At various times, certain City Councillors, and some other supporters of the deal between the City of Ottawa and Ottawa Sports & Entertainment Group, have suggested that the legal action taken by the Friends of Lansdowne is without merit and will be easily dismissed by the Courts. Although the Superior Court ruling was pretty quick, this is not proving to be the case for the appeal.
The appeal was heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal on November 28, 2011. Today, March 6 means we are in the fifteenth week of deliberation by the three judges who heard the appeal. Of course the Courts are busy and there may be any number of reasons that a decision has not yet been rendered.
But I think it is safe to say that, every day that goes by, the Friends become more optimistic (and maybe, just maybe, the City and OSEG become slightly more anxious).
Showing posts with label OSEG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OSEG. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
A really great landlord
I have already noted that the City of Ottawa is a wonderful landlord in its arrangement with OSEG. No rent is expected from the tenant until all of the tenant's other obligations have been addressed -- that is the nature of the City's "deemed equity" in the Lansdowne Partnership Plan: wait and get nothing until your partner is taken care of.
But it gets even better! City Council has just agreed to give the Ottawa 67's hockey club a cool $500 thousand per year for two years in which the 67's are to play at Scotiabank Place rather than at Lansdowne. The hockey team is being asked to move out so that the construction work at Lansdowne (including the long overdue repair of the leaking roof over the arena) can go ahead.
Nowhere in the staff report presented to Council is it suggested that the City is obliged to make any payment to the 67's. There is no mention of a lease that is being broken. Apparently the practice is simply that the City grants half a million dollars whenever it feels like it.
But the staff report is quite enlightening in what it does say about the relationship with its hockey team tenant. Because the 67's will be elsewhere, the City will not be receiving $150,000 in rent per year from the 67's organization. This is the first time I have seen a figure quoted; I have often wondered why Councillors have not asked how much the 67's are paying to use the Civic Centre.
The $150,000 figure is interesting because when the 67's are to return to Lansdowne, their annual rent will drop to $100,000 per year. (Want to check these figures? For the 150k, look in the staff report dated Feb. 8, 2012 called LPP implementation status update. For the 100k, go back to the Price Waterhouse "Business Plan for Transformation" dated Sept. 1, 2009.)
So when the City of Ottawa is your landlord, after spending millions fixing up the arena, the tenant is given a 33% discount on the rent. Isn't that wonderful?
And it gets even better. Where does the rent go? Here it is very difficult to know since so many details are hidden away, but in all likelihood the rent goes into the infamous waterfall -- an arrangement under which nothing trickles back to the City until all the financial dreams of OSEG are fulfilled. In other words, until the City starts getting any money, the rent from the hockey club is going to OSEG, which owns the hockey club.
Do I know that the rent goes into the waterfall? No, this is a guess. But the guess is probably right because of the way the rest of the deal is structured. The Feb. 8 staff report makes it clear that all the revenue from the naming rights for the stadium and arena is to go into the waterfall. This is unusual. Normally the naming rights money would go to the owner of the building -- not in this case. Thanks to the clever negotiating skills of the City, the owner of the building who pays 100% of the renovation costs, the revenue from the naming rights will go to OSEG for years and years before a penny comes to the City.
Yes, if you're the right tenant, the City of Ottawa is truly a splendid landlord.
But it gets even better! City Council has just agreed to give the Ottawa 67's hockey club a cool $500 thousand per year for two years in which the 67's are to play at Scotiabank Place rather than at Lansdowne. The hockey team is being asked to move out so that the construction work at Lansdowne (including the long overdue repair of the leaking roof over the arena) can go ahead.
Nowhere in the staff report presented to Council is it suggested that the City is obliged to make any payment to the 67's. There is no mention of a lease that is being broken. Apparently the practice is simply that the City grants half a million dollars whenever it feels like it.
But the staff report is quite enlightening in what it does say about the relationship with its hockey team tenant. Because the 67's will be elsewhere, the City will not be receiving $150,000 in rent per year from the 67's organization. This is the first time I have seen a figure quoted; I have often wondered why Councillors have not asked how much the 67's are paying to use the Civic Centre.
The $150,000 figure is interesting because when the 67's are to return to Lansdowne, their annual rent will drop to $100,000 per year. (Want to check these figures? For the 150k, look in the staff report dated Feb. 8, 2012 called LPP implementation status update. For the 100k, go back to the Price Waterhouse "Business Plan for Transformation" dated Sept. 1, 2009.)
So when the City of Ottawa is your landlord, after spending millions fixing up the arena, the tenant is given a 33% discount on the rent. Isn't that wonderful?
And it gets even better. Where does the rent go? Here it is very difficult to know since so many details are hidden away, but in all likelihood the rent goes into the infamous waterfall -- an arrangement under which nothing trickles back to the City until all the financial dreams of OSEG are fulfilled. In other words, until the City starts getting any money, the rent from the hockey club is going to OSEG, which owns the hockey club.
Do I know that the rent goes into the waterfall? No, this is a guess. But the guess is probably right because of the way the rest of the deal is structured. The Feb. 8 staff report makes it clear that all the revenue from the naming rights for the stadium and arena is to go into the waterfall. This is unusual. Normally the naming rights money would go to the owner of the building -- not in this case. Thanks to the clever negotiating skills of the City, the owner of the building who pays 100% of the renovation costs, the revenue from the naming rights will go to OSEG for years and years before a penny comes to the City.
Yes, if you're the right tenant, the City of Ottawa is truly a splendid landlord.
Monday, January 2, 2012
A question of process
While we await the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal regarding the case brought by the Friends of Lansdowne, it is interesting to consider similar issues which do not involve redevelopment of Lansdowne Park.
In the Globe and Mail of Friday December 30, there was an interesting article entitled "Does it matter if our laws are passed illegally?" by Peter H Russell, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto. Professor Russell deals with the fact that Royal Assent was given on Dec. 15 to Bill C-18, the "Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act. This is the legislation which ends the Wheat Board's monopoly for sales of wheat and barley from Western Canada.
Professor Russell notes that on Dec. 7 the Federal Court had ruled that the way Bill C-18 was introduced into Parliament violated the Canadian Wheat Board Act. My understanding is that the Wheat Board Act calls for a referendum among grain producers prior to a change in the monopoly provisions.
