Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Vince Fedoroff

CONSTRUCTION CONTINUING – The second level of a two storey underground parking facility at the new extended care facility had to be eliminated well after construction started. Officials are citing an oversight during planning as the reason.

Changes to Whistle Bend facility made in light of city bylaw

Plans have been altered and gravel partially filled in to an already dug hole that would have housed two storeys of parking at the Whistle Bend continuing care facility currently under construction.

By Stephanie Waddell on August 26, 2016

Plans have been altered and gravel partially filled in to an already dug hole that would have housed two storeys of parking at the Whistle Bend continuing care facility currently under construction.

Instead, there will be only one level of underground parking in light of a city regulation overlooked in the planning.

As Steven Leeming, the territory’s project director on the Whistle Bend facility, explained this morning the issue arose recently when it was learned the site would not be able to tie into the city’s storm water system for drainage as it was originally thought.

“That was an incorrect assumption,” Leeming said.

Therefore the underground parking had to be scaled back to one level of 75 spaces and plans were made to accommodate the other level of parking outside, above ground. The number of parking spaces will not change with the new plans, Leeming said, noting the second level had about the same number of parking spots as the 75 that will be underground.

It’s Leeming’s understanding the city regulation preventing the facility from tying into the storm sewers is in place to prevent winter freezing, and possibly other reasons.

Storage tanks will now collect the water, which will then be emptied into the city’s system at times when the weather is warmer and there’s not the risk of freeze up.

The situation saw workers on the building site fill in part of the hole due for the two-storey parkade.

The full cost of the additional work on the parking will not be known until it is complete, department officials said today, noting it will be contained within the $9-million project reserve set out in the overall budget to build the 150-bed facility expected to open in 2018. The facility is designed so that it can accommodate up to another 150 beds at a later date.

“We remain on budget,” Leeming said.

PCL Constructors Westcoast Inc. won the contract to design and build the facility with the two-story parking facility. The construction is estimated at about $114 million while the total budget is estimated at $147 million.

It’s proposal was deemed the best and most affordable, Leeming said, arguing that nothing has changed that.

Leeming emphasized the situation will not have a major impact on either the overall budget or the completion date.

“We’re still on target for Spring 2018,” he said, adding there is an impact on the order in which things will be done.

All of the parking was originally set to be done during the first part of construction. Now the second part of the parking will be done at the end of construction.

There also remains sufficient space to accommodate the future phase should it eventually go ahead, he said.

When questioned how the design flaw was overlooked, Leeming said that despite extensive reviews from all parties, with such a major project some details can slip through the cracks and things like this sometimes happen.

Plans for the facility have been met with criticism and protests from a number in the community who have argued against its large size, location and other details.

Those in support of the plans argue there is a clear need for more long-term care beds and the Whistle Bend project is providing the best option for those who need beds now. Leeming said the Whistle Bend site “is an excellent site” for the facility.

By STEPHANIE WADDELL Star Reporter

Comments (21)

Up 1 Down 0

north_of_60 on Sep 1, 2016 at 9:57 pm

For about 2/3ds of the year we have a surplus of clean renewable hydroelectric power available to run a fleet of smaller electric powered buses. That's the sort of fossil-fuel savings initiative we should take instead of carbon taxes.

It's too bad we don't have something like a 'sustainability department' to implement iniatives like that. Oh wait, we DO have one of those, but they're too busy poking in people's garbage cans and harassing the group who creates less than 10% of the garbage at the dump, to ever think about the big picture.

Better yet, scrap the faux 'sustainability department' and use that half-a-million or more to buy small electric buses.

We could solve our energy problems if the CoW wasn't more interested in growing it's bureaucracy with an expensive top-heavy management structure. It's obvious those people don't care; they don't take the bus anywhere, so it doesn't concern them.

