Resolving Alberta’s School Infrastructure Deficit School Boards’ Input Toward Solutions

Pro

mo

tin

g E

xc

ell

en

ce

in

Pu

bli

c E

du

ca

tio

n

A. Background and Purpose 2

B. The Issues 2

C. Proposed Solutions 3

1. Rebalancing the Decision Making and Accountability Paradigm 3

2. Funding School Infrastructure Projects 4

3. Improving Planning and Design 6

4. Improving Partnerships and Co-operation 9

5. Reducing the Regulatory Burden 10

D. Conclusion 11

APPENDIX A: ASBA Policy Pertaining to Infrastructure 12

Table of Contents

This report was written by Sig Schmold for the Alberta School Boards Association.

For more information contact the ASBA office at 1.780.482.7311.

Published March 2010

2

A. Background and Purpose

Education Minister David Hancock, in a meeting with the ASBA Board of Directors on October 15th, 2009, invited school boards to provide solutions to their infrastructure challenges. In response to the Ministers’ invitation, the ASBA Infrastructure Task Force requested that Alberta’s school boards be provided the opportunity to suggest “creative and innovative” solutions to their infrastructure issues.

Alberta’s school boards have expressed numerous concerns about existing planning, funding and regulatory mechanisms (Building Together – It’s Time to Act, May 2009) that currently shape a school board’s ability (or lack thereof) to provide needed school spaces for students.

The Task Force is aware, as are boards, that additional funding could alleviate many infrastructure concerns. Additional funding, however, is not a likely solution given our current economic reality. Furthermore, the Minister’s invitation was to explore solutions which would not require additional infrastructure funding from the government.

Alberta’s School Boards have embraced this challenge. Twenty-nine (29) of sixty-two (62) school boards representing a cross section of Alberta’s public, separate and francophone boards responded with suggestions and advice to a December 2009 ASBA survey that sought school board solutions to identified school infrastructure issues. Of note is that these 29 school boards represent more than seventy-five (75) percent of students in the province as they include all of Alberta’s metro boards, most of Alberta’s urban boards, and a good cross section of Alberta’s rural boards.

B. The I s sues

The May 2009 ASBA Infrastructure report, and the December 2009 survey, identified ten (10) issues representing “barriers” to the goal of providing safe and functional schools for Alberta’s 600,000 school aged children where and when needed. These issues are discussed at length, through the eyes of school boards, in Building Together – It’s Time to Act (2009). These issues are briefly summarized below as they provide context to the discussion about proposed solutions. In summary, Alberta’s school boards are concerned about the following:

•Thedifficultyreplacingorpreservingagingschoolbuildings

•Schoolboardeffortstoprovideschoolfacilities(andmodularclassrooms)to growing communities in a timely and proactive manner

•Theadhocnatureoffundingmechanismsandprograms

2

3

•Thecalculationanduseofutilizationratesforschools

•Theeffectivenessofthecurrentlongtermcapitalplanningand approval process

•Thelackoffundingforschoolboardnon-instructionalspace

•Thelackofflexibilitytomeetcommunityneedswithregardtoschoolfacilities

•Thelackofprovincialfundingforthefacilityandequipmentcostsassociated with provincial initiatives such as the new occupational health and safety requirements

•Sitepreparationandservicingcosts,aswellasissueswithlanduseandzoning

•Thecurrentschoolclosureprocess

Alberta’s School Act creates a positive duty for school boards to provide and maintain adequate real property. This duty, shared with Government, is presently not being met; not because of lack of will or ability, but because of systemic issues that need resolution.

The balance of this report explores proposed school board solutions to these systemic issues.

C. Proposed Solut ions

1. Rebalancing the Decision Making and Accountability ParadigmPresently, decision making regarding the planning, design and funding for new and replacement schools and major modernization and maintenance projects for existing schools is a highly centralized function within Alberta Education. Alberta’s school boards, elected by their communities to represent their interests in education, have, in the words of one school board, a largely “trivial” role.

From a school board’s view, boards set their priorities, submit their plans to Alberta Education, and then cross their fingers in hopes of receiving a positive response; or any response at all. Priorities from across the province are fed into a “black box” and funding is announced in a seemingly arbitrary fashion. Little or no feedback is provided to boards regarding the rationale for decisions or where local priority projects fall into the provincial priority scheme.

