page 2 of 40 - toronto catholic district school board › board › trusteesoftheboard... ·...

ADDENDUMREGULAR MEETING OF THE MEETING OF THE

TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARDPUBLIC SESSION

Angela Kennedy, Chair Frank D'Amico, Vice-Chair

Thursday, June 9, 20167:00 P.M.

Pages

10. Presentations

10.c Monthly Report from Student Trustee(s) 1 - 2

10.f By Vince Burzotta, Superintendent of Educaiton, regarding StudentAlternative Learning

14. Matters recommended by Statutory Committees of the Board

14.a Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Special EducationAdvisory Committee for June 1, 2016

3 - 15

15. Matters referred/deferred from Committees/Board

From Corporate Services of June 6, 2016

15.a St Simon CS Construction Award (Ward 3) 16 - 25

15.b Initiation of Pupil Accommodation Review (Ward 1) 26 - 29

17. Reports of Officials Requiring Action of the Board of Trustees

17.b Request to Expand the Boundary Review for St. Anselm and St.Monica (Wards 5 & 11)

30 - 33

17.e Appointment of External Auditors – Five Years Beginning 2015/16 34 - 40

of 1

June Board Report

OSTA-AECO AGM

From May 26th to May 29th, transitional

student trustee Karina Dubrovskaya and

incoming student trustee Rhea Carlisle

attended the Ontario Student Trustees

Association Annual General Assembly.

Throughout the conference they heard from a number of keynote speeches including:

David Onley, 28th Lieutenant Governor of Ontario on accessibility issues and Liz

Sandals, Minister Of Education on current issues in education. The student trustees

represented TCDSB in board council breakouts and during student voice discussion in

regards to community hours, different levels of education and free tuition.

Karina Dubrovskaya was elected by the general assembly to serve as the French

Relations Officer for the 2016-2017 OSTA-AECO executive. The council as whole will

work together to represent the 2 million students' vision and voice in Ontario, which

includes consulting on policy and collaborating with stakeholders.

Focus On Youth

Over the weekend of June 4-5, high school students in the TCDSB’s Focus on Youth

program participated in training at Camp Olympia. Led by Andre Fullerton and Mike

Consul, the weekend was a chance for future camp counselors, custodians and

administrative workers to gain leadership skills that will prove valuable in their

workplaces over the summer.

Subcommittees

Equity

This year, the Equity subcommittee was successful in hosting several events in the spirit

of mental health, students with disabilities, and the LGBTQ+ community. Bringing

together a subcommittee of about 10 students from high schools across the east and west

ends of Toronto, it was a year to celebrate equity in our Catholic schools.

Social justice

Working closely with Development and Peace, the Social Justice subcommittee took on a

number of initiatives this year. In spirit of COP21 in Paris earlier this year, they took to

sign a number of petitions encouraging our federal government to take action towards

climate change. This included a march at Queens’ Park with mascots from schools such

as Cardinal Carter and St. John Paul II.

Social Affairs and Angel Council

Both subcommittees are working towards the upcoming CSLIT Gala, which will be in

support of the Angel Foundation for Learning.

Faith

The Faith subcommittee was successful in hosting the annual Board-wide mass.

Page 1 of 40

1

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

HELD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 2016

PUBLIC SESSION

PRESENT:

Marilyn Taylor, Chair

Rosanna Del Grosso

Sandra Mastronardi

Ashleigh Molloy

Glenn Webster

Dario Imbrogno

Mary Pugh

Gizelle Paine

Raul Vomisescu

Trustees A. Andrachuk

G. Tanuan

A. Kennedy

G. Poole

C. Fernandes

A. Coke

M. Kokai

J. Wilhelm

D. Reid

P. Stachiw

E. Szekeres Milne

L. Fernandes, Recording Secretary

S. Harris, Assistant Recording Secretary Apologies were received from John MacKenzie and Giselle Romanino who were

unable to attend the meeting.

Page 3 of 40

2

MOVED by Trustee Andrachuk, seconded by Mary Pugh, that the agenda be

reopened to include a video on the Mini Olympics.

CARRIED

MOVED by Ashleigh Molloy, seconded by Trustee Andrachuk, that the agenda be

reopened to include a video on AAIDD.

CARRIED

MOVED by Trustee Andrachuk, seconded by Rosanna Del Grosso, that the agenda,

as amended, be approved.

CARRIED

MOVED by Trustee Andrachuk, seconded by Rosanna Del Grosso, that the Minutes

of the Regular Meeting held May 11, 2016 be approved with the following

amendments:

1. To include a memorial expressed for the father of Gillian Vivona, President, TSU,

who passed away

2. Page 6 - To include “arising out of an inquiry” before … that staff keep SEAC

apprised…

3. To remove “Written” from the Association Report from John MacKenzie and that

it be placed on the agenda of the next meeting of SEAC.

CARRIED

MOVED by Mary Pugh, seconded by Gizelle Paine, that the video presentation by

Trustee Andrachuk regarding the Mini Olympics be received.

CARRIED

Page 4 of 40

3

MOVED by Trustee Andrachuk, seconded by Trustee Tanuan, that the video

presentation by Ashleigh Molloy regarding AAIDD be received.

CARRIED

MOVED by Trustee Andrachuk, seconded by Trustee Tanuan, that the inquiry from

Rosanna Del Grosso on the Safe School Report be deferred to the next meeting.

CARRIED

MOVED by Sandra Mastronardi, seconded by Rosanna Del Grosso, that the Review

of the SEAC Calendar and SEAC Goal Setting be received.

CARRIED

MOVED by Sandra Mastronardi, seconded by Rosanna Del Grosso, that a report

come back on the number of students that met the criteria for the Empower

programme and were not accepted.

With the consent of the Committee, Sandra Mastronardi withdrew her motion.

MOVED by Trustee Andrachuk, seconded by Trustee Tanuan, that the Monthly

Update from the Superintendent of Special Services be received.

CARRIED

MOVED by Rosanna Del Grosso, seconded by Trustee Andrachuk, that the Report

regarding the Secondary School Course Calendar 2016-2017 be received.

CARRIED

Page 5 of 40

4

MOVED by Trustee Andrachuk, seconded by Dario Imbrogno, that staff bring back

a report in January 2017 on the success of the Lexia programme, the number of

students involved, and the length of time they have spent before they see results.