Up 4 Down 4

Jwhite on Sep 1, 2016 at 2:53 pm

The argument for small busses seems to crop up every time transit is mentioned, but I don't think people have really thought this through. If you actually take transit, you'll know that "'they are usually empty" is not valid. Especially during peak periods, the busses are usually full. The busses are not as big as people who don't ride them seem to think, and it's not correct to assume that there would be any real saving in fuel. It's just so easy to make sweeping assumptions without backing them up with facts.

Up 12 Down 1

Bud McGee on Sep 1, 2016 at 9:30 am

@ Moose I never said anything about tossing out services like transit. What I question is the amount of spending on them. The product should meet the demand. I see many very large buses ride around empty. Why not scale back to smaller buses that demand less fuel and are more maneuverable? And have routes and schedules that are better suited to the needs of Whitehorse residents. Smaller buses would also result in less road damage, and reduce O&M costs for maintaining roads.

Up 10 Down 4

Moose on Aug 31, 2016 at 9:11 am

@Bud "Hardly anybody uses transit" Do you have any stats on that?

If not, I'm tempted to think that you don't use transit yourself and are therefore making an assumption based on your own anecdotal evidence. The people who use transit are generally those who are the least well off in society.... people who can't afford to drive or perhaps have a disability that prevents them from doing so. Please don't be so quick to toss out services just because you don't personally need them.

Up 13 Down 1

ProScience Greenie on Aug 30, 2016 at 1:01 pm

Would never tell you to chill out BnR as you are one of my favorite posters here. Keep up with the wise and articulate words.

The biggest nightmare scenario Bud is the city expanding its boundary to collect (and waste) more tax dollars. They are looking at doing so and must be stopped to prevent the dysfunctional craziness from spreading.

Up 12 Down 1

YukonMax on Aug 30, 2016 at 12:18 pm

"as it was originally thought"
Why didn't you inquire first?
I "THINK" your inflated pay rate and ego should measure up to the taxpayer expectations.

Up 21 Down 3

Bud McGee on Aug 30, 2016 at 9:27 am

I see many are blaming the government and PCL, but let's not give the City a pass either. The City administration often gives mixed signals, and perhaps some of that contributed to this situation. Also the City has policies where developers have to deal with their storm drainage on-site. They are doing this to save O&M money. I just think the City is stupid to be frugal in one area and heavy spenders in other area like waste management and transit. Hardly anybody uses transit, but storm water impacts everybody. All those homes in Copper Ridge with flooding basements can trace their problems back to storm water management and the City not allowing some connection to the City storm water system.

Up 7 Down 3

BnR on Aug 30, 2016 at 6:46 am

PSG. You're right, heavy equipment can do wonders, but, at some point it becomes cost prohibitive. The high ground behind the hospital is not even close to being a viable building site, certainly not for a major project such as this, although as you rightly point out, the view is sublime. No need to tell me to chill out, it's a simple assessment.

Up 17 Down 8

ProScience Greenie on Aug 29, 2016 at 12:26 pm

Easy BnR. D11s and big excavators and a few wiggle wagons and a site can be levelled quickly. Close to the hospital and a wonderfull soothing view for residents. If it takes a second bridge so be it as one is badly needed anyways.

I still say some people should be fired for such sloppy work on the project and for overall fishy political actions. Otherwise it will never stop.

Wasted money is also wasted energy and excess C02 sent into the atmosphere for no good reason. Not green and not smart.

Up 32 Down 2

north_of_60 on Aug 28, 2016 at 7:06 pm

This is more fallout from the mistakes that were made with the design of the sewer and storm drain systems at the beginning, and then covered up. As if 'out-of-sight, out-of-mind' would actually work. As long as nobody tries to expose anything before the election then they're good. They should be OK; reporting in the Yukon is socially entertaining not investigative.

Up 18 Down 10

Jean Dacko on Aug 28, 2016 at 5:38 pm

I would not use the underground parking it will probably collapse!

