HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO 14-25
Report to Council
Report Number: CAO 14-25
Date: September 29, 2025
From: Marisa Caprino
Chief Administrative Officer
Subject: Seaton Recreation Complex & Library Project Update, Financial Analysis & Next
Steps
File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Report CAO 14-25 regarding the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library Project
Update, Financial Analysis & Next Steps be received;
2. That Council endor se the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library preferred base program
schematic design concept, as set out in Attachment 1, with new design modifications to
include rough-in servicing for future amenities including: outdoor washrooms, pavilion
and event space, full-size lit soccer pitch with irrigation system (to allow for construction
at a later date) at an estimated total pr oject cost of $266,365,000 (Net HST), at an
estimated gross floor area of 223,980 square feet, resulting in an estimated future
increase in property tax levy due to Seaton Recreation Complex & Library construction
costs of 6.21% due to taxpayer funded debt and additional future increase to the property
tax levy of 4.95% due to operating costs for this building for a total budget levy increase
of 11.71% and that staff be authorized to proceed to the design development and
contract document project phases sufficient to obtain building permit and issue for
procurement;
a) That staff be directed to bring forward a site-specific implementing zoning by -law
amendment for the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library to address any zoning
non-compliances, including increasing the maximum allowable building setback,
reducing minimum parking requirements, permitting parking areas between the front
lot line and the building, and any additional zoning requirements identified during the
detailed design process;
b) That the Director, Community Services and the Director, Finance & Treasurer be
authorized to issue a request for proposal (RFP) to hire a third-party project
management consultant to be funded from the project funding and contingency
approved as part of Report OPS 12-24 to supplement existing City resources and
provide support required to com plete design and tender documents, including
construction and post-construction phases through to completion of the project and
the cost be charged to the project;
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 2
c) That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to establish in 2027 an
Emergency Payment Reserve to be used to cover any DC debt payment obligation
shortfall and this reserve be funded by a $1.5 million contribution per year from the
Casino Reserve with the target reserve balance to reach 75% of the one year total
DC debt payments and that this funding strategy be included in the financial analysis
as part of the report to award the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library construction
tender; and
d) That staff be directed to decommission and declare surplus Don Beer Arena once
the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library is operational, reflecting this approach in
the capital budget forecast.
OR
3. That Council endorse the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library base program that
excludes the twin pad arena with new design modifications to include rough-in servicing
for future amenities including: outdoor washrooms, pavilion and event space, full-size lit
soccer pitch with irrigation system (to allow for construction at a later date) at an
estimated total project cost of $243,103,000 (Net HST) that also includes the additional
Don Beer Arena capital costs, resulting in a future increase in property tax levy of 1.82%
due to taxpayer funded debt for Don Beer Arena capital costs and additional future
increase to the property tax levy of 5.55% due to operating costs for this building that
results in a total budget levy impact of 7.37% and that staff be authorized to undertake
additional schematic design work, to be funded from the project funding and contingency
approved as part of Report OPS 12-24 and to be returned to Council by Q2 2026 for
approval prior to proceeding to the design development and contract document project
phases;
a) That staff be directed to bring forward a site-specific implementing zoning by -law
amendment for the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library to address any zoning
non-compliances, including increasing the maximum allowable building setback,
reducing minimum parking requirements, permitting parking areas between the front
lot line and the building, and any additional zoning requirements identified during the
detailed design process;
b) That the Director, Community Services and the Director, Finance & Treasurer be
authorized to issue a request for proposal (RFP) to hire a third-party project
management consultant to be funded from the project funding and contingency
approved as part of Report OPS 12-24 to supplement existing City resources and
provide support required to complete design and tender documents, including
construction and post-construction phases through to completion of the project and
this cost be charged to the project;
c) That Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to establish in 2027 an Emergency
Payment Reserve to be used to cover any DC Debt payment obligation shortfall and
this reserve be funded by a $1.5 million contribution per year from the Casino
Reserve with the target reserve balance to reach 75% of the one year total DC debt
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 3
payments and that this funding strategy be included in the financial analysis as part
of the report to award the SRCL construction tender; and
d) That staff be directed to proceed with the deferred maintenance of Don Beer Arena,
at an estimated cost of $23,680,000 over the next ten years, to keep the facility
operational.
OR
4. That Council direct staff to defer the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library project until
2027, with anticipated impacts of deferral resulting in:
a) The lifecycle replacement of the CHDRC Pool by 2030, resulting in pool closure for
approximately one year without an alternative aquatic facility to accommodate
approximately 6,600 registered participants in aquatics programs, over 800 swim
members, potential loss of retention to over 70 aquatics staff that are employed to
operate the pool and aquatics programs and due to the closure of this facility, results
in an estimated one-year property tax cost reduction of $731,000;
b) Capital investment of $23,680,000 in deferred maintenance of Don Beer Arena to be
included in the capital budget and forecast over the next ten years;
c) Higher Seaton Recreation Complex & Library project construction cost due to
escalation inflation and the rising cost of construction to keep it operational; and
d) Inability or limited ability to pursue future financial government grant programs for
the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library project due to project status.
5. That facility naming for any part of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library project be
deferred until Council has approved the final design and a construction contract for the
project has been awarded; and
6. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions
necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
Executive Summary: The Seaton Recreation Complex & Library (SRCL) is planned to be
Pickering’s first new recreation complex built since 1983 and will serve Pickering residents and
visitors by providing health, wellness, recreation, and library services in Pickering’s rapidly
growing Seaton community. The facility is envisioned as a vibrant community gathering place,
where people from across Pickering and beyond feel welcomed, and engaged.
Designed by Perkins & Will, SRCL will be a multi-use and multi-generational community hub
located at the re-aligned Whitevale Road (future Alexander Knox Road) & Sideline 24 (future
Burkholder Drive). In April 2025, further design development and approvals of the SRCL was
paused in accordance with Report CAO 05-25 (Resolutions #697/25, 698/25) due to the
uncertain economic conditions resulting from tariffs.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 4
As per Resolution #698/25, the purpose of this report is to:
a) provide a project update to Council, including the preferred base program schematic
design concept, updated financial information and project recommendations in Q3 2025;
b) summarize the public and stakeholder engagement process and feedback received in
relation to the proposed schematic design (Attachment 2);
c) identify potential modifications to the project scope and their related cost impacts, based
on public feedback ; and
d) seek Council’s direction regarding the design of the Seaton Recreation Complex &
Library project.
1. Consolidated Base Program Schematic Design Concept
Based on findings of the Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan (2024) and Arena Strategy (2024),
m ajor facility amenities of SRCL in the base program schematic design concept include:
Indoor amenities:
a) 25 metre, eight lane rectangular pool, plus a separate warm water pool;
b) triple gymnasium supporting basketball, pickleball, volleyball, badminton, and other
sports;
c) arena with two NHL-sized ice pads;
d) an indoor/outdoor walking track ;
e) m ulti-purpose program rooms and children’s program areas;
f) f itness centre with weight-training space and group fitness studios;
g) f ull service library;
h) administrative and office spaces; and
i) supporting spaces such as program viewing, reception area, lobby, mechanical and
storage.
O utdoor amenities:
a) f our pickleball courts;
b) two tennis courts;
c) destination playground;
d) splash pad;
e) community -size skateboard park;
f) one basketball court;
g) community gardens; and
h) approximately 500 public parking spaces, including accessible spaces.
The estimated total project cost of $266,365,000 (Net HST), that results in a future increase in
property tax levy due to SRCL construction costs of 6.21% due to taxpayer funded debt and
additional future increase to the property tax levy of 4.95% due to operating costs for this
building for a total budget levy increase of 11.71%.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 5
2. Public & Stakeholder Engagement of three Base Program Schematic Design
Concepts
Council appr ov ed the consolidated base program elements, as provided for by the Recreation
& Parks Ten Year Plan (2024) and Arena Strategy (2024) and referenced in Report OPS 12-24
to award the consulting work to Perkins & Will (Resolution #523/24). Schematic design of the
SRCL project began in July 2024. Three schematic designs were presented for public
feedback between October 1 and November 7, 2024. Each schematic design option included
the same program elements but in a different building configuration and placement on the site,
including varied parking, driveway circulation and amenity layouts.
Results indicate that Option #2 received the most votes for preferred design, garnering 442
votes. Design Option #3 received 381 votes and design Option #1 received 252 votes. As
mentioned, public feedback was consolidated into a single new preferred schematic design
concept (Design Option #4) for Council’s consideration in Recommendation #2 of this Report
(see Attachment 1).
The fourth, preferred consolidated option, was developed using community feedback obtained
on the three schematic design options. The intent was to bring together all t he best ideas
generated through the engagement, while also addressing the broadest possible range of
comments, concerns and general requests. As a significant new recreation and library facility
that will s erve all P ickering residents, it was important that the preferred design option consider
the consolidated needs of the entire community.
3. Potential Modifications to the Base Program Schematic Design Concept
Rough-In Servicing: As per Report CAO 05-25, some design changes to the base program
schematic design concept were requested by members of the public and stakeholders during
the design engagement campaign. These changes result in new program elements which
increase project costs and are not supported by recommendations in the Recreation & Parks
Ten Y ear Plan. These modifications include adding an outdoor refrigerated skating trail,
upgraded indoor walking track to accommodate running and track clubs, additional lit outdoor
pickleball courts, new outdoor soccer pitch, and an additional lit basketball court.
These changes are considered by staff to be cost prohibitive therefore Recommendations #2
and #3 reflect the preferred base program schematic design concept with new modifications
only for rough-in servicing for future outdoor washrooms, future pavilion and event space, and
full-size lit soccer pitch with irrigation system . These new modifications can be accommodated
within the estimated construction costs and will enable these new program elements to be
constructed at a later date.
Twin Pad Arena: Recommendation #3 of this report also puts forward another potential
modification, namely the removal of the twin pad arena from the preferred schematic design
concept, in order to reduce the project scope and project cost. In 2024, the City completed an
Arena Strategy that was approved by Council ( Resolution #514/24). The strategy identified
that, based on current use and demand, a provision of four indoor ice pads is sufficient to meet
current demand and a total of five ice pads will be required by 2034. As the City has five indoor
ice pads presently, there is currently a surplus of ice available. The strategy confirmed that the
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 6
construction of two new ice pads at the SRCL would not be growth related, rather intended to
replace the aging Don Beer Arena. Replacing the existing arena from another City facility
means that the new rinks at SRCL would not be related to new growth, making them ineligible
for Development Charge funding.
Removing the twin pad arena from the SRCL scope of work is the most likely means to
significantly reduce the project’s cost, and, in turn, reduce the property tax levy funded portion
of annual debt charges resulting from the project. However, employing this strategy will r equire
Don Beer Arena to remain open. Don Beer Arena was recommended to close when SRCL
opened, in keeping with the recommendations of the Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan. The
City has been limiting capital reinvestment in this aging facility as its older rinks near their
anticipated end of life, with Rink 1 having been constructed in 1967 and Rink 2 in 1972.
The total project cost of the SRCL base program that excludes the twin pad arena and with
new modifications to include rough-in servicing for future outdoor washrooms, future pavilion
and event space, and full-size lit soccer pitch with irrigation system (to allow for construction at
a later date) is estimated to be $243,103,000 (Net HST). This includes the additional Don Beer
Arena capital costs, that results in a future increase in property tax levy of 1.82% due to
taxpayer funded debt for Don Beer Arena capital c osts and additional future increase to the
property tax levy of 5.55% due to operating costs for this building that results in a total budget
levy impact of 7.37%. Note that the existing arena staff complement from Don Beer Arena is
intended to be relocated to SRCL under Recommendation #2 but would remain at Don Beer
Arena under Recommendation #3.
4. Council Direction – Three Options:
Essentially, this report sets out three options regarding the SRCL project for Council’s
consideration.
Option A (Recommendation #2): T hat Council endorse the Seaton Recreation Complex
& Library preferred base program sch ematic design concept, as set out in Attachment
1, with new design modifications for rough-in servicing for future amenities including:
outdoor washrooms, pavilion and event space, and full-size lit soccer pitch with
irrigation system (to allow for construction at a later date).
If Council appr ov es Recommendation #2 to proceed with the preferred base program
schematic design concept (Attachment 1), and directs staff to proceed with detailed design
work in preparation to tender for construction, staff would undertake these next steps to
advance the SRCL project:
• commence the detailed design development phase in accordance with the approved
base program schematic design concept;
• bring forward a site-specific implementing zoning by -law amendment to address any
zoning non-compliances;
• prepare technical drawings and specifications required for building permit, site plan and
related approvals, periodically updating cost estimates and undertak ing any value
engineering that may be required to keep within the total project budget;
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 7
• commence preparations for the decommissioning of Don Beer Arena; reflected
accordingly in future capital budget forecasts, not to be enacted until after SRCL
becomes operational;
• issue the project for construction procurement and return to Council for approval to
award the work ; and,
• select capital projects will be parked for a period of time to provide debt capacity room
from 2030 up to and including 2034 (see Table 6).
If authorized to proceed with Recommendation #2, assuming that construction was awarded
no later than early Q2, 2027, the construction of SRCL is estimated to be completed with the
facility opening to the public by 2030.
Option B (Recommendation #3): T hat Council endorse the Seaton Recreation Complex
& Library base program that EXCLUDES the twin pad arena with new design
modifications to include rough-in servicing for future amenities including: outdoor
washrooms, pavilion and event space, and full-size lit soccer pitch with irrigation
system (to allow for construction at a later date).
If Council approves Recommendation #3 to exclude the twin pad arena from the preferred
base schematic design concept, staff would undertake these next steps to advance the SRCL
project:
• develop a new schematic design to eliminate the twin pad arena from the design;
• engage stakeholder groups on the proposed modifications to the project scope;
• assess secondary impacts, such as projected levels of service, referencing the
objectives of the Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan and the Arena Strategy ;
• revise the capital forecast budget to reflect the continued operation of Don Beer Arena
with an estimated deferred maintenance of $23,680,000 over the next 10 years;
• undertake a complete gut renovation of Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation
Complex (CHDRC) indoor pool by 2030 resulting in its closure for approximately one
year and reduced capacity to accommodate existing pool users. Aquatics staffing levels
and programs would be reduced accordingly ; and
• select capital projects will be parked for a period of time to provide debt capacity room
from 2030 up to and including 2034 (see Table 6).
If authorized to proceed with Recommendation #3, assuming that schematic design was
authorized by Council to proceed with design development and production of contract
documents by Q2, 2026, and the construction of SRCL was awarded in early 2028, the
construction of SRCL is estimated to be completed with the facility opening to the public by
2031.
Option C (Recommendation #4): That Council direct staff to defer the Seaton
Recreation Complex & Library project until 2027.
If Council approves Recommendation #4 to defer the SRCL project until 2027 , staff would
undertake the next steps:
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 8
• immediately shutter the existing project, settling and closing any outstanding purchase
orders and accounts;
• revise the capital forecast budget to reflect the continued operation of Don Beer Arena
with an estimated deferred maintenance of $23,680,000 over the next 10 years;
• undertake a complete gut renovation of CHDRC indoor pool by 2030 resulting in its
closure for approximately one year , and a reduced capacity to accommodate existing
pool users. Aquatics staffing levels and programs would be reduced accordingly.
