HomeMy WebLinkAboutFIN 08-26
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: FIN 08-26
Date: June 8, 2026
From: Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Subject:
2026 Corporate Asset Management Plan Update
File: F-1000-001
Recommendation:
1. That Report FIN 08-26 regarding the 2026 Corporate Asset Management Plan Update be
received;
2. That Council direct staff to continue monitoring and reporting annually on the City’s asset
management Key Performance Indicators, implementation barriers, and strategies to
address those barriers in accordance with Section 9 of Ontario Regulation 588/17;
3. That Council direct staff to continue refining the City’s long-term infrastructure funding
strategy to reduce backlogs, manage risk, and support sustainable service delivery; and
4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions
necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
1.0 Executive Summary:
The City has made significant progress in implementing its Asset Management Plan (AMP) by
establishing measurable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) across major service areas. The
2025 data provide Council with a clearer view of infrastructure condition, service performance,
operational compliance, capital delivery, and long-term financial sustainability. Overall, the City
is performing well in several operational areas, including inspections, maintenance
compliance, fire asset readiness, climate restoration, and parts of capital renewal delivery.
However, several metrics remain challenging, particularly in roads, structures, culvert
inspections, facility condition, energy performance, and long-term funding alignment. As KPI
targets have only just been set, in many cases it would not be possible to have met them yet.
Future annual reports will show comparatives year over year as the City aims to meet these
targets.
The most important corporate risk remains financial. The City’s funding scenario analysis
shows that delaying the recommended tax-supported infrastructure increases extend the
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 2
timeline to reach the estimated $136.8 million funding target from approximately 2035 to 2038.
This delay increases the likelihood that infrastructure backlog, renewal costs, and service risks
will grow over time.
2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan:
The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Corporate Key:
Good Governance/Customer Service Excellence.
3.0 Financial Implications:
The report provides a summary of the implementation of the City’s 2025 AMP. It identifies the
need for the City to increase its annual funding by an additional levy increase of 1% annually
from 2027 to 2030, and 3% annual increases thereafter to 2038 to reach the long-term funding
objective.
4.0 Discussion:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the City’s annual review of the asset
management planning progress, as required under Section 9 of Ontario Regulation 588/17.
The report summarizes the City’s recorded 2025 performance data, identifies areas where
progress is being made, highlights areas requiring continued attention, and implementation
barriers and response strategies. The findings are based on the City’s 2025 KPIs summary
dashboard and post-AMP implementation monitoring work.
4.1 Data Governance
KPIs and Calculation:
• Data Maturity Index (DMI) Score: Measures completeness, accuracy, recency, and
structure of asset data
o Formula: Weighted DMI Score
▪ Road Corridor 88%
▪ Bridges & Culverts 79%
▪ Stormwater System 71%
▪ Buildings and Facilities 99%
▪ Parks 88%
▪ Other Infrastructure 65%
Other Infrastructure includes Vehicles, Machinery & Equipment, Information
Technology, Furniture & Fixtures, and Library Collection Materials.
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 3
Analysis:
The Data Maturity Index is an important corporate measure because reliable asset
management depends on complete, accurate, current (recent), and well-structured data. Even
though, the current levels of data maturity are good, staff should continue strengthening asset
data governance, especially for condition, replacement cost, lifecycle assumptions, and project
status data. While these are very high scores, it assumes that the parameters of
Completeness, Accuracy, Timeliness, Uniqueness, Connectivity, and Source Reliability, all
have the same weight.
