sustainability factors environmental design
TRANSCRIPT
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
4-44
DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION FACTORS
GEOTECHNICAL
SCHWATKALAKE
SCHWATKALAKE
SCHWATKALAKE
AREA OF ESCARPMENT
AREAS REQUIRING GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
ROBERT SERVICE WAY
ALASKA HIGHWAY
NN
SITE A - ROBERT SERVICE WAY
AREA OF ESCARPMENT
AREA REQUIRING GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
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
4-45
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
4-46
DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION FACTORS
HYDROLOGY
SCHWATKALAKE
SCHWATKALAKE
SCHWATKALAKE
AREA OF ESCARPMENT
LOW AREA OF SITE
DEFINED CREEK
ROBERT SERVICE WAY
ALASKA HIGHWAY
NN
SITE A - ROBERT SERVICE WAY
AREA OF ESCARPMENT
SPOOK CREEK
EXPECTED FLOODAREA
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
4-47
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
4-48
DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION FACTORS
TOPOGRAPHY & VEGETATION
SCHWATKALAKE
SCHWATKALAKE
SCHWATKALAKE
AREA OF TOPOGRAPHICRELIEF
TREED AREA
ROBERT SERVICE WAY
ALASKA HIGHWAY
NN
SITE A - ROBERT SERVICE WAY
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
4-50
DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION FACTORS
SITE DEVELOPMENT
SCHWATKALAKE
SCHWATKALAKE
SCHWATKALAKE
UNAUTHORIZEDMOTOCROSS TRACK
POWER LINEEASEMENT
SNOW DUMP
FORMER GO-KARTTRACK
ROBERT SERVICE WAY
ALASKA HIGHWAY
NN
SITE A - ROBERT SERVICE WAY
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
4-52
DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION FACTORS
UTILITIES
SCHWATKALAKE
SCHWATKALAKE
SCHWATKALAKE
HIGH-VOLTAGEPOWER LINE
EXISTINGWELL
ROBERT SERVICE WAY
ALASKA HIGHWAY
NN
SITE A - ROBERT SERVICE WAY
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
4-53
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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:
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
5 2 %R E D U C T I O N
7 6 %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
1 3 %R E D U C T I O N
4 2 %R E D U C T I O N
7 0 %R E D U C T I O N
8 9 %R E D U C T I O N
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
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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).
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
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
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
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
FIGURE 5.5: Service Building Possible LEED Score – Energy 50% Better Than NECB 11
8 0 % b e t t e r t h a n N E C B
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
P r o j e c t S t a t u s
S 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 7
6
3 5
2
1 0
6
4
8 0
Q u e s t i o n a b l e2 6
1 0
3 5
9
1 4
6
4
1 0 4
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
NTAP
S 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
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
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Projected Points Questionable Points Total Possible Points
S E R V I C E B U I L D I N G
FIGURE 5.6: Service Building Possible LEED Score – Energy 80% Better Than NECB 11
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
5-10
O P E R A T I O N SB U I L D I N G
G O L D
P r o j e c t S t a t u s
S 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 7
6
2 8
2
1 0
6
4
7 3
Q u e s t i o n a b l e2 5
1 0
3 0
9
1 4
6
4
9 8
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
O
S 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
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
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Projected Points Questionable Points Total Possible Points
5 0 % b e t t e r t h a n N E C B
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
O P E R A T I O N SB U I L D I N G
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
S I L V E R
P r o j e c t S t a t u s
S 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 s5
3
2 3
2
9
6
4
5 2
Q u e s t i o n a b l e2 5
1 0
3 0
9
1 4
6
4
9 8
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
VI
S 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
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
Projected Points Questionable Points Total Possible Points
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
FIGURE 5.7: Operations Building Possible LEED Score – Energy 50% Better Than NECB 11
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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)
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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)
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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)
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
(9 votes, 20 comments)
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
(8 votes, 20 comments)
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
(7 votes, 8 comments)
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
5-17
RATING CATEGORY CLIENT GROUP COMMENTS (SUMMARY)
4
Standards and Certification Level
(6 votes, 5 comments)
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
(3 votes, 5 comments)
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
(2 votes, 3 comments)
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
5-20
S E R V I C E B U I L D I N G
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 $50,419 125 20
TABLE 5.5: Summary of Energy, Energy Cost and Greenhouse Gas Reductions for The Bundles – Services Building
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
5-21
The cost benefit analysis shows that the 80% bundle with and without PV have the same
payback at over 30 years. A smaller ground source heat pump size was considered to make
it more economical; however the fixed costs of the system make smaller sizes impractical
and less economical.
The addition of PV to achieve 80% energy savings requires significant capital investment,
though the paybacks are still arguably within reason for a long term building owner (50
year life cycle). It should also be noted that utility prices are considered static in the simple
payback analysis; factoring in rising utility costs (as is shown in Figure 5.14 and the life cycle
costing analysis) makes the 80% bundle a more compelling consideration.
