Post on 03-Jul-2020
transcript
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO A REVIEW OF
THE EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
POLICIES OF
HALTON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
HALTON CATHOLIC DISTRICT
SCHOOL BOARD
(IN CONSIDERATION OF A NEW EDC BY-LAW TO BE ADOPTED BY THE HDSB ON OR
BEFORE MAY 20, 2009)
(IN CONSIDERATION OF A NEW EDC BY-LAW
TO BE ADOPTED BY THE HCDSB ON OR BEFORE JUNE 2, 2009)
April 9, 2009
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
CONTENTS Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Statutory Requirements to Conduct a Review 1-1 1.2 Overview of the Education Funding Model 1-2 1.3 Education Development Charge Objectives 1-3 1.4 The Policy Review Process 1-4 1.5 EDC By-law Renewal Process 1-8
2. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CHARGES 2-1 2.1 Growth Forecast Assumptions 2-1 2.2 EDC Pupil Yields 2-1 2.3 Ministry-rated Capacity for EDC Purposes 2-3 2.4 Determination of Net Growth-Related Pupil Place Requirement and Associated Site Requirements 2-5 2.5 Site Requirements and Valuation 2-7 2.6 Education Development Charge Calculation 2-8 2.7 Non-residential Contribution 2-9 2.8 Education Development Charges Calculation 2-9
3. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING EDC POLICIES 3-1 3.1 Percentage of Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs to be Borne Through EDCs 3-1 3.2 Jurisdiction-wide vs. Area Municipal (or Sub-area) Charges 3-2 3.3 Non-Statutory Residential Exemptions 3-3 3.4 Non-Statutory Non-Residential Exemptions 3-5 3.5 Demolition and Conversion Credits 3-7 3.6 Percentage of Net Education Land Costs to be Borne by Residential and Non-Residential Development 3-8 3.7 By-law Term 3-9 3.8 Application of Operating Surpluses to Capital Needs 3-10 3.9 Policy on Alternative Accommodation Arrangements 3-10 3.10 Collection of Education Development Charges 3-12
4. EDC BY-LAW STRUCTURE 4-1 4.1 EDC By-law Structure 4-1
5. SUMMARY OF BY-LAW PROVISIONS, APPEALS, AMENDMENTS AND COMPLAINTS 5.1 Summary of By-law Provisions 5-1 5.2 Inter Board Comparison of EDC Rates 5-3 5.3 Appeals, Amendments and Complaints 5-4
6. TRANSITIONAL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RESERVE FUND REPORTING 6.1 Establishment of an Education Development Charge Reserve Fund 6-1 6.2 Reserve Fund Reporting Requirements 6-2 6.3 Status of the HDSB and HCDSB EDC Reserve Fund 6-3
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
CONTENTS (Cont’d)
Page APPENDICES A HALTON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – EDC BY-LAW, ADOPTED JUNE 9, 2004 B HALTON CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – EDC BY LAW, ADOPTED JUNE
9, 2004 C EXISTING BOARD POLICIES - APPLICATION OF OPERATING SURPLUSES - ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION ARRANGEMENTS
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
1. INTRODUCTION
1-1
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
1. INTRODUCTION
The policy review document outlined herein is intended to provide the reader with an overview
of the education development charge policies underlying the existing EDC by-laws of the Halton
District School Board (HDSB) (EDC By-law 2004) as well as the Halton Catholic District School
Board (HCDSB) (EDC By-law 2004). Both by-laws are applicable throughout the Region of
Halton.
Both the HDSB and the HCDSB adopted and implemented an EDC by-law governing each
Board’s jurisdiction on June 9, 2004, with implementation on June 14, 2004. In accordance with
the legislation, a by-law may be in effect for no more than 5 years. The HDSB expects to give
consideration to the adoption of a new EDC by-law on or before May 20, 2009. The HCDSB
expects to entertain successor by-law adoption on June 2, 2009.
A policy review is intended to address the statutory and non-statutory policy considerations
underlying the existing EDC by-laws and considered by the Board of Trustees at by-law
adoption. Further, the policy review is designed to document any input received since by-law
inception and how each Board has addressed this input through by-law amendment, if any.
1.1 Statutory Requirements to Conduct a Review
Section 257.60 sub-section (1) of the Education Act states that:
“Before passing an education development charge by-law, the board shall conduct a review of the education development charge policies of the board.”
Sub-section (2) goes on to state that:
“In conducting a review under subsection (1), the board shall ensure that adequate information is made available to the public, and for this purpose shall hold at least one public meeting, notice of which shall be given in at least one newspaper having general circulation in the area of jurisdiction of the board.”
Sub-section (3) states that:
“A board is not required to conduct a review under this section before passing the first education development charge by-law it passes after December 31, 1997.”
1-2
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
As each Halton Region Board has an existing EDC by-law in place, this section of the
legislation, therefore, has the effect of requiring a minimum of two public meetings to be held as
part of the HDSB and the HCDSB consideration of the adoption of a successor education
development charge by-laws.
The purpose of the first public meeting is to ensure that adequate information is made available
to the public and Trustees relative to each of the Boards’ review of their education development
charge policies1. Trustees will make decisions in respect of each policy, having given
consideration to all public input on these matters, as part of the by-law passage process.
The holding of the second public meeting requires that the proposed by-laws and the new
education development charge background studies are made available to the public at least two
weeks prior to the meeting, and to ensure that any person who attends the meeting “... may
make representations relating to the by-law” (s.257.63(2)).
The schedule of public information sessions and public meetings is as follows:
Halton District School Board
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 – 7:00 pm. EDC Policy Review Public Meeting, followed by
the EDC Successor By-law Public Meeting on the same evening.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 – 7:00 pm. Consideration of By-law Passage
Halton Catholic District School Board
Tuesday, May 5, 2009 – 8:00 pm. EDC Policy Review Public Meeting, followed by the
EDC Successor By-law Public Meeting on the same evening.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009 – 8:00 pm. Consideration of By-law Passage
1The Dictionary of Canadian Law defines “policy” as, “A government commitment to the public to follow an action or course of action in pursuit of approved objectives.”
1-3
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
1.2 Overview of the Education Funding Model
The primary purpose in implementing education development charges (EDCs) is to provide a
source of funding for growth-related education land costs under the Province’s capital funding
model.
Provincial capital grants are not intended, under the Education Act, to be used for the purchase
of school sites required as a result of enrolment growth within a Board’s jurisdiction. Instead,
boards are responsible for acquiring sites needed for new schools:
from within their existing land holdings
using the proceeds from the sale of surplus property
as part of long-term lease arrangements with the private sector for new schools
through special arrangements with the private sector and/or municipalities (e.g., for
multi-use facilities)
using savings from the Board’s operating budget
Education Development Charges
Education development charges are the primary source of funding site acquisition needs for a
school board experiencing growth within its jurisdiction. Education development charges as a
means of financing site acquisition costs are only available to boards who qualify under the
legislation.
Section 257.54 of the Act allows a board to “pass by-laws for the imposition of education
development charges” if there is residential land in the jurisdiction of a board that would
increase education land costs. Further, Section 257.70 of the Education Act, enables a board to
“pass a by-law amending an education development charge by-law.”
The legislation governing education development charges is found in Division E of the
Education Act; Ontario Regulation 20/98 (as amended) and the EDC Guidelines 2002/03. A
copy of the Guidelines1 can be found at the Ministry of Education website www.edu.gov.on.ca.
1 Education Development Charge Guidelines, Spring 2002, Ministry of Education
1-4
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
1.3 Education Development Charge Objectives
Education development charges are imposed by both the HDSB and the HCDSB against
residential and non-residential development, in order to recover growth-related net education
land costs, as determined in compliance with the Education Act and its associated Regulations.
Education land costs are defined under the legislation as costs incurred or proposed to be
incurred by a board to:
1. acquire land or an interest in land, including a leasehold interest, to be used by
the board to provide pupil accommodation;
2. 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. prepare and distribute education development charge background studies as
required;
4. fund interest on money borrowed to pay for the costs described in items #1 and
#2;
5. undertake studies in connection with an acquisition referred to in item #1
(s.257.53(2)).
Only the capital component of costs to lease land or to acquire a leasehold interest is an
education land cost.
