HomeMy WebLinkAboutOPS 02-24Report to Council
Report Number: OPS 02-24
Date: January 22, 2024
From: Brian Duffield Director, Operations
Subject: Facilities Renewal Study -File:A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That Report OPS 02-24 regarding the City of Pickering Facilities Renewal Studyprepared by PSD Citywide Inc., dated January 2024 be endorsed in principle;
2.That recommendations of Report OPS 02-24 and the Facilities Renewal Study beconsidered, along with other municipal priorities, through future annual municipal plansand budget process; and
3.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The City of Pickering is facing the acute and combined challenges
of funding for new growth while also maintaining aging existing infrastructure. With a few recent exceptions, most of the City’s existing buildings were built prior to the turn of the century with the oldest reaching back to origins in the 1860s. Many of these facilities are nearing the end of their serviceable life. PSD Citywide Inc. prepared the City’s Asset Management Plan in
2020 and were retained in the fall of 2023 to review and analyze key factors affecting facilities assets. Their task and objective was to recommend a fact-based methodology by which future investment in existing facilities should be prioritized.
The Facility Renewal Study makes no specific recommendations for individual buildings, but
provides the framework through which such decisions should be considered from an asset management perspective, subject to other applicable needs and circumstances. This report
provides additional options and information for consideration regarding specific City facilities based on the existing conditions of individual or grouped related facilities. Its intent is to
provide guidance for future capital investments in facilities, and identify whether and where renewal, replacement, or disposal may be appropriate.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond
to all six of the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities, notably focusing on the key principle of good governance.
OPS 02-24 January 22, 2024
Subject: Facilities Renewal Study Page 2
Financial Implications: Maintaining an asset management reserve is integral to ensuring that Pickering can sustain its current levels of service over the long term. Funding for asset
management reserves is usually achieved through special levies as part of the annual budget process. The 2023 City approved Budget included a 1.0 percent special levy for asset
management. Every year, a large majority of municipalities have additional special levies for asset management that are in the one to two percent range. Over time, these annual increases will build up the asset management reserves where the municipality will be in a financial position to implement and replace critical assets without impacting services to the local
residents. If the City finds that its Current Budget and reserves are insufficient to maintain these levels, it faces critical decisions. Without adequate reserves, the City may have to consider less favorable options such as increasing taxes, deferring capital projects, or reducing
the quality or scope of services provided. By establishing and maintaining a robust asset
management reserve, Pickering can avoid these difficult choices and ensure continuous,
reliable service to its citizens.
A general asset management reserve allows for consistent upkeep and improvement across various City services and infrastructures. This is essential for avoiding service disruptions and
inefficiencies, and enables the city to handle unexpected challenges or emergencies without jeopardizing its financial stability or the quality of its services.
Likewise, maintaining a balanced and well-managed reserve, the City can continue to attract investments and support its growth, thereby enhancing its economic prospects. Transparent
management of the asset management reserve strengthens public trust, as it demonstrates the City's commitment to maintaining high service standards without imposing undue financial
burdens on its residents. Aligning with best practices in asset management ensures that the city is well-positioned to meet its current and future obligations, avoiding the pitfalls of
inadequate planning and inefficient resource allocation.
Discussion: Determining capital investment priorities is a complex process requiring a careful balance of community needs, wants, preferences, technical requirements, strategic
goals and other factors. Some are situational and can only be addressed in the moment,
where others can and should be considered, weighted and analyzed well in advance. The
intent of the Facility Renewal Study is to provide a framework through which predictable data-driven needs for asset management and capital investment in existing City buildings can be established. By comparing, weighing and prioritizing a uniform set of common factors, a rating
scale has been developed that can help inform capital and strategic budgeting needs. This includes exploring whether each asset should be considered for renovation, replacement or disposal.
Facility Condition Index (FCI) is a standard industry metric used as part of asset management
and represents a simple ratio of deferred maintenance costs against the total replacement cost of the asset, over a fixed period of time. An FCI of 0.20,(or 20 percent, on a $10 million dollar
building would mean that $2 million must be invested in capital repairs and replacement over a fixed period to keep the building in good condition. The City of Pickering typically works with a
5-year FCI window and currently has facilities assets worth a total of $300 million with an
OPS 02-24 January 22, 2024
Subject: Facilities Renewal Study Page 3
overall FCI of 0.28. This translates to $84 million in deferred maintenance over the next 5 years.
While FCI is a key metric, it is only one of fifteen different factors that were reviewed, compared and weighted as part of the Facility Renewal Study. Factors specific to public-facing
facilities were excluded in buildings that do not generally provide direct services interactions with the public at the facility, such as Fire Stations and the Operations Centre. In those cases, the total number of applicable factors was reduced from fifteen to ten. Staff from each department responsible for the operation of all city facilities participated in the scoring and
weighting to achieve overall consensus. The top five weighted criteria established for these facility classifications are as follows:
Fire Services & Operations Recreation & Culture
1. Emergency Response Role 1. Major Structural Repair Timelines
2. Operational Risk 2. Emergency Response Role
3. Facility Condition Index 3. Facility Condition Index
4. Financial Risk 4. Financial Risk
5. Existing Utilization 5. Operational Risk
With the framework provided by the Facility Renewal Study established, it can serve as the
backdrop to more specific evaluation of existing City assets. The following paragraphs
summarize current initiatives, approaches and considerations for City Facilities, highlighting
solutions that may already be in progress or where they may be required in the short to medium term. Where needs are identified, but no commitment has yet been determined, staff will initiate or continue ongoing discussions with key stakeholders in order to bring forth options
for Council’s consideration as part of overall strategic planning.
Animal Shelter
The existing animal shelter is housed in a 250m2 two-storey, wood-frame structure located on land expropriated by the Federal government as part of land holdings for a potential future
airport. The upper storey is unfinished and not suitable for use. Transport Canada manages the property. Through its lease agreement, the City is responsible for all capital repair,
replacement and upgrades. Any capital investment in the asset would also become the property of Transport Canada. The building is undersized and poorly suited to its function and
has been identified for replacement. Approximately $9.7 million in funding has already been approved for design and construction. Staff are presently working to secure a suitable property for the new animal shelter.
OPS 02-24 January 22, 2024
Subject: Facilities Renewal Study Page 4
Fire Stations
The City maintains and operates five fire stations, including the new combined Fire Station 1
and Headquarters building that opened on Zents Drive in 2023. Other existing facilities are much older. Fire Station 5 (Bayly) was constructed in 1964 and has been earmarked for
replacement with $465,000 already approved for design. Staff are presently searching for a suitable location that will maintain the required catchment areas and response times. Fire Station 2 (Kingston Road) was opened in 1977 and is due for major renovation in 2024, pending approval of construction funds included in this year’s Capital Budget. Station 4
(Claremont) and Station 6 (Finch Avenue) were constructed in 1997 and 1994, respectively, and are both reaching an age where lifecycle replacement of individual systems and components are expected. Related costs are reflected in the Capital Budget and forecast.
Northern Community Centres
With the exception of the Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre in Claremont, all of the
City’s other northern community centres are repurposed buildings operated through third party lease agreements with local community associations. Greenwood Community Centre is the newest, after Tomlinson, having been opened in 1970. The others date back to the 19th
century, or are at least 100 years old. All of these facilities have generally low and intermittent use. They are also all in need of major capital investment in order to renew and maintain, estimated to total over $5 million in capital costs over the next ten years. As the City’s growth pushes urban boundaries north, consideration should be given to consolidating service
delivery in new facilities, such as the Seaton Recreation Complex, and the potential closure and disposal of aging assets that would require significant costs to restore and maintain.
Southern Community Centres
The East Shore Community Centre (ESCC) was originally built as an elementary school in
1951, with a series of additions over the last 70 years. It serves as the City’s vital and primary hub for seniors programming, but the overall building is reaching end of its serviceable life. A replacement facility has been proposed in the form of a Seniors and Youth Centre included in the Pickering City Centre development. Should no replacement be constructed in the next 5-10
years, significant capital investment will be required to address the gradual deterioration of the ESCC facility. Replacing the building on the same site is also possible, but would mean shuttering or displacing existing services during construction.
George Ashe Library & Community Centre opened in 2000, and is starting to require lifecycle
replacement of major systems and components. The City has made application to the Green
and Inclusive Community Buildings grant program in order to help fund a potential renovation that could improve the facility’s energy efficiency while also addressing lifecycle needs. Approximately $740,000 has already been approved in capital funding for design and related
projects which would be combined into a single scope of work for greater cost efficiency. Construction costs are included in 2026 in this year’s Capital Budget forecast.
West Shore Community Centre is a smaller facility originally constructed in 1972. It remains in fair condition, but is beginning to show its age. Recent renovations and repairs have helped to
extend its serviceable life, but consideration should be given to longer term intentions for this
OPS 02-24 January 22, 2024
Subject: Facilities Renewal Study Page 5
site and particular facility, which will likely reach end of life in the next 20 years. As with ESCC, redevelopment on the same property is possible, but would require suspending or displacing
services to another site during construction.
Pickering Museum Village
The City does not track most of the historic exhibit buildings at the museum as facility assets, limiting its data inventory to the recently retrofitted Conservation Building, a prefabricated metal storage shed constructed on the upper site, both built in 2019. The Redman House Program Centre on the lower portion of the site is also included in the inventory, as it provides the
central hub for washrooms, kitchen amenities and staff spaces. The City has received approximately $500,000 in grant funding for renovations to the Redman House, which are expected to begin construction later this year. Other historic structures on site do not easily fall
into standard conventions for asset management analysis as all are typically beyond what
would normally be considered their serviceable lives. Staff still separately monitor the
conditions of these buildings, tracking and recommending renewal work where required. The Blacksmith shop was extensively renovated in 2021, for example, and additional work is currently being planned for the Miller Cole House and Brougham Temperance House. Rather
than dealing with work on a piecemeal basis, the City has shifted to focusing its efforts on whole building restoration of one or two buildings each year. This helps allow museum staff to plan their seasonal programming around predictable closures without overstressing available resources.
Indoor Aquatics Facilities
The City maintains two indoor pools, with the largest located in the core of the Chestnut Hills
Development Recreation Complex (CHDRC), built in 1983. The other is a smaller facility attached to Dunbarton High School, opened in 1972. Dunbarton Pool has benefited from
several renovations in the last 15 years, and is currently in excellent condition, but its age and construction combined with the additional wear and tear of a humid pool environment inevitably take their toll. Key structural elements at Dunbarton Indoor Pool (DIP), are expected to be within their last 10 years of serviceable life. Given the age and use of the building,
additional renovation is not expected to be practical or cost effective, meaning that replacement at this or another location will need to be considered. Dunbarton High School is of comparable age. The City should also be coordinating its intentions for DIP with the Durham
District School Board (DDSB). Any work on the school portion of the building could impact
DIP’s operations, including the potential for DDSB to consider renovation, replacement or
closure.
Minor repairs and upgrades have been completed on the pool at CHDRC over the years, but the space has never received a complete renovation, and could be considered overdue. A
condition audit completed on this pool in 2023 identified several repairs required in the short term, which have been included in the 2024 budget. DIP is much smaller than the aquatics facilities at CHDRC, and could not accommodate full displacement of services, should it ever become necessary. it will be critical to ensure that new pool facilities at the Seaton Recreation
Complex are opened in time to allow for the potential displacement of programming to that new
OPS 02-24 January 22, 2024
Subject: Facilities Renewal Study Page 6
facility, should more extensive renovation of the CHDRC pool be required. Any such work should also be considered against the overall remaining life of CHDRC as a whole.
Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex
Opened in 1983, CHDRC is the City’s primary hub for indoor recreation programming,
including two arenas, pools, indoor racquet sport courts, weight room, fitness studios, and other related amenities such as community rooms and a banquet hall. Approximately 21,000 m2 in size (230,000 sq. ft.), it is the largest single building asset in the City’s inventory and represents the largest overall need for capital dollars. Several additions have been attached to
the building since it opened, with additional renovations most recently including Delaney Arena in 2015 and the main lobby and change rooms in 2021.
