Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

WHAT’S ENVISIONED – This is what would replace the 1966-era front section of city hall, facing Second Avenue, if the city sticks with its massive renovation plans, which continues to rise in price. Sketch courtesy CITY OF WHITEHORSE

City hall project may need a rethink: Laking

It may be time to explore options to the major city hall reconstruction and renovation project being planned, Coun. Ted Laking suggested at Monday’s council meeting.

By Chuck Tobin on December 8, 2021

It may be time to explore options to the major city hall reconstruction and renovation project being planned, Coun. Ted Laking suggested at Monday’s council meeting.

Laking explained the project budget has jumped from the original budget of $9.7 million for a renovation project in 2014 to $26.2 million for a much more extensive project.

“Every time there is a budget increase, it’s just a little more here, or a little more there, but eventually we are $16.5 million over our originally estimated cost,” he said.

“So I would be interested in what other options are available to us as a city that are more economical both in the short term and in the long term for our taxpayers.”

The discussion came up as council is being asked to approve an additional $1.5 million be added to the budget of $24.7 million, to bring the total to $26.2 million.

That’s a 170-per-cent increase in estimated costs in just seven years, he pointed out. Inflation over that same period was under 15 per cent.

The makeover of city hall is part of the city’s Building Consolidation Project that resulted in the new $50-plus-million Operations Building off Range Road and the new $3.8-million Fire Hall #1 on Black Street.

Laking suggested that perhaps there could be an addition to the Operations Building to accommodate additional staffing needs.

In addition to the rising budget, the city is behind in the project, as it was supposed to go to tender last August. Now, that won’t happen until early next year, he said.

The project envisioned by the city council of the day in 2014 was substantially different, with no plans for expanding city hall, no plans for a new transit hub and no renovations to public access to city hall.

But in May 2019, council approved a new design calling for additions to city hall.

The cost was estimated in September 2019 to be $18.9 million. Once the concept design was completed by a local architectural company, a new estimate – a Class D estimate – put the cost at $20.8 million.

With the final design completed, a new estimate of $24.55 million was provided last March. It was followed by a Class A estimate that put the cost at $3.9 million more, though staff and the architectural firm have made changes that reduced the additional $3.9 million to an additional $1.5 million.

The $1.5 million has been included in the city’s 2022 capital budget, says the administrative report to council.

Additional expenses include contingencies to deal with any impact from the pandemic and the escalating cost of material.

“Now I take the point that there are already some sunk costs in this project that we would not be able to recover if we were to drastically rethink our approach here,” Laking said.

“And this is the fact that previous councils have had to contend with as the project scope and size has incrementally grown over the last several years. I am sympathetic to that argument, but eventually we need to decide what is a greater risk for the city and the taxpayers and when to cut our losses.”

The city has secured $17 million in federal and territorial grant funding to assist with the project, leaving Whitehorse residents responsible for 32 per cent of the estimated project cost.

It was noted at council Monday night that if the city did not spend the $17 million in funding from the senior governments, it would lose it.

Coun. Dan Boyd told his colleagues they are not now talking about the same project that was originally envisioned seven years ago. Looking for alternatives at this point would be unwise, he said.

“It would be more expensive to look at abandoning this plan and go seeking alternatives,” he said. “It will cost more and the time loss would be significant as well.”

Peter O’Blenes, the city’s manager of property management, told council funding from the senior government must be spent before March 31, 2024.

Basically, he said, the city needs to complete the project by the end of 2023.

The project calls for the demolition of the front half of city hall, built in 1966, and of the old, adjacent fire hall.

The newer part stemming from the mid-1980s, the back half where city council chambers are located, will be left, and a new two-storey structure will be built and tied into the rear half of city hall.

The project requires the city to find temporary office space for the 50 or so employees who work at city hall, including Mayor Laura Cabott and her staff. Also being sought is a location for a temporary city council chambers.

The city hall project includes a new biomass – wood heating – system and a major energy efficiency upgrade.

Coun. Jocelyn Curteanu applauded the measures being taken to reduce the city’s carbon footprint.

Energy efficiency performance will be 70 per cent better than the National Energy Code for buildings, she noted.

Curteanu said city hall will become the city’s first net zero fossil fuel building.

“So if we are serious about fighting climate change, this is a good way to go about it,” she said.