This seems to be very similar to situation which applied to City procurement procedures in the case of Lansdowne. The Friends of Lansdowne argued before Ontario Superior Court that the City had violated its own procurement regulations in the way it proceeded with the Lansdowne redevelopment scheme. The Court seemed to take the position that because City Council has the authority to amend its procurement procedures, it has full authority to do whatever it wants. The contrary view, held by the Friends of Lansdowne, was that Council should amend its regulations if it wishes to engage in an as-yet-disallowed procurement action.
So there is a similarity to the Wheat Board matter. The federal government could have first amended the Wheat Board Act to remove the requirement for a referendum, and then eliminated the monopoly feature in the Act. Similarly the City of Ottawa could have modified its procurement procedures, either its procurement by-law or its Ottawa Option procedure for unsolicited proposals, to provide a legitimate basis for its actions in striking its deal with OSEG.
Both the City of Ottawa and, I expect, the Government of Canada, will be needlessly spending resources defending their mistaken ways of operating. It's great news for members of the bar, but not so great for taxpayers.
In the Globe and Mail of Friday December 30, there was an interesting article entitled "Does it matter if our laws are passed illegally?" by Peter H Russell, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto. Professor Russell deals with the fact that Royal Assent was given on Dec. 15 to Bill C-18, the "Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act. This is the legislation which ends the Wheat Board's monopoly for sales of wheat and barley from Western Canada.
Professor Russell notes that on Dec. 7 the Federal Court had ruled that the way Bill C-18 was introduced into Parliament violated the Canadian Wheat Board Act. My understanding is that the Wheat Board Act calls for a referendum among grain producers prior to a change in the monopoly provisions.
This seems to be very similar to situation which applied to City procurement procedures in the case of Lansdowne. The Friends of Lansdowne argued before Ontario Superior Court that the City had violated its own procurement regulations in the way it proceeded with the Lansdowne redevelopment scheme. The Court seemed to take the position that because City Council has the authority to amend its procurement procedures, it has full authority to do whatever it wants. The contrary view, held by the Friends of Lansdowne, was that Council should amend its regulations if it wishes to engage in an as-yet-disallowed procurement action.
So there is a similarity to the Wheat Board matter. The federal government could have first amended the Wheat Board Act to remove the requirement for a referendum, and then eliminated the monopoly feature in the Act. Similarly the City of Ottawa could have modified its procurement procedures, either its procurement by-law or its Ottawa Option procedure for unsolicited proposals, to provide a legitimate basis for its actions in striking its deal with OSEG.
Both the City of Ottawa and, I expect, the Government of Canada, will be needlessly spending resources defending their mistaken ways of operating. It's great news for members of the bar, but not so great for taxpayers.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Diligence overdue
In the hearing before Ontario Superior Court which terminated last week, the lawyer for the Friends of Lansdowne maintained that the only independent review of the financial arrangements supporting the Lansdowne Partnership plan, was the study in 2008 by Deloitte. That study was never released to the public, nor was its existence made known to members of City Council.
The lawyer for the City denied that claim and said there were other studies conducted. It is difficult to take that counter claim seriously.
It was said that the financial arrangements were studied by Graham Bird Associates(GBA) and by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC). But Graham Bird Associates was retained to carry the process through the administrative and legal hoops, not to analyse the deal. Although I believe the contract between the City and GBA is not public, it is difficult to imagine that the firm did not have a strong financial incentive to move the project forward. It is unlikely that GBA would minimize their revenue by placing obstacles in the quick execution of the LPP.
As for PWC, they were retained by GBA, not to analyse the financials of the deal but rather to create a business model based on assumptions provided by the City and their "partner" Ottawa Sports & Entertainment Group.
In arguing the City's case, their lawyer also claimed that the two reports issued by the City Auditor General constitute an independent analysis of the LPP financials. While the Auditor General is independent, his range of examination was tightly controlled. Moreover, the report which the Auditor General received from an independent US consultant on the LPP is not available.
So the bland assurance in staff reports that due diligence has been conducted with respect to the financial arrangements behind the LPP seem to be pure and simple puffery.
The lawyer for the City denied that claim and said there were other studies conducted. It is difficult to take that counter claim seriously.
It was said that the financial arrangements were studied by Graham Bird Associates(GBA) and by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC). But Graham Bird Associates was retained to carry the process through the administrative and legal hoops, not to analyse the deal. Although I believe the contract between the City and GBA is not public, it is difficult to imagine that the firm did not have a strong financial incentive to move the project forward. It is unlikely that GBA would minimize their revenue by placing obstacles in the quick execution of the LPP.
As for PWC, they were retained by GBA, not to analyse the financials of the deal but rather to create a business model based on assumptions provided by the City and their "partner" Ottawa Sports & Entertainment Group.
In arguing the City's case, their lawyer also claimed that the two reports issued by the City Auditor General constitute an independent analysis of the LPP financials. While the Auditor General is independent, his range of examination was tightly controlled. Moreover, the report which the Auditor General received from an independent US consultant on the LPP is not available.
So the bland assurance in staff reports that due diligence has been conducted with respect to the financial arrangements behind the LPP seem to be pure and simple puffery.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
A great landlord
Sitting in Court for seven days provides an opportunity to learn much. One thing I learned is that the City of Ottawa is a very generous landlord.
The Friends of Lansdowne (FoL) are challenging the City's arrangement with Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) known as the Lansdowne Partnership plan. FoL indicates that the City is providing an illegal "bonus" to OSEG by providing the land for the development of the shopping complex at a mere one dollar per year for a term of thirty years. According to the explanation given to the Court by the City's lawyer, the City is not conferring a "bonus" in its $1 leasing arrangement because there is provision for a payment to the City.
It is in examining that payment that we learn how generous and understanding a landlord the City is.
According to the argument presented to the Court, a calculation of the value of the land was undertaken by the City and the market rent was ascertained. It was then discovered that if the City were granted "deemed equity", and a return to the City on that "deemed equity" were established, a revenue stream equivalent to rent could be projected by using the financial model created under the Lansdowne Partnership plan. No doubt the City's lawyer would say that it is a mere matter of semantics whether such return in considered "rent" or "return on deemed equity".
But there is a bit of a problem with the City's argument. The return on "deemed equity" is only payable at the fifth level of the "waterfall" -- the series of prioritized payouts from the "net cash flow" of the entire Lansdowne Partnership. What this means is that every other financial obligation is to be satisfied prior to the City of Ottawa receiving any return whatever on its "deemed equity".
Payments are made to OSEG not only to provide a return on its investment but also to repay what OSEG has invested (including any payments for cost over-runs on the stadium) before any money is available for the City as a return on its "deemed equity".