Generally speaking, major structural components on a heavily used facility like CHDRC can
reasonably be expected to last approximately 50-70 years before reaching end of life,
depending on the various systems and materials involved. The shorter end of that timeline
could be reached at CHDRC in about a decade. This timeline can potentially be extended, though it becomes increasingly expensive to do so. End of serviceable life of structural elements typically means a practical end of life for the building. Beyond a certain threshold, it
simply becomes cost-prohibitive to reinvest in the asset.
While CHDRC still has considerable life left, given the scale and costs to eventually replace a facility of this size, it would be prudent for the City to begin the long term planning for this eventuality.
Don Beer Arena
The City maintains five indoor ice rinks: two at CHDRC and three at Don Beer Arena (DBA),
the latter built in phases in 1970, 1973 and 2003. All three rinks at DBA are coming due for replacement of their refrigerated slabs and aprons, representing major capital costs. Current
projections estimate that over $20 million will need to be invested at DBA just to keep the facility in good condition over the next 10 years. As noted in the discussion on CHDRC, above, buildings over 50 years old are also typically considered to be reaching end of life for structure and other major building components. This is also the case at DBA, and is further complicated
by lease costs. Most of the main parking lot at the rear of the facility is located within the adjacent hydro corridor owned and managed by Hydro One. The City pays approximately $100,000 a year for this lease, and these costs are expected to keep climbing. The property
also has major stormwater drainage problems that could cost $3 million or more to resolve.
Given the age and condition of this facility, and upon receiving the findings of the Arena Study
and update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan later in 2024, the City should consider whether it is practical to reinvest in this asset or better to replace its amenities at another location, potentially including the Seaton Recreation Complex.
Civic Complex
Built in 1990, the Pickering Civic Complex is home to the main branch library and City Hall. Now 34 years old, the building is in need of major renovations that have been deferred while the City explores other options in the City Centre. As any potential facility construction for the
OPS 02-24 January 22, 2024
Subject: Facilities Renewal Study Page 7
Pickering City Centre likely remains not yet known, renovations of key areas of the building have become unavoidable. Restoration of the central tower is most obviously required, as can
be seen by its condition and appearance. Exposed structural members and metal roofs are all nearing end of life. Given the cost and operational impacts of this type of work, the most cost
effective and least disruptive option would be to shroud the tower with scaffolding and repair all of the related systems and components at the same time. Renovation of the Council Chamber has also been given priority due to aging audio-visual infrastructure, poor accessibility, and identified needs for security and other improvements, including greater flexibility for future
growth of Council should additional wards ever be established.
Most other occupied areas within the Civic Complex are also in need of renovation, including staff offices. The building was constructed prior to computers and other IT-related equipment
became standard in the workplace. Lighting should be converted to LED for energy savings.
Improvements to accessibility, security and other practical operational needs should also be
undertaken at the same time. The most cost effective and least disruptive approach is often to do as much work as possible in a single project. Staffing needs at City Hall have also outgrown available space and front line service counters and delivery require updating to meet current
public needs and expectation, as well as positioning the City for future needs. Rather than continuously disrupting operations, staff recommend a holistic approach that temporarily closes parts of the building to gradually renovate it in phases. Temporary office space at another location would likely be required to accommodate displaced staff and services during
construction.
With respect to Libraries, an overall strategy for ongoing delivery of library services should also
inform how best to repurpose, expand or relocate existing library space to meet residents’ needs. Any renovation to the existing library space might also require temporary relocation or
service level reductions during construction.
Benefits of New Assets
While the Facilities Renewal Study and this report highlight various challenges related to older building assets, they also demonstrates how benefits can be found through good design and
careful, considerate re-use. Many of the City’s existing facilities already benefit from extended serviceable life through tailored retrofit and renovation projects that also modernize public amenities and service delivery. These initiatives represent good use of public funds,
corresponding to all of the priority objectives in the City’s recently approved Strategic Plan,
most notably with regards to good governance.
New facilities also have a role to play in overall asset management, whether as replacements to existing buildings or to meet the demands of a growing community. Beyond improving services and capacity, they also offer relief to the City’s overall Capital Budget needs as new
buildings typically incur few capital costs during their first 10-20 years of operation. The new Fire Station 1 and Headquarters at Zents Drive completed in 2023, and Operations Centre on Clements Road completed in 2019 are both excellent examples, replacing aging assets and positioning the City to be ready for the future.
OPS 02-24 January 22, 2024
Subject: Facilities Renewal Study Page 8
Attachment:
1.Facilities Renewal Study by PSD Citywide Inc., dated January 2024
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By: Original Signed By:
Vince Plouffe, OAA, MRAIC Brian Duffield Division Head, Operations Services Director, Operations
Original Signed By:
Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer
BD:vp
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer
Facilities Renewal
Study
January 2024
City of Pickering
Attachment #1 to Report OPS 02-24
Contents
1. Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Study Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
Key Study Question .............................................................................................................................. 1
Selected Study Goals ............................................................................................................................ 1
Project Constraints and Mitigations ........................................................................................................ 2
2. Evaluation Methods and Criteria ......................................................................................................... 3
Step 1: Strategic Goals & Document Alignment ....................................................................................... 4
Asset Management Policy ................................................................................................................... 4
Asset Management Plan (AMP) ........................................................................................................... 4
City of Pickering: Detailed 20 Year Population Forecast ......................................................................... 5
City of Pickering: Parks and Recreation Master Plan ............................................................................. 6
City of Pickering: Corporate Strategic Plan ........................................................................................... 6
Step 2: Investigate Best Practices .......................................................................................................... 8
Facility Condition Index (FCI): Background .......................................................................................... 8
BC Ministry of Education: Long Range Facilities Plan .......................................................................... 10
Facility Assessment Criteria: Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) ................................ 11
Queen’s University, Campus Master Plan, Chapter 2: Existing Campus Conditions and Needs ................. 11
Toronto Lands Corporation Annual Plan ............................................................................................. 12
Step 3: Select Evaluation Attributes and Scoring Brackets ...................................................................... 13
Step 4: Determine Attribute Weighting ................................................................................................. 15
3. Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 17
4. Conclusions & Next Steps................................................................................................................. 18
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix 1: Facilities in Scope of Study ................................................................................................... 24
Appendix 2: Attribute Scoring Ranges: All Facilities ................................................................................... 26
Appendix 3: Attribute Scoring Ranges: Recreational Facilities .................................................................... 33
Appendix 3: Building Score Profile Page ................................................................................................... 38
Appendix 4: Financial Analysis for Disposal of "Test Facility" ...................................................................... 61
1 | Page
1. Overview
The City of Pickering owns a variety of aging existing facilities that are required to support and deliver
municipal operations and services. A total of 23 facilities were included in the study scope. The facility types
are diverse in the functions they serve, and include fire stations, operations centers, recreation centers, and
community and cultural buildings. In this study facilities are divided into two groups based on their function.
These functions and the number of facilities and total square footage within are as follows:
Facility Function Number of Facilities in
Category
Combined Building SQFT
Recreation and Cultural Buildings 18 673,221
Fire and Operations Buildings 5 108,730
Total 23 781,951
Study Background
The City of Pickering has a significant number of facilities, many of which are aging, either nearing the end of
their serviceable life or requiring major capital reinvestment in order to remain suitable for use. Where demand
is increasing and capacity is strained, renovation or addition may be a viable and responsible solution. In some
cases, asset disposal (and reinvestment) may provide greater overall community benefits and reduced overall
risk and liability than asset retention.
Simultaneously, the City of Pickering is expected to experience significant population growth which will require
infrastructure expansion, including new building assets. The cost of maintaining the existing portfolio and
supporting the City’s growth would prove financially challenging to the City’s tax base. Therefore, investigating
opportunities for asset disposal is of importance to the City.
Key Study Question
1. Which facilities should the City of Pickering consider for asset disposal, renewal or replacement?
a. What considerations are relevant to this question?
b. How have these considerations been evaluated?
Selected Study Goals
1. Evaluate a total of 23 facilities to determine their viability for long-term retention considering a variety
of factors including financial, social benefits and need, and the assets physical state. Facilities in scope
are detailed in Appendix 1.
2 | Page
2. Identify a short-list of facilities as contenders for disposal, renewal or replacement.
3. Evaluate asset ownership considerations with a long-term view premised on sound asset management
principles in alignment with related City Policies and strategic directions, namely the Strategic Plan,
Asset Management Policy and their Asset Management Plan.
Project Constraints and Mitigations
The following are relevant project constraints and mitigations as applicable. When reviewing the data and
information presented, these constraints should be considered.
Constraints Mitigation Measures
Relative Importance of
Attributes: While all attributes
selected are deemed of
importance and relevance to the
study question, some attributes
have a greater significance to the
study question.
The relative importance of each attribute was systematically
calculated using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis.
Responses were aggregated and further weighted based on the
number of facilities each respondent is responsible for managing.
Data Limitation: Constraints in
the availability, quality, and/or
completeness of data.
This project involved the engagement of a diverse group of staff with
a combined total of over 50 years of experience at the municipality.
Staff expertise offers crucial insights into relevant facility information,
and by engaging numerous staff potential biases or inconsistencies
are minimized. Further, by using scoring brackets (discussed in the
next section), key states are identified without the need for precise
information based on a linear (i.e. 0-100) rating scale.
This combined approach fosters a more comprehensive and balanced
decision-making process, where data is evaluated not only for its face
value but also for its underlying reliability and contextual validity.
This provides reasonable outputs while working within the constraints
of available information and project schedules.
3 | Page
2.Evaluation Methods and Criteria
A four-step methodology was used to investigate the key study questions. These steps are highlighted below
and discussed in more detail in the preceding sections.
Step 1: Identify the City’s Strategic Goals and their Alignment to the Study Question
o Strategic documents were identified and their connection to the study question was mapped. Please
refer to ‘Step 1: Strategic Goals and Documentation Alignment’ for an overview of reviewed
documents.
Step 2: Investigate Best Practices for Facility Renewal vs. Replacement
o A literature review on policy and practice in relation to asset disposal vs. retention consideration for
other facility intensive organizations was conducted, providing insights as to how these might apply to
the City of Pickering and the study question.
o The literature review focused on entities governing similar assets owned and managed for the public
good (i.e., Educational Boards and Universities)
o Please refer to Section ‘Step 2: Investigate Best Practices’ for a summary of reference studies and a
discussion of their relevance to the study question.
Step 3: Select Evaluation Attributes and Scoring Brackets
o Based on the information gathered in steps 1 and 2, evaluation attributes and preliminary definitions
and scoring ranges were identified. These were provided to City of Pickering Staff by email and then
presented and discussed during an in-person workshop conducted on November 17th, 2023.
o Workshop attendees received information on the project problem statement, key study questions,
relevant studies, reference materials and project methodology. Representatives from animal services,
fire, operations, community services, and the library were in the morning session. Representatives from
parks and recreation were in the afternoon session.
o In the workshop, City of Pickering Staff reviewed the proposed attributes and their score ranges and
definitions. Some attributes were removed, added, or otherwise adjusted to better reflect the City’s
specific context; these changes are reflected in the finalized attributes and ranges as detailed in
Appendix 2 and 3.
o During the workshop, Staff provided input on the performance of each facility against the selected
attributes. This produced a preliminary score for each building and its respective applicable attributes.
Step 4: Determine Attribute Weighting
o Recognizing that some attributes may be more significant than others and/or premised on data with
varying degrees of accuracy. A weight for each attribute was determined using an Analytic Hierarchy
Process. More details on this method are provided in Step 4: Determine Attribute Weighting.
4 | Page
Step 1: Strategic Goals & Document Alignment
The City of Pickering is dedicated to advancing their asset management program alongside their strategic
goals. Facilities are an important asset type to the City, its residents, and the realization of those strategic
goals. Aligning the City’s strategic goals with its asset management practices is an important aid in their
respective advancement. Such alignment is referred to by the Institute of Asset Management (IAM) as the
“Line of Sight”. The following summarizes important and highly relevant City of Pickering policies and plans
and outlines how they relate to the study question.