Up 20 Down 3

BnR on Aug 28, 2016 at 12:17 pm

Wilf, there is a good reason they can't connect to the storm sewers; freezing risk. That's not something you can get a variance for. Zoning etc you can request a variance, this is just a practicality.
PSG, what high ground behind the hospital are you referring to? It's a system of ridges and potholes that would not allow itself to any large building project at all.
The drainage and storage system being put forward by PCL is going to greatly add to the O&M of an already O&M intensive facility. The YP government keeps coming up with these grandiose projects while not increasing HPWs maintenance budgets of existing infrastructure, infrastructure that badly needs it. But hey, maintenece doesn't provide for photo ops and ribbon cutting.

Up 29 Down 14

ProScience Greenie on Aug 27, 2016 at 9:06 pm

Cancel it and start from scratch by building it up on the high ground behind the hospital. It will be cheaper in the long run.

Then fire any and all involved at the senior planning and political level on this stupid project.

Up 36 Down 4

Just Say'in on Aug 27, 2016 at 1:52 pm

Why is this coming out of the contingency fund? If this was a design built by PCL Constructors Westcoast Inc. then they are responsible. These are not small players, this is a huge company that does not make these kinds of mistakes. They build mega projects all over, this is a nothing for them. Or is there more then we know? Did our little Government Engineers give some faulty direction?

Up 24 Down 17

Wilf on Aug 27, 2016 at 7:54 am

How can you just out of hand cancel 1/2 of the planned underground parking because of a by-law violation? Go ahead and build it and get a variance to get it okayed. We don't need less parking in this town we need more. Take a look at all the congestion around town and terrible parking planning or the lack thereof is the major cause of this. Instead we get little traffic circles in already quiet neighborhoods to screw the local parking availability up and do absolutely nothing for the non-existent traffic. We need a change in direction here folks in at least 2 levels of Government if not more.

Up 47 Down 9

Yukoner on Aug 27, 2016 at 7:39 am

The next news on this project will be that they will be installing outhouses as they can't connect to the sewer system. But don't worry the contingency fund will cover it.
Collecting the meltwater in tanks. To be trucked away. Right.
What happens here in the winter. It snows. Vehicles collect snow, ice and muck all winter long. Drive into heated parking garage, what happens? Lots of meltwater all winter long. Going to be lots of pump outs over the winter. Storing the melt water in tanks is a poor response to not hooking up to storm sewers. Scrap the heated indoor parking.
And if we are deleting one underground story of parking, should that not be a credit? Less concrete? What about the consultants errors and omissions? I guess they are getting paid to fix their screw up. I work in the trades, I mess up, I fix it and eat the cost.

Up 25 Down 7

Jonathan Colby on Aug 26, 2016 at 7:23 pm

@ trades guy

Bahahaha. Indeed. Methinks everyone at the helm was too busy congratulating themselves on the concept to look at the details. Oh, well. At least the building will be great...?

Up 32 Down 0

Tim on Aug 26, 2016 at 6:59 pm

Remember you heard it here... “We remain on budget,”

Up 25 Down 8

Francis Pillman on Aug 26, 2016 at 4:35 pm

Just saw an ad for tours of this disaster. No sandals it said, lol. But sandals go great with sand don't they? Whistlefail.

Up 52 Down 16

June Jackson on Aug 26, 2016 at 4:04 pm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/whistle-bend-facility-site-clay-engineer-1.3658472

This report says.."Whistle Bend facility site 'terrible', says engineer
'I think the minister should be fired for picking this site,' says Robert Wills

I feel somewhat vindicated about my vigorous if useless fight to prevent the facility from going out to Whistle Bend...

The Pasloski government rode rough shod over everyone, over every objection, every commenter and did it anyway... wasting taxpayer dollars on a million dollar scale..and I am sure there is more failures to come.. because that is what the YP has been about... just call the election Darryl and stop trying to pathetically cling to power to the last bitter second.

Up 81 Down 3

trades guy on Aug 26, 2016 at 3:13 pm

"When questioned how the design flaw was overlooked, Leeming said that despite extensive reviews from all parties, with such a major project some details can slip through the cracks and things like this sometimes happen"
Yeah, little details like connecting to City services.....

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.