So all of this makes the City of Ottawa a remarkable landlord.
Normal landlords don't care about your other financial obligations. If you don't pay your rent in full and on time, you are out on the street. A normal landlord would not allow you to defer rent payment to allow you to pay your bar bills or keep up your car payments.
By contrast, the City of Ottawa is an ideal landlord. The City is happy to permit its tenant to give priority to every other imaginable demand before expecting that any payment equivalent to rent be effected.
May we all be so lucky as to have as splendid a landlord as the City of Ottawa!
The Friends of Lansdowne (FoL) are challenging the City's arrangement with Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) known as the Lansdowne Partnership plan. FoL indicates that the City is providing an illegal "bonus" to OSEG by providing the land for the development of the shopping complex at a mere one dollar per year for a term of thirty years. According to the explanation given to the Court by the City's lawyer, the City is not conferring a "bonus" in its $1 leasing arrangement because there is provision for a payment to the City.
It is in examining that payment that we learn how generous and understanding a landlord the City is.
According to the argument presented to the Court, a calculation of the value of the land was undertaken by the City and the market rent was ascertained. It was then discovered that if the City were granted "deemed equity", and a return to the City on that "deemed equity" were established, a revenue stream equivalent to rent could be projected by using the financial model created under the Lansdowne Partnership plan. No doubt the City's lawyer would say that it is a mere matter of semantics whether such return in considered "rent" or "return on deemed equity".
But there is a bit of a problem with the City's argument. The return on "deemed equity" is only payable at the fifth level of the "waterfall" -- the series of prioritized payouts from the "net cash flow" of the entire Lansdowne Partnership. What this means is that every other financial obligation is to be satisfied prior to the City of Ottawa receiving any return whatever on its "deemed equity".
Payments are made to OSEG not only to provide a return on its investment but also to repay what OSEG has invested (including any payments for cost over-runs on the stadium) before any money is available for the City as a return on its "deemed equity".
So all of this makes the City of Ottawa a remarkable landlord.
Normal landlords don't care about your other financial obligations. If you don't pay your rent in full and on time, you are out on the street. A normal landlord would not allow you to defer rent payment to allow you to pay your bar bills or keep up your car payments.
By contrast, the City of Ottawa is an ideal landlord. The City is happy to permit its tenant to give priority to every other imaginable demand before expecting that any payment equivalent to rent be effected.
May we all be so lucky as to have as splendid a landlord as the City of Ottawa!
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Puzzled by Roger and friends
It is becoming complex maintaining two blogs simultaneously. The other blog is for the election (I am a candidate for Councillor for Ward 17) while this blog is all-Lansdowne all the time. At any rate, the Lansdowne issue is the big issue in Capital Ward at least until June 28, so much of my work on the election side overlaps with my Lansdowne interest.
With that explanation, here is a message I posted on my election blog (http://brocklebank.blogspot.com/)---
I would recommend reading the article in the Ottawa Citizen of today (Sunday May 30) entitled "The Lansdowne Four".
The prime spokesman for the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, Roger Greenberg, is quoted as saying "What I'm not used to is people taking facts and deliberately changing them to suit their purposes. I've never seen that before. But I guess that's part of the game. I'm just not used to playing that game." I think Mr. Greenberg would do everyone a big favour by going further and listing the specific facts and how he considers that those facts have been distorted.
Another point that Mr. Greenberg could usefully elaborate is the fine distinction he is making in his statement "This is clearly not a sole-source contract. This was an unsolicited proposal."
First, I'm not sure that I understand the difference. Maybe Mr. Greenberg has a valid point; I just don't understand what that point is.
Second, I find the idea that it is an unsolicited proposal is hard to square with a passage earlier in the same article, a passage worth quoting:
The way Greenberg tells it, OSEG learned that its modest plan to lease Frank Clair Stadium from the city was a non-starter after meeting with Mayor Larry O'Brien and city manager Kent Kirkpatrick in the fall of 2007.
"Their comeback to us was, 'Guys, listen. We're not going to spend upwards of $100 million in taxpayers' money to fix up the stadium so you can play 10 games of football a year'" Greenberg recounts.
If the businessmen wanted to propose something more comprehensive, O'Brien and Kirkpatrick told them, the city would listen.
This raises two questions --
(a) Does the discussion with the Mayor and the City Manager constitute solicitation of an offer? If it does, I guess the "unsolicited proposal" description does not apply.
(b) Is the timing (autumn of 2007) correct? It is worth remembering that Council's approval of a design-to-build competition for Lansdowne was in late November of 2007. The announcement of the CFL conditional franchise was in March 2008. The suspension of the design-to-build competition was May/June 2008. The Lansdowne Live proposal indicating OSEG was moving beyond a simple stadium rental was revealed on October 17. 2008. If the timing in the Citizen article is correct, the most senior elected official of the city plus the most senior member of city staff had been in discussions with OSEG for a year prior to the public statement of the intention by OSEG to submit an "unsolicited proposal".
I share with Mr. Greenberg the desire to have the facts stated clearly. Those facts can be interpreted differently, but we continue to need facts.
With that explanation, here is a message I posted on my election blog (http://brocklebank.blogspot.com/)---
I would recommend reading the article in the Ottawa Citizen of today (Sunday May 30) entitled "The Lansdowne Four".
The prime spokesman for the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, Roger Greenberg, is quoted as saying "What I'm not used to is people taking facts and deliberately changing them to suit their purposes. I've never seen that before. But I guess that's part of the game. I'm just not used to playing that game." I think Mr. Greenberg would do everyone a big favour by going further and listing the specific facts and how he considers that those facts have been distorted.
Another point that Mr. Greenberg could usefully elaborate is the fine distinction he is making in his statement "This is clearly not a sole-source contract. This was an unsolicited proposal."
First, I'm not sure that I understand the difference. Maybe Mr. Greenberg has a valid point; I just don't understand what that point is.
Second, I find the idea that it is an unsolicited proposal is hard to square with a passage earlier in the same article, a passage worth quoting:
The way Greenberg tells it, OSEG learned that its modest plan to lease Frank Clair Stadium from the city was a non-starter after meeting with Mayor Larry O'Brien and city manager Kent Kirkpatrick in the fall of 2007.
"Their comeback to us was, 'Guys, listen. We're not going to spend upwards of $100 million in taxpayers' money to fix up the stadium so you can play 10 games of football a year'" Greenberg recounts.