• assess secondary impacts, such as potential reductions to existing and projected levels
of service, referencing the objectives of the Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan and
other relevant strategic documents; and
• return a report to Council in 2027 with project recommendations.
Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond
to the Pickering Strategic Priorities to Champion Economic Leadership & Innovation; Advocate
for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; Advance Innovation & Responsible
Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community; Lead & Advocate for
Environmental Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency; Strengthen Existing & Build New
Partnerships; and, Foster an Engaged & Informed Community .
Financial Implications: This section will focus on the comparison of the three options from
a financial lens taking into consideration the following critical factors:
a) Debt & ARL
b) Budget Levy Impact of Budget Options
c) Director Finance & Treasurer Recommendation
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 9
Table One provides a comparison of Option A (Recommendation #2) and Option B
(Recommendation #3).
Table One
Non-Financial Summary & Comparison Option A & Option B
Option A
Recommendation #2
Option B
Recommendation #3
Project Size (Square Feet) 223,980 To Be Determined
Features 25 metre - 8 lane pool 25 metre - 8 lane pool
Triple gymnasium Triple gymnasium
2- new NHL Sized ice pads No new ice pads
Close Don Beer Arena
Keep Don Beer Arena Open - 3 rinks
3rd ice pad extra 1,625 prime time hrs.
Track Indoor/outdoor Indoor/outdoor
Fitness Centre Floor Area 9,000 Sq. Ft. 9,000 Sq. Ft.
Library 30,000 Sq. Ft 30,000 Sq. Ft
Office Space 10,000 Sq. Ft 10,000 Sq,. FT
Est. Construction Start Date May 1, 2027 May 1, 2028
Est. Public Opening Date July 1, 2030 July 1, 2031
Site Area Less parking spaces - savings of $1.2 m.
& Parking
Design Completion $7.15 Million $7.40 Million
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 10
Table Two provides a financial summary of the two options.
Table Two
Financial Summary & Comparison Option A & Option B
Expenses:
Option A
Recommendation 2
Option B
Recommendation 3 Change
Rec Centre 159,009,210 $ 180,365,706 $ (21,356,496) $
Library 40,369,790 39,057,294 1,312,496
Arena 66,986,000 -66,986,000
Sub-Total 266,365,000 $ 219,423,000 $ 46,942,000 $
Don Beer Arena -23,680,000 (23,680,000) $
Total 266,365,000 $ 243,103,000 $ 23,262,000 $
Funding: Option A Option B Change
DC -Library 18,028,665 $ 18,028,665 $ -$
DC -Parks & Rec 29,568,129 29,568,129 -
DC Debt P&R-20Yr 125,465,851 146,288,434 20,822,584 -
DC Debt Library -20Yr 21,331,880 20,052,197 1,279,684
Seaton FIA 4,984,475 5,485,575 501,100 -
City Debt -20Yr 66,986,000 23,680,000 43,306,000
Total 266,365,000 $ 243,103,000 $ 23,262,000 $
---
The above information includes construction, design, contingency , library collections and
furniture, fixtures and equipment costs. A Class D cost estimate provided by A.W. Hooker
Quantity Surveyors, dated June 17, 2025, was used to develop the cost figures as presented
in Table Two. The accuracy of a Class D estimate can vary widely as information available to
the estimator remains superficial and limited at the schematic design stage. A 20% design
c ontingenc y was incorporated in the above figures to offset overall project cost increases and
related risks. The above costs are in 2026 dollars, including inflation and escalation factors for
award at the end of that calendar year and for material costs that would be made throughout
the construction period by the contractor.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 11
Table Three provides a funding summary by components for the two options.
Table Three
Financing Comparison by Funding Source by Components
Option A
Recommendation 2
Option B
Recommendation 3 Change
Expenses: 159,009,210 $ 180,365,706 $ (21,356,496) $
Funding:
DC -Parks & Rec 29,568,129 $ 29,568,129 $ -$
DC Debt P&R-20Yr 125,465,851 146,288,434 20,822,584 -
Seaton FIA 3,975,230 4,509,143 533,912 -
Total 159,009,210 $ 180,365,706 $ (21,356,496) $
---
Library
Option A Option B Change
Expenses: 40,369,790 $ 39,057,294 $ 1,312,496 $
Funding:
DC -Library 18,028,665 $ 18,028,665 $ -$
DC Debt Library -20Yr 21,331,880 20,052,197 1,279,684
Seaton FIA 1,009,245 976,432 32,812
Total 40,369,790 $ 39,057,294 $ 1,312,496 $
.
DC Rec Complex 125,465,851 $ 146,288,434 $
DC Library 21,331,880 20,052,197
Total DC Debt 146,797,731 $ 166,340,631 $
Twin Pad Arena (Taxpayer) 66,986,000 0
Sub Total 213,783,731 $ 166,340,631 $
Add:
Don Beer (Taxpayer) 0 23,680,000
Total Project Debt 213,783,731 $ 190,020,631 $
Total Debt Financial Summary
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 12
Table Four provides a reconciliation between the removal of the twin pad arena under Option
A and the additional expenditures associated with Don Beer arena and related construction
costs.
Table Four
Reconciliation of Option B Savings with the Removal of Twin Pad Arena
Removal of Twin Pad Arena (Savings) 66,986,000 $
Less:
Don Beer Arena Capital Improvements 23,680,000 -$
Higher construction costs 20,044,000 -43,724,000 -
Total Estimated Savings 23,262,000 $
Deleting the twin pad arena requires substantial rework of the existing SRCL building
design. Anecdotally, it is not simply a matter of deleting a window in a wall. Something must fill
the void left by its absence. Eliminating the arena from the SRCL project will r educe the overall
footprint of the building, but areas that were previously interior space and will r equire exterior
walls. Structural, electrical, mechanical and architectural systems throughout the rest of the
building must be modified, often requiring compensating construction.
Some economy of scale is typically lost as building size is reduced. The footprint where the
arena was to be located would also need to be graded, landscaped and repurposed to
integrate into the rest of the site. All of these factors incur costs that offset potential savings.
The values used in this report were provided as part of the cost estimate prepared by A.W.
Hooker and include compensating construction. Deleting the twin pad arena from SRCL will
also require Don Beer Arena to remain open, which is an aging facility with a significant
backlog of deferred maintenance.
Table Five provides a high-level breakdown by year of the major investments required to keep
Don Beer Arena operational.
Table Five
Don Beer Arena Capital Project Summary by Year
Project Estimated
Project Description Years Costs
Parking Lot Replacement 2027-2029 4,322,000 $
Rink 1 Retrofit + Roof Replacement 2027-2028 7,863,000
Rink 2 Retrofit 2033-2034 4,950,000
Rink 3 Retrofit 2028-2029 4,450,000
Other 2,095,000
Total 23,680,000 $
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 13
Additional arena renovations are also required in O’Brien Arena at the CHDRC in the next five
years. Timing of these projects must be aligned to ensure that the City maintains a sufficient
number of rinks to meet level of service expectations.
Debt & Debt Capacity/Annual Repayment Limit (ARL)
The Municipal Act through Regulation 403/02 permits a maximum of 25 percent of net
operating revenues to be used to fund principal and interest charges for debt. For Pickering,
the net operating revenues consists of the following major items:
• property tax revenue;
• user fees and charges;
• fines, penalties and interest on taxes;
• license fees, permit fees and rent;
• gaming and casino revenues.
Every year, as the budget levy increases, the City’s annual repayment limit increases, and in-
turn results in a higher ARL. Over the last seven years, the City has maintained a steady
course as it relates to debt use and has maintained its debt level below 5 percent of the
maximum allowed of 25 percent. The financial strategy of being prudent and cautious has
served the City well as it relates to its management of debt.
Financial Impact of SRCL on the City’s Long Term Financial Plan
At the Council meeting of April 22, 2025, Report CAO 05-25 presented a debt capacity usage
that exceeded the City’s old and new debt capacity guidelines. Starting in 2032, the City would
have exceed Provincial mandated ARL of 25%. The Capital Budget and forecast included
SRCL and other major capital projects.
Staff have developed another approach that is now incorporated into the debt capacity usage
analysis whereby major capital projects identified for the years 2030 up-to and including 2034
would be parked for the years 2035 to 2037. Under this strategy and recognizing that the
SRCL project has been identified as Council’s top priority (Report FIN 01-24, Resolution
#379/24). Parking these projects provides debt capacity room from 2030 up to and including
2034. In other words, in its simplest approach, you put the biggest item in the box and then try
to accommodate the other capital projects. The strategy was that the Council of the Day, would
then select capital projects from the Parked List in an appropriate year that maintains the debt
capacity analysis below the 15% guideline.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 14
Table Six includes the parked capital project list.
Table Six
Parked Capital Project List (Estimated Costs)
The chart below is based on the financial i nformation from the City’s preliminary 2026 draft
capital budget and corresponding draft capital forecast. In addition, senior staff used the
recently approved 2025 DC Study as a cost input for the draft 2026 capital and forecast
budget.
Chart One
Option A (with Twin Pad Arena) Debt Capacity/ARL Preliminary Projection (2026 to
2034)
30.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
0.00%
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
ARL Council Guideline ARL 2026 Draft Capital Budget Stronger Assessment Growth
The slope of the above lines are sensitive to interest rates, level of assessment growth and
final capital project costs. In addition, the Council approved budget levy will also impact the
debt capacity calculation.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 15
The above graph reflects the draft strategy of dividing the debt requirements into two separate
issuances. The first bond would be issued on or around July 2027 and the second bond July
2028. The borrowing amount for this project is large ($213.8 million in 2026 dollars), and the
City through Durham Region has to use a different financial product for borrowing purposes.
The City/Region will be using a bullet bond financial product in contrast to a serial bond.
Under Option A (Recommendation #2), for both assessment growth lines, the City is above its
debt capacity guideline (of 15%), and the debt capacity usage excludes any of the projects
from the Parked List.
Chart Two
Option B (excludes Twin Pad Arena) Debt Capacity/ARL Preliminary Projection
(2026 to 2034)
Although the financial picture is better for Option B (Recommendation #3), in contrast to Option
A (Recommendation #2), the City can find itself above the 15% debt capacity guideline and as
stated above, and its ability to fund the projects from the Parked List will be challenging.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 16
Option A & B - Budget Levy Impact
Table Seven presents a high-level budget levy impact for the Option A or Recommendation #2
(with twin pad arena).
Table Seven Option A (with Twin Pad Arena) Budgetary Levy Projection
2027 2028 2029 2030
1 Base Increase 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50%
2 Fire Hall #5 New Firefighters (5 per year) 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58%
3 Asset Management (AM) 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%
4 Sub Total 5.08% 5.08% 5.08% 5.08%
5 Add:
6 Est. Assessment Growth -2.25% -2.25% -2.25% -2.25%
7 Indexing of AM Res. & RF 0.36% 0.36% 0.36% 0.36%
8 City Base Budget 3.19% 3.19% 3.19% 3.19%
9 Other Factors:
10 Enrichment/Expansion Service Levels NA NA ? ?
11 Estimated DCHC Carryforward 0.75%
12 Estimated Assessment Challenges ?
13 Estimated Possible Re-Assessment Impact ?
14 Estimated SRCL Operating Costs 1.85% 1.85% 1.85%
15 Estimated SRCL Naming Rights Revenues -0.22%
16 Estimated Don Beer Arena Closing -Saving Costs -0.60%
17 Est. SRCL (Arena) Debt Charges 0.82% 3.87% 1.52%
18 New Taxpayer Funded Debt 4.24% 2.00% 1.35% 1.90%
19 Estimated Total Projected Budget Levy 9.00% 10.91% 7.91% 6.12%
Est. Average Levy Increase Per Year 8.48%
The above table provides a high-level estimate of the possible budget levy impacts associated
with Option A (Recommendation #2). Council and the Mayor have the authority to adjust the
expenditure options as outlined above to reduce or phase the budgetary levy impact.
• Line #2 includes the additional staffing required to add an additional crew for Fire Hall #5 as
recommended by the Fire Master Plan.
• Line #3 reflects the additional investment required for asset management to address the
asset management annual funding gap of $32.8 million.
• Line #7 addresses a funding strategy shortfall as relates to critical assets funded by
reserves and reserve funds. Every year, many municipalities increase their funding for
critical reserves and reserve funds to maintain their buying power to offset the impacts of
inflation.
• Line #10 is recommending a service level freeze for the years 2027 and 2028 due to
projected budget levy with possible consideration for 2029 and 2030.
• Line #11 reflects the annualized costs of opening the Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre
in 2026 being carried forward into 2027.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 17
• Line #12 relates to possible assessment challenges that the City may face that may result
in a loss of property tax revenues.
• Line #13 reflects the issue that the last province-wide MPAC re-assessment was in 2016,
with a valuation date of January 1, 2016, a date that continues to be used for the 2025
property tax year. The scheduled 2020 reassessment was postponed by the Ontario
government due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent postponements have kept
property assessments based on the 2016 values. Based on historic re-assessment activity,
if and when a re-assessment occurs, there may be a shift in property tax liability that
allocates additional cost to the residential property tax class.
• Line #14 includes the strategy of smoothing the cost pressure for opening this facility from
a budget levy perspective. There is the option of either allocating the cost between two
years or budgeting the full amount of 5.55% in 2030.
Table Eight presents a high-level budget levy impact for Option B or Recommendation #3
(excludes twin pad arena).
Table Eight
Option B (excludes Twin Pad Arena) Budget Levy Projections
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Base Increase
Fire Hall #5 New Firefighters (5 per year)
Asset Management (AM)
Sub Total
Add:
Est. Assessment Growth
Indexing of AM Res. & RF
City Base Budget
Other Factors:
Enrichment/Expansion Service Levels
Estimated DCHC Carry forward
Estimated Assessment Challenges
Estimated Possible Re-Assessment Impact
Estimated SRCL Operating Costs
Estimated SRCL Naming Rights Revenues
Don Beer Arena - Debt Costs
New Debt (other projects)
Total
2027
3.50%
0.58%
1.00%
5.08%
-2.25%
0.36%
3.19%
NA
0.75%
?
?
0.14%
4.56%
8.63%
2028
3.50%
0.58%
1.00%
5.08%
-2.25%
0.36%
3.19%
0.46%
2.00%
5.64%
2029
3.50%
0.58%
1.00%
5.08%
-2.25%
0.36%
3.19%
1.85%
0.63%
1.35%
7.01%
2030
3.50%
0.58%
1.00%
5.08%
-2.25%
0.36%
3.19%
1.85%
0.00%
1.90%
6.94%
2031
3.50%
2.00%
5.50%
-2.25%
0.36%
3.61%
1.85%
-0.22%
0.03%
0.00%
5.27%
2032
3.50%
2.00%
5.50%
-2.25%
0.36%
3.61%
0.00%
0.22%
3.83%
2033
3.50%
2.00%
5.50%
-2.25%
0.36%
3.61%
0.04%
0.00%
3.65%
2034
3.50%
2.00%
5.50%
-2.25%
0.36%
3.61%
0.52%
0.39%
4.53%
The financial capital investments required for Don Beer Arena extend up to and including 2034
and that is why the above table is shown to 2034. Under Option B, there is budget levy room
for consideration of enrichment and or expansion of service levels.