City of Pickering Reference Material
Asset Management Policy
Asset Management Plan (AMP)
Recreation Master Plan
Detailed 20 Year Population Forecast
Corporate Strategic Plan 2024-2028
Key details from the above noted reference reports that are of relevance and consideration to the problem
statement and key study questions are summarized below:
Asset Management Policy
The Policy outlines the City’s commitment to the development and ongoing implementation of the asset
management program. Procedures, roles, responsibilities, authority, and scope are outlined alongside 14
principles to be applied to asset management decisions. Principles that are of particular application to the
study question include:
A: Infrastructure planning and investment should take a long-term view
B: Infrastructure planning and investment should consider any applicable budgets,
fiscal restraint and fiscal plans
H: Infrastructure planning and investment should be evidence based and transparent,
and, subject to any restrictions or prohibitions under an Act of otherwise by law on the
collection, use or disclosure of information.
Asset Management Plan (AMP)
The City’s Asset Management Plan outlines the condition of the City’s overall infrastructure assets, including its
buildings. It details anticipated lifecycle activities and estimates long-term capital investment requirements. Of
relevance to the study question is the lifecycle strategy methods deployed, including how investment is
prioritized. It notes: Facility rehabilitation relies on determining the optimal time to replace components to
minimize costs and manage risks without jeopardizing facility safety and operational standards. Staff prioritize
rehabilitation needs into three broad categories:
5 | Page
⮚ Primary: health & safety, roof replacement
⮚ Secondary: HVAC and electrical systems
⮚ Tertiary: cosmetics, lighting, cladding, flooring
This provides context to how investment is prioritized and why a facility with a larger proportion of tertiary
investment requirements may receive less investment than another building with a larger proportion of
primary investment requirements. This prioritization method relates to the Major Structural Repair Timelines
attributes, as defined in Appendix 2.
The AMP also highlights qualitative risks for facility assets and highlights the importance of long-term strategic
planning to ensure that they are suitable for the needs of the community in the present and future (page 74).
The study question strongly relates to this risk and works to directly address it.
City of Pickering: Detailed 20 Year Population Forecast
This document details the long-term forecasted population increases for the City and, as applicable, the Region
of Durham. General population and demographic trends expected in the Region of Durham are noted and the
expected growth in residential units and population within the City of Pickering. The publication forecasts
population based on active residential land development proposals and vacant readily developable residential
lands. The forecasting models do not include potential redevelopment of lands currently zoned for other uses
such as commercial plazas or the intensification of existing developed sites.
The study includes data captured on December 31, 2022, from the 2021 Census, “Growing Durham: Our
Future, Our Community”, the Region of Durham’s Implementation Study (2008), background work for the City
Centre Official Plan Amendment 26, and the status of development applications received by the City as of the
end of December 2022. The report includes neighbourhoods as defined in the Pickering Official Plan Urban
Neighbourhood and Rural Settlement boundaries.
From 2023 to 2042, 71,575 new residential units are expected to be built in the City of Pickering, primarily in
the greenfield areas of Seaton and Duffin Heights, as well as the City Centre. Based on the anticipated growth
in residential units, the City is expected to experience an increase in population of 90% from 2023 to 2042.
This is equal to an average annual population increase of 5%. Most anticipated population growth is expected
to take place in the areas of Seaton, the City Center, and Duffin Heights. These three areas are anticipated to
account for 44%, 30%, and 10% of the population growth in Pickering between 2023 and 2042, respectively.
The remaining 16% of anticipated population growth is attributed to maturation in other urban neighborhoods,
the intensification proposed along Kingston Road (in line with the Kingston Road Corridor Intensification
Study), and other developments.
The study posits that, due to the aging of the Baby Boomer generation over the next 25 years, the persons
per unit ratio is expected to continue to decline. Based on a declining persons per unit ratio, population decline
is forecasted in aging neighbourhoods where there are limited infill opportunities; namely these
neighbourhoods are: West Shore, Village East, Amberlea, and Liverpool. Given the continued aging of the
Baby Boomer generation, it can be inferred that other generations such as Generation X and Millennials will
occupy most of the new residential units.
6 | Page
The significant population growth projected can be expected to increase the usage and demand for the City’s
existing facilities. Concurrently, it may affect some facilities more than others based on their location and/or
facility function in relation to high areas of population growth.
City of Pickering: Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The City of Pickering’s 2017 Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies what the community needs and
prioritizes most, considering available financial resources. While the City is currently updating its Parks and
Recreation Master Plan, findings from the 2017 version continue to offer important insights, context, and
details to support and aid in the study question and evaluation methodology.
The Master Plan was developed over four major steps: Context Review (1), Consultation (2), Draft Master Plan
(3) and Finalized Master Plan (4). Some key findings from the plan, as they relate to facilities specifically,
include:
●Aerobics and fitness, leisure swimming, and running or jogging were the third, fourth, and fifth most
popular recreation activities and all require the use of facility assets in most instances.
●The third most important parks and recreation asset type identified by survey respondents was indoor
recreation facilities. Respondents noted lower levels of satisfaction for indoor recreational facilities,
suggesting that expectations are not currently being met.
●Facility based assets were the top third, fourth, and fifth priority for additional public spending for
parks and recreation assets.
●Input from community groups noted several instances of facility specific items, including:
o Need for updates and modernization to aging facilities and the importance of quality of spaces.
o Ensuring that existing infrastructure supply is well maintained for efficient use of resources.
●Assessments indicated the need for two new recreation facilities to improve service levels and account
for anticipated population growth. This finding was considered a medium-term priority item (4-6 years
from 2017)
The Master Plan underscores the importance of park and recreation assets to the City’s residents. It also
highlights, in numerous instances, the need for facility expansion that is thoughtful in scope, scale, location,
and cost. Cumulatively, the Master Plan supports the importance of the study question and provides valuable
context to the City’s facility needs for both the present and future.
City of Pickering: Corporate Strategic Plan
The City of Pickering approved its first Corporate Strategic Plan on December 11, 2023. Recognizing the
critical importance of this document, items of relevance to the study question are discussed for strategic
alignment, context, and continuity.
The Strategic Plan covers a 5-year period of 2024-2028 and fundamentally recognizes that strategic decisions
are central to the City’s progress in the immediate and in the long term. Accordingly, it advocates and
advances for proactive decision making centered around a long-term view. The plan was developed with
significant consultation from key stakeholders including council, the community, business, partners, advisory
committees, and City staff (via surveys and several engagement sessions).
7 | Page
The plan advances a vision, mission, and seven (7) corporate priorities that provide important direction to the
City’s decisions. These are:
Vision: Pickering: A complete, world class city… inclusive, connected, caring and prosperous.
Mission: To provide meaningful municipal services to Pickering’s growing and diverse community efficiently,
effectively, and responsibly.
Good Governance and Customer Service Excellence was highlighted as a key priority as an overarching
principle that guides all other priorities. Through public consultation, six (6) additional priorities were identified
to support the vision, these actions are:
1. Champion Economic Leadership and Innovation
2. Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community
3. Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Supper a Connected, Well-Serviced Community
4. Lead & Advocate for Environmental Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency
5. Strengthen Existing and Build New Partnerships
6. Foster an Engaged & Informed Community
The study question – Which facilities should the City of Pickering consider for asset disposal, renewal, or
replacement? – directly supports the identified priorities for the following reasons:
●Good Governance includes fiscal prudence and open and transparent decision making. The study
question seeks to provide insights into which facilities may not be fiscally sustainable and/or safe in the
years to come and the evaluation methods and stakeholder engagement process is objective and
transparent.
●The City thoughtfully considers customer and service delivery through the evaluation of the study
question which supports facility management and investment decisions that are responsive to the
diverse needs of Pickering’s growing community.
●Responsible planning premised on actions that support a well-connected and serviced community are
supported and advanced through the study question, directly advancing priority three.
The City of Pickering is actively advancing the vision of its strategic plan by evaluating its facility assets and
their long-term service delivery potential. This initiative directly advances and supports the City’s strategic
decision-making focus that seeks to advance responsible, efficient and proactive city management.
8 | Page
Step 2: Investigate Best Practices
Part two of the evaluation method focused on reviewing other government agencies’ best practices for facility
investment and renewal decisions. This review provides valuable insights into how other organizations assess
similar questions, including what attributes they consider, and which processes they follow. The following
reports were reviewed:
External Reference Material
BC Ministry of Education: Long Range Facilities Master Plan
Facility Assessment Criteria: Hamilton-Wentworth
Queen’s University: Campus Master Plan, Chapter 2
Toronto Lands Corporation 2023-2023 Annual Plan
Throughout the above referenced reports, the Facility Condition Index (FCI) metric is referenced. Before
discussing the external reference material, FCI background is provided below:
Facility Condition Index (FCI): Background
The City of Pickering uses a software solution called VFA to manage their facilities data. Within the VFA
system, every building, and the building components therein (e.g., Windows, Doors, Roof, Foundation) are
identified including their installation date, estimated lifespan and projected replacement cost. This information
helps the City project when each component can be expected to require investment. Adding all component
costs together for a given asset also provides an estimated total replacement cost for that facility.
A Facility Condition Index (FCI) score is a ratio of the total cost of identified building repairs and renewals (i.e.,
component replacement) over a defined period (the City uses 5 years) divided by the assets’ total estimated
replacement cost. This calculation is illustrated below:
The higher the FCI score the poorer the condition of the building. The FCI score will change over time as the
required investments change; therefore, an FCI score is reported as of a specific date to reflect the costing
date and the identified deficiencies as of that date. The FCI score does not consider or account for the type of
building component. This means that a facility with a 10% FCI score may require investment for interior
finishes only and another building also with an FCI score of 10% may require investment in more critical
components like the elevators. Recognizing this, the FCI score is still an important tool to benchmark the built
condition of a diverse group of facilities, such as is the case for the City of Pickering.
The condition of a facility can be evaluated based on its FCI score. The City of Pickering uses the following
scale as a measure of building condition based on FCI:
9 | Page
10 | Page
BC Ministry of Education: Long Range Facilities Plan
The British Columbia Ministry of Education has developed a Long-range Facilities Plan (LRFP) Guideline which
outlines the considerations to be applied for the use of current and potential future inventory of capital assets.
Like the study question, the objective of the LRFP is to evaluate the “Building condition and future
maintenance requirements for existing schools, and whether to upgrade existing schools, to wholly replace
existing schools, or to partially replace existing schools” (page 3).
Information from the LRFP analysis is central to the Board of Education’s determination of the capital needs of
its school district, including strategies for site acquisitions for new schools, retention, and upgrades to existing
schools, and/or closures and disposal of school and surplus school properties.
A series of key considerations for school districts are investigated when developing a LRFP. Several of these
are also applicable to the City of Pickering. Those most relevant to the City of Pickering’s Study question are
summarized below:
LRFP Considerations & their Application to the Study Question
School Board Consideration: Student
Enrollment
City of Pickering Application: Population
Evaluates anticipated enrollment which dictates
future demand for school space. The goal is to
ensure that permanent space continues to be
required for the entire physical life of the space.
The need for facilities is most affected by the City’s
current and expected future population. Population
varies by neighborhood and wards and over time,
and this may impact if an area is over or under-
serviced.
School Board Consideration: Existing Schools
FCI Score
City of Pickering Application: Existing
Facilities FCI Score & Major Structural Repairs
FCI as an indicator of the capital investment required
to keep a facility in operational condition. In some
cases, it may be more fiscally prudent to fund a full
or partial replacement rather than the ongoing
capital investment to an existing school.
Understanding capital investments required to
maintain facilities in a good state of repair is central
to determining if the long-term retention of the asset
is worthwhile. Exploring this question using FCI
scores and associated data aligns with the City’s
Strategic Priorities of Good Governance
demonstrated by fiscal sustainability and
infrastructure investment and renewal demonstrated
by investment to current and future facilities that are
responsive to the City’s growing community.
School Board Consideration: Heritage
Conservation
City of Pickering Application: Adaptability
Identifies schools with heritage conservation status
which may impact if disposal is practically feasible.
