Queen Elizabeth Annex PAC Letter (Jan 28, 2008):

January 28, 2008
Queen Elizabeth Annex

To Parents and Community Concerned with the Proposed Closure of Queen Elizabeth Annex

Re: The Role of UBC

Dear Parents and Concerned Community:

Many individuals and families have expressed concern about the role of UBC development in creating the need for a new U. Hill High School, and how this is linked to the proposed closure of Queen Elizabeth Annex in the Educational Facilities Review, Phase 1, UBC to Dunbar Area. Recent press reports have discussed this connection, and the issue has received the attention of Stephen Owen, Vice-President External, Legal, and Community Relations, in a letter dated January 25, addressed to concerned residents.

We are grateful that Mr. Owen has taken the time to look into this matter. It is reassuring to know that senior administration at the University recognizes the importance of the Educational Facilities Review to our community. Our area is deeply tied to the University, and it is with a great sense of sadness that all of us have recognized how the closure of an outstanding neighborhood school may be related to UBC development. Our sadness is heightened by the fact that Queen Elizabeth Annex is operating at capacity, and even has a waitlist.

Mr. Owen’s letter offers the possibility of continued dialogue, and that is what we find most encouraging. The solution to this problem can only come through the active participation of the Vancouver School Board, the University, and the provincial government.

Through the extensive public meetings arranged by the school board as part of the EFR process, we believe that the Trustees have heard, and are beginning to understand, many of the issues we are concerned with. These issues are detailed in a letter sent to the school board Trustees on January 25, available at www.saveqea.org (Queen Elizabeth Annex PAC Letter to the Trustees (Jan 25, 2008) Letter January 25, 2008 )

UBC plays a unique role in our community. Its senior administrative leaders have talents, training, and expertise that permit them to understand the impacts of government policy from a broad perspective. Their integrity gives them access to a broad range of actors, and the credibility to help shape policy. The goals and Mission Statement of the University also make it unlike any other institution in our area. UBC seeks to “promote the values of a civil and sustainable society,” and in training its graduates emphasizes that they should be, “responsible members of society, ..., work with and for their communities, and be agents of positive social change.” The University is thus different in many ways from an ordinary property developer.

We see clear evidence of the University’s intention to act as a responsible member of society in the letter from Stephen Owen. By offering to engage the community in a discussion of the role of UBC, and taking an interest in this problem, Mr. Owen has shown that the University does want to play a role in finding a solution.

The communication from Mr. Owen centers on statements made in the UBC South Campus Plan, January 2005, regarding the University’s intention to provide a K-12 facility at the NRC site. The letter quotes from p.13 of the Community Plan: “The school will be built in the first stage of construction of the neighborhood. If government funding for the school is not available at this time, UBC will build the facility. The University would lease the school to the Vancouver School Board to operate the facility.”

As parents of children at Queen Elizabeth Annex, we are not in a position to give advice to our community about the extent of any legally binding commitment in these Community Plans. Such questions can only be resolved by Metro Vancouver, under whose by-law we understand the Community Plans operate. Given the constraints of the current closure timeline, our lack of resources, our lack of expertise in this area of the law, and, most importantly, our hope for a cooperative solution, we do not suggest that legal resolution of these issues is a viable option for our community. We do believe that, in the spirit of open dialogue suggested in the letter from Mr. Owen, we can offer to this discussion our most sincere comments and feelings as parents and neighbors.

Our interpretation of the Community Plan documents, in particular the consistent language that “the school will be built” and “UBC will build” suggest to us that UBC, as the ultimate owner of both the school facilities and the land, has made a commitment (whether legally binding or not) to play a leadership role in getting things done throughout the building phase of the project. As parents in a community deeply connected to the University, we trust that senior administration would not find it acceptable that building the U. Hill secondary school will come at the expense of the rest of the district – in particular 135 children at a flourishing neighborhood Annex. The present situation offers the university an opportunity to show that it can provide leadership in finding solutions that do not come at the harm of its nearest neighbors.

We agree with Mr. Owen that the statements in the Community Plan are not an outright offer to pay. On the other hand, the lease described in the Community Plan does not specify that the lease payments should “offset,” (or equally counterbalance,) the building costs. Since the Community Plan does not specify the amount of the lease payments, we believe that payments could be as little as $1 per year, or as much as the full cost of the building, and still be consistent with the statements in this document. We hope that the full range of alternatives consistent with the Community Plan will continue to be explored.

We also believe that the idea of a short-term lease, (or an operating lease,) should remain on the table. The language used in the Community Plans is consistent with the possibility of an operating lease, as it emphasizes the role of the University as builder and owner, and the role of the school board as operator. [1] An operating lease may not require the school board to carry future lease payments as liabilities, which may have some advantages. The idea of an operating lease is also consistent with statements by senior executives of UBC Properties Trust, who have indicated their indifference between having a public or independent school operator, and that if the facility were built, it could as easily accommodate one as the other.

Our understanding of the current situation is that UBC intends to have a school at the NRC site one way or another. As the ultimate owner of both the school facilities and the land, it is in a position to begin planning and construction of the school under any timeline it wishes. A lease with the operator, the Vancouver School Board, need not be directly tied to the beginning of building, especially since UBC representatives have suggested there would be many school operators willing to use the facilities. The design of the building could suit the needs of the VSB and the educational needs of the UBC community, and talks with the VSB and Province could continue regarding the precise nature of the lease.

From a broader policy perspective, one statement in Mr. Owen’s letter that deserves further discussion is that “the funding for school construction... is provided by the provincial government.” We can all agree that in an ideal world, this statement would be true. In fact, this statement is what every British Columbian expects. But in fact, under current policies this statement is no longer accurate. The UBC community has been in desperate need of funding for schools for several years, yet only $10 million has been provided for a renovation at the existing secondary school. The funds allocated by the Ministry of Education are clearly not sufficient for the needs of the burgeoning community at UBC.