In May of this year, Council approved Report FIN 10-25 which was the City’s Asset
Management Plan. To meet the City’s capital replacement and rehabilitation needs for existing
infrastructure, prevent infrastructure backlogs and achieve long-term sustainability, the City’s
average annual capital requirements (2025 dollars) should be $61.7 million. Based on the
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 18
City’s annual contribution for funding capital, there is an annual funding gap of $32.8 million.
Line #3 addresses the funding gap by introducing an annual levy increase of an addition 1.0%
for 2027 to 2030 and 2% from 2031 and on. Using this strategy, the City would have
addressed the current funding gap by 2043.
Treasurer Recommendations
SRCL is a project that would benefit Pickering residents for at least sixty years. However, it
comes with a very high cost and consumes a high percentage of the City’s debt capacity.
While SRCL promises significant long-term benefits for Pickering, allocating a substantial
portion of the City's debt capacity to a single major project carries considerable risks which are:
• Increased Financial Risk: Large-scale projects, especially those at the schematic design
stage, are vulnerable to cost overruns, delays, or unforeseen complications. If SRCL
exceeds its budget when the project is tendered, the City would be forced to cut other
services, raise taxes, or incur additional borrowing, compounding the financial s train.
• Opportunity Cost: By dedicating so much debt capacity to SRCL, the City may have to
defer or forgo other important capital projects. This could impact road repairs, facility
upgrades, or new initiatives that are also critical to residents’ safety and quality of life.
• Budgetary Pressure: High debt servicing costs can place ongoing pressure on operating
budgets, potentially leading to reduced service levels or increased levies to cover interest
and principal repayments.
• Risk of Unanticipated Changes: Given the long-term nature of the SRCL project and its
debt payments (20 years), changes in demographics, usage patterns, or community
priorities may occur, potentially resulting in a facility that may not fully meet future needs or
expectations.
• Reduced Financial Flexibility: Committing a high percentage of debt capacity to one project
limits the City's ability to respond to future needs or emergencies. Should unexpected
infrastructure demands, Provincial regulatory changes, or economic downturns arise, the
City may lack the borrowing power or be financially challenged to address these negative
situations promptly and effectively.
Financial flexibility is critical for Pickering because it enables the City to respond effectively to
unexpected challenges or opportunities. With sufficient borrowing power and uncommitted
financial r esources, Pickering would have the opportunity to address urgent infrastructure
repairs, adapt to future Provincial regulatory changes, or invest in new initiatives that arise
without delay. This flexibility ensures that essential services can be maintained and that the
community's evolving needs are met, even in the face of economic downturns or unforeseen
uncontrollable negative events. Without financial flexibility, Pickering may struggle to manage
emergencies or capitalize on beneficial projects, potentially compromising residents' quality of
life and long-term community growth.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 19
Option A (Recommendation #2) or Option B (Recommendation #3), both use debt capacity
that exceeds the City’s guideline of 15%. The City’s financial guideline for debt capacity usage
strikes a balance between financial r isk and financial flexibility. A 15% debt capacity usage
guideline helps in managing the City debt more effectively. It reduces the risk of over -
leveraging and ensures that the City does not take on more debt than it can repay. This
prudent and conservative approach to debt management can pr event financial strain and
reduce pressure on future levy increases. While recognizing that DC debt is paid for from
future development, any economic slowdown, increasing mortgage rates that results in a
decrease in new development, or Provincial l egislation that either reduces or caps DC rates,
creates the situation whereby the City may have to cover any DC fee shortfall.
For the above noted reasons and considering the debt usage of both options, plus the other
capital projects that are on the “parked list (2035+),” the Treasurer does not recommend either
option A or B. Option B is better for the City due to the fact it uses less debt and it provides an
additional rink (albeit older and not NHL sized) that provides 1,625 hours of prime-time ice to
meet potential unanticipated demand. The City completed its arena study in 2024 and these
studies usually have a shelf life of ten years. By 2030, the arena study data/conclusion would
be six years old and the demand for ice could either be higher or lower than originally
projected six years ago. If the City selected Option A, and if the demand for ice was higher –
the City wouldn’t have the debt capacity to now construct an additional two ice pad facility.
Under Option A, investments to Don Beer Arena would be kept at a bare minimum and you
would be looking at substantial investments to suddenly bring additional rink capacity. Option
B should be viewed as an insurance policy from a rink usage demand perspective that
provides the City the flexibility to meet unanticipated demand.
Recommendation 2b or 3b
If Council el ects either Recommendation #2 or #3, Council s hould hire a third-party project
management consultant to supplement and support existing internal staff resources. This
project manager would collaborate with City staff, architects and engineers to ensure that the
project's design is feasible, practical, and aligns with the budget and schedule. The added
presence of a project management consultant also reduces the City’s risk by providing
additional redundancy and continuing in the case of sudden staffing changes, while providing
administrative support by facilitating the distribution and management of essential project
documents. Their goal is to prevent project issues that could lead to costly changes during
construction and ensure a smooth transition from design to construction.
Should Council appr ove Recommendation 2b or 3b, staff will issue a separate request for
proposal process for these services. Engagement of project management consulting services
is best timed as the project transitions from design development to construction documents, as
workload and technical complexity significantly increase at this stage. Early involvement also
ensures that the project management consultant is aware of key design decisions and intent
prior to award of construction and can therefore assist during the procurement process.
Recommendation 2c or 3c
Table Nine presents the annual DC debt payments for this project.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 20
Table Nine
SRCL Estimated Annual DC Debt Payments (20 Year Debt)
Option A Option B
Rec Complex 11,415,200 13,309,700
Library 1,940,800 1,824,400
Total 13,356,000 15,134,100
In addition to the above DC debt payments, the City also has DC debt from earlier capital
projects such as the Operations Centre (Clements Road), Fire Station 1 and Headquarters
(Zents Drive) and Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre (DCHC .) The total annual DC debt
payments for these projects is $1.83 million. Lessons learned from the last ten months are
that uncontrollable negative events, both national and international, can have a direct or
indirect impact on the City that in-turn can impact future DC fees collected.
When there is a shortfall in the collection of DC fees, the first step would be try to borrow from
other DC reserve fund components. However, several DC components are already in or near a
deficit situation and therefore, the City’s ability to borrow from within the DC family may be
limited. Recommendation 2d or 3d establishes an emergency payment reserve to address any
possible shortfall in collected DC fees. By employing this strategy, the City will now have
“Time” to plan and address the negative event that caused the DC fee revenue shortfall.
Discussion: The SRCL is planned to be Pickering’s first new recreation complex built since
1983 and will serve Pickering residents and visitors by providing health, wellness, recreation,
and library services in Pickering’s rapidly growing Seaton community. The facility is envisioned
as a vibrant community gathering place, where people from across Pickering and beyond feel
welcomed and engaged. Designed by Perkins & Will, SRCL will be a multi-use and multi-
generational community hub located at the re-aligned Whitevale Road (future Alexander Knox
Road) & Sideline 24 (future Burkholder Drive).
As per Resolution #698/25, the purpose of this report is to:
a) provide a project update to Council, including the preferred base program schematic
design concept, updated financial information and project recommendations in Q3 2025;
b) summarize the public and stakeholder engagement process and feedback received in
relation to the proposed schematic design (Attachment 2);
c) identify potential modifications to the project scope and their related cost impacts, based
on public feedback; and
d) seek Council’s direction regarding the design of the Seaton Recreation Complex &
Library project.
As directed by Council, the SRCL project has advanced to completion of the schematic design
project phase. A decision to proceed to the next project phase will include undertaking detailed
design development, leading into preparation of contract documents sufficient to obtain
building permit, site and other related approvals, leading towards issuance of procurement
documents for construction. A decision to proceed with the SRCL design would advance the
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 21
consulting work to approximately 60% of its overall value, as awarded through Report OPS 12-
24. The award of construction would return to Council in approximately Q 2 2027 for approval
following the construction procurement process.
Due to the significant financial commitment this project represents, three options have been
provided for consideration:
Option A (Recommendation #2)
That Council endorse the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library preferred base program
schematic design concept, as set out in Attachment 1, with new modifications for
rough-in servicing for future amenities including: outdoor washrooms, pavilion and
event space, and full-size lit soccer pitch with irrigation system (to allow for
construction at a later date).
If Council approv es Recommendation #2 to proceed with the preferred base program
schematic design concept (Attachment 1), and directs staff to proceed with detailed design
work in preparation to tender for construction, staff would undertake these next steps to
advance the SRCL project:
• commence the detailed design development phase in accordance with the approved
base program schematic design concept;
• bring forward a site-specific implementing zoning by -law amendment to address any
zoning non-compliances;
• prepare technical drawings and specifications required for building permit, site plan and
related approvals, periodically updating cost estimates and undertaking any value
engineering that may be required to keep within the project budget;
• c ommence preparations for the decommissioning of Don Beer Arena; reflected
accordingly in future capital budget forecasts, not to be enacted until after SRCL
becomes operational;
• issue the project for construction procurement and return to Council for approval to
award the work ; and
• select capital projects will be parked for a period of time to provide debt capacity room
from 2030 up to and including 2034 (see Table 6).
If authorized to proceed with Recommendation #2, assuming that construction was awarded
no later than the end of Q1, 2027, the construction of SRCL is estimated to be completed with
the facility opening to the public by 2030.
Minor additional consulting costs are expected to apply to this recommendation, related to
additional rough-in servicing required for services identified for through the public consultation
process and as a result of pausing the work since last April. These costs are expected to fall
within the available contingency approved by Report OPS 12-24.
Option B (Recommendation #3)
That Council endorse the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library base program design
elements that EXCLUDES the twin pad arena with new modifications for to include
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 22
rough-in servicing for future amenities including: outdoor washrooms, pavilion and
event space, and full-size lit soccer pitch with irrigation system (to allow for
construction at a later date).
If Council approves Recommendation #3 to eliminate the arena from the base program design
elements, staff would undertake these next steps to advance the SRCL project:
• develop a new schematic design to eliminate the twin pad arena from the design;
• engage stakeholder groups on the proposed modifications to the project scope;
• assess secondary impacts, such as projected levels of service, referencing the
objectives of the Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan and the Arena Strategy;
• revise the capital forecast budget to reflect the continued operation of Don Beer Arena
with an estimated deferred maintenance of $23,680,000 over the next 10 years;
• undertake a complete gut renovation of CHDRC indoor pool by 2030 resulting in its
closure for approximately one year and reduced capacity to accommodate existing pool
users. Aquatics staffing levels and programs would be reduced accordingly; and
• select capital projects will be parked for a period of time to provide debt capacity room
from 2030 up to and including 2034 (see Table 6).
If authorized to proceed with Recommendation #3, assuming that schematic design was
authorized to proceed with design development and production of contract documents by Q2,
2026, and the construction of SRCL was awarded in early 2028, is estimated to be c ompleted
with the facility opening to the public by 2031.
Additional consulting costs are expected to apply to this recommendation and are expected to
fall within the available contingency approved by Report OPS 12-24.
Option C (Recommendation #4)
That Council direct staff to defer the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library project until
2027.
If Council appr oves Recommendation #4 to defer the SRCL project until 2027, staff would
undertake the next steps:
• immediately shutter the existing project, settling and closing any outstanding purchase
orders and accounts;
• revise the capital forecast budget to reflect the continued operation of Don Beer Arena
with an estimated deferred maintenance of $23,680,000 over the next 10 years;
• undertake a complete gut renovation of CHDRC indoor pool by 2030 resulting in its
closure for approximately one year and a reduced capacity to accommodate existing
pool users. Aquatics staffing levels and programs would be reduced accordingly ;
• assess secondary impacts, such as potential reductions to existing and projected levels
of service, referencing the objectives of the Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan and
other relevant strategic documents; and
• return a report to Council i n 2027 with project recommendations.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 23
Should Council dec ide to resume the project in 2027, additional consulting costs may apply to
re-mobilize the current team . Should a new RFP be required, it could take up to six months to
engage a new consulting team.
1. Decision History
a) Report FIN 01-24 (Resolution #379/24) was presented to Council i n January, 2024
regarding capital pr oject priorities. SRCL was approved as the first Capital Budget priority
at an estimated total pr oject cost of $242,970,000.00 (design, construction, and furniture &
fixtures, in 2024 dollars).
b) Report OPS 12-24 (Resolution #523/24) was presented to Council in June, 2024 to award
the consulting services for the SRCL to Perkins & Will, with a total net project cost for
design of the SRCL of $9,021,024.00.
a. As part of the resolution, Council directed the Chief Administrative Officer to provide
operational and financial updat es on the progress of the SR CL project, to be
delivered on the following schedule: December 2024, June 2025, and every six
months thereafter, continuing until the project achieves substantial performance.
b. Additionally, Council di rected staff to proceed with the planning and design of the
SRCL based on the recommendations of the Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan and
the Arena Strategy. These strategic documents will s erve as the foundation for
determining the facility’s design and the range of amenities to be included. Council
directed staff to explore the feasibility of including a refrigerated outdoor ice pad as a
potential outdoor amenity. If viable, this feature should be considered for integration
with the proposed splash pad, to maximize functionality and year -round community
use of the space.
c) Report CS 15-24 (Resolution #514/24) was presented to Council i n June, 2024 to approve
the Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan and Arena Strategy, which identified the following
core amenities for this facility based on the inventory of existing recreation assets and
community demand:
• An indoor aquatics c entre, including a 25-metre lane rectangular pool with six to
eight lanes plus a separate leisure / therapeutic pool;
• A triple gymnasium that is designed to an appropriate specification including
adequate playout dimensions, ceiling heights, flooring, and support amenities;
• A f itness c entre including a training club with weight-training space and group
fitness studios;
• M ulti-purpose rooms for meetings, programs, and gatherings that enable a
flexible range of community uses;
• An arena with two NHL-size ice pads;
• An indoor walking track;
• Outdoor spaces including a destination playground, skate park and more;
• A library with space needs that meet the requirements of the 2023 Pickering
Public Library Facilities Plan; and
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 24
• General spaces for casual activity, change rooms, washrooms, storage, office
space, etc.
d) Report CS 26-24 (Resolution #473/24) was presented to Council i n September, 2024.
Council appr oved that staff explore the naming of the gymnasium in the SRCL as the
Wayne Arthurs gymnasium subject to undertaking the work outlined in the City Property
Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006).
e) Report CS 30-24 (Resolution #578/24) was presented to Council in September, 2024.
