Planned vs reactive maintenance, and why the balance drives budgets.

Planned maintenance is work scheduled before failure. Annual fire safety certification, the membrane re-coat at year ten, the seasonal gutter clean, the trades visit that closes a deficiency from the last inspection. Scope is known, cost is budgeted, timing is the building's choice.

Reactive maintenance is work the building did not choose. The overnight leak, the parkade slab that fails inspection, the boiler that quits in February, the order to comply after a fire inspector visit. The repair is necessary, but cost, timing, and scope are all dictated by the failure.

Two buildings can spend the same dollar amount on maintenance in a year and end up in very different positions. The one weighted toward planned work has predictable budgets, a flat year-over-year cost curve, and a depreciation report that still matches reality.

The reactive one absorbs emergency mobilization fees, collateral damage to finishes, and the contingency draw-downs that make a special levy more likely at the next AGM.

The move from reactive to planned does not happen through better intentions. It happens through a current condition record that makes the next twelve months of likely work visible before it is urgent.

Each SENTiNEL finding is photographed, located, and ranked by severity. The council sees what to act on now, what to schedule, and what to monitor. Over a few cycles the reactive column shrinks because the work that used to arrive as a surprise is already on the planned list.