4.2 Road Corridor
KPIs and Calculation:
• Pavement Condition Index (PCI): Average network condition
o Formula: Weighted network PCI
Pavement Condition Index or Physical Condition Index (PCI), a road with a higher PCI
is in better health than a road with a lower PCI score
• Percent of Roads in Poor/Worse Condition: Portion of roads below condition
threshold
o Formula: (Value of Poor Roads ÷ Total Roads) × 100
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 4
• Roads Backlog Value: Total unmet renewal needs
o Formula: Sum of overdue renewal cost
Analysis:
The City has been actively working to implement the recommendations identified through the
Road Needs Study while improving the accuracy, consistency, and completeness of road
condition and lifecycle data, creating a more reliable foundation for future target setting,
performance monitoring, and long-term investment planning. The road network remains below
the desired PCI target of 70%, and the percentage of roads in poor or worse condition
increased from 39.0% to 42.7%. Although, the reported backlog decreased significantly due to
better data as a result of the updated Road Needs Study, the condition trend still shows
pressure on the road network. This indicates that the City is improving it’s understanding and
reporting of road needs, but sustained investment is still required. If road renewal is delayed,
assets can move beyond cost-effective rehabilitation windows, increasing the likelihood of
more expensive reconstruction.
City Infrastructure and Operations staff maintain several comprehensive and detailed asset
management databases, including GIS and spreadsheets, which catalog all active municipal
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 5
infrastructure assets. Roads represent the largest portion of these assets. The data is updated
as required throughout the year, with annual adjustments made to the PCI based on asset age
and condition.
In 2025, a Road Needs Study was initiated, providing the City with an effective planning tool to
guide the rehabilitation of road assets over the next five to ten years. Cost estimates are
updated annually, further supporting the budgeting and prioritization of rehabilitation and
reconstruction projects.
The Road Needs Study focuses primarily on developing a cost-effective maintenance strategy
and does not fully account for the long-term infrastructure needs of the road network.
Additional factors such as above-average traffic volumes, excessive precipitation and flooding
events, and repeated freeze-thaw cycles can accelerate roadway deterioration. Delaying
rehabilitation efforts or investigative work may ultimately result in significantly higher costs
when more extensive repairs or reconstruction become necessary.
As a substantial portion of the City’s road network continues to age, increased rehabilitation
and reconstruction work will be required in certain neighbourhoods. In some cases, roads have
exceeded the threshold for rehabilitation and now require full reconstruction, including storm
sewer replacement.
4.3 Bridges and Culverts
KPIs and Calculation:
• Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) Inspection Completion Rate: % of
inspections completed per required OSIM cycle.
o Formula: (# Completed ÷ Total Required) × 100
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 6
• % of Structures Meeting Bridge Condition Index (BCI) Threshold: Measures
structural health against minimum acceptable condition (70)
○ Formula: (# ≥ Threshold ÷ Total Structures) × 100
• % of Recommended OSIM Repairs Completed: Tracks implementation of OSIM
action items
o Formula: (# Completed ÷ Total Recommendations) × 100
Analysis:
The City is fully compliant with its OSIM inspection cycle, which is positive. However, only
53.8% of structures meet the BCI threshold of 70%, compared to a 75% target. In addition,
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 7
only 25% of recommended OSIM repairs were completed. This means the City is identifying
structural needs, but repair implementation is lagging. If repairs are deferred, conditions may
decline and future rehabilitation costs may increase.
City Infrastructure maintains strong data on OSIM-regulated structures, which are inspected
every two years. In many cases, the cost of repairing aging infrastructure exceeds available
budget, and limited construction timelines add further challenges.
City Infrastructure is currently planning to repair at least three culverts this year and two more
next year. The OSIM inspection will also be completed this year, and the updated data will help
inform decisions on future structure repairs.
4.4 Stormwater System
KPIs and Calculation:
• % of Catch Basins Cleaned in Last 4 Years: Measures backlog and coverage of
catch basin maintenance
o Formula: (# Cleaned in 4 yrs ÷ Total Basins) × 100
• Annual System Flushing Compliance: Tracks completion of required annual system
flushing in urban areas
o Formula: (# Urban Segments Flushed ÷ Total Urban Segments) × 100
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 8
• % of Non-Structural Culverts Inspected: Tracks progress toward full culvert
inspection coverage. Non-Structural Culverts are drainage conduits that do not support
significant vehicle loads and are less than 3000mm in diameter or span
o Formula: (# Inspected ÷ Total Culverts) × 100
• # of High-Risk Flooding Areas Addressed: Measures progress on resolving known
flooding hotspots
o Formula: Count
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 9
Analysis:
Stormwater maintenance compliance is strong. The City met or exceeded annual flushing
targets in each recorded year and achieved 100% catch basin cleaning coverage over the
four-year cycle. The main gap is non-structural culvert inspection coverage, which was 10.8%
against a 20% target. This creates a data and risk visibility issue. Culverts with unknown
conditions may represent hidden infrastructure risk.