Council approved that staff make a capital f unding grant application to the Green and
Inclusive Community Building (GICB) Program: New Build Project for the SRCL. The
GICB funds up to 50 percent of eligible costs for new build projects that exceed $10
million in total el igible expenses. The City submitted an application in October 2024
requesting $25 million toward the project.
f) Report CAO 06-24 (Resolution #632/24) was presented to Council i n December, 2024
and provided a semi-annual project update including an update on site works and land
acquisition, completed community engagement activities, and the operating budget and
progr amming model. By December, 2024, three schematic design options were
developed by Perkins & Will. A community engagement campaign was launched for a
five-week period to collect feedback on the three schematic design options.
g) Report CAO 05-25 (Resolution #698/25) was presented to Council i n April, 2025 and
paused the approval and further development of proposed design of the project due to a
challenging economic climate. In addition, the City’s Treasurer also identified the high
level of debt and corresponding high annual debt charges that the City would be
responsible for when considering this project and other debt financed projects within the
next ten years. The findings of the completed public engagement process were also
provided.
h) Report CS 06-25 (Resolution #709/25) was presented to Council i n April, 2025 and
awarded consulting services for geotechnical and hydrological reports and
environmental investigation for the SRCL to DS Consultants Ltd. Backfill operations of
the 25-acre site where the SRCL will be located commenced in 2024. Rough grading,
bearing performing targets and soil quality requirements were provided by Perkins &
Will and issued to the contractor completing the backfill work. The geotechnical and
hydrological reports and environmental investigation services are required to ensure the
quality of the site materials and was timely to protect the City’s interests as site
backfilling had begun by the developer who currently owns the property .
i) Report CAO 06-25 (Resolution #738/25) was presented to Council i n May, 2025. Staff
recommended additional design work be completed to create an alternative design and
reduced project cost option not exceeding $200,000,000.00 (in 2025 $CAD), and for the
alternative design and reduced project cost option to be returned to Council in
September, 2025. The alternative design would remove the twin pad arena from the
project scope. This recommendation was not approved by Council.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 25
2. Schematic Design Development
Design of the SRCL project began in July 2024 with public engagement taking place from
October 1 to November 7, 2024. Three schematic design options, including the same program
elements but in various configurations, were presented for public feedback which was
collected and consolidated into a single new hybrid schematic design concept for Council’s
approval. The intent being to bring together all of the best ideas generated through the
consultation, while also addressing the broadest possible range of comments, concerns and
general requests. As a significant new recreation and library facility that will s erve all P ickering
residents, it must consider the needs of the entire community.
The public and stakeholder design feedback was considered and resulted in a fourth option
which is the preferred base program schematic design concept, set out in Attachment 1. It
includes the same complement of site and facility amenities included in all three options
presented as part of the public engagement process in fall, 2024 with key design changes.
Notable changes included requests for additional site amenities, and increased capacity to
certain interior features, such as the number of lanes for the pool and running track . The
placement of major interior elements (pool, gymnasium, arena and library) was also arranged
to maximize operational efficiency.
Many of the project details, including interior layouts, specific room sizes, orientation, products,
finishes and other related refinements will be developed in detail during the design
development stage to follow. Allowance for any further design changes through refinement
from the schematic design to future stages is reflected in the design c ontingency shown in the
estimated project costs.
Several c hanges to the functional pr ogram, stemming from the engagement process, have not
been incorporated in this design option but are described in this report with related cost
impacts for Council’s information.
3. Sustainability and Energy Management
RFP 2024-7 for consulting services for this project, as awarded by Report OPS 12-24, required
that the SRCL be designed as a Net Zero Carbon Design (NZC) facility, in accordance with the
standards established by the Canadian Green Building Council (CaGBC). SRCL will be the
most significant facility building project undertaken in the City’s recent history and is expected
to remain a City asset for at least 60 years. Decisions made now will af fect its energy profile
and operating costs for decades to come, including meeting greenhouse gas emission targets
set by the City’s 2024-2029 Corporate Energy Management Plan.
Achieving NZC carries minor additional capital costs, typically in the range of five to ten
percent, but the operating costs of a facility over its life always eclipses its construction cost.
Building better, up front, is worthwhile if it helps reduce the long-term operating costs of the
building, reducing the related and ongoing burden on taxpayers. The initial cost premiums can
also be further mitigated by careful selection and specification of systems and products ahead
of construction, which will remain a top priority as design advances. The cost of constructing
the SRCL to meet these intentions is already included in the project cost estimates contained
in this report.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 26
In accordance with Report CS 30-24, the City submitted an application to the latest intake for
the GICB Program in late 2024. Candidate projects must be designed to NZC Design
requirements to qualify for this grant. This criteria has become common in federal gr ant
opportunities for major capital projects. The GICB program also provided $12.5 million in
funding for the Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre, currently under construction, which will
be the City’s first NZC facility.
4. Site Specific Planning Requirements
The City’s Official Plan designates the subject property as “Active Recreational Uses” with a
Community Park symbol. Permissible uses within this designation include active recreational,
community and cultural uses, community gardens, passive recreation, c onservation,
environmental protection and similar uses.
The Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines build on the Vision for the Seaton
Neighbourhood as outlined in Section 2.1.2 of the Official Plan. They expand on the key urban
design elements for subdivisions and site plans to ensure the desired future character and
function of public spaces, including streets, parks, and civic areas align with the vision. The
Guidelines also provide direction on designing the public realm, buildings and green
infrastructure.
The Guidelines also contain built-form principles for public buildings. These buildings form an
important aspect of community identity serving as important landmarks. Careful attention must
be paid to the design of these structures to ensure that they reflect the built quality and
integrate with the scale of the surrounding neighbourhood. The following are the key guiding
design principles for public buildings and community parks:
• Community parks, recreation centres and libraries should be co-located to share parking
and reduce land required for surface parking lots.
• Recreation centres should be located such that the building fronts the principal street edge
and provides sidewalk connections to adjacent transit stops to ensure a pedestrian-oriented
public edge. Multi-story designs are encouraged to minimize land use and contribute to
Seaton’s compact nature.
• Public buildings should be sited prominently and specifically differ from the surrounding
urban fabric, emphasizing their landmark status.
• Vehicular parking should be located at the side or rear of the building, with cyclist parking
near building entrances.
• Drop-off areas should be at the side of the building, and not in the front of the building.
• Community parks should express the neighbourhood’s character through the use of special
features, such as hard surface paving, seating, lighting, landscape details and clearly
defined entry features.
The property is zoned “Community Use – CU” under the Seaton Zoning By -law 7364/14, which
permits uses such as arenas, libraries, community centres, and public and private schools and
daycare centres. Section 2.4 of the Zoning By -law allows the City to use any land or erect or
use any building or structure in any zone, provided they comply with the most restrictive
regulations for that zone and its parking requirements.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 27
5. Planning Review of the Preferred Base Program S chematic Design Concept
Preliminary site design has been developed with a holistic approach, balancing indoor and
outdoor operation and programming needs, technical s ite requirements such as pedestrian
and vehicle access, grading and stormwater management, while incorporating public
feedback. The preferred base program schematic design concept aligns with many provisions
of the Official Plan and urban design objectives but requires zoning adjustments to proceed to
the building permit stage.
The preferred base program schematic design concept addresses several ur ban design
objectives:
• Co-location and Shared Parking: The proposed facility and site are integrated into a
single campus, allowing shared parking facilities and efficient land use.
• Pedestrian Orientation and Transit Access: The proposed facility is located along
Burkholder Drive with pedestrian connections to nearby streets and subdivisions, promoting
walkability and transit access.
• Compact Design: The compact building footprint minimizes land use while providing
opportunities for an array of outdoor active and passive activities.
• Prominent Siting: The building is positioned prominently along Burkholder Drive with
extensive landscaping, enhancing visibility and landmark status.
• Vehicular and Cyclist Parking: Vehicle parking is distributed to the north and to the south
of the building, providing convenient access for patrons. Additionally, bicycle parking will be
positioned near building entrances, encouraging sustainable transportation options.
• Drop-Off Areas: Drop-off zones are located at the sides of the buildings, maintaining
pedestrian-friendly frontages.
• Community Character in Parks: The site includes diverse outdoor amenities such as an
urban plaza, skateboard park , destination playground, basketball court, pickleball courts,
tennis courts and pedestrian connections with seating areas.
Zoning staff have reviewed the schematic design concept compared to the zoning
performance standards for the Community Use zone. The following major zoning non-
compliances were identified:
• Exceeding Building Setback from Alexander Knox Road: The By -law requires a
maximum front yard setback of 4.5 metres, but the design provides a maximum front
setback of approximately 130 metres.
• Insufficient Parking: For a community centre, parking is calculated at a rate of 1 space
per 4 persons capacity or 3.5 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area
(whichever is greater ). The library is calculated at a rate of 3 spaces per 100 square metres
of gross leasable floor area. Based on the gross leasable floor area statistics provided by
Perkins & Will, approximately 773 spaces are required to be provided, whereas the
proposed design illustrates 510 spaces.
• Parking Between Building and Public Street: The zoning by -law prohibits parking
between a building and the front lot line (Alexander Knox Road), but the design illustrates a
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 28
parking area for approximately 176 vehicles located between Alexander Knox Road and
the north wall of the recreation centre.
If Council endorses the preferred base program schematic design concept, a City -initiated site-
specific zoning by -law amendment will be necessary to address any zoning non-compliances,
including increasing the maximum allowable building setback, reducing minimum parking
requirements, permitting parking areas between the front lot line and the building, and any
additional zoning requirements identified during the detailed design process.
Staff will continue to collaborate with the design team and project consultants during the
detailed design phase to ensure the final s ite plan complies with City requirements and
addresses any technical m atters identified during the detailed review process.
6. Timing of the design and construction of the SRCL
The SRCL project was paused in April 2025, by Resolution #697/25, due to the volatility
stemming from an unpredictable economic climate. Staff were directed, by Resolution #698/25,
to provide a project update to Council, including the preferred base program schematic design
concept, updated financial i nformation and project recommendations in Q3 2025. The project
pause has delayed the original project schedule presented in December 2024 by
approximately eight months. The original schedule estimated that the project would begin
construction by Q2 2026, to be completed by late 2029. Due to the pause, the earliest possible
start of construction is now 2027, opening in 2030.
Subject to Council’s approval of the preferred base program schematic design concept
(Recommendation #2, Attachment 1), staff would undertake the next steps to advance the
SRCL project:
• Commence the detailed design development phase in accordance with the approved base
program schematic design concept. This will c ommence in Q4, 2025 with the intent to be
tender ready in early 2027. Any changes to the approved base program schematic design
concept throughout the detailed design development phase could result in project delays.
• Bring forward a site-specific implementing zoning by -law amendment to address any
zoning non-compliances.
• Tender the project for competitive bids on the construction. The award of construction is
expected to be presented to Council i n late Q1, 2027. Construction is expected to
commence in Q2 2027 and take thirty months, with a target completion date of Q4, 2029,
and public opening date in 2030.
7. Delays to the project (Recommendations #3 and #4) will impact the City in the
following ways:
Should Council di rect staff to proceed with Recommendation #3 or #4 of this report, it will
result in a delay in the SRCL project with completion no sooner than 2031. The results of this
project delay includes, but may not be limited to, the following:
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 29
a) The CHDRC pool is nearing end of life, requiring a full replacement of the sw im tanks,
mechanical s ystems, and supporting systems. CHDRC provides a significant amount of
aquatics programming to residents, accommodating over 6,600 participants annually. The
City of Pickering aquatics programs are over-subscribed with extensive waitlists. From fall
2024 to summer 2025, waitlists for aquatic programs included 3,081 participants.
SRCL will pr ovide much needed recreation amenities to the community including an eight-
lane lap pool and a separate leisure pool. The intention is for the SRCL aquatics centre to
provide a community facility to accommodate current use and reduce disruption of service
while the CHDRC pool f acility repairs take place. Dunbarton Indoor Pool i s already
operating at capacity and cannot accommodate the displaced users from the CHRDC pool.
Therefore, pausing the SRCL project could result in a complete disruption of service
and aquatic programs at the CHDRC pool for up to 12 months for Pickering residents
by 2030 (with no/limited opportunity to relocate them).
Impacts to the closure of CHDRC pool without the SRCL facility available include:
• loss of services to 6,600 registered participants in aquatics programs, and the
parents of children participants
• impact to over 800 swim members
• disruption and likely loss of retention to over 70 aquatics staff that are employed to
operate the pool and aquatics programs
• operating impact loss of $1 million in annual revenue
• inability to host major events such as swim meets, LOSSA competitions and Special
Olympics
• decreased community engagement and access to recreational programming
b) The senior levels of government are currently planning and discussing various measures to
mitigate the impact of tariffs on Canadian businesses and workers, including providing
grant programs to support municipal c apital infrastructure projects that stimulate the
economy. Delays to the SRCL project will impact the shovel readiness of the project,
negatively impacting the City’s ability to leverage possible financial government
relief and grant programs.
c) Don Beer Arena has deferred maintenance of $23.7 million in capital costs over the next
ten years. This facility is at the point in its lifecycle where it either needs to be
decommissioned or significantly revitalized. The SRCL project provides an opportunity to
replace Don Beer Arena with two new ice pads. If the project is paused, several major
deferred maintenance repairs will need to be completed at Don Beer Arena, which was
originally built in 1967, with a second rink added in 1972, and third ice pad in 2003. The
facility does not offer the level of amenity or comforts that people are looking for in today’s
recreational facilities such as larger dressing rooms, and extended heating viewing areas.
Playing surfaces are smaller than current preferred sizes with all r inks are below a standard
NHL size (200 x 85 feet). Current rink sizes are: Rink 1 – 185 x 85 feet; Rink 2 – 185 x 85
feet; and Rink 3 – 190 x 85 feet.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 30
Don Beer Arena is also located in an industrial area not on a public transit route which
creates accessibility challenges for some users, and security concerns during major
tournaments. The arena is not part of a multi-use facility like the CHDRC, further limiting its
appeal and efficiencies. Furthermore, the parking lot is almost entirely situated on lands
leased from Hydro One, which adds to the annual operating cost of approximately
$100,000 annually (subject to inflation indexing). Hydro One has also requested that the
City invest in a storm water collection program for the parking area, which is estimated to
cost approximately $3,000,000, as there is no local s torm sewer infrastructure capable of
receiving this runoff . Operating costs provided for SRCL assume that existing arena staff
would be relocated from Don Beer Arena to that facility. The City’s current staff
complement is not sufficient to operate a new twin pad arena at SRCL without closing Don
Beer Arena.
Delays to the SRCL project will result in an investment of $23.7 million over the next
10 years to keep D on Beer Areana operational. This investment in Don Beer Arena
would also eliminate the need for a twin pad arena in a future SRCL facility.
d) With escalation inflation and the cost of construction on the rise, delays to the SRCL
project will result in higher construction costs in future years.
8. Phasing the Project
Project phasing would result in different amenities of the project being constructed over time,
rather than as part of a single project. Phasing can be used to manage cash flow and debt load
for a project by turning it into multiple smaller projects to be built over a longer period of time.
Project phasing has been recommended for some outdoor amenities that are not included in
the preferred base program schematic design concept, where the provision of rough-in
services are recommended. A broader approach to phasing, especially of the main building,
would impact the project in the following ways:
a) The schematic concept would need to be re-designed by Perkins & Will t o account for
project phasing. This would incur additional design costs and result in project delays.
b) Initial capital costs will increase as early phases must carry the full cost of infrastructure
that will be required in later phases.
c) If phases are timed too far apart, earlier components can become obsolete, incompatible or
deteriorate from age to a degree where it may need to be replaced incurring additional
costs for the rework of previously completed phases. This can impact operations in existing
finished areas.
d) Overall pr oject costs will always be higher when spreading work over multiple phases, as
overhead costs are repeatedly incurred and efficiencies are lost. Earlier phases often
require overdesign at added cost until t he next phase is constructed. The most common
example would be exterior walls or roofing that must be built, only to become interior walls
and floors in later phases.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 31
e) Phasing frequently compromises building mechanical s ystems as each phase must either
be oversized or zoned by phase (i.e. less efficiency). The latter is often required if the
original design intentions of the original project are changed by the time later phases are
constructed. This can significantly impact sustainability goals and related costs.
f) Separate phases typically require separate and independent procurement processes,
meaning that each part might be built by different contractors, using different products and
materials, increasing maintenance and operating costs. Incompatibility can also lead to
operational challenges. Depending on the timing of each phase, later phases can also void
already existing extended warranties, including major systems such as cladding and
roofing.
g) Phasing of the project would extend the length of the project timelines significantly.