Comments (22)

Up 1 Down 1

Jim on Dec 14, 2021 at 10:05 pm

@Penny Wise, Pound Foolish, building something because it’s going to cost less now rather than 10 or more years down the road is kind of like buying a new car before the old one is wore out. You know the new ones are going to cost more the longer you wait. I think the bigger question is, do we need a fancy new city hall? Do we need a bus transit shelter? Is an insulation retrofit out of the question? Government is wanting everyone to retrofit, but all they want to do is tear down and build new. For some reason governments always seem to want new and shiny offices. Look at the facility on the hill. Either one actually. Both have a ton of wasted space with deluxe over sized offices and amenities.
Questioning this is not a Yukon Party or Liberal political game. We have all been questioning the need for this since it became public and was millions less. If you think the cost to cancel now is pricey, just wait until the final design is in with the real cost. Right now it’s only in the design concept and budget parameters stage. The cost become a reality in the design build once it is tendered and awarded. All we are seeing is a concept with projected costs.

Up 1 Down 0

Patricia Banks on Dec 14, 2021 at 5:09 pm

If they must build this, the least they could do is get rid of those green bits. There is a box like structure behind that has murals on the walls so who in their right mind thinks those bizarre frills are needed.

Up 6 Down 4

Seriously on Dec 13, 2021 at 8:59 pm

@TMYK Its nothing new for councilors or mayors to be affiliated with political parties. Like you say, the Mayor WAS the president of the party. "WAS" being the key word. Laking is the Chief of Staff for the Yukon Party right now as we speak, not years ago in the past. So how is the current government which is Liberal, supposed to deal in good faith with a council who has a member that gets paid to oppose everything they do? It's absurd. Guaranteed that he will just echo whatever the Yukon Party position is on any given issue.

Up 9 Down 6

TMYK on Dec 13, 2021 at 7:01 am

@Seriously you do know that our Mayor was president of the Yukon Liberal Party right? She was replaced by a former student of our Premier and our own little Kamala Harris (if you know, you know).

Up 9 Down 4

Finally on Dec 12, 2021 at 2:13 pm

@Nope - not only Mountainview but Riverdale as well! Just what exactly is the benefit of this ugly, monstrosity of a building to the citizens of Whitehorse? Get your priorities straight Lieberal Mayor and council!!!

Up 3 Down 4

BB on Dec 12, 2021 at 1:31 pm

Sheepchaser put 'y'all' and used 'literally' in the same post, and thereby wins the hipster award for this article. Y'all are literally the most hip person in the comments section!

Up 5 Down 5

Spud on Dec 12, 2021 at 10:47 am

Let's just get-R-dun. Perhaps double the offices and rent the extra offices for 99 years to YTG or Yukon Teachers'.

Up 12 Down 2

Nope on Dec 11, 2021 at 3:49 pm

Shelve the project. Now is not the time to build monoliths like that abomination on the clay cliffs.

COW: Tighten your belts, sharpen your pencils, find efficiencies and get back to basics like snow/garbage removal and get your engineer building out a plan for Mountainview as that is quickly becoming a serious traffic and safety issue.

Up 11 Down 16

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish on Dec 10, 2021 at 8:35 pm

Scrapping this new build would be penny wise and pound foolish. Laking could appear to be 'looking out for the taxpayer' but he would be screwing them in the long run.

-First, a lot of planning was already done and that comes at a cost which would now be thrown away because a design/budget does have a shelf life. You can't just dust it off 10 years from now because a lot of variables will have changed.

-Second, this old building will need a bunch of renovations, including a new roof I've heard, so you will need to likely pour a few million into it just to stay up to code for a few years longer.

-Thirdly, due to its 1960s insulation and heating system, the City is paying to heat the atmosphere above the building all winter. Alternatively during some of our hot summer days, the city will be paying to cool off the atmosphere. With a new building, energy costs would drop immediately.

-4th point, the cost to replace the building will only go up over time. If you think, costs will come down in a few years time, you are living in an alternate reality. Construction costs will only go up, so if you think it is expensive right now, just wait and see what it will be 5-10 years from now!

So basically 'looking out for the taxpayer' is the equivalent of conservative virtue signaling. Sounds great, but is actually costing taxpayers more in the long term.

Up 26 Down 8

Finally on Dec 9, 2021 at 6:27 pm

Finally a councillor who has some guts to question one of the most idiotic decisions the past mayor and council made. This new building IS NOT REQUIRED or NEEDED in Whitehorse. A transit hub??? Seriously?? Just where do you think we are living - Vancouver, Toronto??? We are not and by god I hope never will be Vancouver or Toronto. As for ‘Seriously’, your diatribe is quite hilarious considering the Lieberal mayor and certain councillors are doing what the Lieberal government does best - overspend on things not needed!!

Up 39 Down 12

Charlie's Aunt on Dec 9, 2021 at 2:00 pm

We don't need this futuristic appearance to a building. As I said earlier, those green things are reminiscent of the pikes on London Bridge that were used for the heads of traitors. This design is completely out of touch with the Whitehorse scene, if they must rebuild, what is wrong with following the gold rush them of buildings on Main St? Keep it simple stupid & put out a tender to design a simple, well insulated building with a false historic front.

