Whitehorse Daily Star

Public may comment on building consolidation plans

The city’s plan to consolidate its operations is now before the Yukon Environmental Socio-economic Assessment Board (YESAB) and in the public comment period until March 19.

By Stephanie Waddell on March 2, 2015

The city’s plan to consolidate its operations is now before the Yukon Environmental Socio-economic Assessment Board (YESAB) and in the public comment period until March 19.

The proposal for a new building off Range Road that would house all the city’s major operations is outlined on the YESAB website. It notes plans to lease 6.8 hectares of Yukon government land as well as city land.

The full operation building area is anticipated to be built on more than 16 hectares.

The entire consolidation project would see the operations building construction as well as a new structure on the same property as city hall and the firehall that would house services residents need access to day-to-day, such as city permits and the like.

The full project would cost an estimated $55 million and is expected to be done in 2017.

A fire services strategic plan is nearing completion, which confirms the need for a downtown fire hall for initial fire response and looks at replacing the current downtown fire hall.

Council will review the options for incorporating the downtown fire hall into the services building as part of the design process, it’s noted in city documents on the consolidation project.

The application being put to YESAB is specifically for the larger operational building.

“City of Whitehorse aims to build a more sustainable community and is going through a building infrastructure consolidation process,” it’s stated in a summary of the project.

It goes on to note the leasing plans along with including space for parking, storage and equipment maintenance.

Along with the plans for the site, the city would build a road to the site off of Range Road. It would also install infrastructure services to the new building east of the established commercial sites along Range Road.

“All vehicle access is projected to connect to Range Road; pedestrian access will be developed from Two Mile Hill road and the city’s Public Safety Building,” states the application.

It goes on to highlight the project activities, including clearing and prepping the land for construction; excavating, trenching, infilling and grading; using heavy equipment and fuel; and construction of the building.

Also highlighted are a parking and staging area; the development of the 700 metre by 10 m wide access to the site; the installation of utilities, including water, sewer, storm, electrical and communications infrastructure; and storm water management.

Also mentioned are heating fuel storage, including 2,200-litre propane storage and 1,100 litres of fuel oil during construction followed by 4,550 litres of propane or 4,550 litres of fuel oil when the building is operational; the installation of temporary and permanent fencing; and waste management and landscaping.

Residents have until March 19 to let YESAB know their thoughts on the proposal by submitting them to www.yesabregistry.ca.

The city’s building consolidation project came forward as part of the 2015 capital budget.

It outlined plans to spend $21 million on it this year, followed by a further $33.8 million in 2016 and $1.7 million in 2017.

Council members and city officials have defended the project by noting it will save the city an estimated $500,000 in operational expenses.

The new buildings will be more energy-efficient, the city has pointed out, and the move to centralized locations will mean the city won’t be leasing building space in several locations, as it currently does.

It was also noted at an earlier council meeting that required upgrades to the Municipal Services Building on Fourth Avenue would have had a price tag of about $20 million (not including the cost of removing asbestos).

Comments (10)

Up 4 Down 4

jwhite on Mar 6, 2015 at 3:48 pm

I wonder how many of those who are so stubbornly opposed to this project have taken the time to actually read the Building Consolidation report. It's available at the City website. It's more than 250 pages, so will require some effort to read it. But it does have a lot of useful facts. Oh. Right. Facts. Don't want to mess up people's absurd conclusions with facts. Never mind.

Up 9 Down 0

In October we can remove this Mayor and Coucil on Mar 6, 2015 at 11:10 am

Time is coming to remove this mayor and council.

Up 4 Down 2

Green-washed again on Mar 5, 2015 at 10:06 pm

Despite recent high profile, anti-development decisions by regulatory agencies like YESAB, I would be very surprised if they give more than passing criticism to this "consolidation" plan. After all, it's "good" for the environment. Along with other brilliant CoW plans, like densification and having citizens drink from mud puddles.

Is it not peculiar that YCS, CPAWS and other "environmental" groups are virtually silent on this file?

Up 3 Down 1

Marianne on Mar 5, 2015 at 1:52 pm

This is YESAA, it's a little different from trying to introduce contrary opinions to city council and planning. YESAA has to consider all the input, and all the comments are up there for everyone to see, including correspondence with the city, in a way that they don't do normally. (I think the City of Whitehorse is one of the most impenetrable governments we deal with on a regular basis, but that's just my opinion.)

YESAA is intended to be a completely transparent process. Though often decisions don't go the way you might want them to, neither can proponents avoid sharing information. That levels things out a little more and it puts things on the record. It's not a way the city is used to operating, so this is the chance everyone has to get answers to relevant questions. Perhaps, for example, the asbestos question might indeed have to be factored into the budget.

At the very least, you get a chance to see thoughtful comments and not just the spin, and even contribute to them if you want. So please don't write YESAA off just yet.

Up 14 Down 0

north_of_60 on Mar 4, 2015 at 7:56 pm

Soliciting comments from the public is part of the planning process.
Considering public comments when making decisions is not part of the planning process.

Once elected, politicians no longer care what the voters think. Why should they care what the public thinks, since there is no process for removing incompetent politicians once they're elected.

Up 42 Down 1

Josey Wales on Mar 4, 2015 at 2:44 pm

Yes indeed...the public may also pee into a 15 knot headwind too.
However as the public part of a "process", you may also deal with/wonder why ...legs are wet?

The outcome is a predetermined one, theirs and King Dan's legacy prior to EJECTION.
Given the epic entitlement syndrome we are infected with, the nobles are peeing with excitement to move into their new castle...I'm ever so certain of that.
If folks outside knew how we are pissing away transfer payments up here?
...and our civic nobles, they do their best to piss it all and self rewarding projects.
What a shameful lot! Chair warmers needing a new roost...is all.

Up 40 Down 4

Frank Michigan on Mar 3, 2015 at 11:25 am

Seems to me the city's offer for comment is usually very shallow.
Once an idea is developed by city admin there is usually no effort to effectively make changes no matter how much merit the input has.

Up 35 Down 4

francias pillman on Mar 2, 2015 at 11:15 pm

Ah yes, letting the little guy have his say. Nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The loans have probably all been signed already. Welcome to the pony show. Thanks for putting us further in debt Dan. I would say I can't wait till you are voted out. But who I am kidding? Voting is useless nowadays. Prove me wrong.

Up 29 Down 4

June Jackson on Mar 2, 2015 at 10:42 pm

It won't make any difference what anyone says..this council just does what ever it wants..the decision has already been made..

Up 21 Down 6

jaymanc on Mar 2, 2015 at 7:03 pm

Well I'm sure it wouldn't cost more than 30 million to remove the asbestos so let's just save that for someone else to deal with. Let's spend a ridiculous amount of money to build a new place when we are already set up, just needs some work. Kinda like when you buy a house something will need some minor upgrades. This seems like such a waste of time and money. And I'm sure it will cost more than 55 million for the new complex my guess is more like 90 because they don't tell you other costs associated with the construction. I think this idea is thought out really poorly or not thought out at all, kinda like council and the mayor plus planning were like that's way above our heads let's just build a new one. I think the money saved from refurbishing what you already have would or could go to some better upgrades around the city. ie. Roads, sidewalks, fix what we have, etc. This is a big decision and I hope they make the right one.

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.