In addition, while many school boards in the province have the expertise to manage and construct infrastructure projects, provincial regulations require school boards to use a general contractor for capital projects over $100,000.00. Property sales also require the approval of the Minister. Local issues regarding the design and usage of school projects are largely subservient to provincial design parameters.

3

4

In summary, key decision making and accountability for school infrastructure projects currently rests with the provincial government with local school boards playing a largely symbolic role.

Alberta’s school boards believe that the current relationship between the provincial government and school boards needs to be rebalanced with the goal of placing more decision making responsibility and accountability for school infrastructure projects in the hands of local school boards. Alberta’s publicly elected school boards represent the community “voice” about school facilities. They need the ability to give shape and substance to this voice.

Rather than project specific funding, school boards recommend a return to and expansion of block funding for school maintenance and modernization projects. They would also support an examination of block funding models for new construction projects, based either on a per student allotment or on a percentage of fixed assets.

“In the mid 1990’s” submits one school board, “the then Minister of Education held province wide consultations with school stakeholders with a view to finding solutions to school infrastructure needs. One of the recommendations of that process that was accepted by the province was to block fund school replacements and modernizations. The implementation of this solution would solve many of the problems we now face.”

The implementation of a block funding model would rebalance the existing relationship between Alberta Education and the province’s school boards. The province would retain responsibility for establishing infrastructure standards and overall funding while school boards, working within this framework, would deal with local priority, planning and implementation issues. In the view of school boards, this rebalancing of decision making responsibilities would be a cost effective way of solving many of the issues inherent in the current centralized decision making process.

2. Funding School Infrastructure ProjectsA number of school boards believe that the provincial government’s current policy of funding school infrastructure through provincial surpluses is flawed. They point out that when the province’s economy is booming budget surpluses are created, and school boards receive funding for infrastructure projects from these surpluses. The downside to this approach is that construction prices spike when the economy is booming and as the economy slows down prices go down but no or few projects are awarded because surpluses disappear.

A stable and predictable source of infrastructure revenue would be preferred by school boards. School boards are requesting that one or more of the following strategies be seriously considered by the provincial government:

5

Borrowing through Debentures or BondsThe funding of municipal infrastructure projects provides a model worthy of consideration for school infrastructure projects. The December 19th, 2009 edition of the Edmonton Journal, for example, displays a large public notice to electors of the City of Edmonton (p. B4). The notice details plans for the City to borrow, by the issuing of 25 year debentures, 4.3 million dollars for the demolition and construction of a waste management facility and 43 million dollars for the community services and Valley Zoo master plan implementation. These debentures would be repaid in semi annual or annual instalments.

While municipalities like the City of Edmonton can fund long term infrastructure priorities like waste management and zoo facilities through the issuing of debentures, school boards have no such ability. It could be argued that adequate school infrastructure is as necessary to communities as waste management and parks and consequently see issuing debentures to fund such projects over time as a reasonable and prudent approach.

School boards suggest they should be allowed to raise money through the issue of debentures for energy saving projects or to improve efficiencies. It would be in everyone’s best interest to enable boards to borrow to complete projects to save energy (for example, replacing a boiler that has a payback of 8-10 yrs) or to be more effective with their spending (for example, completing a roofing job in one contract rather than in 2 or 3 separate contracts because of shortage of funds).

School boards believe that now may be the perfect time to borrow as interest rates are low, construction costs have dropped and capital projects create needed jobs.

Access to the Local Tax BaseHand in hand with the ability to issue debentures would be the ability to access the local tax base, at least in part. Many of the province’s school boards believe that a return to school board taxation authority would improve not only funding for needed school infrastructure but also accountability. The right of school boards to have some access to the local tax base is a view that is supported by Alberta’s Commission on Learning (2003). The Commission believed “school boards should have a limited ability to raise funds from their residents to support local priorities”, and stated that “school boards should have close ties with their electors and be accountable for the decisions they make. With little or no ability to raise additional funds, the connection of school boards to their communities is weakened and their ability to address local needs is minimal” (p. 150).

