1. OCSTA 2017 Regional Meetings Nick Milanetti, Executive Director
Sharing of Facilities
OCSTA 2017 Regional Meetings Nick Milanetti, Executive Director

2. Government Pressure Points
Rural and Remote Public Engagement Sessions-May 5-24th (10 communities)
The government has been promoting joint-use opportunities among school boards, with community partners and has spent two years trying to build Community Hubs across the province.
The government will further be “incentivising” boards to share space
Existing funding will be doubled for the Joint-Use School Seed Funding Program to support boards exploring and developing joint-use opportunities.
Once a joint-use project is approved through the Ministry Capital Priorities Process, boards may request $100,000 from the Ministry for a joint-use project manager.

3. One School System Proponents
“Maintaining the four duplicate education systems in Ontario is extremely expensive.”
“The public will demand government action”
“There are enough secondary students to have a viable secondary school if there were no separate school system.”
“MPP’s should forcefully demand that the Government of Ontario either force the separate board to share facilities or eliminate separate school funding entirely.”
“Ontario is now a multicultural, multi-ethnic, heterogeneous province with many religions represented. Segregation by religion leads to mistrust, misunderstanding and discrimination.”

4. Joint Use Opportunities
School Board and Municipal Partnerships
The government expects school boards and communities to be making active and continual efforts to facilitate positive, inclusive relationships with each other.
Enabling Community Hubs in Schools
Communities and school boards have to seek innovative solutions to local needs focusing on opportunities for potential community hubs in school properties under accommodation reviews.
Joint-Use Opportunities between school boards
The government expects the four school systems to maximize opportunities for “co-location” with coterminous boards to maintain a presence in communities. The MOE will also review all capital proposals for funding to see that joint-use opportunities have been fully explored before funding is granted.

5. Sharing of Facilities Guiding Principles
Sharing must be based on a partnership of equals
Integrity of Catholic Programs must be maintained
Catholic identity, character and denominational rights must be protected.
Joint-use must be in the best interest of the students
Catholic school board autonomy must be maintained
There must be a demonstrable cost benefit or financial advantage to both partners sharing or establishing a joint-use facility

6. Get it in Writing
A formalized memorandum of agreement between parties is essential
A clear detailed statement of ownership of the facility is required
Formal joint-use agreements between boards must consider enrolment shifts
Agreements must provide for equitable distribution and financing of shared facilities over time through a clear formula
Savings in capital and operating costs to be achieved through shared facilities should be identified prior to entering into a formal sharing arrangement
Legal agreements must clearly spell out who pays for what
A clear definition of responsibilities of each partner must be articulated
The joint-use arrangement should be formally reviewed annually
A mediation/arbitration arrangement must be built into all agreements
Agreements must set out terms of operation and dissolution, if required

7. Practical Suggestions
In these times, there is a need to examine all options and to be creative.
Sharing of facilities is more easily implemented if the facility is custom-built for sharing.
Sharing facilities with French Catholic school boards may be more appropriate.
Areas that could be shared include the gym, music rooms, libraries, technology areas and labs.
Separate entrances and administrative offices are recommended.
Physical symbols of Catholicism must be present.
Signage must clearly designate Catholic school.

8. Advantages of Sharing Facilities
Cost savings may be realized on both sides;
May provide both boards with enhanced facilities they could not afford to build on their own;
May result in attainment of sufficient capital funding to build a needed school;
Better utilization of public spaces;
In some cases of declining enrolment in rural and remote Ontario, a shared facility may be the only viable mechanism for maintaining a Catholic education presence in the community.

9. Disadvantages of Shared Facilities
Shared facilities can lead to “faith” problems (e.g. use of faith symbols);
Larger board can have undue influence on decision-making;
Operational challenges (e.g. determining acceptable materials for the library);
Joint management can present problems (e.g. building security, clean-up of common areas and determining which board/partner supervises which areas);
More school administrators’ meetings;
A facilities manager may be required.

10. Concluding Comments
A joint services committee that meets regularly can be useful.
A formalized agreement must be established and all arrangements and details should be included in this formal agreement. (Legal contract)
The Catholic school identity and character as well as our denominational rights must be maintained in any sharing of facilities with any partner.
We must be careful that shared facilities “do not set the stage for the future merging of the two intertwined entities at which point Catholic Education ceases.”
OCSTA has always supported the position that decisions with regard to sharing of services of facilities between school boards are best made at the local level.