If the businessmen wanted to propose something more comprehensive, O'Brien and Kirkpatrick told them, the city would listen.
This raises two questions --
(a) Does the discussion with the Mayor and the City Manager constitute solicitation of an offer? If it does, I guess the "unsolicited proposal" description does not apply.
(b) Is the timing (autumn of 2007) correct? It is worth remembering that Council's approval of a design-to-build competition for Lansdowne was in late November of 2007. The announcement of the CFL conditional franchise was in March 2008. The suspension of the design-to-build competition was May/June 2008. The Lansdowne Live proposal indicating OSEG was moving beyond a simple stadium rental was revealed on October 17. 2008. If the timing in the Citizen article is correct, the most senior elected official of the city plus the most senior member of city staff had been in discussions with OSEG for a year prior to the public statement of the intention by OSEG to submit an "unsolicited proposal".
I share with Mr. Greenberg the desire to have the facts stated clearly. Those facts can be interpreted differently, but we continue to need facts.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Catching up...
It is difficult to keep up a blog and write speeches at the same time. But possibly some readers out in the ether might want to follow some of the remarks I crafted. With that hope in mind, this posting and the following are notes from a speech I delivered on October 26. The first portion deals with the history leading up to the current discussion of Lansdowne Park redevelopment. The second installment is my personal analysis of what the Lansdowne example may show us about the state of civic affairs in Ottawa.
So this is part one...
My purpose today is to bring to your attention some of my concerns about the way our city conducts its affairs. The device I would like to use to get you thinking about such matters is to explore the current controversy surrounding the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park. Using that as an example, I would hope to engage you in a discussion in which you would share your own views on city decision-making.
In case you have been away, or only read the Globe and Mail and no local papers, I had best start by giving you a brief (if that is possible) background on the Lansdowne issue.
Let’s go back to May of 2007. The press reported that an attempt to bring back pro football to Ottawa had been abandoned by a group led by a former Rough Riders player. The Commissioner of the Canadian Football League was quoted as saying that he had not spoken to the Mayor of Ottawa but now that the Palmer-led proposal was off the table, he would do so.
This was followed by the Mayor’s statement that he understood that people with "deep pockets" were looking into bringing pro football back to Ottawa.
In November 2007 council adopted a motion to conduct a design/build competition to plan for redevelopment of Lansdowne Park. Under a program entitled "Design Lansdowne", two well-attended public consultations were conducted by City planning staff in January and February of 2008.
Then in late March it was announced that the CFL had granted a conditional franchise to a group of business people to establish a pro football team in Ottawa.
Spokesmen for the football consortium were asked if they proposed to enter into the competition. They indicated that they had no such intention. When asked if their interest was in land development rather than football, they denied that that was their motivation.
Rumours began to circulate in the city that Frank Clair Stadium was not in good shape. At the same time, activity on the design/develop competition seemed to slacken off.
In mid May 2008 members of City Council were informed that work on the competition had been delayed. For some of us this was a disappointment because we were expecting that the "design brief" for the competition would soon be released. We thought that, after public consideration and council approval, the design brief would serve as the basis for the competition.
In late June 2008 members of City Council were informed that work on the competition had been suspended pending review of a proposal from the football consortium and further investigation of the condition of the stadium and civic centre. It was announced that the lower south side stands of the stadium were to be demolished. Councillors were told that City staff expected a detailed proposal from the football consortium in mid-July.
In fact it was only on October 17 of last year that the football consortium spelled out their ideas. A press conference was held and a proposal entitled "Lansdowne Live" was presented. The Lansdowne Live proposal was not simply about renting the stadium to put on football games, it involved a major rebuilding of the stadium, demolition of several buildings on the site and their replacement by commercial activity, and a tentative proposal for an alternative use of the Aberdeen Pavilion – an aquarium. It was clearly the intention that the consortium take over Lansdowne Park and transform it.
As we went into last winter, word circulated that another group was about to propose a soccer stadium for Kanata. This led to the public debate being reshaped into a contest between two stadium concepts.
Possibly anticipating this stadium discussion, the city had contracted for a study which was called a "needs assessment and location analysis for multi-purpose sport and entertainment facilities". The report looked at what was required to have an outdoor stadium.
The "needs" report was discussed in Council committee in March, and City staff brought forward a procedure for considering the two unsolicited proposals for stadium projects. We learned that the formal name of the Lansdowne Live group was Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG).
On April 6 the staff report on the two competing stadium proposals was released. City staff said that both proposals were acceptable but the Lansdowne project was preferred over the Kanata proposal, because the Lansdowne proposal was judged to offer a better business plan and less risk to the city. But the only insight that public had into the business plan was in the staff report.
On April 20 the staff report on the two unsolicited bids for stadium development was discussed by Council committee. Instead of discussing whether a stadium was a priority for the city, the committee sent other motions forward for Council consideration two days later on April 22.
A motion to go ahead with discussions with the Kanata soccer group was put on hold pending talks about Lansdowne.
Motions to proceed with negotiations on Lansdowne were adopted. Negotiations were proposed to go on for 60 days followed by public consultation prior to a final debate at Council. In fact the negotiations stretched out for more than double that time. The results of the negotiations were released on September 2 and the proposal was billed the Lansdowne Partnership proposal.
Six public events arranged by the City from September 28 through October 6. Many people from the Glebe attended the September 28 event at Lansdowne Salon A. That consisted merely of an opportunity to for residents to wander about and ask questions of various officials and others stationed around the room. Beginning from the third such event on September 30, the events featured a question and answer session in which the City Manager (the head of city staff) answered questions.
It is worth noting that the plan released on September 2 is not identical to that presented in October of last year. There seems to be more commercial development on the site and less provision for amateur sports than in the preliminary plan of a year ago. But the September information package provides more detail on finances and governance proposals.
Central to the "partnership" proposal is a concept which has been titled "revenue neutrality". I believe this concept is faulty but it is important that you understand it because this is the idea which is driving much of the current discussion about making further changes to the September proposal.
Back in April, Council authorized negotiations with OSEG but established several conditions. One condition was that "the City of Ottawa’s contribution to the revitalization of Lansdowne Park be limited to a dollar amount to be established during the negotiations, based on the principle of not increasing the overall cost to the taxpayer".
But you might ask - isn’t it proposed that the City invest a large sum -- $129.3 million to be exact – in this undertaking?
