long-range facilities plan - 2007 update · 3.3 argyle family emerging plan 30 ... a significant...

LONG-RANGE FACILITIES PLAN 2007 UPDATE

NORTH VANCOUVER SCHOOL DISTRICT

November 2007

Report Long-Range Facilities Plan, 2007 Update North Vancouver School District

Consultants Matrix Planning Associates

Unit 2, 933 Meares Street Victoria, British Columbia Canada V8V 5B8

Telephone: 250-598-9912 Email: [email protected] Website: matrixplanning.bc.ca

Client School District 44 (North Vancouver)

Project Number 0661

Date 2007 11 20

Long-Range Facilities Plan 2007 Update North Vancouver School District 2007 11 20

CONTENTS

SUMMARY 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Objectives 4

1.2 Previous Facilities Plan 4

1.3 Principles and Priorities 5

1.4 Existing Situation 5

1.5 Condition of Existing School Facilities 7

1.6 Need for Change 11

2. NEEDS ANALYSIS

2.1 Existing Enrolment and Utilization 12

2.2 Population Forecast 14

2.3 Approach to Enrolment Forecasts 17

2.4 Future Residential Development 17

2.5 Yield Factors 19

2.6 Results of Enrolment Forecasts 19

2.7 Baseline Analysis of Capacity Utilization 25

3. THE EMERGING PLANS

3.1 Emerging Plans by Family of Schools 28

3.2 Handsworth Family Emerging Plan 28

3.3 Argyle Family Emerging Plan 30

3.4 Carson Graham/Balmoral Family Emerging Plan 33

3.5 Sutherland Family Emerging Plan 36

3.6 Windsor/Seycove Family Emerging Plan 38

3.7 Utilization Analysis of Emerging Plans 40

3.8 Key Features of the Emerging Plan 42

3.9 Summary of Achievements 43

APPENDICES A Enrolment Forecasts

B Baseline Utilization

C Emerging Facilities Plan Utilization Analysis

D NVSD School Facilities


1

SUMMARY Purpose, Challenge, Principles and Priorities

This report updates the long-range facilities plan for the North Vancouver School District (NVSD). The basis for the school district’s plan was a 2004 Matrix document entitled ‘Facilities Implications of Enrolment Trends’.

The central challenge for the development of a facilities plan for NVSD is to respond to the prospect of continuing enrolment declines. The total capacity of NVSD schools must be reduced to allow the limited operational and capital funding to be used the most effectively.

We based the emerging plans outlined in this report on the following guiding principles and NVSD priorities:

Retain elementary schools in each family of schools that could most easily serve the students in the area.

Work towards a future where all elementary schools serve 300 to 500 students and secondary schools serve 1,000 to 1,300 students.

Work towards a future where all secondary schools serve Grades 8 to 12 and all elementary schools serve kindergarten to Grade 7.

Improve the overall safety and quality of school facilities.

Maintain or improve NVSD’s position relative to private schools and neighbouring school districts.

We addressed the emerging facilities plans for NVSD schools in five zones based on the families of schools: Handsworth, Argyle, Carson Graham/Balmoral, Sutherland and Windsor/Seycove.

Future Enrolment

Our approach to enrolment forecasts for SSD schools began with the excellent 15-year enrolment projections provided by Baragar Demographics. We refined these base projections by estimating the number of students that will live in anticipated new housing developments in each school catchment area.

Our forecasts indicate that enrolment at NVSD schools will continue to decline for at least the next ten years and then plateau for years 2016 to 2021. Our estimates show that enrolment will decline by more than 2,000 students in Grades 1-12 within ten years. Of course, this pattern varies considerably by level and from school to school:

Secondary enrolment will decrease more sharply than elementary enrolment.

Enrolment decline in the Handsworth and Argyle families will be the least dramatic.


2

Enrolment decline in the Windsor/Seycove family of schools is expected to be the most severe over the next 15 years.

Enrolment decline in the Sutherland and Carson/Balmoral families will be less than Windsor/Seycove but more than Handsworth and Argyle families.

Capacity Utilization

At only 86% the current utilization of NVSD schools is well below the Ministry of Education (MoE) guideline of 95%. The poor utilization of elementary schools (81%) is expected to decline further unless some action is taken. More dramatically, the utilization of NVSD secondary schools is expected to plummet from a marginally acceptable level currently to about the same very low level as forecast for the elementary schools — within ten years the overall utilization for all NVSD schools will be at about 75%.

The utilization of the schools in the Sutherland, Carson/Balmoral and, especially, Windsor/Seycove will be well below 75% in ten years or less. Even the utilization in the Argyle and Handsworth families will fall below the 95% minimum threshold over the next decade.

Without some interventions, there will be more than 1,600 surplus secondary spaces and more than 2,400 surplus elementary spaces within ten years. This is the central challenge for NVSD’s long-range facilities plan.

Key Features of the Emerging Plan

The emerging plan outlined in this document addresses the need to reduce the capacity of secondary schools by:

Closing Balmoral.

Reducing the capacity of Carson Graham during a renovation.

Adjusting programs to shift some students from Handsworth and Argyle to other secondary schools.

Closing Seycove by 2016.

The emerging plan outlined in this document addresses the continuing need to reduce the capacity of elementary schools by:

Closing Capilano.

Closing Seymour Heights.

Relocating the modular portion of Dorothy Lynas.

Closing Ridgeway Annex by 2011.

Closing Canyon Heights or other school in the zone by 2011.

Closing Fromme or other school in the zone by 2011.

Closing Brooksbank or other school in the zone by 2011.


3

Summary of Achievements

If the plan is implemented as outlined, NVSD will:

Have fewer schools with larger enrolments.

Meet utilization thresholds allowing NVSD to be in a position to obtain funds for new space if required in the future.

Avoid spending upgrading funds on surplus spaces.

Be able to upgrade facilities through the disposal of surplus property.

Have improved facilities.

Have relatively more resources available for instruction and be in a position to maintain or improve its position.


4

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

NVSD asked Matrix Planning Associates to update the district’s long-range facilities plan. The basis for the NVSD’s plan was a 2004 Matrix document entitled ‘Facilities Implications of Enrolment Trends’.

A central component of the update was to revise and extend the enrolment forecasts based on current enrolments and future residential development plans. In addition to changes in enrolment patterns, our updated plan needed to reflect other recent modifications to NVSD schools, including:

The following elementary schools have been closed — Lonsdale, Monteray, Westover and Maplewood.

A significant redevelopment of Sutherland Secondary School is underway and is scheduled to be complete by December 2007.

A feasibility study examining restoration options for Ridgeway Elementary is underway.

In addition, after a consultative review process that looked at the potential closure of Balmoral, the Board approved keeping the school open on the conditions that:

Carson and Balmoral share a common timetable and reduce administrative expenses.

Initiate an IB program at both schools.

Use surplus space at Balmoral as ‘flex’ space during the planned seismic upgrade of Carson.

Continuously monitor the Carson/Balmoral enrolment for future consideration of closure.

1.2 PREVIOUS FACILITIES PLAN

In March 2004, Matrix produced the ‘Facilities Implications of Enrolment Trends’ for NVSD. This document outlined enrolment forecasts for each school in the district from the base year of 2003 to fifteen years into the future. Our analysis indicated that the enrolment in NVSD schools would decline from a total of 17,883 students in 2003 to approximately 15,000 students in 2022.

In addition to presenting our best estimates of future enrolment, we examined the current and future capacity utilization of schools and concluded that:

If no changes were made to the existing schools, the overall utilization level in NVSD will fall to 83% — far below the 95% required by the Ministry of Education (MoE).


5

To achieve the target utilization, several schools must be closed — our initial estimate was that nine schools needed to be closed over the next several years.

Finally, we advised that, where possible, the schools that are closed should be those that are small and in poor physical condition. By closing the smaller and less efficient schools, limited operational funding will be more effectively used for educational purposes. Closing the schools in the worst physical condition allows the maintenance budgets to go further. It will also result in a reduction in the demand for capital funding for upgrading and replacements.

We also developed some preliminary suggestions regarding potential consolidations, closures and capacity reductions. We comment on the specific preliminary plans formulated in 2004 in this update.

Finally, we draw on the data gathered and conclusions reached in two other recent Matrix studies for NVSD:

Lonsdale Replacement Feasibility Study, September 2004.

Ridgeway Elementary Enrolment Study, September 2005.

1.3 PRINCIPLES AND PRIORITIES

We based the emerging plans outlined in this report on the following guiding principles and NVSD priorities:

Retain elementary schools in each family of schools that could most easily serve the students in the area.

Work towards a future where all elementary schools serve 300 to 500 students and secondary schools serve 1,000 to 1,300 students.

Work towards a future where all secondary schools serve Grades 8 to 12 and all elementary schools serve kindergarten to Grade 7.

Improve the overall safety and quality of school facilities.

Maintain or improve NVSD’s position relative to private schools and neighbouring school districts.

1.4 EXISTING SITUATION

Figure 1 illustrates that the North Vancouver School District (NVSD) is largely bounded by natural elements — water to the south and east, and mountains to the north. The City of West Vancouver (and the West Vancouver School District) is on NVSD’s western boundary. It also indicates that NVSD comprises two municipalities: the City of North Vancouver and the District of North Vancouver.

CITY OF NORTHVANCOUVER

CITY

OF

WES

T VA

NCO

UV

ER

DISTRICT OF NORTHVANCOUVER

CITY OF NORTHVANCOUVER

CITY

OF

WES

T VA

NCO

UV

ER

DISTRICT OF NORTHVANCOUVER

A

A2

A3

A1

A4

BB2

B3

B1

DD2

D3

D4D1

D5

C2

C1C

E5

E4

F1

F3

F4F

F2

G1G3

G2

C3

C4

EE3

E2

E1

S1

S2

G

Figure 1

Project 06612007 11 20

NORTHVANCOUVERSCHOOLS

HandsworthACleveland

Montroyal

Canyon Heights

Highlands

BalmoralBLarson

Braemar

Carisbrooke

Carson GrahamCCapilano

Norgate

Westview

Queen Mary

ArgyleDBoundary

Fromme

Lynn Valley

Ross Road

Upper Lynn

SutherlandERidgeway Annex

Ridgeway

Queensbury

Brooksbank

Eastview

WindsorFLynnmour

Blueridge

Seymour Heights

Plymouth

SeycoveGDorothy Lynas

Sherwood Park

Cove Cliff

Keith Lynn

Windsor House

S1

S2

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

F1

F2

F3

F4

G1

G2

G3

A1

A2

A3

A4

B1

B2

B3

C1

C2

C3

C4

0 500m 1 km 2 km 3 km


7

Figure 1 shows the location of NVSD’s 28 elementary and seven secondary schools. The elementary schools serve students from Kindergarten to Grade 7 except for Ridgeway Annex (K–2). The secondary schools serve Grades 8 to 12 except for Balmoral (8–10). In addition, Figure 1 shows the location of two alternative programs at Keith Lynn and Windsor House.