Under the same section of the Act, the following are not education land costs:
1. Costs of any building other than those used to provide pupil accommodation.
2. Costs that are attributable to excess land1 on a particular site that are not
education land costs.
1 “excess land” means the part of a school site that exceeds the maximum area determined, under s.2(5) of O.Reg. 20/98, based on the number of pupils that can be accommodated in the school to be built on the site.
1-5
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
1.4 The Policy Review Process
This document, which contains information on the HDSB and the HCDSB education
development charge policies, has been prepared in order to ensure that adequate information is
made available to the public, and to assist in the Boards’ review of their education development
charge policies. This information is being made available, on April 9, 2009 (on request), to
interested members of the public in advance of the April 22, 2009 (HDSB) and May 5, 2009
(HCDSB), Policy Review public meetings.
The Policy Review public meetings are being held in order to inform the public as to the HDSB’s
and the HCDSB’s current education development charge policies, to obtain input relative to
preparing new policies, and to review the proposed process for the adoption of new EDC by-
laws.
The purpose of the Policy Review public meeting, therefore, is not to review quantitative
assumptions respecting the future enrolment projections, and the number of school sites
relating to the proposed education development charge rates, which are currently being
reviewed by the Ministry of Education. The process to recommend education development
charge rates for the next by-law period will be put before the Trustees of each of the Boards and
the public for discussion during the successor by-law public meeting scheduled to be held
immediately following each Board’s Policy Review Public Meeting.
A copy of the advertisement announcing the EDC Policy Review Public Meeting for each of the
Halton Boards is set out on the following pages.
1-6
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
1-7
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
1-8
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
1.5 EDC By-law Renewal Process
The requirement to conduct a review of the existing education development charge policies of
the Halton Boards, in conjunction with conducting a full public consultation process (including
the holding of a minimum of two public meetings), will involve a number of steps. These steps
begin with conducting a review of existing EDC policies, the preparation of an EDC submission
for the proposed education development charges (one for the HDSB and one for the HCDSB),
followed by an extensive public consultation process with the various stakeholders, and
culminating in consideration of the passage of new EDC by-laws by each Board.
Since October 2008, the co-terminous Halton Boards and their consultants have worked
together in the preparation of the background analysis respecting growth projections, pupil
enrolment forecasts, determination of growth-related pupil place needs and associated site
requirements, site acquisition and preparation costs, and in completing the respective Ministry
of Education forms.
The steps required in the successor by-law EDC calculation and implementation process, the
opportunities for public input throughout the public consultation process and the timing of each
step, are outlined on the following page:
1-9
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
C. Second Public Meeting at Discretion of
Board
Overview of the Education Development Charges Process and Proposed Timelines
PHASE ONEDETERMINING
ELIGIBILITY
PHASE TWOANALYSIS
PHASE THREECONSIDERATION OF OTHER SOURCES TO
MEET THE NEEDS
PHASE FOURMINISTRY SUBMISSION
PHASE FIVEPUBLIC PROCESS
PHASE SIXBY-LAW ADOPTION
AND IMPLEMENTATION
A. Capacity Trigger Evaluation
B. EDC Reserve Fund Analysis
C. EDC Financial Obligations Evaluation
F. Apportion Costs Residential to Non-
Residential
E. Estimate Growth-Related Net Education Land Cost and Location of Site (Net of Grants,
Surplus EDC Reserves, etc.)
D. Net Growth-Related Pupil Forecast and
Number of New Sites/Acres of Land Required
C. Review Area Analysis
B. EDC Pupil Yields to Determine Average # of
New Pupils
A. Fifteen Year Estimate of Amount, Type and
Location of Residential and Non-Residential
Development
C. Conduct Review Public Meeting
D. Ministry of Education Approval
F. Notice of By-law Passage/Preparation of
EDC Pamphlet
D. By-law Adoption
C. Review of Public Submissions
B. Board Consideration of Public Input and
Revisions, as NecessaryB. Public Meeting(s)
B. Complete Background Study and Forward to MoE, Public and Co-Terminous Boards
A. Liaison with Area Municipal
Representatives re Implementation/Collection
Issues
A. Informal Public Consultation
A. Completion of Ministry Forms
C. Preparation and Distribution of Policy Review Document
B. Operating Budget Savings which could be
Applied
A. Board's Policy re Possible Public/Private Sector Partnerships to
Provide Additional Accommodation and
Statement of How Policy Implemented
E. By-law Implementation
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
2. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CHARGES
2-1
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
2. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CHARGES
The basis for the calculation for both of the Halton Boards’ existing schedule of education
development charges is documented in each of the Board’s Education Development Charges
Submission to the Ministry of Education dated April 22, 2004. Co-terminous boards try to
maintain consistent EDC policies to the extent possible, to facilitate defensibility of the charge,
ease of administration and collection by the area municipalities. The policy decisions made by
both Boards during the June 9, 2004 by-law adoption process and incorporated into their
respective by-laws, were consistent with one another.
2.1 Growth Forecast Assumptions
The net education capital costs and EDC calculations for the Boards were based on the
following growth assumptions for the fifteen-year forecast period:
2004-05 to 2018-19 Forecast Period
Halton Region
RESIDENTIAL:
Net New Units
62,454
NON-RESIDENTIAL:
(Net) Gross Floor Area Space (gfa)
39,330,018
2.2 EDC Pupil Yields
In addition, the Boards’ education development charge calculations were based on the
assumption respecting the number of pupils expected to be generated, per dwelling unit type, by
municipality, and by panel (elementary versus secondary) from new development.
The determination of the cumulative requirements of new development at the end of fifteen
years (i.e., the total number of pupils anticipated to be generated by new occupied dwelling
units over that time frame and reflective of the anticipated timing of new housing construction) is
based on the following weighted, blended pupil yields by dwelling unit type:
2-2
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
HALTON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD SUMMARY OF PUPIL YIELDS BY MUNICIPALITY
Burlington Oakville Milton Halton Hills
ELEMENTARY PANEL 0.1115 0.1707 0.1483 0.3672
Low Density 0.2190 0.2266 0.1697 0.5382
Medium Density 0.0916 0.1467 0.2108 0.2290
High Density 0.0148 0.0558 0.0020 0.0479
SECONDARY PANEL 0.0389 0.0840 0.0723 0.1003
Low Density 0.0864 0.0902 0.0873 0.1407
Medium Density 0.0232 0.0966 0.0824 0.0622
High Density 0.0047 0.0492 0.0006 0.0305
HALTON CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD SUMMARY OF PUPIL YIELDS BY MUNICIPALITY
Burlington Oakville Milton Halton Hills
ELEMENTARY PANEL 0.0718 0.1316 0.0992 0.1777
Low Density 0.1296 0.1741 0.1073 0.2512
Medium Density 0.0667 0.1141 0.1689 0.1317
High Density 0.0130 0.0430 0.0009 0.0260
SECONDARY PANEL 0.0280 0.0467 0.0632 0.0523
Low Density 0.0623 0.0502 0.0763 0.0734
Medium Density 0.0167 0.0538 0.0721 0.0325
High Density 0.0034 0.0274 0.0005 0.0159
2-3
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
2.3 Ministry-rated Capacity for EDC Purposes
In order to be in a position to consider the adoption of an EDC by-law, a school board must
meet one of two eligibility criteria as outlined below:
1. either the average elementary or secondary enrolment within the board’s jurisdiction,
over the five-year period following by-law passage, exceeds the elementary or
secondary capacity (as of by-law passage), or
2. the board can demonstrate that it has financial obligations in respect of growth-related
site acquisition needs that exceeds the current (as of by-law passage) balance in the
EDC Reserve Fund.
The basis for the Boards’ existing EDC by-laws is the comparison of enrolment to OTG capacity
(i.e., On-The-Ground), as per point #1 above contained in the EDC Guidelines.
Page 8 of the EDC Guidelines states the following:
“For the purpose of EDCs, the capacity to be used for all calculations (trigger, net new pupil places, etc.) is the current capacity (as recorded in the Ministry’s School Facilities Inventory System (SFIS)) of all operational schools of the board on the day the by-law comes into force (also known as the ‘On-The-Ground’ Capacity).”