CARRIED

MOVED by Trustee Andrachuk, seconded by Trustee Tanuan, that:

1. the pending list include a parents/students survey on when students enter the

Gifted Programme and when they leave

2. a sample of the survey be brought back to the Committee for review

3. staff look at expanding the data provided on Students Identified with Giftedness

Congregated vs Withdrawal Analyses and Grade 6 EQAO Results to include the

Gifted students in the regular stream and expand the learning skills

4. staff bring back a report on the number of applicants who applied to the

Congregated programme but were not accepted

CARRIED

MOVED by Trustee Andrachuk, seconded by Dario Imbrogno, that staff consider all

items discussed and include them in a report to be brought back to SEAC, looking at

students identified as gifted but not going into the programme and how they are

doing in comparison with the students who are in the programme.

CARRIED

MOVED by Rosanna Del Grosso, seconded by Trustee Andrachuk, that the

Secondary School Course Calendar 2016-2017 be received.

CARRIED

Page 6 of 40

5

MOVED by Gizelle Paine, seconded by Ashley Molloy, that the Report regarding

TCDSB K-12 Professional Development Schedule 2015-2016 be received.

CARRIED

MOVED by Dario Imbrogno, seconded by Trustee Tanuan, that the Report regarding

Children’s Mental Health Awareness Week 2016 report be received.

CARRIED

MOVED by Dario Imbrogno, seconded by Ashely Molloy, that the Report regarding

Gifted Summary – Congregated vs Withdrawal, May 2016 be received.

CARRIED

MOVED by Gizelle Paine, seconded by Glenn Webster, that the Report regarding

Special Equipment Amount be received.

CARRIED

MOVED by Trustee Andrachuk, seconded by Dario Imbrogno, that the Verbal

Report on the number of students with IEPs that have mental health issues be

received.

CARRIED

MOVED by Trustee Tanuan, seconded by Trustee Kennedy, that the Verbal

Communication via Board email be received and that Minutes be sent to the Board

email addresses. Staff to resend the activation email to Committee members.

CARRIED

Page 7 of 40

6

MOVED by Sandra Mastronardi, seconded by Trustee Tanuan,, that the Report

regarding Special Education Funding Guidelines – SEA 2016-2017 - be received.

CARRIED

MOVED by Sandra Mastronardi, seconded by Trustee Kennedy, that the Report

regarding Association Minority Report June 1, 2016 – Autism Ontario - be received.

CARRIED

MOVED by Rosanna Del Grosso, seconded by Trustee Andrachuk, that SEAC

establish a sub-committee to work on the Parents Reaching Out (PRO) Grant, which

will report to SEAC. Sandra Mastronardi and Gizelle Paine volunteered to sit on the

sub-committee.

CARRIED

MOVED by Ashley Molloy, seconded by Glenn Webster, that the Ministry of

Education letter regarding funding for hearing and vision testing be received.

CARRIED

MOVED by Dario Imbrogno, seconded by Trustee Tanuan, that the meeting adjourn.

CARRIED

__________________ ________________

S E C R E T A R Y C H A I R

Page 8 of 40

7

Page 9 of 40

Wednesday June 1, 2016 Special Education Advisory Committee Meeting

ASSOCIATION MINORITY REPORT

Introduction

Autism Ontario – Toronto Chapter is formally submitting a Minority Report in

opposition to the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) Accountability

Framework for Special Education and the 2016-2017 Special Education Plan.

Autism Ontario – Toronto Chapter is concerned with how the data represented

in the framework does not give a true representation of the strengths and needs

of students identified as Autism within the Toronto Catholic District School Board

(TCDSB). The following report will provide the logic to support this statement.

Autism Ontario – Toronto Chapter requests that the Toronto Catholic District

School Board (TCDSB) include this Minority Report and their response to it as part

of their Board’s description of the Special Education Plan consultation process.

Autism Ontario – Toronto Chapter also requests that this report be submitted to

The Ontario Ministry of Education and that it and the Toronto Catholic District

Page 10 of 40

School Board (TCDSB) response to it be included as is required according to the

Ministry document Standards for School Boards’ Special Education Plans, 2000.1

The Accountability Framework for Special Education (AFSE)

The Accountability Framework for Special Education (AFSE)2 was presented to

the Board’s Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC)3 this year and it

included Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) data for students

with Autism. Part of the data presented were the exemption rates for students

with Autism that were noted in the report as being high. The other data

included in the AFSE identified the achievement gap between students with

Autism and all students. The Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB)

outlined a varying goal-set in this report that addressed the achievement gap

between students with Autism and all students and the high exemption rates.

Historically speaking, the achievement gap and the high exemption rates

among students with Autism have been ongoing over a period of several years.

According to page 92-93 of Growing Success: Assessment, Evaluation, and

Reporting in Ontario's Schools, Kindergarten to Grade 12 “These provincial

assessments provide data about student achievement to principals, teachers,

parents, the public, school district staff, and the government and are used to

help educators: identify strengths and areas for improvement in individual

students’ learning, identify strengths and areas for improvement in the

education system, develop education policies, allocate resources, and

determine the success of those policies and resource allocations, identify the

need for targeted interventions and supports and provide them where required,

identify the need for and make decisions about capacity building and specific

instructional practices, celebrate successes.”4 If the Education Quality and

Accountability Office (EQAO) assessment data is being used as an indicator for

student success and for all of the purposes listed above; a very narrow

demographic from which to measure would be created by exempting and

excluding almost (and at times more than) half of the students at the Toronto

Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) within the specific age criteria that are

identified with Autism. The high Education Quality and Accountability Office

(EQAO) assessment exemption rate among students with Autism essentially

creates an exclusive environment for meeting all of the targets listed in the

1 http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/iepstand/iepstand.pdf

2 https://www.tcdsb.org/Board/TrusteesoftheBoard/Committees/AgendaDocs/2016-04-

13%20SEAC%20Agenda.pdf 3 https://www.tcdsb.org/programsservices/specialeducation/seac/Pages/default.aspx

4 https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/growSuccess.pdf

Page 11 of 40

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/iepstand/iepstand.pdf

https://www.tcdsb.org/Board/TrusteesoftheBoard/Committees/AgendaDocs/2016-04-13%20SEAC%20Agenda.pdf

https://www.tcdsb.org/Board/TrusteesoftheBoard/Committees/AgendaDocs/2016-04-13%20SEAC%20Agenda.pdf

https://www.tcdsb.org/programsservices/specialeducation/seac/Pages/default.aspx

https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/growSuccess.pdf

Ministry document Growing Success: Assessment, Evaluation, and Reporting in

Ontario's Schools, Kindergarten to Grade 12.