NVSD wants to maintain and reinforce the basic elementary (K-7)/ secondary (8–12) grade configuration. The NVSD Board has not pursued the development of a middle school concept at this time.

Enrolment in NVSD schools peaked at 18,522 in 2000, fell to 17,353 by 2006 and is expected to continue to decline. Much of this decline is due to the generally aging population and the resultant reduction in the numbers of children born.

The likelihood of continuing enrolment losses will place more pressure on an already financial challenged school district. NVSD has closed schools and is prepared to close more in the future if the schools are not of long-term use. However, the Board and administration wants to move forward very cautiously by minimizing the risk associated with all decisions related to major assets, particularly property. The key to minimizing the risk of poor decisions is to develop a thorough and comprehensive long-range facilities plan.

1.5 CONDITION OF EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITIES

The size, quality and circumstances of NVSD schools vary. Some schools are too small to be efficient and some schools may be too big to be most effective. Some school buildings are new and others are approaching (or past) the end of their useful life. Some school properties are located in areas where the highest and best use of the land may be commercial, civic or some other non-school function. All of the variables associated with each school need to be considered in evaluating the most appropriate future roles for each facility and site.

Appendix D is a summary of site and facility information about existing NVSD school facilities. The information is organized into property and facility groups.

The property information summarized in Appendix D shows:

The site area of each school in hectares is compared with the allowed site area for a new school of the same size according to MoE space guidelines.

The third column is the ratio of the actual site area to the allowable site area — most (22) of the sites are larger than the allowed area with some sites being substantially larger (those that are more than 20% bigger are shown in blue) while some (130 sites are smaller than allowed (those that are more than 20% less are shown in red).


8

The column entitled ‘Utility as School Site’ is an assessment by NVSD facilities personnel regarding how well the site meets the needs of the school — all school sites except for the very small Ridgeway Annex property were considered adequate or good. Notes often highlight some the key deficiencies for individual sites.

The column entitled ‘Expandability on Site’ is an assessment by NVSD facilities personnel of how readily the school could be physically expanded — four of the sites were rated poor.

The facility information summarized in Appendix D indicates:

The capacities of the schools for kindergarten as well as Grades 1-12.

The gross building area in square metres is compared with the allowable area for a new school of the same size according to MoE space allocations.

The ratio of the actual site area to the allowable site area — most of the schools are larger than the allowed area with some schools being substantially larger (those that are more than 20% bigger are shown in blue).

The number of portable classrooms on each school site as of September 2007 is listed — the number of portables is generally an indicator that the school is overutilized or otherwise deficient.

The year the main part of the school was built — this ranges from 1911 for Ridgeway to 2008 for the new schools at Highlands and Sutherland.

‘Seismic Risk’ is based on recent study that assessed schools constructed before 1984, and rated facilities on a five-point scale as Low, Low-Moderate, Moderate, Moderate-High or High — the two highest ratings are shown in red.

‘Capital Plan Priority’ is the rank assigned to each seismic project in the NVSD 2008-2009 capital submission.

‘Seismic Upgrade Cost’ is the most recent cost estimate to upgrade the seismic deficiencies of each school.

‘Physical Condition’ characterizes each school as Good, Acceptable, Deficient or Poor — the significance of these categories is examined in Figure 2.

‘Capital Plan Priority’ is the rank assigned to each non-seismic renovation or replacement project proposed in the NVSD capital submission — these priorities are merged with the seismic project priorities presented earlier.

‘Renovation or Replacement Budget’ is the estimated cost to renovate or replace the school as submitted in the most recent capital budget — in general, this budget estimate excludes the estimate cost to complete the necessary seismic upgrading to each school.


9

The last column is for numbered notes that explain some of the assessments associated with each school — the same note often qualifies more than one school.

Figure 2: Summary of Physical Condition for NVSD Schools

SchoolPhysical Condition

Seismic Risk

Utility as School Site

Expansion on Site

CapacityYearBuilt

Combined Budget

Planned Projects

Highlands Good Good Good 350 2008 $0

Sutherland Good Good Adequate 1,000 2008 $0

Westview Good Good Adequate 250 2007 $0

Lynn Valley Good Good Adequate 200 2004 $0

Dorothy Lynas Acceptable Low Good Adequate 600 1990 $0

Cove Cliff Acceptable Low Adequate Adequate 250 1991 $0

Upper Lynn Acceptable Low/Mod Good Adequate 500 1959 $3,300,000 Seismic/renovate

Windsor Acceptable Low/Mod Good Adequate 1,025 1961 $7,400,000 Seismic/renovate

Fromme Acceptable Moderate Good Adequate 225 1964 $2,711,000 Seismic/renovate

Larson Acceptable Mod/High Good Good 375 1964 $3,379,000 Seismic/renovate

Balmoral Acceptable Mod/High Good Good 650 1959 $9,600,000 Seismic/renovate

Ross Road Acceptable High Adequate Good 425 1962 $3,400,000 Seismic/renovate

Seycove Acceptable High Adequate Poor 700 1979 $7,000,000 Seismic/renovate

Norgate Deficient Moderate Good Good 275 1951 $2,319,000 Seismic/renovate

Cleveland Deficient Moderate Good Good 500 1962 $4,926,000 Seismic/renovate

Boundary Deficient Moderate Good Good 375 1969 $3,700,000 Seismic/renovate

Canyon Heights Deficient Mod/High Good Good 350 1955 $6,900,000 Seismic/renovate

Queen Mary Deficient Mod/High Good Good 400 1914 $11,700,000 Seismic/renovate

Brooksbank Deficient Mod/High Good Adequate 375 1966 $5,500,000 Seismic/renovate

Eastview Deficient Mod/High Adequate Good 450 1956 $4,000,000 Seismic/renovate

Plymouth Deficient Mod/High Adequate Adequate 225 1969 $3,500,000 Seismic/renovate

Capilano Deficient High Good Good 475 1924 $3,800,000 Seismic/renovate

Carisbrooke Deficient High Good Good 375 1960 $8,100,000 Seismic/renovate

Braemar Deficient High Adequate Good 450 1961 $4,100,000 Seismic/renovate

Sherwood Park Deficient High Adequate Adequate 550 1963 $4,100,000 Seismic/renovate

Montroyal Deficient High Adequate Adequate 350 1963 $15,400,000 Seismic/renovate

Queensbury Deficient High Good Adequate 250 1955 $7,000,000 Possible replace

Carson Graham Deficient High Adequate Poor 1,300 1964 $42,000,000 Seismic/renovate

Handsworth Deficient High Good Good 1,200 1961 $15,000,000 Replace

Argyle Deficient High Good Adequate 1,300 1960 $17,000,000 Replace

Blueridge Poor Moderate Adequate Good 350 1968 $7,400,000 Replace

Seymour Heights Poor Mod/High Adequate Adequate 275 1958 $7,300,000 Replace

Lynnmour Poor Moderate Adequate Poor 275 1973 $4,500,000 Renovate

Ridgeway Poor High Good Good 425 1911 n/a Possible replace

Ridgeway Annex Poor Mod/High Poor Poor 75 1953 $3,500,000 Replace


10

Figure 2 lists the 35 regular schools in NVSD in approximate order of their relative physical condition. This organizes the schools into four general groups with different implications for long-range planning: Good, Acceptable, Deficient and Poor.

Good Facilities

The first group comprises four schools that are new or nearly new. These schools are unlikely to require any significant investment in upgrading or functional renovations for many years. The only constraint is that three of the sites have limited expansion potential.

Acceptable Facilities

The second group comprises nine schools that have considerable useful life but will require modernization. NVSD can expect to invest in upgrading these schools over the next several years. The most recent capital plan has identified initial budgets for renovation and seismic upgrading for most of the schools in this group.

The long-range plan for NVSD should consider the schools in the ‘good’ and ‘acceptable’ as major assets, and formulate a strategy that includes a long-term role for each of these schools.

Deficient Facilities

Almost half (17) NVSD schools are included in the third group. These facilities have serious deficiencies. All require seismic upgrading (14 schools have seismic risk ratings of ‘high’ or ‘moderate-high’). Detailed technical studies of these schools may determine that replacement is more cost-effective than renovation — in fact, such studies have come to this conclusion for two of the schools. At the very least, these schools will require major investment in upgrading over the next several years.

Poor Facilities

The fourth and final group comprises five schools with significant seismic and functional shortcomings. In fact, analysis of these schools has led to the conclusion that replacement is a more cost-effective option than undertaking major renovations required to address the considerable deficiencies.

The long-range plan for NVSD should take into account that major investments will need to be made for the schools in ‘deficient’ and ‘poor’ groups, if these schools continue to be part of the preferred delivery model for NVSD.


11

1.6 NEED FOR CHANGE

NVSD’s long-range plan must make the best use of all existing and future facilities since:

MoE funding effectively encourages fewer schools with larger enrolments.

MoE’s Capital Asset Management Framework uses utilization levels, not total building area, to allocate facilities operating and maintenance funds.

MoE requires that capacity utilization thresholds (95% for NVSD as a whole) be achieved before funding new space — these levels are not being achieved and are likely to get worse unless action is taken.

Continued operation of underutilized schools will reduce resources available for instruction.


12

2. NEEDS ANALYSIS

2.1 EXISTING ENROLMENT AND UTILIZATION

Figure 3 organizes the schools into the families focused on one of the seven secondary schools. We have excluded alternate programs from this list. The columns in Figure 3 present the following information about NVSD schools:

It indicates the existing grade span for the schools.

It indicates the schools with a French Immersion program using the symbol ‘Fi’.

It indicates the capacity of each school where each classroom has a capacity of 25 and kindergarten is excluded — NVSD has chosen to assess the capacity utilization of its schools based on the ‘nominal capacity’ as shown rather than the ‘operating capacity’ of each school where classrooms in Grades 1-3 are based on 21 instead of 25 spaces.

It shows the September 2006 and September 2007 headcount enrolment excluding kindergarten (to match the definition of capacity), adults and fee payers — we have shown 2006 enrolment since this is the base year for the enrolment forecasts that are presented later.

It calculates the surplus (positive number) or shortage (negative number) in space at each school based on 2007 enrolment — surpluses of greater than one classroom (25) are shown in red and shortages of greater than one classroom are shown in purple.