The City of Pickering, working with its Heritage
Pickering Advisory Committee, seeks to preserve all
designated heritage properties, including those it
owns. Where a building has heritage status, it is very
constrained in how it can be adapted, and this may
reduce its candidacy for disposal.
11 | Page
LRFP Considerations & their Application to the Study Question
School Board Consideration: Capacity City of Pickering Application: Service Density
Considers both the number of students that can be
accommodated within a school based on the number
of teachers (operating capacity) and the number of
students a school can accommodate based on the
notional number of students for hypothetical classes
(Nominal capacity)
The amount of recreational and cultural square feet
per resident varies by ward; some wards have
considerably more square feet per ward resident
than the city average, while others have less.
Therefore, buildings in wards that exceed the city’s
average square feet per resident might be better
candidates for removal since they are already
overserviced while other wards would be poorer
candidates since they are relative to the city average
underserviced.
School Board Consideration: Transportation of
Students
City of Pickering Application: Service
Substitute
Identifies the extent of travel required for students
to access schools and whether associated costs are
warranted.
Considers how residents’ access to services may be
impacted by the closure of facilities based on
proximity of other comparable facilities.
Facility Assessment Criteria: Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB)
Like B.C.’s criteria, in Ontario, school boards like the HWDSB also evaluate their building inventory for long-
term renewal needs and consider FCI scores. In this case, the FCI score receives the highest weighting of all
factors (60%). When reviewing the FCI scores the intent is to maintain the portfolio in a generally consistent
condition. One quarter of the consideration (25%) goes to factors representing equity and accessibility which
review factors such as: whether there is an elevator, accessible washroom, a barrier-free entrance, and an all-
gender washroom. The remaining weight (15%) goes to alignment to board mandated benchmarks which
considers availability and quality of desired features (e.g., science labs, gyms etc.).
When a property is no longer required for board use, it is deemed surplus by the Board of Trustees and can be
sold at fair market value following an established procedure governed by Ontario Regulation 444/98. The
HWDSB also follows the Property Disposition Procedure which ensures that the interests of the broader
community in relation to the subject property is considered.
The evaluation criteria, especially the use of FCI, are consistent with the evaluation criteria of other facility
intensive organizations. Additional HWDSB considerations represent the specific mandates of the school board
which reflect many of the values (e.g., accessibility, gender inclusivity, mandates) similar to those of the City
of Pickering.
Queen’s University, Campus Master Plan, Chapter 2: Existing Campus Conditions and
Needs
Queen’s University is a facility intensive organization and has developed a Campus Master Plan to guide the
physical evolution of their campus for the next 10-15 years. Considerations include:
o Land Utilization: identifies sites that are underutilized.
12 | Page
o Building Condition: evaluates condition based on FCI and classifies buildings with a high FCI
score as candidates for redevelopment
o Historic Significance: identifies buildings that must be protected or have key elements
incorporated into any new development.
o Development Capacity: This considers the site’s capacity for redevelopment based on financial
and/or logistical constraints.
Importantly, the Campus Master plan does not assume growth of the building inventory but instead identifies
potential opportunities and constraints in the event of growth. Discussing renewal needs, the plan highlights
the importance of balancing the creation of new spaces with the renovation of older spaces and the
opportunity to eliminate outdated or poorly located amenities. While there are differences in the mandates,
key objectives, and demographics served by Queen’s University and the City of Pickering, the facility
management objective remains quite similar: to make wise decisions about facility assets that support existing
and anticipated future needs. Therefore, it is of value and relevance to review the considerations of Queen’s
University’s facility planning framework.
Toronto Lands Corporation Annual Plan
TLC is the exclusive real estate service provider for the Toronto District School Board (TDSB). TLC’s mandate is
to represent the TDSB real estate interest in the redevelopment of sites, land use planning, property
disposition and acquisition, leasing, partnerships, and integration of community hubs. TLC works to ensure
students are accommodated in modern and innovative schools and works to preserve public assets where
there is a demonstrated need.
Specific evaluation criteria for asset disposal vs retention were not available for review, but the 2022-2023
Annual Plan does offer some insights into likely considerations. For example, to support the strategic goal of
Transforming Student Learning Environment through the Modernization of Facilities strategies includes
disposal of surplus sites, determination of capital investment requirements to achieve a desired FCI score, and
portfolio risk assessment and ranking. Additionally, commitments are made to develop strategies and
recommendations to address deteriorating non-instructional leased sites and to reevaluate the sites
themselves. The Capital Plan makes notes of reinvestment of funds (presumably from asset disposal) to
existing school sites.
The available information suggests that like many other asset intensive organizations TLC uses FCI as a key
consideration in decision making and seeks to carefully manage their investments by considering questions
such as the study question: what facilities should be considered for asset disposal?
13 | Page
Step 3: Select Evaluation Attributes and Scoring Brackets
Steps 1 and 2 provided important insights and context of the City’s strategic goals and asset management
priorities and key considerations other asset intensive organizations hold when investigating asset retention vs.
disposal decisions. This informed the preliminary selection and definition of evaluation attributes for the City of
Pickering’s portfolio. Preliminary attributes and associated definitions and ranges was provided via email to the
following group of staff:
Staff Name Representative Departments
Blaine Attwood, Supervisor, Capital Assets
Operations & Engineering
Services
Vince Plouffe, Division Head, Operations Services
Brian Duffield, Director, Operations
Arnold Mostert, Manager, Landscape & Parks Development
Elaine Bird, Director of Support Services, Pickering Library
Pickering Library,
Community Services,
Corporate Services
Laura Gibbs, (Acting) Director, Community Services
Kevin Hayes, Manager, Facilities Maintenance
Jason Litoborski, Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services
Lindsey Narraway, Supervisor, Animal Services
Shortly thereafter, the above noted staff attended an in-person workshop facilitated by PSD Citywide. Fire
Services staff were invited to both workshops, but unable to attend.
Workshop attendees received information on the project problem statement and key study questions, relevant
studies and reference materials and project methodology. Representatives from Animal Services, Operations,
Facilities Maintenance, and the Library were in the morning session. Representatives from Parks (Engineering)
and Community Services were in the afternoon session.
Through the workshop, the attributes were adjusted to better reflect the City’s specific goals, context, and
priorities. In some cases, preliminary attributes were removed or added.
In all cases, staff also reviewed the definitions and the scoring ranges. The workshop activities culminated in
the finalization of the attributes selected, their definitions, scoring ranges, and respective scores. The selected
attributes and the facilities they apply to are as follows:
14 | Page
Attribute Fire & Operations Recreational & Cultural
FCI Score ✔ ✔
Major Structural Repair Timelines
✔ ✔
Proximate Hazard
✔ ✔
Site Servicing Reliability ✔ ✔
Exiting Utilization ✔ ✔
Safety & Inclusivity ✔ ✔
Accessibility ✔ ✔
Financial ✔ ✔
Operational ✔ ✔
Emergency Response ✔ ✔
Service Density ✔
Complexity of Ecosystem ✔
Service Substitute ✔
Service Priority ✔
Adaptability ✔
The scoring range definitions are provided in Appendix 2 and 3. This details the criteria a facility would need to
meet to be placed in a respective score range and the number of points associated with that range. For every
criterion, scores ranged from 0 to 5 with most having a criterion based assigned score of 1,3 or 5 representing
a low, moderate, or high score. During the workshop, Staff provided input on the performance of each facility
against the selected attribute. This produced a preliminary score for each building and its respective attributes.
15 | Page
Step 4: Determine Attribute Weighting
Developed by Dr. Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) breaks down complex
decisions into a hierarchical structure of objectives, criteria, and sub-criteria. AHP is a structured decision-
making methodology that allows decision-makers to evaluate and rank multiple attributes based on their
relative importance. By comparing these elements pairwise, decision-makers can assign weights to each
attribute, ultimately leading to a prioritized ranking. Leveraging a mathematical approach, this methodology
utilizes eigenvector calculations and consistency ratios to ensure the coherence and reliability of the rankings.
AHP's versatility has made it a favored tool in various fields, as it provides a systematic and quantifiable
approach to making informed decisions in scenarios with multiple competing attributes.
All Staff engaged in the workshop independently completed an AHP analysis on November 28th, 2023. The
results were then aggregated using AHP to determine each attribute's weighting. The final weightings and
definitions for each attribute are as follows:
Criteria General Attribute Definition Weight (%)
Admin &
Fire
Recreational
& Cultural
Facility Condition
Index (FCI)
Total of all backlogs, current, and next five-year
projected capital investment requirements divided by
the asset’s total replacement cost.
11.96
11.66
Major Structural
Repairs Timelines:
Timeline of significant investment requirements to
major and/or critical building components.
2.47
16.52
Proximate Hazards
Subject property’s proximity to major hazards like the
nuclear plant, major transportation corridors, and/or
floodplains.
5.59
3.06
Site Servicing
If the property is on well and/or septic systems
compared to municipal water and wastewater
services.
2.65
2.08
Existing Utilization Degree to which the facility is used by both staff and
the public.
6.46
3.43
Accessibility Degree to which the facility is accessible. 5.52 4.37
Safety &
Inclusivity
The facility’s ease of access by public transit and
depth of safety features.
3.04
2.2
Financial Cost of replacing the facility entirely in relation to the
City’s existing budget frameworks.
10.52
9.96
Operational
The impact of an unplanned closure of the facility on
the city’s operations; considers availability of
alternative facilities to accommodate.
12.23
9.91
16 | Page
Criteria General Attribute Definition Weight (%)
Admin &
Fire
Recreational
& Cultural
Emergency
Response
The buildings designation as a disaster support hub or
primary response center
17.33
14.6
Service Density
If the facility is in a ward with a square foot per capita
rate that is lower or higher than the city average and
how the disposal of the subject facility would impact
the ward square footage per capita rate relative to the
existing city average.
N/A 2.18
Complexity of
Ecosystem
The number of uses the facility services and the
impact of failure based on the number of uses.
N/A 1.57
Service Substitute Number of alternative service providers within a 10-
minute drive of the subject facility.
N/A 6.31
Facility Service
Priority
The services provided by the subject facility and their
importance to the City’s master plan and/or popular
demand.
N/A 7.4
Adaptability The facility’s design features and their ease of
adaptation to support other services.
N/A 4.73
Total 100% 100%
17 | Page
3.Findings
The following table details the overall score and rank for each facility in scope. Please refer to Appendix 3 for a
building profile that outlines the score for each facility and all respective attributes.
Facility FCI Score Rank
Animal Services Shelter 0%1 4.96 1
Fire Station #5 51% 4.78 2
Fire Station #2 49% 4.26 3
Fire Station #4 38% 4.07 4
Fire Station #6 20% 3.82 5
Civic Complex 35% 3.73 6
Brougham Hall Community Centre 107% 3.55 7
Greenwood Community Centre 78% 3.44 8
Mount Zion Community Centre 59% 3.38 9
East Shore Community Centre 43% 3.26 10
Greenwood Library 58% 3.21 11
Dunbarton Pool 22% 3.11 12
Don Beer Arena 42% 3.11 13
Whitevale Community Centre 76% 3.11 14
Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex 26% 3.09 15
Whitevale Arts & Culture Centre 115% 3.05 16
Pickering Museum Village 14%2 3.02 17
Fire Station #1 0% 2.74 18
George Ashe Library & Community Centre 25% 2.65 19
Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre 28% 2.61 20
Operation Center 3% 2.40 21
West Shore Community Centre 36% 2.02 22
Pickering Soccer Centre 2% 1.91 23
This above ranking is not an absolute recommendation for asset disposal, renewal, or replacement. Rather, it
provides an evidence-based summation of which facilities have the greatest potential need or take precedence
based on the attributes explored and the data readily available at the onset of this project. Further
investigation is recommended in general, and especially for facilities ranking within the top 10 as candidates
for disposal.
1 This is a leased facility with no VFA data; however, the City is responsible for all capital upgrades and significant
investment is required. Therefore, it is assumed that if there was an assessment the FCI score would be 50% or more
and score of 5 would apply.