Adjustments reflecting Ministry policy may be made in such circumstances as:
conversions of school facilities for use by a different panel (e.g., secondary to
elementary) within 12 months of by-law passage;
capacity for all schools/additions that will be available for instructional purposes within
12 months of by-law passage;
the capacity of some types of special education, adult education, or outdoor
education facilities;
the capacity of leased school facilities;
schools that have, or will be closed during the tenure of the EDC by-law.
2-4
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
Further, the Guidelines state that “Boards are required, in the background study, to document all
capacity adjustments made that are not consistent with the SFIS.”
Finally, a Board is required to include the number of temporary facilities (e.g., portables) in its
inventory, consistent with the most recent SFIS information.
The Ministry-rated capacity for EDC purposes which is incorporated into the existing EDC by-
laws, is outlined below.
MINISTRY-RATED CAPACITY FOR EDC ELIGIBILITY PURPOSES
Halton DSB:
EDC By-law
(June 9, 2004)1
Proposed Successor EDC
By-law (May 20, 2009)
Elementary 30,146.5 33,033.0
Secondary 16,622.0 16,410.0
TOTAL 46,769.0 49,443.0
Halton Catholic DSB:
EDC By-law
(June 9, 2004)1
Proposed Successor EDC
By-law (June 2, 2009)
Elementary 15,975.5 16,612.0
Secondary 7,884.0 9,276.0
TOTAL 23,859.5 25,888.0
For both Boards, the number of permanent classroom spaces (i.e., capacity) has, in part,
decreased due to the Provincial policy initiative of reduced primary class sizes. Changes to
permanent capacity affect the determination of the number of “available and surplus spaces,”
and therefore affect the net growth-related land needs each time that the by-law calculation is
revisited.
1 Represents permanent capacity of all bricks and mortar facility space (used for educational purposes).
2-5
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
2.4 Determination of Net Growth-Related Pupil Place Requirement
and Associated Site Requirements
The determination of the number of growth-related pupil places and their associated site
acquisition needs, involves five key steps.
For each review area:
1. Determine the Board’s inventory of permanent bricks and mortar space (i.e.,
OTG capacity for EDC purposes).
2. Determine the requirements of the existing community. The total OTG capacity
of all existing and proposed school facilities measured against the projected
enrolment from the existing community at the end of the forecast period,
determines whether there are any surplus pupil places available to accommodate
pupils generated by new development.
3. Determine the requirements of new development, which is the total number of
pupils generated from the units forecasted to be constructed over the fifteen-year
forecast period.
4. Determine “Net Growth-related Pupil Place Requirements,” which is the
requirements of new development less the number of available pupil places in
existing facilities.
5. Determine the need for additional school sites based on the “net growth-related
pupil place requirement,” taking into consideration situations where additions to
existing facilities, rather than new facilities, would meet the needs over the
forecast period.
2-6
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
The results of the analysis for the existing EDC by-laws of the Halton co-terminous Boards are
as follows:
HALTON DSB EXISTING
EDC BY-LAW
HALTON CATHOLIC DSB EXISTING EDC BY-LAW
DETERMINATION OF NET GROWTH-RELATED
PUPIL PLACES ELEMENTARY
PANEL SECONDARY
PANEL ELEMENTARY
PANEL SECONDARY
PANEL
1. Capacity 30,146.5 16,622.5 15,975.5 7,884.0
2. Projected Average Daily Enrolment of Existing Community 24,409 12,591 11,992 6,192
3. Requirements of New Development 10,742 4,602 7,215 3,022
4. Less: Available and Accessible Pupil Places 1,567 1,115 1,007 896
5. Equals: Net Growth-Related Pupil Place Requirement 9,175 3,487 6,207 2,126
2.5 Site Requirements and Valuation
The legislation requires that boards “estimate the net education land cost for the elementary/
secondary sites required to provide pupil places for the new school pupils”. O.Reg 20/98
specifies the maximum number of acres of land that can be acquired, based on the number of
pupils to be accommodated, except where:
a) the land has already been acquired by the board before February 1, 1998; or
b) there is an agreement, entered into before February 1, 1998, under which the
board is required to, or has an option to, purchase the land;
c) the land is reasonably necessary to meet a legal requirement relating to the site;
or
d) the land is necessary to allow the facilities to be located on the site and to
provide access to the site.
Both boards retained the services of the firm Royal LePage (now Cushman Wakefield LePage),
as part of the 2004 EDC background study related to their EDC by-laws. The appraisers were
requested to provide an opinion as to:
2-7
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
a) the appropriate land value per acre for school site acquisitions by the Halton
Catholic DSB and the Halton DSB, for expected sites within Halton Region;
b) the appropriate annual escalation factor to apply to the (current) school site value
in order to sustain the likely acquisition cost over the 15-year period.
The average per acre acquisition costs utilized to determine education land costs in the existing
EDC by-law, were as follows:
HALTON BOARDS 2004 EDC BACKGROUND REPORT
COMMUNITY
ESTIMATED VALUE (2004 $/ACRE)
Burlington $244,500 – 293,000
Halton Hills $250,000 – 271,000
Milton $279,750 – 295,500
Oakville $292,500 - 1,250,000
Average site preparation costs of approximately $45,615 per acre for elementary sites and
$89,065 per acre for secondary sites on average were applied to the overall acquisition costs
and escalated annually over the 15-year period at 3.0% per annum. In addition, land values
were escalated for each municipality per annum to the year in which the site was expected to be
purchased and are listed below. Finally, the cost of borrowing to fund the acquisition of land
was assumed to carry a 7% interest rate with a 10 year financing term.
LAND ESCALATION RATES APPLIED FOR EDC PURPOSES
COMMUNITY CONCLUDED ESCALATION RATE
Burlington 2.75%
Halton Hills 2.5%
Milton 3.25%
Oakville 3.25%
2-8
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
2.6 Education Development Charge Calculation
Once the boards have estimated the net education land costs to be applied, they are required to
determine the portion of the charges to be recovered from residential development and non-
residential development, having taken into consideration any positive or negative balance in the
EDC reserve fund.
A cash flow methodology was utilized to determine the quantum of the education development
charges. A cash flow methodology takes into consideration: projected revenue from the
imposition of EDCs, the projected timing of the acquisition of the sites (assumed to be at least
two years in advance of the construction of the school), associated borrowing costs, and
reserve fund interest earnings. Finally, the establishment of the EDC rate must consider
whether the boards have any operating savings that could be applied to reduce the charges. To
date, the boards have not been in a position to designate operating budget funds for the
purpose of acquiring land to meet growth-related needs. In addition, the Boards do not have in
place, any proposals for alternative accommodation arrangements (i.e., alternative
accommodation arrangements made with the public or private sector) that would serve to
reduce the charges.
2.7 Non-residential Contribution
The apportionment of net education capital costs to determine the residential education
development charge per unit and the non-residential charge per square foot was based on the
assumption that 15% of the total net education capital costs would be borne by non-residential
(industrial, institutional and commercial) development, and the remainder, or 85% would be
borne by residential development over the term of the by-law for both the Halton Catholic
District School Board and the Halton District School Board.
2.8 Education Development Charges Calculation
Finally, the following table summarizes the calculation of residential and non-residential
education development charges for the Halton DSB and the Halton Catholic DSB as
contemplated in the 2004 Background Study.
2-9
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
JUNE 09, 2004 EDC CALCULATION
Residential Halton
District School
Board
Halton Catholic
District School
Board
Total
Total Growth-related Net
Education Land Costs $58,482,020 $43,471,879 $101,953,899
Residential Share (85% for both
HDSB and HCDSB) $49,709,717 $36,951,097 $86,660,814
Total Net New Units 62,454 62,454 62,454
Residential Development Charge $796 $592 $1,388
Non-Residential Halton
District School
Board
Halton Catholic
District School
Board
Total
Total Growth-related Net
Education Land Costs $58,482,020 $43,471,879 $101,953,899
Non-Residential Share (15% for
both HDSB and HCDSB $8,772,303 $6,520,782 $1,906,882
Total Non Exempt G.F.A. 39,330,018 39,330,018 39,330,018
Non-Residential Development
Charge $0.22 $0.17 $0.39
The effective implementation date of both by-laws was June 14, 2004.