A legitimate question then becomes: If the provincial government will not provide funds for needed school buildings, then who should pay? In our opinion, this responsibility should not fall on 135 children at a thriving neighborhood school – as well as future generations of potential students and the surrounding community.

A sound policy argument can be made that, if government will not build schools for new developments, then the cost should be paid by developers. In the absence of new construction at UBC, families now located there would have instead filled in throughout the Vancouver district to use existing educational facilities. In evaluating whether new development is economically advantageous, the government may choose to subsidize construction by paying some infrastructure costs such as schools. In the absence of such subsidies, it is reasonable that the full cost be borne by developers, so that all of the costs and benefits of the new development are explicitly taken into consideration. If neither government nor the developer pays for new schools in areas of new construction, then the burden must necessarily be borne by the rest of the district. In this case, the costs are falling squarely on the shoulders of the children at Queen Elizabeth Annex, as well as future generations and the neighboring community.

We ask Mr. Owen and other senior administrators to carefully consider these arguments when thinking about the responsibility of the University. We trust that the University does not want the success of its continuing development activities to come at the expense of its nearest neighbors.

Of course, no British Columbian should be happy to see this dilemma being faced by a University and its nearby communities. We expect that our government will pay for needed schools, and the fact that this expectation is no longer being fulfilled should raise the concern of all parents and others concerned for the future of our educational system. We ask that the provincial government, our MLAs, and the Ministry of Education consider whether it is a desired outcome of current policy that an outstanding neighborhood early primary school with a wait-list and a forty year history in its community should be sold to pay for a secondary school building in another area.

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss with any representative of the Ministry of Education how current policies are leading to outcomes that may be different than what is intended. We expect that any education advocate would be upset that a flourishing neighborhood school with a long history of excellence should be closed with so little consideration of alternatives. We ask our community to press our representatives in the legislature, as well as the Ministry, to provide answers.

Sincerely,

Queen Elizabeth Annex Parents Advisory Council, Executive Committee

cc: Christine Rock, Vice Principal, Queen Elizabeth Annex
Donna Procter, Principal, Queen Elizabeth Elementary
District PAC
Dunbar Neighbourhood Residents Association
Vancouver School Board Trustees
Chris Kelly, Superintendent of Schools
Stephen Toope, President, University of British Columbia
Stephen Owen, Vice President External, Legal and Community Relations, UBC
Board of Governors, University of British Columbia
Colin Hansen, MLA
Gordon Campbell, MLA and Premier
Shirley Bond, Honourable Minister of Education

Appendix A. Future UBC Developments

On Friday, January 25, in the Vancouver Courier, page 14, UBC Properties Trust announced a Development Permit Application for 2 locations. There is a 3rd application, DP06002, for townhouses to be built on lot SC3D (#15 on map) that is not mentioned in this ad, (see http://www.planning.ubc.ca/corebus/dp06002.html).

On Saturday, January 26, UBC Planning held an open house. Our understanding is that UBC parents have already begun pressing the issue of the need for a third elementary school in that area if development plans continue.

We believe that, before further development of UBC lands proceeds, it is urgent that all three parties – VSB, UBC, and the Province – reach an agreement on how the necessary accompanying schools will be paid for. If a solution cannot be found through contributions from UBC and the province, then it is clear that in the future, other forced sales of Vancouver school district assets will be required to pay for these UBC expansions. We trust that in keeping with the UBC Mission Statement, the senior administration of the University will view this as an opportunity to ensure that its development proceeds in a responsible manner. In the absence of such an agreement, what district school will next pay the price for UBC development?

Appendix B. Comments on the Document Prepared by UBC Planning, Released January 25

Comments on Item 4: This item states that delays in the EFR decision would hamper development of the U. Hill School. The NRC property is owned by UBC, and if it decides that having a school is important enough to its community, it may begin immediately developing that site toward that purpose, with the decision on who should be the operator and under what terms to be finalized later. This option should be considered.

This item also states that delays would harm seismic upgrades at other schools, when in fact it is not logical that UBC swing-space should be used for seismic upgrades in Dunbar and Point Grey. If Queen Elizabeth Annex remained open, it would provide ideal low-impact neighborhood swing space for seismic upgrades, and further permit the seismic upgrades to begin immediately. The current EFR plan requires two major building projects at UBC to be completed before the commencement of seismic upgrades in Dunbar/Point Grey, but with QEA swing space these upgrades could begin immediately, reducing the exposure of hundreds of children to unsafe buildings.

Comments on Item 8: This item suggests that UBC has provided what is normal or expected or can be proven legally binding in its Community Plans, and it is up to other parties to find the solution. As should now be apparent, if each of the VSB, Province, and UBC continue to hold the lines on their previous positions, the price will be paid by someone else – 135 children at a great school, their surrounding community, and future generations. We will then all know that our education system is truly broken. This is the time for all three parties to reconsider their former negotiating positions, and examine what else can be brought to the table to break this impasse. We appreciate that senior administration at UBC is now providing leadership in looking for alternative solutions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] A long-term lease (or capital lease) would typically be considered like debt to the Vancouver School Board (the “lessee”). On the other hand, a short-term lease, (or operating lease), may not require the School Board to carry the future lease payments as liabilities. Thus, if the Ministry of Education were concerned about debt being carried by the school board, as staff have suggested, then a short-term lease could help to provide a solution. A simple discussion of leases is provided by Industry Canada: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/sof-sdf.nsf/en/so00593e.html.