Extended delays may result in the need to redesign components of the SRCL due to
changing demands and priorities from residents, new opportunities that arise, economic
factors, etc. This would result in increased project costs and delayed project schedule.
h) Phasing the project includes a r isk that key components of the project may never be built.
This is a significant risk in the case of SRCL, given the age of other existing City facilities,
including CHDRC and Don Beer Arena.
Therefore, project phasing is not recommended to achieve the base program schematic
design concept for the SRCL, except for rough-in services required for future site
amenities.
9. Public Engagement on the Schematic Design Options
a) Summary of Community Engagement
A highly successful publ ic engagement campaign for the SRCL ran for 37 days, concluding
on November 7, 2024. The engagement campaign included the following:
• Feedback from residents and other stakeholders on the three schematic design options
was received through a comprehensive five-week engagement campaign (October 1 to
November 7, 2024).
• An online and paper survey was promoted city -wide and garnered 1,075 responses.
• Three public Open Houses (held October 3, 9, and 15) engaged approximately 200
participants.
• A display was set up in the lobby of the Chestnut Hill D evelopments Recreation
Complex for the duration of the campaign, and 20 community pop-ups were held at
various locations throughout the City.
• A student engagement initiative was launched in collaboration with the School B oards in
order to engage youth, with 498 surveys completed by youth, representing 47 percent of
responses.
• Stakeholder feedback sessions were held with sporting groups including the Pickering
Swim Club, the Ajax Pickering Minor Hockey Association, the skateboard community,
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 32
and Pickering Public Library Board, together representing 1,750 stakeholders. A total of
82 hours were spent engaging with residents through the campaign period.
b) Community Input on T hree Base Program Schematic Design Concepts
Three design options were presented for public input. Option #2 received the most votes for
preferred design, garnering 442 votes. Design Option #3 received 381 votes and design
Option #1 received 252 votes. A summary of feedback on design options is included in
Attachment 1.
Some clear patterns that spanned all design options emerged from residents’ written feedback
and this input advanced the final preferred base program schematic design concept (Option
#4). The summary below is based on 1,209 written responses to ‘what would you change
and/or keep in this design option and why’.
• Residents want parking to be safe, accessible and plentiful. Drop-off locations close to
the building, and parking spaces close to outdoor courts and amenities were mentioned
frequently. Parking spaces on both sides of the building was mentioned favourably.
• Pathways and walking trails around the building were mentioned often in long answer
feedback. Many respondents indicated that they plan to use the walking pathways for
recreational use, including jogging, and liked the connectivity around the building.
• Residents had various comments about the placement of amenities on the site. The
placement of pickleball away from homes from other amenities was recommended by
several respondents. Several respondents suggested that children’s outdoor amenities
be grouped together and place the playground further away from the parking lot.
c) Desired Amenities and Features
Residents were asked to rank which amenities they and/or their family plan to use. Feedback
from 1,075 respondents ranked the amenities in the following priority sequence:
1. Swimming Pool 11. Exterior Skating Trail
2. Library 12. Exterior Recreation Fields
3. Fitness Centre 13. Exterior Basketball Court
4. Exterior Walking Paths 14. Parkland Space
5. Playground 15. Community Gardens
6. Arena 16. Programs in Studios
7. Walking Track 17. Exterior Pickleball Courts
8. Gymnasium 18. Skateboard Park
9. Splash Pad 19. Children’s Program s
10. Exterior Pavillion / Stage
When asked, ‘What are you most excited to see as part of the Seaton Recreation Complex &
Library?’, the following patterns emerged from respondents written comments (from 1,075
responses).
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 33
i. Residents are excited and in support of building a new recreation complex. 170
respondents provided positive comments about the City building a new facility.
ii. The aquatics centre was mentioned the most with 221 respondents commenting that
they are most excited about this amenity. Many comments were made about ensuring
the pools are designed to be large enough to support demand.
iii. Residents are excited about a new library and it was mentioned 188 times.
iv. Residents are also excited about the gymnasium and its associated indoor sports (124
mentions), outdoor skating trail ( 123 mentions), and arena (89 mentions).
When asked for additional comments, from 606 responses, many respondents reinforced their
excitement for the project (76 mentions) and hoped to see the facility built quickly (32
mentions). Several r espondents (16 mentions) noted that public transit access t o the facility
was important to them.
10. Design changes to the Base Schematic Design Program requested by
Public/Stakeholders
The following comments are based on analysis of 3,444 written responses.
a) Many respondents requested that the lap pool be sized for a minimum of eight lanes,
with several r espondents requesting more than eight lanes. Many respondents also
commented that the pool v iewing area shown in earlier concepts was not large enough.
It has since been increased in the preferred base program schematic design concept.
The pool was mentioned 353 times in written comments.
b) Many respondents supported the inclusion of the outdoor ice-skating trail. The outdoor
ice-skating trail w as mentioned 203 times in written comments. The outdoor refrigerated
skating trail i s an amenity that is not currently included in the preferred base program
schematic design concept and is subject to Council’s direction for inclusion.
c) Several r espondents requested that the indoor walking track be designed to
accommodate running, including training for track sports. The track was mentioned 149
times in written comments. An indoor walking track is included in the preferred base
program schematic design concept but would not be suitable for competitive running.
Upgrading the walking track to a running track suitable for recreational training purposes
is subject to Council’s direction for inclusion.
d) Several r espondents mentioned pickleball in written comments. Some suggested lit
courts. Pickleball was mentioned 101 times in written comments. Four outdoor
dedicated and lit pickleball courts are included in the preferred base program schematic
design concept. Pickleball will al so be available indoors in the gymnasium on six courts.
An area has also been reserved on the site plan, adjacent to the base program courts,
for up to four additional courts. These courts could be added subject to Council’s
direction, or at a later date.
e) Several r espondents recommended the inclusion of soccer fields in the design of
outdoor amenities. Some suggested lit fields. Soccer fields were mentioned 89 times in
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 34
written comments. A soccer pitch is not currently included in the preferred base program
schematic design concept; however, this amenity can be added at a future date without
impacting the project, provided sufficient space is reserved for this purpose in the site
plan.
f) Several r espondents recommended the inclusion of an additional outdoor lit basketball
court. One lit full-sized outdoor court is already included in the preferred base program
schematic design concept. An area has been reserved on the site plan, adjacent to the
base program court, for one additional outdoor lit basketball court. It could be added
subject to Council’s direction, or at a later date.
All of these comments have been reviewed and considered as part of the preferred base
program schematic design concept. Some have already been incorporated into the concept,
where others with more significant cost implications are presented separately for Council’s
consideration in this report.
11. Staff Preferred Base Program Schematic Design Concept (Attachment 1)
Three distinct design options were prepared and circulated for discussion during the public
consultation process. Each one included different building placement on the site, parking, road
and amenity layouts. Each option contained different benefits and drawbacks, with the
deliberate intention of seeing which considerations garnered stronger support or opposition. All
three options provided identical base building programs and site amenities arranged in
different configurations.
The base building program indoor amenities include the following:
• triple gymnasium supporting basketball, pickleball, volleyball, badminton, and other
sports
• twin pad arena
• walking track
• aquatics centre including an eight-lane lap pool and separate warm water leisure tank
• m ulti-purpose program rooms and children’s program areas
• f itness centre with fitness studios and health club (weight room)
• full-service library
• office space
• supporting spaces like program viewing, reception area, lobby, mechanical and storage
are included in the base design
The base building program outdoor amenities include the following:
• f our pickleball courts
• two tennis courts
• destination playground
• splash pad
• community -size skateboard park
• one basketball court
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 35
• c ommunity gardens
• approximately 500 public parking spaces, including accessible spaces
Following the completion of the stakeholder engagement process, all collected feedback was
compiled and reviewed, resulting in a consolidated hybrid of all t hree previous options, which is
being recommended for Council’s endorsement to proceed to design development. Key criteria
for the preferred base program schematic design concept (Attachment 1), included:
• relocating the building to allow roughly 50 percent of the available parking to be on the
north and south sides, with a tolerance of up to 10 percent in either direction;
• maintain separate entrances for direct access to each parking lot without creating more
than two points of entry into the building; and
• locating the main interior program spaces as follows:
o arena on the northeast corner
o pools on the southeast corner
o library on the southwest corner
o gymnasium on the northwest corner
Placement was set to prioritize and recognize patterns of surge traffic for the pool and arena
during peak usage, energy use opportunities associated with their adjacency for waste heat
recovery, passive solar gain, exterior exposure along site and road frontages, building frontage
and massing, to be organized around an internal layout that would focus on accessibility,
efficient circulation and wayfinding, security, lean staffing and low operating costs.
The design team was tasked with delivering the functional program and list of site amenities
established as the baseline requirements of the project, in accordance with the
recommendations of the Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan and Arena Strategy, as per
Recommendation 5 of Report OPS 12-24 (Resolution #523/24), and within the target baseline
construction cost budget of $200 million in 2025 dollars. This figure will be adjusted for inflation
prior to procurement for construction, subject to Council’s direction regarding how to proceed.
12. Financial impacts of potential add-ons to the Preferred Base Program Schematic
Design Concept
Additional requests to increase the project scope of work, including Council’s request to
consider a refrigerated outdoor ice trail, and others stemming from the public consultation
process, are summarized below for Council’s information.
Costs shown next to each option are estimated full construction costs to add the specified
amenity, though additional design fees may apply . Rough-in costs, where recommended, are a
fraction of these amounts. Additional costs may also apply, such as consulting fees and other
indirect or unforeseeable impacts on the preferred base program schematic design concept
that cannot be determined at this time.
a) Request to add Extra Lane to Walking Track ($2.1 million in additional costs)
Requests were submitted during the stakeholder consultation process for the addition of a
fourth lane to the proposed three-lane walking track included in the preferred base
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 36
program schematic design concept. The track itself will be located on the second floor
where it will ov erhang the gymnasium outboard of the playing surfaces below . Court
layouts dictate minimum required interior clearances for the track, meaning that an
additional lane would have to be added as an outside lane. Doing so would increase the
overall area of the entire gymnasium by approximately 2,000 square feet in order to
provide the required space, at an estimated cost of $2.1 million.
The same requests proposed to make the track available for informal training by running
groups. Running results in higher impact dynamic loads on the building structure
supporting the track, which cantilevers from the main structural frames, and therefore
requires greater reinforcing at a substantial additional construction cost. Any competitive
version of a running track would also require a more gradual turning radius that cannot be
accommodated without further increasing the size of the gymnasium to a pr ohibitive
extent. A walking track, by comparison, has consistently been one of the highest scoring
requests during public consultation for the SRCL. Even combined use for walking and
running can be operationally challenging, especially as walking use is often informal and
drop-in compared to any proposed scheduled or program -based use by organized
groups.
A three-lane walking track is included in the preferred base concept schematic design as
recommended by the Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan; however, the provision of a
fourth lane in the walking track is not recommended.
b) Request Outdoor Refrigerated Ice T rail ($1.0 million in additional costs).
Recommendation #5 of Report OPS 12-24 (Resolution #523/24) directed that a
refrigerated outdoor ice pad be considered as an outdoor amenity which, if possible,
should be combined with the splash pad. Proximity to the main refrigeration plant for the
indoor arena drives the placement of this amenity, which could be located near the
northeast corner of the building. This location would carry the added benefits of high
visibility, proximity to parking and passive shading from the building itself to help maintain
ice and reduce operating costs. A recreational skate trail was explored, rather than an
open pad, with the cost above assuming an area of approximately 7,300 square feet, or
roughly 140m of linear surface. No additional building area or outbuilding is included in
the proposed cost, nor any provision for additional adjacent outdoor washroom s, change
rooms, skate rentals or concessions.
Refrigerated outdoor ice surfaces are increasingly difficult and expensive to operate in a
warming climate, carrying the added risk and cost of having to oversize systems and
equipment should warming trends continue, as expected. They also represent significant
capital costs for limited seasonal use, which can currently be as short as 8 to 12 weeks,
annually. Due to the energy -intensive nature of their operation, they also contribute to the
City’s overall gr eenhouse gas emissions and indirectly increase project costs and
challenges associated with achieving NZC Design objectives, running contrary to the
intentions of the Corporate Energy Management Plan. A separate outdoor refrigerated ice
surface is already proposed at the future City Centre Park, directly across from the Civic
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 37
Complex , and would satisfy the recommendations of the Recreation & Parks Ten Year
Plan for such amenities.
Adding the outdoor refrigerated skate trail may also increase the overall refrigeration plant
size for beyond what is required for the arena. Keeping the total pl ant size below a fixed
threshold can reduce or eliminate the need for licensed operators, which is preferrable
due to their scarcity and relatively high cost. Should the plant size increase resulting from
the addition of the skate trail and exceed this threshold, the City’s operating costs for all
arenas may also rise considerably, due to additional related staffing costs, if an additional
ice resurfacer were to be required, including possible additional indoor space for storage
and equipment.
The Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan recommends the provision of one outdoor
refrigerated skate trail by 2034, which will be fulfilled by City Centre Park. The Recreation
& Parks Ten Year Plan recommended that the feasibility of an outdoor refrigerated rink at
the SRCL be considered. The provision of an outdoor refrigerated ice trail is not
recommended.
c) Request for Outdoor Public Washrooms ($1.1 million in additional costs)
Interior public washrooms will be available, but travel di stances to the main building can
be quite far from all of the various outdoor amenities that will be spread across the 25-
acre property. This is of particular concern for seniors, individuals with mobility issues, or
parents with young children. A location has been identified and reserved near the tennis
and pickleball courts for the provision of an outbuilding that would provide public
washrooms and limited storage space to support the use and maintenance of the site
amenities. It would also be near the proposed pavilion / stage to support major events,
should this additional feature be considered for future development.
An outdoor public washroom was not identified in the Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan
as a core amenity for the SRCL; however, the provision of rough-in services for this
proposed washroom outbuilding and any related site infrastructure is
recommended into the preferred base program schematic design concept to allow
for its construction at a later date.
d) Request for Covered Events Stage, Pavilion and Related Site Infrastructure ($7.6
million in additional costs)
The City has limited venues available to host large and major outdoor events at its
existing parks and facilities. Provision of a dedicated event space would help to address
the shortage, especially given its proximity to transit, ample parking and other supporting
infrastructure. The southeast corner of the site, backing onto the stormwater dry pond,
provides a suitable opportunity for an event space, which could also make extended
occasional use of adjacent features to enhance event space capacity and functionality.
This proposed additional amenity would include the provision of a sheltered stage
pavilion, storage and support spaces, area infrastructure for multi-faceted event support,
including power, water, lighting, and audio-visual capacity .
