Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Vince Fedoroff

DEFENDING BUDGETARY DECISIONS – ‘We need to take care of our staff’ is how Mayor Dan Curtis, seen at Monday evening’s council meeting, justifies the city’s mammoth building consolidation project.

Consolidation plan swallows most of budget

Nearly all of the city’s planned capital spending next year would be aimed at the proposed new operations building.

By Stephanie Waddell on November 15, 2016

Nearly all of the city’s planned capital spending next year would be aimed at the proposed new operations building.

Council unveiled and passed first reading on the city’s $46.6 million 2017 capital budget Monday evening along with outlining the plan for capital spending each year to 2020. The 2016 budget was $16 million.

Of the $46.6 million the city plans to spend next year, $39.1 million would go to the operations building followed by a further $1.5 million in 2018, when it’s expected to be finished.

While the construction of the project has yet to be approved, the city has already put about $5 million into a number of contracts for its design and to ready the site off Range Road, including a $126,000 clearing contract awarded last night to Castle Rock Enterprises.

Without a detailed design of the building yet, the full cost of the building is not yet known, but speaking to reporters last night Mayor Dan Curtis said he has confidence that the project will come in within the estimates city staff have outlined.

He expects that when it comes to the construction, administration will bring forward all the facts council needs for the “seven hands” to be raised on council to approve the project.

Despite that confidence, he acknowledged there’s already council members who have voiced concerns or outright opposition to the project. Coun. Samson Hartland, for example, has voted against every contract associated with the initiative from the design to the clearing. He’s argued the city would be better to lease space for its operations and that the project will cost too much.

Coun. Dan Boyd has voiced concerns over the project as well, though he’s voted in favour of the contracts to put in utilities and clear the land, noting the potential for development there regardless of whether the building goes ahead.

Whether the city will indeed get the full vote of seven members of council for the budget allocating the funding and the construction itself, Curtis told reporters: “I’m optimistic, but I’m cautious as well.”

The mayor continued to defend the plans for the new operations building though, as he stressed that the current downtown Municipal Services Building (MSB) used by operations crews is in need of replacement and the large vehicles and machinery used by the crews do not fit with the downtown neighbourhood. The new site will be a more appropriate area for it and provide the space needed for staff and the city’s equipment.

He said for city crews to work most efficiently in the nation’s second-largest city “geographically-speaking”, new space is needed.

“We need to take care of our staff,” he told reporters.

The city plans to eventually sell the land housing the MSB.

“By relocating and consolidating our operations, this project means that fewer pieces of heavy equipment will be seen in the downtown core and prime real estate will be available for development in our downtown and industrial areas,” Curtis said during his budget speech. “In addition, this project will invest in energy efficiencies such as solar panels and HVAC systems to help reduce our energy footprint.”

The project is part of the city’s efforts to become a more efficient, cost-effective and sustainably-run community, he said in his budget speech before going on to highlight other projects set for next year.

Work will focus on fixing up infrastructure in older neighbourhoods.

Next year, for example, $500,000 would be spent on a detailed design for reconstruction of Hillcrest including upgrading the water, sewer and road system there. The physical work would then get underway in 2018 and be phased in.

The downtown core would also continue to be a focus for the city as it has been in recent years with a number of streets and utilities being rebuilt.

“The city will spend $200,000 in 2017 on design for the reconstruction of Alexander Street from Fourth to Sixth Avenue,” Curtis said. “Construction will begin in 2018 and will include improvements to water, sewer, roads, sidewalk, lighting and landscaping.”

New plans for both downtown and Marwell would also be created, with $100,000 set aside in the 2017 budget of the initiative, along with another $100,000 that’s expected to be carried over from this year.

Funding set aside each year for pavement maintenance would see $1 million in 2017 directed to asphalt overlay on Fourth Avenue from Robert Service Way to Main Street.

Along with efforts to fix up the roadway are plans for the transit service, including the addition of new bus shelters and benches, new buses if external funding comes through, and the development of an overall plan for the system.