Post Ministry review, the following rates were subsequently adopted through by-law passage on
June 7, 2004:
Halton District School Board:
85% Residential Charge: $791.00 per unit
15% Non-Residential Charge: $0.22 per sq.ft. of gfa
Halton Catholic District School Board:
85% Residential Charge: $592.00 per unit
15% Non-Residential Charge: $0.17 per sq.ft. of gfa
2-10
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
Both by-laws have been amended each year since June 14, 2004 in order to reflect rising site
acquisition and development costs.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
3. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING EDC POLICIES
3-1
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
3. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING POLICIES
This section of the report provides an overview of how the statutorily defined education
development charge policy issues were dealt with under the Halton Boards’ existing EDC by-
laws, as well as some perspectives in considering these issues for the successor EDC by-laws.
The Boards of Trustees for each board, after consideration of public input, will make decisions
on each of these policy issues prior to passage of the new EDC by-laws.
The following describes the key policy issues addressed by the Boards in their EDC by-laws,
any subsequent feedback from the municipalities, the development community, and other
interested stakeholders, as well as a description of any changes made to the policies post by-
law adoption.
3.1 Percentage of Growth-Related Net Education Land Costs to be
Borne through EDCs
Legislative Provisions:
O.Reg. 20/98, section 7, paragraphs 9 (iii) and 10 (vi), restrict a board to a maximum of 100%
recovery of the “net” growth-related education land costs. However, in deriving “net” growth-
related education land costs, there are several impediments to full cost recovery, including non-
statutory exemptions granted by the Board and statutorily-exempt residential development. The
eligible number of growth-related new pupils must be net of any available surplus capacity and
there are restrictions on the number of acres of land that a board can fund.
All Boards with EDC by-laws in place, have calculated their EDC rates to derive 100% cost
recovery of the “net” education land costs, particularly where EDC charges are applied to
residential development only.
3-2
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
Existing EDC By-law Provisions:
Both the HDSB’s and the HCDSB’s EDC By-laws are designed to recover 100% of the net
growth-related land costs.
Considerations:
One of the most significant changes in the legislative treatment of education development
charges is that there is no tax-based funding source to make up the shortfall where full cost
recovery is not achieved. The granting of non-statutory exemptions forces the board to absorb
the loss of revenue associated with granting the exemptions.
3.2 Jurisdiction-wide vs. Area Municipal (or Sub-area) Charges
Legislative Provisions:
Section 257.54 subsection (4) allows for area specific EDC by-laws by providing that “an
education development charge by-law may apply to the entire area of jurisdiction of a board or
only part of it.”
Further, the Education Act permits a board to have more than one EDC by-law under section
257.54 subsection (1) in that “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.”
Finally, section 257.59(c) of the Education Act requires that “an education development charge
by-law shall...designate those areas in which an education development charge shall be
imposed”.
3-3
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
Existing EDC By-law Provisions:
The existing “in force” EDC by-laws of the Halton District School Board and the Halton Catholic
District School Board are applied on a jurisdiction-wide basis in Halton Region. There has been
no request from the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) or the local
development community stakeholders to consider anything other than a jurisdiction-wide by-law
structures in Halton Region.
This policy decision has been the subject of appeals to the Simcoe Boards’ by-laws since 1999.
In addition, there was an appeal of the Peel DSB EDC by-law in 2004 citing the application of
the by-law structure on a jurisdiction-wide basis as an appeal issue. This appeal was
subsequently withdrawn. There have been no other appeals of the question of by-law structure
decisions within the Province of Ontario. Chapter 4 of this report provides a more fulsome
discussion on the issue of by-law structure.
Considerations:
From a methodological perspective, an EDC-eligible board is required to make assumptions
respecting the geographic structure of the by-law or by-laws from the onset of the calculation
process. Discussions respecting the number of potential by-laws and the subdivision of the
boards’ jurisdictions into review areas are held with the Boards at the commencement of the
study process. If, as a result of the consultation process undertaken in contemplation of the
adoption of an EDC by-law or by-laws, the Boards choose a different policy direction, they are
usually advised by legal counsel that a new background study is required, and the calculation/
public consultation process begins anew.
3.3 Non-Statutory Residential Exemptions
Legislative Provisions:
Under the legislation, residential statutory exemptions include:
The enlargement of an existing dwelling unit (s.257.54 (3)(a)).
3-4
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
The addition of one or two units to an existing residential building where the addition is
within prescribed limits (s.257.54 (3)(b), O.Reg. 20/98 s.3).
The replacement dwelling on the same site as a dwelling unit that was destroyed (or
rendered uninhabitable) by fire, demolition or otherwise, where the building permit for the
replacement dwelling is issued two years or less after the later of the date on which the
former dwelling unit was destroyed or became uninhabitable, or a demolition permit was
issued (O.Reg. 20/98 Section (4)).
In addition, Part III, s.7.1 of O.Reg. 20/98 provides that “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.” (underlining added)
Accordingly, any costs related to students generated from units which are statutorily exempt (in
housing intensification) are not recoverable from EDCs.
Finally, an amendment to O.Reg. 20/98 enables a board to vary the EDC rates to consider
differences in size (e.g., number of bedrooms, square footage) of dwelling units or occupancy
(permanent or seasonal, non-family households or family households) although the latter (i.e.,
occupancy) could change over time.
Section 7 paragraph (9) of O.Reg. 20/98 states that “the board shall determine charges on
residential development subject to the following,
i) the charges shall be expressed as a rate per new dwelling unit,
ii) the rate shall be the same throughout the area in which charges are to be
imposed under the by-law, ...” (underlining added)
3-5
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
Despite this, a board may impose different charges on different types1 of residential
development, based on the percentage of the growth-related net education land costs to be
applied to residential development that is to be funded by each type. The restrictions noted
above would also apply in the case of differentiated residential EDC rates.
Existing EDC By-law Provisions:
Neither Board’s EDC by-law provides for any non-statutory residential exemptions.
Further, there are no by-law exemptions given for units that are marketed as “adult lifestyle”.
The determination of pupils generated by new development does, however, take into
consideration the minimal occupancy of these units by school-age children.
Considerations:
From a Provincial perspective, there has only ever been one appeal of this issue. Landowners
representing the Wilmot Creek development in the Municipality of Clarington sought recognition
of the adult lifestyle nature of the community and requested exemption from the payment of
EDCs. The OMB upheld the Boards’ position2 that education services are a broader policy
tenet.
3.4 Non-Statutory Non-residential Exemptions
Legislative Provisions:
Non-residential statutory exemptions include:
land owned by, and used for the purposes of, a board or a municipality
1 The Spring 2002 EDC Guidelines state that “Boards may define dwelling unit types based on the nature of development and criteria that is relevant to the board (e.g., low, medium and high density; condominium/apartments, townhouses, detached houses, etc.). Boards are encouraged, where possible to rely on the categories of development used by the municipalities impacted by the EDC by-law. (Section 2.3.9.3 page 17). 2 Appeals of EDC by-laws of Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB and Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic DSB.
3-6
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
expansions to industrial buildings (gross floor area)1
replacement, on the same site, of a non-residential building that was destroyed by fire,
demolition or otherwise, so as to render it unusable and provided that the building permit
for the replacement building was issued less than 5 years after the date the building
became unusable or the date the demolition permit was issued
Section 7 paragraph (10) of O.Reg. 20/98 states that “if charges are to be imposed on non-
residential development ... the charges shall be expressed as ...”
a) a rate to be applied to the board-determined gross floor area of the development,
or
b) a rate to be applied to the declared value of the development.
Existing EDC By-law Provisions:
Neither Board’s EDC by-law provides for any non-statutory non-residential exemptions.
Considerations:
If a Board elects not to have a non-residential charge, then non-statutory, non-residential
exemptions are not an issue.
There is no funding source currently available under the new funding model to absorb the cost
of providing non-statutory exemptions. In addition, by-law administration and collection of the
charge, and the ability to treat all development applications in a fair and equitable manner, are
complicated by the granting of non-statutory exemptions.