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 38
A covered stage and pavilion was not identified in the Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan
as a core amenity for the SRCL; however, the provision of rough-in services for a
covered events stage, pavilion and any related site infrastructure is recommended
in the preferred base program schematic design concept to allow for its
construction at a later date.
e) Request for Full Size Illuminated Soccer Field ($850,000 in additional costs)
SRCL is identified as the site of a community park within the Seaton area by The
Neighbourhood Plan (OMB approval in 2014). The Seaton area will i nclude a large
number of park spaces, but the majority are too small to accommodate full-size sports
fields. Combined with proximity to parking and other available infrastructure at SRCL, this
is a preferred site for such a feature. Space has been reserved on the east side of the
property, adjacent to the proposed event space and close to major parking areas for the
provision of a full-size, illuminated and irrigated soccer pitch with natural turf , which could
be subdivided into two smaller junior pitches when and as required. Care would be taken
to ensure that lighting systems do not negatively impact adjacent residences. Proximity to
the proposed event space would also provide overflow capacity for that function, when
required.
A full s ize, illuminated soccer field was not identified in the Recreation & Parks Ten Year
Plan as a core amenity for the SRCL; however, the provision of rough-in services for a
full size lit soccer pitch, including irrigation system and any related site
infrastructure is recommended in the preferred base program schematic design
concept to allow for its construction at a later date.
f) Request for Additional Pickleball Courts ($477,000 in additional costs)
The Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan includes recommendations for the construction of
approximately 19 new outdoor pickleball courts across the City by 2034, with the focus on
dedicated courts rather than courts that are shared with tennis or basketball. Short-term
plans for the construction of new dedicated courts include six at Diana, Princess of Wales
Park , which are currently under construction, and four at the upcoming Dave Ryan
Community Park. Four dedicated pickleball courts are already included in the preferred
base program schematic design concept, near the southwest corner of the site, away
from housing, with space available for up to four additional courts. Similar to the proposed
basketball courts, on-site parking and washroom facilities would promote increased use of
the courts at this location. The proposed courts are located sufficiently away from the
residential properties to mitigate potential noise issues.
The inclusion of four pickleball courts in the preferred base program schematic design
concept meets the provision requirements set out in the Recreation & Parks Ten Year
Plan. The provision of additional pickleball courts is not recommended.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 39
g) Request for Additional Basketball Court ($237,000 in additional costs)
The Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan includes recommendations for the construction of
approximately 13 additional outdoor basketball courts by 2034 to service the growing
communities such as Seaton. One basketball court is currently being proposed on the
north side of the site and there is adequate space beside it to construct a second court.
This would allow for two groups to be able to play games at the same time or individuals
to practice on the second court while the first court is in play. On-site park ing and
washroom facilities would promote increased use of the courts at this location. The
proposed courts are located sufficiently away from the residential properties to mitigate
potential noise issues.
The inclusion of one basketball court in the preferred base program schematic design
concept meets the provision requirements set out in the Recreation & Parks Ten Year
Plan. The provision of an additional basketball court is not recommended.
13. Financial impacts of reductions to the Preferred Base Program Schematic Design
Concept
Should Council pr efer to mitigate any of the optional scope listed above by offsetting related
costs by reduc ing or removing other elements from the base program schematic design
concept, the following options and opportunities have been identified:
a) Remove Arena from B ase Program S chematic Design Concept ($23.26 million in
savings)
The City currently has five ice pads in its portfolio, including two at CHDRC (built in 1983
and 1992) and three at Don Beer Arena (built in 1967, 1972 and 2003). The Arena
Strategy completed and approved by Council in 2024 (Report CS 15-24, Resolution
#514/24) identified a current need for four ice pads to meet existing demand with a
potential increase to five pads by 2034. Given the existing surplus, age and condition of
existing pads, the Arena Strategy presented two options. Option A (Recommendation
#2) required reinvestment in Don Beer Arena to extend its serviceable life. Option B
(Recommendation #3) explored replacing the three ice pads at Don Beer Arena with two
new pads at SRCL. Option B (Recommendation #3) would also eliminate the need for
capital reinvestment in the Don Beer Arena.
Should Council pr efer to reduce the capital costs of SRCL by eliminating the arena from
the preferred base program schematic design concept will r esult in the following impacts:
• $23.7 million in deferred maintenance would need to be reinvested in Don Beer
Arena over the next ten years, to deal w ith that facility’s aging infrastructure and
pending lifecycle replacements. The required arena renovations would also still
periodically reduce the City’s count of available rinks to four or less as a result of
closing ice pads for renovations, potentially over several seasons.
• Removing the arena from SRCL will not eliminate all of the related construction costs,
as current interior areas of the building would become exterior walls instead, and the
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 40
portion of the site currently dedicated for area use will need to be finished for some
other purpose. The overall f acility design would significantly need to change.
• Should a new arena at SRCL be constructed, and Don Beer Arena remain open, the
City will have a significant surplus of available ice once SRCL becomes operational,
and the full c apital c osts of both locations would be incurred. Opportunities to relocate
existing arena staff from Don Beer Arena to SRCL would no longer be possible,
increasing the City’s overall operating costs and requiring additional staff. For this
reason, Recommendation #2 includes the provision that should the arena form part of
the approved base program schematic design concept, that Don Beer Arena be
approved for decommission.
Removing the twin pad arena from the SRCL scope of work is the most effective means to
reduce the project’s overall cost, reduc ing property tax levy funded annual debt charges.
(An estimated levy increase of 5.20% was required to fund the annual debt charges for the
ice pads). However, employing this strategy will r equire Don Beer Arena to remain open.
Don Beer Arena was to close when SRCL opened, per the recommendations of the
Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan and Arena Strategy. The City has been limiting capital
reinvestment in this aging facility as its older rinks near their anticipated end of life, with
Rink 1 having been constructed in 1967, and Rink 2 in 1972.
In 2024, the City completed an Arena Strategy that was approved by Council ( Resolution
#514/24). The strategy identified that, based on current use and demand, provision of four
indoor ice pads is currently required, and a total of five ice pads is required by 2034. As the
City has five ice pads presently, there is a surplus of ice available. This strategy confirmed
that the construction of two new ice pads at the SRCL would not be growth related but
rather intended to replace the aging Don Beer Arena. The fact that the arena is not related
to new growth makes them ineligible for Development Charge funding.
Without the new twin pad arena at the SRCL, the City will need to operate Don Beer Arena
to continue to provide the existing level of service. The continued operations of Don Beer
Arena includes an annual net operating expense of approximately $594,000, and an
estimated $23.7 million in deferred maintenance capital c ost required over the next ten
years. These costs are based on like-for -like replacement of the existing assets and
exclude any potential upgrades that may be requested or required.
In May 2025, through Report CAO 06-25, staff recommended additional design work be
completed to create an alternative design and reduced project cost option not exceeding
$200 million, and for the alternative design and reduced project cost option to be returned
to Council i n September, 2025. The alternative design would remove the twin pad arena
from the project scope. This recommendation was not approved by Council.
The provision for a twin pad arena is recommended by the Recreation & Parks Ten Year
Plan; however, the elimination of the arena from the SRCL base program schematic
design concept is put forward in Recommendation #3 for Council’s consideration.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 41
b) Reduce Gymnasium from T riple Gym to Double Gym ($3.5 million in savings)
SRCL’s functional program includes a full-size gymnasium accommodating a full-size
basketball court overlaid by three perpendicular smaller courts. It could be reduced in size
by approximately 6,600 square f eet, providing a smaller version of the full court format and
two half -sized cross courts. Note that gymnasium space is currently lacking across the
City’s facilities portfolio offering recreational spaces, with only elementary school-sized
gyms at the East Shore Community Centre and Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre
available. The City relies on after-hours rentals from local school boards to fill this serv ice
level gap. Those rental opportunities are already at full capacity , and not available with the
same consistency as City -owned facilities.
Reducing the size of the gymnasium would also reduce the overall l ength of any walking
track , but not its width or number of lanes. The Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan
recommended a triple gymnasium. Reduction of the gymnasium size is not
recommended.
c) Reduce Library Net Floor Area from 30,000 sq. ft. to 25,000 sq. ft. ($1.8 million in
savings)
The 2023 update to the Pickering Public Library Facilities Plan projected and
recommended provision of a 30,000 gross square foot area (GFA) library space to serve
the needs of the Seaton area. This recommendation was based on the projected
replacement of the existing Central Library (built 1990) with a new and larger facility by
2030. The City Centre (Central Li brary) project has been deferred f or further consideration
until 2028, meaning that the replacement of the current Central Li brary is unlikely to be built
prior to 2035, when the existing Central Li brary will be surpassing 45 years of service.
Additionally, the increased population growth in the City Centre will put increasing demands
for public space on the Central Library over the next ten years. The initial functional
program for SRCL included a 40,000 square foot library (due to deferral of the City Centre
Library), which has already been reduced to 30,000 square feet.
Reduction of the library to 25,000 net square feet would require an additional library to be
added to the capital pl anning program in order to ensure residents have adequate access
to library spaces and services. Beyond the Seaton Library , there are currently no other
major library facility capital pr ojects planned within the next ten years. Reduction of the
library size is not recommended.
d) Reduce Secondary Administrative Office Space Net Floor Area from 10, 000 to 5,000
sq. ft. ($1.9 million in savings)
Office space for the City’s administrative staff is already severely strained, with City Hall
already over capacity by approximately 25 percent and most other facilities already at
their respective limits. While renovations are planned for the Civic Complex, but projected
to commence no sooner than 2027 and subject to budget approvals, the City already
lacks interim office space to which staff and services could be temporarily relocated
during these renovations. Two satellite office locations are also currently being leased to
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 42
accommodate the City’s existing staff complement. Generic office space totaling 10,000
square feet was included in the SRCL functional program to serve as a flexible overflow
space to relieve those ongoing needs. This space could be reduced by half, but would
further strain existing office space pressures, likely requiring more leased or rental space
at increased cost over the long term. Reduction of the Administrative Office space is
not recommended.
e) Reduce Fitness Centre Net Floor Area from 9,000 to 6,000 square feet ($1.2 million
in savings)
Fitness and exercise areas, including programmed fitness studios, ranked very highly in
stakeholder consultation and is a very popular service among City residents. These
spaces are constantly being used and often exceed capacity during peak times. Most of
the City’s dedicated fitness and exercise space is currently located at CHDRC, which
opened in 1983. Fitness studios were added in 2009, and the exercise equipment area is
in reclaimed mezzanine space that was recently renovated and expanded in 2021.
SRCL’s functional pr ogram included 9,000 net square feet for exercise equipment and
dedicated fitness studios. This could be reduced to 6,000 square feet.
Fitness Centre space is also a major revenue generator that typically pays for its own
operating costs. A fitness centre with fitness studios were recommended as part of the
Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan. Reduction of the Fitness Centre space is not
recommended.
14. Facility Naming
At the Council meeting on September 3, 2024, Report CS 26-24 was submitted to recommend
that staff be directed to explore the naming of the gymnasium at the future Seaton Community
Centre and Library as the Wayne Arthurs gymnasium.
Resolution #473/24, included direction for staff to:
1) explore the naming of the gymnasium in the Seaton Community Centre and Library as
the Wayne Arthurs gymnasium subject to undertaking the work outlined in the City
Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006) and report back with the final
recommendations in Q2, 2025; and
2) that Council gr ant staff the authority to solicit public comment on the proposed name, as
set out in section 03.02 of City Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006).
Staff recommend deferring any community engagement regarding the City Property Naming
for SRCL until such time that the final des ign has been approved and construction has started.
This will al low the community to give a more informed response as well as become re-engaged
with the project.
CAO 14-25 September 29, 2025
Page 43
Attachments:
1. Seaton Recreation Complex & Library Preferred Schematic Design Concept (Option 4),
dated February 3, 2025
2. Summary of Public Engagement for SRCL
3. Resolution #697/25, #698/25 Report CAO 06-25
4. Summary of Service Levels (Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan)
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By Original Signed By
Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc. Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA
Director, Community Services Director, Finance & Treasurer
Original Signed By Orignal Signed By
Vince Plouffe, OAA, MRAIC Richard Holborn
Division Head, Facilities Management Director, Engineering Services
& Construction
Original Signed By
Jackie Flowers
CEO/Director of Public Libraries
Original Signed By
Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
LG :vp
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment 1 to Report CAO 14-25
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Schematic Design Option 4
2025/02/03
Artist concept rendering
Seaton Recreation
Complex & Library
An expressive roof caps recreational
program nestled in a topographical
landscape.
Context Plan
The City of Pickering has an extensive natural
heritage system which is comprised of a network
of woodlands and watercourses within the
Duffins Creek Watershed. To ensure the health
and ongoing preservation of this system, it
is important for residents to experience the
natural beauty and appreciate the richness it
brings to daily life in the community. The Seaton
Recreation and Library site is conceived as a
gateway to nature, extending topography and
native flora onto the site and inserting nodes of
activity and gathering within.
Whiteva
l
e
R
o
a
d
S
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
2
4
Alexan
d
e
r
K
n
o
x
R
d
B
u
r
k
h
o
l
d
e
r
D
r
S
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
2
2
G
a
n
a
t
s
e
k
i
a
g
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Ganatsekiagon Tributary
Ganatsekiagon Creek
Concept
Introduce Topography
to create a journey of discovery
Generate more naturalized landforms and
reference the pregraded landscape.
Existing site condition
ConceptConcept
Carve plateaus for program
Remaining berm landforms provide visual
and acoustic privacy between programs
and offer views to nature.
Concept
The Big Roof: Unifying Shelter
A pavilion canopy floats over the
indoor program creating an articulated
connection between interior and exterior.
The roof is sculpted to accentuate entries
and gathering spaces.
Aerial View from North-West
Artist concept rendering
Site Plan - Base Program
The building is situated almost centrally on
the site in the North/South axis to provide
two clear entry points and parking areas.
The building main axis is aligned with
Burkholder Drive to provide a continuous
streetwall and maximize space on the east
side of the site for future programming.
A 30m setback from Burkholder Drive
creates space for a continuous 1.2km trail
that wraps the site and connects exterior
amenities.
Teen-dominated programs such as the
skateboard park and basketball courts
are co-located in the northwest corner of
the site. Children-dominated programs
including the playground and splashpad
are co-located on the south entry plaza. A
reading garden flanks the library. Pickleball
and tennis courts sit just south of the main
entry plaza, with nearby access to parking
and visual and acoustic privacy from
adjacent programs and residential areas.
A ring road wanders through the site
connecting the two lots and providing an
access spine to the east side back of house
areas of the building.
N
Site Entry/Exit
Legend:
Building Entry/Exit
Pedestrian Pathways
Neighborhood
Site Plan - Optional Program
The refrigerated outdoor ice trail sits just
north of the arenas allowing for easy ice
resurfacer access and animation of the
north entry plaza.
One additional basketball court and four
additional pickleball courts are co-located
near their corresponding base program
courts.
An expanded 12,000 sq ft skateboard park
footprint is placed over the base program
1,200 sq ft skate park.
One illuminated senior soccer field fills in
the east edge of the site with program.
This field can also be divided in half and
function as two junior soccer fields.