City Infrastructure has recently completed an inventory of non-OSIM structures between 1.2 m
and 3.0 m and is now reviewing the data for inconsistencies. Culverts smaller than 1.2 m have
also been inventoried; however, they have not yet been categorized by lifecycle stage because
construction dates were difficult to confirm.
City Infrastructure is moving toward digital field data collection for storm culvert maintenance
and inspections. Non-OSIM structures between 1.2 m and 3.0 m will be inspected every two
years, alternating with OSIM reporting years. Additional CCTV inspections and flushing of
underground storm sewers are also planned to improve understanding of overall system
condition.
4.5 Buildings & Facilities
KPIs and Calculation:
• Facilities Condition Index (FCI) – Facilities Older Than 5 Years: Measures the FCI
specifically for buildings older than 5 years to avoid skewing data with new builds
o Formula: (Deferred Maintenance for Facilities >5 yrs ÷ Replacement Cost of
Facilities >5 yrs) × 100
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 10
A lower score represents that a building’s health is in good condition and requires
minimal financial investment to fix
• Facilities Energy Use Intensity: Tracks total energy use intensity attributed to
municipal buildings
o Formula: Total Energy Use / Size of Facilities
• Facilities CO₂ Emissions Intensity: Tracks total greenhouse gas emissions intensity
attributed to municipal buildings
o Formula: Total CO₂ Emissions / Size of Facilities
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 11
Analysis:
The City’s facility condition improved from 0.260 to 0.252 between 2024 and 2025. This is a
positive trend but remains above the 2030 target of 0.230. FCI value also increases
automatically every year as new lifecycle requirements enter the 5-year forecast period.
Continued reinvestment is required to manage and prevent deferred maintenance from
growing beyond sustainable thresholds. Deferred facility renewals can create backlogs leading
to higher operating costs, emergency repairs, accessibility issues, energy inefficiency, and
service disruption.
Facilities Management & Construction staff maintain a separate, extensive and detailed asset
management database, which breaks down all existing City facilities into their component
systems, including both buildings and site-related infrastructure. Initial efforts to populate this
database began in 2016. It is now complete, updated regularly throughout each fiscal year,
and linked to industry-leading construction cost estimating data that also updates annually. It
informs all Capital Budget submissions and forecasts for facilities capital projects provided for
Council’s consideration. Source data is also verified annually, through the budget process and
staff reviews, then supplemented by a broader audit cycle undertaken every five years. The
contents of this database are also fully synchronized with separate macro level systems used
for Corporate-level asset management, tracking and analysis.
While FCI is a valuable metric for gauging individual facilities’ short-to-medium term financial
needs, it does not address their overall lifespans. Major generational life cycles are typically
around 25 years. Beyond each cycle, operating costs and risks will increase. Deferring the
required renewals further increases these costs and risks.
Aging assets are the most significant challenge facing the City’s existing facilities inventory.
Four major facilities represent over two thirds of the overall value of this portfolio: Chestnut Hill
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 12
Developments Recreation Complex (built 1983), Pickering Civic Complex (built 1990),
Operations Centre (built 2019), and Don Beer Arena (built 1970). Three of those are at, or
beyond, their latest milestone lifecycle. They require long-term plans for their eventual
revitalization, replacement and/or disposal.
Both energy performance indicators are currently over their intended targets, which is common
in an aging facility portfolio. There are often physical and practical limitations to the degree of
improvement that can be achieved without extensive and expensive renovation. Energy
performance has both financial and environmental implications. Higher energy intensity
increases operating costs and may limit progress toward corporate climate objectives. The
KPIs in this report have been set to conform with the objectives set out by the Council-
approved Corporate Energy Management Plan (CEMP), including data collection and analysis
to efficiently focus future capital investment.
