At least one of the costs for the proposed new city operations building is clear after Tuesday’s city council meeting.

And that’s the $2.1 million that will go to design and construction supervision.

In a 5-2 vote by council last night, members approved awarding the contract to Toronto-based firm RDHA.

Councillors Samson Hartland and Dan Boyd voted against the contract award, bringing forward issues with the cost and financing of the overall project itself during a lengthy debate.

The city is proposing to build the new operations building in an area off Range Road and Two Mile Hill.

The building would see the majority of the equipment and staff who work out of the Municipal Services Building (MSB) on Fourth Avenue move up to the new site, with the remaining 20 or so staffers in the building moved to other city sites.

Eventually, the plan would see the MSB site sold and redeveloped (the potential cost to get the site ready for sale is not known yet).

The cost of the operations building project was a large part of the debate. Council members who favour the project argued the true costs won’t be known until the design is complete.

The city’s estimates, however, peg the total cost of the operations building at $44 million.

A new proposed service building that is envisioned later for the downtown area is expected to cost another $12 million, bringing the price tag up to $56 million.

The city had initially been looking at a larger consolidation project that would bring a number of other departments into the two buildings.

Moving ahead with that, however, could bring the entire cost up to $73 million.

Thus, officials have scaled back the plans to focus on the operations building for now, with the possibility of adding future phases should funding become available in the years ahead.

At last night’s meeting, Mayor Dan Curtis provided the media with answers to questions raised by council last week.

City staff had produced the document showing spending plans and where funding is expected to come from – with more than $14 million from reserves, more than $15 million from the city’s portion of federal gasoline tax funding and the remainder expected to be through financing.

“It is acknowledged that a number of the city’s financial policies need to be updated and/or formalized, and the finance department plans to start doing that in fall of 2016 when staff resources can be devoted to this project,” it was noted in the document.

“However, at this time, with the current anticipated expenditure as reflected in the capital submission, administration is comfortable that the city has the means to proceed with the project.”

Hartland and Boyd took issue with the high costs of the project and funding.

It’s an issue Boyd has continually brought up, stressing the city should have its finances “in order” before it moves ahead with such a major project.

Hartland, meanwhile, suggested there are a number of spaces that could be leased to the city at a “fraction of the cost” to building a new structure. He went on to argue the city needs to do its “due diligence” before it moves forward on it.

“I think rushing into this would be a mistake,” he said, making a motion to defer the vote on the contract.

He was alone in wanting to defer the matter, and after his motion was defeated, he said he could not support moving ahead.

Boyd voted against the contract award as well.

On Hartland’s suggested deferral, he said it’s unlikely anything about the project would change in the two weeks that follow a deferral vote, so he didn’t support Hartland’s motion.

He also confirmed with city manager Christine Smith that leasing space would be an ongoing operational expense rather than falling under the capital budget as constructing a city-owned facility does.

As Coun. Jocelyn Curteanu pointed out, it’s operational costs that property tax rates are based on. That could easily mean substantial hikes on property tax bills in future years if the city were to lease building space.

Coun. Roslyn Woodcock also took issue with the idea of leasing space, noting not only the potential tax hike, but also that it would be a “massive undertaking.”

She described Hartland’s suggestion of leasing space as a “vague notion”.

As Coun. Rob Fendrick pointed out, a lot of “due process” has already taken place to get to this stage.

While all the numbers may not be entirely clear just yet, having a design in place will provide more certainty on the overall cost, he said.

“I think it’s money well spent,” he said earlier in the meeting of the design and construction supervision cost.

Throughout the drawn-out conversation, council members appeared to agree on one thing: the need to get staff and equipment out of the MSB.

“The building is collapsing around our ears practically,” Woodcock said.

She also said that with half the cost to build the operations building available through reserves and gas tax funding, the city should proceed.

Comparing it to buying a home, Woodcock said it would be rare for a buyer to cover the full costs of his or her home, or even have 20 per cent for a down payment.

Most home buyers have five or 10 per cent available to put down, and the rest is covered through the mortgage, she said.

Curtis, as well, cited “safety concerns” with the MSB.

Curteanu argued it’s better to move forward with the building now when proper planning and design work can be done than even further down the road when the need becomes more urgent than it already is.

“The MSB’s going to fail,” Curteanu said.

Moving forward now may actually cost less than waiting for some point in the future, given factors such as the ever-rising cost of construction and current low interest rates.

Nearly all council members continued to make their points throughout the lengthy discussion, with Coun. Betty Irwin proving to be the exception.

As she explained when asked by Curtis if she had any comments about it, she “couldn’t possibly add anything that hasn’t already been said.”

Her position on the contract was clear though when she voted in favour of awarding the contract.

RDHA was one of five companies which submitted proposals that made it to the final round of consideration.

Among the other eligible proposals considered were CEI at $2.26 million, Manasc at $2.41 million, Perkins at $2.45 million and Stantec at $2.56 million.

While RDHA is based in Toronto, all the subcontractors listed on the project are based in and/or have offices in Whitehorse.

Shortly after voting to award the contract last night, council unanimously approved third reading to lease eight hectares of land from the Yukon government for the site.

The lease could be for up to 60 years (including the 30-year lease term and renewal option for a further 30 years) at a rate of $1 per year, though the agreement also includes an option to buy the land in the future.

As planning manager Pat Ross explained in previous reports to council, the city would ultimately pursue purchasing the land, but is going ahead with the lease first to allow for quicker access to the property.