2 Historic pavilion structures are not included in the Museum FCI. This value only includes Redman House, the
Conservation Building and Upper Site Storage Building.
18 | Page
4.Conclusions & Next Steps
This study has reviewed, evaluated, and established ratings by which to prioritize and consider where best to
invest finite resources regarding existing City of Pickering facility assets. Its function is to inform staff and
Council and serve as a basis for discussion for how to address the condition of an aging building inventory.
Specific decisions or recommendations regarding each individual facility will depend on broader strategic
priorities yet to be set. It is clear, based on the FCI ratings of the existing inventory, that significant
reinvestment will be required, and that decisions are needed regarding whether it is in the City’s best interest
to consider disposal, renewal or replacement for those assets approaching end of life. Where FCIs are
particularly high and usage is low, consolidating services into new facilities enables the option to dispose of
older assets in poor condition, using savings generated by eliminated deferred maintenance to offset capital
costs for new construction.
The City of Pickering, specifically, is challenged by limited redundancy in building stock for service deliver. For
example, most of its indoor recreation amenities are located in a single location at the Chestnut Hill
Developments Recreation complex, which is already 40 years old. The City’s only other aquatic facility at
Dunbarton Indoor Pool (DIP) is over 50 years old and nearing the end of its serviceable life. DIP also lacks the
capacity to make up for the loss of the CHDRC pool, affecting the strategic prioritization for repairs which
could otherwise lead to an unacceptable reduction in service to the public. A roadmap is required in order to
address how and when to address end of life for facilities, especially considering that it often takes 6-10 years
or more for municipalities to plan and complete major new facilities.
In order to provide more detailed recommendations, further investigation and direction will be required
regarding the City’s near and long term strategic priorities. The metrics and background information provided
in this report should help to inform and guide how to prioritize and consider those key decisions.
Several enhancements to the extent and quality of the existing attribute data collected to date could also be
beneficial to obtain. Some information was unavailable for this study but is recognized for the value it could
provide in addressing the study question. The following sections detail additional data and enhancements that
are recommended as a potential second phase of the study or should at minimum be considered as future
plans and strategies are developed. Doing so would provide for an even more rigorous analysis and a higher
level of confidence and conclusiveness to the findings of this study.
Recommended Additional Data Collection for Existing Attributes:
Facility Condition Index (FCI):
●Full Cost of Ownership:
o Operating costs typically account for over 80% of the cost of ownership of a building over its
full life with a tendency to increase gradually as buildings age. Multiple approaches can be
taken with regards to facility management, including how to address maintenance and repairs,
each carrying different risks and potential benefits from cost and level of service perspectives.
●Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Building Components:
o Different components of a building have varying lifespans and maintenance needs. A lifecycle
cost analysis involves evaluating these components individually — such as roofing, HVAC
19 | Page
systems, structural integrity, plumbing, and electrical systems. Understanding when each
component is likely to require repair or replacement can significantly influence the FCI based
on the component’s level of criticality. The City’s planning horizon for capital replacements has
traditionally been forecasted out to 5 years in the future. Its 2024 capital budget and forecast
will increase that forecast lens to 10 years. The City could benefit from a more rigorous long
term analysis of capital needs that should also work hand in hand with growth projections to
be better prepared to meet future needs.
Major Structural Repairs Timelines:
●Cost-Benefit Analysis of Major Repairs vs. Replacement:
o Comparing the long-term costs of major repairs against the cost of a full replacement of
structural components or the entire facility. This analysis should factor in not only direct repair
costs but also indirect costs like operational disruptions and efficiency losses. Many existing
City facilities are nearing the end of their serviceable lives and decisions must be made to
prepare for their disposal and replacement, should renewal no longer be a viable option.
Discussions should be starting now for any facilities that have 15 years or less of remaining
anticipated useful life.
Proximate Hazards:
●Service Redundancy and Emergency Management
o As a host community to a nuclear power generating station and with major highways and other
transportation infrastructure corridors physically separating parts of the community, a degree
of consideration and planning must be devoted to considering the City’s ability to respond in
case of catastrophe or for major emergency management needs. Public facilities typically
serve as shelters, support hubs or even large scale morgues. Critical infrastructure planning
aims to provide backups to key locations and services, should their primary sources be
unavailable for any reason. The City’s Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) is currently located
at City Hall, for example, with the Dr.Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre in Claremont
service as a backup site. The City could benefit from a review of its existing amenities and
available redundancies to determine if additional provisions are required, so that they can be
planned for well in advance and implemented when opportunities arise.
Site Servicing:
●Infrastructure Constraints
o Many of the City’s northern and remote facilities rely on well and septic systems, or lack access
to utilities such as natural gas. Servicing limitations can impose limitation on the potential for
growth and adaptation to meet future demands, ultimately preventing existing buildings from
being adapted to their evolving uses and the needs of the community. Coordination with
broader planning and civil infrastructure initiatives can help mitigate these risks, as well as
further analysis to determine where finite potential exists or the required financial investment
cannot be justified.
●Potential Technological Upgrades and Innovations:
o Evaluating the potential for integrating new technologies or innovative approaches to improve
site servicing. This could include advanced water and wastewater treatment methods, energy-
20 | Page
efficient systems, or smart monitoring technologies. The City is currently undertaking
workplace modernization initiatives for technology solutions and will expand those efforts to
include physical workplace improvements and efficiencies in 2024. Both initiatives required
constant re-evaluation and can dramatically impact building needs and expectations.
Existing Utilization Rates:
● Detailed Usage Statistics:
o Collecting comprehensive data on facility usage. This would include tracking the number of
users, the frequency of use, and the specific activities or services being utilized. Data should be
segmented by different user groups (like age groups, special interest groups) to understand
diverse needs and preferences. Some of this data is already available, but was not included in
the scope of this study.
● Peak and Off-Peak Usage Analysis:
o Analyzing usage patterns during different times of the day, week, or year. Identifying peak
times can help in understanding the highest demand periods and planning for capacity
management. Off-peak analysis can reveal underutilization issues and opportunities for
promoting the facility during less busy times. This same data is often essential when
considering energy management and seeking usage and performance-based operating
efficiencies.
Accessibility:
● Comprehensive Audits of Current Accessibility Standards:
o Conduct thorough audits to assess the facility's compliance with current accessibility standards.
This includes evaluating entryways, corridors, restrooms, signage, elevators, and any other
public areas. The audit should check for adherence to legal requirements, such as those
outlined in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) or other relevant local and
national standards.
Safety and Inclusivity:
● Detailed Safety Audit Reports:
o Conduct thorough safety audits covering all aspects of the facility. This includes assessing fire
safety (like alarms, sprinklers, escape routes), security measures (such as CCTV, access
control), and structural integrity. The audits should identify potential hazards and recommend
measures to mitigate them. This is currently done on an as-needed basis without any set
Corporate standards or objectives beyond those required by applicable law or immediate
operational needs.
● Inclusivity Assessments:
o Perform evaluations to determine how inclusive the facility is. This goes beyond basic
accessibility and looks at whether the facility caters to the diverse needs of different groups,
including various age groups, cultural backgrounds, and people with different abilities.
Inclusivity assessments should consider factors like language options, cultural sensitivity in
21 | Page
design and services, and spaces that accommodate a variety of activities and group sizes.
Regularly consult with key stakeholder groups to obtain feedback.
Emergency Response:
●Emergency Capacity:
o Assess the maximum number of individuals the facility can safely accommodate during an
emergency. This includes evaluating space for emergency shelters, medical facilities, and
support services. Fire Services are currently preparing a master plan to identify their specific
needs.
Facility Service Priority:
●Alignment with City's Master Plans:
o Evaluate how the services offered by each facility fits into the broader goals and objectives
outlined in the City of Pickering's master plan. This includes assessing whether the facility
supports key initiatives, such as community development, recreation, and/or environmental
sustainability.
●Demand Analysis:
o Analyze the current and projected demand for the services provided by the facility. This can be
done through community surveys, usage data, and trend analysis. Understanding which
services are most in demand helps prioritize facilities that offer these services. Refreshing the
City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan, currently underway, is an excellent example of this
principle in action.
Recommended Additional Considerations:
●Environmental Impact Assessment:
o Energy efficiency ratings, carbon footprint, waste management practices, and water usage
statistics. These types of strategic initiatives are included in the City’s Corporate Energy
Management Plan, last updated in 2019 and due for renewal in 2024.
●Community Engagement Feedback:
o Surveys and focus group findings on user satisfaction, needs assessment, and community
preferences for facility services and design. Gathering data on historical usage patterns by
different community groups can also provide insights into inclusivity and accessibility. The City
already regularly collects this information, with additional stakeholder consultation as part of all
major capital project planning.
●Resilience to Climate Change:
o Climate risk assessments, flood zone mapping, and historical data on weather-related
damages. Assessments of existing infrastructure resilience to extreme weather events are
crucial. The City already participates in Durham Region’s Climate Resiliency round table, along
with other lower tier municipalities.
●Demographic Shifts Analysis:
o Census data, population growth projections, and demographic trend analysis. Understanding
shifts in age groups, family structures, and cultural backgrounds can guide future facility
22 | Page
needs. City Development staff already collect and serve as an invaluable resource to other
departments in this regard. Use of emerging technology, including growing capabilities in the
use of GIS have further enhanced and refined available tools.
●Economic Impact Analysis:
o Local economic contribution, employment statistics related to the facility, and analysis of the
facility’s role in attracting businesses or tourists.
●Financial Analysis
o An example is provided in Appendix 4.
23 | Page
Bibliography
British Columbia Ministry of Education and Child Care. (2019). Long-Range Facilities Plan Guidelines. Accessed
online at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/resource-management/capital-
planning/archive/long-range_facilities_plan_guidelines_-_march_2019_pdf.pdf
City of Pickering. (2023). City of Pickering - Draft Corporate Strategic Plan 2023-2027. Accessed online at:
https://ehq-production-canada.s3.ca-central-
1.amazonaws.com/cb08e7cb8cdbcdc2e0f2c371f6487580f9b82fed/original/1698781333/fef8e87ed8b6a
3b07b87902862728e38_Draft_Corporate_Strategic_Plan_.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-
SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA4KKNQAKIOR7VAOP4%2F20231113%2Fca-central-
1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20231113T160638Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-
SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-
Signature=234ac62bf52394b1b02aaa248abde1ebb844ba815651d4f10a32d53ab13dab43
City of Pickering. (2017). City of Pickering Recreation & Parks Master Plan. Accessed online at:
https://www.pickering.ca/en/living/resources/2017-recreation-parks-master-plan-acc.pdf
City of Pickering, City Development Department. (2023). City of Pickering Detailed 20 Year Population
Forecast. Accessed online at:
https://www.pickering.ca/en/business/resources/20YearPopulationForecastACC.pdf
Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board. (2023). 2023 Long-Term Facilities Master Plan Section 1.3: HWDSB
Property. Accessed online at: https://www.hwdsb.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/LTFMP-1.3-
Property-2023.pdf
Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board. (2023). 2023 Long-Term Facilities Master Plan Section 1.5: Facility
Assessment. Accessed online at: https://www.hwdsb.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/LTFMP-1.5-
Facility-Assessment-2023.pdf
Toronto Lands Corporation. (2022). TLC Annual Plan 2022-23. Accessed online at:
https://torontolandscorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022-23-TLC-Annual-Plan.pdf
24 | Page
Appendix 1: Facilities in Scope of Study
Facility Name Facility Address Facility Type
Fire Station #2 553 Kingston Road, Pickering, ON
L1V 3N7
Fire & Operations
Fire Station #5 1616 Bayly Street, Pickering, ON L1W
3N2
Fire Station #6 1115 Finch Avenue, Pickering, ON
L1V 1J7
Fire Station #1 Zents Road Pickering, ON
Operation Center 1955 Clements Road, Pickering ON,
L1W
Brougham Hall 3545 Brock Road, Brougham, ON
L0H 1A0
Recreation &
Cultural
Civic Complex One The Esplanade, Pickering, ON
L1V 6K7
Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre and
Fire Station #4
4941 Old Brock Road, Claremont, ON
L1Y 1A9
Don Beer Arena 940 Dillingham Road, Pickering, ON
L1W 1Z6
Dunbarton Pool 655 Sheppard Avenue E., Pickering,
ON L1V 1G2
East Shore Community Centre and
East Shore Senior Citizens Centre
910 Liverpool Road, Pickering, ON
L1W 1S6
Greenwood Community Centre 3551 Greenwood Road, Greenwood,
ON L0H 1E0
Greenwood Library 3540 Westney Road, Greenwood, ON
L1H 1H0
Mount Zion Community Centre 4230 Sideline 6,
Pickering, ON L1Y 1A2
George Ashe Library & Community Centre 470 Kingston Road, Pickering, ON
L1V 1A4
Animal Services Shelter 1688 Highway 7, Brougham, ON L0H
1A0
Pickering Museum Village 2365 Concession #6, Greenwood,
L0H 1H0
Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex 1867 Valley Farm Road, Pickering,
ON L1V 3Y7
Pickering Soccer Centre 1975 Clements Road, Pickering, ON,
L1W 4C2
25 | Page
Facility Name Facility Address Facility Type
West Shore Community Centre 1011 Bayly Street, Pickering, ON L1W
0A4
Recreation &
Cultural
Whitevale Community Centre 405 Whitevale Road, Whitevale, ON
L0H 1M0
Operations Center 1955 Clements Road, Pickering ON,
L1W
Whitevale Arts & Culture Centre 475 Whitevale Road, Whitevale, ON
L0H 1M0
26 | Page
Appendix 2: Attribute Scoring Ranges: All Facilities
Facility Condition Index (FCI)
High Score (5 points) Medium Score (1-3) Low Score (1 or less)
High Consequence of
Failure
Moderate Consequence of
Failure
Low Consequence of failure
o The FCI score is .50 or
greater o The FCI is less than .50 and
greater than 0.17.