4.6 Parks
KPIs and Calculation:
• Park Availability: Indicates total amount of accessible parking space relative to
population
o Formula: Total Park Area (m² or ha) ÷ Population (1,000)
• % of Park Lighting Upgraded: Tracks progress in replacing older lighting with efficient
modern systems
o Formula: (# Upgraded Fixtures ÷ Total Fixtures) × 100
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 13
• Playgrounds Replaced Annually: Measures ongoing renewal of aging playground
assets
o Formula: Count of playground replacements completed
• Playground Inspection Compliance: % of playgrounds inspected per required cycle.
o Formula: (# Inspected ÷ Total Playgrounds) × 100
Analysis:
Parks performance is generally strong. Inspection compliance is 100%, and the City has
established a planned annual playground replacement program. Park availability is slightly
below target, and lighting upgrades are progressing toward a planned 5% year-over-year
increase. As population grows, park availability should continue to be monitored closely.
Park availability per capita will be directly influenced by the state of the economy and the rate
of development within the city. New blocks of land typically become available for park
construction nearing the completion and assumption of a subdivision, as these plots of land act
as the staging areas, material storage and top-soil pile sites throughout the construction period
of a subdivision. When development slows down due to an economic downturn, the timing for
delivery of parks is directly affected. In downtown locations, where intensification is occurring,
large plots of land are not readily available for parks to offset the increase in population at the
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 14
targeted rate. Pickering has a larger plot of land under its ownership in the north-west section
of Seaton, dedicated to a future district park; however, its construction is not forecast until
2035, so shortfalls in the targeted amount of parkland per capita may also be experienced until
its construction.
The City replaces park pathways and sports field lights with more efficient LED fixtures as they
reach their end of lifecycle, and not prior to that. There may be years when no fixture
replacements are required if the remaining inventory of non-LED fixtures is still in good
condition. Park lights are inspected annually as required by the Minimum Maintenance
Standards to confirm that they are functioning, and replacement is determined based on the
condition of the fixtures and poles. All lights reinstalled in existing parks and installed in new
parks will include LED fixtures.
The City has included, in its 10-year capital forecast, the replacement of three playgrounds per
year. All playgrounds are inspected annually for CSA compliance. Based on the annual
inspections, the City’s park inspector reviews the list of forecasted replacements and
determines if the replacement priorities set are consistent with the current needs. This is based
on the play structures’ physical condition, appearance, playability, and level of accessibility.
Adjustments are made as necessary to the scheduling of replacements in the 10-year capital
forecast prior to its annual approval. Three playgrounds were replaced in 2025: Lynn Heights
Park, Bayshore Tot Lot, and Bonita Park.
4.7 Fleet
KPIs and Calculation:
• Lifecycle Replacement Compliance: 84% of fleet replaced on schedule
o Formula: 16 Divided by 19 x 100 =84% (# Replaced on Time ÷ Total
Replacements Due) × 100
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 15
• Fleet Capital Spend Variance: Tracks over or underspending
o Formula: (Actual Spend − Budget) ÷ Budget
Analysis:
Fleet capital spending appears to be within the acceptable variance target. However, lifecycle
replacement compliance is 84%, meaning some replacements are not occurring on schedule.
Fleet deferral may increase maintenance costs, downtime, service disruption, and future
replacement pressure.
Fleet staff routinely inspect vehicles and equipment to ensure all municipal assets are properly
maintained and operationally ready when needed. During mandatory annual and semi-annual
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 16
inspections, technicians evaluate specific mechanical conditions to identify individual assets
capable of operating beyond their typical lifecycle. Assets meeting the criteria for extension are
managed through a dual-track optimization process, either by extending the life cycle for
departmental use or by repurposing the asset within another branch of the City.