In order to pretend that such investment costs nothing, some very fancy accounting is proposed. First you take money from city parking reserves. Maybe no one will notice. Then you declare that you really, really intend to take good care of Lansdowne in the future. The city has failed to maintain the place in the past, but because you are really, really serious this time, you claim that you will spend millions every year going on into the future. As part of your innovative accounting you count all that money that you promise to spend as if you truly spend it. All that money then is a credit because you won’t in fact need to spend it because you have rebuilt the facilities. Then the best trick of all is that you say that none of the shops or other businesses to be established on the Lansdowne site would otherwise have been created. You convince yourself that the shops and other businesses were created by the City’s investment in the stadium etc, you take most of the property taxes to be paid by those businesses and use that tax revenue to carry the debt load assumed by the City.
This complex and questionable arrangement is the reason that it is said that if the commercial development on the site goes down, the cost to the City goes up.
Some people accept the concept of "revenue neutrality"; some others, when in polite company, have been heard to use the term codswallop.
Another condition applied to the negotiations by Council motion was that "revenues generated from the revitalized Lansdowne Park not be used to subsidize any professional sports teams".
There are many ways in which a subsidy can be granted or can be concealed. One easy way to subsidize is to charge ridiculously low rent. Of course no rent is proposed to be paid to the city for the land under the commercial development, but I would argue that the hockey and football teams are being subsidized in their rent for the stadium and arena.
Am I opposed to a subsidy? Am I opposed to a stadium. Not necessarily, but I would like us to approach issues in a straight forward way, not deceiving ourselves.
Right now various members of city council are in the process of tinkering with the "partnership" proposal. They have not yet received a report on the public open houses. Nor have they a summary of the comments made by the public on the online consultation conducted for the City. Nevertheless bits and pieces of the proposal are being changed in an attempt to concoct an arrangement the public will find more palatable.
...This speech text continues in the following post.
So this is part one...
My purpose today is to bring to your attention some of my concerns about the way our city conducts its affairs. The device I would like to use to get you thinking about such matters is to explore the current controversy surrounding the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park. Using that as an example, I would hope to engage you in a discussion in which you would share your own views on city decision-making.
In case you have been away, or only read the Globe and Mail and no local papers, I had best start by giving you a brief (if that is possible) background on the Lansdowne issue.
Let’s go back to May of 2007. The press reported that an attempt to bring back pro football to Ottawa had been abandoned by a group led by a former Rough Riders player. The Commissioner of the Canadian Football League was quoted as saying that he had not spoken to the Mayor of Ottawa but now that the Palmer-led proposal was off the table, he would do so.
This was followed by the Mayor’s statement that he understood that people with "deep pockets" were looking into bringing pro football back to Ottawa.
In November 2007 council adopted a motion to conduct a design/build competition to plan for redevelopment of Lansdowne Park. Under a program entitled "Design Lansdowne", two well-attended public consultations were conducted by City planning staff in January and February of 2008.
Then in late March it was announced that the CFL had granted a conditional franchise to a group of business people to establish a pro football team in Ottawa.
Spokesmen for the football consortium were asked if they proposed to enter into the competition. They indicated that they had no such intention. When asked if their interest was in land development rather than football, they denied that that was their motivation.
Rumours began to circulate in the city that Frank Clair Stadium was not in good shape. At the same time, activity on the design/develop competition seemed to slacken off.
In mid May 2008 members of City Council were informed that work on the competition had been delayed. For some of us this was a disappointment because we were expecting that the "design brief" for the competition would soon be released. We thought that, after public consideration and council approval, the design brief would serve as the basis for the competition.
In late June 2008 members of City Council were informed that work on the competition had been suspended pending review of a proposal from the football consortium and further investigation of the condition of the stadium and civic centre. It was announced that the lower south side stands of the stadium were to be demolished. Councillors were told that City staff expected a detailed proposal from the football consortium in mid-July.
In fact it was only on October 17 of last year that the football consortium spelled out their ideas. A press conference was held and a proposal entitled "Lansdowne Live" was presented. The Lansdowne Live proposal was not simply about renting the stadium to put on football games, it involved a major rebuilding of the stadium, demolition of several buildings on the site and their replacement by commercial activity, and a tentative proposal for an alternative use of the Aberdeen Pavilion – an aquarium. It was clearly the intention that the consortium take over Lansdowne Park and transform it.
As we went into last winter, word circulated that another group was about to propose a soccer stadium for Kanata. This led to the public debate being reshaped into a contest between two stadium concepts.
Possibly anticipating this stadium discussion, the city had contracted for a study which was called a "needs assessment and location analysis for multi-purpose sport and entertainment facilities". The report looked at what was required to have an outdoor stadium.
The "needs" report was discussed in Council committee in March, and City staff brought forward a procedure for considering the two unsolicited proposals for stadium projects. We learned that the formal name of the Lansdowne Live group was Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG).
On April 6 the staff report on the two competing stadium proposals was released. City staff said that both proposals were acceptable but the Lansdowne project was preferred over the Kanata proposal, because the Lansdowne proposal was judged to offer a better business plan and less risk to the city. But the only insight that public had into the business plan was in the staff report.
On April 20 the staff report on the two unsolicited bids for stadium development was discussed by Council committee. Instead of discussing whether a stadium was a priority for the city, the committee sent other motions forward for Council consideration two days later on April 22.
A motion to go ahead with discussions with the Kanata soccer group was put on hold pending talks about Lansdowne.
Motions to proceed with negotiations on Lansdowne were adopted. Negotiations were proposed to go on for 60 days followed by public consultation prior to a final debate at Council. In fact the negotiations stretched out for more than double that time. The results of the negotiations were released on September 2 and the proposal was billed the Lansdowne Partnership proposal.
Six public events arranged by the City from September 28 through October 6. Many people from the Glebe attended the September 28 event at Lansdowne Salon A. That consisted merely of an opportunity to for residents to wander about and ask questions of various officials and others stationed around the room. Beginning from the third such event on September 30, the events featured a question and answer session in which the City Manager (the head of city staff) answered questions.
It is worth noting that the plan released on September 2 is not identical to that presented in October of last year. There seems to be more commercial development on the site and less provision for amateur sports than in the preliminary plan of a year ago. But the September information package provides more detail on finances and governance proposals.
Central to the "partnership" proposal is a concept which has been titled "revenue neutrality". I believe this concept is faulty but it is important that you understand it because this is the idea which is driving much of the current discussion about making further changes to the September proposal.