It calculates the capacity utilization by dividing the enrolment by the capacity — utilizations of less than 90% are shown in red and greater than 110% are shown in purple.

The subtotals in Figure 3 indicate the following:

Capacity utilization for the school district as a whole is well under the 95% MoE threshold.

At 94%, the secondary schools are just below the overall threshold and well below the 105% guideline before new secondary space would be approved.

At 81%, the elementary schools as a group are very underutilized.

We used the framework presented in Figure 3 to assess future utilization for the status quo situation as well as for alternative future plans.

Our analysis of future enrolment was based on 2006 enrolment data. Figure 3 is one of the few places in the report where we have shown the latest enrolment data from September 2007.


13

Figure 3: Existing Capacities, Enrolment and Utilization


14

2.2 POPULATION FORECAST

Figures 4 and 5 present the latest (PEOPLE 31) population forecast for NVSD from BC Statistics. Figure 3 shows that the communities comprising NVSD have grown in the recent past and are expected to continue to grow over the next 25 years. BC Statistics estimates that NVSD population will increase by 11% from 2006 to 2031.

Figure 4: NVSD Total Population Forecast

Figure 5 indicates that, according to BC Statistics, the NVSD school age population will continue to decline for several years before stabilizing toward the end of the forecast horizon. BC Statistics estimates that the NVSD school age population will decline by 18% from 2006 to 2031. Figure 6 indicates that the school aged population has been declining as a proportion of the total population and this decline will continue for at least another decade before stabilizing at around 11%.

While the population forecasts generated by BC Statistics provide a useful context for considering the future, we believe that a more specific analysis of anticipated future residential development is a better way of estimating future enrolment.

The key message we take from BC Statistics’ population forecast is that NVSD enrolments are likely to stabilize in the long-term. The picture provided by the BC Statistics’ population forecast for the period from 2022 to 2031 is especially useful since our enrolment forecasts only extend to 2021.


15

Figure 5: NVSD Forecast for Ages 5-17 Years

Figure 6: Ages 5-17 as a Proportion of Total Population

Seymour

Maplewood

Inter-RiverLower Lynn

Moodyville

Grand Boulevard

Tempe

Lynn Valley

Westview

North Lonsdale - Delbrook

UpperCapilano

LowerCapilano Central

Lonsdale

LowerLonsdale

Mahon

Marine-Hamilton

Lower Lynn

IR3

IR2

A

A2

A3

A1

A4

BB2

B3

B1

DD2

D3

D4D1

D5

C2

C1C

E5

E4

F1

F3

F4F

F2

G1G3

G2

C3

C4

EE3

E2

E1

S1

S2

G

Figure 7

Project 06612007 11 20

NORTHVANCOUVERNEIGHBOURHOODS


Montroyal

Canyon Heights

Highlands

BalmoralBLarson

Braemar

Carisbrooke


Norgate

Westview

Queen Mary

ArgyleDBoundary

Fromme

Lynn Valley

Ross Road

Upper Lynn


Ridgeway

Queensbury

Brooksbank

Eastview

WindsorFLynnmour

Blueridge

Seymour Heights

Plymouth


Sherwood Park

Cove Cliff

Keith Lynn

Windsor House

S1

S2

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

F1

F2

F3

F4

G1

G2

G3

A1

A2

A3

A4

B1

B2

B3

C1

C2

C3

C4

0 500m 1 km 2 km 3 km


17

2.3 APPROACH TO ENROLMENT FORECASTS

Our approach to enrolment forecasts for NVSD schools began with the excellent base provided by Baragar Demographics. Baragar uses a program called Demographic Dynamics to generate a 15-year enrolment forecast for each NVSD school. The underlying population data for the Demographic Dynamics forecasts come from a combination of birth registry and Family Allowance and Child Tax Benefit files. Net migration and birth rates are incorporated using historical averages. We developed our enrolment forecasts for each school using the Baragar projection that was based on actual enrolments from September 2006.

Baragar refers to their estimate as being ‘without local knowledge’ since it does not incorporate specific input (including nearby housing developments) related to individual schools. We supplied the ‘local knowledge’ by learning about plans for future residential development in the neighbourhoods of the two municipalities comprising NVSD — reference the map presented in Figure 7. We identified where children from each housing development would attend school and modified the enrolment forecast for the affected schools.

We also modified the yield rates (number of students per new housing unit) based on information specific to NVSD as well as other British Columbia school districts. Where knowledge was available, we adjusted the yield rate to reflect the target market for specific housing developments.

2.4 FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Figure 8 presents a summary of the best estimates of the number of housing units that will be built over the next 15 years in NVSD. Planners from the City of North Vancouver and the District of North Vancouver provided the estimates shown in Figure 8.

We have excluded single family houses from the estimate shown in Figure 8 for two reasons:

Municipal planners anticipate that there will be relatively few single family houses built in North Vancouver over the next 15 years.

Most of the single family houses that will be built over the next 15 years will be in-fill — the type of incremental development that is captured in Baragar’s migration rates.

Once we include single family houses, we can say that there will be just over 600 units per year added to the residential inventory in NVSD. This is similar to the approximately 700 units per year that was indicated in our 2004 analysis. The nature of residential development in NVSD over the next 15 years is essentially the same as reported in our 2004 study.


18

Figure 8: Estimated New Residential Development to 2021

Municipality Neighbourhood Townhouse Lowrise Highrise 15 Year Total

City Marine Hamilton 70 524 594

Central Lonsdale 260 442 1,350 2,052

Lower Lonsdale 168 412 1,112 1,692

District Upper Capilano 60 50 110

Lower Capilano 75 240 180 495

Lynn Valley 240 600 750 1,590

Lower Lynn 240 360 360 960

Inter-River 220 220

Maplewood 112 324 436

Seymour 75 60 135

Tsleil-Waututh 180 180

Total 1,520 3,192 3,752 8,464

Average annual units 101 213 250 564

Figure 9 indicates how the estimated future residential units are most likely to be distributed by school catchment area. The totals for the secondary and elementary schools equal the

Figure 9: New Residential Development by Catchment Area

LevelSchool Catchment

Town-house

Lowrise Highrise15 Year

Total

Elementary Highlands 60 50 110

Norgate 75 240 180 495

Queen Mary 249 474 1,390 2,113

Westview 70 524 594

Lynn Valley 168 420 525 1,113

Ross Road 72 180 225 477

Queensbury 78 133 405 616

Ridgeway 101 247 667 1,015

Lynnmour 460 360 360 1,180

Plymouth 142 528 670

Seymour Heights 45 36 81

Elementary total 1,520 3,192 3,752 8,464

Secondary Handswoth 60 50 110

Carson Graham 394 1,238 1,570 3,202

Argyle 240 600 750 1,590

Sutherland 179 380 1,072 1,631

Windsor 647 924 360 1,931

Secondary total 1,520 3,192 3,752 8,464


19

2.5 YIELD FACTORS

Yield factors are the number of NVSD students (K-12) that come from specific housing types. These yield factors do not include students at private schools. For this update, we used the following yield factors:

0.30 students per housing unit for townhouses.

0.12 students per housing unit for lowrise apartments.

0.05 students per housing unit for highrise apartments.

These factors are all slightly less than the yield factors we used for the 2004 analysis — the previous yield factors were 0.34 for townhouses, 0.14 for lowrise and 0.06 for highrise. We reduced the yield rates slightly in response to the fact that our 2004 enrolment forecast was higher than the actual enrolment numbers for the last couple of years. We were also influenced by intervening analysis of specific housing areas in nearby school districts.

One unknown is the amount of social housing for families that may be built in NVSD over the next several years. The yield rate from family-oriented social housing is substantially higher than for market housing regardless of the housing type (single family, townhouse, lowrise or even highrise).

2.6 RESULTS OF ENROLMENT FORECASTS

Appendix A presents charts of the enrolment forecasts for each of the 35 NVSD schools as listed in Figure 9. The following explain the terms used in the enrolment forecasts presented in Appendix A and summarized in Figure 10:

‘Base’ refers to the base forecast provided by Baragar. We have selected this forecast as the best estimate of future enrolment for 25 NVSD schools.

‘Adjusted’ refers to the forecast we prepared incorporating estimated of housing developments in the catchment area of each school. We have selected this forecast as the best estimate for ten NVSD schools.

‘FI’ refers to those schools with a French Immersion program. We have added the enrolment forecasts for students in the French Immersion programs to the selected forecast for regular students in each of these eight schools.

The charts in Appendix indicate the selected forecast with the use of a heavy red line. In all cases we chose the highest estimate. A thinner blue line indicates the alternate forecast (either base or adjusted) that was not selected.

A purple line indicates where French Immersion enrolment has been added.


20

Figure 10: Enrolment Forecasts Presented in Appendix A

Code School Forecast FI Code School Forecast FI

A 0 Handsworth Base FI E 0 Sutherland Adjusted

A 1 Cleveland Base FI E 1 Ridgeway Annex Adjusted

A 2 Montroyal Base E 2 Ridgeway Adjusted

A 3 Canyon Heights Base E 3 Queensbury Adjusted

A 4 Highlands Base E 5 Brooksbank Base

B 0 Balmoral Base E 6 Eastview Base

B 1 Larson Base FI F 0 Windsor Adjusted

B 2 Braemar Base FI F 1 Lynnmour Adjusted

B 5 Carisbrooke Base F 3 Blueridge Base

C 0 Carson Graham Adjusted F 4 Seymour Heights Base

C 1 Capilano Base F 5 Plymouth Base

C 2 Norgate Adjusted G 0 Seycove Base

C 3 Westview Adjusted G 1 Dorothy Lynas Base FI

C 4 Queen Mary Adjusted G 2 Sherwood Park Base FI

D 0 Argyle Base FI G 3 Cove Cliff Base

D 1 Boundary Base

D 2 Fromme Base

D 3 Lynn Valley Base

D 4 Ross Road Base FI

D 5 Upper Lynn Base

Our adjusted forecasts for several schools are less than the Baragar base forecast due to our technique of reducing migration to zero in the instances where we add students from new housing. We do this in an effort to avoid ‘double counting’ students from net migration (according to Baragar’s base projection) and our addition of students from new housing.

Figure 11 illustrates the sum of the selected enrolment forecasts for all NVSD schools combined. Figure 10 indicates that:

Enrolment in NVSD schools will continue to decline for at another decade before stabilizing.

Our current enrolment forecasts are lower than our forecasts from the 2004 study (noted as ‘Previous’ in Figure 11).

