The Story in One Page
Seven residence buildings, two converging data sources, one capital renewal case.
Buildings in Scope
7
Excludes Glacier and Olympus per capital planning request
Total Replacement Value
$401.9M
Per Alberta Infrastructure FCA reports
FCA-Flagged 5-Yr Need
$39.1M
Auditor-identified work due within 5 years of inspection
Buildings in Poor Condition
3
Cascade, Kananaskis, Rundle (FCI > 0.15)
The Argument in Three Layers
Three pieces of evidence point to the same conclusion: a meaningful portion of the residence portfolio needs capital renewal in the next 15 years.
Layer 1 · FCA Condition Data
Alberta Infrastructure has independently audited every building. Three are rated Poor. Auditors have flagged 103 D-Marginal or E-Poor system findings across the portfolio. $39M of work is already overdue or coming due.
Layer 2 · Operational Reality
Reactive work request costs stepped up 28% from 2020 to 2025 and have stabilized at $1.3M/year. Without capital intervention, that's $17M over the next decade simply maintaining current condition.
Layer 3 · Third-Party Confirmation
Vinspec Ltd (elevator consultants) independently flagged $3.3M of elevator modernization needed by 2030 across Cascade, IH, and Yamnuska. Work request data also confirms KA and RU elevator failures are climbing despite consultant's 2023 deferred view.
Recommendations Snapshot
Click any building card to drill into the details. Full recommendations on the Recommendations tab.
FCA Condition Outlook
Building age plotted against Facility Condition Index. Bubble size represents replacement cost. The red dashed line at 0.15 is the industry-recognized threshold for "Poor" condition.
Building Age vs Condition (bubble size = Replacement Cost)
Good (FCI < 0.05)
Good-Fair (0.05-0.10)
Fair (0.10-0.15)
Poor (> 0.15)
Top D/E Condition Findings (Portfolio-Wide)
Items rated D-Marginal or E-Poor by FCA auditors, sorted by estimated cost. Lifecycle and consultant-flagged items are not shown here — those appear in each building's drilldown panel.
| Building | System | Issue | Condition | Cost |
|---|
Reactive Cost Reality
Work request cost data from Archibus, January 2020 to April 2026. 82,929 total work requests; 71,000 within the 7 in-scope buildings.
Total Reactive Cost (2020–2025)
$7.1M
6 full years across 7 buildings
5-Year Cost Trend
+28%
2020 vs 2025; stabilized at new baseline since 2023
Current Annual Run Rate
$1.3M
Reactive cost only, excluding capital projects
Projected 10-Yr Reactive Cost
$17.4M
If current trajectory holds without capital intervention
Cost Per Square Meter (Annual, 2020–2025 Average)
Adjusting for building size shows which buildings cost more to maintain relative to footprint. Cascade leads at $16.80/m²/yr.
Reactive Cost per m² per Year by Building
Important Nuance
Reactive cost does not uniformly correlate with FCI rating. Cascade shows convergence (Poor FCI + highest reactive cost). Kananaskis and Rundle show Poor FCI without elevated reactive cost — consistent with deferred deterioration that has not yet triggered widespread failures. When these buildings start failing, the cost trajectory will be sharp. Cascade is showing us what that transition looks like.
Capital Project Recommendations
Proposed renovation candidates for 5-15 year and 20-40 year capital plans. Dollar ranges are order-of-magnitude estimates pending consultant scoping for each project.
Near-Term: 5-15 Year Window (2026-2040)
Three buildings rated Poor on FCI. Each has converging evidence supporting a major renovation in the next decade. Click any card for detail.
Long-Term: 20-40 Year Window (2045-2065)
Younger buildings approaching mid-life lifecycle convergence. Plan now to avoid the deferred-maintenance trap that produced today's Priority buildings.
Methodology & Data Sources
How each figure on this site was derived and where it came from. Audit trail for capital planning review.
Primary Data Sources
- FCA Reports (Alberta Infrastructure) — Facility Condition Assessment for each building. Audit dates: KA & RU (Aug 2016), Cascade (Aug 2022), Aurora & Crowsnest (Jun 2024), Yamnuska & IH (May 2025). Source of FCI scores, replacement costs, system condition ratings, 5-year maintenance needs, and individual requirement line items.
- Archibus Work Request Export — All work requests Jan 1, 2020 to Apr 30, 2026. 82,929 records, filtered to 7 in-scope buildings. Source of reactive cost trends and operational evidence.
- Vinspec Ltd Capital Plan — May 19, 2023 letter (File #2594, Carl Koczula P.Eng.). Source of elevator modernization recommendations and timelines.
- Jensen Hughes Consulting — Building code review for Kananaskis Hall identifying non-conforming stairs/handrails, egress, fire separations, and mechanical/electrical systems.
Key Definitions
FCI (Facility Condition Index)
5-Year Maintenance Cost ÷ Building Replacement Cost
FCI Bands
Good < 0.05 · Good-Fair 0.05-0.10 · Fair 0.10-0.15 · Poor 0.15-0.30 · Critical > 0.30
D-Marginal
Significant deficiencies; replacement may be necessary in 2-3 years
E-Poor
Major deficiencies; full or major replacement required in 0-1 years
Significant Impact
Failure could result in serious injury or total program shutdown
Cost Trend %
(2025 Cost − 2020 Cost) ÷ 2020 Cost. Uses Date Work Completed.
Caveats and Limitations
- KA and RU FCA assessments are 10 years old. Many target dates are already overdue.
- Renovation budget ranges are order-of-magnitude estimates derived from FCA replacement costs at typical renovation factor (60-80% of new build). Actual project costs require consultant scoping including hazmat, code uplift, accessibility, displacement, and finish allowances. These are not quotes.
- 2026 data is partial year (Jan-Apr only). Annual projections normalize this.
- Cost trends include all work request types: routine maintenance, recurring PMs, and one-off projects. Large project costs ($10K+) can shift annual totals; cross-reference WR volume trends for context.
- Reactive cost data does not uniformly correlate with FCI. KA and RU show Poor FCI without elevated reactive cost — consistent with deferred deterioration that has not yet cascaded into widespread failures.
Scope Exclusions
- Glacier Hall (GL) and Olympus Hall (OL) — excluded per capital planning request scope.
- Cascade Hall elevator modernization — currently in progress and separately funded; not included in the $25-35M Cascade renovation range.
- Dining Centre (DC) — separate facility under different operational and capital structure; not included in this residence-focused brief.