A legal opinion, sought on this matter by the consultant, suggests that a school board must
absorb the cost of exemptions voluntarily granted by the Board to any non-statutory, non-
residential development (i.e., the Board would not be in a position to make up the lost revenue
1Where the expansion to the gross floor area (gfa) is less than or equal to 50% no charge applies. Where the gfa is enlarged by more than 50% a formulaic approach is set out in Section 257.55(3) of the Education Act.
3-7
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
by increasing the charge on the other non-exempt, non-residential development under the
legislation).
3.5 Demolition and Conversion Credits
Legislative Provisions:
Section 4 of O.Reg 20/98 prescribes a replacement dwelling unit exemption.
Section 4 states that “a board shall exempt an owner with respect to the replacement, on the
same site, of a dwelling unit that was destroyed by fire, demolition or otherwise, or that was so
damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise as to render it uninhabitable.”
However, “a board is not required to exempt an owner if the building permit for the replacement
dwelling unit is issued more than two years after,
a) the date the former dwelling unit was destroyed or became uninhabitable; or
b) if the former dwelling unit was demolished pursuant to a demolition permit issued
before the former dwelling unit was destroyed or became uninhabitable, the date
the demolition permit was issued.”
Section 5 of O.Reg. 20/98 deals with exemptions for the replacement of non-residential
buildings. Similar provisions apply with respect to the replacement of non-residential gross floor
area (gfa), except that the credit is only applied to the extent that the amount of new floor space
is equivalent to the gfa of the floor space being replaced. The grace period for the replacement
of non-residential gfa is five years.
There are no legislative provisions specifically dealing with conversion of use. However, the
EDC Guidelines, section 4.1, states that, “Board by-laws may include provisions for credits for
land use conversion. Typically, this situation would arise if an EDC is paid for one type of
development and shortly thereafter (the period of time defined in the board’s EDC by-law), the
land is rezoned and a new building permit issued for redevelopment (to an alternate land use).
EDC by-laws may include provisions for providing credits in this situation to take into account
3-8
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
the EDC amount paid on the original development (generally by offsetting the EDC amount
payable on the redevelopment)” (underlined wording added for further clarification).
Existing EDC By-law Provisions:
Both Board’s EDC by-laws provide for a two-year grace period on residential building permits
and a 5-year period on non-residential building permits. No exemptions are granted for
conversion of use.
Considerations:
Most of the existing EDC by-laws in place provide for a 5-year grace period in respect of
residential and non-residential building permits for replacement dwelling units. In addition, most
EDC by-laws provide conversion credits limited to the amount of the education development
charges originally paid in respect of the land in question.
3.6 Percentage of Net Education Land Costs to be Borne By
Residential and Non-residential Development
Legislative Provisions:
Section 257.54(1) of the Education Act provides that a board may pass an EDC by-law “against
land in its area of jurisdiction undergoing residential or non-residential development,” if
residential development in the board’s jurisdiction would increase education land costs.
Section 7 paragraph 8 of O.Reg. 20/98 requires that, “the Board shall choose the percentage of
the growth-related net education land cost that is to be funded by charges on residential
development and the percentage, if any, that is to be funded by charges on non-residential
development.” (underlining added) “The percentage that is to be funded by charges on non-
residential development shall not exceed 40 percent.”
A board has the choice under the Education Act, of levying an EDC only on residential
development (for partial or full eligible cost recovery), or levying a charge on both residential
3-9
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
and non-residential development (up to a maximum of 40% of costs allocated to non-residential
development). Under the previous DCA legislation, a charge on non-residential development
(then termed “commercial” development) was required.
Existing EDC By-law Provisions:
Both Board’s by-laws are designed to recover 85% of the net education land costs from
residential development, with the residual, or 15% from non-residential development.
Considerations
For most of the current EDC by-laws, 10-15% of net growth-related education costs were
funded by non-residential development. This percentage was specifically requested by a
majority of the development community stakeholders during the public consultation process,
where the residential EDC rates are higher than the norm.
3.7 By-law Term
Legislative Provisions:
The Education Act permits a school board to pass an EDC by-law with a maximum term of five
years. (s.257.58 (1))
A board with an EDC by-law in force, may pass a new EDC by-law at any time, after preparing a
new education development charge study, securing Ministry approval, and undertaking the
required public process. (s.257.58 (2))
A board may amend an EDC by-law once in each one-year period following by-law enactment,
to do any of the following:
“1. Increase the amount of an education development charge that will be payable in any particular case.
2. Remove, or reduce the scope of, an exemption.
3-10
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
3. Extend the term of the by-law.” (s.257.70(2) and subject to s.257.58(1))
A public meeting is not required for a by-law amendment; however, the board must give notice
of the proposed amendment, in accordance with the regulations, and make available to the
public, the EDC background study for the by-law being amended, and “sufficient information to
allow the public to generally understand the proposed amendment.” (s.257.72)
Existing EDC By-law Provisions:
Each Board’s EDC by-law carries a maximum in force term of five years.
3.8 Application of Operating Surpluses to Capital Needs
Legislative Provisions:
The education development charge background study must include “a statement from the board
stating that it has reviewed its operating budget for savings that could be applied to reduce
growth-related net education land costs, and the amount of any savings which it proposes to
apply, if any.”
The Regulation requires that this issue be addressed by a quorum of the board.
The use of the expression, “if any,” recognizes that even if there is a surplus, the board may not
choose to direct it to this particular form of expenditure.
The Province’s Funding Model prescribes “envelopes” which impact on the direction of
budgetary surpluses, including the requirement that funds may not be moved from the
classroom to non-classroom category; funds generated by special education needs cannot be
used for other purposes; funds generated from grants for new pupil places or renewal must be
used for this purpose or placed in a reserve fund for future use.1 Only funds generated from the
1However, funds may be used to acquire school sites as part of a school facilities acquisition under O.Reg. 446/98.
3-11
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
School Board Administration and Governance, Transportation and School Operations grants
may be directed elsewhere (and therefore could be potentially used for education land costs).
A copy of each board’s existing policy can be found in Appendices C and D, respectively.
3.9 Policy on Alternative Accommodation Arrangements
Legislative Provisions:
Information which must be included in the education development charge background study
includes, “A statement of the board’s policy concerning possible arrangements with
municipalities, school boards or other persons or bodies in the public or private sector, including
arrangements of a long-term or co-operative nature, which would provide accommodation for
the new elementary school pupils and new secondary school pupils...without imposing
education development charges or with a reduction in such charges.” (section 9(1) paragraph 6
of O.Reg 20/98)
For a subsequent EDC by-law period, the board is further required to provide a “statement of
how the policy...was implemented and, if it was not implemented, an explanation of why it was
not implemented.”
The legislation would appear to contemplate situations where the “arrangements” include
consideration for both land and buildings.
The impact on the Boards’ permanent capacity (particularly in the situation of a long-term
leasing arrangement) would have to be considered as part of the needs assessment inherent in
the EDC calculation.
If “other persons”1 were to enter into these arrangements with school boards, they would be
potentially spreading the benefit of the arrangement across all development, as opposed to a
landowner entering into a services-in-lieu agreement, which would provide the applicant with a
credit against EDCs payable.
1Other than those paying EDCs (e.g. municipalities, corporations, endowments, etc.)
3-12
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
The pupil accommodation reserve fund can be utilized to enter into long and short term lease
arrangements with the private sector, or to enter into multi-use partnership agreements within
other school boards, municipalities or the private sector.
Section 110 (12) of the Municipal Act permits school boards to provide limited exemptions from
municipal and school taxes and education development charges in exchange for the provision
of school capital facilities, under certain circumstances.
A copy of each board’s existing policy on alternative accommodation arrangements can be
found in Appendices C and D, respectively.
3.10 Collection of Education Development Charges
Legislative Provisions:
Sections 257.80 and 257.81 of Division E of the Education Act states that “an education
development charge is payable upon a building permit being issued” and “…payable to the
municipality issuing the building permit.”
Existing EDC By-law Provisions:
Sections 17 and 18 of each Board’s by-law specify that:
“The education development charge in respect of a development is payable to the Municipality on the date that the first building permit is issued in relation to a building or structure on land to which the education development charge applies. All education development charges payable shall be paid by cash, by certified cheque or by bank draft.”