We have excluded kindergarten from our enrolment forecasts in anticipation of using these forecasts to calculate capacity utilization. As mentioned earlier, capacity utilization is based on the capacity and enrolment excluding kindergarten.

We have excluded enrolment in alternate programs that are not part of schools since they do not have a direct bearing on the capacity utilization of individual schools. Enrolment in alternate programs counts as part of the assessment of overall capacity utilization for the school district at large.


21

Figure 11: Enrolment Forecast for all NVSD Schools

Figure 12 shows the sum of the selected enrolment forecasts for all elementary and secondary schools in NVSD. Figure 12 illustrates that the anticipated decline in enrolment will be more acute at the secondary level than for elementary grades where enrolment is expect to stabilize in less than ten years.

Figure 13 shows the sum of the enrolment forecasts for elementary and secondary schools in each of the families of schools outlined in Figure 3 and illustrated in all the maps. Figure 13 indicates that:

The enrolment decline in the Handsworth and Argyle families will be the least dramatic.

The enrolment decline in the Windsor/Seycove family of schools is expected to be the most severe over the next 15 years.

The enrolment decline in the Sutherland and Carson/Balmoral families will be less than Windsor/Seycove but more than Handsworth and Argyle families.

Figure 14 shows the elementary catchment areas. Figure 15 shows the secondary catchment areas.


22

Figure 12: Enrolment Forecast for Elementary and Secondary Schools

Figure 13: Enrolment Forecast for Each Family of Schools

A

A2

A3

A1

A4

BB2

B3

B1

DD2

D3

D4D1

D5

C2

C1C

E5

E4

F1

F3

F4F

F2

G1G3

G2

C3

C4

EE3

E2

E1

S1

S2

G

Figure 14

Project 06612007 11 20

ELEMENTARYATTENDANCEAREAS


Montroyal

Canyon Heights

Highlands

BalmoralBLarson

Braemar

Carisbrooke


Norgate

Westview

Queen Mary

ArgyleDBoundary

Fromme

Lynn Valley

Ross Road

Upper Lynn


Ridgeway

Queensbury

Brooksbank

Eastview

WindsorFLynnmour

Blueridge

Seymour Heights

Plymouth


Sherwood Park

Cove Cliff

Keith Lynn

Windsor House

S1

S2

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

F1

F2

F3

F4

G1

G2

G3

A1

A2

A3

A4

B1

B2

B3

C1

C2

C3

C4

0 500m 1 km 2 km 3 km

A

A2

A3

A1

A4

BB2

B3

B1

DD2

D3

D4D1

D5

C2

C1C

E5

E4

F1

F3

F4F

F2

G1G3

G2

C3

C4

EE3

E2

E1

S1

S2

G

Figure 15

Project 06612007 11 20

SECONDARYATTENDANCEAREAS


Montroyal

Canyon Heights

Highlands

BalmoralBLarson

Braemar

Carisbrooke


Norgate

Westview

Queen Mary

ArgyleDBoundary

Fromme

Lynn Valley

Ross Road

Upper Lynn


Ridgeway

Queensbury

Brooksbank

Eastview

WindsorFLynnmour

Blueridge

Seymour Heights

Plymouth


Sherwood Park

Cove Cliff

Keith Lynn

Windsor House

S1

S2

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

F1

F2

F3

F4

G1

G2

G3

A1

A2

A3

A4

B1

B2

B3

C1

C2

C3

C4

0 500m 1 km 2 km 3 km


25

2.7 BASELINE ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY UTILIZATION

MoE requires that NVSD maintain the following minimum capacity utilization thresholds before being eligible for new space:

District average of 95%.

Elementary schools at 100% — usually applied to a group of adjacent schools when requesting new elementary space.

Secondary schools at 110% — a reasonable expectation since most secondary schools can easily operate at well over 100% utilization.

Aiming to attain these utilization targets is a worthwhile goal for NVSD without considering the need for additional space. This is because it is important to minimize the ‘overhead’ costs associated with facilities to focus maximum resources on programs for student education.

Appendix B presents an analysis of baseline future capacity utilization without interventions such as new facilities, school closures, school consolidations, district programs re-locations or catchment area adjustments. Figures 16 and 17 summarize the capacity utilization detailed in Appendix B. Figure 18 illustrates the anticipated scale of surplus spaces if nothing is done to alleviate the situation.

Figure 16: Baseline Capacity Utilization by Level


26

Figure 17: Baseline Capacity Utilization by Family of Schools

Figure 18: Estimated Baseline Surplus Capacity


27

Figure 16 highlights the how the current poor utilization in elementary schools is expected to get worse. More dramatically, Figure 16 shows how the utilization of NVSD secondary schools is expected to plummet from a marginally acceptable level currently to about the same very low level as forecast for the elementary schools — within ten years the overall utilization for all NVSD schools will be at about 75%.

Figure 17 illustrates how the utilization of the three of the five families of schools will decline the most to where the schools in the Sutherland, Carson/Balmoral and, especially, Windsor/Seycove will be well below 75% in ten years or less. Even the utilization in the Argyle and Handsworth families will fall below the 95% minimum threshold over the next decade.

Figure 18 shows the actual number of surplus spaces that will be in service in NVSD over the next 15 years if there are no interventions. Figure 18 illustrates that there will be more than 1,600 surplus secondary spaces and more than 2,400 surplus elementary spaces within ten years. This is the central challenge for NVSD’s long-range facilities plan.


28

3. THE EMERGING PLANS

3.1 EMERGING PLANS BY FAMILY OF SCHOOLS

We have organized the discussion of the emerging facilities plans for NVSD schools into the five zones based on the families of schools first introduced in Figure 3:

Handsworth Family Zone.

Argyle Family Zone.

Carson Graham/Balmoral Family Zone.

Sutherland Family Zone.

Windsor/Seycove Family Zone.

We merged the Carson Graham and Balmoral schools into one zone. Similarly, we merged the Windsor and Seycove schools in to a single zone.

The key challenge for the schools in all of the zones is to increase (or, at least, reduce the decline) capacity utilization. The guiding principles we used when formulating the proposed plans for each zone are as outlined in Section 1.3.

3.2 HANDSWORTH FAMILY EMERGING PLAN

Figure 19 illustrates the distribution of students and schools in the Handsworth Zone.

Our plan calls for no changes to Handsworth Secondary. While our utilization analysis in Appendix B indicates that Handsworth will have less than full utilization over most of the planning horizon, our expectation is that it will remain fully utilized due to its popularity. Full utilization at Handsworth will come at the expense of further reductions in utilization at other NVSD secondary schools.

The elementary schools in the Handsworth Zone, on the other hand, will become more underutilized with up to 300 surplus spaces over the next 15 years. There is a need to reduce the number of elementary spaces in the zone.

The emerging plan for the Handsworth Zone calls for Canyon Heights Elementary to be closed as early as 2011. The students that now attend Canyon Heights would attend Montroyal to the north and Cleveland to the south. Our initial analysis of this plan shows that the remaining three elementary schools in the Handsworth Zone would be more than fully utilized. Careful fine-tuning of the catchment boundaries for the remaining elementary schools may be necessary to balance enrolment and have students attend the most convenient school.

A

A2

A3

A1

A4

B

B2

B1

C1

C

Figure 19

Project 06612007 11 20

HANDSWORTHZONE STUDENTS


Montroyal

Canyon Heights

Highlands

BalmoralBLarson

Braemar

Carisbrooke


Norgate

Westview

Queen Mary

ArgyleDBoundary

Fromme

Lynn Valley

Ross Road

Upper Lynn


Ridgeway

Queensbury

Brooksbank

Eastview

WindsorFLynnmour

Blueridge

Seymour Heights

Plymouth


Sherwood Park

Cove Cliff

Keith Lynn

Windsor House

S1

S2

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

F1

F2

F3

F4

G1

G2

G3

A1

A2

A3

A4

B1

B2

B3

C1

C2

C3

C4

0 500m 1 km 2 km 3 km

0 500m 1 km 2 km


30

It is possible that Montroyal or Highlands will require a small addition if enrolment begins to rebound towards the end of the planning horizon. If necessary in the long-term, it may be possible to reduce the capacity of Cleveland Elementary as part of a future renovation to that school — with a capacity of 500 students, Cleveland is at the upper limit of the optimal school size. We were advised that a five-classroom portion of Cleveland is likely to be the simplest and most advantageous to demolish. This would reduce the capacity by 125 spaces.

With the implementation of the emerging plan for the Handsworth Zone, we will have achieved the following:

At 1,200 spaces Handsworth Secondary is within the optimal school size range for a secondary school.

Handsworth Secondary will be fully utilized for the foreseeable future.

The three remaining schools are well distributed to serve students in the Handsworth Zone.

Each of the three schools in the Handsworth Zone is within the optimal school size range.

Two of the elementary schools have capacity to be expanded and remain within the optimal school size.

Our analysis shows the Handsworth Family of schools to be fully utilized for the last ten years of the planning period.

The closure of Canyon Heights will avoid considerable anticipated upgrading and renovation investment in the facility.

3.3 ARGYLE FAMILY EMERGING PLAN

Figure 20 illustrates the distribution of students and schools in the Argyle Zone.

Our plan calls for no changes to Argyle Secondary. In fact, the utilization analysis in Appendix B indicates that Argyle will be overutilized over the entire planning horizon, although we anticipated that this overutilization could be ameliorated somewhat when the rejuvenation of Sutherland Secondary is complete.

The elementary schools in the Argyle Zone, on the other hand, will become more underutilized with more than 300 surplus spaces over the next 15 years. There is a need to reduce the number of elementary spaces in the zone.

B3

D

D2

D3

D4D1

D5

E5

E

E3

D2

Figure 20

Project 06612007 11 20

ARGYLEZONE STUDENTS


Montroyal

Canyon Heights

Highlands

BalmoralBLarson

Braemar

Carisbrooke


Norgate

Westview

Queen Mary

ArgyleDBoundary

Fromme

Lynn Valley

Ross Road

Upper Lynn


Ridgeway

Queensbury

Brooksbank

Eastview

WindsorFLynnmour

Blueridge

Seymour Heights

Plymouth


Sherwood Park

Cove Cliff

Keith Lynn

Windsor House

S1

S2

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

F1

F2

F3

F4

G1

G2

G3

A1

A2

A3

A4

B1

B2

B3

C1

C2

C3

C4

0 500m 1 km 2 km


32

The emerging plan for the Argyle Zone calls for Fromme Elementary to be closed as early as 2011. The students that now attend Fromme would attend Boundary to the south and Lynn Valley to the east. We chose Fromme mostly because of the proximity of other schools, but also partly because it is one of the smaller schools and will require significant capital investment over the next few years.