6

Add to Subdivision Development CostsA third approach to raising funds for new school infrastructure shifts the responsibility to developers, at least in part, as part of new subdivision requirements.

One school board summarized this approach and its rationale as follows:

We believe that the amount of money available from Alberta Infrastructure is not the problem – the source is the problem. Money for a school required in new major residential developments should be coming from levies assessed to the developers of those developments on a per lot, or per family unit, basis. If this were done then the money already allocated to school building funding would be sufficient. The rationale for this is as follows: Historically development takes place, revenue is extracted in the form of road, water, sewer, gas and power service, taxes are generated by the financial activity of construction, jobs, mark-ups by contractors and developers which in most cases are substantial. The families move in. All the revenues go into the provincial budget and get dispersed, then five years down the road after the financial boom that triggered the development has come and gone, a school is required that takes money away from ongoing infrastructure requirements. In essence we are constantly mortgaging our future from a taxation point of view. The new P3s are a perfect example of the government scrambling to find the money, in a booming economy, for developments that were completed five years ago. The revenue from these developments that should have built the required schools… has been long since spent.

Create a Sustainability FundA number of school boards have advanced the notion of a sustainability fund as a source of stable infrastructure funding. They state that, in good economic times, surplus funds ought to be put into a sustainability fund and in poor economic years funds would be borrowed from the sustainability fund. The province has this plan partially in place but with the economy sputtering funds are not being released from it for school infrastructure projects.

3. Improving Planning and DesignQuite simply, school boards have expressed frustration with the current provincial school infrastructure planning process. In particular, they are concerned about lack of transparency, lack of communication, lack of design flexibility, lack of adequate funding, and unreasonable timelines. In their view, the current dysfunctional planning process does not use scarce financial resources efficiently. One school board sums up its frustration as follows:

School boards are unable to effectively plan IMR expenditures in many cases.

7

Since provincial funding for capital requests meets only the needs in the highest categories even in years when surpluses are very high, capital requests for buildings whose major driver is obsolescence sit on capital lists for many years.

During this time boards are forced to expend IMR funds to keep the building safe and healthy. This in turn reduces the audit score and further delays a capital award. IMR funding is at less than a level that would maintain school buildings, so IMR funding winds up being expended on buildings that should be addressed by a capital award, and the buildings that could be maintained deteriorate until they need to be addressed by a capital award. A prime example in our division is having to replace a roof in a large section of a building that we have a capital request to demolish. The space cannot be just closed down since the section being planned for demolition houses programs that would need a lot of funding to be relocated into the portions of the building that would remain (computer labs, music room, etc). When school boards approach Alberta Education for an estimate of when any particular capital request may be awarded, and particularly for buildings that are old but the walls have not fallen on anyone, they are not able to receive any meaningful advice, since Alberta Education staff truly have no idea what the future holds. School boards are strongly encouraged to have a ten year capital plan. All that planning is quite useless when the major player in the whole process cannot tell you what to expect tomorrow.

Another school board submits:

The process for making decisions regarding infrastructure is not transparent. We receive no communication from the ministry after we submit our Capital plan. Is our number 1 priority number 62 for the province (given that there are 62 boards) or is our priority number 1, number 3 or number 34? This is not being communicated and we therefore have no information to share with our constituents and our parents.

Still another board maintains:

The timeliness of the approval process is inadequate. Is there a timeline?

The process is very cumbersome ...Working with Infrastructure and Education is confusing and cumbersome. It creates delays, which are very costly. Is there a disconnect between Infrastructure and Alberta Ed?

8

Others are concerned about the lack of ability to respond appropriately to facility life span issues:

Calgary Catholic School District (CCSD) has an inventory of over 600 portable classrooms and has since the 1980’s supported the concept of core modular construction. With this construction model the District has been a diligent steward of public funds in capital construction, resulting in huge savings over the years. In order to continue our due diligence in this area, it would be impingent upon the government to assist the District in maintaining and supporting this construction model, by supporting the replacement of 30 plus year old portables (that have a life expectancy of 25 years), cover the cost of moving portables to areas of the District that have unprecedented increases in student enrolments thereby providing the ability to deal with student accommodation issues and reduce transportation costs.