Back in April, Council authorized negotiations with OSEG but established several conditions. One condition was that "the City of Ottawa’s contribution to the revitalization of Lansdowne Park be limited to a dollar amount to be established during the negotiations, based on the principle of not increasing the overall cost to the taxpayer".
But you might ask - isn’t it proposed that the City invest a large sum -- $129.3 million to be exact – in this undertaking?
In order to pretend that such investment costs nothing, some very fancy accounting is proposed. First you take money from city parking reserves. Maybe no one will notice. Then you declare that you really, really intend to take good care of Lansdowne in the future. The city has failed to maintain the place in the past, but because you are really, really serious this time, you claim that you will spend millions every year going on into the future. As part of your innovative accounting you count all that money that you promise to spend as if you truly spend it. All that money then is a credit because you won’t in fact need to spend it because you have rebuilt the facilities. Then the best trick of all is that you say that none of the shops or other businesses to be established on the Lansdowne site would otherwise have been created. You convince yourself that the shops and other businesses were created by the City’s investment in the stadium etc, you take most of the property taxes to be paid by those businesses and use that tax revenue to carry the debt load assumed by the City.
This complex and questionable arrangement is the reason that it is said that if the commercial development on the site goes down, the cost to the City goes up.
Some people accept the concept of "revenue neutrality"; some others, when in polite company, have been heard to use the term codswallop.
Another condition applied to the negotiations by Council motion was that "revenues generated from the revitalized Lansdowne Park not be used to subsidize any professional sports teams".
There are many ways in which a subsidy can be granted or can be concealed. One easy way to subsidize is to charge ridiculously low rent. Of course no rent is proposed to be paid to the city for the land under the commercial development, but I would argue that the hockey and football teams are being subsidized in their rent for the stadium and arena.
Am I opposed to a subsidy? Am I opposed to a stadium. Not necessarily, but I would like us to approach issues in a straight forward way, not deceiving ourselves.
Right now various members of city council are in the process of tinkering with the "partnership" proposal. They have not yet received a report on the public open houses. Nor have they a summary of the comments made by the public on the online consultation conducted for the City. Nevertheless bits and pieces of the proposal are being changed in an attempt to concoct an arrangement the public will find more palatable.
...This speech text continues in the following post.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Greening or getting the green
Planting one blade of grass in the acres of asphalt at Lansdowne would constitute greening (and an improvement in my mind) but it is not certain how green Lansdowne will become. Nor is it clear who will get the green (i.e. the money) for any greening initiative.
In today's Citizen, Kate Jaimet writes under the title "Green theme for Lansdowne" that there is controversy over the plans for the proposed "front lawn". This is described by Graham Bird, a consultant to the City, who has emerged as one of the most enthusiastic salesmen for the proposal, as an open grassy area only used for parking on rare occasions .
People who are less enamoured of the proposal question whether the "front lawn" can be used for much other than parking.
One of our problems is that it is not certain what is actually proposed for the "front lawn". There has been talk of concrete blocks with small holes through which grass could grow. Another possibility cited in the article is a system of plastic rings below the surface of the soil giving a more lawn-like appearance.
Until we understand what exactly the proponents have in mind, and until they can point to an installation in Ottawa we can visit, it is hard to know what the "front lawn" will be like.
But in today's article there was one aspect which I found curious. In discussing the possible use of the "front lawn" for concerts, festival activities etc. the article says "The city and the NCC would decide on the programming while the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group would manage the events for a fee. The city would reap any profits and absorb any losses from the events."
I am not sure that this passage gives a correct interpretation of the business arrangement as proposed. If an event, the Tulip Festival for example, wants to use the front lawn, it would contract with OSEG to use the space and pay a rental fee. That fee would go to OSEG. Only after OSEG has covered all its costs, including any administrative charges and profit, would any funds be transferred to the mysterious "closed system" and then funds would be run through the "waterfall". Only after payments are made to the lifecycle reserve fund, to OSEG as return on its investment, and to OSEG to pay off its investment, would the City receive anything. At least that is my understanding.
I am in favour of greening in the sense of removing some of the acres of empty asphalt but I think we need to know what exactly is proposed. Moreover we need to know how the money is moving.
In today's Citizen, Kate Jaimet writes under the title "Green theme for Lansdowne" that there is controversy over the plans for the proposed "front lawn". This is described by Graham Bird, a consultant to the City, who has emerged as one of the most enthusiastic salesmen for the proposal, as an open grassy area only used for parking on rare occasions .
People who are less enamoured of the proposal question whether the "front lawn" can be used for much other than parking.
One of our problems is that it is not certain what is actually proposed for the "front lawn". There has been talk of concrete blocks with small holes through which grass could grow. Another possibility cited in the article is a system of plastic rings below the surface of the soil giving a more lawn-like appearance.
Until we understand what exactly the proponents have in mind, and until they can point to an installation in Ottawa we can visit, it is hard to know what the "front lawn" will be like.
But in today's article there was one aspect which I found curious. In discussing the possible use of the "front lawn" for concerts, festival activities etc. the article says "The city and the NCC would decide on the programming while the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group would manage the events for a fee. The city would reap any profits and absorb any losses from the events."
I am not sure that this passage gives a correct interpretation of the business arrangement as proposed. If an event, the Tulip Festival for example, wants to use the front lawn, it would contract with OSEG to use the space and pay a rental fee. That fee would go to OSEG. Only after OSEG has covered all its costs, including any administrative charges and profit, would any funds be transferred to the mysterious "closed system" and then funds would be run through the "waterfall". Only after payments are made to the lifecycle reserve fund, to OSEG as return on its investment, and to OSEG to pay off its investment, would the City receive anything. At least that is my understanding.
I am in favour of greening in the sense of removing some of the acres of empty asphalt but I think we need to know what exactly is proposed. Moreover we need to know how the money is moving.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Risks and rewards
It's hard, even for a conscientious journalist, to get the whole story.
In today's Ottawa Citizen, Patrick Dare makes a valiant attempt at explaining the complex Lansdowne Partnership proposal. He makes excellent points, in particular his statement "...it is highly unusual for a city to dedicate property taxes to a specific expense, as is proposed in this project -- in this case, using the taxes from the retail buildings to cover the debt needed to fix up the stadium and arena for the sports teams to use."