According to the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO), student

exemption criteria are as follows: “THE STUDENT is unable to participate in part or

all of the assessment even with accommodations or special provisions. A student

must be exempted from reading, if the student has to be read to by a teacher

or another adult, and mathematics, if mathematics terms have to be defined.”5

If the above criteria are the basis for the high exemption rates, given that the

exemption rates are consistently high; what steps are being taken to improve

student learning. What framework of programs, services and supports are being

provided to students with Autism so that they are able to receive an equitable

learning experience? What system SMART goals are in place to support the

varying needs of students with Autism and how are these goals being measured

assessed and adjusted to meet systemic learning needs and successful goals for

these students?

Students identified with Autism that participate in the Education Quality and

Accountability Office (EQAO) testing are provided the opportunity to receive

accommodations that are outlined in their Individual Education Plan (IEP)6.

Many students with Autism are provided extra time to complete the Education

Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) assessments. Although extra time to

complete the assessment is not documented as permissible for the provincial

assessment, it is one of the accommodations in the students’ Individual

Education Plan (IEP) and it is being allowed for special needs students for the

Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) testing in our schools. This

practice of extending the time allotted for completion of the Education Quality

and Accountability Office (EQAO) assessment further reduces the integrity of

the collected data.

Province-wide, or Board-wide assessment is intended to create a comparative

view of student success among students of the same demographic grouping.

The name Autism Spectrum Disorder in itself, describes a disorder that is

characterized by variables; which would lead one to the understanding that

there can be no comparative value to the results obtained because each

student with Autism has a unique learning profile and unique learning and

assessment needs. If you’ve met one person with Autism...you’ve met one

person with Autism. It is very difficult to create a benchmark from which to

derive a measurable median in test score results. Every test has been

5 http://www.eqao.com/en/assessments/assessment-docs-elementary/accommodations-guide-elementary-

2016.pdf 6 http://www.eqao.com/en/assessments/assessment-docs-elementary/accommodations-guide-elementary-

2016.pdf

Page 12 of 40

http://www.eqao.com/en/assessments/assessment-docs-elementary/accommodations-guide-elementary-2016.pdf




administered according to where the student with Autism places on the

spectrum and according to the individual assessment accommodations

provided.

Furthermore, looking at the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) Board

Learning Improvement Plan (BLIP) for 2014-2018, achievement is relatively

summed up by Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) assessment

score data, although it is noted on page 16 of the plan that “Important as the

EQAO target is, however, it does not stand alone.”7 Students with Autism are not

accurately represented in provincial standardized testing results; due to the

discrepancies mentioned in this report thus far, and the survey results are also a

poor indicator of student success since Autism Spectrum Disorder is primarily

categorized by social skill deficits. Surveys, even under the strictest guidance will

provide subjective answers based on opinion at that moment in time rather than

on fact. In the case of a student on the spectrum, this opinion driven result will

be further tainted by any stimuli that the student has been or is being exposed

to on the particular day and time that the survey is completed. Report Card

data is also not an accurate indicator of systemic success as each student is

assessed according to the teacher’s personal teaching/assessment style and

student level of accommodation, modification or alternative curriculum

implementation.

The Special Education Plan

Autism Ontario – Toronto Chapter is also rejecting the Toronto Catholic District

School Board (TCDSB) Special Education Plan on the basis that there has not

been clear consultation with the Toronto Catholic District School Board Special

Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) as is required by section 12(1) of Ontario

Regulation 464/978 or as was outlined at the Ministry of Education SEAC

Conference on May 2nd 20159.

The Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) Multi-Year Recovery Plan

(MYRP), as voted on by the Toronto Catholic District School Board Trustees has

caused changes that directly and indirectly impact the programs, services and

supports outlined in the Special Education Plan that is currently posted on the

Toronto Catholic District School Board’s website.

7https://www.tcdsb.org/Board/BoardLearningImprovementPlan/Documents/Board%20Learning%20Improvement

%20Plan%202014-2018.pdf 8 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/970464

9 http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/seac/conference.html

Page 13 of 40

https://www.tcdsb.org/Board/BoardLearningImprovementPlan/Documents/Board%20Learning%20Improvement%20Plan%202014-2018.pdf

https://www.tcdsb.org/Board/BoardLearningImprovementPlan/Documents/Board%20Learning%20Improvement%20Plan%202014-2018.pdf

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/970464

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/seac/conference.html

Autism Ontario – Toronto Chapter is of the opinion that the Toronto Catholic

District School Board Special Education Plan is not current, complete and

therefore does not comply with section (6) of Ontario Regulation 30610. The

Special Education Plan as posted does not provide Toronto Catholic District

School Board parents and stakeholders clear or accurate information that

would facilitate an understanding of special education programs and services

that are provided by the board in accordance with legislation and ministry

policy on special education. The Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB)

Special Education Plan11, in its current state does not encourage or enable

families with the knowledge or ability to support their child’s education and well-

being in a positive or meaningful way.

Conclusion

Autism Ontario – Toronto Chapter is of the opinion that the Toronto Catholic

District School Board (TCDSB) must re-examine its Accountability Framework for

Special Education, by taking into consideration the unique and varying

strengths and needs of students with Autism. A collaborative approach

including parents, community and organization partners including the Ministry of

Education in consultation with the Toronto Catholic District School Board with

the express purpose of analyzing what next steps and goals have worked, are

working and which ones are not working and should be changed. Staff

professional development and the development and or implementation of

programs and service supports must be sustained or expanded to meet the

learning needs of all students with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

10

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900306 11

https://www.tcdsb.org/ProgramsServices/SpecialEducation/SpecialEducationPlan/Pages/default.aspx

Page 14 of 40

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900306

https://www.tcdsb.org/ProgramsServices/SpecialEducation/SpecialEducationPlan/Pages/default.aspx

Autism Ontario’s vision is one of acceptance and opportunities for all

individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Our Mission is to ensure that

each individual with ASD is provided the means to achieve quality of life as

a respected member of society.

Our 6 Key Areas of Focus are:

Advocacy and Support

Research

Best Practices

Government Relations

Public Awareness

Governance

“Autism Ontario (formerly Autism Society Ontario) is the leading source of

information and referral on autism and one of the largest collective voices

representing the autism community. Members are connected through a

volunteer network of Chapters throughout the Province of Ontario.

We are guided by a Board of Directors composed primarily of parents of

individuals with autism, plus a host of volunteers and respected professionals

who provide expertise and guidance to the organization on a volunteer

basis.