The above excerpts from the December 2009 ASBA Infrastructure Survey are some examples of the many school board comments about the current dysfunctional and frustrating planning process. Education Minister David Hancock is aware of the frustration being experienced by school boards. At the April 26, 2008 Alberta School Council’s Association annual meeting he “blasted his own government’s handling of the education system…calling the way the province plans schools ‘absolutely insane’ and in need of review” (Edmonton Journal, April 27, 2008).

What would a more functional school infrastructure planning process look like?While the details of such a process would require dialogue between Alberta Education, Alberta Infrastructure and Alberta’s school boards, the following principles would help shape a more functional process:

•Itwouldbeco-operativelydevelopedbyAlbertaEducationandAlberta’sschool boards

•Itwouldrebalancecurrentcentralizedplanningwithamoremeaningfulschool board role

•Itwouldbetransparent,equitableandpredictable

•Itwouldincludekeycommunicationpoints

•Itwouldincludebothannualandlongertermfundingprovisions

•Itwouldincludeacleardescriptionofrolesandresponsibilities and timelines

•Itwouldbedrivenbyeffectivenessandefficiencyimperatives

9

4. Improving Partnerships and Co-operationAlberta’s school boards recognize the value inherent in partnerships, co-operation and the efficiencies provided by scale. The following thoughts from the December 2009 ASBA Survey are relative to these principles:

•TreatCentralAlbertaasalargerareasotheycouldbeconsideredasapotential P3 solution (e.g. Red Deer Public, Red Deer Catholic, and Chinook’s Edge).

•Anyschoolbuildingnotcurrentlybeingusedasaschoolshouldbemade available for transfer to a Francophone Authority. In essence, Francophone Authorities would have “first right of refusal.” This would ensure that infrastructure supported by public funds is used to serve public needs. It could also be a great cost savings to the government.

•ImproveschoolboardunderstandingaboutaccessingP3funds/opportunities and possible partnerships with other school boards or other agencies, including postsecondary systems.

•Governmenthasaroleinfacilitatingandbuildingpartnershipsespeciallybetween different government departments (e.g. a health facility or a post secondary facility could combine with a school).

•SharingspacewiththeCatholicschoolboardsincommunitieswhereboth the Public and Catholic Boards co-exist.

•Workingwithpartnerslikecounties,towns,andcitiestobuildfacilities.Thepartnerswouldsharecommonareaslikelibraries,gyms/fieldhouses,and CTS labs.

•EstablishCity/SchoolBoard/HealthBoardPurchasingCooperatives.

•Encouragedeveloper-builtschoolsindevelopingcommunitiesor authorize developer to build and lease schools in developing communities.

•Becomeasecondarytenantwithotherpartners.

•AlbertaInfrastructureshouldassistboardsinprocuringutilities,insurance and the like. This would result in lower overall costs to boards through bigger economies of scale.

•Thecapitalplanningprocessneedstoincorporateacomprehensivecase management commitment where the government, through its funding, will commit to decommission redundant space in return for new facilities. This suggests a complementary approach being afforded to government and board mutual interests; so that school divisions are not “paralyzed” in taking the initiative to right size facilities, for fear that a new facility will not be forthcoming.

While not exhaustive, the above suggestions demonstrate the willingness of school boards to find innovative solutions based on the principle of co-operation and mutual benefit.

10

5. Reducing the Regulatory BurdenA number of Alberta’s school boards are concerned that certain existing “regulations and procedures” that frame their ability to plan, build and maintain school infrastructure projects present unnecessary barriers. The following were identified by various boards in the December 2009 ASBA survey:

•TheClassroomSizeInitiativeGuidelines(CSI)areresultingininadequate school space in our fast growing communities. Conversely, construction for new schools does not recognize CSI guidelines which is resulting in schools being built that are not fully functional.

•Removetherulesthathamperschoolboardsfromsavingmoneybyacting as their own general contractor.

•EliminateIMRgrantreporting.

•Streamlinedispositionsandtenderingregulations.

•Thedepartmentshouldcovercostsfortransportingstudentstorecreational facilities when schools do not have gymnasiums.

•Thedepartmentshouldcovercoststorentspaceforourboardoffices.

