The reductions identified in Option B will rationalize redundancy in play units that have been installed over the years as the park system has developed. A case in point is a number of small playgrounds that develop in a cluster of parks that in some cases are across the street from one another or are within a block of each other. In these cases it is possible to eliminate a unit completely without compromising distribution as per the Official Plan. See Appendix F
5. RISK ANALYSIS:
There is a moderate risk associated with adopting the recommendations in this report.
Regardless of the replacement schedule chosen (Option A or B) there is a chance that existing playground equipment in the system, will reach failed condition earlier than expected and would need to be taken out of service. If replacement is required and funds are not actively available, the playground may remain out of service for an extended period, possibly leading to deficient service delivery and reputational impacts. Reprioritization of the scheduled replacement may also occur.
This risk is tolerated by the Corporation; however there are a couple of mitigation actions which can address the level of risk. Additional funding for playground replacements would assist in addressing the backlog and will ensure more regular replacement schedule moving forward. An annual review of the entire playground system, at the time of the third party annual inspections, should be conducted to identify upcoming replacements and the risk of any potential service deficiencies. Proactive planning activities will also enable staff to identify efficiencies that could result from changes to the size/location of playgrounds. The replacement schedule will also be updated at this time, to reflect the audit results and recommendations.
Special attention should be paid to those playgrounds where replacement parts are no longer available due to age or where a manufacturer is no longer in business. This applies to 35% of the playgrounds currently in service.
The third party annual inspections, regular inspections and removal of any non-compliant playgrounds are measures that have been taken to mitigate ongoing risks of injury to patrons and liability. The continuation of these measures is important to ensuring effective risk management moving forward. The recommended use of rubber surfacing for all future playground constructions is an additional mitigation measure which also ensures compliance with AODA legislation and CSA Standards.
6. FINANCIAL MATTERS :
This section of the report will provide a financial perspective on the following:
-
Life cycle cost difference between sand and rubberized surfaces for playgrounds
-
Option A, replacement of all play units, versus Option B, consolidation of play units in some areas
-
Funding requirements for Option B
For the purposes of this report Parks and Asset Planning developed general size and cost values to be applied to playgrounds in the system. All playgrounds were identified as ‘Large’, ‘Medium’, and ‘Small’, and the respective average 2015 cost for each category applied. The costs were developed based on recent purchase prices of play units, components and surfacing.