Considerations:
During the August, 2008 EDC by-law adoption process for the Toronto Catholic DSB, the
Building Industry and Land Development Association requested that the Board approve
transitional collection procedures. The Board approved the “grandfathering” of building permit
3-13
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
applications submitted to the City of Toronto prior to June 30, 2008 to allow those building
permits to pay the old EDC rates.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
4. EDC BY-LAW STRUCTURE
4-1
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
4. EDC BY-LAW STRUCTURE This section of the report deals with the policy decision of a school board to adopt jurisdiction-
wide or one or more area-specific education development charge by-laws. Both by-law
structures are permitted under the legislation.
Legislative Provisions:
The Education Act permits a board to have more than one EDC by-law under section 257.54 (1)
in that “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.”
Section 257.54 (4) further permits area specific by-laws in that “an education development
charge by-law may apply to the entire jurisdiction of a board or only part of it.” The Board is
required to designate the charging “area” in the contents of the by-law (section 257.59 (c)).
The predecessor legislation, the Development Charges Act, 1989, required the creation of area
specific EDC by-laws in that co-terminous boards, whose jurisdictions only partially overlapped,
were required to establish common EDC accounts (i.e., one for residential collections and one
for non-residential collections) for contiguous areas of by-law application. The existing
legislation removes the requirement for shared accounts, and tries to recognize common
charging areas through the establishment of “regions” under section 257.57 of the Education
Act. Even so, a board is entitled to have more than one area-specific by-law within each
“region,” where established, or within the board’s jurisdiction, where “regions” were not
established.
Section 259.57 of the Education Act stipulates that an EDC by-law shall not apply to more than
one region where the regulations divide a board’s jurisdiction into multiple regions. Moreover,
monies collected within one region may not be spent in another without the Minister’s
permission.
4-2
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
Where a board chooses to adopt multiple area-specific by-laws within a region, the EDC funds
collected must be spent on “growth-related net education land costs attributed to or resulting
from development in the area to which the EDC by-law applies”1 (underlining added). A board
may borrow from one by-law area to another on an interim basis, but it must repay the amount
borrowed plus interest at a rate specified in the legislation. It is not possible under the
legislation to borrow from one by-law area to another indefinitely. Moreover, if repayment by the
borrowing area is not fully made until the last by-law period, then the borrowing area must
recoup the amount of funds borrowed from a limited number of development units. Delaying the
repayment of the borrowed funds places the burden of repayment on units that may not have
generated the need in the first place.
Existing EDC By-law Provisions:
There are twenty-eight “in-force” EDC by-laws in the Province of Ontario and only three are
singular, area-specific by-laws. For each of the area-specific by-laws there is a singular,
geographically defined portion of the jurisdiction experiencing enrolment growth (and requiring
additional land). In each case, the lands experiencing growth are urban in designation, and
separated from other urban areas by vast expanses of rural lands (e.g., extensive rural divide
between the Town of Clarington and the City of Peterborough and between the City of Kingston
and the Town of Napanee). There are no growth-related site needs outside of the by-law area.
Moreover, the non-charging area does not benefit from the construction of new schools within
the by-law area, largely due to distance. As well, the pupils generated by new development are
proposed to be accommodated within the by-law area, not outside of it. Finally, the distinction
between areas of need and areas of no need is not expected to change during the fifteen-year
forecast period or beyond. Area-specific by-law structures are typically recommended by the
consultants where the foregoing conditions exist in an area within a board’s jurisdiction.
The application of multiple area-specific by-laws (and there are none of these in the Province of
Ontario) would only be recommended where the following circumstances apply:
there is considerable distance between the by-law areas and the lands between have
few, if any, pupils (i.e., there is no potential for cross boundary attendance); and
1 Section 16(2) of O.Reg. 20/98.
4-3
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
future growth patterns are known and there is no potential that the future growth will
conjoin the pupil attendance boundaries of the independent area-specific by-law areas.
In jurisdictions where enrolment growth occurs in several parts of the jurisdiction, jurisdiction-
wide by-law structures are preferred over multiple area-specific by-laws for several reasons:
1. Jurisdiction-wide by-law structures guarantee full cost recovery. That is, 100% of net
growth-related land needs are funded regardless of the timing and location of
development. There are no constraints to redirecting EDC funds to anywhere within the
jurisdiction under this by-law structure.
2. Full cost recovery is ensured even if land costs are higher than predicted, but because it
is an averaging exercise, the impact of the cost increase is lower (i.e., spread over more
units and gfa).
3. The larger the charging area and the number of sites, the better the opportunity to
spread the risk in the averaging exercise. Also, this reduces borrowing costs and
ultimately the cost to land owners to develop land.
4. A jurisdiction-wide by-law structure provides the flexibility to accommodate pupils where
and when required, given a changing student accommodation environment which is
driven, in part, by changing Provincial policies. Shifts in apportionment between boards
can be dealt with more readily under this by-law structure. In addition, a jurisdiction-wide
by-law structure ensures that accommodation decisions determine changes to the by-
law needs, not the other way around.
5. This approach is consistent with the implementation of each Board’s capital program and
its education service delivery, which is not differentiated by particular service areas. It is
also consistent with the basis for determining EDC eligibility which is on a jurisdiction-
wide basis.
6. A singular by-law structure is easier to administer for school boards and municipalities in
that it negates the requirement to determine which side of the street is contained within
the charging area. Where only one side of the street falls within the charging area, the
4-4
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
recovery scheme may be deemed inequitable by those who are required to pay the
charge.
7. A jurisdiction-wide by-law ensures that a board is not put in a situation of trying to fund
growth-related land needs generated outside of the by-law area. Where this occurs,
boards would be forced to move the by-law boundaries to chase the growth. Where
building permits have already been issued in respect of this new growth area, then a
funding shortfall occurs as the by-law can only be applied at building permit issuance.
Moreover, constantly revisiting the EDC by-law (i.e., a by-law amendment would not
suffice under these circumstances) is unreasonable, time consuming and costly.
8. If EDC monies are collected to fund growth-related land needs within the by-law area,
but the students are subsequently accommodated outside of the by-law area, there is no
ability to redirect (i.e., spend) these funds outside of the by-law area. The funds are
stranded in the area in which they were collected and serve to reduce the successor by-
law charge.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
5. SUMMARY OF BY-LAW PROVISIONS, APPEALS,
AMENDMENTS AND COMPLAINTS
5-1
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
5. SUMMARY OF BY-LAW PROVISIONS, APPEALS,
AMENDMENTS AND COMPLAINTS
5.1 Summary of By-law Provisions
This section of the report presents a broad summary of the Halton Boards Education
Development Charge By-laws for purposes of conveying a general understanding of the by-laws
to the public as part of this policy review. It is not intended to alter or interpret the meaning of
the by-laws in any way (the full text of the Halton District School Board’s and the Halton Catholic
District School Board’s EDC By-Laws are contained in Appendices A and B, respectively.
The existing Education Development Charge By-laws for the co-terminous Halton Boards,
governing Halton Region, include the following key provisions:
Lands Affected – Section 3 of both the Halton DSB and Halton Catholic DSB by-laws
indicate that the by-law applies to all lands in Halton Region, but not to lands that are
“owned by and are used for the purposes of”:
“(a) the Region or a local board thereof;
(b) a municipality or local board thereof;
(c) a board as defined in section 257.53(1) of the Act;
(d) a public hospital receiving aid under the Public Hospitals Act R.S.O.
1990,c:p40;
(e) a publicly-funded university, community college or a college of applied
arts and technology established under the Ministry of Colleges and
Universities Act, or a predecessor statute;
(f) a seminary of learning maintained for educational purposes that is
exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act, the whole profits from
which are devoted or applied to such purposes;
(g) a place of worship owned by religious organization that is exempt from
taxation under the Assessment Act that is used primarily as a place of
public worship;
5-2
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
(h) a cemetery or burying ground that is exempt from taxation under the
Assessment Act;
(i) The Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority (“Go Transit”); and
(j) agricultural buildings or structures that are owned by and used for the
purposes of a bona fide farming operation.
Calculation of Charge – Section 9 of the HDSB and HCDSB by-law specifies the
residential rates. Section 12 specifies the non-residential rates.