Autism Ontario is dedicated to increasing public awareness about autism

and the day-to-day issues faced by individuals with autism, their families,

and the professionals with whom they interact. The association and its

chapters share common goals of providing information and education,

supporting research, and advocating for programs and services for the

autism community.”12

12

http://www.autismontario.com/client/aso/ao.nsf/web/About+Us

Page 15 of 40

http://www.autismontario.com/client/aso/ao.nsf/web/About+Us

PUBLIC

ST. SIMON CATHOLIC SCHOOL – REPLACEMENT

WARD 3

CAPITAL TENDER AWARD & REVISED PROJECT BUDGET

APPROVAL

“I can do all this through Him who gives me strength.” Philippians 4:13 (NIV)

Created, Draft First Tabling Review

May 20, 2016 June 6, 2016

V. Barton, Senior Coordinator, Capital Development

M. Farrell, Coordinator, Materials Management

P. de Cock, Comptroller, Business Services

A. Della Mora, Superintendent of Learning, Student Achievement and Well-Being

M. Puccetti, Superintendent of Facilities Services

RECOMMENDATION REPORT

Vision:

At Toronto Catholic we transform the world through

witness, faith, innovation and action.

Mission:

The Toronto Catholic District School Board is an

inclusive learning community rooted in the love of Christ.

We educate students to grow in grace and knowledge and

to lead lives of faith, hope and charity.

G. Poole

Associate Director of Academic Affairs

A. Sangiorgio

Associate Director of Planning and

Facilities

C. Jackson

Executive Superintendent of Business

Services and Chief Financial Officer

Angela Gauthier

Director of Education

REPORT TO

CORPORATE SERVICES, STRATEGIC

PLANNING AND PROPERTY

COMMITTEE

Page 16 of 40

of 9

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report recommends that subject to the receipt of the building permit and

approval of the Ministry of Education for additional unique site costs and Toronto

Green Standards, that the construction contract for the replacement school for St.

Simon Catholic School be awarded to Everstrong Construction Limited in the

amount of $10,221,100 plus net HST of $220,776 for a total cost of $10,441,876,

utilizing the CCDC2 (2008) standard construction contract.

This report also recommends that the revised project budget of $12,448,637 for the

replacement school, as detailed in Appendix A be approved. Funding for the

additional unique site and Toronto Green Standards costs of $286,305 including

net HST is subject to approval by the Ministry of Education (EDU). Funding has

been allocated from Capital Grants for Full Day Kindergarten and Capital

Priorities, additional Capital Priorities for unique site costs and Toronto Green

Standards, Capital Lands for the demolition work and Educational Development

charges revenue.

The new, replacement St Simon Catholic School will be located at 24 Strathburn

Boulevard and is designed for an on the ground (OTG) capacity of 542 pupil

places.

B. PURPOSE

1. The Toronto Catholic District School Board purchasing policy requires

Board approval of contract awards for new schools and major additions.

C. BACKGROUND

1. On November 24, 2011, the Board approved the appointment of G.

Bruce Stratton Architects as the prime consultant for the replacement of

St. Simon Catholic School to be located at the former Melody Public

School site. The appointment included a $41,000 feasibility study to

determine the cost benefits of either an addition to the existing Melody

PS or a replacement school at 24 Strathburn Boulevard.

2. Based on the results of the feasibility study, the Board approved on June

21, 2012 the report “Capital Program – Implementation” that St. Simon

Catholic School be a replacement school subject to Approval of

Ministry of Education funding, Board funding and Ministry Approval to

Proceed.

Page 17 of 40

of 9

3. On January 24, 2013, the Ministry of Education notified the Director

of Education of the approved 2012 Capital Priority project for St. Simon

Catholic School Replacement at a benchmark allocation including FDK

funding of $10,489,660.

4. On October 3, 2013, the EDU approved the Space Plan Template

submitted to the Ministry on September 25, 2015 for 542 pupil place

replacement school for St. Simon Catholic School at a maximum area

of 5,350 m2 (57,597 square feet).

5. On March 3, 2014, the Ministry of Education approved the Board’s

request to demolish the existing Melody Public School and provided a grant of $317,420 for the non-EDC eligible portion of the estimated

demolition costs.

6. On August 19, 2014, the demolition tender for Melody PS was approved at

a total demolition cost of $475,195.76 including net HST to be funded

from Ministry of Education Capital Land grant and EDC reserve

funding. The demolition of the existing Melody PS is complete and the

revised costs and funding are included in the project budget contained in

this report.

7. On June 15, 2015, a request was submi t ted to the Min is t ry o f

Educat ion for additional funding of $630,451 for site preparation and

Toronto Green Standard not including the $317,420 grant previous

provided for the demolition in March 2014. This was submitted to the

EDU with a detailed cost breakdown, assuming that $522,744 could be

charged to EDC funding.

8. On September 18, 2015, EDU granted Approval to Proceed to tender

(ATP) for the replacement of St. Simon Catholic School for a total

project cost of $11,956,138. The Ministry provided additional funding for

unique site costs of $627,214.

9. The Approval to Proceed letter instructed the Board however to structure

its tender documents to identify the unique site costs separately, with the

funding allocation to be adjusted to match the costs identified by the

bidders, up to but not exceeding the approved maximum funding amount of

$627,214 and can be used only for the specified categories of work. The

Ministry will only grant an approval to proceed with unique site work

once they are satisfied that these costs are within this funding approval

maximum amount.

Page 18 of 40

of 9

10. The Ministry of Education also reiterated that the Board is responsible

for ensuring that the total project cost remains within the revised funding

approval amount of $11,956,138.

11. On December 10, 2015, the Board approved the St. Simon Catholic School

capital project budget of $11,956,138 with provision for air conditioniong.

The original St. Simon Catholic School, built in 1975, was built along the

flight path for Pearson Airport. As a consequence, the existing school has

non-operable windows (sealed) and relies on mechanical ventilation

system, which includes air conditioning. The new St. Simon Catholic

School is located outside of the current flight path. The Board’s current

Elementary School Design Standards as approved at Board in January

2016, includes operable windows, radiant in-floor heating in classrooms

and Displacement Ventilation (DV), which provides 100% fresh supply air

that is tempered, and partially cooled to remove humidity. At the direction

of the Board, air conditioning (AC) was added to the new St. Simon

facility by enhancing the previously approved DV system, for an estimated

cost of $522,000 funded from reductions in other features of the school. A

list of those reductions was provided to the school community on February

3, 2016 prior to completion of the tender documents.

D. VISION

VISION PRINCIPLES GOALS

To maximize capital

improvement

opportunities and

address long term

accommodation needs.

Long Term Accommodation

Plan Guiding Principles,

Stewardship of Resources,

deliver capital investments

which incorporate 21st

Century Learning Principles

To address the

accommodation of

students and staff, in a

cost effective manner,

with the available

funding from Ministry

grants and other sources.