•Changeoreliminatetheschoolutilizationformula.Itisoutdated.Theneeds of schools today differ from those of years ago, more specialized services provided today requiring more space for individual and small group services.

•Donotpenalizeforunderutilizationiffundingformodernization(right-sizing) is not provided.

•StreamlineAlbertaInfrastructureapprovalprocesses($500,000threshold).

•Enhancemunicipalrezoningofsurplusschoollandstoenhancevalueonsale.

•ChangezoningofschoolpropertiestopermitmoreuniqueuseswithinMunicipal Government Act (MGA) terms.

•Theschoolclosureregulationdoesnotprovidesufficientlocalautonomyor flexibility in proposing and implementing solutions to the issues of school sustainability and excess student capacity. The requirement to complete the process in one year creates unnecessary pressure on the community who doesn’t understand the constraint.

•SchoolActregulationslimitlease-termperiodsofschoolspacetoone-year without Ministerial consent, for external tenants and partners. Education partners and tenants, many of whom provide community wrap-around services to families and children, are not able to secure access to school space for a stable or long term period.

11

•Tenantsandpartnerscannotaccessfacilitygrantsandfundsavailabletoother entities, as use of many grants and funds in a public school facility is not permitted, or school districts are not eligible to apply for or receive any of these grants and funds.

•Encourageyearroundschoolingtooptimizefacilityuse.

•Promotemoredistanceande-learningtoreducefacilitydemand.

•ReviewfundingformulaforO&MandIMRtoincludemorefactorsbeyond per pupil count.

The above comments are just some of the suggestions provided by school boards relative to rules and procedures seen as problematic. School boards would be pleased to discuss these more fully with provincial representatives.

D. Conclus ion

Alberta’s school boards take their statutory responsibility to provide adequate facilities to their community’s children very seriously. Many are concerned that the current provincial policies, procedures and funding mechanisms are not able to deliver needed school infrastructure to communities where and when needed.

School boards want to be part of the solution. They believe that solutions to the current school infrastructure deficit can be found by rebalancing decision making responsibilities, exploring longer term funding models that are not totally reliant on annual provincial budget surpluses, and exploring ways to improve planning and co-operation.

Alberta’s school boards welcome more ownership, responsibility and accountability for their infrastructure issues. They want to do this in a co-operative and respectful partnership with Alberta Education as they understand that local and provincial politicians working together toward a common goal will achieve better results for Alberta’s students.

12

APPENDIX A: ASBA Pol icy Perta ining to Infras t ructure(as of March 2010)

Funding Model The provincial government should provide funding for capital projects based upon a funding model which gives school boards annual, sustained funding forcapitalprojectsrequiredtomeettheneedsofagrowingand/orchangingpopulation as well as aging education infrastructure.

Capacity and Resourcing The provincial government should provide increased capital funding.

Adequate funding for new and replacement schools, modernization and other capital projects should be provided in order to eliminate the infrastructure deficit affecting all school boards.

In Edmonton and Calgary, there are large subdivisions which do not have a school. The provincial government should provide sufficient funding to metro boards and other rapidly growing jurisdictions for the infrastructure needs of new communities and the educational, social, economic, recreational, and cultural value of having new schools in the developing areas should be recognized and financially supported.

The provincial government should increase funding rates for new school construction that address inflation and reflect current market conditions.

ICT Infrastructure Funding The provincial government should provide the required financial support to provide the necessary infrastructure to support Information and Communications Technology. In particular, funding support is required to meet the code requirements of the new Occupational Health and Safety Act Regulations and Code legislation.

Facility Costs of Implementing Provincial Initiatives The provincial government should recognize the facility costs associated with implementing provincial initiatives such as Small Class Size in determining school capacity, utilization of school space, and the capital needs of boards.

Funding for Outreach School Lease Costs The provincial government should reimburse school boards for the lease costs of securing a stand-alone facility for the offering of outreach programs, or provide capital funds for such facilities.

13

Reviews/Studies

Review of Ontario Program to Support Community Use of SchoolsThe provincial government should undertake a review of an Ontario program which provides dedicated funding to school boards for the purpose of increasing and enhancing after hours community use of schools. The review should also include an assessment of the feasibility of implementing this program in Alberta.