A pavilion/covered stage sits between
the fields in the corner of the site, utilizing
natural grade change to provide tiered
views to the stage. The grassy soccer field
serve as overflow spectator space.
Outdoor washrooms become part of the
shade structure between the pickleball and
tennis courts.
1
2
3
4
6
5
N
1. Additional Basketball Court
2. Refrigerated Outdoor Ice Trail
3. Four Additional Pickleball Courts
4. Outdoor Washroom Facility
5. Senior Soccer Field
6. Pavilion/Covered Stage
Site Entry/Exit
Legend:
Building Entry/Exit
Pedestrian Pathways
Neighborhood
South Entry Plaza
Artist concept rendering
North Entry Plaza
Artist concept rendering
Level 1
The four key programs of the building
pinwheel around a central lobby. The
arenas are located in the northeast
quadrant to minimize solar heat gain
from southerly light. The aquatics centre
sits just south of the arenas to animate
the south main entrance and to cluster
back of house programs along the east
facade. The library sits in the southwest
quadrant, animating both the south main
entrance and Burkholder Drive. The triple
gym completes the square in the northwest
quadrant, allowing for views from the
street and north entry as well as access to
all three gyms from the lobby.
The lobby swells and shrinks along its axis
to respond to circulation demands and
create a central gathering space.
N
Atrium
Artist concept rendering
Level 2
The level two program responds to the
locations of programs below. A viewing
area for 400 spectators bridges between
the two arenas.
The fitness area and health club stack
above the pool change rooms below
providing unique views to the arena, pool
and outdoor field beyond.
The library and admin area stack over
the library box below while a 3 lane track
encircles the gym.
The level two programs are connected by
a sculpted lobby floor plate that creates
delightful double height spaces and views
to the activity below.
N
Level 0
The basement floor plate is compact and
simple. A pool mechanical room sits below
the pool back of house area and alongside
the deep end of the lap pool.
N
Seaton Recreation
Complex & Library
Community Consultation
Synthesis
2024.12.20
Attachment 2 to Report CAO 14-25
22
Community Consultation
Synthesis
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Engagement Overview
Public Open Houses
•Three in-person sessions
Oct 03, Oct 09 and Oct 15 Approx. 200 participants
Online Community Survey
•from Oct 1st to Nov 11th
1,075 participants
Youth/Student Outreach
•Three Pickering Secondary Schools &
Three Elementary Schools – 498
online surveys completed (included in
survey count above)
Stakeholder Input
•Pickering Swim Club, Ajax Pickering
Minor Hockey Association, the
Skateboard Community, and the
Pickering Library Board
1,750 group members
represented
Community Pop-ups
•20 Community pop-ups over 5-week
campaign; 61 hours spent
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Overview
1.What services or features of the Seaton Recreation Complex &
Library do you and/or your family plan to use?
2.How many times a week will you and/or family utilize the facilities
at Seaton Recreation Complex & Library?
3-14. Participants were asked to comment on the following for each of
the three options. (questions 3 through 14)
•The layout of spaces inside the building
•The layout of the amenities/outdoor features located around the
building.
•Access from parking areas to the building and site amenities
•What would you change and/or keep in this design option and
why?
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Overview
15.Which concept design is your preferred option?
16.What do you like most about this option compared to others?
17.What are you most excited to see as part of the Seaton Recreation
Complex and Library?
18.Tell us about your connection to Pickering.
19.Please tell us how long you’ve lived in Pickering.
20.Please select the age category that applies to you.
21.Please select the postal code for your household.
22.Are the any additional comments you’d like to share with us?
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Question 18: Tell us about your connection to
Pickering (select all that apply)
1075 responses received.
Data collected from Oct 1-Nov 11, 2024.
955, 70%
151, 11%
32, 2%
134, 10%
98, 7%
I live in Pickering
I work in Pickering
I am a local business owner
I am a member of a community association and/or volunteer in Pickering
Other
83% of respondents live and/or work in Pickering.
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Question 19: Tell us how long you’ve lived in
Pickering
1075 responses received.
Data collected from Oct 1-Nov 11, 2024.
311, 31%
257, 25%
305, 30%
146, 14%
Less than 5 years 5-10 years 11-20 years More than 20 years
The majority of respondents have either
lived in Pickering for less than 5 years
(31%) or between 11-20 years (305).
The minority of respondents have lived in
Pickering for more than 20 years.
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Question 20: Please select the age category that
applies to you
1075 responses received.
Data collected from Oct 1- Nov 11, 2024.
Most respondents are 12-19 years old.
The least amount of respondents are 70+ years
old.
514, 48%
76, 7%
333, 31%
119, 11%
33, 3%
12-19 years 20-29 years 30-49 years 50-69 years 70+ years
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Question 21: Please select the
postal code for your household
1075 responses received.
Data collected from Oct 1-Nov 11, 2024.
39, 4%
317, 29%
163, 15%
458, 42%
7, 1%
100, 9%
L1Y L1X L1W L1V L0H Other
91% of respondents live in Pickering.
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Question 2: How many times a
week will you and/or your family
utilize the facilities at Seaton
Recreation Complex and library?
1075 responses received.
Data collected from Oct 1-Nov 11, 2024.
59, 6%
105, 10%
273, 25%
390, 36%
226, 21%
22, 2%
Daily 5-6 Times a week 3-4 times a week 1-2 times a week Rarely or as needed Never
Most respondents will use the facility 1-
2 times per week.
The second largest group of
respondents will use the facility 3-4
times per week.
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback Question 1: What services or features of the Seaton
Recreation Complex & Library do you and/or your
family plan to use?
886 810
660 594 585 583 547 546 529 472 454 433 432 412 402 363 319 277 268
Top 5
Low 5
The middle
*1075 responses received, data collected from Oct 1- Nov 11, 2024.
886 810
660 594 585 583 547 546 529 472 454 433 432 412 402 363 319 277 268
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback Question 1: What services or features of the Seaton
Recreation Complex & Library do you and/or your
family plan to use?
•Swimming Pool and Library
are top two ranked programs.
•There is a significant interest
in the indoor fitness centre
and outdoor walking
opportunities.
*1075 responses received, data collected from Oct 1- Nov 11, 2024.
886 810
660 583 547 546
363 268
SWIMMING
POOL
LIBRARY FITNESS
CENTRE
ARENA WALKING
TRACK
GYMNASIUM PROGRAMS IN
STUDIOS
CHILDREN'S
PROGRAMS
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback Question 1: What services or features of the Seaton
Recreation Complex & Library do you and/or your
family plan to use?
•Library and swimming pool
are ranked highest.
•Fitness Centre is the third
most popular indoor
activity.
•There is an equally
distributed interest in the
Arena, Walking Track and
Gymnasium amongst
survey respondents.
Interior Spaces
Low 3
Top 3
Middle
*1075 responses received; data collected from Oct 1- Nov 11, 2024.
594 585 529 472 454 433 432 412 402
319 277
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback Question 1: What services or features of the Seaton
Recreation Complex & Library do you and/or your
family plan to use?
•Walking path is the highest
ranked exterior program.
•Splash pad, playground
and pavilion all rank highly.
•There is significant interest
in including an exterior
pavilion, refrigerated
skating trail and sports
fields as part of the exterior
park amenities.
Exterior Spaces
Low 4
Top 4
Middle
*1075 responses received Data collected from Oct 1- Nov 11, 2024.
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Question 15: Which Concept
Design is your preferred?
252
442 381
OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3
1075 responses received.
Data collected from Oct 1- Nov 11, 2024.
Option 2 is the most preferred option by the survey
participants largely due to…
•The organization of building program
•Integration with nature
•Abundance of walking trails
•Organic massing
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Option 1 : Site Summary
Pros
•Good street frontage, urban, good-sized civic plaza. Positive feedback on promenade.
•Amenities are located centrally, and heavy use play areas are grouped together.
•Relaxed park feel to both the building and site .
•The location of most outdoor amenities are compact and in a central location .
•Best location of skate trail, pavilion, children’s area and pickleball.
•Positive feedback on parking lot located close to pickleball courts.
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Option 1 : Site Summary
Cons
•Not enough integration between the building and green space, building shape fights with
natural layout of the surrounding areas.
•Parking in back is too concentrated, too far away from facility, and detracts from overall outdoor
aesthetic.
•Parking on northeast corner is not large enough to accommodate swim and skate programs .
•Skatepark and community gardens are too isolated; tennis and pickleball courts are too far
away from washrooms.
•Not enough walking trails around the building .
•Pavilion should have more area to accommodate larger crowds .
•Concern regarding drive aisle passing by children’s splash and play area and community garden .
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Option 1 : Building Summary
Pros
•Lobby is central and provides a large meeting area, good circulation and large enough to host
programs.
•Building is orderly and easy to navigate with programmatic wings in each corner .
•Good programmatic separation for acoustics and giving user groups distinct corners of the
building.
•Lots of opportunities for natural light as aquatics centre and library have multiple facades .
•Reading garden next to library is preferred .
•Adequate space for pool viewing.
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Option 1 : Building Summary
Cons
•Building layout and circulation feels choppy.
•Lobby feels like an exhibition hall, not as grand as other designs; has too much unused
space on both floors.
•Lobby is too far away from gym and library.
•Design feels bland, the building does not seem relaxing.
•Gym and fitness not close enough together and gym access is poor .
•Library on the second floor is not accessible from the lobby.
•Fitness studios and fitness centres are weird shapes. Not ideal for programming.
•More than two entrances is preferred.
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Option 2: Site Summary
Pros
•Parking balance and access is good; grouping of outdoor spaces is preferred as no
activities are isolated.
•Site doesn’t feel overwhelmed by parking. No parking directly in front of entrances .
•“ I love how it incorporates nature throughout and has winding paths” “nestled with
nature”, green space surrounds the building .
•“It seems like a lot of people would come walk around the area especially in
summers.”
•Layout and proximity to building for splash pad, children’s play area and
community garden is preferred. Positive feedback on location of facilities by age
group.
•“Looks welcoming...I would enjoy walking around the outskirts of the building,
through the various areas.”
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Option 2: Site Summary
Cons
•Car-centric design as front lot is highly visible from main road. No promenade.
•Pickup/drop off circle and parking area is a bit far from entrance on south side.
•Outdoor amenities seem separated. Prefer that amenities are closer together but have spatial
dividers to create privacy. Hard to watch kids if amenities are so disparate.
•Pickleball and tennis courts are too close to the pavilion (noise concerns); Pickleball is too far
from parking lots and needs dedicated parking.
•Skate trail feels enclosed by building and parking and it is too small .
•Basketball court is by main road. Not safe.
•Community garden will be in the shadow of the building. Locate in full sun .
•Less options for expansion in the future.
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Option 2: Building Summary
Pros
•Central lobby is good, very inviting space with easy access to indoor amenities. Nice large
atrium. Open layout of lobby allows a view to all amenities.
•“Feels more organic and looks unique. I can see this being a peaceful retreat” “cool -looking
building”, “I love the whimsical and curved lobby layout.”
•“I like everything about this design, wouldn’t change anything”
•Natural curves and multiple hallways would allow groups and noise to be better spread out
throughout the building.
•Library feels more removed from building (more access to light and more acoustic and spatial
privacy).
•Library has the same footprint on both floors which is good for wayfinding .
•Separate wings for programs is good. Four separate entrances is preferred .
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Option 2: Building Summary
Cons
•Lobby seems narrow and not as functional.
•“Everything is all over the place.”
•Curved entrances create wasted space in the lobby. Angled walls make
everything inside feel squished and claustrophobic.
•Shape of the building limits too much of the outdoor use .
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Option 3: Site Summary
Pros
•Quantity, distribution and access of parking areas is good .
•Urban side is compact which leaves a lot of room for open space and natural areas.
•Site layout provides room for expansion.
•Skate trail near arena entrance and kids’ area near the basketball court is preferred.
•Pavilion is separate from high energy activities and close to parking lot .
•Area for pavilion spectator overflow for larger events is good.
•Terrace garden is a nice feature.
•Outdoor space is behind the building structure which provid es the opportunity for recreational
activities (Art fest, music fest) and summertime gatherings .
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Option 3: Site Summary
Cons
•Unwelcoming, old fashioned, compartmentalized, utilitarian. Layout is too
industrial.
•A bit choppy and blocked up design.
•“Least preferred option as it fronts Burkholder too much.”
•Amenities too close together on south, but too separate on the north side.
•Activities are squished into one portion of the property leaving a large open area
that is underused.
•Outdoor courts and playground are too close to the road .
•Not enough trails.
•Access to Community Gardens is not ideal.
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Option 3: Building Summary
Pros
•Indoor and outdoor amenities appear streamlined and accessible, easy to navigate,
compact & efficient, functional & balanced.
•Orthogonal design would be good for wayfinding .
•Wing design gives amenities separation.
•Related amenities are close to each other.
•“It is the best use of space, both internal and external in my view.”
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Option 3: Building Summary
Cons
•“Brutally inorganic, ugly bland suburban layout”. “Layout looks boring and boxy”.
“Too structured”. Utilitarian design. Compressed and boring.
•Library does not have same footprint on both floors (not as good for wayfinding ).
•Library too far away from rest of building.
•Corridor to gym feels long and isolated.
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
What are you most excited to see as part of the Seaton
Recreation Complex & Library?
•221 respondents are excited about the aquatics facility.
•‘Probably looking forward to a new and modern pool.’
•‘A beautiful new recreation space for Pickering residents. We really need another pool (more lanes the better
for swim meets, etc.)’
•188 respondents are excited about the library.
•‘I am so excited for there to be a space for the community in Seaton! Just having the building and all the
amenities will be fantastic. I am most excited about library services coming to this area. It will make it a lot
easier to access books, programs, and learning, without having to drive all the way south.’
•170 respondents are excited about a new facility.
•‘A beautiful new recreation space for Pickering residents. We really need another pool (more lanes the better
for swim meets etc.), arenas, library, splash pads, etc. An outdoor skating loop is also a great idea! As our
community grows, we need more spaces for these things.’
•‘A modern community centre that is a true gathering space for our community’
•Residents are also excited about the gymnasium and associated indoor sports (124 mentions), outdoor skating
trail (123 mentions), and the arena (89 mentions).
1,075 Written Responses
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
What would you change about the design?
•The Aquatics Centre was mentioned 353 times in written comments.
•‘Extended pool viewing area. Swimming is a spectator sport. 10 lane pool’.
•‘Make sure the pool is eight lanes’.
•‘Curious about viewing decks from the pool? Where will parents watch their children in swim lessons, practice,
and during swim meets?
Many respondents would like to see a large aquatics facility to meet the demand for swim lessons, swim meets,
aquatics programs, and community use. Many respondents asked for larger pool area ranging between eight to
ten lanes and between 25m to 50m. Many people mentioned the importance of a viewing area for the aquatics
centre. The lap pool has been sized as eight lanes and 25 metres in the base design, and a viewing area has
been included in the lobby in the base schematic design.
3,444 Written Responses
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
What would you change about the design?
•The Outdoor Skating Trail was mentioned 203 times in written comments.
•‘I’m also excited to see the skating trail, very unique feature which the community will love, especially as more
people start to learn how to skate.’