Ontario's Municipal Buy Ontario Procurement Directive mandates a strict "Buy
Canadian/Ontario" preference hierarchy for light-duty municipal fleet vehicles (under 4,500 kg)
to strengthen domestic supply chains. Local governments must first prioritize vehicles
manufactured in Ontario, followed by brands maintaining a significant provincial production
footprint of at least 1,500 jobs, before they can seek global alternatives. Heavy duty
emergency and transit vehicles are exempt from this strict hierarchy but require a domestic
supply chain for contracts.
Industry experts have predicted a capital budget increase of up to 10% due to narrowed
competition in the light-duty vehicle class. While manufacturers have established assembly
plants in Ontario, none of them are solely Canadian companies, making it hard to follow the
strict guidelines set out by the procurement directive.
4.8 Fire
KPIs and Calculation:
• Self- Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) Inspection Compliance: % of SCBA
cylinders meeting inspection cycle
o Formula: (# Inspected ÷ Total SCBA Units) × 100
• Response Time (Granular): Average response time by call type
o Formula: Mean response time
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 17
• Fire Apparatus Lifecycle Compliance: Tracks age vs National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) lifecycle standards for fire vehicles
o Formula: (# Compliant ÷ Total Apparatus) × 100
• % of Fire Equipment Inspected: Compliance with inspection/safety standards for all
fire equipment
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 18
o Formula: (# Inspected ÷ Total Equipment) × 100
Analysis:
Fire Services asset performance is strong overall. Apparatus lifecycle compliance is 100%,
and most equipment categories achieved full inspection compliance. Fire hose compliance is
slightly below target at 95%. Response times were considered acceptable from an NFPA
standard standpoint.
Fire Services does not have any data limitations affecting AMP implementation.
Fire Services maintains a database for SCBA Cylinders. The cylinders have a 15-year life-
cycle and a five-year inspection cycle. There were no inspections due in 2025.
Fire Services works with City Infrastructure to annually review the Fire Apparatus Lifecycle and
the City complied for 2025. The procurement process for fire apparatus is a challenge across
the industry due to lengthy delivery times from the date of purchase. Prioritizing the
procurement process for fire apparatus to start at the beginning of the year will improve the
final delivery date.
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 19
Fire Services works with City Infrastructure to ensure annual testing and inspection is
completed by third party vendors for ground ladders, aerial ladder devices, and fire pumps.
This process has been in place for several years and has proven to be very effective, no
system improvements required.
Fire Services works with City Infrastructure to ensure Rescue Saws are inspected and
maintained regularly throughout each year. This process has been in place for several years
and has proven to be very effective, no system improvements required.
Fire Services maintains a Fire Hose database. Annual inspection and testing in 2025 were
95%. The City has implemented a new internal process to improve annual inspection and
testing with the goal to achieving 100%.
Fire Services maintains a database for Specialized Rope, Water, and Ice Rescue Equipment.
This equipment is inspected annually and after each use. Fire Services are planning to
implement a new internal process to improve inspections.
Results of the inspections will be included in Citywide, where applicable, for the purpose of
updating conditions, estimated useful life, replacement date and for budgeting.
4.9 Growth
KPIs and Calculation:
• Intensification Target Achievement: Progress toward the 30-year intensification goal
provided in Envision Durham.
o Formula: (# Units Delivered ÷ Target) × 100.
o Intensification Assumptions:
a. Intensification means development of a property, site or area at a higher
density than currently exists through:
i. redevelopment, including the reuse of brownfield sites;
ii. the development of vacant and/or underutilized lots within previously
developed areas;
iii. infill development;
iv. additional residential units; and
v. the expansion or conversion, including adaptive reuse, of existing
buildings.
b. For the purpose of this KPI, intensification is measured within the delineated
built-up area (South Pickering Urban Area). Only occupied units and
registered additional dwelling units within the South Pickering Urban Area are
included in the calculation.
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 20
• Annual Intensification Target Achievement: Progress towards annual intensification
target of 40% intensification rate
o Formula: (# Occupied Units in 2025 ÷ Net Occupied Units in 2025) x 100
• Occupancy Rate by Area: City-wide residential growth performance
o Formula: (# Newly Occupied Units in 2025 ÷ Total Units) × 100
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 21
Analysis:
Growth-related infrastructure demand remains significant. The majority of growth in 2025
occurred within the Duffin Heights, City Centre, and the Seaton Urban Area, which is
consistent with the planned intensification areas and greenfield development areas in the
Official Plan.