E. ACTION PLAN

1. The tender invitation P-041-16 for the replacement of St. Simon Catholic

School, utilizing the standard CCDC2 (2008) construction contract, was

issued to prequalified general contractors on March 8, 2016.

Page 19 of 40

of 9

2. On March 31, 2016, eight (8) compliant bids were received in response to P-

041-16. The bid results are summarized in Table 1 below:

Table 1

General Contractor Bid Price (excluding HST)

Everstrong Construction Ltd. $10,677,000

Percon Construction Inc. $10,990,000

Aquicon Construction Co. Ltd. $11,045,000

Struct-Con Construction Ltd. $11,100,000

Tambro Construction Ltd. $11,182,000

Pre-Eng Contracting Ltd. $11,287,000

M.J. Dixon Construction Ltd. $11,443,000

Jasper Construction Corp. $11,774,000

3. Tender submissions were evaluated by staff and the Board’s consultant, G.

Bruce Stratton Architects, retained to prepare the contract documents.

4. A post tender addendum to the lowest bidder modifying the bid price was

required to meet the approved capital budget approval. The post tender

addendum altered or deleted some building and interior finishes and cash

allowances in the contract. These reductions do not alter the size of the

building. Based on the post tender addendum #1, the revised construction

contract for the school is $10,441,876 including net HST.

F. METRICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

1. Funding has been allocated from Capital Grants for Full Day Kindergarten

and Capital Priorities, additional Capital Priorities for unique site costs and

Toronto Green Standards, Capital Lands for the demolition work and

Educational Development charges revenue. The demolition of Melody PS to

make way for the construction of St. Simon was completed in 2015.

2. Funding from the Ministry of Education for capital projects for all current

and future projects cannot be consolidated and shared between projects.

Unlike Phase 2 Capital Program (6 new elementary schools), capital projects

are now individually funded and surpluses and deficits from projects cannot

be amalgamated for the benefit of other projects.

Page 20 of 40

of 9

3. To evaluate the options and implications of including Air Conditioning in

the building, and to provide the Ministry of Education with costing related to

unique site costs, the tender documents were structured to obtain itemized

pricing for various components of work and building elements such as

finishes and equipment. Air conditioning of the building is included in the

construction contract.

4. Based on itemized prices provided by the Contractor, the site preparation

and Toronto Green Standards costs have exceeded the estimated costs

provided to the Ministry of Education for Approval to Proceed. The site

preparation costs are funded as follows: 43.6% from (EDC) Educational

Development revenue and the remainder from the Ministry of Education.

The itemized prices provided by the Contractor for site preparation and

Toronto Green Standards are $1,214,836 which represents an increase of

$550,989 of which $286,305 are Ministry of Education costs and $206,194

are EDC costs. On May 20, 2016 a request for additional funds from the

Ministry of Education to address these site preparation costs was made. A

decision on the additional funding is expected in the next several weeks

5. The revised project cost including the post tender addendum is $12,448,637

which is $492,499 above the Ministry of Education’s Approval to Proceed.

A portion of the increase to the budget is a result of increased costs to

eligible EDC items of $206,194 which is included in the funding noted

below. A summary of the costs at tender versus the approved budget is

detailed in Table 2. The revised project budget reflecting the additional

EDC eligible site preparation costs are detailed in Appendix A.

6. As noted in Table 2 and detailed in Appendix A, to meet the EDU capital

priorities and FDK funding allocation, a post tender addendum was issued to

reduce the building costs by $465,747 as well as other non-construction

related reductions such as deletion of the furniture and custodial equipment

allowances, and the project management allowance.

Page 21 of 40

of 9

Table 2 – St. Simon Capital Project Budget at Tender

ATotal Cost at

Tender

Approved

BudgetVariance

A. Construction CostsLow Tender Price $10,907,623

Post Tender Addendum #1 ($465,747)

A1. Total Construction Contract $10,441,876 $9,768,039 ($673,837)

A2. Total Construction Work Completed Previously $536,650 $632,377 $95,727

A3. Total Construction Budget (A1 + A2) $10,978,526 $10,400,416 ($578,110)

B. Consulting Fees and Expenses $822,125 $822,125 $0

Subtotal Municipal Permits and Fees $190,967 $190,967 $0

Furniture & Equipment $0 $49,681 $49,681

Caretaking Equipment $0 $5,962 $5,962

Data Integration $52,404 $46,070 ($6,334)

Fire Safety Plan/Site Banner $3,661 $2,710 ($951)

Project Management $19,129 $119,560 $100,431

Subtotal TCDSB Allowances $75,194 $223,983 $148,789

C. Total Other Soft Costs $266,161 $414,950 $148,789

D. Contingency Allowance $381,826 $318,648 ($63,178)

TOTAL PROJECT COST $12,448,637 $11,956,138 ($492,499)

FUNDING $12,162,332 $11,956,138

Budget Surplus/(Deficit) Request to Ministry ($286,305)

7. If funds are available from the project contingency upon completion of the

project, the following allowances should be reinstated: school furniture and

equipment, caretaking equipment and moving/set up costs.

8. The project budgets will be monitored through the Board’s financial systems

and audit processes and the financial status will be reported to the EDU

annually through the Capital Asset Project Template (CAPT) system.

Page 22 of 40

of 9

G. IMPLEMENTATION, STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS

AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN

1. The City of Toronto Notice of Approval Conditions (NOAC) for the

Site Plan Agreement has been received. Subject to the provision of letters

of guarantee for landscaping work, conveyances, and other permissions,

the registration of the Site Plan Agreement usually takes 2 months.

Registration of the Site Plan Agreement is required before a full

building permit will be provided.

2. Upon approval of the report recommending the construction contract for

St. Simon Catholic Elementary School, a letter will be sent to the school

community updating the status of the project timeline and the anticipated

start date for construction, as well as an update regarding the reductions

and the inclusion of Air Conditioning in the building.

3. Application for building permit was made on February 18, 2016. A partial

building permit will be applied for if the full building permit is not

available when Ministry approval is received.

4. Construction will begin as soon as the building permit and Ministry of

Education approval for the additional funding is available. Completion of

the new school is expected to take 15-18 months. If the construction

starts in late June 2016, the school community may be able to relocate

to the new school by September 2017.

5. As required by the “Good Neighbour Policy”, a letter will be sent to

adjacent residents to inform them of the construction start and expected

duration once tender has been approved.