But putting aside my objections to dedicating any of the property tax revenue to the calculation, please look at Mr. Dare's statement: "To pay most of the estimated $7.1 million in annual servicing costs for the city's debt for the construction project, the city is counting on a separate revenue stream: three-quarters of the property taxes from the new retail buildings ($2.8 million per year) and the savings that result from no longer paying for the operations and urgently needed renovations in the existing buildings (estimated at $3.8 million)."
Maybe arithmetic has changed since I left elementary school, but 3.8 plus 2.8 used to equal 6.6. Even with all the questionable assumptions, we are half a million short, every year.
And all the assumptions are questionable.
If the amount the city should be paying for the the renovations of the buildings is $3.8 million, why is OSEG on the hook to only put a minimum of $1.5 million into the lifecycle fund? (Answer: Because the city has invested $110 million into addresssing all the deficiencies of the past.) So can you really credit the $3.8 million in saving, since we have never, ever, spent $3.8 million on this?
And the idea that we can credit 3/4 of the property taxes from the retail buildings to pay, not the principal, but just the carrying costs of the city's investment in the rehabilitation of the stadium and civic centre, is, not just "highly unusual" as Mr. Dare would have it, but rather creative accounting on steroids.
But I don't want to criticize Mr. Dare. In fact he has obtained some new information and I am grateful for it. He reports "The city would issue a $117 million debenture to cover its share, That half of the Lansdowne project would be put to public tender." The idea that there would be a public tender for the city's portion of the project is completely new -- maybe it is confusion on Mr. Dare's part.
Earlier in his article, Mr. Dare writes "The City would rebuild Frank Clair Stadium (for football and soccer teams) and the Civic Centre (for the hockey team), but have the businessmen manage the construction and operate the facilities, as well as the rest of the site." I find this statement impossible to reconcile with the comment about a public tender.
I never expected to see Mr. Greenberg installing drywall or Mr. Ruddy painting washrooms in the the new updated Stadium. Of course they hire other people to do the specific work. Moreover they are smart business people who try to get the best value for money in the subcontracts they sign. But the overall contract is with OSEG. OSEG is to get the contract management fees. The less they pay the sub-contractors, the more money is left for them.
This is not competitive bidding in the usual sense of government procurement.
Even worse, it appears that OSEG are the ones who are deciding what should be done. They are the ones who want to replace the seats in the stadium. They are the ones who say that VIP suites are needed. They are the ones who are specifying what is needed in the stadium and in the civic centre.
So let's consider this from the outset. OSEG determines what is needed. The City agrees to pay for whatever OSEG wants. The City hands over cash to OSEG to buy whatever it wants. OSEG goes and gets whatever it thinks it needs at the lowest possible price and pockets the balance as a management fee.
Am I the only person who thinks this might not be the smartest arrangement for the City?
In today's Ottawa Citizen, Patrick Dare makes a valiant attempt at explaining the complex Lansdowne Partnership proposal. He makes excellent points, in particular his statement "...it is highly unusual for a city to dedicate property taxes to a specific expense, as is proposed in this project -- in this case, using the taxes from the retail buildings to cover the debt needed to fix up the stadium and arena for the sports teams to use."
But putting aside my objections to dedicating any of the property tax revenue to the calculation, please look at Mr. Dare's statement: "To pay most of the estimated $7.1 million in annual servicing costs for the city's debt for the construction project, the city is counting on a separate revenue stream: three-quarters of the property taxes from the new retail buildings ($2.8 million per year) and the savings that result from no longer paying for the operations and urgently needed renovations in the existing buildings (estimated at $3.8 million)."
Maybe arithmetic has changed since I left elementary school, but 3.8 plus 2.8 used to equal 6.6. Even with all the questionable assumptions, we are half a million short, every year.
And all the assumptions are questionable.
If the amount the city should be paying for the the renovations of the buildings is $3.8 million, why is OSEG on the hook to only put a minimum of $1.5 million into the lifecycle fund? (Answer: Because the city has invested $110 million into addresssing all the deficiencies of the past.) So can you really credit the $3.8 million in saving, since we have never, ever, spent $3.8 million on this?
And the idea that we can credit 3/4 of the property taxes from the retail buildings to pay, not the principal, but just the carrying costs of the city's investment in the rehabilitation of the stadium and civic centre, is, not just "highly unusual" as Mr. Dare would have it, but rather creative accounting on steroids.
But I don't want to criticize Mr. Dare. In fact he has obtained some new information and I am grateful for it. He reports "The city would issue a $117 million debenture to cover its share, That half of the Lansdowne project would be put to public tender." The idea that there would be a public tender for the city's portion of the project is completely new -- maybe it is confusion on Mr. Dare's part.
Earlier in his article, Mr. Dare writes "The City would rebuild Frank Clair Stadium (for football and soccer teams) and the Civic Centre (for the hockey team), but have the businessmen manage the construction and operate the facilities, as well as the rest of the site." I find this statement impossible to reconcile with the comment about a public tender.
I never expected to see Mr. Greenberg installing drywall or Mr. Ruddy painting washrooms in the the new updated Stadium. Of course they hire other people to do the specific work. Moreover they are smart business people who try to get the best value for money in the subcontracts they sign. But the overall contract is with OSEG. OSEG is to get the contract management fees. The less they pay the sub-contractors, the more money is left for them.
This is not competitive bidding in the usual sense of government procurement.
Even worse, it appears that OSEG are the ones who are deciding what should be done. They are the ones who want to replace the seats in the stadium. They are the ones who say that VIP suites are needed. They are the ones who are specifying what is needed in the stadium and in the civic centre.
So let's consider this from the outset. OSEG determines what is needed. The City agrees to pay for whatever OSEG wants. The City hands over cash to OSEG to buy whatever it wants. OSEG goes and gets whatever it thinks it needs at the lowest possible price and pockets the balance as a management fee.
Am I the only person who thinks this might not be the smartest arrangement for the City?
Monday, September 14, 2009
Financial complexity hides much
Although I have reservations about various aspects of the Lansdowne Live project, my greatest concern involves the financial arrangements. I don’t think it is a reasonable deal for the taxpayers of Ottawa.
Depending which document you read, the story changes somewhat but, to make my concerns understandable, the following is my interpretation of the proposal. This interpretation is the basis for my objections in following posts.
First, the City hands over Lansdowne Park and the physical assets on the land to a new Municipal Services Corporation [MSC]. Then the City of Ottawa (that same city that has no money to take independent initiatives at Lansdowne) finds 129.3 million dollars which it turns over to the MSC.