o The FCI score is multiplied by
two and then multiplied by 3
to determine the score.
o The FCI is less than 0.17.
o The FCI score is multiplied by
two and then multiplied by 3
to determine the score.
Major Structural Repair Timelines
High Score (5 points) Medium Score (3 points) Low Score (1 point)
High Consequence of
Failure
Moderate Consequence of
Failure
Low Consequence of failure
o Significant investments to
major and/or critical
building components are
required in the next 5-10
years
Significant investments to
major and/or critical building
components are required in the
next 11-20 years
o Significant investments to
major and/or critical
building components are
required but not for about
20 years
27 | Page
Proximate Hazards
High Score (5 points) Medium Score (3 points) Low Score (1 point)
High Consequence of
Failure
Moderate Consequence of
Failure
Low Consequence of failure
One or more of the following
applies:
o Subject property is within
the Nuclear Plant exclusion
zone (less than 5 km
radius from plant)
o Subject property is within
500 meters of a major
transportation corridors
(commercial rail, HWY)
o Subject property is within
100 meters of a water
body
One or more of the following
applies:
o Subject property is within
five (5) KM radius of the
Nuclear Plant exclusion
zone.
o Subject property is within
one (1) kilometer of a
major transportation
corridors (commercial rail,
HWY)
o Subject property is within
a floodplain.
One or more of the following
applies:
o Subject property is not
within the nuclear plant
exclusion zone.
o Subject property is not
within one (1) kilometer of
a major transportation
corridors (commercial rail,
HWY)
o Subject property is not
within a floodplain
Site Servicing
High Score (5 points) Medium Score (3 points) Low Score (1 point)
High Consequence of
Failure
Moderate Consequence of
Failure
Low Consequence of failure
o Subject property is on well
and/or septic
o Subject property is on a
shared septic and/or well
system
o Subject property is on
municipal water and
sewage services
28 | Page
Existing Utilization
High Score (5 points) Medium Score (3 points) Low Score (1 point)
High Consequence of
Failure
Moderate Consequence of
Failure
Low Consequence of failure
o Considers utilization of
both staff and the public
o The facility experiences
extreme utilization rates,
either being underutilized
to a concerning degree or
being overwhelmed with
demand, both of which are
detrimental.
o Very low utilization
suggests that the facility
might be redundant or not
meeting community needs,
leading to wasted
resources and potential
financial strain. On the
other hand, very high
utilization can result in
wear and tear, reduced
service quality, and
potential safety concerns.
o Seasonal fluctuations
exacerbate these
extremes, with certain
periods seeing a drastic
drop in usage, while
others might witness an
unsustainable surge,
further complicating
management, and
maintenance strategies.
o Considers utilization of
both staff and the public
o The facility has variable
utilization rates, with
occasional periods of low
or high demand, but
generally maintains a
balanced usage pattern.
o While it doesn't face the
extreme challenges of
Level 1, there are still
periods, especially during
specific seasons, where
adjustments are needed to
optimize service delivery
and manage resources.
o Seasonal changes might
require proactive planning
to ensure that the facility
remains functional and
efficient throughout the
year, without significant
disruptions.
o Considers utilization of
both staff and the public
o The facility enjoys a
steady and balanced
utilization rate, neither
being underused nor
overwhelmed, ensuring
efficient service delivery
and resource
management.
o While there might be
minor fluctuations due to
seasonality, these are
anticipated and managed
effectively, ensuring that
the facility remains
responsive to community
needs.
o The facility's utilization
pattern is a testament to
its adaptability and
effective management,
allowing it to cater to
demands consistently,
regardless of seasonal
changes.
29 | Page
Accessibility
High Score (5 points) Medium Score (3 points) Low Score (1 point)
High Consequence of
Failure
Moderate Consequence of
Failure
Low Consequence of failure
o Facility does not meet
accessibility requirements
o Facility’s first floor fully
complies with accessibility
requirements
o Facility is fully compliant
with accessibility
Safety & Inclusivity
High Score (5 points) Medium Score (3 points) Low Score (1 point)
High Consequence of
Failure
Moderate Consequence of
Failure
Low Consequence of failure
o Facility does not have
safety infrastructure
components in place (e.g.,
CCTV, alarms, lighting
systems)
o Facility has noted
deficiencies in universal
design.
o Facility is not connected to
transit
o The facility has some
safety infrastructure in
place.
o Facility meets some
universal design
requirements.
o Facility is within 300 m -
500 m from a transit stop
o Facility has comprehensive
safety infrastructures in
place.
o The facility meets
universal design
requirements.
o Facility is adjacent to a
transit stop (<300 m)
30 | Page
Financial Risk
High Score (1 points) Medium Score (3 points) Low Score (5 point)
High Consequence of
Failure
Moderate Consequence of
Failure
Low Consequence of failure
o Total replacement cost is
greater than $15M
o Rebuilding the building
would require a significant
portion of the city's annual
budget or would
necessitate external
financing or borrowing.
o The financial strain could
lead to budgetary
adjustments in other city
projects or services.
o Does not consider revenue
generation from the facility
o Total replacement cost is
greater than $5M and less
than $15M
o Rebuilding the building
would be a noticeable
expense but could be
managed within the city's
existing budget
framework, possibly with
some reallocations.
o The city might delay or
adjust some non-essential
projects to accommodate
the rebuilding cost.
o Does not consider revenue
generation from the facility
o Total replacement cost is
less than $5M
o Rebuilding the building
would have a comparably
minimal impact on the
city's finances, with costs
easily absorbed without
major budgetary changes.
o The building might be a
smaller commercial outlet,
a standalone residence, or
a non-essential municipal
structure.
o The city can manage the
rebuilding cost without
significant financial
adjustments.
o Does not consider revenue
generation from the facility
31 | Page
Operational Risk
High Score (5 points) Medium Score (3 points) Low Score (1 point)
High Consequence of
Failure
Moderate Consequence of
Failure
Low Consequence of failure
o Assumption: closure is
required for at least 30
consecutive days
o The building's failure
necessitates the relocation
of a significant number of
city staff or city liabilities
(i.e., animal services),
disrupting core municipal
services.
o There's a lack of readily
available alternative
locations, leading to delays
in resuming normal
operations.
o Critical departments, such
as emergency services,
public utilities, or
administrative offices, are
affected.
o The city faces challenges
in communication,
coordination, and service
delivery, leading to public
dissatisfaction and
potential safety concerns
o Assumption: closure is
required for at least 30
consecutive days
o The building's failure
affects some departments,
requiring a partial shift of
staff and resources.
o Alternative locations are
available, but they might
not be fully equipped or
might be located at a
distance, causing some
operational delays.
o Non-critical departments,
such as cultural services,
recreational facilities, or
secondary administrative
offices, are impacted.
o Assumption: closure is
required for at least 30
consecutive days
o The building's failure has a
minimal impact on the
city's operations, with only
a small number of staff
affected.
o Suitable alternative
locations are readily
available, ensuring a swift
transition with minimal
disruption.
o Peripheral departments or
services, such as storage
facilities, non-essential
workshops, or seasonal
operations, are affected.
32 | Page
Emergency Response
High Score (5 points) Medium Score (3 points) Low Score (1 point)
High Consequence of
Failure
Moderate Consequence of
Failure
Low Consequence of failure
o The building is designated
as a Primary Response
Centre + Disaster Support
Hub.
o Its failure poses immediate
threats to the lives and
well-being of occupants,
city staff, and nearby
residents.
o The city's primary ability to
coordinate emergency
responses, manage
disasters, and provide
shelter during crises is
severely compromised.
o The building is designated
as a Disaster Support Hub.
o Its failure presents health
and safety concerns, but
they are not immediately
life-threatening.
o The city's secondary ability
to provide support during
disasters is affected,
leading to potential delays
or disruptions in aid and
services.
o The building is not
designated as a Disaster
Support Hub or Primary
Response Centre
o Its failure has minimal
direct health and safety
implications.
o The city's emergency
response capabilities
remain largely unaffected,
though some resources
might be redirected for
assessment and repair.
33 | Page
Appendix 3: Attribute Scoring Ranges: Recreational Facilities
Note: These attributes apply to recreational facilities, in addition to the attributes outlined in Appendix 2.
Service Density3
High Score (5 points) Medium Score (3 points) Low Score (1 point)
High Consequence of
Failure
Moderate Consequence of
Failure
Low Consequence of failure
o Facility is in a ward with a
sqft/Capita that is higher
than the city average. The
facility's disposal will not
result in a sqft/capita that
is less than the current city
average (6.75)
o Its failure would
significantly exacerbate
the service deficiency in
the area, leading to
overcrowding in alternative
facilities or lack of access
to essential community
services.
o Residents might face
challenges in accessing
recreational, educational,
or social programs, leading
to potential community
dissatisfaction and reduced
quality of life.
o Facility is in a ward with a
sqft/Capita that is higher
than the city average
(6.75 sqft/capita). The
facility's disposal will result
in a sqft/capita that is less
than the current city
average.
o Its failure would impact
the specific
neighborhood’s service
density, placing strain on
nearby community centres
and potentially leading to
localized service
disruptions.
o The broader area might be
able to absorb some of the
service demand, but
residents of the affected
neighborhood could face
inconveniences.
o Facility is in a ward with
sqft/capita that is lower
than the city’s current
overall average (6.75
sqft/capita).
o Its failure would have a
minimal impact on the
overall service density, as
the service level is already
aligned with the optimal
target.
o Nearby facilities and
centres can likely
accommodate the
displaced services and
activities with minimal
disruptions.
3 It is recognized that asset disposal is most often combined with the construction or acquisition otherwise of a
replacement facility.
34 | Page
Complexity of Ecosystem Risk
High Score (5 points) Medium Score (3 points) Low Score (1 point)
High Consequence of
Failure
Moderate Consequence of
Failure
Low Consequence of failure
o The facility has more than
2 recreational or cultural
uses
o Its failure would disrupt a
multifaceted ecosystem of
services, impacting a wide
range of community
activities and cultural
programs.
o The interconnected nature
of these services means
that the failure of one
facility could have
cascading effects on the
operations of the co-
located services.
o The facility has 2
recreational or cultural
uses.
o Its failure would impact a
significant portion of the
community's recreational
or cultural activities, but
the disruption is somewhat
localized to the specific co-
located service.
o The facility has a single
recreational or cultural
use.
o Its failure would have a
more limited impact on the
community's activities, but
there are still
considerations due to
other co-location
synergies.