As Curtis outlined in his speech: “In 2017, we will spend almost $17,000 on design work at the Second (Avenue) and Main Street shelter, three new benches and shelter relocation. (A total of) $55,000 will go towards a transit master plan that will focus on mobility, livability and connectivity. This supports council’s vision of a sustainable, resilient and livable Whitehorse. It will incorporate the city’s goals for economic prosperity, environmentalism and social well-being and a vibrant city.”

The transit plan would be one of many plans the city is eyeing for next year.

A review of its heritage program would cost $20,000. It would harmonize city rules with territorial procedures “resulting in a simpler, more refined approach to heritage management.”

A review of the city’s Official Community Plan would begin next year to the tune of $50,000, and include extensive public consultation. It’s expected a new plan would be adopted in 2018 (with another $25,000 outlined for work on it that year).

Also due for updating is the parking management plan for the downtown with $50,000 set aside for that.

“This plan looks at the function of downtown parking and recommends changes to achieve objectives such as economic vitality, convenience, revenue/operating costs, environmental sustainability and more,” Curtis said in his speech. “Additional information and updates are now needed in order to ensure the plan remains successful and on track.”

A parks and recreation master plan would cost $75,000 and is outlined in the more than $800,000 the city would spend next year on the parks, trails and such.

“The citizens of Whitehorse enjoy year-round access to ample green spaces, accessible trails, active living opportunities and cultural events that reflect our commitment to creating a livable, safe, attractive, healthy and sustainable community,” Curtis said. “Whitehorse’s parks and recreation facilities are vital to the personal, community, social and economic well-being of our city. To ensure that our infrastructure and programming is meeting the needs of our citizens, it is important to establish a plan that can help guide us.”

Accompanying the city’s outline to spend $46.6 million in 2017 on capital projects and a multiyear spending plan that would see capital budgets total $9.2 million in 2018, $8.7 million in 2019 and $6.5 million in 2020, is Appendix B which would be subject to receiving funding approval through other sources.

If all those projects (such as the $1.1 million for two new buses next year) are approved for external funding, the city would end up spending another $15.8 million next year, $14.6 million in 2018, $22.1 million in 2019 and $17.3 million in 2020.

They would fund initiatives like the reconstruction of Wheeler Street, permanent line markings for the city’s main roads and “revisions to Pioneer Cemetery, which will restore and upgrade it to a place of prominence and a worthy tribute to Yukon pioneers laid to rest.

“These improvements will make grounds maintenance less expensive and time consuming, making the cemetery a safer and more respected public space.”

Curtis emphasized that the projects outlined in the budget’s appendix B will only happen if the funding from other sources (such as federal and territorial governments) is approved. The city, he said, is continuing to work cooperatively with other levels of government.

As he wrapped up his speech, he noted the city’s efforts to have the capital budget in place before the end of the year in order to give local businesses and contractors as much notice on upcoming projects as possible.

“The 2017 capital budget makes a strong contribution to our key priorities and our vision for Whitehorse as a well-planned, self-sustaining community that is an exceptional place we are all proud to call home,” he said.

Residents will have a chance to tell the city exactly what they think of the budget at a public hearing Nov. 28. That will be followed by a report on the input provided a week later and second and third reading coming forward Dec. 12.

Public input is also being sought through the city’s website at www.whitehorse.ca/budget or through emails to budgetinput@whitehorse.ca

Comments (17)

Up 8 Down 2

Bill on Nov 18, 2016 at 5:35 pm

This project should be developed by the private contractors and leased back to the city. Than the 50+ mil can be spent on a number of projects that need the cities attention.

Up 10 Down 4

north_of_60 on Nov 18, 2016 at 3:29 pm

@Jason opined "What do you suppose the Cow (or anyone) is supposed to do when an asset is at the end of its life? Replace it, right. ....
You complain and offer no solution, your proposal is to just not do it."

So what part of the comment:
"A simple cost-effective industrial building addition to the bus garage in Marwell is all that's needed. "
...was so difficult for you to grasp? Perhaps you should learn how to read slowly for comprehension.