Through Envision Durham, the Region of Durham has allocated an intensification target of
21,790 unit to Pickering by 2051, representing a 40% intensification rate. On an annual basis,
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 22
a minimum of 40% of all new residential units within the City should be constructed within the
delineated built-up area (South Pickering Urban Area). The City achieved 39.5% of its
residential growth through intensification in 2025, which is generally still in line with the
intensification target.
Occupancy rates measure the proportion of new occupied units in relations to existing units
within a given area. The graphs indicate the highest proportion of residential growth within the
Seaton Urban Area, compared to the rest of the City.
As the City continues to grow, it creates additional demands and pressure on roads, parks,
facilities, stormwater, fire services, and other municipal assets. Asset management
implementation must continue to align growth planning with infrastructure capacity, lifecycle
costs, and funding requirements.
4.10 Climate Resilience
KPIs and Calculation:
• % of Natural Assets Restored or Enhanced: Evaluates progress on climate resilience
actions related to ecosystems and canopy cover (e.g., trees, naturalization, shoreline)
o Formula: (# Naturalization / Restoration Projects Completed ÷ Total Planned) ×
100
• # of Cooling Centre Days: Evaluates the City’s operational response to heat-related
service needs and climate resilience.
Analysis:
The City achieved 100% completion for planned natural asset restoration or enhancement
projects in 2025. This is a positive result and supports climate resilience, ecosystem function,
and natural infrastructure objectives. In addition, cooling centres were activated for 22 days in
2025, demonstrating the City’s operational response to extreme heat events and its continued
commitment to protecting community well-being during climate-related service pressures.
Data limitations affecting the implementation and reporting of natural asset restoration within
the AMP are as follows:
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 23
• A comprehensive natural asset inventory is not currently in place, limiting the availability
of baseline data on the extent, condition, and value of assets such as trees, wetlands,
and shorelines.
• There is no standardized definition of “naturalization” or “restoration” projects across
departments, which can affect reporting consistency.
• This indicator is based on naturalization projects and community tree planting initiatives;
boulevard tree plantings are not included, which may limit the completeness of canopy-
related progress.
• This indicator tracks project completion only and does not capture longer-term
ecological outcomes. Consequently, it reflects implementation progress rather than
overall ecological condition or performance.
In consideration of these data limitations, staff will implement targeted data governance
improvements to support more consistent reporting of natural asset restoration initiatives, in
alignment with the City’s update to the 2012 Urban Forest Study. This includes applying more
consistent definitions for naturalization and restoration projects, improving data coordination
across departments, and maintaining a centralized approach to tracking project completion.
Internal reviews will be undertaken to support data quality, with updates aligned to regular
AMP reporting cycles.
4.11 Financial Strategy
KPIs and Calculation:
• Budget Utilization: Measures how budget has been utilized or committed from the total
available budget
o Formula: ((Actual Spend Projects + Commitments) ÷ Total Budget Available) ×
100
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 24
Others include items such as fencing and security cameras.
• % of Projects Not Initiated Yet: Measures the projects that have not yet been initiated
(zero spending).
o Formula: (Value of Projects with Zero Spending ÷ Total Budget Available) × 100
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 25
• % of Projects with No Activity for 12+ Months: Measures delays by identifying capital
projects that have not progressed in over a year.
o Formula: (Value Projects with No Activity > 12 Months ÷ Total Budget Available)
× 100
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 26
Analysis:
Capital planning performance shows mixed results. Renewal projects show strong budget
utilization at 84.5%, which is positive because renewal investment directly supports backlog
reduction and risk mitigation. Growth projects show lower budget utilization of 44.9% and a
high proportion of projects with no spending at 34.3%. This may reflect project timing,
approvals, development dependency, design delays, procurement constraints, or capacity
limitations. Renewal also has the highest percentage of projects with prior spending but no
activity in 2025 at 5.3%, which is a result of many projects being put on hold in 2025 due to the
introduction of US tariffs.