Timing of Payment – Section 16 of both the HDSB and HCDSB by-laws specify that the
EDC is payable in full to the municipality in which the development takes place on the
date that a building permit is issued in relation to a building or structure.
Redevelopment Conversion Credit – Sections 11 and 14 of the by-laws explains the
basis on which an exemption would apply in the case of the replacement of a building or
structure.
Effective and Expiry Dates - Section 20 of the by-laws states that the by-law “shall come
into force on June 14, 2004” and Section 21 of the by-laws states that the by-law “shall
expire five (5) years after the date they comes into force, unless it is repealed at an
earlier date.”
5-3
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
5.2 Inter Board Comparison of EDC Rates
A summary of in-force rates for each of the Boards with EDC by-laws in place and the
residential and non-residential rates imposed under those by-laws as of November, 2008, is
shown below.
BoardEffective Date
of By-lawBy-law Term
Area to which By-law Applies
Res. Charge/
Unit
Non-Res. Charge/ Sq. Ft. of G.F.A.
% of Charge Attributed to Residential
Development
% of Charge Attributed to
Non-Residential Development
1Algonquin & Lakeshore Catholic DSB
Oct. 2007 5 years City of Kingston $74 $0.00 100% 0%
2Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic DSB
Nov. 2008 5 yearsCity of Brantford, County of Brant
$628 $0.00 100% 0%
3
Conseil de district des écoles publiques de langue française n°59
Nov. 20044 years & 7.5
monthsCity of Ottawa $68 $0.02 90% 10%
4
Conseil des écoles catholiques de langue française du Centre-Est
Oct. 20044 years & 9
monthsCity of Ottawa $41 $0.03 75% 25%
5 Dufferin-Peel Catholic DSB May 2006 5 years Peel Region $536 $0.23 75% 25%
6Durham Catholic DSB July 2004 5 years
Durham Region (excl. Clarington)
$337 $0.00 100% 0%
7Durham DSB July 2004 5 years
Durham Region (excl. Clarington)
$958 $0.00 100% 0%
8English-language Separate DSB No 38 (London CDSB)
Sept. 2005 5 years City of London $379 $0.00 100% 0%
9 Greater Essex County DSB July 2008 1 year City of Windsor $190 $0.00 100% 0%
10Greater Essex County DSB July 2008 1 year
County of Essex and the Township of Pelee
$180 $0.00 100% 0%
11 Halton Catholic DSB June 2007 5 years Halton Region $839 $0.24 85% 15%12 Halton DSB June 2007 5 years Halton Region $1,260 $0.35 85% 15%
13Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic DSB
Sept. 2004 5 years City of Hamilton $307 $0.11 85% 15%
14 Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB July 2005 5 years Clarington $835 $0.29 90% 10%15 Ottawa-Carleton Catholic DSB July 2004 5 years City of Ottawa $367 $0.27 74% 26%
16Ottawa-Carleton DSB Sept. 2004
4 years & 10 months
City of Ottawa $518 $0.19 85% 15%
17 Peel DSB March 2008 5 years Peel Region $1,605 $0.23 90% 10%
18
Peterborough, Victoria, Northumberland & Clarington Catholic DSB
May 2005 5 years Clarington $364 $0.13 90% 10%
19Simcoe Muskoka Catholic DSB Nov. 2008 5 years Simcoe County $370 $0.08 90% 10%
20 Simcoe County DSB Nov. 2008 5 years Simcoe County $718 $0.15 90% 10%21 Toronto Catholic DSB Aug. 2008 5 years City of Toronto $544 $0.58 75% 25%22 Upper Grand DSB Sept. 2004 5 years Dufferin County $188 $0.00 100% 0%23 Upper Grand DSB Sept. 2004 5 years Wellington County $618 $0.00 100% 0%
24Waterloo Catholic DSB July 2006 5 years
Regional Municipality of Waterloo
$112 $0.00 100% 0%
25Waterloo Region DSB July 2006 5 years
Regional Municipality of Waterloo
$637 $0.00 100% 0%
26 Wellington Catholic DSB Sept. 2004 5 years Wellington County $453 $0.00 100% 0%27 York Catholic DSB July 2004 5 years York Region $477 $0.07 90% 10%28 York DSB July 2004 5 years York Region $1,193 $0.19 90% 10%
Note: Updated February 2009 by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\edc-gen\[EDC Rates by Board.xlsx]EDCs
5-4
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
5.3 Appeals, Amendments and Complaints
5.3.1 Appeals
Under Section 257.65 of the Education Act, “any person or organization may appeal an
education development charge by-law to the Ontario Municipal Board by filing with the secretary
of the board that passed the by-law, a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the by-law
and the reasons supporting the objection.”
There were no appeals of the Halton District School Board and Halton Catholic District School
Board EDC by-laws.
5.3.2 Amendments
Legislative Provisions:
Section 257.70 subsection (1) states that “subject to subsection (2), a board may pass a by-law
amending an education development charge by-law.”
Subsection (2) goes on to say that “a board may not amend an education development charge
by-law so as to do any one of the following more than once in the one-year period immediately
following the coming into force of the by-law or in any succeeding one-year period:
1. Increase the amount of an education development charge that will be payable in
any particular case.
2. Remove, or reduce the scope of, an exemption.
3. Extend the term of the by-law.”
Section 257.71 states that “A by-law amending an education development charge by-law comes
into force on the fifth day after it is passed.”
Finally, “before passing a by-law amending an education development charge by-law, the board
shall,
5-5
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
a) give notice of the proposed amendment in accordance with the regulations; and
b) ensure that the following are made available to the public,
i) the education development charge background study for the by-law being
amended, and
ii) sufficient information to allow the public to understand the proposed
amendment.”
Both the HDSB and the HCDSB have in place Board policies requiring the Superintendent of
Business to report annually on the ability of the existing EDC by-law to fund ongoing education
land costs and to prepare amendments to the by-law for Board consideration as necessary.
Both Boards have amended their EDC by-laws every year since implementation of the by-laws
in July, 2004.
5.3.3 Complaints
Under Section 257.85 of the Education Act, “an owner, the owner’s agent or a board, may
complain to the council of the municipality to which an education development charge is payable
that,
a) the amount of the education development charge was incorrectly determined;
b) a credit is or is not available to be used against the education development
charge, or that the amount of a credit was incorrectly determined;
c) there was an error in the application of the education development charge by-law
In addition, “A complaint may not be made...later than 90 days after the day the education
development charge, or any part of it, is payable.”
There were no complaints filed against either by-law.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
6. TRANSITIONAL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
RESERVE FUND REPORTING
6-1
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
6. TRANSITIONAL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
RESERVE FUND REPORTING
6.1 Establishment of an Education Development Charge
Reserve Fund
Section 257.82 of the Education Act states that “a board that has passed an education
development charge by-law shall establish reserve funds in accordance with the regulations.”
Part V of O.Reg 20/98 section 16(1) further states that “a board shall, under section 257.82 of
the Act, establish an education development charge reserve fund for the area to which an
education development charge by-law applies.” Sub-section 16(2) goes on to say that “money
from an education development charge reserve fund established under subsection (1) may be
used only,
a) for growth-related net education land costs, attributed to or resulting from,
development in the area to which an education development charge by-law
applies;
b) as provided for under clause 241 (1) (a) or section 257.99 of the Act;
c) to pay for the reasonable costs of preparing, revising and distributing the
pamphlet for the by-law as required under section 21;
d) to pay the service charges of a financial institution relating to the reserve fund; or
e) if an education development charge has been paid but the building permit for the
development is revoked, to refund the education development charge plus
interest at a rate not exceeding the rate prescribed under section 18."
Section 16.1 of O.Reg. 20/98 requires a board to establish an education development charge
reserve where the proceeds of a sale, lease or other disposition of real property is attributed to a
portion of the property that was originally funded from an EDC reserve fund.
6-2
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
Section 257.82 sub-section (2) stipulates that “a municipality that receives an education
development charge shall deposit the charge in the appropriate education development charge
reserve fund not later than the 25th day of the month after the month in which the charge has
been paid”. As section 257.85 of the Education Act also enables “an owner, the owner’s agent,
or a board”, to complain to the council of the municipality to which an education development
charge was payable, the board must act within 90 days of the education development charge, or
any part of it, being paid. The complaint provisions enable the board to file a complaint (in
writing) to the municipality, if the charge was incorrectly applied, or if there was an error in the
application of the by-law.
