include a policy to provide green space, amenity and institutional spaces for communities that require this space.

BE IT RESOLVED that a funding strategy be brought forward for the 2008 Budget in order to acquire school board property that qualifies.

CARRIED

After some discussion, the Committee directed that this item be forwarded to Council on 29 August 2007.

The following individuals and/or groups submitted documentation in support of this item. The material is held on file with the City Clerk.

· Email dated June 11, 2007 from Dave Grosvenor, A/President, Woodroffe North Community Association,

· Email dated June 11, 2007 from John Blatherwick, Chair, Zoning and Development Committee, Woodpark Community Association Inc.

· Copy of letter dated June 14, 2007 to Councillor Peter Hume, Chair, Planning and Environment Committee from Ruth Tremblay, President, Crystal Beach/Lakeview Community Association;

· E-mail dated June 20/07 from Denis Labrèche, President, Association communautaire de Carlsbad Springs Community Association;

· E-mail dated June 20/07 from Sharron Mahon,

· E-mail dated June 21/07 from Kathy Yach, Copeland Park Community Association;

· E-mail dated June 21/07 from Gay Street, President, Tenants’ Association /Social Club, 31 McEwen Avenue;

· E-mail dated June 22/07 from Deb Cooper, President, and Eleanor Heap, Executive Director, Ottawa School Day Nurseries Inc.;

· Letter dated 25 June 2007 from Metin Akgun, President, Stittsville Village Association;

· Copy of correspondence between Coun. Jan Harder and Metin Akgun, Stittsville Village Association, providing clarification regarding conditions for acquisition of surplus schools by the City at the Councillor’s request.