Public-Public and Private-Public PartnershipsThe provincial government should establish a task force to study the potential for partnerships involving public-public and private-public and the merits and disadvantages of such arrangements.

Area, Capacity & Utilization Guidelines ReviewThe provincial government should review the current Area, Capacity and Utilization Guidelines and revise the Area, Capacity and Utilization formula incorporating the following.

1. The utilization formula should be changed so that the rated capacity of the school reflects its actual capacity to deliver necessary programming to students in classrooms which meet acceptable standards for the curriculum delivery.

2. Classroom spaces should only be included in the formula when determining a school’s capacity.

3. Space donated by community partners should be specifically excluded from capacity unless the space can be demonstrated to be used for effective program delivery in the same manner and extent as the other classrooms in the school.

4. Donated space should be fully eligible for Operations and Maintenance funding once the overall design of the school is approved.

5. Donated space previously approved should be fully eligible for Operations and Maintenance funding and that there be no retroactive exclusions.

6. Provincial class size guidelines should be used in determining maximum school capacity.

Funding for Plant Operations and Maintenance Plant operations and maintenance funding should be sufficient to ensure that the real costs of utilities, telecommunications, maintenance, custodial services, insurance, and facility planning and administration are met.

14

Scheduled Replacement of Portables Portable and relocatable classrooms should be replaced on a scheduled basis based upon life expectancy.

Infrastructure Preservation Funding The provincial government should provide preservation funding to school boards that is equivalent to the industry standard of two percent per year of school facility replacement costs and that this amount be above and beyond funding for major modernizations.

Block Funding for School Modernization The provincial government should reinstate Block Modernization Program funding.

Non-Instructional Facilities Current capital block funding should be expanded to cover the costs of current debt, both principal and interest, owing on non-instructional facilities and;

The provincial government should fund the construction of non-instructional facilities - be it new construction, additions or modernization -following agreed-upon criteria similar to that established for instructional space.

School Playgrounds Funding Support Provincial funding should be provided for the inclusion of school community playgrounds, firstly by a one-time infusion of funds to address current playground conditions followed by inclusion in capital and Infrastructure Maintenance Renewal (IMR) projects for the future.

Small Schools by Necessity In some circumstances school closures are necessary, however where this is not feasible, special small schools by necessity funding should be provided.

Since such rural schools, strategically located in their communities, are an important component of the social infrastructure that is necessary to achieve economic diversification; spur growth in Alberta’s agriculture industry; and improve the quality of life in rural Alberta.

The provincial government should exclude small schools by necessity operated by boards from calculations used to determine school system utilization.

15

School Consolidation Processes The Alberta School Boards Association shall endeavour to facilitate the school consolidation process by collaborating with the provincial government and other education stakeholder groups to encourage the provincial government to:

•Respectschoolclosureproceduresinitiatedbyschoolboardsbasedonschool viability studies conducted in school jurisdictions;

•Develop,inconjunctionwiththedefinitionofSmallSchoolsbyNecessity, guidelines for supporting small schools as viable entities, and

•EncourageMLAstoprovidepoliticalsupportforschoolboarddecisionsto consolidate schools.

Funding for Right-Sizing The provincial government should provide capital funding to school boards for the purpose of right-sizing school facilities where student enrolments and building conditions warrant and building design permits.

Site Preparation and Servicing Costs School boards should be protected by legislation from the downloading of site servicing costs by municipalities. Site servicing costs for schools such as roadways, school parking sites, drop off facilities and playgrounds should be determined and submitted in addition to capital funding for school buildings. Any further negotiation with respect to these costs should be exclusively between the municipality and the provincial government and should not delay school capital projects (could be done on a cost recovery basis). School boards could then support municipalities in their recovery of site servicing costs.

The provincial government should address increased operating costs incurred by school boards resulting from municipalities shifting the funding of municipal and corporate services from the property tax base to user-based utility charges and service fees. The province needs to provide additional Plant Operation and Maintenance funding to offset the new operating costs being incurred by school boards for all municipal and corporate utility charges and service fees.

16

Alberta School Boards Association

Suite 1200, 9925 - 109 Street, Edmonton, AB T5K 2J8

Phone: 1.780.482.7311 Fax: 1.780.482.5659

www.asba.ab.ca