Section 257.90 of the Education Act deals with refunds to be paid from the education
development charge reserve fund (plus applicable interest), “if an education development
charge that has already been paid is reduced by the council of a municipality under section
257.85 or by the Ontario Municipal Board under section 257.89" (appeal of the by-law or by-law
amendment to the OMB).
6.2 Reserve Fund Reporting Requirements
Section 257.98 of the Education Act requires that “the treasurer of a board shall each year on or
before such date as the board may direct, give the board a financial statement relating to
education development charge by-laws and education development charge reserve funds.” “A
statement must include, for the preceding year, statements of the opening and closing balances
of the education development charge reserve funds and of the transactions relating to the
reserve funds and other such information as is prescribed in the regulations” (underlining
added). “The treasurer shall give a copy of a statement to the Minister within 60 days after
giving the statement to the board.”
The regulations which accompany Part IX Division E of the Education Act do not specify “other
information” to be included in the reserve fund statement. In lieu, the Ministry requires that all
boards with EDC by-laws in place submit a detailed reserve fund statement as part of the
financial reporting to the Ministry, in the boards’ annual Financial Statements (Appendices D1
and D2). The Financial Statements of the boards are typically approved by the board of
trustees and submitted to the Minister in November of each year. Details on the education
development charge reserve fund will have been incorporated into the boards’ Financial
6-3
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
Statements since the 2002/03 fiscal year. However, it is noted that Reserve Fund Continuity
Statements are reported fiscal period to fiscal period, whereas the EDC transitional reserve fund
analysis is based on the period between by-law inception and the implementation date of the
proposed successor by-law. Moreover, the legislation requires that a school board estimate the
balance in the EDC reserve fund. Therefore, the EDC transitional analysis makes an
adjustment for the actual balance of the previous by-law period.
6.3 Status of the HDSB and HCDSB EDC Reserve Fund
A statement of collections to January 31, 2009, interest earnings, and refunds given, is provided
on the following pages. An estimate of total EDC revenue to by-law expiry, along with eligible
EDC site expenditures, can be found in the Boards’ April 9, 2009 EDC Background Study
Report.
6-4
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
HALTON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARDEDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW
EDC RESERVE FUND RECONCILIATION - REVENUE
EDC BY-LAW PERIODS September 1, 1999 to June 14, 2004 and June 15, 2004 to January 31, 2009EDCs from Residential
Development
EDCs from Non-Residential
Development Interest EarnedLess Interest
Expense
Less Refunds and
Overpayments
Proceeds of Disposition
(EDC Portion) Total RevenueA Estimated Collections September 1, 1999 to June 14, 2004:
1 Carried forward from June 1996 - August 1999 EDC by-law period $2,093,646
2EDC By-law Collections September 1, 1999 to December 31, 2003 (as per EDC Background Study Report April 22, 2004) 18,342,252$ 2,044,172$ 511,216$ (13,753)$ 20,883,887$
3Estimated Collections January 1, 2004 to June 14, 2004 (as per April 22, 2004 EDC Background Study Table 8-7) 2,500,000$
Sub-totals 25,477,533$
B Actual Collections September 1, 1999 to June 14, 2004
1 Carried forward from June 1996 - August 1999 EDC by-law period $2,093,646
2EDC By-law Collections September 1, 1999 to December 31, 2003 (as per EDC Background Study Report April 22, 2004) 20,883,887$
3 Actual Collections January 1, 2004 to June 14, 2004 3,211,911$ 444,032$ 121,462$ -$ (2,792)$ 3,774,613$
Sub-totals 26,752,146$
4 Net Difference Carried forward: 1,274,613$
C Actual Collections June 15, 2004 to January 31, 2009:
1 EDC Reported Collections June 15, 2004 to August 31, 2004 681,781$ 379,597$ 45,615$ -$ -$ 1,106,993$
2 EDC Reported Collections Sept 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005 3,922,736$ 589,842$ 200,695$ -$ (1,072)$ 1,250,177$ 5,962,378$
3 EDC Reported Collections Sept 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006 4,096,386$ 915,499$ 197,889$ (1,153)$ (156)$ 5,208,465$
4 EDC Reported Collections Sept 1, 2006 to August 31, 2007 5,526,894$ 1,717,498$ 146,868$ (44,629)$ 7,346,631$
5 EDC Reported Collections Sept 1, 2007 to August 31, 2008 7,072,882$ 1,288,226$ 123,943$ (316,815)$ 8,168,236$
6 EDC Reported Collections Sept 1, 2008 to January 31, 2009 1,242,589$ 38,441$ -$ (91,178)$ (1,151)$ 1,188,701$
Total Collections to Include in EDC RF Transitional Analysis 30,256,017$
S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\HDSB 2009 EDC\Reserve Fund\[HDSB - EDC ANAYSIS - FINAL APRIL 6.xls]Revenues
6-5
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
HALTON CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARDEDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW
EDC RESERVE FUND RECONCILIATION - REVENUE
EDC BY-LAW PERIODS September 1, 1999 to June 14, 2004 and June 15, 2004 to January 31, 2009EDCs from Residential
Development
EDCs from Non-Residential
Development Interest Earned
Less Refunds and
Overpayments Total RevenueA Estimated Collections September 1, 1999 to June 14, 2004:
1 Carried forward from June 1996 - August 1999 EDC by-law period $0
2EDC By-law Collections September 1, 1999 to December 31, 2003 (as per EDC Background Study Report April 22, 2004) 503,652$ (8,492)$ 16,543,721$
3Estimated Collections January 1, 2004 to June 14, 2004 (as per April 22, 2004 EDC Background Study Table 8-7) 2,000,000$
Sub-totals 18,543,721$
B Actual Collections September 1, 1999 to June 14, 2004
1 Carried forward from June 1996 - August 1999 EDC by-law period $0
2EDC By-law Collections September 1, 1999 to December 31, 2003 (as per EDC Background Study Report April 22, 2004) 16,543,721$
3 Actual Collections January 1, 2004 to June 14, 2004 1,965,897$
Sub-totals 18,509,618$
4 Net Difference Carried forward: (34,103)$
C Actual Collections June 15, 2004 to January 31, 2009:
1 EDC Reported Collections June 15, 2004 to May 31, 2005 3,595,209$ 537,215$ 4,132,424$
2 EDC Reported Collections June 1, 2005 to May 31, 2006 2,633,319$ 578,046$ 3,211,365$
3 EDC Reported Collections June 1, 2006 to May 31, 2007 3,541,987$ 1,118,522$ 4,660,509$
4 EDC Reported Collections June 1, 2007 to May 31, 2008 4,703,552$ 830,039$ 5,533,591$
5 EDC Reported Collections June 1, 2008 to January 31, 2009 2,133,172$ 436,915$ (4,384)$ 2,565,703$
Total Collections to Include in EDC RF Transitional Analysis 16,607,239$ 3,500,736$ -$ (4,384)$ 20,073,872$
S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\HCDSB 2009 EDC\Reserve Fund\[Reserve Fund Calculation.Final Table 8-4. xls.xlsx]Revenues
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
APPENDIX A
HALTON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD –
EDC BY-LAW ADOPTED JUNE 9, 2004
A-1
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
A-2
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
A-3
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
A-4
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
A-5
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
A-6
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
A-7
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
A-8
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
A-9
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
A-10
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
A-11
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
APPENDIX B
HALTON CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD –
EDC BY-LAW ADOPTED JUNE 9, 2004
B-1
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
B-2
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
B-3
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
B-4
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
B-5
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
B-6
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
B-7
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
B-8
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
B-9
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
B-10
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
B-11
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
B-12
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
APPENDIX C
EXISTING BOARD POLICIES
- APPLICATION OF OPERATING SURPLUSES
- APPLICATION OF ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
HALTON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
C-1
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
C-2
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
HALTON CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
C-3
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
C-4
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
C-5
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx
C-6
Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. S:\HDSB-HCDSB 2009 EDC BY-LAW RENEWAL\reports\Halton DSB & CDSB Policy Review Report April 2009.docx