35 | Page
Service Substitute
High Score (5 points) Medium Score (3 points) Low Score (1 point)
High Consequence of
Failure
Moderate Consequence of
Failure
Low Consequence of failure
o There are no alternative
services available within a
10-minute drive of the
facility.
o If this facility were to fail,
it would create a
significant service gap in
the community, compelling
residents to travel much
further to access services.
o The absence of nearby
alternatives means the
community would face
substantial interruptions in
accessing essential
services.
o Some alternative services,
provided by the private
sector or other
municipalities, are within a
10-minute drive of the
facility. However, these
alternatives might not
match the breadth,
quality, or cost of the
services offered by the
original facility.
o In the event of its failure,
residents would face
disruptions but would have
some other options, even
if these are not entirely
equivalent in terms of
service or cost.
o Multiple service providers
are within a 10-minute
drive of the Facility.
o A failure of the facility
would have a minimal
impact on the community's
access to services, as
residents have a variety of
options to consider.
36 | Page
Service Priority
Low Score (1 point) Medium Score (3 points) High Score (5 points)
High Consequence of
Failure
Moderate Consequence of
Failure
Low Consequence of failure
o The facility hosts key
programs and services
that are central to the
city's master plan and
have a high popular
demand.
o Its failure would disrupt
strategic initiatives and
long-term planning goals,
potentially affecting a
large portion of the
community.
o The facility might be
known for unique
programs, events, or
services that aren't easily
replicated elsewhere in the
city.
o The facility offers
programs and services
that align with the city's
master plan and have a
moderate level of popular
demand.
o Its failure would lead to
some disruptions, but
there might be other
facilities in the city that
offer similar programs,
albeit with potential
capacity constraints.
o The facility provides
programs and services
that, while valuable, might
not be central to the city's
master plan or have a
lower level of popular
demand.
o Its failure would have a
more limited impact on the
community's access to
services, as residents
might have other options
or be willing to wait for the
facility's restoration.
37 | Page
Adaptability Risk
High Score (5 points) Medium Score (3 points) Low Score (1 point)
High Consequence of
Failure
Moderate Consequence of
Failure
Low Consequence of failure
o The facility has a highly
specialized design, making
it challenging to adapt for
other services without
significant modifications.
o Repurposing this facility
would require extensive
renovations, potentially
involving structural
changes, to accommodate
different service needs.
o The intricate nature of its
design means that any
attempt to diversify its use
would be time-consuming
and costly, limiting its
flexibility for alternative
service delivery.
o The facility has a semi-
specialized design,
allowing for some
flexibility in its use, but still
necessitating modifications
to cater to different
services.
o While it can be repurposed
with moderate effort,
certain design elements
might pose challenges in
seamlessly transitioning to
a new service delivery
model.
o The design's moderate
complexity means that
while repurposing is
feasible, it would still
involve a considerable
investment of time and
resources.
o The facility boasts a
versatile design, making it
relatively easy to adapt for
various services with
minimal changes.
o Its flexible structure and
layout mean that it can
quickly transition to deliver
different services,
maximizing its utility and
adaptability.
o The straightforward nature
of its design ensures that
repurposing efforts would
be efficient and cost-
effective, offering a wide
range of service delivery
options.
38 | Page
Appendix 3: Building Score Profile Page
Facility Name: Animal Services Shelter
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score4 0% 5 0.117 0.583
Major Structural Repair Timelines High 5 0.165 0.826
Proximate Hazard Low 1 0.031 0.031
Site Servicing Reliability Moderate 3 0.021 0.062
Existing Utilization High 5 0.034 0.171
Safety & Inclusivity High 5 0.022 0.110
Accessibility High 5 0.044 0.218
Financial Low 5 0.100 0.498
Operational High 5 0.099 0.496
Emergency Response High 5 0.146 0.730
Service Density High 5 0.022 0.109
Complexity of Ecosystem Low 1 0.016 0.016
Service Substitutes High 5 0.063 0.316
Service Priority High 5 0.074 0.370
Adaptability Moderate 3 0.047 0.142
Total Score 4.96
Rank 1
4 This is a leased facility with no VFA data; however, the City is responsible for all capital upgrades and significant
investment is required. Therefore, it is assumed that if there was an assessment the FCI score would be 50% or more
and score of 5 would apply.
39 | Page
Facility Name: Brougham Hall
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 107% 5 0.117 0.583
Major Structural Repair Timelines High 5 0.165 0.826
Proximate Hazard High 5 0.031 0.153
Site Servicing Reliability Moderate 3 0.021 0.062
Existing Utilization High 5 0.034 0.171
Safety & Inclusivity High 5 0.022 0.110
Accessibility High 5 0.044 0.218
Financial Low 5 0.100 0.498
Operational Low 1 0.099 0.099
Emergency Response Low 1 0.146 0.146
Service Density High 5 0.022 0.109
Complexity of Ecosystem Low 1 0.016 0.016
Service Substitutes Low 1 0.063 0.063
Service Priority Low 1 0.074 0.074
Adaptability Moderate 3 0.047 0.142
Total Score 3.55
Rank 7
40 | Page
Facility Name: Chestnut Hills Developments Recreation Complex
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 26% 1.56 0.117 0.182
Major Structural Repair Timelines Moderate 3 0.165 0.496
Proximate Hazard Moderate 3 0.031 0.092
Site Servicing Reliability Low 1 0.021 0.021
Existing Utilization High 5 0.034 0.171
Safety & Inclusivity Low 1 0.022 0.022
Accessibility Low 1 0.044 0.044
Financial High 1 0.100 0.100
Operational Moderate 3 0.099 0.297
Emergency Response Moderate 3 0.146 0.438
Service Density Moderate 3 0.022 0.066
Complexity of Ecosystem Moderate 3 0.016 0.047
Service Substitutes High 5 0.063 0.316
Service Priority High 5 0.074 0.370
Adaptability High 5 0.047 0.237
Total Score 3.09
Rank 15
41 | Page
Facility Name: Civic Complex
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 35% 2.1 0.117 0.245
Major Structural Repair Timelines Moderate 3 0.165 0.496
Proximate Hazard High 5 0.031 0.153
Site Servicing Reliability Low 1 0.021 0.021
Existing Utilization High 5 0.034 0.171
Safety & Inclusivity Moderate 3 0.022 0.066
Accessibility Low 1 0.044 0.044
Financial High 1 0.100 0.100
Operational High 5 0.099 0.496
Emergency Response High 5 0.146 0.730
Service Density Moderate 3 0.022 0.066
Complexity of Ecosystem High 5 0.016 0.078
Service Substitutes High 5 0.063 0.316
Service Priority High 5 0.074 0.370
Adaptability Moderate 3 0.047 0.142
Total Score 3.73
Rank 6
42 | Page
Facility Name: Don Beer Arena
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 42% 2.52 0.117 0.294
Major Structural Repair Timelines High 5 0.165 0.826
Proximate Hazard High 5 0.031 0.153
Site Servicing Reliability Moderate 3 0.021 0.062
Existing Utilization Low 1 0.034 0.034
Safety & Inclusivity Low 1 0.022 0.022
Accessibility Low 1 0.044 0.044
Financial High 1 0.100 0.100
Operational Moderate 5 0.099 0.496
Emergency Response Low 1 0.146 0.146
Service Density Moderate 3 0.022 0.066
Complexity of Ecosystem Low 1 0.016 0.016
Service Substitutes Moderate 3 0.063 0.189
Service Priority High 5 0.074 0.370
Adaptability High 5 0.047 0.237
Total Score 3.11
Rank 13
43 | Page
Facility Name: Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute
Total
FCI Score 28% 1.68 0.117 0.196
Major Structural Repair Timelines Moderate 3 0.165 0.496
Proximate Hazard Moderate 3 0.031 0.092
Site Servicing Reliability High 5 0.021 0.104
Existing Utilization High 5 0.034 0.171
Safety & Inclusivity High 5 0.022 0.110
Accessibility Low 1 0.044 0.044
Financial Moderate 3 0.100 0.299
Operational Low 1 0.099 0.099
Emergency Response Moderate 3 0.146 0.438
Service Density Low 1 0.022 0.022
Complexity of Ecosystem High 5 0.016 0.078
Service Substitutes Low 1 0.063 0.063
Service Priority Low 1 0.074 0.074
Adaptability Low 1 0.047 0.047
Total Score 2.61
Rank 20
44 | Page
Facility Name: Dunbarton Pool
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute
Total
FCI Score 22% 1.32 0.117 0.154
Major Structural Repair Timelines High 5 0.165 0.826
Proximate Hazard High 5 0.031 0.153
Site Servicing Reliability Moderate 3 0.021 0.062
Existing Utilization Low 1 0.034 0.034
Safety & Inclusivity High 5 0.022 0.110
Accessibility Moderate 3 0.044 0.131
Financial Moderate 3 0.100 0.299
Operational Moderate 5 0.099 0.496
Emergency Response Low 1 0.146 0.146
Service Density Low 1 0.022 0.022
Complexity of Ecosystem Low 1 0.016 0.016
Service Substitutes Low 1 0.063 0.063
Service Priority Moderate 3 0.074 0.222
Adaptability High 5 0.047 0.237
Total Score 3.11
Rank 12
45 | Page
Facility Name: East Shore Community Centre
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 43% 2.58 0.117 0.301
Major Structural Repair Timelines High 5 0.165 0.826
Proximate Hazard High 5 0.031 0.153
Site Servicing Reliability Low 1 0.021 0.021
Existing Utilization High 5 0.034 0.171
Safety & Inclusivity Moderate 3 0.022 0.066
Accessibility Moderate 3 0.044 0.131
Financial Moderate 3 0.100 0.299
Operational Moderate 3 0.099 0.297
Emergency Response Low 1 0.146 0.146
Service Density Low 1 0.022 0.022
Complexity of Ecosystem Low 1 0.016 0.016
Service Substitutes Low 1 0.063 0.063
Service Priority High 5 0.074 0.370
Adaptability Moderate 3 0.047 0.142
Total Score 3.26
Rank 10
46 | Page
Facility Name: Fire Station #1
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 0% 0 0.120 0.000
Major Structural Repair Timelines Low 1 0.247 0.247
Proximate Hazard Moderate 3 0.056 0.168
Site Servicing Reliability Low 1 0.026 0.026
Existing Utilization Moderate 3 0.065 0.194
Safety & Inclusivity Low 1 0.030 0.030
Accessibility Low 1 0.055 0.055
Financial Moderate 3 0.105 0.315
Operational High 5 0.122 0.612
Emergency Response High 5 0.173 0.867
Total Score 2.74
Rank 18
47 | Page
Facility Name: Fire Station #2
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 49% 2.94 0.120 0.352
Major Structural Repair Timelines Moderate 3 0.247 0.741
Proximate Hazard Moderate 3 0.056 0.168
Site Servicing Reliability Low 1 0.026 0.026
Existing Utilization Moderate 3 0.065 0.194
Safety & Inclusivity High 5 0.030 0.152
Accessibility High 5 0.055 0.276
Financial Low 5 0.105 0.526
Operational High 5 0.122 0.612
Emergency Response High 5 0.173 0.867
Total Score 4.26
Rank 3
48 | Page
Facility Name: Fire Station #4
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 38% 2.28 0.120 0.273
Major Structural Repair Timelines Moderate 3 0.247 0.741
Proximate Hazard Low 1 0.056 0.056
Site Servicing Reliability High 5 0.026 0.026
Existing Utilization Moderate 3 0.065 0.194
Safety & Inclusivity High 5 0.030 0.152
Accessibility High 5 0.055 0.276
Financial Low 5 0.105 0.526