Page 23 of 40

of 9

H. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Subject to the approval of the Ministry of Education for additional funding

for unique site costs and Toronto Green Standards and the receipt of the

building permit, that the construction contract for the replacement school of

St. Simon Catholic School be awarded to Everstrong Constructions Limited

for the amount of $10,221,100 plus net HST of $220,775.76 for a total cost

of $10,441,875.76 and the project funded as follows:

Revised Funding

Ministry of

Education

Funds

EDC 43.6% Total

Full Day Kindergarten 479,025$ 479,025$

Capital Priorities 10,009,735$ 10,009,735$

Capital Land Priorities 317,420$ 317,420$

Approved Unique Site & TGS 627,214$ 627,214$

Requested Unique Site & TGS 286,305$ 286,305$

EDC Eligible costs (43.6%) 728,938$ 728,938$

Total 11,719,699$ 728,938$ 12,448,637$

2. That the revised capital project budget of $12,448,637 as detailed in

Appendix A be approved.

Page 24 of 40

Appendix A

St. Simon Catholic School - Replacement All amounts include net HST

A

Capital

Priorities + FDK

at Tender Award

EDC eligible

43.6% at

Tender Award

Ministry

Capital Lands

at Tender

Award

Ministry

Unique Site

Costs at

Tender Award

Total Cost at

Tender

A. Construction Costs

Low Tender Price $10,907,623

(i) Site Preparation (EDC Eligible)

Tree protection on adjacent sites $14,779 $11,425 not funded $26,204

Strip and store topsoil $5,762 $4,454 not funded $10,216

Rough grading/excavation fill to est. floor level $53,005 $68,566 $121,570

Excavation/foundation depth due to poor soils $167,032 $216,068 $383,100

Electrical Service to the site $17,285 $13,363 not funded $30,648

Storm water system/retention tank $93,092 $120,422 $213,514

Services to site -new/relocated water service $65,031 $84,123 $149,154

Temporary services to edge of site $30,734 $39,757 $70,490

Fibre Optics to the site $3,341 $4,321 $7,662

i) Site Preparation in the contract $37,826 $441,476 $0 $533,257 $1,012,559

bird-friendly glass $49,037 $49,037

permeable paving $153,240 $153,240

ii) Toronto Green Standards Premiums in contract $202,277 $202,277

Building deducting site prep + TGS $9,692,787 $9,692,788

Post Tender Addendum #1 ($465,747) ($465,747)

A1. Total Construction Contract $9,264,866 $441,476 $0 $735,534 $10,441,876

TGS Green Roof cash-in- lieu $179,800 $179,800

Power Supply $36,144 $46,756 $82,900

Demolition & Abatement Contract Completed $119,442 $154,508 $0 $273,950

A2. Total Construction Work Completed Previously $536,650

A3. Total Construction Budget (A1 + A2) $9,264,866 $597,062 $154,508 $962,089 $10,978,526 Contingency Allowance for Unforeseen Services $0

B. Consulting Fees and Expenses $680,172 $81,370 $30,149 $30,434 $822,125

C. Other Soft Costs

Subtotal Municipal Permits and Fees $163,387 $18,852 $3,708 $5,020 $190,967

Furniture & Equipment $0 $0

Caretaking Equipment $0 $0

Data Integration $52,404 $52,404

Fire Safety Plan/Site Banner $3,661 $3,661

Project Management $0 $7,771 $1,793 $9,565 $19,129

Subtotal TCDSB Allowances $56,065 $7,771 $1,793 $9,565 $75,194

C. Total Other Soft Costs $219,452 $26,623 $5,501 $14,585 $266,161

D. Contingency Allowance $324,270 $23,882 $33,673 $381,826

TOTAL PROJECT COST $10,488,760 $728,938 $190,158 $1,040,781 $12,448,637

FUNDING $10,488,760 $728,938 $317,420 $627,214 $12,162,332

Budget Surplus/(Deficit) Request to Ministry ($286,305)

In Benchmark Not in Benchmark

43.60% 56.40%

Page 25 of 40

PUBLIC

INITIATION OF PUPIL ACCOMMODATION

REVIEW (WARD 1)

Commit to the Lord whatever you do, and he will establish your plans.

Proverbs 16:3 | NIV |


May 6, 2016 June 6, 2016 Click here to enter a date.

J. Volek, Senior Coordinator Planning Services

M. Silva Comptroller Planning and Development


Vision:

At Toronto Catholic we transform the world

through witness, faith, innovation and action.

Mission:


inclusive learning community rooted in the love of

Christ. We educate students to grow in grace and

knowledge and to lead lives of faith, hope and

charity.

G. Poole


A. Sangiorgio


Facilities

C. Jackson



Angela Gauthier


REPORT TO

CORPORATE SERVICES, STRATEGIC

PLANNING AND PROPERTY

COMMITTEE

Page 26 of 40

of 4


This report recommends that Don Bosco Catholic Secondary School be approved

for school accommodation review, in accordance with the newly approved Pupil

Accommodation Review Policy (S.09).

B. PURPOSE

This report seeks approval for the initiation of a school accommodation review for

Don Bosco Catholic Secondary School in accordance with Pupil Accommodation

Review Policy (S.09)

C. BACKGROUND

Don Bosco has seen significant enrolment decline over the past decade. Currently,

there are approximately 60 grade 10 students, 103 grade 11 students, and 123 grade

12 students. This equates to a total enrolment of only 286 students. Don Bosco did

not accept any new grade 9 student registrations for the 2015-16 school year.

Assuming a continuance of no grade 9 registrations for the 2016-17 school year,

projected Don Bosco enrolment will be the following:

Grade 11 60

Grade 12 105

Assuming a continuance of no grade 9 registrations for the 2017-18 school year,

projected Don Bosco enrolment will be the following:

Grade 12 60

Historical Don Bosco enrolment, highlighting significant yearly decline:

OTG 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

840 968 948 854 756 709 654 568 552 434 286

115% 113% 102% 90% 84% 78% 68% 66% 52% 34%

Page 27 of 40

of 4

D. ACTION PLAN

1. Staff are required as per Pupil Accommodation Review Policy (S.09) to

provide one or more options to address the challenges associated with any

school under accommodation review, and seek public feedback with respect

to the staff recommendation.

2. The current staff recommendation is to close the Don Bosco facility effective

for the 2017-18 school year due to significant under-subscription.

Furthermore, staff recommend that the remaining 60 grade 12 students

projected for the 2017-18 school year be accommodated at their nearest

respective community schools, as indicated in the table below:

Nearest Community School

Projected Number of Don

Bosco students to be

Accommodated in 2017-18

Archbishop Romero 10

Chaminade 1

Michael Power / St. Joseph 32

Monsignor Percy Johnson 8

St. Basil 5

Father Henry Carr 3

Student(s) outside the City of Toronto 1

Total: 60

Note: nearest community school was determined by measuring the

geographic distance from the student’s residence to the closest TCDSB

secondary school.