•‘I also love the ideas of the Ice Skating Trail. There is one in Richmond Hill that is shaped like an 8 unlike a
skating rink and I’d love to have a similar one closer to home’.
Many respondents would like to see the outdoor skating trail included in the park.
•The Indoor Walking Track was mentioned 149 times in written comments.
•‘Replace the walking track with a running track’.
•‘It would be great to have indoor running track for track & field athletes. It is a lack of such facilities in Durham
region considering amount of track athletes’.
•‘Please add the 400m track for running community and track community in Pickering’.
There is clear interest in upgrading the indoor walking track to a running track that can be used for track & field
sports and training. Outdoor walking trails/pathways were are mentioned often (37 mentions from 1,075
responses), with people wanting space to walk and run outdoors as well.
3,444 Written Responses
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
What would you change about the design?
•Pickleball was mentioned 101 times in written comments.
•‘We need dedicated indoor pickleball courts – huge and growing sport and appeals to all ages.’
•‘Pickleball is the fastest growing sport in North America and I would love to see more pickleball courts with
lights’.
Many respondents expressed interest in using the planned pickleball facilities, both indoor and outdoor.
Sentiment around pickleball is the more courts, the better.
•Soccer was mentioned 89 times in written comments.
•‘Add soccer turf field’.
•‘I would keep everything and add some soccer nets’.
•‘I think there should be a soccer field’.
There is clear interest in adding a lit soccer field to the park.
3,444 Written Responses
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Survey Results Feedback
Do you have any additional comments?
•The Community is excited about the new recreation complex (76 mentions)
•‘This will be fantastic for my kids! Very excited for this, we desperately need more recreational facilities for our
residents’.
•Many respondents hope to see the facility built quickly (32 mentions)
•‘This facility is long, long overdue, especially for us Pickering residents, whom live north of Taunton’.
•‘Looking forward to building being built quickly’.
•Many respondents appreciated the engagement process and ability to provide input (30 mentions)
•‘Thank you for working to ensure you listen to the community’.
•‘Excited for this development and appreciate the engagement with community for design’.
•Several respondents mentioned the importance of public transit and transportation to the site (16 mentions)
•‘This is an opportunity to induce demand for most active transportation in and around the community, even if
it may not be convenient in the present, it’ll be much better for the community in the long term’.
•‘I would like to see good biking and transit connections to this facility.’
606 Written Responses
Attachment 3 to Report CAO 14-25
Legislative Services Division
Clerk’s Office
Directive Memorandum
April 28, 2025
To: Marisa Carpino
Chief Administrative Officer
From: Susan Cassel
City Clerk
Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Special Meeting of City Council held on
April 22, 2025
Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 05-25
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library Project
Project Update, Financial Analysis & Recommended Next Steps
Council Decision Resolution #697/25, #698/25
1. That Report CAO 05-25 regarding the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Project be received;
2. That Council pause the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library Project as it
relates to the approval and further development of any proposed design;
3. That Council receive the findings of the public engagement process for the
design of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library for information;
4. That staff provide a project update to Council, including the consolidated base
program schematic design concept, updated financial information and project
recommendations, in Q3, 2025 instead of the previously scheduled date of June
2025, per Recommendation 4 of Report OPS 12-24 (Resolution #523/24); and,
5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
Please take any action deemed necessary.
SC:am
Copy: CEO & Director of Public Libraries, Pickering Public Library
Director, Community Services
Director, City Infrastructure
Director, Finance & Treasurer
1 | Page
Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan:
Recommendations Related to the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library
Amenity 2024 2034 Recommendations
Recreation
Complex
1 Recreation
Complex per
75,000
residents
Facility
needs
1.4 Facility
needs
2 •As a high priority, continue to proceed with the timely development of the
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library. At minimum, this facility should be
designed to include a 25 metre 6 – 8 lane rectangular pool and separate
warm water leisure pool, fitness centre, and studios, full size
gymnasium, two arena pads, and a library.
•As a general principle, design indoor recreation facilities to be flexible,
accessible, multi-use, inclusive and age friendly community hubs. Locate
these sites in highly visible locations with strong pedestrian, cycling, and
transit connections for convenient access. Consider models co-located
with libraries and other community uses. Involve the community and
stakeholders in the design process.
Current
supply
1 Supply
with
SRCL
2
Surplus
(deficit)
(0.4) Surplus
(deficit)
0
Attachment 4 to Report CAO 14-25
2 | Page
Amenity 2024 2034 Recommendations
Indoor
Swimming Pool
1 pool / aquatic
centre per
45,000
residents
recommended
Facility
needs
2.3 Facility
needs
3.3 • Provide multi-tank indoor aquatic centres within all new recreation
complexes. A 25-metre tank with 6 to 8 lanes and a separate warm water
leisure pool are recommended as part of the planned Seaton Recreation
Complex & Library
• Prioritize the revitalization of the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation
Complex indoor aquatic centre as part of the proposed facility
revitalization strategy following the opening of the Seaton Recreation
Complex & Library
• Undertake a study to examine future programming needs and potential
capital replacement of the Dunbarton Indoor Pool. This study should
consider the need for this facility to remain operational during any
extended shutdown of the CHDRC and should be completed following a
minimum of one year of the SRCL being fully operational.
Current
supply
2 Supply
with
SRCL
3
Surplus
(deficit)
(0.3) Surplus
(deficit)
(0.3)
3 | Page
Amenity 2024 2034 Recommendations
Triple
Gymnasium
1 regulation
size gymnasium
per 38,200
residents
recommended
Facility
needs
3 Facility
needs
4 • Provide gymnasiums within all new and redeveloped recreation
complexes (e.g. Seaton, etc.) and consider their provision within
appropriate community centres (e.g. Seniors & Youth Centre, etc.). A
triple gymnasium (FIBA regulation) is recommended as part of the
Seaton Recreation Complex & Library.
• Provide one indoor pickleball court for every 10,000 residents with a
target of 15 indoor courts by 2034. The City will be able to meet its
current target of 10 indoor courts through upgrades to the Pickering
Soccer Centre and its 2034 target (15 courts) through the development
of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library.
Current
supply
0 Supply
with
SRCL
3
Surplus
(deficit)
(3) Surplus
(deficit)
(1)
Note: the provision of
gymnasiums is based on
regulation size gymnasiums that
would allow for sporting games
and tournaments.
4 | Page
Amenity 2024 2034 Recommendations
Indoor walking
track
A ratio of
walking tracks
to residents
was not
provided.
Facility
needs
1 Facility
needs
2 • Consider the provision of indoor walking tracks (free public access)
within new recreation facilities, where appropriate
Current
supply
1 Supply
with
SRCL
2
Surplus
(deficit)
0 Surplus
(deficit)
0
Amenity 2024 2034 Recommendations
Indoor Fitness
Centre
A ratio of
Fitness Centres
to residents
was not
provided.
Facility
needs
N/A Facility
needs
N/A • Provide fitness centres and studios within all new and redeveloped
recreation complexes (including Seaton Recreation Complex & Library)
to support the delivery of health and wellness programming.
Current
supply
1 Supply
with
SRCL
2
Surplus
(deficit)
N/A Surplus
(deficit)
N/A
5 | Page
Amenity 2024 2034 Recommendations (from Arena Strategy)
Arena Facilities
1 ice pad per
400 registered
youth
participants
(residents ages
5 to 19)
Facility
needs
4 Facility
needs
5 • Begin planning to replace Don Beer Arena (3 pads) with two (2) new ice
pads within the Seaton community no later than 2029 (next five years).
The preferred site is the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library. If the
selected site cannot be expanded to a quad pad arena through a future
phase of construction, a second site may be required for a multi-pad
arena beyond 2034, possibly in Northeast Pickering.
• Maintain at least 2 ice pads at Don Beer Arena until such time as the
new twin pad facility is open. In the interim reduce capital spending at
Don Beer Arena unless necessary for structural or legislated safety
requirements. Consideration may also be given to removing ice from
Rink 1 to limit capital and operating expenses (non-ice activities may be
permitted, as appropriate) and/or limiting off-peak hours of operation.
Once deemed surplus, dispose of Don Beer Arena property and use
proceeds to offset funding of replacement infrastructure.
Current
supply
5 Supply
with
SRCL
4
Surplus
(deficit)
1 Surplus
(deficit)
(1)
Amenity 2024 2034 Recommendations
Tennis Courts
1 tennis court
per 4,300
residents
Facility
needs
24 Facility
needs
33 • Expand the number of public tennis courts (lit where possible) in growing
communities through new court development in Seaton (4 courts at 2
parks) and Duffins Heights (2 courts at 1 park). Courts should be
designed for tennis only but may be co-located with other sport courts as
part of a complex.
Current
supply
24 Planned
supply
33
Surplus
(deficit)
0 Surplus
(deficit)
0
6 | Page
Amenity 2024 2034 Recommendations
Outdoor
Pickleball
courts
1 outdoor
pickleball court
to 5,000
residents
Facility
needs
11 Facility
needs
19 • Target the development of up to 19 new outdoor pickleball courts by
2034, with a focus on dedicated courts in appropriate locations. Projects
should have consideration to the site evaluation and design criteria
identified in this plan. The City should continue to work with pickleball
organizations to monitor and assess the need for additional dedicated
court complexes over time. Potential capital projects include:
• Developing six dedicated courts at the Diana, Princess of Wales Park,
possibly operated in partnership with a club;
• Developing four dedicated courts at the site of the planned recreation
facility in Thompson’s Corners, possibly operated in partnership with a
club;
• Developing four dedicated courts in the Dave Ryan Community Park in
Seaton; and
• Consideration of painting lines on selected multi-use basketball courts at
locations such as Beachlawn Park and selected neighbourhood parks in
Duffins Heights and Seaton.
Current
supply
0 Planned
supply
19
Surplus
(deficit)
(11) Surplus
(deficit)
0
7 | Page
Amenity 2024 2034 Recommendations
Refrigerated
Skating Rink
1 refrigerated
rink per
100,000
persons
Facility
needs
1 Facility
needs
1.49 • Continue with plans to include a refrigerated skating rink / water feature
within City Centre Park and consider the feasibility of a refrigerated
outdoor ice pad (combined with splash pad if possible) at the Seaton
Recreation Complex & Library
• Refrigerated Skating Rink/Trail is planned for City Centre Park and an
additional Rink/Trail is also planned for SRCL
Current
supply
0 Supply
with
SRCL
2
Surplus
(deficit)
(1) Surplus
(deficit)
.51
Amenity 2024 2034 Recommendations
Skate Park Facility
needs
N/A Facility
needs
N/A • Expand the network of all wheel’s parks by developing a community -
level skate park in Seaton, possibly at the Seaton Recreation Complex
& Library
• The City has 1 full size skateboard park, and 1 skate spot at Westshore
CC.
• The Skateboard Park Strategy recommended 1 skateboard park and 5
skate spots to be located in South/Central Pickering and 1 skateboard
park and 3 skate spots in the Seaton community. The recommended site
in Seaton for the full size skateboard park is SRCL.
• Skateboard parks and spots are to be equitably distributed to maximize
accessibility and be situated in visible locations .
Current
supply
2 ( 1
Full,
1
Skate
Spot)
Supply
with
SRCL
12
(3
Full, 9
Skate
Spots)
Surplus
(deficit)
Surplus
(deficit)
8 | Page
Amenity 2024 2034 Recommendations
Soccer and
multi-use fields
1 field per
3,000 residents
Facility
needs
52 Facility
needs
65.3 • Provide approximately 15 additional soccer and multi-use fields (unlit
equivalents ) over the next ten years to address growth-related needs.
New fields may be developed within community parks (with multiple
fields per site) and appropriate neighbourhood park sites, as well as in
partnership with other land providers such as schools. Where possible,
a focus should be placed on full size fields (both lit and unlit) and
artificial turf fields in the Seaton community, opportunities should be
sought to enhance field supplies within existing parks (e.g. conversion
of under-utilized assets such as in Maple Ridge Park).
• Planned soccer field development includes 8 fields (8.5 unlit
equivalents ), a little more than half of what is recommended by 2034:
• One full lit field in Seaton
• One full unlit field in the proposed Hydro Corridor Park north of Kingston
Road (pending approval from Hydro One)
• Six 7v7 and/or 9v9 fields in Seaton and in the proposed Hydro Corridor
Park north of Kingston Road (pending approval from Hydro One).
Current
supply
52 Planned
supply
60
Surplus
(deficit)
0 Surplus
(deficit)
(5.3)
9 | Page
Amenity 2024 2034 Recommendations
Outdoor
Basketball
Courts
Facility
needs
20.6 Facility
needs
29.8 • Develop approximately 13 additional basketball courts by 2034 within
growing communities (e.g. Seaton) and in under-served areas (e.g.
Liverpool, Kingston Road corridor) based on an 800-metre service
radius.
• 6 additional half courts planned for various parks in the Seaton
community, plus 2 multi-purpose courts
• 1 Full multi-purpose court is planned for SRCL, consideration should be
given for one additional full court at SRCL
• 1 Full court in Duffins Heights
• 1 Full court at Beechlawn Park
• Additional courts should be considered in underserved areas such as
Lamoureax and/or Wilson Meadows neighbourhoods
1 court (full or
half) per 5,000
residents
Current
supply
17
(10
Full,7
Half)
Planned
Supply
28
Surplus
(deficit)
(3.6) Surplus
(deficit)
(1.8)
Amenity 2024 2034 Recommendations
Splash Pads
1 splash pad
per 20,000
residents
Facility
needs
5.15 Facility
needs
7.45 • Continue with plans to construct 5 new splash pads/water play areas in
Duffins Heights and the Seaton community by 2034; additional sites in
Seaton and possibly City Centre will be required longer -term
Current
supply
3 Planned
Supply
8 • Splash Pads are planned for Duffin Heights at Stonepay Village Green,
SRCL, Seaton – Dave Ryan Park & Titanium Green, Park 131
Surplus
(deficit)
(2.15) Surplus
(deficit)
.45
10 | Page
Amenity 2024 2034 Recommendations
Playgrounds Facility
needs
63 Facility
needs
85 • Continue to install playgrounds within appropriate park types in growth
areas. At minimum, playgrounds should be located within 800 metres
of residential areas (less in intensified areas), unobstructed by major
pedestrian barriers such as valleys, highway s, and railways.
Playground design should give consideration to play value, variety in
design, accessible features (focusing on community park sites), and
supporting amenities such as pathways, seating, and shade
• 17 playgrounds are planned for the Seaton community
• 2 playgrounds are planned for Duffins Heights
• Larger, destination playgrounds should be planned for prominent sites
such as SRCL, Dave Ryan Park and in Greenwood Park
• Average lifespan of a park is 20 years per structure, the City can expect
an average of 3 park replacements per year
• Integrate outdoor fitness equipment into appropriate parks, focusing on
destination parks (e.g., selected community and waterfront parks) and
growing communities (using a 1-km radius to support equitable
distribution).
• Outdoor equipment is planned for several sites in Seaton, including a
fitness circuit across 3 parks. Approximately 5 additional locations can
be anticipated for the Seaton community based on applying a minimum
catchment radius of 1 km per site.
Current
supply
63 Planned
Supply
85
Surplus
(deficit)
N/A Surplus
(deficit)
N/A