Up 37 Down 7

Max Mack on Dec 9, 2021 at 9:06 am

City council has been on a spending spree for years now, with Dan Curtis overseeing much of that spending orgy. Now we have Cabott to continue the Curtis brand. Ugh.

Does this cost estimate include the so-called "transit hub"? Does it include all of the related planning costs? Does it include the associated infrastructure upgrades, such as planned changes to streets, lighting, parking, sewer/water mains, etc?

How are tax-payers expected to pay for all of this?

Up 41 Down 8

Sheepchaser on Dec 8, 2021 at 11:15 pm

If Whitehorse taxpayers were at all organized, there’d already be an injunction in place on this project. Y’all are getting absolutely hosed here. The longer it goes on, the more you’ll suffer. They are literally looking to elevate themselves over your hearth and home while spewing endless lowest-bidder supplied wet wood smoke into your air. Virtue signalling gone far awry. Backed up by the one engineer in town that’ll even pretend this is a halfway smart idea.

Get a second opinion. I promise it won’t line up.

Up 22 Down 40

Seriously? on Dec 8, 2021 at 9:48 pm

Ok, every time the media mentions Councilor Ted Laking, they should make sure to mention that he is the Yukon Party Chief of Staff. It seems like a pretty big conflict of interest. How can he be expected to ever take an independent position on anything? He will simply do Yukon Party leader Currie Dixon's bidding.

Up 17 Down 21

Wilf Carter on Dec 8, 2021 at 8:33 pm

As some one who has studied dendrology, bio mass creates 5 to 7 times more carbon then fosssil fuels.

Up 35 Down 8

Jim on Dec 8, 2021 at 5:35 pm

@YT, obviously you don’t have much experience in construction or job management. We’re you not around when the last 3 YTG tenders came in at almost 20% over budget? So if we are at 26 million now, we most likely will be at 30 or more when the smoke clears. Plus any extras that the City is notorious for leaving out of the tender to keep the price down. Such as the paving at the pink elephant on the hill. Wasn’t that an additional 9 million or so?
It always makes me angry when people justify any price because the money will stay in the Yukon. News flash, it’s not the City’s money. It’s not the Feds money. It’s tax payers money. Sometimes you have to take a step back to be fiscally responsible. Thank you Ted for at least questioning this insane project. Old councillors will of course want to back the project as this snowballed on their watch.

Up 36 Down 9

Nathan Living on Dec 8, 2021 at 4:34 pm

I am nervous the new council may disappoint us even more than the previous one did.

Thanks Ted for sharpening the pencil and challenging the cost of the new building.
And please challenge anything that comes
before council because that is the best way to ensure you are looking out for taxpayers.

Up 79 Down 22

Crunch on Dec 8, 2021 at 4:00 pm

Finally a city councillor who will ask the tough questions and keep the liberals in check. You can't castle out of check if you need someplace to hide.

Up 92 Down 10

Pierre on Dec 8, 2021 at 3:19 pm

Love the spin by one councillor about the present climate emergency and fighting climate change…my lord what world is that poor lady living in…out to lunch. How about an upcoming financial emergency which btw is around the corner.

Up 58 Down 14

Politico on Dec 8, 2021 at 3:09 pm

Sooo after 10 years of study not enough consultation has been done! Really!

Up 93 Down 12

John on Dec 8, 2021 at 2:42 pm

It always amazes me how some kind of philosophical thinking justifies a huge expenditure, and it is perceived as being just fine. This project (the Yukon Taj Mahal) is not pegged at $24.55 million, an escalated increase from the original projection that started at $16.5 million. Gads that is a lot of money for office space. However we can justify the expense says one councillor: "Curteanu said city hall will become the city’s first net zero fossil fuel building. “So if we are serious about fighting climate change, this is a good way to go about it,” she said." Pretty extravagant price tag for that ideal. The last I looked we have loads of trees in the Yukon but not one of them is a money tree. What she is not observing is the cost in the project to get to that objective. When I say cost, I mean the "whole cost", which must include all the collateral expenses to everything in the building materials and design to reach that lofty goal. Shake your head...

I find it annoying that we are asked to jump on a band wagon because that is what everyone else, in some other place is doing, or wants to do. Why can we not just live within our means. I am forced to do that everyday.

To top it off this is an ugly concept to begin with - in fact it is hideous. Let's put the brakes on and go back to the drawing board with a fixed budget that we will not exceed. Never mind the nice to haves and the glitz. The structure just needs to be to code and functional - end of story.

Up 22 Down 104

YT on Dec 8, 2021 at 2:41 pm

Pretty easy to tell that Laking has zero construction or project management experience.
Or any other experience for that matter.
Keep in mind that a project like this, the money mostly stays here and keeps our local trade people working. Ted against that?

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.