5 .4 . 2 O P E R AT I O N S B U I L D I N G
Energy efficiency measures (EEM) were identified as per the Sustainability Workshop 1 and
applied incrementally to a code minimum NECB 11 Reference building. Due to the nature
of the Operations Building and its associated building systems, the measures differ from
the Services Building. The infiltration and plug load reductions are difficult to achieve (and
quantify) in this type of facility, and have therefore been omitted from the measures. Table
5.7 briefly summarizes each measure that was considered.
Each efficiency measure was then bundled and applied subsequently to the measure
preceding it to see the combined energy performance relative to the NECB 11 Reference
(refer to Figure 5.15).
The following Bundles of efficiency measures were identified to meet the two performance
SCENARIO INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST
($)
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
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Best Case Without PV
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
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Best Case Without PV
$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:
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program 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
Option 3B: New Facilities + Lease + 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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
6-6
TABLE 6.4: Option 1 - Hybrid Scheme, 80% Better than NECB 2011
DESCRIPTION OPERATIONS
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
FURNISHINGS, FITTINGS & EQUIPMENT (Excluded)
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
6-7
TABLE 6.5: Option 2 - New Facilities, 50% Better than NECB 2011
DESCRIPTION OPERATIONS
BUILDINGSERVICE
BUILDINGTOTAL
OPTION ‘A’LEASE SPACE
TOTAL OPTION ‘B’
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
FURNISHINGS, FITTINGS & EQUIPMENT (Excluded)
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
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
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
6-8
TABLE 6.6: Option 3 - New Facilities, 80% Better than NECB 2011
DESCRIPTION OPERATIONS
BUILDINGSERVICE
BUILDINGTOTAL
OPTION ‘A’LEASE SPACE
TOTAL OPTION ‘B’
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
FURNISHINGS, FITTINGS & EQUIPMENT (Excluded)
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program 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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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);
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
N E C B 5 0 % R E D U C T I O N + L E A S E
N E C B 5 0 % R E D U C T I O N
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
N E C B 5 0 % R E D U C T I O N + L E A S E
N E C B 5 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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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 2B: New Facilities + Lease + 80% 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.
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program 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)
Deferred capital spending of
$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
(comparatively high)
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)
Deferred capital spending of
$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
GHG’s of 442 TCO2e/year
(comparatively mid-range)
TABLE 7.6: Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
7-21
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
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
Responds to Whitehorse
Strategic Sustainability
Plan (WSSP) - Community
Development and Leadership
As per Scenario 1A
Capital cost of $63,867,930
higher than available
City funding/financing of
$58,500,000
Deferred capital spending of
$44,911,451 in 2029
Reflects sustainability
workshops
As per Scenario 1A
City can showcase renewable
energy technologies and
building efficiencies
Shows green building
leadership
Provides opportunity for
high LEED designation and
certification Partnership
funding opportunities - CCI,
NRCAN eco-energy, YG micro
generation, FCM
As per Scenario 1A
Single lease tenant. Subject to
market lease vacancy rates.
GHG’s of 456 TCO2e/year
(comparatively mid-range)
Requires additional capital to
build 1,300 m2 of lease space
($7,750,000)
Option 2A: New Facilities +50% NECB
Lowest combined capital
expenditure $72,761,800.
No deferred capital spending
required in 2029.
Provides opportunity for
LEED Silver designation for
Operations building
Provides opportunity for LEED
Gold designation for Services
building
Responds to Whitehorse
Strategic Sustainability
Plan (WSSP) - Community
Development and Leadership
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
(comparatively high)
GHG 751 TCO2e/years
(highest)
As per scenario 2A
Additional lease income helps
leverage capital financing
Additional lease space provides
future expansion area
As per scenario 2A
Taxpayers not supportive of
capital spending
$6.5 million additional capital
for lease space and future
growth
Single lease tenant. Subject to
market lease vacancy rates.
Requires additional capital to
build 1,300 m2 of lease space
($7,750,000)
Future carbon taxes highest of
all options
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
7-22
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
Option 2C: New Facilities +80% NECB
Provides opportunity for
LEED Silver designation for
Operations building
Provides opportunity for LEED
Gold designation for Services
building
Responds to Whitehorse
Strategic Sustainability
Plan (WSSP) - Community
Development and Leadership
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
Provides opportunity for
high LEED designation and
certification
City can showcase renewable
energy technologies and
building efficiencies
Shows green building
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
Additional lease income helps
leverage capital financing
Additional lease space provides
future expansion area
First P3 project in Yukon
(25% grant available from
Government of Canada for
feasibility study and capital
costs)
Similar to 2C
Requires additional capital to
build 1,300 m2 of lease space
($8,782,000)
Single lease tenant. Subject to
market lease vacancy rates.
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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:
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Total Project Time 26 months
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.
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
Total Project Time 43 months
*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.
Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector Research / kobayashi + zeddaCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
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
kobayashi + zedda / Perkins + Will / Morrison Hershfield / AE / Vector ResearchCity of Whitehorse Building Consolidation: Business Case and Functional Program Report
7-36