Operational High 5 0.122 0.612
Emergency Response High 5 0.173 0.867
Total Score 4.07
Rank 4
49 | Page
Facility Name: Fire Station #5
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 51% 5 0.120 0.598
Major Structural Repair Timelines High 5 0.247 1.235
Proximate Hazard High 5 0.056 0.280
Site Servicing Reliability Low 1 0.026 0.026
Existing Utilization Moderate 3 0.065 0.194
Safety & Inclusivity Moderate 3 0.030 0.091
Accessibility High 5 0.055 0.276
Financial Moderate 3 0.105 0.315
Operational High 5 0.122 0.612
Emergency Response High 5 0.173 0.867
Total Score 4.78
Rank 2
50 | Page
Facility Name: Fire Station #6
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 20% 1.2 0.120 0.144
Major Structural Repair Timelines Moderate 3 0.247 0.741
Proximate Hazard Moderate 3 0.056 0.168
Site Servicing Reliability Low 1 0.026 0.026
Existing Utilization Moderate 3 0.065 0.194
Safety & Inclusivity Moderate 3 0.030 0.091
Accessibility Moderate 3 0.055 0.166
Financial Low 5 0.105 0.526
Operational High 5 0.122 0.612
Emergency Response High 5 0.173 0.867
Total Score 3.82
Rank 5
51 | Page
Facility Name: George Ashe Library & Community Centre
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 25% 1.5 0.117 0.175
Major Structural Repair Timelines Moderate 3 0.165 0.496
Proximate Hazard High 5 0.031 0.153
Site Servicing Reliability Low 1 0.021 0.021
Existing Utilization High 5 0.034 0.171
Safety & Inclusivity Moderate 3 0.022 0.066
Accessibility Low 1 0.044 0.044
Financial Moderate 3 0.100 0.299
Operational Moderate 3 0.099 0.297
Emergency Response Low 1 0.146 0.146
Service Density Low 1 0.022 0.022
Complexity of Ecosystem Moderate 3 0.016 0.047
Service Substitutes Low 1 0.063 0.063
Service Priority High 5 0.074 0.370
Adaptability Low 1 0.047 0.047
Total Score 2.65
Rank 19
52 | Page
Facility Name: Greenwood Community Centre
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 78% 5 0.117 0.583
Major Structural Repair Timelines High 5 0.165 0.826
Proximate Hazard Moderate 3 0.031 0.092
Site Servicing Reliability High 5 0.021 0.104
Existing Utilization High 5 0.034 0.171
Safety & Inclusivity High 5 0.022 0.110
Accessibility High 5 0.044 0.218
Financial Low 5 0.100 0.498
Operational Low 1 0.099 0.099
Emergency Response Low 1 0.146 0.146
Service Density High 5 0.022 0.109
Complexity of Ecosystem Low 1 0.016 0.016
Service Substitutes Low 1 0.063 0.063
Service Priority Low 1 0.074 0.074
Adaptability Low 1 0.047 0.047
Total Score 3.44
Rank 8
53 | Page
Facility Name: Greenwood Library
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 58% 5 0.117 0.583
Major Structural Repair Timelines High 5 0.165 0.826
Proximate Hazard Moderate 3 0.031 0.092
Site Servicing Reliability High 5 0.021 0.104
Existing Utilization High 5 0.034 0.171
Safety & Inclusivity Low 1 0.022 0.022
Accessibility Low 1 0.044 0.044
Financial Low 5 0.100 0.498
Operational Low 1 0.099 0.099
Emergency Response Low 1 0.146 0.146
Service Density High 5 0.022 0.109
Complexity of Ecosystem Low 1 0.016 0.016
Service Substitutes Moderate 3 0.063 0.189
Service Priority Low 1 0.074 0.074
Adaptability Low 1 0.047 0.047
Total Score 3.21
Rank 11
54 | Page
Facility Name: Mount Zion Community Centre
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 59% 5 0.117 0.583
Major Structural Repair Timelines High 5 0.165 0.826
Proximate Hazard Low 1 0.031 0.031
Site Servicing Reliability High 5 0.021 0.104
Existing Utilization High 5 0.034 0.171
Safety & Inclusivity High 5 0.022 0.110
Accessibility High 5 0.044 0.218
Financial Low 5 0.100 0.498
Operational Low 1 0.099 0.099
Emergency Response Low 1 0.146 0.146
Service Density High 5 0.022 0.109
Complexity of Ecosystem Low 1 0.016 0.016
Service Substitutes Low 1 0.063 0.063
Service Priority Low 1 0.074 0.074
Adaptability Low 1 0.047 0.047
Total Score 3.38
Rank 9
55 | Page
Facility Name: Operations Center
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 3% 0.18 0.120 0.022
Major Structural Repair Timelines Low 1 0.247 0.247
Proximate Hazard High 5 0.056 0.280
Site Servicing Reliability Low 1 0.026 0.026
Existing Utilization Low 1 0.065 0.065
Safety & Inclusivity Low 1 0.030 0.030
Accessibility Low 1 0.055 0.055
Financial High 1 0.105 0.105
Operational High 5 0.122 0.612
Emergency Response High 5 0.173 0.867
Total Score 2.40
Rank 21
56 | Page
Facility Name: Pickering Museum Village
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 14% 0.84 0.117 0.098
Major Structural Repair Timelines High 5 0.165 0.826
Proximate Hazard Moderate 3 0.031 0.092
Site Servicing Reliability Moderate 3 0.021 0.062
Existing Utilization High 5 0.034 0.171
Safety & Inclusivity High 5 0.022 0.110
Accessibility Moderate 3 0.044 0.131
Financial Moderate 3 0.100 0.299
Operational Low 1 0.099 0.099
Emergency Response Low 1 0.146 0.146
Service Density High 5 0.022 0.109
Complexity of Ecosystem Low 1 0.016 0.016
Service Substitutes Low 1 0.063 0.063
Service Priority High 5 0.074 0.370
Adaptability Moderate 3 0.047 0.142
Total Score 3.02
Rank 17
Note: FCI is based on Upper Site Storage Shed, Redman House Program Centre and Conservation Building
only. Other historic buildings on the site are not tracked by the City as capital assets.
57 | Page
Facility Name: Pickering Soccer Centre
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 2% 0.12 0.117 0.014
Major Structural Repair Timelines Low 1 0.165 0.165
Proximate Hazard High 5 0.031 0.153
Site Servicing Reliability Low 1 0.021 0.021
Existing Utilization Moderate 3 0.034 0.103
Safety & Inclusivity Moderate 3 0.022 0.066
Accessibility Low 1 0.044 0.044
Financial Moderate 3 0.100 0.299
Operational Low 1 0.099 0.099
Emergency Response Low 1 0.146 0.146
Service Density Moderate 3 0.022 0.066
Complexity of Ecosystem Low 1 0.016 0.016
Service Substitutes Moderate 3 0.063 0.189
Service Priority Moderate 3 0.074 0.222
Adaptability Moderate 3 0.047 0.142
Total Score 1.91
Rank 23
58 | Page
Facility Name: West Shore Community Centre
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 36% 2.16 0.117 0.252
Major Structural Repair Timelines Low 1 0.165 0.165
Proximate Hazard High 5 0.031 0.153
Site Servicing Reliability Low 1 0.021 0.021
Existing Utilization Moderate 3 0.034 0.103
Safety & Inclusivity Moderate 3 0.022 0.066
Accessibility Moderate 3 0.044 0.131
Financial Low 5 0.100 0.498
Operational Low 1 0.099 0.099
Emergency Response Low 1 0.146 0.146
Service Density Low 1 0.022 0.022
Complexity of Ecosystem Low 1 0.016 0.016
Service Substitutes Low 1 0.063 0.063
Service Priority Low 1 0.074 0.074
Adaptability Low 1 0.047 0.047
Total Score 2.02
Rank 22
59 | Page
Facility Name: Whitevale Arts & Culture Centre
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 115% 5 0.117 0.583
Major Structural Repair Timelines Moderate 3 0.165 0.496
Proximate Hazard Low 1 0.031 0.031
Site Servicing Reliability High 5 0.021 0.104
Existing Utilization High 5 0.034 0.171
Safety & Inclusivity High 5 0.022 0.110
Accessibility High 5 0.044 0.218
Financial Low 5 0.100 0.498
Operational Low 1 0.099 0.099
Emergency Response Low 1 0.146 0.146
Service Density High 5 0.022 0.109
Complexity of Ecosystem Low 1 0.016 0.016
Service Substitutes Low 1 0.063 0.063
Service Priority Low 1 0.074 0.074
Adaptability Low 1 0.047 0.047
Total Score 3.05
Rank 16
60 | Page
Facility Name: Whitevale Community Centre
Attribute Value Score Weight Attribute Total
FCI Score 76% 5 0.117 0.583
Major Structural Repair Timelines Moderate 3 0.165 0.496
Proximate Hazard Moderate 3 0.031 0.092
Site Servicing Reliability High 5 0.021 0.104
Existing Utilization High 5 0.034 0.171
Safety & Inclusivity High 5 0.022 0.110
Accessibility High 5 0.044 0.218
Financial Low 5 0.100 0.498
Operational Low 1 0.099 0.099
Emergency Response Low 1 0.146 0.146
Service Density High 5 0.022 0.109
Complexity of Ecosystem Low 1 0.016 0.016
Service Substitutes Low 1 0.063 0.063
Service Priority Low 1 0.074 0.074
Adaptability Low 1 0.047 0.047
Total Score 3.11
Rank 14
61 | Page
Appendix 4: Financial Analysis for Disposal of "Test Facility"
Name: Test Facility
Type: Multi-purpose Community Center
Location: Central Pickering
Size: 12,000 sq. ft.
Age: 25 years
Current Use: Hosts community gatherings, educational programs, and recreational activities.
Step 1: Commercial Appraisal for Market Value
Appraisal Objective: To ascertain the market value of Test Facility based on its highest and best use.
Appraisal Methodology: Comparative market analysis, income capitalization approach, and cost approach.
Appraisal Results:
Value as Community Center: $2.5 million, based on current use and income generation.
Value for Alternative Uses: $4 million as a mixed-use commercial property, considering location and zoning
potential.
Conclusion: The property's highest and best use is for commercial development, offering a significantly
higher market value compared to its current function.
Step 2: Operating Costs Analysis
Annual Fixed Costs: Maintenance ($75,000), Staffing ($100,000), Utilities ($25,000).
Variable Costs: Event-specific expenses, averaging $50,000 annually.
Projected Capital Expenditure: Anticipated major renovations and upgrades of $600,000 over the next 5
years.
Total 5-Year Operational Cost: Estimated at $1.75 million, including capital expenditure.
Step 3: Revenue and Utilization Analysis
Annual Revenue: Generated from facility rentals, program fees, and grants - averaging $180,000.
Utilization Rates: 70% average occupancy with peak usage during evenings and weekends.
Net Operating Income: Fluctuating, with recent years showing a decrease, current average annual net loss
of $70,000.
62 | Page
5-Year Revenue Projection: Assuming stable conditions, estimated total revenue of $900,000.
Step 4: Financial Projection upon Disposal
Potential Sale Price: Based on the appraisal, $4 million.
Debt and Liabilities Settlement: Outstanding debts and liabilities amounting to $500,000.
Net Proceeds from Sale: Estimated at $3.5 million after settling debts.
Step 5: Opportunity Cost and Community Impact Analysis
Opportunity Cost: Loss of potential revenue and community benefits from alternative higher-value
commercial use.
Community Impact: Assessment of the social and cultural value the Test Facility provides versus the
potential benefits of commercial development, such as job creation and increased commercial activity.
Step 6: Strategic and Environmental Considerations
Alignment with City’s Goals: Examining how the disposal aligns with Pickering’s long-term urban
development and community service goals.
Environmental Impact: Considering the environmental implications of continuing current operations versus
redevelopment.
Conclusion:
The financial analysis suggests that disposing of the Test Facility could be advantageous from a purely
economic standpoint, given the higher market value for commercial use. However, the decision should also
consider the potential loss of community services, the facility's current social value, and how well the disposal
aligns with the city’s strategic goals. The analysis indicates a need for a balanced approach, weighing financial
benefits against community and strategic impacts.