10. Staff have conducted a thorough space assessment of the secondary schools

noted in the table above, and have concluded that all 60 projected Don Bosco

grade 12 students can be accommodated in their respective area schools.

Principals have been consulted and are aware of the possibility of a Don

Bosco redirection.

Page 28 of 40

of 4

11. Staff have determined that Don Bosco can be reviewed under the Board’s

“modified” review policy. Under such a scenario, there is a minimum

requirement of one public meeting, with full public participation.

12. Ministry of Education has advised staff that school accommodation reviews

must take place in the future to address low enrolment and underutilization of

space, and to be fully considered as part of the Board’s next Long Term

Accommodation Plan.

E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That Don Bosco Catholic Secondary School be approved for a modified pupil

accommodation review, in accordance with the newly approved Pupil

Accommodation Review Policy (S.09).

Page 29 of 40

PUBLIC

Request to Expand the Boundary Review for St.

Anselm and St. Monica (WARDS 5 & 11)

All this also comes from the Lord Almighty, whose plan is wonderful, whose

wisdom is magnificent. Isaiah 28:29 | NIV |


June 7, 2016 June 9, 2016 Click here to enter a date.

J. Peake, Senior Manager of Planning and Assessment

J. Volek, Senior Coordinator Planning Services

M. Silva Comptroller Planning and Development


Vision:



Mission:





charity.

G. Poole


A. Sangiorgio


Facilities

C. Jackson



Angela Gauthier


REPORT TO REGULAR BOARD

Page 30 of 40

http://dailyverses.net/isaiah/28/29

http://dailyverses.net/bible-translations/niv

of 4


This report recommends that the St. Anselm/St. Monica school grouping originally

approved for a boundary review, be revised to also include Holy Cross, Canadian

Martyrs and St. John XXIII.

B. PURPOSE

This report seeks approval to expand the St. Anselm/St. Monica boundary review to

include Holy Cross, Canadian Martyrs and St. John XXIII.

C. BACKGROUND

At its meeting held on January 21, 2016, the Board considered the report:

Elementary Boundary Review Ranking All Wards, and approved in part, the

initiation of a boundary review for St. Anselm and St. Monica which share an

optional attendance area.

D. COMMENT

1. At the meeting of the stakeholder committee on May 26, 2016, established in

accordance with the Elementary School Attendance Boundary Review Policy

(S.A.03), there was general agreement by the committee that assigning the

optional attendance area to St. Anselm’s permanent boundary requires a

broader boundary review to resolve current and future accommodation

pressures at St. Anselm and St. Monica.

2. It was the decision of the committee that broadening the review to include the

surrounding schools Holy Cross, Canadian Martyrs and St. John XXIII would

facilitate a more effective solution to relieving accommodation pressures at

St. Anselm.

Page 31 of 40

of 4

3. Expanding the boundary review to include St. Anselm, St. Monica, Holy

Cross, Canadian Martyrs and St. John XXIII would allow for the

reconciliation of existing enrolment levels in a more ideal range, as supported

by the Board’s upcoming draft Long Term Accommodation and Program

plan.

4. St. Anselm has a current enrolment of 391 students and a utilization rate of

109%. It is located on a small site with no room for the addition of portables.

St. Monica has a current enrolment of 270 students and a utilization rate of

94%.

5. Enrolment at both schools is forecast to continue to increase into the

foreseeable future. The inclusion of the optional attendance area to St.

Anselm’s permanent boundary will not solve current and future

accommodation pressures at St. Anselm, or St. Monica.

6. The available space and projected decline in enrolment at Holy Cross and

Canadian Martyrs offers a potential solution to balance and optimize

enrolment levels in the area. There are over 350 pupil places of excess space

collectively in these three schools.

Page 32 of 40

of 4

7. Alternative scenarios include capital solutions to provide accommodation

relief. However, this would be subject to further assessment by Facilities and

Planning and be subject to approval by the Ministry of Education through the

Capital Priorities funding process. This scenario would be unlikely in the

context of surplus capacity in the surrounding school facilities.

School OTG Current and Projected Enrolment

2015/16 2018/19 2021/22 2024/25 2027/28

St. Anselm 360 391 435 487 549 558

109% 121% 135% 153% 155%

St. Monica 288 270 362 473 518 527

94% 126% 164% 180% 183%

Holy Cross 493 362 356 347 349 351

73% 72% 70% 71% 71%

Canadian Martyrs 415 293 281 259 248 237

71% 68% 62% 60% 57%

St. John XXIII 538 434 443 468 458 460

81% 82% 87% 85% 85%

E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That an expanded boundary review be approved and initiated for the following

group of schools, in accordance with the Elementary School Attendance Boundary

Review Policy (S.A.03):

St. Anselm, St. Monica, Holy Cross, Canadian Martyrs and St. John XXIII.

Page 33 of 40

APPOINTMENT OF EXTERNAL AUDITORS –

FIVE YEARS BEGINNING 2015/16

Psalm 37:23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord.


May 31, 2016 June 7, 2016 June 9, 2016

D. Bilenduke, Senior Coordinator, Finance

M. Farrell, Coordinator, Material Management

P. De Cock, Comptroller for Business Services & Finance


Vision:



Mission:





charity.

B. Poplawski

Audit Committee Chair

REPORT TO REGULAR BOARD

Page 34 of 40

of 4


At the conclusion of our current external auditor’s five year term, the Board

of Trustees passed a motion to go out to the marketplace and request

proposals for the next five year term. Section 253(1) of the Education Act

requires Boards to appoint auditors for a term not to exceed five years.

After careful evaluation of three Request for Proposal responses, using a

documented and weighted scoring system, management staff discussed their

findings with the Audit Committee. After careful consideration and a

lengthy discussion, both management staff and the Audit Committee

recommend the appointment of the proponent with the highest score,

Deloitte LLP, as the Board’s external auditor for a five year period

beginning with fiscal 2015-16.

B. PURPOSE

The Education Act requires that the Board retain and appoint the services of

an external auditor to provide an annual report with respect to the Board’s

financial statements. Both the audit report and financial statements must be

approved by the Board and submitted to the Ministry of Education by a

prescribed date. The external auditor may also be utilized provide other

specialized audit activities as directed.