Up 6 Down 10

Jason on Nov 18, 2016 at 11:42 am

@June Jackson ... Unemployment is actually at its lowest in decades (lowest in Canada actually) and Yukon has the highest number of people in the workforce it has ever had. I know these comment sections are filled with toxic invective rather than actual facts, but I will respond anyways and offer some opinions for consideration.
What do you suppose the Cow (or anyone) is supposed to do when an asset is at the end of its life? Replace it, right. Given the option, you wouldn't continue to live in an old broken down house that wasn't worth fixing I assume. And perhaps, as another commenter pointed out, the MSB could be fixed to be suitable for someone, but probably not for a organization which needs to serve nearly 30,000 residents with essential services.
You complain and offer no solution, your proposal is to just not do it. Well, unfortunately, that simply doesn't fix the problem. I get frustrated when the armchair pundits decry things like this as a waste of time and money, when engineers and builders and architects all have looked at different ways to approach this particular project and have come up with this plan. Newsflash, they probably know a lot more than us about things like sustainable building practices and planning for the growth of the city.
I'm not saying this proposed building is the only or best way to do this particular project, rather my frustration is with the folks that offer no pragmatic and alternative solution. If more than one council has made the decision to move in this direction, do you think that perhaps it's actually a decent enough plan?

Up 14 Down 1

Thanks Mike Gladish for your lecture on 'vision' on Nov 17, 2016 at 7:35 pm

I personally don't have an issue with planning and building a new consolidated municipal services building. I do however, have a problem with proceeding without a detailed plan or cost. I read the report (full of typos and spelling mistakes) from the City's website - there are a few assumptions about costs savings that don't hold water. The main one that bothers me is that there will be a "savings" by reducing the amount of time that City staff travel from one location to another. That is NOT a savings, unless head count and associated wages are actually cut ... those people get paid whether they are behind their desks or traveling.

And the other thing I take offense at is this feeling that you, and current City administrators/staff, have by implying that funding from territorial or federal programs is somehow "free" -it's not free, and it should be spent wisely.

Up 12 Down 4

Josey Wales on Nov 16, 2016 at 10:15 pm

Hey word on the street is...the tax payers here have been told to swallow so so much as of late.
That our gag reflex is cramped and a big mess on the floor...we are not groupers civic overlords.

Up 16 Down 3

Astonished! on Nov 16, 2016 at 9:02 pm

The city has a transit plan. That's good as the way it is makes it one of the most in efficient systems in North America.
The decision to consolidate the MSB and Administration is easily the most egregious call ever made by a Whitehorse city council. What do you suppose the people who will buy the 4th ave MSB will do with it? I think not much but a few renos and be laughing all the way to the bank while the city continues to throw taxpayers money at an inaccessible site on a steep mountainside that will be never ending. We won't even get in to the traffic problems. What a farce.

Up 19 Down 4

north_of_60 on Nov 16, 2016 at 6:47 pm

@moose

A simple cost-effective industrial building addition to the bus garage in Marwell is all that's needed. Curtis' Castle-on-the-Hill is nothing more than self-aggrandizement, and wasting resources that could be put to better use solving actual problems.

Up 6 Down 26

Mike Gladish on Nov 16, 2016 at 6:03 pm

It is visionary to be able to look 50 years down the road and realize that at some point the 'blue building' has to be replaced. Building a new Operations building now is ensuring that our children and grandchildren will not be saddled with a building that MUST be replaced or an old building that MUST be repaired again and again.

It is visionary to think of the space that is now occupied by an industrial activity, as a valuable option for affordable housing and for the next wave of population growth. Tearing down the old Municipal Services Building will open up that space in a location that is easy walking distance to shops and services and easy access to the greenspace along the clay cliffs.

And it is visionary to understand that a major construction, funded through the federal infrastructure budget and careful planning by city administration, will create construction jobs and procurement of local services and supplies.

It was a carefully thought out decision and the time is right to replace the 50 year MSB. Mayor Curtis and council should be proud of this project.