Our initial analysis of this plan shows that the utilization of the remaining four elementary schools in the Argyle Zone would be close to the overall threshold. Careful fine-tuning of the catchment boundaries for the remaining elementary schools may be necessary to balance enrolment and have students attend the most convenient school.

Other future considerations for the elementary schools in the Argyle Zone could include:

Reducing the capacity of Boundary when the facility is being renovated — a two-classroom portion is likely to be the simplest and most advantageous to demolish.

Reducing the capacity of Upper Lynn when the facility is being renovated or replaced.

Re-locating the French Immersion program at Ross Road and reducing the size of the school.

With the implementation of the emerging plan for the Argyle Zone, we will have achieved the following:

At 1,300 spaces Argyle Secondary is at the upper limit for the optimal school size range for a secondary school.

Argyle Secondary will be fully utilized for the foreseeable future.

The four remaining schools are well distributed to serve students in the Argyle Zone.

Three of the four schools in the Argyle Zone are within the optimal school size range.

Three of the elementary schools have capacity to be expanded and remain within the optimal school size.

Our analysis shows the Argyle Family of schools to be fully utilized for the full planning period, although the elementary schools are still below the threshold level.

The closure will avoid anticipated upgrading and renovation investment in the Fromme facility.


33

3.4 CARSON GRAHAM/BALMORAL FAMILY EMERGING PLAN

Figure 21 illustrates the distribution of students and schools in the Carson Graham/Balmoral Zone.

Despite the recent reprieve on the closure of Balmoral, enrolment trends clearly indicate that the capacity of secondary schools in the Carson Graham/ Balmoral Zone must be reduced to achieve acceptable utilization levels. Although the Board has elected that Balmoral will remain open for the next few years, our enrolment forecasts continue to indicate that Balmoral should be closed in the future. We also came to this conclusion during the 2004 study. The reasons Balmoral is the best choice for closure are as follows:

Carson Graham will be in substantially better condition than Balmoral after Carson Graham is seismically upgraded.

Balmoral is well below the 1,000-student capacity threshold for secondary schools.

Balmoral does not serve the full spectrum of secondary grades and, given declining enrolments, there is no practical plan to achieve this objective.

The property has high development potential and could yield significant revenue.

Even with Balmoral closed and the current Balmoral students attending Carson Graham, Carson Graham will not be fully utilized. As a result, our emerging plan calls for the capacity of Carson Graham to be reduced by at least 200 spaces (the school could be reduced by 300 spaces and still remain within the optimal capacity range). We are advised that reducing the capacity of Carson Graham during future renovations would be feasible. The extent of the required reduction to the capacity of Carson Graham will need to be determined closer to the time of implementation. It is possible, for example, that the proposed introduction of an IB program at Carson Graham may attract more students to the school.

The baseline utilization analysis presented in Appendix B demonstrates that the elementary schools in the Carson Graham/Balmoral Zone are severely underutilized and will become more underutilized over the next 15 years. We estimate that there will be more than 600 surplus elementary spaces in this zone over most of the planning horizon.

The emerging plan for the Carson Graham/Balmoral Zone calls for Capilano Elementary to be closed. The students that now attend Capilano would attend Norgate to the south and Westview to the east. We chose Capilano mostly because of the proximity of other schools, but also because it will require significant capital investment over the next few years.

Appendix C shows both Balmoral and Capilano as closed by 2008. These are immediate decisions.

A

A2

A3

A1

A4

B

B2B3

B1

D

D2

D1

C2

C1

C

E4

C3

C4

E

E3

E2

E1 S2

D2

Figure 21

Project 06612007 11 20

CARSON /BALMORALZONE STUDENTS


Montroyal

Canyon Heights

Highlands

BalmoralBLarson

Braemar

Carisbrooke


Norgate

Westview

Queen Mary

ArgyleDBoundary

Fromme

Lynn Valley

Ross Road

Upper Lynn


Ridgeway

Queensbury

Brooksbank

Eastview

WindsorFLynnmour

Blueridge

Seymour Heights

Plymouth


Sherwood Park

Cove Cliff

Keith Lynn

Windsor House

S1

S2

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

F1

F2

F3

F4

G1

G2

G3

A1

A2

A3

A4

B1

B2

B3

C1

C2

C3

C4

0 500m 1 km 2 km


35

Other possibilities and considerations for the elementary schools in the Carson Graham/Balmoral Zone include:

If a nearby First Nations school expands, enrolment at Norgate could decrease. On the other hand, new residential development and higher birth rates could increase enrolment. This is a school to watch. Future enrolments could result in a rationale to increase capacity to the desired 300-level or a reason to consider closure.

If Capilano is retained, its capacity could be reduced. We were advised that a four-classroom portion would be the most likely demolition during future upgrading.

Re-location of the French Immersion programs at Larson and Braemar could be considered.

Our initial analysis of this plan shows that the utilization of the remaining six elementary schools in the Carson Graham/Balmoral Zone would still be below to the overall threshold. Further closures may be required to bring this family of schools closer to full utilization. Careful fine-tuning of the catchment boundaries for the remaining elementary schools may be necessary to balance enrolment and have students attend the most convenient school.

With the implementation of the emerging plan for the Carson Graham/ Balmoral Zone, we will have achieved the following:

At 1,100 spaces the reduced Carson Graham Secondary is within the optimal school size range for a secondary school.

Carson Graham Secondary will be fully utilized for the short-term and fairly well utilized for the foreseeable future.

The six remaining schools are well distributed to serve students in the zone.

Four of the six schools in the Carson Graham/Balmoral Zone are within the optimal school size range.

All of the elementary schools have capacity to be expanded and remain within the optimal school size.

Our analysis shows utilization of the Carson Graham/Balmoral family of schools to over the threshold level for the short-term but still falls well below the threshold for the last part of the planning period.

The closures of Balmoral and Capilano will avoid anticipated upgrading and renovation investment in the facilities.


36

3.5 SUTHERLAND FAMILY EMERGING PLAN

Figure 22 illustrates the distribution of students and schools in the Sutherland Zone.

The renovation of Sutherland Secondary will be complete soon. At a capacity of 1,000 spaces, the rejuvenated Sutherland will be within the optimal capacity range. The baseline utilization analysis presented in Appendix B shows the utilization of Sutherland declining steadily over the next 15 years. We have offset this decline somewhat in our analysis shown in Appendix C by shifting 100 students from Argyle to Sutherland due to the positive aura associated with the rejuvenated school. This impact could be more or less and could come from schools other than Argyle. It is likely, however, that Sutherland will be at least somewhat underutilized for most of the planning period.

The elementary schools in the Sutherland Zone are consistently underutilized with more than 300 surplus spaces over the entire planning horizon. There is a clear need to reduce the number of elementary spaces in the zone.

The emerging plan for the Sutherland Zone calls for Ridgeway Annex Elementary to be closed as early as 2011. We chose Ridgeway Annex to close because:

It is a very small, operationally inefficient school.

It is in poor physical condition.

It is a feeder school to Ridgeway and does not serve kindergarten to Grade 7.

The property has development potential.

If the number of students who live in the new apartment developments slated for the Lower Lonsdale area is greater than anticipated, then more students can go to Queen Mary and Ridgeway can be expanded.

Even with Ridgeway Annex closed, the elementary schools in the Sutherland Family will be underutilized. To respond to this situation, our plan suggests considering the closure of Brooksbank Elementary by 2011. The students from the Brooksbank catchment area would attend Eastview to the east and Queensbury to the west.

Our initial analysis of this plan shows that the remaining three elementary schools in the Sutherland Zone would be more than fully utilized. Careful fine-tuning of the catchment boundaries for the remaining elementary schools may be necessary to balance enrolment and have students attend the most convenient school.

Plans to replace or rejuvenate Queensbury in the future may include expansion. This would bring Queensbury into the optimal capacity range.

B1D4D1

C

E5

E4

F1

C3

C4

E

E3

E2

E1

S1

S2

Figure 22

Project 06612007 11 20

SUTHERLANDZONE STUDENTS


Montroyal

Canyon Heights

Highlands

BalmoralBLarson

Braemar

Carisbrooke


Norgate

Westview

Queen Mary

ArgyleDBoundary

Fromme

Lynn Valley

Ross Road

Upper Lynn


Ridgeway

Queensbury

Brooksbank

Eastview

WindsorFLynnmour

Blueridge

Seymour Heights

Plymouth


Sherwood Park

Cove Cliff

Keith Lynn

Windsor House

S1

S2

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

F1

F2

F3

F4

G1

G2

G3

A1

A2

A3

A4

B1

B2

B3

C1

C2

C3

C4

0 500m 1 km 2 km


38

With the implementation of the emerging plan for the Sutherland Zone, we will have achieved the following:

At 1,000 spaces Sutherland Secondary is within the optimal school size range for a secondary school.

Sutherland Secondary will be acceptably utilized for a few years but efforts will be required to bring more students to this rejuvenated school in the longer term.

The three remaining elementary schools are well distributed to serve students in the Sutherland Zone.

Two of the three schools in the Sutherland Zone are within the optimal school size range.

All of the elementary schools have capacity to be expanded and remain within the optimal school size — in fact, it would be advantageous to expand Queensbury.

Our analysis shows the Sutherland Family of schools to be fully utilized for the last the entire planning period.

The closures of Ridgeway Annex and Brooksbank will avoid anticipated upgrading and renovation investment in the facilities.

3.6 WINDSOR/SEYCOVE FAMILY EMERGING PLAN

Figure 23 illustrates the distribution of students and schools in the Windsor/Seycove Zone.

If we combine the data for the Windsor and Seycove families in Appendix B, there is a surplus of 350 to 750 spaces over the last ten years of the planning horizon. It is not practical to consider the closure of either secondary school in the near term. However, the smaller of the two schools (Seycove) should be closed by 2016 — probably earlier especially if Sutherland is able to attract more students from the Windsor/Seycove Zone. By 2016 time the enrolment at the secondary level in the eastern part of NVSD will have declined sufficiently to create enough surplus space in Windsor Secondary to accommodate most of the Seycove students.

NVSD has indicated in its capital plan the need for future upgrades to Windsor Secondary. Depending on future development in the area, we suggest that NVSD consider reducing the capacity to perhaps 900 with the potential to expand in the future. Of course, the advisability of this further reduction would depend on the balance of cost and benefit resulting from the detailed feasibility study.

D

D3

D4

E5

F1

F3

F4F

F2

G1

G3

G2

S1

G

Figure 23

Project 06612007 11 20

WINDSOR / SEYCOVEZONE STUDENTS


Montroyal

Canyon Heights

Highlands

BalmoralBLarson

Braemar

Carisbrooke


Norgate

Westview

Queen Mary

ArgyleDBoundary

Fromme

Lynn Valley

Ross Road

Upper Lynn


Ridgeway

Queensbury

Brooksbank

Eastview

WindsorFLynnmour

Blueridge

Seymour Heights

Plymouth


Sherwood Park

Cove Cliff

Keith Lynn

Windsor House

S1

S2

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

F1

F2

F3

F4

G1

G2

G3

A1

A2

A3

A4

B1

B2

B3

C1

C2

C3

C4

0 500m 1 km 2 km


40

The elementary schools in the Windsor/Seycove Family are underutilized at 81% and are due to become much more underutilized with more than 800 surplus spaces beginning in 5-10 years. At least one school must be closed as soon as possible with the possibility of a second school closure in a few years.

We chose to close Seymour Heights in the emerging plan because the school is in poor physical condition as well as small and operationally inefficient. The students from the Seymour Heights catchment area would go to Blueridge to the north and Plymouth to the south.

We also chose to reduce the capacity at Dorothy Lynas Elementary by 200 spaces by removing the modular portion of the school. The capacity of Sherwood Park could be reduced in the future if the opportunity is presented during renovation or replacement.

With the implementation of the emerging plan for the Windsor/Seycove Zone, we will have achieved the following:

At 1,025 spaces Windsor Secondary is within the optimal school size range for a secondary school.

Windsor and Seycove Secondary Schools will be underutilized until Seycove is closed when Windsor will become fully utilized.

The six remaining elementary schools are well distributed to serve students in the eastern part of NVSD — although this always going to be a challenge given the dispersed nature of urban development in the Windsor/Seycove Zone.

Only two of the six schools in the Windsor/Seycove Zone are within the optimal school size range — currently only one of the seven schools is within the optimal capacity range.

Five of the elementary schools have capacity to be expanded and remain within the optimal school size.

Our analysis shows that, even with the two proposed closures, the Windsor/Seycove Family of schools will remain underutilized for the entire planning period.

The closures of Seymour Heights and Seycove will avoid future anticipated upgrading and renovation investment in the facilities.

3.7 UTILIZATION ANALYSIS OF EMERGING PLANS

Figure 24 illustrates the capacity utilization of NVSD schools with the implementation of the closures and other changes outlined in the emerging plans. It shows that the overall utilization of schools will hover around the MoE-specified 95% threshold. Considering the particular challenges of achieving full utilization of the schools in the thinly-populated eastern part of the district, this level of utilization should be acceptable.


41

Figure 23 shows that the utilization of secondary schools will move above 100% after Balmoral is closed, drop below 100% briefly until Seycove is closed and then move above 100% again for the rest of the planning period. Figure 23 also illustrates that, even with the closures specified in the emerging plans, the utilization of NVSD elementary schools will remain under the 95% threshold for the entire planning horizon.

Figure 24: Capacity Utilization with Emerging Plan

Figure 25 shows the overall capacity utilization for each of the five families of schools with the emerging plans implemented as described in the previous sections. The utilization of each group of schools can be characterized as follows:

The Handsworth Family will be fully utilized for most of the planning horizon.

The Argyle Family will be close to fully utilized for most of the next 15 years.

The Sutherland Family will be fully utilized for a short period and then fall just below the 95% threshold for the later part of the planning period.

The Carson Graham/Balmoral Family will be moderately well utilized for the first few years and then fall to well below the 95% threshold for the last ten years of the planning horizon.


42

The Windsor/Seycove Family will remain well below the 95% threshold for all of the next 15 years.

Figure 25: Capacity Utilization by Family with Emerging Plan

3.8 KEY FEATURES OF THE EMERGING PLAN

The emerging plan outlined in this document addresses the need to reduce the capacity of secondary schools by:

Closing Balmoral.

Reducing the capacity of Carson Graham during a renovation.

Adjusting programs to shift some students from Handsworth and Argyle to other secondary schools.

Closing Seycove by 2016.

The emerging plan outlined in this document addresses the continuing need to reduce the capacity of elementary schools by:

Closing Capilano.

Closing Seymour Heights.

Relocating the modular portion of Dorothy Lynas.

Closing Ridgeway Annex by 2011.

Closing Canyon Heights or other school in the zone by 2011.

Closing Fromme or other school in the zone by 2011.


43

Closing Brooksbank or other school in the zone by 2011.

3.9 SUMMARY OF ACHIEVEMENTS

If the plan is implemented as outlined, NVSD will:

Have fewer schools with larger enrolments.

Meet utilization thresholds allowing NVSD to be in a position to obtain funds for new space if required in the future.

Avoid spending upgrading funds on surplus spaces.

Be able to upgrade facilities through the disposal of surplus property.

Have improved facilities.

Have relatively more resources available for instruction and be in a position to maintain or improve its position.


APPENDIX A ENROLMENT FORECASTS

Code School Forecast FI

A 0 Handsworth Base FI

A 1 Cleveland Base FI

A 2 Montroyal Base

A 3 Canyon Heights Base

A 4 Highlands Base

B 0 Balmoral Base

B 1 Larson Base FI

B 2 Braemar Base FI

B 5 Carisbrooke Base

C 0 Carson Graham Adjusted

C 1 Capilano Base

C 2 Norgate Adjusted

C 3 Westview Adjusted

C 4 Queen Mary Adjusted

D 0 Argyle Base FI

D 1 Boundary Base

D 2 Fromme Base

D 3 Lynn Valley Base

D 4 Ross Road Base FI

D 5 Upper Lynn Base

E 0 Sutherland Adjusted

E 1 Ridgeway Annex Adjusted

E 2 Ridgeway Adjusted

E 3 Queensbury Adjusted

E 5 Brooksbank Base

E 6 Eastview Base

F 0 Windsor Adjusted

F 1 Lynnmour Adjusted

F 3 Blueridge Base

F 4 Seymour Heights Base

F 5 Plymouth Base

G 0 Seycove Base

G 1 Dorothy Lynas Base FI

G 2 Sherwood Park Base FI

G 3 Cove Cliff Base

Enrolment Forecasts for Individual Schools Appendix A

Handsworth

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

2006 2011 2016 2021

Plus FI

Base

Adjusted

Cleveland

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2006 2011 2016 2021

Plus FI

Base

Matrix Planning Associates 0661 • 7/22/07 Figures for draft.xls • Appendix A • Page 1 of 18


Montroyal

175

200

225

250

275

300

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base

Canyon Heights

225

250

275

300

325

350

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base



Highlands

275

300

325

350

375

400

425

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base

Adjusted

Balmoral

150

200

250

300

350

400

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base



Larson

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2006 2011 2016 2021

Plus FI

Base

Braemar

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2006 2011 2016 2021

Plus FI

Base



Carisbrooke

250

275

300

325

350

375

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base

Carson Graham

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,000

1,050

1,100

2006 2011 2016 2021

Adjusted

Base



Capilano

125

150

175

200

225

250

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base

Norgate

50

75

100

125

150

175

2006 2011 2016 2021

Adjusted

Base



Westview

100

125

150

175

200

225

2006 2011 2016 2021

Adjusted

Base

Queen Mary

250

275

300

325

350

375

2006 2011 2016 2021

Adjusted

Base



Argyle

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

1,600

1,700

2006 2011 2016 2021

Plus FI

Base

Adjusted

Boundary

150

175

200

225

250

275

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base



Fromme

150

175

200

225

250

275

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base

Lynn Valley

100

125

150

175

200

225

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base

Adjusted



Ross Road

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2006 2011 2016 2021

Plus FI

Base

Adjusted

Upper Lynn

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

475

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base



Sutherland

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

2006 2011 2016 2021

Adjusted

Base

Ridgeway Annex

0

25

50

75

100

125

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base

Adjusted



Ridgeway

300

325

350

375

400

425

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base

Adjusted

Queensbury

125

150

175

200

225

250

2006 2011 2016 2021

Adjusted

Base



Brooksbank

200

225

250

275

300

325

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base

Eastview

250

275

300

325

350

375

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base



Windsor

400

500

600

700

800

900

2006 2011 2016 2021

Adjusted

Base

Lynnmour

100

125

150

175

200

225

2006 2011 2016 2021

Adjusted

Base



Blueridge

200

225

250

275

300

325

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base

Seymour Heights

100

125

150

175

200

225

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base

Adjusted



Plymouth

50

75

100

125

150

175

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base

Adjusted

Seycove

300

400

500

600

700

800

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base



Dorothy Lynas

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

2006 2011 2016 2021

Plus FI

Base

Sherwood Park

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base

Plus FI



Cove Cliff

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

2006 2011 2016 2021

Base



APPENDIX B

BASELINE UTILIZATION

Baseline utilization Appendix B

2006 2011 2016 2021 2006 2011 2016 2021 2006 2011 2016 2021

A 0 Handsworth FI 1,200 1,362 1,311 1,265 1,253 -162 -111 -65 -53 114% 109% 105% 104% likely to remain fully utilized

A 1 Cleveland FI 500 412 377 381 378 88 123 119 122 82% 75% 76% 76% already underutilized

A 2 Montroyal 350 291 219 244 248 59 131 106 102 83% 63% 70% 71% already underutilized

A 3 Canyon Heights 350 346 296 275 264 4 54 75 86 99% 85% 79% 75% will soon be underutilized

A 4 Highlands 350 325 355 385 406 25 -5 -35 -56 93% 101% 110% 116% becoming well utilized

B 0 Balmoral 650 359 244 176 180 291 406 474 470 55% 38% 27% 28% severely underutilized

B 1 Larson FI 375 390 390 406 410 -15 -15 -31 -35 104% 104% 108% 109% slightly overutilized due to FI

B 2 Braemar FI 450 421 383 389 383 29 67 61 67 94% 85% 86% 85% becoming underutilized

B 3 Carisbrooke 375 328 344 321 323 47 31 54 52 87% 92% 86% 86% already underutilized

C 0 Carson Graham 1,300 1,079 902 807 819 221 398 493 481 83% 69% 62% 63% severely underutilized

C 1 Capilano 475 241 169 146 141 234 306 329 334 51% 36% 31% 30% severely underutilized

C 2 Norgate 275 150 121 117 123 125 154 158 152 55% 44% 43% 45% severely underutilized

C 3 Westview 225 183 169 163 167 42 56 62 58 81% 75% 72% 74% underutilized

C 4 Queen Mary 400 325 321 324 311 75 79 76 89 81% 80% 81% 78% underutilized

D 0 Argyle FI 1,300 1,564 1,584 1,504 1,501 -264 -284 -204 -201 120% 122% 116% 115% likely to remain fully utilized

D 1 Boundary 375 237 205 211 218 138 170 164 157 63% 55% 56% 58% underutilized

D 2 Fromme 225 210 211 210 205 15 14 15 20 93% 94% 93% 91% reasonably well utilized

D 3 Lynn Valley 200 218 140 141 139 -18 60 59 61 109% 70% 71% 70% becoming underutilized

D 4 Ross Road FI 425 462 474 479 482 -37 -49 -54 -57 109% 112% 113% 113% overutilized due to FI

D 5 Upper Lynn 500 468 373 330 334 32 127 170 166 94% 75% 66% 67% becoming underutilized

E 0 Sutherland 1,000 965 819 661 672 35 181 339 328 97% 82% 66% 67% becoming underutilized, aura impact?

E 1 Ridgeway Annex 75 62 65 64 63 13 10 11 12 83% 87% 85% 84% capacity limitations

E 2 Ridgeway 425 386 375 381 380 39 50 44 45 91% 88% 90% 89% slightly underutilized, aura impact?

E 3 Queensbury 250 214 187 200 206 36 63 50 44 86% 75% 80% 82% slightly underutilized

E 4 Brooksbank 375 269 264 276 276 106 111 99 99 72% 70% 74% 74% underutilized

E 5 Eastview 450 315 331 306 292 135 119 144 158 70% 74% 68% 65% underutilized

F 0 Windsor 1,025 848 747 572 575 177 278 453 450 83% 73% 56% 56% severely underutilized

F 1 Lynnmour 275 199 155 167 182 76 120 108 93 72% 56% 61% 66% underutilized

F 2 Blueridge 350 290 269 247 240 60 81 103 110 83% 77% 71% 69% underutilized

F 3 Seymour Heights 275 178 149 156 158 97 126 119 117 65% 54% 57% 57% underutilized

F 4 Plymouth 225 149 124 124 111 76 101 101 114 66% 55% 55% 49% underutilized

G 0 Seycove 700 735 633 455 399 -35 67 245 301 105% 90% 65% 57% becoming underutilized

G 1 Dorothy Lynas FI 600 519 457 442 439 81 143 158 161 87% 76% 74% 73% underutilized

G 2 Sherwood Park FI 550 400 349 356 356 150 201 194 194 73% 63% 65% 65% underutilized

G 3 Cove Cliff 250 319 235 200 202 -69 15 50 48 128% 94% 80% 81% becoming less utilized

Total School District 8 17,125 15,219 13,747 12,881 12,836 1,906 3,378 4,244 4,289 89% 80% 75% 75% becoming more underutilized

Secondaries 2 7,175 6,912 6,240 5,440 5,399 263 935 1,735 1,776 96% 87% 76% 75% becoming significantly underutilized

Elementaries 6 9,950 8,307 7,507 7,441 7,437 1,643 2,443 2,509 2,513 83% 75% 75% 75% already underutilized

Handsworth schools 2 2,750 2,736 2,558 2,550 2,549 14 192 200 201 99% 93% 93% 93% slighlty underutilized

Handsworth elementaries 1 1,550 1,374 1,247 1,285 1,296 176 303 265 254 89% 80% 83% 84% already underutilized

Balmoral schools 2 1,050 962 870 904 918 88 180 146 132 92% 83% 86% 87% becoming underutilized

Balmoral elementaries 2 1,200 1,139 1,117 1,116 1,116 61 83 84 84 95% 93% 93% 93% slightly underutilized

Carson Graham schools 0 2,675 1,978 1,682 1,557 1,561 697 993 1,118 1,114 74% 63% 58% 58% consistently underutilized

Carson Graham elementaries 0 1,375 899 780 750 742 476 595 625 633 65% 57% 55% 54% consistently underutilized

Argyle schools 2 3,025 3,159 2,987 2,875 2,879 -134 38 150 146 104% 99% 95% 95% well utilized

Argyle elementaries 1 1,725 1,595 1,403 1,371 1,378 130 322 354 347 92% 81% 79% 80% slightly underutilized

Sutherland schools 0 2,575 2,211 2,041 1,888 1,889 364 534 687 686 86% 79% 73% 73% underutilized

Sutherland elementaries 0 1,575 1,246 1,222 1,227 1,217 329 353 348 358 79% 78% 78% 77% consistently underutilized

Windsor schools 0 2,150 1,664 1,444 1,266 1,266 486 706 884 884 77% 67% 59% 59% consistently underutilized

Windsor elementaries 0 1,125 816 697 694 691 309 428 431 434 73% 62% 62% 61% consistently underutilized

Seycove schools 2 2,100 1,973 1,674 1,453 1,396 127 426 647 704 94% 80% 69% 66% becoming more underutilized

Seycove elementaries 2 1,400 1,238 1,041 998 997 162 359 402 403 88% 74% 71% 71% becoming more underutilized

School FICodesCapacity

(1-12)Enrolment (Grades 1-12) Surplus or Shortage Capacity Utilization

Notes

Matrix Planning Associates 0661 | 7/23/07 NVSD model draft.xls | Baseline


APPENDIX C

EMERGING FACILITIES PLAN UTILIZATION ANALYSIS

Emerging Facilities Plan: North Vancouver School District Appendix C

2008 2011 2016 2021 2008 2011 2016 2021 2008 2011 2016 2021 2008 2011 2016 2021

A 0 Handsworth FI 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,350 1,301 1,255 1,243 -150 -101 -55 -43 113% 108% 105% 104%

A 1 Cleveland FI 500 500 500 500 379 525 519 510 121 -25 -19 -10 76% 105% 104% 102% potential to reduce capacity

A 2 Montroyal 350 350 350 350 232 367 381 380 118 -17 -31 -30 66% 105% 109% 109%

A 3 Canyon Heights 350 319 31 91% close by 2011, to Cleveland + Montroyal

A 4 Highlands 350 350 350 350 351 355 385 406 -1 -5 -35 -56 100% 101% 110% 116%

C 0 Carson Graham 1,300 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,342 1,166 1,003 1,019 -242 -66 97 81 122% 106% 91% 93% new IB program, capacity reduction (200)

B 0 Balmoral close soon, to Carson Graham

B 1 Larson FI 375 375 375 375 386 390 406 410 -11 -15 -31 -35 103% 104% 108% 109% move FI?

B 2 Braemar FI 450 450 450 450 395 383 389 383 55 67 61 67 88% 85% 86% 85% move FI?

B 3 Carisbrooke 375 375 375 375 336 344 321 323 39 31 54 52 90% 92% 86% 86%

C 1 Capilano close, to Norgate + Westview

C 2 Norgate 275 275 275 275 276 239 219 222 -1 36 56 53 100% 87% 80% 81%

C 3 Westview 225 225 225 225 246 220 207 209 -21 5 18 16 109% 98% 92% 93%

C 4 Queen Mary 400 400 400 400 320 321 324 311 80 79 76 89 80% 80% 81% 78%

D 0 Argyle FI 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,462 1,474 1,394 1,391 -162 -174 -94 -91 112% 113% 107% 107%

D 1 Boundary 375 375 375 375 215 353 358 362 160 22 17 13 57% 94% 95% 97% reduce capacity in future?

D 2 Fromme 225 205 20 91% close, to Boundary + Lynn Valley

D 3 Lynn Valley 200 200 200 200 175 203 204 200 25 -3 -4 0 88% 102% 102% 100%

D 4 Ross Road FI 425 425 425 425 469 474 479 482 -44 -49 -54 -57 110% 112% 113% 113% closure? Move FI?

D 5 Upper Lynn 500 500 500 500 416 373 330 334 84 127 170 166 83% 75% 66% 67% reduce capacity in future?

E 0 Sutherland 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,028 919 761 772 -28 81 239 228 103% 92% 76% 77% aura impact, students from Argyle

E 1 Ridgeway Annex 75 52 23 69% close, to Ridgeway

E 2 Ridgeway 425 425 425 425 402 440 445 443 23 -15 -20 -18 95% 104% 105% 104%

E 3 Queensbury 250 250 250 250 209 293 310 316 41 -43 -60 -66 84% 117% 124% 126% future replacement?

E 4 Brooksbank 375 254 121 68% close, to Eastview + Queensbury

E 5 Eastview 450 450 450 450 309 489 472 458 141 -39 -22 -8 69% 109% 105% 102% capacity reduction? Closure?

CapacitySchool FICodes

Surplus or Shortage Capacity UtilizationNotes

Enrolment (Grades 1-12)

Matrix Planning Associates 0661 | 7/27/07 NVSD model draft.xls | Emerging | Page 1 of 2

Emerging Facilities Plan: North Vancouver School District Appendix C

2008 2011 2016 2021 2008 2011 2016 2021 2008 2011 2016 2021 2008 2011 2016 2021

CapacitySchool FICodes

Surplus or Shortage Capacity UtilizationNotes

Enrolment (Grades 1-12)

F 0 Windsor 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 817 747 1,027 974 208 278 -2 51 80% 73% 100% 95% future FI?

F 1 Lynnmour 275 275 275 275 192 155 167 182 83 120 108 93 70% 56% 61% 66% future FI?

F 2 Blueridge 350 350 350 350 348 344 325 319 2 6 25 31 99% 98% 93% 91%

F 3 Seymour Heights close, to Blueridge + Plymouth

F 4 Plymouth 225 225 225 225 213 198 202 190 12 27 23 35 95% 88% 90% 84% future late FI?

G 0 Seycove 700 700 674 633 26 67 96% 90% close, to Windsor

G 1 Dorothy Lynas FI 400 400 400 400 404 366 354 351 -4 34 46 49 101% 92% 89% 88% demolish modular portion (200 spaces)

G 2 Sherwood Park FI 550 550 550 550 461 440 444 444 89 110 106 106 84% 80% 81% 81% balance with Lynas?

G 3 Cove Cliff 250 250 250 250 267 235 200 202 -17 15 50 48 107% 94% 80% 81% possible future closure?

Total School District 8 15,525 14,300 13,600 13,600 14,504 13,747 12,881 12,836 1,021 553 719 764 93% 96% 95% 94% just acceptable to slightly low utilization

Secondaries 2 6,525 6,325 5,625 5,625 6,673 6,240 5,895 5,798 -148 85 -270 -173 102% 99% 105% 103% full utilization

Elementaries 6 9,000 7,975 7,975 7,975 7,831 7,507 6,986 7,038 1,169 468 989 937 87% 94% 88% 88% underutilized

Handsworth schools 2 2,750 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,631 2,548 2,540 2,539 119 -148 -140 -139 96% 106% 106% 106% well utilized

Handsworth elementaries 1 1,550 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,281 1,247 1,285 1,296 269 -47 -85 -96 83% 104% 107% 108% well utilized

Carson Graham schools 2 3,400 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,301 3,063 2,869 2,877 99 137 331 323 97% 96% 90% 90% becoming underutilized

Carson Graham elementaries 0 900 900 900 900 842 780 750 742 58 120 150 158 94% 87% 83% 82% slightly underutilized

Argyle schools 2 3,025 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,942 2,877 2,765 2,769 83 -77 35 31 97% 103% 99% 99% well utilized

Argyle elementaries 1 1,725 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,480 1,403 1,371 1,378 245 97 129 122 86% 94% 91% 92% fair utilization in future

Sutherland schools 0 2,575 2,125 2,125 2,125 2,254 2,141 1,988 1,989 321 -16 137 136 88% 101% 94% 94% well utilized

Sutherland elementaries 0 1,575 1,125 1,125 1,125 1,226 1,222 1,227 1,217 349 -97 -102 -92 78% 109% 109% 108% slightly low to well utilized

Windsor/Seycove schools 0 3,775 3,775 3,075 3,075 3,376 3,118 2,719 2,662 399 657 356 413 89% 83% 88% 87% underutilized

Windsor/Seycove secondaries 0 1,725 1,725 1,025 1,025 1,491 1,380 1,027 974 234 345 -2 51 86% 80% 100% 95% under to full utilization

Windsor/Seycove elementaries 2 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 1,885 1,738 1,692 1,688 165 312 358 362 92% 85% 83% 82% consistently underutilized

Matrix Planning Associates 0661 | 7/27/07 NVSD model draft.xls | Emerging | Page 2 of 2


APPENDIX D

NVSD SCHOOL FACILITIES

Key Planning Information for NVSD School Facilities Appendix D

Site

Are

a (h

a)

Allo

wab

le

Ar

ea (h

a)

Actu

al/

Allo

wab

le

Util

ity a

s

Sc

hool

Site

Expa

ndab

ility

on S

ite

Kind

erga

rten

Ca

paci

ty

Gra

de 1

–12

Capa

city

Gro

ss F

loor

Area

(m2 )

Allo

wab

le

Area

(m2 )

Actu

al/

Allo

wab

le

Port

able

s

Year

Bui

lt

Seis

mic

Ris

k

Capi

tal P

lan

Prio

rity

Seis

mic

U

pgra

de

Budg

et

Phys

ical

Co

nditi

on

Capi

tal P

lan

Prio

rity

Reno

vato

n or

Re

plac

emen

t Bu

dget

A 0 Handsworth 5.6 5.6 1% Good Good 0 1,200 12932 11770 10% 0 1961 High Deficient 2 $21,770,720 12

A 1 Cleveland 3.3 2.7 22% Good Good 40 500 4230 3690 15% 2 1962 Moderate 28 $778,361 Deficient 27 $4,470,523 6

A 2 Montroyal 2.5 1.9 29% Adequate Adequate 40 350 3324 3000 11% 0 1963 High 12 $2,392,121 Deficient 11 $2,432,427 6

A 3 Canyon Heights 2.6 1.9 35% Good Good 40 350 3792 3000 26% 1 1955 Mod/High Deficient 3 $3,061,677 9, 13

A 4 Highlands 2.6 1.9 37% Good Good 80 350 3090 3090 0% 0 2008 Good 2

B 0 Balmoral 4.1 3.7 11% Good Good 0 650 8418 7480 13% 1 1959 Mod/High 44 $7,227,236 Acceptable 43 $5,605,698

B 1 Larson 2.2 1.9 17% Good Good 80 375 3928 3115 26% 4 1964 Mod/High 22 $1,788,698 Acceptable 21 $2,393,565

B 2 Braemar 2.9 2.5 14% Adequate Good 80 450 4200 3450 22% 0 1961 High 14 $3,039,343 Deficient 13 $2,496,982 5, 7

B 5 Carisbrooke 3.0 1.9 57% Good Good 40 375 3734 3115 20% 0 1960 High Deficient 4 $2,302,655 9, 13

C 0 Carson Graham 3.2 5.8 -44% Adequate Poor 0 1,300 15731 12400 27% 0 1964 High Deficient 5 $8,604,869 3, 9, 13

C 1 Capilano 1.7 2.5 -33% Good Good 40 475 4224 3575 18% 0 1924 High 24 $2,030,908 Deficient 23 $2,702,310

C 2 Norgate 2.1 1.6 29% Good Good 40 275 2747 2535 8% 0 1951 Moderate 40 $1,131,715 Deficient 39 $1,684,418

C 3 Westview 2.1 1.5 40% Good Adequate 40 250 2400 2400 0% 1 2007 Good 1

C 4 Queen Mary 1.9 2.3 -19% Good Good 40 400 4589 3225 42% 0 1914 Mod/High Deficient 6 $2,879,147 4, 5, 9, 13

D 0 Argyle 4.9 5.8 -15% Good Adequate 0 1,300 14739 12400 19% 3 1960 High Deficient 1 $22,296,531 5, 12

D 1 Boundary 2.2 1.9 14% Good Good 40 375 3540 3115 14% 0 1969 Moderate 42 $2,190,858 Deficient 41 $2,532,167

D 2 Fromme 2.5 1.5 63% Good Adequate 40 225 2809 2205 27% 1 1964 Moderate 36 $386,439 Acceptable 35 $2,552,218 6

D 3 Lynn Valley 1.4 1.5 -10% Good Adequate 40 200 2535 2535 0% 0 2004 Good

D 4 Ross Road 2.4 2.3 4% Adequate Good 80 425 3774 3345 13% 2 1962 High 16 $2,076,206 Acceptable 15 $2,387,148 7

D 5 Upper Lynn 2.3 2.7 -14% Good Adequate 80 500 4481 3690 21% 0 1959 Low/Mod 38 $1,912,454 Acceptable 37 $2,359,522

E 0 Sutherland 5.2 5.0 4% Good Adequate 0 1,000 10279 10279 0% 3 2008 Good 2

E 1 Ridgeway Annex 0.6 1.2 -52% Poor Poor 40 75 858 895 -4% 0 1953 Mod/High Poor 19 $3,975,689 8, 12

E 2 Ridgeway 1.9 2.3 -16% Good Good 80 425 5238 3345 57% 0 1911 High Poor 9

E 3 Queensbury 1.4 1.6 -11% Good Adequate 40 250 2669 2330 15% 0 1955 High Deficient 20 $7,948,151 12, 14

E 5 Brooksbank 2.3 1.9 19% Good Adequate 80 375 3539 3115 14% 0 1966 Mod/High 30 $3,669,893 Deficient 29 $3,350,790 6, 7

E 6 Eastview 2.7 2.5 8% Adequate Good 80 450 4364 3450 26% 0 1956 Mod/High 32 $3,167,522 Deficient 31 $2,348,377 7

Notes

PROPERTY FACILITY

Matrix Planning Associates 0661 • 11/20/07 Figures for final.xls • D-Facilities • Page 1 of 2

Key Planning Information for NVSD School Facilities Appendix D

Site

Are

a (h

a)

Allo

wab

le

Ar

ea (h

a)

Actu

al/

Allo

wab

le

Util

ity a

s

Sc

hool

Site

Expa

ndab

ility

on S

ite

Kind

erga

rten

Ca

paci

ty

Gra

de 1

–12

Capa

city

Gro

ss F

loor

Area

(m2 )

Allo

wab

le

Area

(m2 )

Actu

al/

Allo

wab

le

Port

able

s

Year

Bui

lt

Seis

mic

Ris

k

Capi

tal P

lan

Prio

rity

Seis

mic

U

pgra

de

Budg

et

Phys

ical

Co

nditi

on

Capi

tal P

lan

Prio

rity

Reno

vato

n or

Re

plac

emen

t Bu

dget

Notes

PROPERTY FACILITY

F 0 Windsor 4.7 5.0 -6% Good Adequate 0 1,025 13256 10240 29% 0 1961 Low/Mod 46 $2,435,280 Acceptable 45 $6,147,478 6

F 1 Lynnmour 1.2 1.6 -25% Adequate Poor 40 275 2717 2535 7% 0 1973 Moderate Poor 10 $5,148,818 10

F 3 Blueridge 2.8 1.9 48% Adequate Good 40 350 3360 3000 12% 0 1968 Moderate Poor 8 $8,540,281 7, 12

F 4 Seymour Heights 2.0 1.6 23% Adequate Adequate 40 275 2794 2535 10% 0 1958 Mod/High Poor 9 $8,411,643 6, 12

F 5 Plymouth 2.3 1.5 52% Adequate Adequate 40 225 2742 2205 24% 1 1969 Mod/High 34 $1,935,084 Deficient 33 $2,580,975 6

G 0 Seycove 5.0 3.8 31% Adequate Poor 0 700 8898 7825 14% 4 1979 High 18 $3,065,465 Acceptable 17 $5,458,858 6, 7, 11

G 1 Dorothy Lynas 2.2 3.0 -28% Good Adequate 80 600 4608 4310 7% 0 1990 Low Acceptable

G 2 Sherwood Park 2.5 2.8 -11% Adequate Adequate 80 550 5171 3965 30% 0 1963 High 26 $2,911,200 Deficient 25 $2,472,047

G 3 Cove Cliff 2.0 1.6 25% Adequate Adequate 40 250 2753 2330 18% 2 1991 Low Acceptable 6

Totals and Averages 93.9 90.7 4% 1 Poor 4 Poor 1,520 17,150 182463 155494 17% 25 1965 12 High $42,100,000 5 Poor $148,900,000

Notes

1 Rated new school.

2 Rated replaced school.

3 Joint use field with City.

4 Road allowance adds to spaciousness.

5 Site may be reduced with pending land sale.

6 Slope, creek, ravine or forest limit utility.

7 Poor access.

8 Small field.

9 Feasibility study. Still rated the old building.

10 Flood plain.

11 Municipality owns small portion of site. NVSD owns all other sites.

12 Proposals is to replace the school.

13 Seismic feasibility study.

14 The seismic upgrade cost ($1,067,000) is included in the replacement cost.

Matrix Planning Associates 0661 • 11/20/07 Figures for final.xls • D-Facilities • Page 2 of 2

long-range facilities plan - 2007 update · 3.3 argyle family emerging plan 30 ... a significant...

Documents