C. BACKGROUND

1. At the conclusion of the Board’s current external auditor’s five year term,

the Board of Trustees passed a motion directing staff to go out to the

marketplace and request proposals for the next five year term. Section

253(1) of the Education Act requires Boards to appoint auditors for a term

not to exceed five years.

2. O. Reg. 361/10 9. (4) 1. Requires Audit Committees to perform the

following duty as it relates to the Board’s external auditor: “To review at

least once in each fiscal year the performance of the external auditor and

make recommendations to the Board on the appointment, replacement or

dismissal of the external auditor and on the fee and fee adjustment for the

external auditor.”

Page 35 of 40

of 4

3. At its Regular Board meeting on March 31, 2016 the Board of Trustees

directed that the Board’s requirements for external audit services be posted

on a Request for Proposal (RFP).

4. Management is required to review its recommendations with the Audit

Committee before final presentation to the Board of Trustees.

D. EVIDENCE/RESEARCH/ANALYSIS

1. On April 27th

2016, an RFP was issued to a number of audit firms as well as

advertised on Biddingo and the Board’s website.

2. The Board received three proposals by the closing date of May 11, 2016

from the following firms:

o KPMG

o Grant Thornton

o Deloitte LLP

3. The proposals were reviewed for compliance to the RFP requirements. An

evaluation team consisting of the Chief Financial Officer and staff from

Finance, Budget and Materials Management then reviewed the proposals

which were scored based on the following scoring matrix:

Evaluation Matrix Summary

Evaluation Criterion Weighted

Percentage

1. Fees and Expenses from Financial Review of Form of Proposal (max 40%)

40

2. Audit Firm Technical Qualifications and Experience (max 30%)

30

3. Audit Approach (max 15%)

15

4. Advisory Services & Publications (max 5%)

5

5. Oral Presentation, if required (max 10%)

10

Total 100

Page 36 of 40

of 4

4. The team met on May 19, 2016 and scored the proposals according to the

evaluation criteria attached as Appendix A.

5. At the conclusion of the scoring, the proponents were ranked first through

third as follows:

1. Deloitte LLP

2. Grant Thornton

3. KPMG

6. A report was prepared for a comprehensive discussion at the Audit

Committee meeting on June 7, 2016. The Audit Committee was asked to

endorse management’s recommendation to award the external audit

services for a five year period to Deloitte LLP.

7. At the conclusion of the review process, the team confirmed its selection of

Deloitte LLP as the highest scoring proponent most able to fulfil the

requirements as the Board’s External Auditors.

E. IMPLEMENTATION, STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS

AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN

1. The Audit Committee has endorsed management’s recommendation to

award the external audit services for a five year period to Deloitte LLP.

2. Deloitte has indicated they are ready to transition from the previous audit

working papers in June and start the interim audit and IT control testing in

late July and August. They will have an audit plan available to the Audit

Committee at our scheduled meeting in September.

F. AUDIT COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Board of Trustees approve the Audit Committee’s recommendation to

appoint Deloitte LLP as the Board’s external auditor for a five year period

commencing with fiscal 2015-16.

Page 37 of 40

Appendix A: Evaluation Criteria

The following criteria will be used to evaluate the submissions. Proposals should

clearly identify and address each of these points:

Criteria Description Weight

%

Audit Firm &

Personnel

Technical

Qualifications,

Experience

a) Provide a list of the firm’s current and prior

public sector audit clients (for the last five years)

indicating the type of service performed, the

number of years served for each, and the office

which served the client.

b) Indicate the firm’s understanding and compliance

with all Generally Accepted Accounting

Principles (GAAP) and Public Sector Accounting

Board (PSAB) standards when conducting public

sector audits.

c) Indicate the firm’s experience in providing

additional specialized services such as

comprehensive services to public sector clients by

listing the name of each client, the type(s) of

services performed, and the office that provided

the service.

d) Describe the firm’s experience in dealing with the

Ministry of Education and how the firm’s staff

remain current with emerging issues and

requirements.

e) Describe the firm’s experience with Audit

Committees in the school board sector.

f) Describe the firm’s experience with a Regional

Internal Audit Committee (RIAT) in the school

board sector.

g) Describe the firm’s quality control program.

30%

Page 38 of 40


%

h) Describe the firm’s methodology in its annual

assessment of the Board’s business application

software. (Note: The Board’s business application

software is SAP).

Audit

Approach

a) Describe the firm’s approach to the audit. As a

minimum, include the following information:

i) Type of audit program used;

ii) Use of statistical sampling;

iii) Use of computer audit specialists;

iv) Organization of audit team;

v) Tentative audit schedule and approximate

percentage of time spent on audit by each

team member (complete for both an interim

audit and for the yearend audit);

vi) Management Letter (provide a recent sample

for an Ontario school board client);

vii) Seven month period report/March report

(provide a recent sample for an Ontario board

client);

viii) School audit processes and school generated

funds;

ix) Reliance on third party information (Actuarial

Reports);

x) Tangible capital assets in regards to the PSAB

Handbook.

b) Describe the extent of computerization used in the

firm’s audit, and the firm’s understanding of

computerization in public sector operations and

its effect on audits.

c) Describe the firm’s approach in meeting the

Board’s preferred audit timelines for the yearend

audit. The Board’s typical yearend audit schedule

commences between October 15th to 19

th and the

March audit schedule commences between April

15%

Page 39 of 40


%

15th to 30

th. Should the timeframe change the

expectation is that alternative arrangements will

be made to accommodate the Board’s

requirements.

Fees and

Expenses

a) In Appendix A, Item 1, provide an “all in” fee

structure for a five (5) year term for the each of

the engagements listed in section 4.2 (Annual

Engagements). In addition, provide firm pricing

for the two option years. Out of pocket (extra)

expenses will NOT be considered.

b) In Appendix A, under item 3, provide a separate

schedule to show charge rates for each level of

staff for other audit engagements. Refer to section

4.3 (Other Engagements). This section shall be

considered as optional when considering ad hoc

requirements outside of the Contract and may

require a separate quotation.

40%

Advisory

Services and

Publications

Information should be included in the Proposal

regarding any advisory services which may be

available free of charge on routine matters. Advisory

services may include staff assistance, workshops or

seminars, and/or publications relating to income tax,

sales tax, employee benefits, internal audit,

management issues, cash management, federal and

provincial budget reviews, etc.

5%

Oral

Presentation

(only if

required)

If selected to make an oral presentation to the

Evaluation Committee, it is expected that the partner

and the manager who will be assigned to the audit

would make the presentation on behalf of their firm at

a mutually agreed upon time during the week indicated

in 2.2, Schedule of Events.

10%

Page 40 of 40