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 27
The graph compares two approaches to funding the infrastructure need through property
taxation:
• Scenario 1 reflects the recommendation in the previous year’s AMP, with a consistent
2.8% annual tax increase through 2035. At that point, taxation levels stabilize once the
estimated funding target of approximately $136.8 million is reached.
• Scenario 2 presents a phased alternative, with no increase in 2026.The AMP
investment was paused for 2026 to reflect the need to balance property tax increases
within the context of the current economic challenges. For the years from 2027 to 2030,
a 1.0% increase is proposed and 3% annual increases thereafter to 2038. While this
approach delays the timeline, it ultimately reaches the same long-term funding
objective. The horizontal target line represents the estimated taxation level required to
fully address the current infrastructure funding need.
Delaying tax increases does not eliminate the infrastructure need. It does push the cost into
future years while assets continue to deteriorate. This increases the risk of:
• larger renewal backlogs;
• higher future construction costs;
• more assets moving from rehabilitation to full replacement;
• service level decline;
• emergency repairs; and
• greater future tax pressure.
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 28
Historically, the development of the annual capital budget was based on an approach that
considered asset management requirements and capital budget project requests (public
feedback and/or “wants.”). Starting with the 2027 Capital Budget, City staff will be using the
AMP as the foundation and/or building block for the annual capital and multi-year capital
budget forecast. Ideally, both capital and operating budgets should be informed by the AMP,
as it identifies the municipality’s infrastructure needs. There will still be public consultation
phase with the Capital Budget, however, it will be anchored more with analysis and priority
spending to support the investments required that translate, in the long run, the best “bang” for
the property tax dollar. It is recognized that sometimes municipalities often face pressure to
address urgent, immediate issues, which can lead to the deferral of long-term maintenance
and asset renewal, even when the future financial consequences are well understood.
During the next term, continued economic uncertainty could create a limited funding scenario,
which could put pressure on the City to prioritize short-term operating pressures over capital
rehabilitation projects and contributing to growing infrastructure deficits over time.
4.12 Overall Annual Review
Based on the 2025 KPI results, the City is making measurable progress in implementing its
AMP. The City has established a broad performance monitoring framework, created baseline
measures, improved visibility into asset condition and service performance, and strengthened
the connection between infrastructure data and capital planning.
However, the annual review also shows that several service areas remain below target,
including roads, structures, culvert inspections, facility condition, fleet lifecycle replacement,
and energy performance.
The most significant implementation risk is financial. If the City delays the recommended AMP
funding increases, the infrastructure funding target is reached later, and the City becomes
more exposed to backlog growth, accelerated deterioration, and higher future renewal costs.
Prepared By: Blaine Attwood, Supervisor, Capital Assets
Prepared By: Jesse Barker, Senior Coordinator, Asset Management
Prepared By: Jason Bekramchand, Senior Budget & Financial Analyst
Prepared By: Ziya Cao, Planner II
Prepared By: Matt Currer, Manager, Fleet & Roads Operations
Prepared By: Melanie Edmond, Coordinator, Sustainability
Prepared By: Dean Jacobs, Manager, Policy & Geomatics
FIN 08-26 June 8, 2026
Page 29
Prepared By: Raghu Kumar, Senior Financial Analyst – Development Charges & Capital
Management
Prepared By: Irina Marouchko, Manager, Water Resources
Prepared By: Arnold Mostert, Manager, Landscape & Parks Development
Prepared By: Vince Plouffe, Division Head, Facilities Management & Construction
Prepared By: Julie Robertson, Senior Financial Analyst – Asset Management Coordinator
Prepared By: Jason Yoshida, Deputy Fire Chief
Approved/Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer
Approved/Endorsed By: Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO
Approved/Endorsed By: Stephen Boyd, Fire Chief
Approved/Endorsed By: Laura Gibbs, Director, Community Services
Approved/Endorsed By: Kevin Heathcote, Director, City Infrastructure
Approved/Endorsed By: Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services
SK:jsr
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer