sustainability factors environmental design

kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report

4-42

SUSTAINABILITY FACTORS

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

SCHWATKALAKE

SCHWATKALAKE

SCHWATKALAKE

PREVAILINGSOUTH WINDS

TREED AREA

SUMMER SUN

WINTER SUN

ROBERT SERVICE WAY

ALASKA HIGHWAY

NN

SITE A - ROBERT SERVICE WAY

PREVAILINGSOUTH WINDS

SUMMER SUN

WINTER SUN

TREED AREA ATREED AREA A

ALASKA HIGHWAY

2 MILE HILL

HAM

ILTO

N BL

VD.

YUKONRIVER

N

SITE B - RANGE ROAD

Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report

4-43

4.5. 31 S U N O R I E N TAT I O NWeighting Factor: 3

The site should allow designs to take full advantage of available sun angles. Locating outside spaces

to receive sunlight normally makes them a more desirable place for activity. A facility can benefit from

the solar gain of winter sunlight. Large stands of trees, north-facing slopes and adjacent structures

can be detrimental.

Site is in constant shadow during fall, winter and spring months 0

Site is mostly in shadow during winter months with some fall/spring sun 1

Site is mostly exposed winter sun 2

Site is exposed to year-round sun with some obstructions 3

Site is exposed to full year-round sunlight; no obstructions 4

S I T E A - R O B E RT S E RV I C E WAY | 3 P O I N TSThe Robert Service Way site has some obstructions to solar gain from the adjacent

escarpment.

S I T E B - R A N G E R OA D | 4 P O I N TSAs the Range Road site is located on the plateau above the escarpment, it has no solar

obstructions.

4.5 . 32 P R OT EC T I O N F R OM W I N DWeighting Factor: 2

The site should provide protection from prevailing winds which intensify cold temperatures, dust,

driving rain and drifting snow. Topography, orientation and site vegetation relative to cold winter

winds can be important both for indoor and outdoor spaces. Sites with some type of wind protections

are desirable over those exposed to harsh winds. Evaluated based on natural features.

Site is fully exposed to prevailing winds; no obstructions 0

Site is mostly exposed to prevailing winds 1

Site is partially protected from prevailing winds; some natural barriers 2

Site is mostly protected from prevailing winds 3

Site offers full protection from prevailing winds 4

S I T E A - R O B E RT S E RV I C E WAY | 2 P O I N TSThe escarpment and adjacent treed sites provide some natural barriers to prevailing winds.

S I T E B - R A N G E R OA D | 2 P O I N TSThe treed natural of the site provides natural barriers to wind. These should be maintained

where possible.


4-44

DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION FACTORS

GEOTECHNICAL

SCHWATKALAKE

SCHWATKALAKE

SCHWATKALAKE

AREA OF ESCARPMENT

AREAS REQUIRING GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

ROBERT SERVICE WAY

ALASKA HIGHWAY

NN


AREA OF ESCARPMENT

AREA REQUIRING GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

ALASKA HIGHWAY

2 MILE HILL

HAM

ILTO

N BL

VD.

YUKONRIVER

N

SITE B - RANGE ROAD


4-45

4.5. 33 S I T E S O I L S & FO U N DAT I O N CO N D I T I O N SWeighting Factor: 4

Ideal sites contain well graded, stable soils with high soil bearing pressure. Soil conditions should

allow conventional, economical foundation systems which can meet or exceed a 50 year life

expectancy with little maintenance. Soil conditions which can adversely affect construction include

discontinuous permafrost, silts and clays, substantial surface or sub-surface organic and high water

contents (all susceptible to frost heave). Sites are assessed for the quality of their soil based on

known conditions or on-site investigations.

Unstable soils throughout; highly specialized foundation required 0

Mostly unstable soils; specialized foundation required 1

Isolated areas of the site have unstable soils, some specialized foundation likely 2

Most areas of the site have stable soils; conventional foundation possible 3

Stable soils throughout; conventional foundation system possible 4

S I T E A - R O B E RT S E RV I C E WAY | 4 P O I N TSBased upon initial information, the site has stable soils.

S I T E B - R A N G E R OA D | 4 P O I N TSBased upon initial information, the site has stable soils.

4.5 . 34 S I T E E R OS I O NWeighting Factor: 3

Sites which border on eroding river banks and embankments should be evaluated on how much and

how often erosion takes place to determine if a facility would be at risk. Slopes which have been

cleared of vegetation can also erode due to heavy rain. Evaluated based on natural features and the

historical occurrence of those hazards listed above. Current zoning also requires that areas within 60

metres of the escarpment require a geotechnical investigation.

Known erosion potential 0

Moderate erosion potential; mostly during construction 2

No erosion potential; not near water or at toes of slopes 4

S I T E A - R O B E RT S E RV I C E WAY | 4 P O I N TSThe site is located adjacent the escarpment, but erosion potential is not significant and can

be easily mitigated.

S I T E B - R A N G E R OA D | 2 P O I N TSThe site is located adjacent the escarpment and may need to address erosion.


4-46


HYDROLOGY

SCHWATKALAKE

SCHWATKALAKE

SCHWATKALAKE

AREA OF ESCARPMENT

LOW AREA OF SITE

DEFINED CREEK

ROBERT SERVICE WAY

ALASKA HIGHWAY

NN


AREA OF ESCARPMENT

SPOOK CREEK

EXPECTED FLOODAREA

ALASKA HIGHWAY

2 MILE HILL

HAM

ILTO

N BL

VD.

YUKONRIVER

N

SITE B - RANGE ROAD


4-47

4.5. 35 S I T E D R A I N AG EWeighting Factor: 3

Sites with good drainage are easier to develop and maintain. Good drainage reduces the chance of

water or ice collecting around a facility which could cause undermining, decay and/or frost heave

leading to structural damage. It could also make general use and occupancy of the site difficult.

Evaluated based on existing natural features. Costs of compensating for inadequate drainage are

covered in other criteria.

Site is generally low; surrounding areas drain into it 0

Drainage collects in some areas within the site 1

Drainage collects in areas adjacent to the site or structural storm water management is required 2

Site has positive drainage; water contribution from surrounding areas is easily accommodated 3

Site has positive drainage; no water contribution from surrounding areas 4

S I T E A - R O B E RT S E RV I C E WAY | 3 P O I N TSThis site is relatively flat, and collects some water near the base of the escarpment. The

soils are mostly granular, and therefore a development on this site could rely mostly on sub-

surface drainage for storm water management.

S I T E B - R A N G E R OA D | 2 P O I N TSThe Range Road site has a high area on the western portion of the property, and drains to

adjacent sites. Soils here are mostly silt, and a new development will likely require structural

storm water management to control site drainage and a setback in order to not erode the

adjacent escarpment.

4.5 . 36 S I T E F LO O D I N GWeighting Factor: 3

Flooding potential from adjacent bodies of water should be considered. Ideally, the site would not be

located within a flood plain of flood-prone area. Evaluated as follows:

Site is within flood plain boundary and floods routinely 0

Site is within flood plain boundary 1

Site is in close proximity to flood prone areas 2

Site is in proximity to bodies of water which could flood but well above flood plain 3

Site is not in flood plain; no nearby bodies of water which could flood. 4

S I T E A - R O B E RT S E RV I C E WAY | 4 P O I N TSThe Robert Service Way is not located within the flood plain of the Yukon River. It is located

near Schwatka Lake, which is a controlled by the hydro dam, and therefore not at risk of

flooding.

S I T E B - R A N G E R OA D | 4 P O I N TSThis site is located on the plateau above the escarpment, and is not in the flood plain or near

any bodies of water.


4-48


TOPOGRAPHY & VEGETATION

SCHWATKALAKE

SCHWATKALAKE

SCHWATKALAKE

AREA OF TOPOGRAPHICRELIEF

TREED AREA

ROBERT SERVICE WAY

ALASKA HIGHWAY

NN


AREA OF TOPOGRAPHICRELIEF

TREED AREA ATREED ATREED AAREA A

ALASKA HIGHWAY

2 MILE HILL

HAM

ILTO

N BL

VD.

YUKONRIVER

N

SITE B - RANGE ROAD


4-49

4.5. 37 TO P O G R A P H YWeighting Factor: 2

Ideally, the site should be fairly level with some topographic relief that can provide opportunities for

landscaping. Consideration should be given to the site that best meets the programmatic needs of

the facility. Evaluated by considering the types of amenities required for the facility.

Site contains significant topographic relief, and cannot accommodate anticipated uses 0

Site is not level, and can only accommodate a limited number of anticipated uses 1

Site is not level, but can still accommodate all anticipated uses 2

Site is mostly level and can accommodate all anticipated uses 3

Site is level and can accommodate all anticipated uses 4

S I T E A - R O B E RT S E RV I C E WAY | 4 P O I N TSThe Robert Service Way site is level, although some minor regrading may required in the

North-West corner of the site.

S I T E B - R A N G E R OA D | 4 P O I N TSThe Range Road site is essentially level, and will not hinder the development of any anticipated

uses.

4.5 . 38 T R E E S & V EG E TAT I O NWeighting Factor: 4

Sites with large areas of trees should be avoided due to the adverse impact on cost and schedule.

Evaluated as follows:

100% of site is treed; significant impact to construction 0

Most of the site is treed; considerable impact to construction likely 1

Some of the site is treed; some impact to construction likely 2

Some of the site is treed; little or no impact to construction 3

Site has no trees 4

S I T E A - R O B E RT S E RV I C E WAY | 3 P O I N TSThe Robert Service Way site has some treed areas in the Northern third of the site.

S I T E B - R A N G E R OA D | 0 P O I N TSThe Range Road site is almost entirely treed, and some expense will be required to remove

trees to accommodate the proposed development.


4-50


SITE DEVELOPMENT

SCHWATKALAKE

SCHWATKALAKE

SCHWATKALAKE

UNAUTHORIZEDMOTOCROSS TRACK

POWER LINEEASEMENT

SNOW DUMP

FORMER GO-KARTTRACK

ROBERT SERVICE WAY

ALASKA HIGHWAY

NN


PIPE LINEEASEMENT

SNOW DUMP

AREA USED BYDRIVING FORCE

POWER & WATEREASEMENT

ALASKA HIGHWAY

2 MILE HILL

HAM

ILTO

N BL

VD.

YUKONRIVER

N

SITE B - RANGE ROAD


4-51

4.5. 39 E X I ST I N G S I T E D E V E LO P M E N TWeighting Factor: 3

Vacant, undeveloped land is preferable; if developed or currently used, alternative sites must be

available for existing uses. Evaluated based on the magnitude of existing uses requiring relocation

and/or demolition and the simplicity of the action.

Site has many existing uses; will all be problematic to relocate/demolish 0

Has existing uses; all able to be relocated/demolished 2

Site has no existing uses 4

S I T E A - R O B E RT S E RV I C E WAY | 2 P O I N TSThe Robert Service Way site is currently used as a City snow dump (which will remain),

but is also used as an unauthorized motorized recreation vehicle area. A main electrical

transmission line also runs through the middle of the site, which will need to be rerouted to

accommodate a new Operations Facility.

S I T E B - R A N G E R OA D | 2 P O I N TSOnly the northwest property is currently used as a snow dump, and this is able to be modified

to allow for access to the larger (southeast) property.

4 .5 .40 P OT E N T I A L FO R H A Z A R D O U S M AT E R I A L SWeighting Factor: 2

The site should be free of past use by industrial functions, unregulated storage of items containing

hazardous materials or know disposals of hazards. A site assessment may be required. Evaluated as

follows:

100% of site has known hazmat; significant impact to building 0

Most of the site has known/probable hazmat; considerable impact likely 1

Some of the site has known/probable hazmat; some impact likely 2

Some of the site has known/probable hazmat; little or no impact likely 3

Site has no known/potential hazmat issues 4

S I T E A - R O B E RT S E RV I C E WAY | 3 P O I N TSDue to the current and previous uses of the site, there are probable areas of hazardous

materials, although these should have little impact on site development.

S I T E B - R A N G E R OA D | 4 P O I N TSThere are no current or previous uses on the majority of the Range Road properties.


4-52


UTILITIES

SCHWATKALAKE

SCHWATKALAKE

SCHWATKALAKE

HIGH-VOLTAGEPOWER LINE

EXISTINGWELL

ROBERT SERVICE WAY

ALASKA HIGHWAY

NN


ALASKA HIGHWAY

2 MILE HILL

HAM

ILTO

N BL

VD.

YUKONRIVER

N

SITE B - RANGE ROAD


4-53

4.5.41 AVA I L A B I L I T Y O F WAT E R U T I L I T I E SWeighting Factor: 4

Connection into an existing, reliable water/supply system with adequate capacity is preferred. Sites

closest to the existing system would be rated highest. When considering adequacy, fire suppression

system requirements are considered. If a new water system is required for the site, then sites should

be rated as to their potential to support/provide the system. For new systems, proximity to wells,

lakes or rivers may be a factor. Evaluated based on known improvements and/or natural features as

described above.

No existing system; no known/potential water supply near site 0

No existing water system; potential water supply near site 1

No existing water system available; known water supply at site 2

Adequate, reliable water system is available adjacent to or near the site 3

Adequate, reliable water system is available within the site 4

S I T E A - R O B E RT S E RV I C E WAY | 4 P O I N TSThere is no municipal water service to the Robert Service Way site. A well is in place on

site, but additional on-site storage capacity will be required to meet fire flow requirements.

Alternatively water service will need to be brought in from Schwatka Lake or Downtown.

S I T E B - R A N G E R OA D | 4 P O I N TSA water main currently runs along an easement on the site.

4.5 .42 AVA I L A B I L I T Y O F SA N I TA RY U T I L I T I E SWeighting Factor: 4

Connection to an existing, reliable waste/sewer system with adequate capacity is preferred. Sites

located near an existing system would be rated highest. If a new sewage system is required for the

site, then sites should be rated as to their potential to support/provide such system. For new systems,

perking soils, space for lagoons and availability of effluent outfalls may be a factor. Evaluated based

on known improvements and/or natural features as described above.

No existing system; no known/potential waste handling area near site 0

No existing sewer system; potential locations for sewer system near site 1

No existing sewer system available; known location/method avail. on site 2

Adequate, reliable sewer system is available adjacent to or near the site 3

Adequate, reliable sewer system is available within the site 4

S I T E A - R O B E RT S E RV I C E WAY | 2 P O I N TSThe Robert Service Way site has no access to municipal sewage utilities. Sewage will need to

be treated or stored on site or a sewage line will need to be brought in from the Downtown

area at a significant expense.

S I T E B - R A N G E R OA D | 3 P O I N TSMunicipal sewage and storm water lines are available along Range Road.


4-54

4.5.43 AVA I L A B I L I T Y O F E L EC T R I C A L U T I L I T I E SWeighting Factor: 4

Connection to an existing, reliable electrical distribution system with adequate capacity is preferred.

Sites closest to an existing system would be rated highest. If a new electrical system is required

for the site, then sites should be rated as to their potential to support/provide the system. For new

systems, generators, space for fuel storage and availability of fuel may be a factor. Evaluated based

on known improvements and projected requirements.

No existing system; known difficulties for generation on site 0

No existing power system; good potential for power generation near site 1

Adequate, reliable power system is available distant to the site 2

Adequate, reliable power system is available adjacent to or near the site 3

Adequate, reliable power system is available within the site 4

S I T E A - R O B E RT S E RV I C E WAY | 2 P O I N TSHigh voltage lines currently run through the middle of the site, but are suited to use on

site. The nearest location to connect into the existing distribution system is at the Alaska

Highway.

S I T E B - R A N G E R OA D | 4 P O I N TSElectrical distribution lines currently run through the site, and are available.

4.5 .44 AVA I L A B I L I T Y O F F I B E R O PT I C N E T WO R KWeighting Factor: 4

Connection to an existing, fiber optic distribution system is preferred. Sites closest to an existing

system would be rated highest. If a new fiber optic system is required for the site, then sites should be

rated as to their potential to support/provide the system. Evaluated based on known improvements

and projected requirements.

No existing fiber optic system; no known/potential fiber optic network near site 0

Adequate, reliable fiber optic network is available distant to the site 1

Adequate, reliable fiber optic network is available near the site 2

Adequate, reliable fiber optic network is available adjacent the site 3

Adequate, reliable fiber optic network is available within the site 4

S I T E A - R O B E RT S E RV I C E WAY | 1 P O I N TSThe nearest location to connect into a fiber optic network is within Downtown. City staff

have estimated that it would cost approximately $300,000 to get fiber to this site.

S I T E B - R A N G E R OA D | 4 P O I N TSA fiber optic network is available at the easement that runs through the site and could be

connected to the new building for approximately $20,000.


4-55

4 . 6 S I T E E VA L UAT I O N M AT R I X

Based on the site evaluation criteria above, a matrix has been compiled which provides an objective

assessment with a resulting score based on performance and a weighting factor.

TABLE 4.2: Site Evaluation Matrix

CRITERIAWEIGHTING

FACTOR(WF)

SITES

A: RSW xWF B: RR xWF

SOCI

AL

& L

AN

D U

SE F

ACTO

RS

4.5.2 Site Availability 3 4 12 3 9

4.5.3 Partnership Opportunities 3 2 6 2 6

4.5.4 Zoning / Land Use 3 4 12 4 12

4.5.5 Synergy with Adjacent Uses 3 2 6 2 6

4.5.6 Size of Site 5 4 20 4 20

4.5.7 Site Acquisition Costs 3 4 12 4 12

4.5.8 Proximity to City Infrastructure 5 1 5 3 15

4.5.9 Proximity to City-Owned Buildings 5 1 5 4 20

4.5.10 Proximity to Future Growth 4 1 4 1 4

4.5.11 Community Connectivity 3 0 0 3 9

4.5.12 Cultural Heritage Landscape 2 4 8 2 4

4.5.13 Noise 1 3 3 1 1

4.5.14 Aesthetic Value 3 3 9 4 12

4.5.15 Access Road Conflicts 3 4 12 4 12

4.5.16 Access Road Visibility 2 4 8 4 8

4.5.17 Roadway Access 3 4 12 2 6

4.5.18 Roadway Capacity 3 2 6 0 0

4.5.19 Public Transportation 3 4 12 4 12

4.5.20 Proximity to Trails/Bike Routes 3 4 12 4 12

4.5.21 Airport Restrictions 4 3 12 2 8

4.5.22 Fire Response 3 1 3 4 12

4.5.23 Risk Reduction 2 1 2 3 6

4.5.24 Emissions 3 0 0 1 3

4.5.25 Employee Preference 4 1 4 3 12

4.5.26 Public Preference 3 1 3 2 6

Sub-Total 188 227


4-56

SUST

AIN

ABI

LITY

4.5.27 Alternative Energy Sources 3 2 6 0 0

4.5.28 Renewable Energy System 3 4 12 4 12

4.5.29 Preservation of Natural Resources 3 4 12 2 6

4.5.30 Ability to Showcase Sustainability 3 4 12 2 6

4.5.31 Sun Orientation 3 3 9 4 12

4.5.32 Protection From Wind 2 2 4 2 4

Sub-Total 55 40

DES

IGN

& C

ON

STRU

CTIO

N

4.5.33 Site Soils & Foundation 4 4 16 4 16

4.5.34 Site Erosion 3 4 12 2 6

4.5.35 Site Drainage 3 3 9 2 6

4.5.36 Site Flooding 3 4 12 4 12

4.5.37 Topography 2 4 8 4 8

4.5.38 Trees & Vegetation 3 3 9 0 0

4.5.39 Existing Site Development 3 2 6 2 6

4.5.40 Potential for Hazardous Materials 2 3 6 4 8

4.5.41 Availability of Water Utilities 4 4 16 4 16

4.5.42 Availability of Sanitary Utilities 4 2 8 3 12

4.5.43 Availability of Electrical Utilities 4 2 8 4 16

4.5.44 Availability of Fiber Optic Network 4 1 4 4 16

Sub-Total 114 122

TOTAL 357 389


5-1

5 . 0 S U STA I N A B I L I T Y: E N E R GY, V I S I O N & G OA L S

The City of Whitehorse Strategic Sustainability Plan “Growing a Sustainable Whitehorse” dated

2009 outlines the City’s vision and commitment to building a sustainable community for the future.

As part of this commitment, the Building Consolidation project forms an important milestone for

the City to implement key strategies and show leadership in accelerating sustainable building

construction and communities in the North.

Two options have been considered for the Building Consolidation project as part of the Business

Case, where scenarios a/b and c/d include a new facility with different targeted energy performance

levels in regards to sustainability (scenarios b and d include lease space).

Option 1, Scenario A/B: Hybrid Option - Partial New Facilities (50% better than NECB

2011)

Option 1. Scenario C/D: Hybrid Option - Partial New Facilities (80% better than NECB

2011)

Option 2, Scenario A/B: New Facilities - Base Sustainability Scenario (50% better than

NECB 2011)

Option 2, Scenario C/D: New Facilities - High Sustainability Scenario (80% better than

NECB 2011)

The Base Sustainability Scenario is considered to be an Above Standard Practice for a building in

Whitehorse. The High Sustainability Scenario would require additional strategies beyond Above

Standard and could be considered Best Practice. This chapter summarizes the integrated conceptual

design process completed as part of identifying specific goals, targets and feasible strategies for the

Base and High Sustainability Scenario.


5-2

5 .1 I N T EG R AT E D D E S I G N P R O C E S S

To build a successful Business Case, a number of sustainability workshops were held as part

of an integrated design process to establish goals and targets for the project for Option 2 and to

identify efficient and realistic strategies to meet these goals in support of the City’s commitment to

sustainability.

5 .1 .1 S U STA I N A B I L I T Y WO R KS H O P 1

An initial sustainability workshop was held with the design team to evaluate options for

sustainability goals and objectives, discuss appropriate rating system and to recognize

opportunities, challenges and to identify suitable strategies given the project context. The

outcomes of this workshop established some initial energy performance targets for a new

facility, including the steps to achieve the targets and recommendations on appropriate

environmental rating system for the project.

5 .1 . 2 S U STA I N A B I L I T Y WO R KS H O P 2

A follow up workshop was held with the client group in Whitehorse where the design team

presented suggested goals, objectives and strategies and got feedback from the group on

priorities and desired strategies based on the current operations. By this time it had been

decided to pursue two consolidated facilities rather than one. A Service Centre to be located

downtown and connected to City Hall and a second consolidated Operation Facility to

be located on either of two suburban sites. From this workshop it was clear that the City

prioritized certain aspects of sustainability and was in support of the proposed overall goals.

5 . 2 S U STA I N A B I L I T Y WO R KS H O P 1

5 . 2 .1 E N E R GY P E R FO R M A N C E O P P O RT U N I T I E S

In the initial workshop energy performance targets and strategies for energy reductions

were identified. Baseline energy use was established to comply with National Energy Code

for Buildings (NECB 11) as a minimum energy performance standard. The existing buildings

have a poor energy performance with an average energy utilization intensity (EUI) of 524

kWh/m2, and significant opportunities for reductions in the new facilities exist.

It was noted that current construction techniques in Whitehorse outperforms NECB 11 in

regards to envelope performance. Making a statement for commitment to energy and GHG

reductions that positions the City as leader for sustainability in the North requires it to take

the energy performance of the buildings significantly beyond NECB 11.

Two levels of feasible energy performance targets were established:


5-3

S E R V I C E B U I L D I N G

0

100

200

300

400

500

600 ( S T A T U S Q U O )

5 2 4 ( AV G )

5 6 8

( H I G H E S T )

3 8 1

( L O W E S T ) 3 4 9

k w h / m 2

2 5 2

1 2 6

5 0

A S H R A E9 0 . 1 - 2 0 0 7

N E C B 2 0 1 1

5 0 %B E T T E R T H A N

N E C B 2 0 1 1

8 0 % B E T T E R T H A N

N E C B 2 0 1 1

H I G HS U S T A I N A B I L I T Y

O P T I O N

B A S ES U S T A I N A B I L I T Y

O P T I O N

3 3 %R E D U C T I O N



9 0 % R E D U C T I O N

A N I M A L

S H E LT E R

P A R K S

B U I L D I N G

FIGURE 5.1: Service Building Potential Energy Use Reductions

0

100

200

300

400

500

600 ( S T A T U S Q U O )

5 2 4 ( AV G )

A N I M A L

S H E LT E R

P A R K S

B U I L D I N G

5 6 8

( H I G H E S T )

3 8 1

( L O W E S T )

4 5 8

k w h / m 2

3 0 2

1 5 7

6 0

N E C B 2 0 1 1

5 0 %B E T T E R T H A N

N E C B 2 0 1 1

8 0 % B E T T E R T H A N

N E C B 2 0 1 1

A S H R A E9 0 . 1 - 2 0 0 7





O P E R A T I O N S B U I L D I N G

H I G HS U S T A I N A B I L I T Y

O P T I O N

B A S ES U S T A I N A B I L I T Y

O P T I O N

FIGURE 5.2: Operations Building Potential Energy Use Reductions


5-4

Base Sustainability Scenario: 50% energy reductions over NECB 11

o Requires investigation of energy conservation measures but is expected to be

achievable as base performing target.

o Requires a high performance envelope, efficient HVAC system with heat recovery

and efficient plant, plus electrical energy conservation measures

High Sustainability Scenario: 80% energy reductions over NECB 11

o Requires investigation of energy conservation measures but is expected to be

achievable as a high performing target.

o Requires a very high envelope performance close to Passive House standard,

efficient HVAC system with heat recovery and highly efficient plant, electrical energy

conservation measures plus renewable energy.

The potential reductions were established as energy intensities based on design strategies,

and compared to the current facility total building energy consumption, ASHRAE 90.1-2007

(LEED Baseline Energy Code) and the new National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB 11) for

a new Services and Operations Building.

The potential energy performance for the two buildings are summarized in Figure 5.3.

C A R B O N N E U T R A L I T Y ( N E T

Z E R O ) A C H I E VA B L E T H R O U G H

T H E A D D I T I O N O F R E N E W A B L E

E N E R G Y ( 2 0 3 0 C H A L L E N G E )

C U R R E N T T O T A L B U I L D I N G

A N N U A L E N E R G Y U S E : $ 3 7 7 , 1 9 7

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

CURRENT BUILDINGS

5 2 4 ( AV E R A G E )

5 6 8 ( M A X )

3 8 1 ( M I N )

k w h / m 2 /a

1 2 6

5 02 4 %3 0 %

1 0 0 %

1 0 %6 0

1 1 %

1 5 7 SE

RV

ICE

BU

ILD

ING

SE

RV

ICE

BU

ILD

INGO

PE

RA

TIO

NS

BU

ILD

ING

OP

ER

AT

ION

SB

UIL

DIN

G

H I G H S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y

O P T I O N

B A S E S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y

O P T I O N

FIGURE 5.3: Potential Energy Use Reductions for Both Buildings


5-5

Detailed energy modeling in a 3D digital environment was then completed as part of the

study to verify the conceptual model used during the Sustainability Workshop 1.

5 . 2 . 2 E N V I R O N M E N TA L R AT I N G SYST E M S A N D TO O L S

In support of establishing sustainable performance criteria a number of environmental

certification systems and tools were evaluated for the project based on feasibility,

accountability, and certification cost considerations.

The following systems were considered in the evaluation of the most appropriate certification

system, Table 5.1 provides more details of each systems benefits and challenges.

Green Globes

LEED Canada

Passive House Planning Package (PHPP)

Living Building Challenge

2030 Challenge

TABLE 5.1: Comparison of Options for Project Environmental Rating Systems

RATING SYSTEM ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COST CONSIDERATION

Green Globes Simplified process

No additional consulting

Online tool

Inexpensive

Encourages good practice

High weighting on energy

performance

Include some good metrics:

LCA, EUI’s, recognize demand

strategies, etc.

Low visibility and recognition

Not rigorous, therefore less

credible

Overall environmental

performance may exclude

important indicators such as

impacts from transportation,

density, and building re-

use, i.e. certain credits are

excluded from the assessment

tool if they don’t apply

Not current, relatively weak

supporting body

Registration Fee:

$500.00 per project

Certification Fee:

Under 100,000 sq.ft.: $3,500

100,000 - 250,000 sq.ft.:

$5,000

250,000 - 500,000 sq.ft.:

$6,500

LEED Canada Highly recognized, established

rating system in the industry

Resources and knowledge

base highly developed

Robust, credible certification

Based on local / national

standards and codes

Opportunities to propose

approaches within the rating

system for extreme climate,

remote location.

Opportunities for investigation

of alternative compliance

paths

Relatively expensive

Specialized consultants

“Documentation intense

requirements”

Registration Fee:

$500 for <2,500m2

$1,500 for ~10,000m2

Certification Fee:

$4,000 for <2,500m2

$9,550 for ~10,000m2

+ modeling cost,

commissioning

Optional: day-lighting

modeling, enchanced

commissioning


5-6

RATING SYSTEM ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COST CONSIDERATION

Passive House (PHPP) International leading standard

in energy efficient design

Demonstrates leadership and

commitment to energy perf.

Reduce operation costs long-

term

Reduce energy consumption

by 80%

Achieves high comfort for

occupants

Prevents moisture damage -

airtight

Extremely credible

certification

Well defined performance

targets

Energy focused - excludes

other metrics

Higher upfront cost 5-15%

Requires meticulous quality

control throughout process for

execution

Local construction experience

might be a challenge

Requires available high

performance components

Registration Fee:

n/a

Certification Fee:

$2,500 for third party review

(iPHI)

+ cost for PHPP consultant

(varies)

+ cost for air-tightness test

(~500/building)

Living Building Challenge Encourage very high level

of building performance -

demonstrates leadership and

commitment

Accounts for whole building

systems approach

Achieving LBC extremely

prestigious

International certification system

- one body (review, requirements,

etc.)

Include weighting on human and

social aspects of built environment

Levels of recognition now:

- Petal recognition (1 of water,

energy, material + 2 other)

- Net Zero Energy Building

Certification

Synergies between LC and LEED

Big commitment - hard to achieve

Rigorous documentation / analysis

required

Regulatory challenges

Materials Petal - very challenging

Evolution of ILFI - challenging

process

Monetary investment - hard and

soft costs

Registration Fee:

$900/building

Certification Fee:

for <1,000<2,999m2

Full certification: $7,500

Petal recognition: $3,000

Additional petal: $1,500

NZE certification only: $5,000

+ costs for habitat and carbon

offsets, energy modeling,

commissioning, and other soft

costs

2030 Challenge Highly recognized program

Focus on carbon reductions

Adopted by high profile

organizations and bodies

Stringent sliding targets

moving forward

No certification costs / free

Available online tools for

evaluation `

Solely GHG / energy focus -

excludes other metrics

No third party reviewer -

simply a design target

Registration Fee:

n/a

Certification Fee:

n/a


5-7

While each rating system has its advantages and disadvantages, Canada Green Building

Council’s (CaGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is considered

the most appropriate tool to measure and verify project performance. LEED is the most

commonly used system in Canada for building projects and is often used as a minimum

standard in many civic projects. The LEED rating system provides a framework for verification

including site, water, energy, materials, indoor environmental quality and innovation and

design, supporting the project over the design period of multiple iterations, and guide

decisions made by the design team and stakeholders. Moreover, the third party verification

by CaGBC is essential in demonstrating credible performance results and is an efficient

mechanism for accountability.

With the challenge of achieving LEED in the North and with few (so far) certified buildings,

there is a great opportunity for the City to create landmark buildings that achieve a high level

certification and show leadership and a commitment to sustainability.

5 . 2 . 3 L E E D C E RT I F I C AT I O N O PT I O N S

Project site location, building program, and design opportunities for energy efficiency were

also evaluated in the larger context of sustainability metrics. The first workshop identified

possible LEED certification levels for the Service and Operations buildings respectively,

depending on the building site. It was identified that building energy performance is a large

part of achieving a higher LEED certification. It was also noted that the location of the site has

a large impact on the overall score: the more centrally located downtown location provides

a higher rating in the sustainable site category due to its proximity to higher development

density and options for local transit.

Base Sustainability Scenario: with an energy reduction of 50% better than NECB

11, the Service building is expected to achieve LEED Gold certification and the

Operations building LEED Silver.

High Sustainability Scenario: With an energy reduction of 80% better than NECB

11, the Service building is expected to achieve LEED Platinum through the investment

of additional credits, and the Operations building possibly LEED Gold. The aggressive

building energy performance targets with this scenario also provide the opportunity

to meet Passive House Certification for the Service building (through an optional

third party verification).


5-8

5 . 2 .4 S E RV I C E B U I L D I N G P OS S I B L E L E E D P E R FO R M A N C E S UM M A RY

If an energy performance of 50% better than NECB 11 is targeted, building performance is

expected to be within reach of LEED Gold certification with emphasis on credit categories as

per the following summary.

If energy performance is pushed to go beyond 80% better than NECB 11, and investment is

made to achieve additional credits such as SSc4.3 Vehicle Fleet, SSc4.5 Parking, SSc5.1 Restore

Habitat, EAc5 M&V and EAc6 Green Power, this would possibly push the performance to be

within reach of LEED Platinum which is the maximum level of certification.

5 . 2 . 5 O P E R AT I O N S B U I L D I N G P OS S I B L E L E E D P E R FO R M A N C E S UM M A RY

The Operations Building presents a greater challenge to achieve a higher LEED rating due

to the nature of occupancy in the building and the location in a more suburban site when

compared to the downtown located Service building. It is anticipated that a LEED Silver rating

is within reach with a 50% better than NECB 11 in energy performance, and possibly LEED

Gold if investments are made in additional credits. The 80% better than NECB 11 scenario

has not been included as a reference as this is considered a very difficult target to meet for

the Operations building.

S E R V I C EB U I L D I N G

O P E R A T I O N SB U I L D I N G

B U S I N E S S C A S E S C E N A R I O # A / B

B A S E S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y O P T I O N

B U S I N E S S C A S E S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y T A R G E T S

5 0 % R E D U C T I O N

L E E D G O L D

8 0 % R E D U C T I O N

L E E D P L A T I N U MP A S S I V E H O U S E C E R T I F I C A T I O N

( O P T I O N A L )

5 0 % R E D U C T I O N

L E E D S I L V E R

6 0 % R E D U C T I O N

L E E D G O L D

B U S I N E S S C A S E S C E N A R I O # C / D

H I G H S U S T A I N A B I L I T YO P T I O N

FIGURE 5.4: Possible Established LEED Certifications Targets


5-9

5 0 % b e t t e r t h a n N E C B

1 1 & “ b a s e ” s c o r e c a r d

G O L D

P r o j e c t S t a t u s

S E R V I C E B U I L D I N GS u s t a i n a b l e S i t e s

W a t e r E ffi c i e n c y

E n e r g y & A t m o s h p e r e

M a t e r i a l s & R e s o u r c e s

I n d o o r E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y

I n n o v a t i o n i n D e s i g n

G l o b a l P r i o r i t y C r e d i t s

To t a l

P r o j e c t e d P o i n t s1 1

6

2 3

2

1 0

6

4

6 2

Q u e s t i o n a b l e2 6

1 0

3 2

9

1 4

6

4

1 0 1

To t a l P o s s i b l e P o i n t s2 6

1 0

3 5

1 4

1 5

6

4

1 1 0

Projected Points Questionable Points Total Possible Points

O

S u s t a i n a b l e S i t e s




I n d o o r E n v i r o n m e n t a l



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

FIGURE 5.5: Service Building Possible LEED Score – Energy 50% Better Than NECB 11


1 1 & S S 4 . 3 v e h i c l e fl e e t ,

S S 4 . 5 p a r k i n g , S S 5 . 1

r e s t o r e h a b i t a t , E A c 5

M & V , E A c 6 G r e e n P o w e r ,

M R c 7 c e r t i fi e d w o o d

P L A T I N U M









To t a l


6

3 5

2

1 0

6

4

8 0


1 0

3 5

9

1 4

6

4

1 0 4


1 0

3 5

1 4

1 5

6

4

1 1 0

NTAP








0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35



FIGURE 5.6: Service Building Possible LEED Score – Energy 80% Better Than NECB 11


5-10


G O L D









To t a l


6

2 8

2

1 0

6

4

7 3


1 0

3 0

9

1 4

6

4

9 8


1 0

3 5

1 4

1 5

6

4

1 1 0

O








0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35



1 1 & s i t e p o i n t s , S S 4 . 4

p a r k i n g , S S 5 . 1 r e s t o r e

h a b i t a t , E A c 5 M & V,

M R c 7 c e r t i fi e d w o o d

FIGURE 5.8: Operations Building Possible LEED Score – Energy 50% Better Than NECB 11 & Additional Credits



1 1 & “ b a s e ” s c o r e c a r d

S I L V E R









To t a l

P r o j e c t e d P o i n t s5

3

2 3

2

9

6

4

5 2


1 0

3 0

9

1 4

6

4

9 8


1 0

3 5

1 4

1 5

6

4

1 1 0

VI









0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

FIGURE 5.7: Operations Building Possible LEED Score – Energy 50% Better Than NECB 11


5-11

5 . 3 S U STA I N A B I L I T Y WO R KS H O P 2

A second sustainability workshop was held in Whitehorse with key City representatives to discuss

objectives, goals and targets and get feedback on some of the proposed sustainability strategies. The

proposed performance targets were presented, and a number of case studies of similar buildings in

Northern climates were shared with the group to review feasible energy reduction, water conservation

and material selection strategies.

5 . 3 .1 C AS E ST U D I E S

A few relevant case studies of similar building types in a northern climate were identified

and their sustainability strategies shared with the group to inspire, nurture ideas and look at

both feasible and aggressive certification targets through third party verification.

Case Study 1 – Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability

The Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS), University of British Columbia

(UBC), is located in a milder climate compared to Whitehorse, but this example was shared

with the group to bring up the idea of energy sharing opportunities between buildings. The

building has aggressive sustainability performance targets overall and is unique in that is

uses the adjacent lab building as heating energy source through a fume-hood exhaust heat

recovery system.

FIGURE 5.9: Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (Image courtesy of Perkins+Will Vancouver)


5-12

PROJECT INFO SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIES

Architect: Perkins+Will Canada

Completion: 2011

Area: 5,500 m2

Type: Academic, Office and Drylabs

Certification: LEED® Platinum

Living Building Challenge - Petal Recognition

Operational targets:

Net energy producer

Net zero carbon operation

Net zero water use

100% daylight in occupied space

High performance envelope

Natural ventilation

Green roof

Low-emitting materials for interior

Carbon sequestration in wood structure

Ultra low-water use in faucets and fixtures

Rainwater harvesting for potable water use

Blackwater treatment plant on-site for reuse

Biofiltration and stormwater for closed loop system

Photovoltaic integrated in facade

Solar hot water tubes for heating

Radiant slabs for heating and efficient UFAD ventilation

Water source heat pumps for heating and cooling

Geothermal boreholes for source/sink

Heat transfer to and from EOS building (adjacent)

Reduced energy 68% over MNECB 1997, and net zero energy

and carbon operation with energy sharing.

Case Study 2 – City of White Rock Operations Centre

The Operations Centre located in the City of White Rock, BC, was Canada’s 1st LEED Gold

certified New Construction project. This level of third party certification is recognizable given

the type of facility. Incorporated sustainability metrics includes passive energy reduction

strategies, renewable energy systems, site design landscaping and storm water mitigation

strategies and material selection for healthy indoor environment.

FIGURE 5.10: City of White Rock Operations Centre (Images courtesy of Perkins+Will Vancouver)


5-13

PROJECT INFO SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIES

Architect: Perkins+Will Canada

Completion: 2003

Type: Class A Office and Operations

Area: 6,500 ft2

Certification: LEED® Gold (1st New

Construction in Canada)

Operational performance:

Site water: 90% reduction

Process water: 30% reduction

Energy: 60% over MNECB

Re-use of existing foundations

Storm Water Tank is Energy Source for Heat Pumps

Green roof

Low-emitting materials for interior

Recycled wood for roof structure

Storm water use for toilets, ultra low-water use

Natural ventilation

Solar shading

Photovoltaic arrays

Solar tubes for heating

Reduced energy 60% over MNECB 1997 (50% over ASHRAE

90.1-1999

Case Study 3 – ETS Centennial Garage Edmonton

The Centennial Garage for Edmonton Transit System, is a strong LEED silver project with

interesting sustainability strategies for a large bus and vehicle maintenance facility in a cold

climate, including but not limited to process water reductions and reuse, indoor air quality,

lighting and daylighting strategies, and solarwall for preheat of ventilation to reduce energy

consumption.

FIGURE 5.11: ETS Centennial Garage (Image courtesy of: Morrison Hershfield)


5-14

PROJECT INFO SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIESArchitect: Croy D. Yee Architect Ltd.

Prime Consultant: Morrison Hershfield

Completion: 2010

Area: 29,000 m2

Type: Maintenance & Bus Service 250 vehicles

Certification: Strong LEED® Silver

Operational performance:

Process water: 50% reduction

Energy: 33% reduction

Construction waste: 80% reduction

90% of interior access to windows

Daylight and occupancy sensors

Low velocity garage ventilation

Radiant heated floor slab

80% recycled construction waste

Solarwall for heating

Snowmelt for cooling

Power reduction strategies

Recycled water for bus washing

Low flow fixtures

Efficient lighting system

Rainwater capture

Case Study 4 - Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) Office and Vehicle Maintenance Shop

The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation office and vehicle maintenance shop, located in Fort

McMurray, is targeting a noticeable LEED Gold certification. The project is interesting due

to its northern location and type of facility, where strategies for sustainability includes waste

diversion, healthy indoor environment, significant process water reductions and renewable

energy strategies.

FIGURE 5.11: ACFN Office and Vehicle Maintenance Shop (Image courtesy of: Bird Construction)

PROJECT INFO SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIESArchitect: Stantec Architecture

Completion: 2013

Area: Office 4,000 m2 , Maintenance 2,000m2

Type: Office and vehicle maintenance shop

Certification: Targeting LEED® Gold

Living Wall

Rain water capture

Divert construction waste

Ultra low-flow fixtures

High efficiency mechanical system

Low VOC materials

Underfloor air (office) and radiant slab (shop)

Recycle shop washing water 70%

160 solar hot water panels


5-15

5 . 3 . 2 C H A R R E T T E

In a charrette type exercise each participant identified a number of issues and opportunities

for the new Building Consolidation Project. The participants then voted, by attaching dots to

their preferred issues, and the votes tallied along with comments and level of prioritization.

From this exercise, it became clear that energy performance, indoor air quality, functionality

and usability is of highest priority, followed closely by sustainable site selection and

transportation access. Table 5.2 summarizes the categories as per priority level combined

with the group’s comments.

5 . 3 . 3 OT H E R S U STA I N A B I L I T Y O B J EC T I V E S

The business case focuses mainly on energy efficiency due to its direct and quantifiable

impact on the cost of operating the building. Nonetheless, other sustainable features have

been identified as important to City both during the charrette and in the City’s Sustainability

Plan and should be explored further during the later project phases:

Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ): IEQ has been identified by the City as being

equally important in the new buildings as energy efficiency. The design of both new

facilities should focus on providing a high quality interior environment in relation to

the health, wellbeing and comfort of those occupying the spaces. This will include

FIGURE 5.12: Group Voting & Prioritizing for Sustainability Goals & Targets


5-16

RATING CATEGORY CLIENT GROUP COMMENTS (SUMMARY)

1

Indoor Environmental Quality

(9 votes, 13 comments)

Focus on the employee experience

Maximize access to daylight

Use of healthy materials, minimize toxicity, natural products, living wall

Occupant comfort

Addresses short summer and long winter for inhabitants comfort and enjoyment

Easy to use by occupants and encourages and inspires behavior change

Adapting work methods to meet sustainability goals. i.e. thing client (leader in

sustainability)

1

Energy Efficiency


Maximize energy efficiency

Low operating and maintenance costs

Passive strategies - high insulation, natural light

Highly visible monitoring: energy, waste, GHG’s, transport

Waste heat – recover and reuse where possible (data centre, vehicle exhausts)

Renewable energy - ready for PV plug-in, solar wall and solar thermal

Reduce heat loss – garage walls

Minimize energy performance for vehicle storage area

Infrastructure and systems to facilitate active commuting (and discourage driving)

Energy conservation measures and education for behavior change

2

Function & Usability


Good training facility

Creative options for workspaces (private, shared, group working spaces)

Automatic vehicle washing area

Improved service delivery to the customer

Fueling station for vehicles

Able to add on to for future growth

Take advantage of partnerships

Systems are visible, accessible, and understandable by occupants (i.e. not a mystery)

Cold vehicle storage

Highly efficient for customers and operations

“Growable” building – easy to expand

Easy to maintain, low cost

Citizen accessibility to buildings

Good meeting spaces and shared office space

Integrated design – economies of space, flow

Efficient space use (sliding door, multi-purpose rooms)

Adaptation to future technology i.e. PV (ongoing commitment over time)

Flexible workspaces (don’t just assume an office is required for each person)

3

Site Sustainability and Transportation


Transit stops from multiple routes

Integrated with the active transportation network

Transit GPS and video wifi collection of data

Minimal travel time to work sites

Transit orientated parking/vehicle use to and from work

Integrated with trail and active commuting network

Walkable trails connecting building

Integrated with land planning sustainability goals

TABLE 5.2: Summary of Charrette Exercise, Voting and Comments


5-17

RATING CATEGORY CLIENT GROUP COMMENTS (SUMMARY)

4

Standards and Certification Level


LEED Standard (bragging rights)

A model building – public buildings – green elements and beautiful

Living building – natural lighting and living walls and air handling, xeriscaping

Use the 50% of energy code as the min. standard

80% less than NECB and ready for renewables

5

Waste Reduction


Resource use in construction

Designed space for waste management – materials flow predetermined

75% (or greater) waste diverted from construction

Integrated infrastructure and systems for waste management (operations)

More diversion, less waste

6Carbon Reduction


Reduce more GHG’s than produce

Climate change ready (EMO, disaster)

GHG neutral by target date

7

Water Reduction

(1 vote, 4 comments)

Water consumption low

On-site water cleaning

Reuse water where possible

Remain true to city sustainability goals – waste diversion, water management (walk the

talk)

providing high quality indoor air, lighting, and thermal comfort.

Sustainable Transportation: The charrette identified multi-modal transportation

access and planning (walking, cycling, automobiles, public transit, etc.) as being

important to the selection of the new building locations and in their site planning. At

the site selection level, various modes of transportation and community connectivity

have been incorporated as evaluation criteria within the Site Options Analysis

(Chapter 4). The building programme in Chapter 3 identifies space for both bike

parking and employee showers. During later project phases, the City should consider

developing plans to encourage employee carpooling and to provide access to and

infrastructure for low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehicles (electric or hybrid).

Waste Reduction: As the City of Whitehorse owns and maintains the landfill they

have a vested interest in reducing waste generation during construction and building

operations. The building programme already identifies space for dedicated recycling

storage in both building, and also identifies the need to include compost and recycling

bins through the facilities for waste diversion. During construction the City should

explore requiring a minimum of 50% waste diversions through recycling and reuse.

Completed LEED projects in Whitehorse have shown that this is a level of diversion

that can be achieved in the Yukon with current recycling facilities. The design team

should also consider designing the buildings for deconstruction to allow material to

be reclaimed when they come to the end of their useful life.


5-18

Water Use Reduction: Although rated by the City as the least important sustainable

aspect of the building, water use reduction also has a direct impact on the City

operations as they are responsible for the water distribution and sanitary sewer

systems. Therefore, the building designs should explore reducing water consumption

to reduce the demand on the aquifer and City infrastructure. Designs should

incorporate water management, reduction in use through ultra-low flow or zero

water fixtures, re-use of greywater for irrigation, toilet flushing and vehicle washing,

and the possibility of on site treatment.

5 .4 E N E R GY MO D E L I N G FO R B U S I N E S S C AS E

A digital Energy Model was developed for both the proposed Service and Operations buildings and

an energy efficiency measures (EEM) analysis was performed to verify the strategies and energy

efficiency targets established in Sustainability Workshop 1 and to support the business case life cycle

model. This section summarizes the main findings of the report completed by Morrison Hershfield.

A copy of the full report is included in Appendix E.

The methodology used for the analysis begins with the minimum performance requirements of the

National Energy Code For Buildings (NECB 2011) for each building and incrementally add energy

efficiency measures, with the goal of achieving performance targets of 50% and 80% better than the

NECB 11. Incremental capital cost were applied to the measures and included in the financial analysis

of the Business Case.

It should be noted that the 50% better than NECB 2011 scenario is considered an Above Standard

Practice for this project for the purpose of the energy analysis and the financial model, and the results

from the energy model are intended to identify any additional payback requirements to achieve

higher savings.

5 .4 .1 S E RV I C E B U I L D I N G

Energy efficiency measures (EEM) were identified as per the Sustainability Workshop 1 and

applied incrementally to a code minimum NECB 2011 Reference building. The table below

(Table 5.3) briefly summarizes each measure that was considered.

ENERGY EFFICIENT MEASURE (EEM) ENERGY EFFICIENT MEASURE DETAILS

EEM 1. Improved Envelope (Values deemed readily achievable by KZA)

RSI 7.05 (R-40) wall

RSI 10.58 (R-60) roof

USI 1.1 (U-0.19) windows

Full slab insulation

Reduced infiltration* (0.6 ACH @ 50 Pa)

TABLE 5.3: Energy Efficiency Measures Services Building


5-19

50% SAVINGS BUNDLE 80% SAVINGS BUNDLE BEST CASE WITHOUT PV

EEM 1. Improved Envelope

EEM 2. Mechanical Bundle

EEM 3. 100% OA with DCV (High efficiency

HVAC)

EEM 4. Light & Plug Reductions

All 50% Bundles, plus

EEM 6. Ground Source Heat Pump with

boiler backup

EEM 7. Solar Thermal for DHW

EEM 8. 80 kW Photovoltaic

80% Savings Bundle except EEM 8

Photovoltaic.

TABLE 5.4: Bundles of Energy Efficiency Measures for The Services Building

EEM 2. Mechanical Bundle (Conventional HVAC with optimized

components)

Condensing boiler

Enthalpy recovery

All pumps have VSDs

Higher performance fans

Low-flow fixtures

Improved HVAC Controls

EEM 3. 100% OA with DCV (High efficiency HVAC)

100% OA system with demand controlled ventilation, radiant or baseboard heating

EEM 4. Light & Plug Reductions 25% reduced power for lighting and plug loads through use of controls and high

efficiency equipment*

EEM 5. ASHP w/ Backup Boiler VRF heat pump system and boiler backup

EEM 6. GSHP w/ Boiler Backup Ground source heat pump system with boiler backup. 20-25 Ton GSHP System. GSHP

sized at 50% of peak heating to meet 90% of annual load.

EEM 7. Solar Thermal for DHW Solar hot water collectors for preheating/heating DHW. (6 x 4’x8’ panels of evacuated

tubes)

EEM 8. Photovoltaics Meet 80% energy savings through the use of PV at 80 kW for

approximately 50% of the roof area.

*It should be noted that the NECB does not readily allow credit for infiltration and plug load reductions as shown in the table; however, for this exercise, these savings were modeled anyway as they are real measures that could be applied to this building.

Each efficiency measure was then bundled and applied subsequently to the measure

preceding it to see the combined energy performance relative to the NECB 11 Reference

building (refer to Figure 5.13).

The following efficiency measures were identified as Bundles to meet the two desired

performance thresholds. Due to the high cost of PV, this was extracted as a potential

alternative to the 80% high performance bundle and identified as a Best Case scenario

without PV (refer to Table 5.4).

The energy, energy cost and greenhouse gas performance for the combined Bundles are

summarized in Table 5.5.

A capital cost versus energy savings comparison was made to get a sense of payback length

and form part of the business case analysis. Capital cost estimates are based on broad cost

projections (+/- 50%). Table 5.6 summarizes the cost performance analysis of the scenarios.


5-20


0 %0

5 0

1 0 0

1 5 0

2 0 0

2 5 0

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

SA

VIN

GS

OV

ER

NE

CB

20

11

kW

h/

m2

/y

ea

r

NECB 2011 BASELINE

BEST ENVELOPE

MECH BUNDLE

100% OA WITH DCV

LIGHTING AND PLUG REDUCTION

ASHP WITH BOILER BACKUP

GSHP WITH BOILER BACKUP

SOLAR THERMAL FOR DHW

PHOTOVOLTAICS

FUEL HEATING

FANS

EXTERIOR LIGHTING

ELECTRIC HEATING

PUMPS

LIGHTING

DHW

PLUG LOADS

COOLING

% SAVINGS

FIGURE 5.13: Performance of Energy Efficiency Measures for The Services Building

SCENARIO ENERGY SAVINGS OVER

NECB 11 (%)

EUI(kWh/M2)

TOTAL ENERGY USE

(MWh/yr)

ENERGY COST ($/yr)

REDUCED GREENHOUSE

GAS EMISSIONS(tCO2e/yr)

LEED ENERGY

Base - NECB 11 n/a 214 814 $148,951 N/A N/A

+50% Savings Bundle 56 91 358 $59,871 94 19

+80% Savings Bundle 80% 43 163 $33,499 125 26

Best Case Without PV 68% 68 260 $50,419 125 20

TABLE 5.5: Summary of Energy, Energy Cost and Greenhouse Gas Reductions for The Bundles – Services Building


5-21

The cost benefit analysis shows that the 80% bundle with and without PV have the same

payback at over 30 years. A smaller ground source heat pump size was considered to make

it more economical; however the fixed costs of the system make smaller sizes impractical

and less economical.

The addition of PV to achieve 80% energy savings requires significant capital investment,

though the paybacks are still arguably within reason for a long term building owner (50

year life cycle). It should also be noted that utility prices are considered static in the simple

payback analysis; factoring in rising utility costs (as is shown in Figure 5.14 and the life cycle

costing analysis) makes the 80% bundle a more compelling consideration.

5 .4 . 2 O P E R AT I O N S B U I L D I N G

Energy efficiency measures (EEM) were identified as per the Sustainability Workshop 1 and

applied incrementally to a code minimum NECB 11 Reference building. Due to the nature

of the Operations Building and its associated building systems, the measures differ from

the Services Building. The infiltration and plug load reductions are difficult to achieve (and

quantify) in this type of facility, and have therefore been omitted from the measures. Table

5.7 briefly summarizes each measure that was considered.

Each efficiency measure was then bundled and applied subsequently to the measure

preceding it to see the combined energy performance relative to the NECB 11 Reference

(refer to Figure 5.15).

The following Bundles of efficiency measures were identified to meet the two performance

SCENARIO INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST

($)

ANNUAL ENERGY COST

($/yr)

ANNUAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS

OVER BEST PRACTICE

(50% BUNDLE) ($/yr)

SIMPLE PAYBACK

(yrs)

ENERGY COST SAVINGS OVER

EXISTING ($/yr)

Existing Office Being Replaced

N/A $292,528

(estimated)

N/A N/A N/A

Base - NECB 2011 N/A $148,951 N/A N/A N/A

+50% Savings Bundle

Best Practice Cost $59,871 N/A N/A $232,657

+80% Savings Bundle

$783,000 $33,499 $26,372 30 $259,029

Best Case Without PV

$289,000 $50,419 $9,452 31 $242,109

TABLE 5.6: Summary of Energy Cost Benefit Analysis for The Bundles – Services Building


5-22

W H I T E H O R S E H I S T O R I C A L & P R O J E C T E D E N E R G Y C O S T S

$ 0

$ 5 0

$ 1 0 0

$ 1 5 0

$ 2 0 0

$ 2 5 0

$ 3 0 0

$ 3 5 0

En

erg

y C

os

ts (

pe

r 1,

00

0 k

Wh

)

20042006

20082010

20122014

20162018

20202022

2024

FUEL OIL WOODELECTRICITY PELLETSPROPANE

8 % /A N N U M

7 % /A N N U M

4 % /A N N U M

5 % /A N N U M

3 % /A N N U M

FIGURE 5.14: Whitehorse Historical and Projected Energy Costs

ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURE (EEM) ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURE DETAILS

EEM1. Mechanical Bundle (Conventional HVAC with optimized

components)

Condensing boiler for hydronic heating of vehicle area rooftop units

100% OA unit with radiant or baseboard heating in offices

Run-around heat recovery at 50% for large vehicle area ventilation units, enthalpy wheel

for offices

All pumps have VSDs

Higher performance fans

Low-flow fixtures

Improved HVAC Controls

EEM 2. Improved Envelope (Values deemed readily achievable by KZA)

RSI 7.05 (R-40) wall

RSI 10.58 (R-60) roof

USI 1.1 (U-0.19) windows

Full slab insulation

EEM 3. Light Reduction & Controls 50% reduced power for lighting through use of controls and high efficiency equipment

EEM 4. Solar Wall Preheat Preheat ventilation air with south facing solar thermal collector

EEM 5. GSHP w/ Boiler Backup Ground source heat pump system with boiler backup. 100-110 Ton GSHP

System. GSHP sized for 20% of peak load to meet 80% of annual heating

load.

EEM 6. Photovoltaics Meet 80% energy savings through the use of PV at 500 kW, covering

approximately 25% of the roof area

TABLE 5.7: Energy Efficiency Measures Operations Building


5-23

SCENARIO ENERGY SAVINGS OVER

NECB 11 (%)

EUI(kWh/M2)

TOTAL ENERGY USE

(MWh/yr)

ENERGY COST ($/yr)

REDUCED GREENHOUSE

GAS EMISSIONS(tCO2e/yr)

LEED ENERGY PERFORMANCE

ESTIMATED POINTS

(EAc1+EAc2)

Base - NECB 11 n/a 214 4,840 $690,651 N/A N/A

+50% Savings Bundle

53% 189 2,268 $349,503 492 21

+80% Savings Bundle

80% 81 968 $284,839 742 26


67% 132 260 $182,976 745 21

TABLE 5.9: Summary of Energy, Energy Cost and Greenhouse Gas Reductions for The Bundles – Operations Building

thresholds. Due to the high cost of PV, it was excluded as a potential alternative to the 80%

high performance bundle and identified as a Best Case scenario without PV (refer to Table

5.8).

50% SAVINGS BUNDLE 80% SAVINGS BUNDLE BEST CASE WITHOUT PV

EEM 1. Mechanical Bundle

EEM 2. Improved Envelope

EEM 3. Light Reduction & Controls

EEM 4. Solar Wall Preheat

All 50% Bundles, plus

EEM 5. Ground Source Heat Pump with

boiler backup

EEM 6. 500 kW Photovoltaic

80% Savings Bundle except EEM 6

Photovoltaic.

TABLE 5.8: Bundles of Energy Efficiency Measures for The Operations Building

The energy, energy cost and greenhouse gas performance for the combined Bundles are

summarized in Table 5.9.

A capital cost versus energy savings comparison was made to confirm payback length and

form part of the business case analysis. Capital cost estimates are based on broad cost

projections (+/- 50%). The following table (Table 5.10) summarizes the cost performance

analysis of the scenarios.

The table above shows a compelling case to pursue the Best Case scenario without PV.

The optimum ground source heat pump size has been used for costing, which considers the

relationship between capital cost based on system size and overall energy savings.

The addition of PV to achieve 80% energy savings requires significant capital investment,

though the paybacks of 25 years are still arguably within reason for a long term building


5-24

owner (50 year life cycle). It should also be noted that utility prices are considered static

in the simple payback analysis; factoring in rising utility costs (as is shown in the life cycle

costing analysis) makes the 80% bundle a more compelling consideration.

5 .4 . 3 E N E R GY P E R FO R M A N C E CO N C L U S I O N

Both the Service and Operations buildings can achieve a performance of 50% better than

NECB 2011 as a Base Sustainability Scenario, through improvements to the envelope,

mechanical and electrical systems over code minimum. Part of these upgrades, in terms of

envelope performance, is already part of what is considered an Above Standard Practice in

Whitehorse building design. Some additional investments are required to address heating

energy loads including upgrade to a more efficient HVAC system with maximized heat

recovery, as well as reducing the electrical load through efficient lighting design and plug-

loads controls for the Services building, and an aggressive approach to the lighting design

for the Operations building.

As renewable energy systems require a large capital investment, the 80% better than NECB

O P E R A T I O N S B U I L D I N G

0

5 0

1 0 0

1 5 0

2 0 0

2 5 0

3 0 0

3 5 0

4 0 0

4 5 0

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

SA

VIN

GS

OV

ER

NE

CB

20

11

kW

h/

m2

/y

ea

r

NECB 2011 BASELINE

MECH BUNDLE

BEST ENVELOPE

LIGHTING AND PLUG REDUCTION

SOLAR WALL PREHEAT

GSHP WITH BACKUP BOILER

PHOTOVOLTAICS

FUEL HEATING

FANS

HP/ELECTRIC DHW

HP/ELECTRIC HEATING

PUMPS

LIGHTING

GAS DHW

PLUG LOADS

COOLING

% SAVINGS

FIGURE 5.15: Performance of Energy Efficiency Measures for The Operations Building


5-25

SCENARIO INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST

($)

ANNUAL ENERGY COST($/yr)

ANNUAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS OVER

BEST PRACTICE (50% BUNDLE)

($/yr)

SIMPLE PAYBACK (yrs)

ENERGY COST SAVINGS OVER

EXISTING ($/yr)

Existing Industrial Type Space Being Replaced

N/A $827,125

(estimated)

N/A N/A N/A

Base - NECB 2011 N/A $690,651 N/A N/A N/A

+50% Savings Bundle

No Premium $349,503 N/A N/A $351,733

+80% Savings Bundle

$4,100,000 $182,976 $166,527 25 $518,261


$925,000 $284,839 $64,665 14 $416,398

Table 5.10: Summary of Energy Cost Benefit Analysis for The Bundles – Operations Building

11 scenario was also modeled without the PV component. It shows that energy savings of

67% over NECB 11 are possible through efficiency measures that have a lower capital cost

than renewables, primarily through the offsetting of heating energy by a ground source

heat pump system in addition to a high performance envelope, efficient HVAC distribution

system and efficient lighting and plug-load design. Simple paybacks are between 14 years for

the Operations Building and 31 years for the Services Building, when compared to an Above

Standard Practice building (50% better than NECB 11).

Energy savings of 80% over NECB 11 for the High Sustainability Scenario are only possible

with investment in a renewable energy system in addition to an already optimized building

in terms of load reduction. The simple paybacks for this scenario is in the range of 25 years

for the Operations building and 30 years for the Services Building compared to an Above

Standard Practice building (50% better than NECB 11).

The above conclusions are based on initial capital costs and simple payback calculations

and their impact on the energy savings possible. These are modeled further and in greater

detail in the Business Case section of the report and provide a more comprehensive life cycle

costing analysis.

5 .4 .4 G R E E N H O U S E G AS E M I S S I O N S

As part of the City’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the improved energy

performance for the studied Sustainability Scenarios would help reduce the City’s overall

carbon footprint as follows when compared to a code minimum building:


5-26

Base Sustainability Scenario: Estimated to achieve a carbon emission reduction

of approximately 95 tonnes CO2 for the Service Building and 492 tonnes CO

2 for the

Operations Building annually compared to code minimum. This reduction combined is

equivalent to taking 122 cars of the street, or offset 29 homes’ energy use for one year.

High Sustainability Scenario: Estimated to achieve a carbon emission reduction of

approximately 125 tonnes CO2 for the Services Building and 745 tonnes CO

2 for the

Operations Building annually compared to code minimum. This is equivalent to taking

approximately 181 cars off the street, or offset 43 homes’ energy use for one year.


6-1

6 . 0 COST I N G6 .1 C U R R E N T M A R K E T CO N D I T I O N S

Construction costs in the Yukon have exceeded general levels of inflation particularly in the past five

years. The majority of cost increases in recent years can be attributed to high labour costs, caused

by a boom in construction in the Yukon and western Canadian provinces.

However, the recent slow-down in western Canada has had an affect on Yukon prices as contractors

from other jurisdictions such as Wildstone Construction and Cormode and Dickson have established

local offices in Whitehorse. This change has had the effect of reducing prices in the Yukon market.

Quantity surveying based on historical cost estimates is considered a quasi science in southern

markets. Estimators working in those areas have the benefit of using a large body of construction

projects upon which they can track market trends. Cost estimating in the Yukon is considerably

more difficult where minor variations in the market can create large swings in pricing. Another factor

is the small pool of potential bidders and a lack of accurate historical costing data pertaining to larger

projects.

The table below (Table 6.1) shows a range of recent construction prices that provide a basis for the

construction dollar amounts used in the programme report. In turn, these prices have been fed into

the cost estimating report by BTY Group who compiled an order of magnitude cost estimate.


6-2

TABLE 6.1: Construction Price Range

PROJECT YEAR LOCATIONDELIVERY METHOD

AREACONSTRUCTION

COSTCOST/m2

F.H. Collins Secondary School 2013 Whitehorse Design-Build 7,474 $ 31,138,900 $ 4,166

Emergency Response Centre 2012 Whitehorse Design-Bid-Build 1,100 $ 6,200,000 $ 5,636

Canada Post Processing Facility 2011 Vancouver Design-Build 65,030 $ 115,000,000 $ 1,768

KDFN Cultural Centre 2010 Whitehorse Construction

Management

3,700 $ 20,800,000 $ 5,622

Core Stock Library 2010 Whitehorse Design-Bid-Build 1,300 $ 3,860,000 $ 2,969

Dawson City Hospital 2010 Dawson City Design-Bid-Build 3,372 $ 22,220,100 $ 6,590

Watson Lake Hospital 2010 Watson Lake Design-Bid-Build 2,432 $ 17,200,000 $ 7,070

CAFN Cultural Centre 2010 Haines Junction Design-Bid-Build 2,995 $ 12,000,000 $ 4,007

Yukon Corrections Infrastructure 2009 Whitehorse Construction

Management

7,750 $ 55,000,000 $ 7,097

ETS Centennial Bus Garage 2008 Edmonton Construction

Management

30,000 $ 79,502,000 $ 2,734

6 . 2 P R E L I M I N A RY COST E ST I M AT E M E MO

In 2012 a cost estimate memo was prepared by Jon T. Schmidt Cost Consulting for the City of

Whitehorse. This estimate for a Consolidated Operations and Service building located at the Robert

Service Way site was prepared as a basis for decision making relied on preliminary assumptions

about the structure, envelope, finishes, mechanical, and electrical systems. The areas included in the

estimate assumed a 50% increase to existing heated building areas and storage yards.

This estimate of $35,000,000 was prepared prior to a detailed assessment of the City’s needs and

the development of a comprehensive functional programme. It also did not take into account the

sustainability objectives later outlined by the City in their Request for Proposal for a Business Case

and through workshops with the City Senior Management.

6 . 3 P R OJ EC T COST E ST I M AT E S UM M A RY

The estimates presented in this report are intended to provide a realistic assessment of the direct

and indirect construction costs of the proposed Operations & Service Buildings.

The estimate prepared by BTY Group, and included in the Appendix, provides an order of magnitude

estimate of the likely construction and projects costs. The estimated costs contained in the BTY

report are based on the initial functional program area prepared by KZA. Following the initial program

level estimate, significant reductions to the program were made, and these changes are reflected in

the final project cost estimate detailed in this chapter.

The estimate is to be utilized as a financial planning and modeling tool to assess the feasibility of

the project. When the requirements of the project become more defined and are developed in later

design documents, the estimates may vary from the costs summarized in this report.


6-3

In order to maintain the budget parameters established in this report, it is recommended that further

costs estimates be prepared once preliminary planning has been completed. Ongoing estimates

at major design stage milestones will enable the City to track and monitor the project budget and

mitigate risk.

6. 3 .1 B U I L D I N G D E V E LO P M E N T O PT I O N S

As detailed in previous and subsequent chapters, three building consolidation options

consisting of eight scenarios were developed in consultation with the City. These options

provide various development scenarios and include variations in the amount of program

developed as new construction, the level of energy savings achieved, and the exclusion

or inclusion of additional lease space as part of the service building. These options and

scenarios are outlined below:

Option 1: Hybrid - Partial New Facilities (50% and 80% better than NECB 2011)

Option 1A: Hybrid + 50% NECB 2011

Option 1B: Hybrid + Lease + 50% NECB 2011

Option 1C: Hybrid + 80% NECB 2011

Option 1D: Hybrid + Lease + 80% NECB 2011

Option 2: New Facilities (50% better than NECB 2011)

Option 2A: New Facilities + 50% NECB 2011

Option 2B: New Facilities + Lease + 50% NECB 2011

Option 3: New Facilities (80% better than NECB 2011)

Option 3A: New Facilities + 80% NECB 2011


The summary of project costs for each scenario is summarized in Table 6.2, and detailed below in

Tables 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6.


6-4

TABLE 6.2: Summary of Project Costs

Description OPTION #1A

OPTION #1B

OPTION #1C

OPTION #1D

OPTION #2A

OPTION #2B

OPTION #3A

OPTION #3A

Land Cost Excl. Excl. Excl. Excl. Excl. Excl. Excl. Excl.

Construction $ 38,726,700 $ 44,659,500 $ 42,106,130 $ 48,815,030 $ 62,192,600 $ 68,125,400 $ 67,075,600 $ 73,784,500

Allowances $ 5,809,100 $ 6,699,000 $ 6,208,400 $ 7,214,700 $ 9,329,000 $ 10,218,900 $ 10,061,500 $ 11,067,800

Professional Fees

$ 3,056,200 $ 3,518,900 $ 3,323,700 $ 3,845,100 $ 4,907,600 $ 5,370,300 $ 5,283,300 $ 5,804,700

Fees & Permits $ 55,500 $ 78,200 $ 88,200 $ 127,700 $ 97,700 $ 120,400 $ 129,500 $ 169,000

Management & Overhead

$ 761,800 $ 879,900 $ 827,000 $ 960,500 $ 1,237,400 $ 1,355,500 $ 1,334,600 $ 1,468,100

Project Contingency

$ 193,700 $ 223,900 $ 211,900 $ 246,600 $ 312,200 $ 342,400 $ 337,400 $ 372,100

Furnishing, Fittings & Equipment

Excl Excl. Excl. Excl. Excl. Excl. Excl. Excl.

Taxes Excl Excl. Excl. Excl. Excl. Excl. Excl. Excl.

SUB-TOTAL $ 48,603,000 $ 56,059,400 $ 52,765,330 $ 61,209,630 $ 78,076,500 $ 85,532,900 $ 84,221,900 $ 92,666,200

Escalation Reserve

$ 1,944,000 $ 2,242,300 $ 2,110,500 $ 2,448,300 $ 3,123,000 $ 3,421,300 $ 3,368,800 $ 3,706,600

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (2014)

$ 50,547,000 $ 58,301,700 $ 54,875,830 $ 63,657,930 $ 81,199,500 $ 88,954,200 $ 86,712,700 $ 95,494,800

Gross Floor Area 8,683 m2 9,983 m2 8,683 m2 9,983 m2 13,306 m2 14,606 m2 13,306 m2 14,606 m2

Net Building Area

$ 4,100 / m2 $ 4,158 / m2 $ 4,489 / m2 $ 4575 / m2 $ 4,171 / m2 $ 4,205 m2 $ 4,538 / m2 $ 4,592 / m2

Net Construction Area

$ 4,460 / m2 $ 4,474 / m2 $ 4,849 / m2 $ 4,890 / m2 $ 4,674 / m2 $ 4,664 / m2 $ 5,041 / m2 $ 5,052 / m2

Total Project Cost

$ 5,821 / m2 $ 5,840 / m2 $ 6,320 / m2 $ 6,377 / m2 $ 6,102 / m2 $ 6,090 m2 $ 6,583 / m2 $ 6,598 / m2


6-5

TABLE 6.3: Option 1 - Hybrid Scheme, 50% Better than NECB 2011

DESCRIPTION OPERATIONS

BUILDINGSERVICE

BUILDINGTRANSIT

RENOVATIONSTOTAL

OPTION ‘A’LEASE SPACE

TOTAL OPTION ‘B’

LAND COST $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Land & Legal Fees (Excluded) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

CONSTRUCTION $ 31,665,600 $ 6,561,100 $ 500,000 $ 38,726,700 $ 5,932,800 $ 44,659,500

New Building $ 29,512,900 $ 6,086,700 $ - $ 35,599,600 $ 5,913,200 $ 41,512,800

Renovations $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000

Site Development Allowance $ 2,152,700 $ 422,400 $ - $ 2,575,100 $ 19,600 $ 2,594,700

Demolition $ - $ 52,000 $ - $ 52,000 $ - $ 52,000

Off-Site Works (Excluded) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

ALLOWANCES $ 4,749,900 $ 984,200 $ 75,000 $ 5,809,100 $ 889,900 $ 6,699,000

Design Contingency $ 3,166,600 $ 656,100 $ 50,000 $ 3,872,700 $ 593,300 $ 4,466,000

Construction Contingency $ 1,583,300 $ 328,100 $ 25,000 $ 1,936,400 $ 296,600 $ 2,233,000

PROFESSIONAL FEES $ 2,470,100 $ 568,300 $ 17,800 $ 3,056,200 $ 462,700 $ 3,518,900

Architectural $ 1,128,100 $ 280,500 $ 17,800 $ 1,426,400 $ 211,400 $ 1,637,800

Structural $ 237,500 $ 49,200 $ - $ 286,700 $ 44,500 $ 331,200

Mechanical $ 439,400 $ 91,000 $ - $ 530,400 $ 82,300 $ 612,700

Electrical $ 237,500 $ 49,200 $ - $ 286,700 $ 44,500 $ 331,200

Cost Consultant $ 71,300 $ 14,800 $ - $ 86,100 $ 13,300 $ 99,400

LEED Consultant $ 71,300 $ 24,600 $ - $ 95,900 $ 13,300 $ 109,200

Other & Disbursement $ 285,000 $ 59,000 $ - $ 344,000 $ 53,400 $ 397,400

FEES & PERMITS $ 33,700 $ 20,600 $ 1,200 $ 55,500 $ 22,700 $ 78,200

Development Cost Charges $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Building Permits $ 33,700 $ 20,600 $ 1,200 $ 55,500 $ 22,700 $ 78,200

MANAGEMENT & OVERHEAD $ 630,100 $ 130,500 $ 1,200 $ 761,800 $ 118,100 $ 879,900

Project Management Fee $ 437,000 $ 90,500 $ - $ 527,500 $ 81,900 $ 609,400

Owners Costs $ 65,600 $ 13,600 $ - $ 79,200 $ 12,300 $ 91,500

Project Insurance $ 76,500 $ 15,800 $ 1,200 $ 93,500 $ 14,300 $ 107,800

Project Commissioning $ 51,000 $ 10,600 $ - $ 61,600 $ 9,600 $ 71,200

PROJECT CONTINGENCY (5%) $ 156,700 $ 36,000 $ 1,000 $ 193,700 $ 30,200 $ 223,900

SUBTOTAL $ 39,706,100 $ 8,300,700 $ 596,200 $ 48,603,000 $ 7,456,400 $ 56,059,400

FURNISHINGS, FITTINGS & EQUIPMENT (Excluded)

$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

TAXES (Excluded) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

SUB-TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 39,706,100 $ 8,300,700 $ 596,200 $ 8,603,000 $ 7,456,400 $ 56,059,400

ESCALATION (4%) $ 1,588,200 $ 332,000 $ 23,800 $ 1,944,000 $ 298,300 $ 2,242,300

TOTAL PROJECT COST (2014) $ 41,294,300 $ 8,632,700 $ 620,000 $ 50,547,000 $ 7,754,700 $ 58,301,700


6-6

TABLE 6.4: Option 1 - Hybrid Scheme, 80% Better than NECB 2011


BUILDINGSERVICE

BUILDINGTRANSIT

RENOVATIONSTOTAL

OPTION ‘C’LEASE SPACE

TOTAL OPTION ‘D’

LAND COST $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Land & Legal Fees (Excluded) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

CONSTRUCTION $ 34,262,030 $ 7,344,100 $ 500,000 $ 42,106,130 $ 6,708,900 $ 48,815,030

New Building $ 32,109,330 $ 6,869,700 $ - $ 38,979,030 $ 6,689,300 $ 45,668,330

Renovations $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000

Site Development Allowance $ 2,152,700 $ 422,400 $ - $ 2,575,100 $ 19,600 $ 2,594,700

Demolition $ - $ 52,000 $ - $ 52,000 $ - $ 52,000

Off-Site Works (Excluded) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

ALLOWANCES $ 5,031,700 $ 1,101,700 $ 75,000 $ 6,208,400 $ 1,006,300 $ 7,214,700

Design Contingency $ 3,426,200 $ 734,400 $ 50,000 $ 4,210,600 $ 670,900 $ 4,881,500

Construction Contingency $ 1,605,500 $ 367,300 $ 25,000 $ 1,997,800 $ 335,400 $ 2,333,200

PROFESSIONAL FEES $ 2,672,600 $ 633,300 $ 17,800 $ 3,323,700 $ 521,400 $ 3,845,100

Architectural $ 1,220,600 $ 314,000 $ 17,800 $ 1,552,400 $ 239,000 $ 1,791,400

Structural $ 257,000 $ 55,100 $ - $ 312,100 $ 50,300 $ 362,400

Mechanical $ 475,400 $ 101,900 $ - $ 577,300 $ 93,100 $ 670,400

Electrical $ 257,000 $ 55,100 $ - $ 312,100 $ 50,300 $ 362,400

Cost Consultant $ 77,100 $ 14,800 $ - $ 91,900 $ 13,300 $ 105,200

LEED Consultant $ 77,100 $ 26,400 $ - $ 103,500 $ 15,000 $ 118,500

Other & Disbursement $ 308,400 $ 66,000 $ - $ 374,400 $ 60,400 $ 434,800

FEES & PERMITS $ 52,400 $34,600 $ 1,200 $88,200 $ 39,500 $ 127,700

Development Cost Charges $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Building Permits $ 52,400 $ 34,600 $ 1,200 $ 88,200 $ 39,500 $ 127,700

MANAGEMENT & OVERHEAD $ 679,700 $ 146,100 $ 1,200 $ 827,000 $ 133,500 $ 960,500

Project Management Fee $ 471,500 $ 101,300 $ - $ 572,800 $ 92,600 $ 665,400

Owners Costs $ 70,700 $ 15,200 $ - $ 85,900 $ 13,900 $ 99,800

Project Insurance $ 82,500 $ 17,700 $ 1,200 $ 101,400 $ 16,200 $ 117,600

Project Commissioning $ 55,000 $ 11,900 $ - $ 66,900 $ 10,800 $ 77,700

PROJECT CONTINGENCY (5%) $ 170,200 $ 40,700 $ 1,000 $ 211,900 $ 34,700 $ 246,600

SUBTOTAL $ 42,868,630 $ 9,300,500 $ 596,200 $ 52,765,330 $ 8,444,300 $ 61,209,630


$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

TAXES (Excluded) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

SUB-TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 42,868,630 $ 9,300,500 $ 596,200 $ 52,765,330 $ 8,444,300 $ 61,209,630

ESCALATION (4%) $ 1,714,700 $ 372,000 $ 23,800 $ 2,110,500 $ 337,800 $ 2,448,300

TOTAL PROJECT COST (2014) $ 44,583,330 $ 9,672,500 $ 620,000 $ 54,875,830 $ 8,782,100 $ 63,657,930


6-7

TABLE 6.5: Option 2 - New Facilities, 50% Better than NECB 2011


BUILDINGSERVICE

BUILDINGTOTAL



LAND COST $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Land & Legal Fees (Excluded) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

CONSTRUCTION $ 55,631,500 $ 6,561,100 $ 62,192,600 $ 5,932,800 $ 68,125,400

New Building $ 49,417,000 $ 6,086,700 $ 55,503,700 $ 5,913,200 $ 61,416,900

Renovations $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Site Development Allowance $ 6,214,500 $ 422,400 $ 6,636,900 $ 19,600 $ 6,656,500

Demolition $ - $ 52,000 $ 52,000 $ - $ 52,000

Off-Site Works (Excluded) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

ALLOWANCES $ 8,344,800 $ 984,200 $ 9,329,000 $ 889,900 $ 10,218,900

Design Contingency $ 5,563,200 $ 656,100 $ 6,219,300 $ 593,300 $ 6,812,600

Construction Contingency $ 2,781,600 $ 328,100 $ 3,109,700 $ 296,600 $ 3,406,300

PROFESSIONAL FEES $ 4,339,300 $ 568,300 $ 4,907,600 $ 462,700 $ 5,370,300

Architectural $ 1,981,900 $ 280,500 $ 2,262,400 $ 211,400 $ 2,473,800

Structural $ 417,200 $ 49,200 $ 466,400 $ 44,500 $ 510,900

Mechanical $ 771,900 $ 91,000 $ 862,900 $ 82,300 $945,200

Electrical $ 417,200 $ 49,200 $ 466,400 $ 44,500 $ 510,900

Cost Consultant $ 125,200 $ 14,800 $ 140,000 $ 13,300 $ 153,300

LEED Consultant $ 125,200 $ 24,600 $ 149,800 $ 13,300 $ 163,100

Other & Disbursement $ 500,700 $ 59,000 $ 559,700 $ 53,400 $ 613,100

FEES & PERMITS $ 77,100 $ 20,600 $ 97,700 $ 22,700 $120,400

Development Cost Charges $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Building Permits $ 77,100 $ 20,600 $ 97,700 $ 22,700 $ 120,400

MANAGEMENT & OVERHEAD $ 1,106,900 $ 130,500 $ 1,237,400 $ 118,100 $1,198,800

Project Management Fee $ 767,700 $ 90,500 $ 858,200 $ 81,900 $ 783,400

Owners Costs $ 115,200 $ 13,600 $ 128,800 $ 12,300 $ 141,100

Project Insurance $ 134,400 $ 15,800 $ 150,200 $ 14,300 $ 164,500

Project Commissioning $89,600 $ 10,600 $ 100,200 $ 9,600 $ 109,800

PROJECT CONTINGENCY (5%) $ 276,200 $ 36,000 $ 312,200 $ 30,200 $ 342,400

SUBTOTAL $ 69,775,800 $ 8,300,700 $ 78,076,500 $ 7,456,400 $ 85,532,900


$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

TAXES (Excluded) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

SUB-TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 69,775,800 $ 8,300,700 $ 78,076,500 $ 7,456,400 $ 85,532,900

ESCALATION (4%) $ 2,791,000 $ 332,000 $ 3,123,000 $ 298,300 $ 3,421,300

TOTAL PROJECT COST (2014) 72,566,800 $ 8,632,700 $ 81,199,500 $ 7,754,700 $ 88,954,200


6-8

TABLE 6.6: Option 3 - New Facilities, 80% Better than NECB 2011


BUILDINGSERVICE

BUILDINGTOTAL



LAND COST $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Land & Legal Fees (Excluded) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

CONSTRUCTION $ 59,731,500 $ 7,344,100 $ 67,075,600 $ 6,708,900 $ 73,784,500

New Building $ 53,517,000 $ 6,869,700 $ 60,386,700 $ 6,689,300 $ 67,076,000

Renovations $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Site Development Allowance $ 6,214,500 $ 422,400 $ 6,636,900 $ 19,600 $ 6,656,500

Demolition $ - $ 52,000 $ 52,000 $ - $ 52,000

Off-Site Works (Excluded) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

ALLOWANCES $ 8,959,800 $ 1,101,700 $ 10,061,500 $ 1,006,300 $ 11,067,800

Design Contingency $ 5,973,200 $ 734,400 $ 6,707,600 $ 670,900 $ 7,378,500

Construction Contingency $ 2,986,600 $ 367,300 $ 3,353,900 $ 335,400 $ 3,689,300

PROFESSIONAL FEES $ 4,650,000 $ 633,300 $ 5,283,300 $ 521,400 $ 5,804,700

Architectural $ 2,128,000 $ 314,000 $ 2,442,000 $ 239,000 $ 2,681,000

Structural $ 448,000 $ 55,100 $ 503,100 $ 50,300 $ 553,400

Mechanical $ 828,800 $ 101,900 $ 930,700 $ 93,100 $ 1,023,800

Electrical $ 448,000 $ 55,100 $ 503,100 $ 50,300 $ 553,400

Cost Consultant $ 125,200 $ 14,800 $ 140,000 $ 13,300 $ 153,300

LEED Consultant $ 134,400 $ 26,400 $ 160,800 $ 15,000 $ 175,800

Other & Disbursement $ 537,600 $ 66,000 $ 603,600 $ 60,400 $ 664,000

FEES & PERMITS $94,900 $34,600 $129,500 $39,500 $169,000

Development Cost Charges $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Building Permits $ 94,900 $ 34,600 $ 129,500 $ 39,500 $ 169,000

MANAGEMENT & OVERHEAD $ 1,188,500 $ 146,100 $ 1,334,600 $ 133,500 $ 1,468,100

Project Management Fee $ 824,300 $ 101,300 $ 925,600 $ 92,600 $ 1,018,200

Owners Costs $ 123,700 $ 15,200 $ 138,900 $ 13,900 $ 152,800

Project Insurance $ 144,300 $ 17,700 $ 162,000 $ 16,200 $ 178,200

Project Commissioning $ 96,200 $ 11,900 $ 108,100 $ 10,800 $ 118,900

PROJECT CONTINGENCY (5%) $ 296,700 $ 40,700 $ 337,400 $ 34,700 $ 372,100

SUBTOTAL $ 74,921,400 $ 9,300,500 $ 84,221,900 $ 8,444,300 $ 92,666,200


$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

TAXES (Excluded) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

SUB-TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 74,921,400 $ 9,300,500 $ 84,221,900 $ 8,444,300 $ 92,666,200

ESCALATION (4%) $ 2,996,800 $ 372,000 $ 3,368,800 $ 337,800 $ 3,706,600

TOTAL PROJECT COST (2014) $ 77,918,200 $ 9,672,500 $ 87,590,700 $ 8,782,100 $ 96,372,800


6-9

6 .4 D E F I N I T I O N SThe estimate for the project has been prepared and summarized in the following categories. The

scope of work covered within each category is as follows:

6.4.1 L A N D COST

These costs include the acquisition of the site and associated fees, service obligations and

property purchase tax. These costs have been excluded from this estimate.

6.4. 2 CO N ST R U C T I O N

This category encompasses all direct and indirect construction costs including building(s),

associated site development work and general contractor’s general requirements and fee.

6.4. 3 A L LOWA N C E S

Allowances for cost increases as the design is developed and/or the work is carried out on

site.

A design allowance of ten percent (10%) has been included in the estimate to cover

modifications to the program, drawing and specification during design development.

This allowance should be re-considered as the design development proceeds with this

contingency being ultimately reduced to zero at the tender stage.

A construction allowance of five percent (5%) for has been included in the estimate for

changes occurring during construction period of the project. This amount may be expended

during the construction phase if there are modifications to the drawings and specifications.

6.4.4 P R O F E S S I O N A L F E E S

Within this section professional fees have been estimated for the primary design team

consultants including: the architect, structural, mechanical & electrical engineers, cost

consultant, and the LEED consultant. Other specialist consultants and an allowance for

disbursements are also included. Where available, all consultant fees have been calculated

based on the current schedule of recommended charges published by the professional

associations.

6.4.5 F E E S & P E R M I TS

This section includes an estimate for all project related fees and charges required by the City

and other authorities having jurisdiction as part of the development. These costs include

Development Cost Charges (DCC’s), Building Permits, levies and associated legal and survey

fees. These costs are based on current Government/City formulas and schedules. Any costs


6-10

normally required by the city have been excluded from this estimate.

6 .4.6 M A N AG E M E N T & OV E R H E A D

The project management fee is charged by a company or individual providing project

management services. The Owner’s Planning and Administrative cost covers the owner’s

project-related management costs. Provisions are also included for project insurance,

commissioning the facility prior to handover and move-in costs.

6.4.7 P R OJ EC T CO N T I N G E N C Y

This allowance is provided as an owner’s contingency to cover changes to non-construction

items. An allowance of five percent (5%) of the soft costs has been included in the project

cost estimate to cover changes to non-construction items.

6.4.8 F U R N I S H I N G S , F I T T I N G S & EQ U I P M E N T

Furnishings, Fittings & Equipment have been excluded from this estimate.

6.4.9 TA X E S

Taxes are not applicable to a municipal project.

6.4.10 E S C A L AT I O N

This is an allowance for increases in prices of inputs to the project, occurring after the date

of the estimate, on the final cost of the project. This allowance is calculated based on BTY’s

projected annual escalation rates as stated in this report


7-1

7. 0 B U S I N E S S C AS E A N D F I N A N C I A L A N A LYS I S

1 Dell’Isola, Aphonse J., and Stephen J. Kirk. Life Cycle Costing for Facilities. Kingston: Reed Construction Data, 2003. Print.

7.1 M E T H O D O LO GY

The business case analysis provides a comparison of the economics and qualitative aspects of the

various service delivery options toward a consolidated facility. Based on consultation with the City

of Whitehorse, two building development options consisting of eight development scenarios were

evaluated. These options are compared against a status quo comparative model in order to establish

a quantitative basis for comparison.

The economic analysis includes a comparison of the capital and life cycle costs for each scenario.

“Life cycle costing (LCC) is an economic assessment of a facility over its life, expressed in terms of

equivalent cost, using baselines identical to those used for initial cost. It is used to compare various

options by identifying and assessing economic impacts over the life of each option.”2 This can be

understood as the total cost of ownership for each option. The intention of undertaking life cycle

costing analysis of different options is to select an option that allows the owner to reduce the total

costs of ownership.

The life cycle economic analysis in this business case allocates project capital and operating costs

and revenues over a 50-year project life for each option that are then converted to annualized costs.

Annual greenhouse gas emissions for each scenario were also determined based on the estimated

average annual energy demand.

The qualitative analysis describes the non-monetary aspects of the various scenarios to determine

the relative benefits and extent of desired outcomes.


7-2

The analysis of strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats considers a broad spectrum of

quantitative and qualitative aspects to facilitate the selection of the preferred service delivery option.

The financial analysis includes a review and summary of funding opportunities and procurement

options. This is followed by a comprehensive risk analysis that identifies known risks, their relative

probability and severity, and offers mitigation options.

7. 2 STA K E H O L D E R S A N D PA RT N E R S H I P S

In considering the business case for building consolidation, the redevelopment and disposition of

existing City of Whitehorse owned properties and buildings was examined. The consultant team

carried out one on one interviews with the following organizations: the Yukon Housing Corporation,

Yukon Anti-Poverty Coalition, Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce and Northern Vision Development.

Yukon College was approached but declined advising that they are focusing on the planning of their

recently acquired endowment lands adjacent to McIntyre Creek.

The purpose of the interviews was to identify and assess redevelopment opportunities, potential

partnerships and other innovations that could be available to the City. The interviews were semi-

structured allowing for additional questions depending on who was being interviewed. Specific

questions focused on the appropriateness of the existing Municipal Services Building (MSB) site

for future master planning and housing development. Of all land parcels available for disposal,

the MSB site provides the greatest opportunity for infill urban housing development. Following a

brief introduction of the consolidation project and the two development site options, the following

questions were presented:

Do you support relocating the MSB functions from the current site on Fourth Avenue and

consolidating them with other City’s operations in a new facility?

What do you think about future housing development on the existing MSB site?

What types of housing would be appropriate?

Do you support a public Master Planning process for the site prior to any development taking

place?

How do see your organization/business being involved if the City wished to pursue housing

development on the site?

Would you be interested in partnering with the City going forward (no definition of what the

partnership would look like)?

7. 2 .1 OV E R A L L F I N D I N G S

A new Consolidation Operations Facility was made a strategic priority by staff at the annual

general meeting (AGM) more than 10 years ago, while the existing MSB location at Fourth

Avenue near Ogilvie Street is now considered a non-conforming use and therefore no longer

an appropriate location for a public works operations facility. Other than a desire from some

of those interviewed not to relocate Community and Recreation Services from the Sport

Yukon building, those interviewed had no comments or opinions on the consolidation of City


7-3

owned buildings/parcels in the Marwell area or near the Whitehorse waterfront. Reasons

may include general support for the proposed development plans and/or no redevelopment

interest/need for the parcels of land at this time. Other reasons may include Whitehorse

City Council’s focus on affordable/attainable housing and the publicity surrounding the

condition of the Municipal Services Building. The City of Whitehorse’s 2013 Strategic Plan

places Attainable Housing as a top municipal priority (COW, 2013).

There is strong support for the MSB site to be redeveloped to accommodate housing. The

types of housing that were brought forward in discussion included: market housing (rental

and owned), affordable market rental housing, supported rental housing and social housing.

Those interviewed noted the benefits of the location: proximity to transit, groceries and

other retail, services in the downtown, and location across from the new Northern Vision

commercial development with retail and medical services. Those interviewed, support a

master planning process for the site that considers a mix of housing types reflecting and

supporting Whitehorse’s economic and social diversity.

7. 2 . 2 P OT E N T I A L PA RT N E R S

The Yukon Housing Corporation, Northern Vision Development - a private land development

company based in Whitehorse - and the Salvation Army expressed interest in examining

partnership opportunities with the City of Whitehorse in regards to redeveloping the MSB

site. The Yukon Housing Corporation has a mandate to work together with other levels

of government and industry partners to support housing development. Northern Vision

Development has expressed an interest to further develop commercial and residential projects

in the downtown area to benefit the community. The Salvation Army is currently exploring

options to relocate its existing homeless shelter and soup kitchen, and to supplement its

existing services with a broad range of transitional housing and support amenities.

Yukon Housing Corporation

Representatives from the Yukon Housing Corporation (YHC) expressed a keen interest to

work with the City on the future development of the MSB site. Items that were discussed

include:

Partnering with the City for the planning and future development of the site (including

the provision of funds for a master planning process);

Yukon Housing Corporation purchasing the site from the City of Whitehorse;

Yukon Housing providing incentives to the private sector to develop the site for

affordable housing;

Yukon Housing developing social housing on the site;

Yukon Housing assisting with the provision of supported housing (e.g. FAS/FAE

individuals living independently yet supported on site);

Accommodating an Abbeyfield Housing Society development (supported seniors);


7-4

YHC representatives (Matt King and Mary Cameron) advised that the Housing Corporation

and the Yukon Government look very favourably on partnerships with other levels of

government and the private sector. The Housing Corporation’s 2013 to 2018 Strategic

Plan supports innovative solutions, incentives, funding and collaboration to increase the

affordability and availability of rental accommodation in Yukon and meet a variety of housing

needs. The representatives also advised that there is a process and partners (Whitehorse

Housing, Yukon Housing and Yukon Government) to determine how YHC will work with

the City to further common housing goals. They also support the inclusion of NGO’s, First

Nation Governments, and other housing organizations to participate in a common housing

action plan.

Northern Vision Development Ltd.

Northern Vision Development LP (NVD) is a private commercial and land development

company in the Yukon with the majority of its land and commercial holdings and development

projects in Whitehorse. Northern Vision was formed in 2004 and is a limited partnership

that includes a variety of Yukon First Nations shareholders. In 2013 NVD partnered with

the Yukon Housing Corporation to provide staff housing in Dawson City. NVD owns and is

redeveloping the old Canadian Tire building across the street from the MSB site and is open

to examining redevelopment options with the City and expressed support for affordable

housing. Options that were briefly discussed include:

Partnering with City of Whitehorse and/or others – such as YHC, Yukon First Nations;

Purchasing the site, supporting a master planning process and developing appropriate

housing.

Participating in a P3 funded project.

NVD supports housing as a use on the MSB site and would welcome the opportunity to

discuss redevelopment options and opportunities with the City.

There are other private-sector development companies with a proven track record of providing

urban housing options in the downtown area that would also be interested in a development

partnership with the City of Whitehorse. These include NGC Builders, Evergreen Homes and

360 Design Build, to name a few. A master planning process for the MSB site would confirm

community interest, opportunities and vision for a sustainable infill housing plan. Though an

argument can be made for a site redevelopment scenario involving only large development

companies capable of undertaking a capital-intensive housing project, the master planning

process should accommodate a wide variety of development opportunities and options for

the MSB site.

Kwanlin Dun First Nation and Ta’an Kwäch’än Council

The Kwanlin Dun First Nation and Ta’an Kwäch’än Council are potential partners for the City

of Whitehorse in both the redevelopment of existing city owned properties and development


7-5

of their own lands within city limits. It is recommended that the City of Whitehorse engage

with First Nation governments to explore shared housing development opportunities.

Salvation Army

The Salvation Army is currently exploring options to relocate and enhance its existing facility

located at Second Avenue and Black Street. They are a potential partner for the City of

Whitehorse to redevelop the MSB site, and it is recommended that the City of Whitehorse

engage with the Salvation Army to explore opportunities to develop this property.

7. 3 B U I L D I N G D E V E LO P M E N T O PT I O N S E VA L UAT E D

Two building consolidation development options consisting of eight scenarios were developed

through consultation with the City and after the completion of a detailed functional program,

building appraisal, environmental assessment overview, site option evaluation, and sustainability

plan. Option #1 consists of a hybrid scenario involving continued operation of some buildings with

new, reduced program Operation and Service buildings. Option #2 consists of new full program

Operations and Service buildings based on either an above average energy efficiency target or on

adopting the most energy efficient and sustainable building practices. The options are analyzed

against the costs of maintaining a status quo comparative model: continued operation of existing

buildings, future upgrades to maintain them, and lease of additional space.

1A

1C

2A

2C

1A

1B

1C

2A

1D

2D

2B

2C

N E C B 8 0 % R E D U C T I O N + L E A S E

N E C B 8 0 % R E D U C T I O N







S U B - O P T I O N S

HY

BR

IDFU

LL B

UIL

D

S C E N A R I O S

FIGURE 7.1: Building development options.


7-6

An economic analysis was completed for each scenario to provide a common comparison of

expected lifecycle costs over a 50-year period using annualized costs to determine the total cost of

ownership. The scenarios were developed to illustrate a diversity of options, costs, sensitivities, and

environmental performance that could be achieved through the project, if developed.

The minimum energy efficiency benchmark proposed for the new Operations and Services buildings

is 50% better than the National Energy Code for Buildings 2011 (NECB 2011) and is considered

an above standard practice in Yukon. The most sustainable benchmark proposed is achieving an

energy efficiency target that is 80% better than NECB 2011 through the inclusion of alternate energy

components such as solar PV. Further details on the specific building features used to achieve the

energy performance targets outlined in each scenario are described in the sustainability chapter and

the Building Energy Modelling Analysis Report completed by Morrison Hershfield and included in

Appendix E.

Office lease partnerships have also been added to the service delivery options resulting in an

increase in size of the proposed Services building by 1,300m2 to accommodate consolidated Yukon

Government Departments, generate additional revenue, and provide the City with future office area,

when required. A lease partnership with a another level of government is currently being pursued by

the City and factors positively in the life cycle costing analysis.

The Status Quo Comparative Model and Building Development Options and scenarios are further

described as follows:

7. 3 .1 STAT U S Q U O COM PA R AT I V E MO D E L

Status Quo Continued operation of existing buildings while providing ongoing maintenance and repair.

Lease of required additional space.

The status quo comparative model is provided for illustrative purposes; however, maintaining

the existing buildings over a 50 year period is not a viable consideration based on both

future space requirements of the City and the prohibitive maintenance and upgrade costs

necessary for the continued operation of buildings (which are well beyond their useful life).

The status quo is based on the continued operation of existing facilities for 50 years with

capital input and upgrades to maintain the facilities. The capital costs are based on an

assumed average facility condition index of 30%, relative to the current replacement costs

as reflected by the new building delivery options/scenarios. Annual maintenance costs are

also assumed to increase at a greater rate for the existing buildings than with new purpose-

built facilities. The existing buildings do not meet current and future space requirements

for continued operation under this scenario, and would continue to impact staff efficiency.

Therefore, the costs of leasing an additional 3,310 m2 of operations space and 1,100 m2 of

service space are also included to provide a complete and accurate comparison to the new

build options. It should be noted that the status quo does not account for unknown capital

costs due to component failure, and therefore does not take into consideration any business

interruptions caused by such an event.


7-7

7. 3 . 2 O PT I O N 1 : H Y B R I D O PT I O N - PA RT I A L N E W FAC I L I T I E S ( 5 0 % o r 8 0 % b e t te r t h a n N EC B 2 0 1 1 )

Option 1A: Hybrid Option + 50% NECB 2011

Implement reduced Operations Building Program, New Operation and Services buildings

constructed to 50% better energy efficiency than NECB 2011, energy retrofit for Transit

Building, continued operation of Stores Warehouse, Parks Building, and Public Works Yard

for 15 years followed by replacement and implementation of a full Building Program.

Option 1B: Hybrid Option + Lease + 50% NECB 2011

Option 1A with additional costs and revenues resulting from 1,300 m2 of leased office space.

Option 1C: Hybrid Option + Lease + 50% NECB 2011

Reduced Operations Building Program, New Operation and Services buildings constructed

to 80% better energy efficiency than NECB 2011, energy retrofit for Transit Building,

continued operation of Stores Warehouse, Parks Building, and Public Works Yard for 15

years followed by replacement and implementation of a full Building Program.

Option 1D: Hybrid Option + Lease + 80% NECB 2011

Option 1C with additional costs and revenues from 1,300 m2 of leased office space.

Hybrid Options 1A to 1D are based on a new full program Service building and a new reduced

program Operations building to replace the Municipal Services Building and Motorways

Garage, both of which are at end of their useful life. The Transit Services Building is upgraded

with energy retrofits as recommended in the ICF Marbek Building Energy Study and the

Warehouse, Parks, and Public Works Yard all remain in operation (as per the status quo

comparative model) for 15 years. The existing Transit Services Building is expected to require

major upgrades and maintenance costs if retained. The Meldon Building and Sport Yukon

leases are not renewed and the space accommodated in the new facilities. The analysis

assumes that after 15 years, the Transit Services Building, Parks Building, and Warehouse

would be vacated, the land sold and the full program space consolidated with the new

Operations Building. The energy demand and associated costs to replace those facilities is

assumed to be the difference between the full and reduced operations building program area.

Benefits of this scenario include the disposal and sale of the Municipal Services Building and

Motorways Garage, followed by the sale of the Parks Building, Stores Warehouse, Transit

Services Building, and Public Work Utility Yard in year 15. The option provides an affordable

capital cost scenario in 2014/16 and is in line with the City’s available financing capacity. It

does however, require the continued use of key City buildings until they are replaced and

capitalized in 2029.

Variations of this option are presented and based upon current construction practices and

energy efficiency targets of either 50% or 80% better than NECB 2011, and the addition of

revenue generating lease space.


7-8

7. 3 . 3 O PT I O N 2 : N E W FAC I L I T I E S ( 5 0 % o r 8 0 % b e t te r t h a n N EC B 2 0 1 1 )

Option 2A: New Facilities + Lease+ 80% NECB 2011

Construction of a new full program Operation and Services buildings constructed to +50%

NECB 2011


Option 2A with additional costs and revenues resulting from 1,300 m2 of leased office space.

Option 2C: New Facilities + Lease+ 80% NECB 2011

Construction of a new full program Operation and Services buildings constructed to +80%

NECB 2011

Option 2D: New Facilities + Lease + 80% NECB 2011

Option 2C with additional costs and revenues resulting from 1,300 m2 of leased office space

Option 2 represents new, full program Operation and Service buildings based on current

construction practices constructed to 50% or 80% better than NECB 2011. Scenario 2A

represents the lowest investment necessary to construct a new building that meets the full

functional program needs of the City. The benefits of this scenario include the immediate sale

of the Municipal Services Building, Motorways Garage, Parks Building, Stores Warehouse,

Transit Services Building, and Public Work Utility Yard. It also avoids lease costs for the

Meldon and Sport Yukon buildings. The scenario provides significant energy, operations, and

maintenance savings when compared to the status quo comparative model. It also provides

a capital build that meets all of the City’s current and future space needs. The high up front

capital costs of this option would limit the City to a P3 financed delivery model.

Variations of this option are presented and based upon current construction practices and

energy efficiency targets of either 50% or 80% better than NECB 2011, and the addition of

1,300 m2 of revenue generating lease space from a key partner to offset capital costs.

Scenarios B and C provide the highest energy and operations and maintenance savings when

compared to the status quo comparative model. They also provide a capital build that meets

all of the City’s current and future space needs. The high up front capital costs of these

scenarios would limit the City to a P3 financed delivery model.

7.4 C A P I TA L / O P E R AT I N G L I F E C YC L E A N A LYS I S

Projects in the economic analysis phase are evaluated both from a capital cost and life cycle

perspective. Life cycle costs are presented over a 50-year period in annualized costs to better

illustrate the total cost of ownership associated with each scenario. This section provides a summary

of the overall results of the analysis.

Key financial parameters or input data underlying the analysis are shown in Table 7.1. These

parameters are based on current market rates, energy cost trends, and were defined in consultation

with the City. Details of specific inputs and results are provided in Appendix G.


7-9

Key Financial Parameters

Mortgage Term 20 Years

Interest Rate 5.0%

Electricity Escalation Rate 4.0%

Fuel Oil Escalation Rate 8.0%

Inflation Rate 2.0%

O&M Escalation Rate Existing Buildings 10.0%

O&M Escalation Rate New Buildings 5.0%

Existing Lease Cost Escalation Rate 1.0%

Design Life of New Buildings 50 Years

Operations & Maintenance Costs - New

Buildings

$13.00 / m2

Area of Existing Non-Lease Buildings 7,083 m2

FCI Index of MSB & Motorways Garage 30%

Scenario 1 Rem life of Existing Buildings 15 Years

GHG Emission Factors

Heat 0.116 kg CO2e/GJ

Electricity 0.074 kg/kWh (2013)

Energy Unit Costs 2014

Heat $34/GJ

Electricity $134/MWh

Lease Revenue

Annual Lease Cost Operations $142 /m2

Annual Lease Cost / Revenue Services $387 /m2

Triple Net Rate Displaced O&M & Energy Costs

New Lease Escalation Rate 2.25%

TABLE 7.1: Key Financial Parameters


7-10

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE

Existing: City of Whitehorse

New: Estimated by KZA

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COSTS

Environmental

Assessment Costs

MH, 2013

FINANCING COSTSEstimated by City of

Whitehorse + Urban

Systems

Estimated by KZA + BTY

ELECTRICITY & HEATING COSTS

Existing: City of Whitehorse

Marbek, 2012

New: Energy Modeling

Report MH, 2014

LEASE REVENUEEstimated by KZA + BTY

LAND SALE (APPRAISED VALUE)

Appraisals by Gerein

Consulting, 2013

AVOIDED LEASE COSTS

PROJECT COSTS

City of Whitehorse

50 YRLIFECYCLE

COSTS

A N N U A L C O S T S

C A P I T A L C O S T S

F I N A N C I N G C O S T S

C R E D I T S

FIGURE 7.2: Life Cycle Cost Model General Input-Output Illustration

Project capital costs were developed by KZA and quantity surveyor BTY Group, based on the

anticipated construction and environmental assessment costs2 for each of the scenarios in the year

of construction as shown in Figure 7.2. Up to $7.8 million from the disposal of City owned properties

could be used to partially offset some of the capital costs associated with new building development.

The life cycle cost analysis takes into account capital costs, annual operation costs, and revenues

over a projected building life of 50 years. The specific operational inputs were gathered from existing

City buildings and extrapolated for the proposed building scenarios. The model inputs and data

sources are illustrated in Figure 7.2. Note that the capital costs required to maintain existing buildings

under the status quo comparative model and hybrid options are estimated based on their remaining

useful life as reflected by a 30% facility condition index. Such improvements would likely only extend

2 Environmental remediation costs that would be necessary for building disposal were not included, as they are not known

at this time. Environmental remediation costs can only be known upon completion of the recommended environmental

assessment studies.


7-11

building life by an additional 15 to 20 years after which additional funds would likely be required for

continued operation. Detailed future capital costs associated with existing City buildings can only be

determined by undertaking a comprehensive building condition assessment.

The life cycle cost summary adds the capital and annual costs and subtracts revenues, resulting in a

final figure that can be used for the comparison of various scenarios. The life cycle cost is therefore

the total cost of the project over a 50-year period and includes financing costs, inflation and energy

and lease escalation rates. Projects with the lowest life cycle cost are therefore more economical

over the life of the project. The life cycle cost determined for each of the scenarios is summarized in

Figure 7.4.

The results indicate that the lowest capital cost scenarios are not necessarily the most cost-effective

when considering overall life cycle costs. It is also notable that in all options where the additional

lease space is included in the analysis, the added revenue reduces life cycle costs considerably. The

City of Whitehorse has identified a 2014 capital-financing limit of approximately $50,000,000 that

could be secured to fund project capital costs. The figure is the result of the following capital inputs:

$15M from City Reserves; $13M from Gas Tax; and the balance from financing. As such, the various

service scenarios are evaluated against the City’s available financing limit.

The continued operation of existing City buildings in the status quo comparative model, although

requiring a lower capital commitment, results in the highest life cycle costs. This comparative model

recognizes the capital costs for major building repairs required for the hypothetical continued use

of the buildings. These are assumed to be at least $12,856,000 in 2014 and likely higher as further

Scenario Capital Cost (2014) Capital Cost (2029) Lifecycle Costs GHG TCO2e / year

Option 1 - Hybrid

Option 1A: Hybrid + 50% NECB 2011 $50,757,000 $42,135,773 $275,057,088 558

Option #1B: Hybrid +50% NECB 2011 + Lease $58,511,700 $42,135,773 $253,506,671 628

Option #1C: Hybrid +80% NECB 2011 $55,085,830 $44,911,451 $207,854,875 442

Option #1D: Hybrid +80% NECB 2011 + Lease $63,867,930 $44,911,451 $180,152,511 457

Option 2 - New Facility

Option #2A: New +50% NECB 2011 $72,761,800 - $276,000,718 680

Option #2B: New +50% NECB 2011 + Lease $89,199,200 - $254,450,302 751

Option #2C: New +80% NECB 2011 $87,835,700 - $197,839,809 180

Option #2D: New +80% NECB 2011 + Lease $96,617,800 - $170,137,445 196

TABLE 7.2: Summary of Financial Analysis Results


7-12

FIGURE 7.3: Capital Costs at Year of Construction

FIGURE 7.4: Life Cycle Cost

LIFE

CY

CLE

CO

ST

OPTION 1HYBRID

OPTION 2FULL BUILD

STATUSQUO

MODEL

$

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

1A50%

1B50% +lease

1C80%

1D80% +lease

2A50%

2B50% +lease

2C80%

2D80% +lease

$5

,50

1,14

2 /

ye

ar

11,5

02

,26

3 /

ye

ar

$5

,07

0,1

33

/ y

ea

r

$4

,15

7,0

97

/ y

ea

r

$3

,60

3,0

50

/ y

ea

r

$5

,52

0,0

14 /

ye

ar

$3

,95

6,7

96

/ y

ea

r

$5

,08

9,0

06

/ y

ea

r

$3

,40

2,7

48

/ y

ea

r

OPTION 1 CAPITAL COST (2014)

$50M CITY AFFORDABILITY

$58.5M

AFFORDABILITY W/ LEASE

OPTION 2 CAPITAL COST (2014)OPTION 1 CAPITAL COST (2029)

$

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000 $9

2,8

92

,77

3

$10

0,6

47,

47

3

$9

9,9

97,

28

1

$10

8,7

79

,38

1

$7

2,7

61,

80

0

$8

7,8

35

,70

0

$8

9,1

99

,20

0

$9

6,6

17,8

00

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

CA

PIT

AL

CO

ST

1A50%

1B50% +lease

1C80%

1D80% +lease

2A50%

2B50% +lease

2C80%

2D80% +lease

OPTION 1HYBRID

OPTION 2FULL BUILD


7-13

future major repairs would be required to extend building life to a 50 year life cycle. Life cycle costs

assume that basic operations and maintenance requirements would also increase at a greater rate

than that for a new building.

The lowest capital cost scenario (combined 2014 and deferred 2029 capital costs), Option 2A,

yields among the highest life cycle costs, ($276,001,000) while all scenarios that involve the most

sustainable energy efficiency measures (80% better than NECB 2011), Options 1C, 1D, 2C, and 2D

result in significantly lower life cycle costs when compared to all the other scenarios.

The scenario with the lowest combined 2014 capital and life cycle cost is scenario Option 1D with

a capital cost of ($63,868,000) and a life cycle cost of ($180,153,000). This option is a hybrid

scenario that represents new construction to 80% better than NECB 2011 with a partial program

fulfilment in a new Operations building, but full program fulfilment in the Service building. It also

includes the revenue (net life cycle gain of $27,517,000) from the inclusion of 1,300 m2 of leased

office space in the Services building. When one factors the combined additional lease revenue of

$532,700 and avoided lease costs of $125,200 per annum, the City’s ability to secure additional

financing increases, and this option provides the best value of all options evaluated when taking into

account the City’s potential borrowing allowances.

Though Option 1C provides a lower capital cost ($55,086,000), when compared to Option 1D,

it results in a higher life cycle cost ($207,855,000). This is largely due to a decrease in revenue

resulting from the leased office space in the Service building.

Both hybrid Options 1C and 1D assume a further capital commitment at a later date (2029) to account

for the replacement of existing buildings to meet the City’s full operational program requirements.

If a Public-Private Partnership (P3) delivery model is considered a viable alternative, Option 2D

provides an attractive combined 2014 capital cost ($96,618,000) and life cycle cost ($170,137,000)

while meeting the full program needs of the City. The option avoids the deferred 2029 capital costs

associated with Option 1 scenarios and achieves an energy target 80% better than NECB 2011.

Though the 2014 capital costs are well beyond the financing capacity of the City, a P3 arrangement

would provide the necessary financing framework to accommodate this scenario. If a P3 delivery

model is pursued through the Government of Canada’s P3 Canada Fund, the City could benefit from

approximately $8 to $9 million in funding toward eligible project capital costs (a figure equal to 25%

of project costs for the portion of the building program that falls within the eligible funding criteria).

Overall, investments in energy efficiency are shown to yield significant long-term savings as does

the investment in additional leasable office space to help offset long term operating costs and

accommodate future City administrative growth. It should be noted that while the hybrid options

performed well in the life cycle analysis, to retain existing buildings for a period of time results in an

inherently greater risk due to the additional capital and operating expenditures necessary to maintain

some of the facilities for a 15 year period.

Greenhouse gas emissions were evaluated for each of the scenarios based on their life cycle energy

consumption. Those emissions were then averaged over 50 years to provide a representative annual


7-14

value for each option / scenario. Figure 7.4 shows significant greenhouse gas reductions if the most

sustainable scenarios are adopted. The results indicate a 90% savings with Option Scenario 2C

when compared to the status quo comparative model. The additional 20% capital investment from

consolidation Option 2A to Option 2C yields almost a 75% energy and greenhouse gas emissions

reduction.

Ultimately, the preferred scenario will be the one whose capital cost is within an available budget,

meets the functional needs, provides tolerable risk, meets environmental objectives and yields

the lowest life cycle cost. The qualitative benefits, risks, and delivery options are described in the

following sections.

FIGURE 7.5: Annual Average Greenhouse Gas Emissions

AN

NU

AL

GH

G E

MIS

SIO

NS

OPTION 1HYBRID

OPTION 2FULL BUILD

STATUSQUO

MODEL

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

an

nu

al

av

era

ge

TC

O2

e

1,200

1,400

1,600

1A50%

1B50% +lease

1C80%

1D80% +lease

2A50%

2B50% +lease

2C80%

2D80% +lease

$5

,50

1,14

2 /

ye

ar

11,5

02

,26

3 /

ye

ar

$5

,07

0,1

33

/ y

ea

r

$4

,15

7,0

97

/ y

ea

r

$3

,60

3,0

50

/ y

ea

r

$5

,52

0,0

14 /

ye

ar

$3

,95

6,7

96

/ y

ea

r

$5

,08

9,0

06

/ y

ea

r

$3

,40

2,7

48

/ y

ea

r


7-15

7. 5 Q UA L I TAT I V E A N A LYS I S

In addition to the economic analysis presented above, a variety of qualitative factors were also

considered in the business case. The analysis also compares the relative impacts of building location:

Range Road and Robert Service Way sites for the new Operations building and a Second Avenue and

Wood Street site for the new Service building.

Three qualitative factors were selected for inclusion in the economic analysis:

Time and travel costs associated with travel to existing buildings and between existing

buildings and a new Operations facility located on Range Road or South Access Road and a

new Services building at Second Avenue and Wood Street.

Time costs associated with shuffling vehicles in and out of service bays at the Transportation

Services and maintenance building;

Fuel costs, maintenance and operation costs and GHG emissions associated with idling

buses in cold weather at the Transit Services Building;

7. 5 .1 MOV E M E N TS B E T W E E N B U I L D I N G S – T R AV E L A N D T I M E COSTS

The current location and configuration of City of Whitehorse buildings requires that staff

move back and forth between several building locations to do their work on a daily basis. The

consolidation of municipal operations into fewer buildings will therefore result in reduced

costs in terms of both staff travel time and vehicle operating costs. To gauge the volume of

staff travel time and vehicle operating costs, City of Whitehorse staff were asked to keep a

daily log over a one-week period to track movements between selected City of Whitehorse

building sites. The results of the tally were extrapolated over a one-year period and are

presented in Table 7.3 in terms of the number of trips taken, distance travelled and travel

time. 3

Multiplying the number of trips taken between selected City of Whitehorse building locations

by the distances between locations and then aggregating the results yields a total of 390

kilometers driven per week, or 20,272 kilometers on an annual basis. Applying an operating

cost of $0.50 per kilometers results in an annual operating cost of $10,136. If a per kilometer

operating cost of $1.00 is applied, the annual operating cost is estimated at $20,272.

Multiplying the number of trips between selected City of Whitehorse building locations by

the number of minutes needed to travel between locations and then aggregating the results

yields a total of 599 minutes per week, or 519 hours per year. Applying an hourly wage rate

of $29.29 (Salary Range 9 - e.g., systems maintenance person) results in an annual time

cost of an estimated $15,205 for travel between buildings. If an hourly wage rate of $42.62

(Salary Range 14 - e.g., equipment maintenance supervisor) is applied, the annual time cost

is estimated at $22,120.

3 Distances and travel times were sourced from Google Maps.


7-16

Actual cost savings arising from a consolidation of City of Whitehorse buildings are a

function of new building locations and staff travel between new and existing buildings. A

total of three sites are under consideration, and the estimated incremental cost savings are

outlined below:

7. 5 . 2 STAT U S Q U O COM PA R AT I V E MO D E L

No change from current configuration of buildings. By definition, no incremental cost savings.

7. 5 . 3 H Y B R I D O PT I O N S C E N A R I OS W I T H N E W O P E R AT I O N S AT R A N G E R OA D

A new Services building located at the City Hall site, a new Operations building located

at the Range Road Site, facilities maintenance and shops relocated into the old Fire Hall

(on Two Mile Hill) and continued use of the following buildings: Transit Services, Central

Warehouse, Parks and the public works yard (material storage only).

To ascertain if any travel and time cost savings might result from placement of the new

Operations building at the Range Road site, distances between the Range Road site and

existing City buildings were calculated. With one exception, all distances between

building pairs were determined to be greater than the status quo. One notable exception

is the distance between the new Service building at City Hall and the relocation of facilities

maintenance to the old Fire Hall on Two Mile Hill. However, as very few trips between the

Trip Counts (per week) / Distances (kilometers) / Time (minutes)

SPORT YUKON MSBCENTRAL

WAREHOUSEPARKS

BUILDINGTRANSIT SERVICES

MSB 16 trips

1.4 km

2 min.

CENTRAL WAREHOUSE 5 trips

2.7 km

5 min.

160 trips 1.5

km

2 min.

PARKS BUILDING 20 trips

3.2 km

6 min.

9 trips

1.8 km

4 min.

24 trips

0.5 km

1 min.

TRANSIT SERVICES 0 trips

4.0 km

7 min.

6 trips

2.5 km

5 min.

5 trips

1.2 km

2 min.

0 trips

0.8 km

2 min.

FACILITIES MAINTENANCE

0 trips

4.0 km

7 min.

0 trips

2.5 km

5 min.

0 trips

1.2 km

2 min.

1 trip

0.8 km

2 min.

0 trips

0.2 km

1 min.

TABLE 7.3: Travel Between Existing Buildings


7-17

existing Facilities Maintenance location and the Municipal Service Building were reported by

City of Whitehorse staff, no incremental cost savings were identified for this building pair.

In summary, no incremental cost savings were identified for the Hybrid Option with a new

Operations building located at Range Road.

7. 5 .4 H Y B R I D O PT I O N S C E N A R I OS W I T H N E W O P E R AT I O N S AT R O B E RT S E RV I C E WAY

New Service building located at City Hall, a new Operations building located at Robert

Service Way site, facilities maintenance and shops relocated into old Fire Hall (Two Mile

Hill and Range Road) and continued use of the following buildings: Transit Services, Central

Warehouse, Parks and the sign shop yard (material storage only).

To ascertain if any travel and time cost savings might follow from siting the new Operations

building at the Robert Service Way site, distances between the site and existing buildings

were calculated. All distances between building pairs were determined to be greater than

the status quo. Therefore, no incremental travel and time cost savings were identified for the

Hybrid Option with a new Operations building located at Range Road.

7. 5 . 5 “ F U L L” P R O G R A M S C E N A R I OS W I T H N E W O P E R AT I O N S B U I L D I N G AT R A N G E R OA D

New Service building located at City Hall and new Operations building located at Range

Road site. To ascertain if any travel and time cost savings might result from the full program

at Range Road, the distance between City Hall and the Range Road site was calculated. The

distance between the two locations (4.2 km) was determined to be greater than all building

pairs associated with the status quo. In consequence, no incremental travel and time cost

savings were identified for the full program with a new Operations facility located at Range

Road.

7. 5 . 6 “ F U L L” P R O G R A M S C E N A R I OS W I T H O P E R AT I O N S AT R O B E RT S E RV I C E WAY

New Service building located at City Hall and new Operations building located at Robert

Service Way site. To ascertain if any travel and time cost savings might result from the full

program Operations building located at Robert Service Way, the distance between City Hall

and the Robert Service Way site was calculated. The distance between the two locations

(3.0 km) was determined to be greater than all building pairs associated with the status

quo. In consequence, no incremental travel and time cost savings were identified for the full

program with a new Operations building located at Robert Service Way.

7. 5 . 7 T R A N S P O RTAT I O N M A I N T E N A N C E – T I M E COSTS

The current configuration of service and parking bays at the Municipal Service building used

for the maintenance of City of Whitehorse vehicles and equipment is not well matched

with the number and types of vehicles in the City of Whitehorse fleet. In consequence, time

is spent at the start and end of each day juggling vehicles and equipment to get the right

equipment in the right place and with the right people. An improved configuration of service


7-18

and parking bays would provide room for the vehicle mechanics and would allow work in the

service bays to start earlier and end later.

Transportation Maintenance staff have estimated that between one and two staff hours per

day are currently lost shuffling equipment around. Using the midpoint of one and a half

hours per day, and assuming 260 working days per year, a total of 390 hours of staff time

are spent on an annual basis shuffling vehicles. Applying an hourly wage cost of $37.76 (the

hourly wage rate for a Heavy Duty Equipment Mechanic at August 31, 2013 per terms of the

PSAC collective agreement) yields an annual wage cost of $14,726.

Thus, an improved configuration of service and parking bays would result in cost saving of

$14,726 per annum. Over a 50-year life cycle horizon, the total associated cost savings equal

$1.2 million (assuming an annual inflation rate of 2%).

7. 5 . 8 T R A N S I T S E RV I C E S – F U E L COSTS , M A I N T E N A N C E COSTS , A N D G H G E M I S S I O N S

The current Transit Services facility is not large enough to permit the entire City of Whitehorse

fleet of public and handy buses to be parked indoors. On cold weather days, buses not parked

indoors are started and left idling to ensure that they are ready to operate at the start of the

daily bus schedule (on very cold days buses are left idling overnight). Transit Services staff

have estimated that buses in the Nova Bus fleet are left idling for a total of 1,018 hours per

year. The Handy Bus, which cannot be parked indoors, is left idling for an estimated 630

hours per year.

The associated fuel and maintenance costs and greenhouse gas emissions were calculated

using the Idling Cost Calculator, a spreadsheet tool published by the Fraser Basin Council (a

consortium of federal, provincial, municipal and First Nations governments).4 On the basis

of the number of vehicle idling hours estimated by City of Whitehorse staff and a diesel fuel

price of $1.43 per litre5, fuel and maintenance costs and greenhouse gas emissions were

estimated in Table 7.4.

Vehicle TypeIdle Time (hours per year)

Fuel Cost at Idle ($)

Maintenance Cost associated with Idling ($)

GHG Emissions at Idle (tonnes)

Nova Bus LFS 40’ 1,018 5,182 2,372 9.9

HandyBus 630 2,306 1,468 4.4

Total 1,648 7,489 3,839 14.3

TABLE 7.4: Transit Services - Fuel and Maintenance Costs, GHG Emissions

4 The Idling Cost Calculator tool can be found online at: http://www.e3fleet.com/idling_calculator.html.

5 Yukon Bureau of Statistics, Retail Motor Fuel Prices in Yukon, January 2014.


7-19

Option

Movements Between Buildings

Transportation Maintenance Transit Services

Status Quo --- --- ---

Option 1A: Hybrid Option + 50% NECB --- $1.2 M $0.96 M

Option 1B: Hybrid Option + Lease + 50% NECB --- $1.2 M $0.96 M

Option 1C: Hybrid Option + 80% NECB --- $1.2 M $0.96 M

Option 1D: Hybrid Option + Lease + 80% NECB --- $1.2 M $0.96 M

Option 2A: New Facilities +50% NECB --- $1.2 M $0.96 M

Option 2B: New Facilities + Lease +50% NECB --- $1.2 M $0.96 M

Option 3A: New Facilities +80% NECB --- $1.2 M $0.96 M

Option 3B: New Facilities + Lease +80% NECB --- $1.2 M $0.96 M

TABLE 7.5: Alignment of Travel, Time, Fuel and Maintenance Costs Savings with Service Delivery Options and

Associated Cost Savings over 50-year time horizon (2% annual inflation)

Thus, an expanded Transit Service facility or a consolidated Operations building with indoor

parking capacity for the entire City of Whitehorse fleet of public and handy buses would

result in cost saving of $11,383 per annum and a reduction in GHG emission of 14.3 tonnes.

Over a 50-year life cycle horizon, the total associated life cycle cost saving is $0.96 million

(assuming an annual inflation rate of 2%).

Table 7.5 illustrates the cost savings associated with the various options under consideration.

7. 6 O P P O RT U N I T I E S A N D CO N ST R A I N TS A N A LYS I S

The Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis examines each of the two

Option scenarios (hybrid - 50% + 80% better, new facility – 50% + 80% better) identified in the

business case analysis. The scenarios have been assessed against the following criteria: Whitehorse

Sustainability Strategy Plan (WSSP 2007), project sustainability workshops, energy, greenhouse gas

emissions, capital costs, life cycle costs, partnership opportunities and project risks. The SWOT

analysis does not consider location options. A comprehensive site analysis is referenced in Chapter

4 of the Report.


7-20

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Option 1A: Hybrid Option + 50% NECB

Lowest 2014 capital cost of

$50,757,000.

Within City’s available capital

financing capacity

MSB building to be replaced

and property transitioned to

alternate uses

Transit Service building to be

upgraded

Services are consolidated in

new downtown building

Partial Program consolidated

Operations building

constructed on new

Highest life cycle cost at

$275,057,088.

Capital required to upgrade

Transit Services building

Risks of extending life of

Transit Services, Parks and

Warehouse buildings

Full program is not

accommodated in consolidated

Operations building

Deferred capital spending of

$42,135,773 necessary in 2029.

Moderate to high energy costs

as site.

Responds in part to

Sustainability goals.

The City can arrange project

financing through conventional

means noted in life cycle costs

Unknown costs of future

construction (likely to rise)

Costs of borrowing unknown

GHG’s 558 TCO2e/year

(comparatively high)

Higher costs if carbon tax is

applied

Requires use of older and

inefficient city buildings

Retained buildings will require

major maintenance and

upgrades within the 15-year

term.

High costs associated with

the maintenance and repair of

existing buildings

Option 1B: Hybrid Option + Lease + 50% NECB

As per Scenario 1A

Lowest 2014 capital cost of

$58,511,700 (third lowest of

scenarios presented)

As per Scenario 1A

Life cycle costs of $253,

506,671 (comparatively mid-

range)


$42,135,773 necessary in 2029

As per Scenario 1A

Additional lease income helps

leverage capital financing

Additional lease space provides

future expansion area

The City can arrange project

financing through conventional

means

As per Scenario 1A

GHG’s of 628 TCO2e/year


Single lease tenant. Subject to

market lease vacancy rates.

Requires additional capital to

build 1,300 m2 of lease space

($7,750,000)

Option 1C: Hybrid Option + 80% NECB

As per Scenario 1A

2014 capital cost of

$55,085,830. (second lowest)

Proposes a high energy

efficiency target for both

the Operations and Service

buildings.

Responds to Whitehorse

Strategic Sustainability

Plan (WSSP) - Community

Development and Leadership

Reflects sustainability

workshops

As per Scenario 1A

Life cycle costs of

$207,854,875 (comparatively

mid-range)


$44,911,451 in 2029

As per Scenario 1A

City can showcase renewable

energy technologies and

building efficiencies

Shows green building

leadership in community

Provides opportunity for

high LEED designation and

certification

Partnership funding

opportunities - CCI, NRCAN

eco-energy, YG micro

generation, FCM

As per Scenario 1A


(comparatively mid-range)

TABLE 7.6: Opportunities and Constraints Analysis


7-21


Option 1D: Hybrid Option + Lease + 80% NECB

As per Scenario 1A

Life cycle costs of $180,152,511

(the lowest of Option 1

scenarios)

Higher energy efficiencies





As per Scenario 1A

Capital cost of $63,867,930

higher than available

City funding/financing of

$58,500,000


$44,911,451 in 2029

Reflects sustainability

workshops

As per Scenario 1A





leadership



certification Partnership

funding opportunities - CCI,

NRCAN eco-energy, YG micro

generation, FCM

As per Scenario 1A




(comparatively mid-range)



($7,750,000)

Option 2A: New Facilities +50% NECB

Lowest combined capital

expenditure $72,761,800.

No deferred capital spending

required in 2029.


LEED Silver designation for

Operations building

Provides opportunity for LEED

Gold designation for Services

building





Responds to Sustainability

Workshops 1 and 2 priorities,

(energy efficiency and indoor

environment;)

Life cycle costs of

$276,000,718 (highest of

Option 2 scenarios)

GHG’s of 680 TCO2e/years

(high)

Allows for Consolidation of city

Operations in a single facility

and sale of six City properties

Allows for full program area to

be accommodated in two new

buildings

More efficient service and

operations delivery to

Whitehorse residents

Taxpayers not supportive of

high spending.

Existing facilities/properties

not sold

Higher GHG emission

reductions can be achieved

with options 1 and 3

Future carbon taxes higher

than options 2 and 4

Option 2B: New Facilities + Lease +50% NECB

As per scenario 2A As per scenario 2A

Capital cost $89,199,200. (2nd

highest for 2014)

Life cycle cost $254,450,302


GHG 751 TCO2e/years

(highest)

As per scenario 2A





As per scenario 2A

Taxpayers not supportive of

capital spending

$6.5 million additional capital

for lease space and future

growth





($7,750,000)

Future carbon taxes highest of

all options


7-22


Option 2C: New Facilities +80% NECB


LEED Silver designation for

Operations building

Provides opportunity for LEED

Gold designation for Services

building





Responds to Sustainability

Workshop’s top voted priorities

(indoor environmental quality

and energy efficiency)

Lifecycle costs $197,839,809

(comparatively low)

GHG’s of 180 TCO2E/year (the

lowest of all scenarios)

2014 Capital cost of

$87,835,700.

P3 Procurement model

required to deliver scenario

due to high initial capital

costs. Requires investment in

renewable energy technologies

for heat and electricity with

long pay back periods



certification





leadership

1st Passive House Certification

for institutional building in

Northern Canada

Partnership funding

opportunities - CCI, NRCAN

eco-energy, YG micro

generation, FCM-GMF

More efficient service and

operations delivery to

Whitehorse residents

The partners do not fund the

renewable technologies

Existing facilities/properties

not sold

P3 Canada Fund requires

proponent to meet specific

eligibility criteria. Could

compromise project delivery

schedule.

Option 2D: New Facilities + Lease +80% NECB

Similar to 2C

Lowest life cycle cost of

$170,137,445.

GHG’s of 194 TCO2E/year (the

second lowest of all scenarios)

Similar to 2C

Highest combined capital cost

of $96,617,800.

Similar to 2C





First P3 project in Yukon

(25% grant available from

Government of Canada for

feasibility study and capital

costs)

Similar to 2C



($8,782,000)




7-23

Scenario Capital Cost (2014) Capital Cost (2029) Lifecycle Costs GHG TCO2e / year

Option 1 - Hybrid

Option #1C: Hybrid +80% NECB 2011 $55,085,830 $44,911,451 $207,854,875 442

Option #1D: Hybrid +80% NECB 2011 + Lease $63,867,930 $44,911,451 $180,152,511 457

Option 2 - Full Build

Option #2D: Full +80% NECB 2011 + Lease $96,617,800 - $170,137,445 196

TABLE 7.7: Summary of Preferred Options

7. 7 R ECOM M E N DAT I O N S O F P R E F E R R E D O PT I O N S

A summary of the financial analysis results is shown in Table 7.7. The results indicate that Option

Scenarios 1C, 1D or 2D are considered the best performing scenarios from a combined capital and life

cycle costing perspective. Scenario preference is dependent on capital availability and procurement

option selected.

Option Scenario 1D represents the development proposal with the most favorable combination of

2014 capital costs ($63,867,930) and life cycle costs ($180,152,511) assuming that the additional

lease income can support the $63.9M, 2014 capital costs. This option is a hybrid scenario that

represents new construction to 80% better than NECB 2011 with a partial program fulfilment in

a new Operations building but full program fulfilment in the Services building. It also includes the

revenue (net life cycle gain of $27,517,000) from the inclusion of 1,300 m2 of leased office space in

the Services building. When one factors the combined additional lease revenue of $531,600 and

avoided lease costs of $125,200 per annum, the City’s ability to secure additional financing increases

to $58,500,000 or 92% of the 2014 project costs required for Option 1D. It provides the best value

of all options analysed when taking into account a traditional project delivery method (design-bid-

build) and the City’s capital financing ability.

Option Scenario 1C provides the lowest 2014 capital cost of $55,085,830, but results in a considerably

higher life cycle cost of $207,854,875 when compared to Scenario 1D. This is due largely to the

unrealized revenue associated with leased office space in the Services building. Both Option 1C

and 1D scenarios assume a further capital commitment at a later date (2029) to account for the

replacement of existing buildings to meet the City’s full program requirements. Though the 2029

deferred costs are significant, the scenarios provide a more affordable short-term development

option for the City.

If a Public-Private Partnership (P3) delivery model is considered a viable alternative, Option Scenario 2D provides an attractive combined 2014 capital cost ($96,617,800) and lifecycle cost ($170,137,445)

while meeting the full program needs of the City. It avoids deferred capital costs in 2029 and achieves

an energy target of 80% better than NECB 2011. Project costs aside, Scenario 2D meets all of the

City’s program, energy efficiency, and long-term financial and sustainable requirements. Though the


7-24

2014 capital costs are well beyond the financing capacity of the City, a P3 arrangement would provide

the necessary financing framework to accommodate this scenario. If a P3 delivery model is pursued

through the Government of Canada’s P3 Canada Fund, the City could benefit from approximately $8

million to $9 million in funding toward eligible project capital costs (a figure equal to 25% of project

costs for the portion of the building program that falls within the eligible funding criteria).

7. 8 P R OJ EC T F U N D I N G O P P O RT U N I T I E S

The following funding opportunities have been examined as potential financing sources for the City

of Whitehorse’s new consolidated municipal Operations and Service buildings.

7. 8 .1 G R E E N M U N I C I PA L F U N D (G M F )

www.fcm.ca/gmf

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities manages this fund. The program supports

municipal projects in Canada that benefit the environment, local economies and Canadians’

quality of life. There are two programs that this facility may qualify for. If the City selected

the Robert Service Way site, the Brownfields’ loan program would apply for site remediation

up to 80% of the project costs (no loan limit). The loans offered by GMF are typically 1.5%

below market. This fund also offers loans for renewable energy production on brownfield

sites. Recognizing the Yukon Government supports the purchase of renewable energy to the

grid there are opportunities to examine solar at this site.

The second GMF fund is the Capital Projects Energy Program which speaks to new and/

or retrofitted municipal facilities, energy recovery, district energy and net zero municipal

systems. The City could receive a loan up to 10 million dollars and a grant to a maximum of

1 million dollars. There are opportunities on the Robert Service Way for district energy and

the use of natural gas for heating and/or transportation.

The GMF is a competitive funding program. The City will need to compete against other

similar projects.

7. 8 . 2 N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S C A N A DA ( N R C A N )

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100034258/1100100034259

The Eco Energy for Aboriginal and Northern Communities Funding Program is one of the

Government of Canada’s programs for addressing climate change. The program is currently

funded to 2016. Application intakes vary and it is a competitive and well-subscribed program.

The program supports development of renewable energy projects that reduce greenhouse

gas emissions in the electricity and heating sectors. The program considers energy projects

for two streams of funding: Stream ‘A’, being for renewable energy projects and Stream ‘B’ for

energy projects that are integrated with community buildings. The funds with this program

are small with the maximum amount proponents can request is $250,000 for Stream ‘A’.

Stream ‘B’ maximum is $100,000 and this is to assist the development and purchase of


7-25

equipment to support a community energy project (i.e. district heat). This NRCAN funding

program is minimal. It would support the development of a solar electricity system on the

new building that could sell power to the grid (Yukon’s Micro Generation Policy) and it

would also support a district energy system connected to waste heat from Yukon Energy.

7. 8 . 3 B U I L D C A N A DA F U N D ( B C F )

http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan/plan-eng.html

The Build Canada Fund is one component of The New Building Canada Plan – (a $53 Billion

commitment over 10 years starting in 2014), which includes Gas Tax, GST Rebate, the National

and Territorial Provincial Build Canada Fund, and 1.2 Billion for P3 Canada. The Build Canada

portion to be allocated to all the provinces and territories amounts to $200 million per year.

Yukon’s allocation of the BFC is $257 million over 10 years to 2024. As of February 2014,

the governments of Yukon and Canada have not yet negotiated an agreement. Preliminary

information from representatives in YG Community Services and Highways and Public

Works indicate that the program will be back funded with the majority of funding made

available in later years. There is no indication of the funding criteria for the program. The

Yukon Government advised that the City’s Consolidated building project will not qualify for

the $4 Billion set aside for projects of national significance.

7. 8 .4 G AS TA X F U N D

http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/prog/gtf-fte-tab-eng.html

Yukon’s allocation of gas tax funding is $15 million in 2014 and increasing to $16.5 million

in 2019. The allocation will be re-examined in 2019 and based on the 2016 census. Yukon

Government has confirmed that this will be the largest federal funding program available

to Yukon communities going forward. The agreements covering the period from 2014 to

2024 have not yet been finalized. It is expected that the City of Whitehorse will continue

to receive just over $7 million annually from the gas tax fund. In the past the City was

able to receive gas tax funds in advance. However, the Yukon Government has advised that

this practice will no longer be available to the City. The criteria for funding include projects

that contribute to ‘sustainable communities’. There are no specific criteria for cleaner air,

cleaner water and reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions. It is likely that the City will commit

a portion of its Gas Tax allocation to fund the consolidated building project starting in 2015

and continuing through to 2017.

7. 8 . 5 P 3 C A N A DA F U N D

http://www.p3canada.ca/home.php

The P3 Canada Fund has been established by the Government of Canada under the Build

Canada Fund to promote the private sector delivery (design, build, finance, operate and

maintain) of large public sector facilities/infrastructure. A total of $1.25 billion has been


7-26

allocated to the next round of funding to start in 2014. The P3 Canada Fund has not finalized

the criteria for the next round of project funding, however, it is expected there will not be

significant changes to the program delivery model. Under the current eligibility criteria,

only the transit services and storage portion of the facility would be eligible for funding. It

is recommended by P3 Canada to consider a project similar to the one proposed by the City

of Saskatoon whereby P3 Canada funded the transit portion of a new Municipal Operations

Center. (http://www.saskatoon.ca/DEPARTMENTS/City%20Managers%20Office/Pages/

Public-PrivatePartnerships.aspx). P3 Canada will contribute up to 25% of the capital costs

of the project; will fund 25% of the business case study; will provide technical and business

assistance throughout the project; and will provide a pre-qualified list of experienced

accounting firms, designers (architects and engineers) and lawyers capable of delivering the

project.

P3 Canada advises that if a project qualifies for funding, an automatic screening for P3

Canada eligibility is triggered. This could potentially make eligible all components of the

new Operations building for P3 Canada funding.

The call for projects will open April 2014 and close June 2014 and it is recommended that

the City make an application to the screening phase of the fund to confirm eligibility.

7.9 P R O C U R E M E N T O PT I O N S

In order for the chosen consolidation option to proceed to the next phases of design, financing and

construction, it will be necessary to select the most appropriate procurement method. As noted

elsewhere in the report, two sets of option scenarios have been identified to match the likely funding

opportunities available for the project. For these, a total of four procurement options were identified

along with their suitability rating for the consolidation project:

Design-Bid-Build – High Suitability Option Scenarios 1C, 1D

Construction Management – High Suitability Scenarios 1C, 1D

Design Build – High Suitability Option Scenarios 1C, 1D

Private Public Partnership – Medium Suitability Option Scenario 2D

7.9.1 D E S I G N - B I D - B U I L D ( D B B) A N D D E S I G N B U I L D ( D B)

Design-Bid Build and Design Build procurement options provide the most traditional and

understood form of project delivery. Both options assume that existing capital funds are

available by the proponent to fund project construction. They have been the most common

models used in the Yukon to deliver publicly funded projects. However, due to the significant

capital cost of the consolidation project, the City of Whitehorse will need to secure additional

project financing to meet the obligations of even the lowest cost option recommendation. In

this scenario, the owner would opt to finance all or part of capital cost and amortize the loan

over a 20-year period at favorable rates (the business case assumes an interest rate of 5%).

The owner can decide to opt for a Design-Bid-Build (DBB) or a Design-Build (DB) procurement


7-27

method. A DB procurement method allows for a private sector developer to both design and

build the project from a well-defined project scope and budget. The DB process provides the

owner with the assurance of a fixed price and defined completion schedule at the start of

the design process once the DB team, providing the best overall value, is selected through a

public tender process. These procurement options are best suited to recommended Option

Scenarios 1C and 1D that fall within the City’s capital financing capacity.

7.9. 2 CO N ST R U C T I O N M A N AG E M E N T (C M )

A Construction Management (CM) is a project delivery method whereby the owner retains

a construction manager to provide certain pre-construction expertise including cost

estimating, value engineering, and scheduling and, during the construction phase of the

project, coordination of all construction activities. CM at-risk is a cost effective and time

conscious alternative to the traditional design-bid-build process. Construction management

is a process that allows the client of a project to choose the CM before the design stage

is complete. The CM is chosen based on qualifications, after which the entire operation

is centralized under a single contract. The architect and CM work together in order to

complete the design. The CM then gives the owner a guaranteed maximum price, and

coordinates all subcontract work during construction. This procurement option is best suited

to recommended Option Scenarios 1C and 1D that fall within the City’s capital financing

capacity.

7.9. 3 P U B L I C- P R I VAT E PA RT N E R S H I P ( P 3 )

A Public-Private Partnership (P3) provides a long-term performance based approach to

procuring public infrastructure. The private sector assumes the bulk of project risk in terms

of financing, construction and ensures the effective performance of the completed building,

from design and planning, to long-term financing, operation and maintenance. As noted in

Section 1.4, Project Funding Opportunities, The P3 Canada Fund encourages the delivery

of public infrastructure projects through a P3 delivery model. The majority of projects

funded to date through the P3 Canada fund have followed a Design-Build-Finance-Maintain

(DBFM) model. The P3 Canada Fund has been identified as a particularly appropriate P3

delivery route for the consolidation project due to the contribution of up to 25% of the

capital and business case costs including the provision of technical and business assistance

throughout the project. As noted above, though an attractive delivery model in larger

Canadian municipalities, it may prove more difficult in the Yukon context to secure enough

private-sector interest to deliver a project of the size proposed using this model. The P3

procurement option is best suited to recommended Option Scenarios 2B with a capital cost

of $96,617,800. The scenario provides the best value for the City in terms of the lowest life

cycle cost and realization of the full program for both the Operations and Services buildings.

It does however require a longer development process (approximately 18 months) and is

contingent on a number of factors outside the control of the City of Whitehorse.


7-28

Opportunities Constraints

Design-Bid-Build

Follows accepted standard form of project delivery.

Assumes capital funds are in place or will be secured through

financing.

Allows for a wide range of proponents to become involved in the

construction phase through a public tender process. Low bid cost,

maximum competition.

Provides opportunity to tailor design to meet detailed design

requirements and ensure that these are fulfilled during construction

and project commissioning. Owner controls design/construction

quality.

Allows for a well defined scope of work whose value can be confirmed

through public tender process prior to the start of construction

Significant direct Owner control/participation in project or through a

retained project manager.

Design changes are easily accommodated prior to start of

construction.

Traditionally, the project schedule is longest with a Capital Build

process. Difficult to reduce project schedule without significant cost.

Risk of limited interested bidders during tender process can

compromise effort spent on design and construction documents

phase (may require redesign or change in project delivery method to

secure interest).

Risk of higher than budgeted capital costs due to limited bidders

during tender process and/or ill-defined tender / construction

documentation. Construction cost unknown until contract award.

Owner at risk to General Contractor for design errors.

No General Contractor input in design, planning or value engineering.

Requires significant owner expertise and resources.

Construction Management

Increases the speed of the project and can also strengthen

coordination between the architect/engineer and the construction

manager.

Transfer of responsibility for construction, and some risk, from the

owner to CM.

Construction managers, architects/engineers, and the client all

collaborate. This creates enhanced synergies throughout the process.

Transparency is enhanced, because all costs and fees are disclosed,

which diminishes adversarial relationships during the project.

Construction costs are known and fixed during the design phase of the

project.

Reduces owner control of construction

Design changes initiated after construction starts are costly

Cost estimates – There is a higher expectation of the accuracy of a

construction manager’s construction cost estimates. If bids exceed a

construction manager’s estimates, there is substantial risk of a claim.

Work not performed on schedule or not well coordinated can lead to

claims for project delays, extended overhead, labour inefficiencies and

overtime costs.

Potential conflict of interest where CM and Contractor are same

entity.

Design Build

Allows for an accelerated project delivery schedule by facilitating

simultaneously the design and construction phases.

Facilitates an integrated process between client, consultant,

contractor and developer. Single entity responsible for design and

construction.

Reduces level of risk to Owner. Transfers design and construction risk

from owner to DB entity.

Provides opportunity to define design to meet design requirements

and allow developer to work within process to complete project within

available budget and schedule. Construction cost known and fixed

during design, price certainty.

Allows for the scope of work and budget to be confirmed through

public tender process prior to the start of design and construction

Requires less direct involvement by Owner project management staff

(and fewer owner resources).

Risk of limited interested bidders during tender process can

compromise effort to deliver project within an identified budget.

Risk of higher capital costs due to limited bidders during tender

process.

Provides somewhat less opportunity to tailor design to meet design

requirements and ensure that these are fulfilled during construction.

Minimal owner control of both design and construction quality

Requires comprehensive and carefully prepared performance

specifications.

TABLE 7.8: Opportunities and Constraints - Procurement Options

The opportunities and constraints of each procurement option are identified as follows:


7-29

Opportunities ConstraintsP3 - Public-Private Partnerships

Allows for an accelerated project delivery schedule by facilitating

simultaneously the financing, design and construction phases.

Facilitates an integrated process between client, consultant,

contractor, financier, and developer/operator.

Demonstrates substantial risk transfer to the private sector.

City of Whitehorse does not begin paying for the buildings until they

are complete.

Costs are paid over the life of the buildings and only if properly

maintained and performs according to specifications.

Allows for the costs to be known upfront and through the span

of the building’s life cycle – public is not responsible for project

cost overruns, delays or any performance issues over term of P3

partnership.

Requires less direct involvement by City of Whitehorse staff during

development

Avoids the need for City of Whitehorse to operate facility during

agreement term.

Provides opportunity for local economic development in region

Provides economic opportunity for City or private sector entity to

maintain facility.

Risk of limited interested proponents during tender process can

compromise effort to deliver project.

Risk of higher capital costs due to limited bidders during tender

process.

Provides less opportunity to tailor design to meet design requirements

and ensure that these are fulfilled during construction.

May result in higher capital expenditure at the end of the term lease

when compared to a non-financed Capital Build option.

7.1 0 COM P R E H E N S I V E R I S K AS S E S S M E N T

A comprehensive risk assessment was prepared for the three preferred development options

according to four risk categories: financial, energy, operations, procurement and partnerships

using the Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Guideline. To summarize, the three recommended

development options are included in Table 7.9.

Option Description

Option 1D: Hybrid Option

+ 80% NECB 2011 + Lease

Reduced Program, New Operation and Services buildings constructed to 80% better energy efficiency

than NECB 2011, upgrades to the Transit Services building, continued operation of Stores Warehouse, Parks

Building, and Public Works Yard for 15 years followed by full replacement (similar to scenario 1C) with

additional costs and revenues from 1,300 m2 of leased office space.

Option 1C: Hybrid Option

+ 80% NECB 2011

Reduced Program, New Operation and Services buildings constructed to 80% better energy efficiency

than NECB 2011, upgrades to the Transit Services building, continued operation of Stores Warehouse, Parks

Building, and Public Works Yard for 15 years followed by full replacement.

Option 2D: New Facilities

+ 80% NECB 2011 + Lease

Construction of new Operation and Services buildings to 80% better than NECB 2011 (similar to scenario

3A) with additional costs and revenues resulting from 1,300 m2 of leased office space.

TABLE 7.9: Recommended Building Development Options

The service delivery option to which the risk applies, the estimated likelihood of the risk occurring

(low, medium and high) and proposed mitigations are detailed in the Table 7.10 below.


7-30

Category / Description of Risk OptionDegree of Risk Mitigation

Financial

Construction cost overruns 1D, 1C, 2D Medium Strict oversight during building construction

Existing site contamination more extensive and expensive

to remediate than expected

1D, 1C, 2D Medium Reconfirm extent of site contamination and remediation

costs

Cost uncertainty for upgrades and energy retrofits of

existing buildings to be retained for 15 year term

1D, 1C Medium Strict oversight during energy retrofitting

Unknown construction costs in 2029 1D, 1C High None, material and labour costs determined by competitive

market conditions

Unknown borrowing costs (interest rates) 15 years in

future

1D, 1C High None, interest rates determined at national level

Older buildings may need repairs costing more than 30%

of capital costs for new construction

1D, 1C Medium Calculate facility condition index, prepare and periodically

update Building Assessment and Capital Plan

City will need to acquire or lease additional space 1C Low Periodically update functional space analysis

High maintenance costs in line with age of buildings 1D, 1C High Seek out lowest cost maintenance solutions

Existing buildings and land not sold or sold for less than

appraised value

1D, 1C, 2D Low Enhanced marketing efforts, no-net-revenue development

cost incentives

CoW not able to secure sufficient financing from traditional

sources

1D, 1C, 2D Medium Seek amendment to Municipal Act to allow municipal bond

issue

Funding from senior governments (e.g., P3, Gas Tax) not

approved

2C Medium Pursue other federal or territorial funding sources

Retroactive accessibility requirements (e.g., elevators)

introduced within next 15 years

1D, 1C Low Alter service delivery configuration to optimize accessibility

Energy

Higher energy costs over next 15 years 1D, 1C High Switch to lower cost fuel sources, maximize energy

efficiency measures

Higher costs if a carbon tax is introduced in next 15 years 1D, 1C Low Monitor carbon tax policy developments

Energy cost savings fail to materialize due to

implementation and operation shortcomings.

1D, 1C, 2D Medium Strict oversight during building construction and thorough

training of staff in building operations procedures

Operations

Disruption of Services & Operations during construction 1D, 1C, 2D Medium Careful scheduling and strict oversight during building

construction to avoid disruption of existing services at City

Hall

TABLE 7.10: Risk Assessment of the Three Recommended Options


7-31

Category / Description of Risk OptionDegree of Risk Mitigation

Retaining Status Quo Comparative Model - Loss of

productivity, significant ongoing operation and building

maintenance costs, costs associated with leasing

additional space, compromised ability in future to provide

high level of services to community

Status Quo High At minimum proceed with Option Scenario 1C and capital

funds permitting proceed with either Scenario 1D or 3B

Maintain select existing buildings as per Hybrid Option 1D, 1C Medium Provide sufficient capital to renovate and make energy and

operationally efficient for 15 year term.

Loss of staff productivity during transition to new facility 1D, 1C, 2D Low Coordinate transition in stages to avoid loss of services and

staff productivity

Procurement

P3 Proponents not interested in project 3B Medium Have contingency plan ready to pursue other procurement

options and development scenarios (traditional, design-

build, etc.)

P3 Canada Fund application is not successful 3B Medium Have contingency plan ready to pursue other procurement

options and development scenarios (traditional, design-

build, etc.)

Building construction tenders come in over available

budget

1C, 1D, 2D High Seek P3 procurement opportunities; consider design-build

or construction managed procurement delivery models to

negotiate and define construction costs

Partnerships

- - Low City considers master planning and land disposal process to

encourage smaller private sector participation

Delay or absence of anchor tenant (YG or other) 1D, 2D Low Reduce lease rates, enhanced marketing efforts

7.1 1 P R OJ EC T S C H E D U L E

A project schedule for each of the project procurement options has been prepared to identify critical

milestones and assist with decision-making and planning of the next project stages. The schedule of

planning, design, construction and maintenance for all options would include the following general

tasks:

Geotechnical assessment of soils in area of new construction and confirmation of utility/

services.

Master planning of future site to define development parameters and confirm existing

municipal zoning requirements and relevant regulations.

Preparation of detailed topographical and Legal Survey.

Confirm capacity of existing services.

The tasks would occur during the early stages of project approval, design and financing. Since one of

the preferred options includes a P3 project delivery, the following schedule approach is recommended.


7-32

7.1 1 .1 R ECOM M E N D E D P R OJ EC T S C H E D U L E A P P R OAC H

Preferred Option 2D, which meets all of the City’s program, energy efficiency, and long term

financial requirements, requires a P3 procurement process for project delivery. Because the

first phase of the P3 Canada Fund evaluation process involves a 3 month screening process,

it is recommended that the City make an application to determine if the project is eligible for

funding. If so, the City can make a decision at that time whether or not to proceed with a P3

process. If the City chooses to finance the project capital costs directly, a more conventional

delivery model would be followed.

If the project is not eligible for P3 Canada funding, or if the City decides not to proceed with

a P3 process due to schedule or public perception, they can choose to proceed with either

Option 1D or 1C. The decision between either of these two options will be based on whether

additional financing can be secured through the addition of lease revenue from a suitable

government partnership. A decision-making flowchart is included in Figure 7.6 below.

1D

1C

2DYES

NO

YESDBB

CM/DB

DBB

P3

CM/DB

NO

43 MONTHSP 3 C A N A D A F U N D S C R E E N I N G P R O C E S S

$ 8 . 5 M

P R O J E C T

T I M E L I N E

P R O C U R E M E N T

O P T I O N S

P R E F E R R E D

O P T I O N S

28 MONTHS

33 MONTHS

28 MONTHS

33 MONTHS

L E A S E +I N C R E A S E DF I N A N C I N G ?

3 MONTHS

FIGURE 7.6: Project Schedule Flowchart


7-33

TABLE 7.10: Project Milestones for Procurement Options

Milestone Length Date

Option 1 - Design-Bid-Build (DBB)

Business Case Review & Decision to Proceed with Design Phase 1 month July 2014

Request for Design Proposal 2 months September 2014

Planning & Schematic Design Phase 3 months October - December 2014

Design Development & Construction Documents Phase 6 months January - June 2015

Tender / Award 2 months July - August 2015

Construction 18 months September 2015 - March 2017

Substantial Performance / Occupancy 1 month April 2017

Total Project Time 33 months

Option 2 – Design-Build (DB) or Construction Management (CM)

Business Case Review & Decision to Proceed with Design Phase 1 month July 2014

Request for Design Proposal from Bridging Consultant 2 months September 2014

Preparation of Design / Build Performance & Tender Package 6 months October - March 2015

Request for Design /Build Proposal / Tender / Award 2 months May 2015

Design & Construction Phase 14 months June 2015 - August 2016

Substantial Performance / Occupancy 1 month September 2016


7.1 1 . 2 P R OJ EC T M I L E STO N E S

When a traditional Design-Bid-Build process is compared to a Design-Build or Construction Management, the latter options provide an opportunity for a reduced design and construction

schedule due to their ability to accommodate both processes simultaneously. The integrated

nature of the design and construction team allow for an accelerated production and review

process throughout all phases of project delivery.

The project milestones for all three general procurement options are identified in Table

7.10., and are compared to each other in Figure 7.7. An alternative option of proceeding with

different procurement methods for the Operations and Service buildings is illustrated in

Figure 7.8. This option would allow the City to proceed with the longer P3 process for the

Operations building, while allowing the Service building to be completed more expediently

using a traditional procurement process.


7-34

Milestone Length Date

Option 3 – Public – Private – Partnership (assuming P3 Canada Fund)

Business Case Review & Decision to Proceed with P3 Procurement 1 month July 2014

P3 Canada Fund Eligibility Screening Process & Approval to Proceed to Business

Case preparation Stage*

3 months August - October 2014

P3 Canada Fund Comprehensive Business Case Preparation 16 months November 2015 - February 2016

Request for P3 Proponents 2 months March - April 2016

Completion of Financing, Design, Construction Phases 20 months May 2016 - December 2017

Substantial Performance / Occupancy 1 month January 2018


*Option 2B – P3 procurement is contingent on the consolidation project meeting the eligibility requirements of the P3 Canada Fund and proceeding to the business

case phase. If recommended Option Scenario 3B is not successful in the P3 screening process, it would remain beyond the financial means of the City and not pursued.

Other development scenarios (recommended Option Scenarios 1C and 1D) and procurement options will be advanced. Once a final option is selected, a comprehensive

process will be undertaken to more accurately confirm project schedule and final delivery method. At that time, a GANTT type schedule process chart should be

developed to more accurately identify project tasks and their duration.


7-35

DBB

DB

CM

P3R

FP

RE

VIE

W

DE

SIG

N

TE

ND

ER

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

P3

CA

NA

DA

AP

PR

OV

AL

RE

VIE

W

P3

CA

NA

DA

BU

SIN

ES

S C

AS

E

RF

P

FIN

AN

CE

, D

ES

IGN

,

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OC

CU

PA

NC

Y

RF

P

RE

VIE

W

DE

SIG

N +

TE

ND

ER

PA

CK

AG

E

43 MONTHS

12 01 631 2

2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7

81 2 1 4 1

11 892

2

1 2

DBB

DB

DBDB

CM

P3R

FP

RE

VIE

W

DE

SIG

N

TE

ND

ER

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

P3

CA

NA

DA

AP

PR

OV

AL

RE

VIE

W

P3

CA

NA

DA

BU

SIN

ES

S C

AS

E

RF

P

FIN

AN

CE

, D

ES

IGN

,

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OC

CU

PA

NC

Y

OC

CU

PA

NC

Y

RF

P

RE

VIE

W

DE

SIG

N +

TE

ND

ER

PA

CK

AG

E

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

DB

RF

P

OC

CU

PA

NC

Y

43 MONTHS

24 MONTHS

33 MONTHS

PUBLIC-PRIVATE

PARTNERSHIP

DESIGN-BID-

BUILD

CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT

DESIGN-BUILD

12 01 631 2

2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7

6 21 1 4 1

11 892

2

1 2

P3

CA

NA

DA

P3

CA

NA

DA

AP

PR

OV

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

RE

VIE

WR

EV

IEW

31R

FP

RE

VIE

W

RF

PR

FP

RF

P

RE

VIE

WR

EV

IEW

RE

VIE

W

1 2

RF

PR

FP

RE

VIE

WR

EV

IEW

21

DBB

CM

DBB

CM

P3P3

PR

OC

UR

EMEN

T O

PT

ION

SP

RO

CU

REM

ENT

OP

TIO

NS

2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 72 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7

DBB

P3

RF

P

RE

VIE

W

DE

SIG

N

TE

ND

ER

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

RE

VIE

W

P3

CA

NA

DA

BU

SIN

ES

S C

AS

E

RF

P

FIN

AN

CE

, D

ES

IGN

,

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OC

CU

PA

NC

Y

OC

CU

PA

NC

Y

43 MONTHS

33 MONTHS

12 01 631 2

11 8921 2DBB

P3

RF

P

RE

VIE

W

DE

SIG

N

TE

ND

ER

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

P3

CA

NA

DA

AP

PR

OV

AL

RE

VIE

W

P3

CA

NA

DA

BU

SIN

ES

S C

AS

E

RF

P

FIN

AN

CE

, D

ES

IGN

,

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OC

CU

PA

NC

Y

OC

CU

PA

NC

Y

43 MONTHS

33 MONTHS

12 01 631 2

11 8921 2

P3

CA

NA

DA

AP

PR

OV

AL

RE

VIE

WR

EV

IEW

RE

VIE

W

31

RF

PR

FP

RE

VIE

WR

EV

IEW

21

SERVICE BUILDING

OPERATIONS BUILDING

FIGURE 7.7: Comparison of Procurement Option Schedules

FIGURE 7.8: Optional schedule for using different procurement options for each building


7-36