Up 5 Down 20

Moose on Nov 16, 2016 at 3:35 pm

@PSG How is this building not needed? Talk to someone who works in the current building on 4th. The insulation is horrible and the roof is barely structurally sound, so what is your solution? Try and fix it? Move the city into different locations owned by the private sector and pay rent forever?

Up 5 Down 35

Stu Winter on Nov 16, 2016 at 12:00 pm

The city spends money as proposed but they turn down a new soccer pitch.
I fully endorse this plan and suggest that the city borrows money to ensure it provides many additional services that residents want.

Why not run a deficit for a decade or so to ensure we fund all these programs.

Up 26 Down 2

ProScience Greenie on Nov 16, 2016 at 8:27 am

June Jackson sums it all up perfectly in her first paragraph.

Spending roughly $1000 per Yukoner on one unneeded and unwanted building is mind boggling.

These elected officials and senior bureaucrats are not true visionaries thinking of the future and showing us the way. They are blinded by self interest and ego, completely out of touch with the real world. How they can sleep soundly at night and wake up each morning and look in the mirror is beyond me. Shame on them.

Up 29 Down 3

Put your money where your mouth is Mr Mayor on Nov 16, 2016 at 5:35 am

Just how confident are you, Mayor Curtis? I would like to see you offer to resign if the project goes over-budget. If you do that, I might actually believe - a bit - what you are trying to sell.

Up 20 Down 1

CJ on Nov 15, 2016 at 7:16 pm

But wait -- what's the mayor's emotional colour on this budget? Mad, sad, glad, afraid? "Ecstatic"? "Delighted"?

Up 22 Down 3

Josey Wales on Nov 15, 2016 at 6:42 pm

Fantastic... folks yet born need be saddled with debt to feed egos.
I think civic staff are well taken care of, to the point of lunacy really.
I think June is absolutely correct.
We need someone or a team of them to...make Whitehorse great again.
I think this is THE most pre determined outcome ever viewed in this entitled sty.
Given our lust for letting fools govern us Vs. representing us....I think we are screwed.

Hey council...if you keep running into this dude whom publicly shames you?
Most likely be me...I have had it with you.
Gatekeepers of democracy SHOULD let clear dissent as this out.

Up 6 Down 14

jc on Nov 15, 2016 at 5:29 pm

June, why doesn't this building have to be built at this time? And you're complaining about unemployment, wouldn't this project create some jobs? Buildings like this aren't cheap to build. And it gets more expensive every year. And as far as setting your "bar to high", maybe that's your problem. Unless you can do the job, let others do it, and at least once in a while support their efforts. I'm sure, soon, you will be saying the same things about the the two liberal governments (Can. and YT) soon. And Lost in the Yukon, do you know of any firms in the Yukon, that is qualified to design a building like this? There are times when outside assistance is needed. And this may be one of them. Unless you have information to the contrary. Could you share it with us?

Up 62 Down 5

Lost in the Yukon on Nov 15, 2016 at 3:36 pm

First ... WTF
Second ... Public consultation under Danny and the City Manager is meaningless. They have already decided or why would they already have given $2,000,000.00 of our money to a Toronto firm to do a design. This is a joke, I don't know how either one of them or anyone from Council who voted for this can show their face around Whitehorse, especially to those on fixed incomes.

Up 58 Down 5

June Jackson on Nov 15, 2016 at 3:31 pm

Nearly the entire budget to be spent on a building that does not have to be built at this time, when the City at large is depressed, unemployment at its highest..and these clowns are jacking taxes every year for this? OMFG

I am sorry to say I voted for most of them. I won't make that mistake again. Wish we had an impeachment process so that we could vote these suckers out.

Dan.. you are a huge disappointment.. After the dismal performance of the last council, I expected better. Obviously, I set my bar too high, and just as obviously this council has not learned a damned thing from the elections.. one of the issues that lost the last election for the YP was.. "we don't like the way you are spending our money." A mention to Council, just in case it has escaped your notice, taxpayers don't like the taxes jacked up every damned year, and this taxpayer doesn't like the way you are spending my money.

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.