Without competition, MSC awards a contract to OSEG to refurbish the stadium, the civic centre and to build parking garages, an investment of 129.3 million dollars.
MSC turns over operation of the entire park, including the refurbished stadium and civic centre to OSEG.
OSEG invests 97.8 million dollars to build retail buildings and associated parking garages. OSEG expects to invest 19.6 million dollars in the football and hockey teams.
A new mysterious entity called "the closed system" is created; it is unclear how the closed system relates to MSC. However net revenues from the stadium and civic centre apparently go to the "closed system", as do net revenues from the retail component, parking and the two identified sports teams (the 67's hockey team and the future CFL football team).
The principle appears to be that each of the various elements of operation cover their respective costs, including cost of financing, prior to calculation of a net revenue payable into the "closed system". On an annual basis, a distribution of funds from the "closed system is carried out.
The first call on the revenue in the "closed system" is a deposit to a lifecycle fund for major maintenance requirements of the stadium and civic centre. The lifecycle fund is held by the MSC. OSEG provides a guarantee that a minimum deposit to the lifecycle fund is effected each year regardless of the revenues secured for in the "closed system". It is anticipated that the lifecycle fund will be exhausted every six years in a cycle of accumulation and expenditure.
Once the lifecycle fund obligation has been fulfilled, additional revenues in the "closed system" are allocated first to provide a defined 8% return on equity to OSEG. Next funds are allocated to repay OSEG its equity in the project with the equity amortized over 30 years. Apparently OSEG equity is about 20 million dollars in 2013 when the operation of the redeveloped stadium begins. I assume that OSEG equity is required to arrange the financing for the retail and parking elements. Coincidentally the setup costs for the football and hockey teams are of the order of 20 million dollars, but I imagine that OSEG initiative is distinct from the partnership arrangements.
Only after the lifecycle fund payments, the 8% return on equity to OSEG and the 30 year amortization of OSEG equity is effected, is any payment in respect of the City’s equity to be paid. Somehow it is deemed that the City’s equity is only 20 million dollars and it is intended to pay a return to the City on such deemed equity at a rate of 8%.
If there are further funds in the "closed system" for distribution, these are split equally between OSEG and the City.
In summary, revenues go into a "closed system" and are paid out in the following order:
- payments into a lifecycle reserve fund
- payment of return on equity to OSEG
- payment of equity to OSEG on a 30 year amortization
- payment of return on equity to the City
- any balance is split between OSEG and the City.
Depending which document you read, the story changes somewhat but, to make my concerns understandable, the following is my interpretation of the proposal. This interpretation is the basis for my objections in following posts.
First, the City hands over Lansdowne Park and the physical assets on the land to a new Municipal Services Corporation [MSC]. Then the City of Ottawa (that same city that has no money to take independent initiatives at Lansdowne) finds 129.3 million dollars which it turns over to the MSC.
Without competition, MSC awards a contract to OSEG to refurbish the stadium, the civic centre and to build parking garages, an investment of 129.3 million dollars.
MSC turns over operation of the entire park, including the refurbished stadium and civic centre to OSEG.
OSEG invests 97.8 million dollars to build retail buildings and associated parking garages. OSEG expects to invest 19.6 million dollars in the football and hockey teams.
A new mysterious entity called "the closed system" is created; it is unclear how the closed system relates to MSC. However net revenues from the stadium and civic centre apparently go to the "closed system", as do net revenues from the retail component, parking and the two identified sports teams (the 67's hockey team and the future CFL football team).
The principle appears to be that each of the various elements of operation cover their respective costs, including cost of financing, prior to calculation of a net revenue payable into the "closed system". On an annual basis, a distribution of funds from the "closed system is carried out.
The first call on the revenue in the "closed system" is a deposit to a lifecycle fund for major maintenance requirements of the stadium and civic centre. The lifecycle fund is held by the MSC. OSEG provides a guarantee that a minimum deposit to the lifecycle fund is effected each year regardless of the revenues secured for in the "closed system". It is anticipated that the lifecycle fund will be exhausted every six years in a cycle of accumulation and expenditure.
Once the lifecycle fund obligation has been fulfilled, additional revenues in the "closed system" are allocated first to provide a defined 8% return on equity to OSEG. Next funds are allocated to repay OSEG its equity in the project with the equity amortized over 30 years. Apparently OSEG equity is about 20 million dollars in 2013 when the operation of the redeveloped stadium begins. I assume that OSEG equity is required to arrange the financing for the retail and parking elements. Coincidentally the setup costs for the football and hockey teams are of the order of 20 million dollars, but I imagine that OSEG initiative is distinct from the partnership arrangements.
Only after the lifecycle fund payments, the 8% return on equity to OSEG and the 30 year amortization of OSEG equity is effected, is any payment in respect of the City’s equity to be paid. Somehow it is deemed that the City’s equity is only 20 million dollars and it is intended to pay a return to the City on such deemed equity at a rate of 8%.
If there are further funds in the "closed system" for distribution, these are split equally between OSEG and the City.
In summary, revenues go into a "closed system" and are paid out in the following order:
- payments into a lifecycle reserve fund
- payment of return on equity to OSEG
- payment of equity to OSEG on a 30 year amortization
- payment of return on equity to the City
- any balance is split between OSEG and the City.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Contradiction and confusion
Understanding the "Lansdowne partnership plan" isn't easy. There are many documents to read including:
1- the staff report to Council (23 pages - available on the city website)
2- the glossy giant-sized "plan" document (56 pages - available on the city website)
3 - a 5 centimetre thick book of appendices
4- a slide presentation to Council (promised on the city website but not there)
But it would be simpler for everyone if the documents didn't contradict each other. Or maybe someone could tell the public which documents are correct and which are in error.
Just to illustrate the problem, here are some of the contradictions.
-- When is the housing built?
The staff report to Council describes all residential components as being in Phase 2 Before Council it was said this was "plug and play" (apparently intended to suggest that residential components were optional and subject to some subsequent decision by Council). This is contradicted by the Memorandum of Understanding including in the glossy plan document. Clause 4.5 of the MOU says "The Stadium, the Retail Component, the Front Lawn, the Holmwood Townhouses and all parking except residential and hotel component parking, must as a condition of the Project, proceed concurrently."
Well, are the townhouses in phase 1 or phase 2?
-- When does the City get paid?
In the staff report to Council it is said that "the City of Ottawa is in the first and fourth position in the waterfall structure" indicating that funds start flowing to the City. But later on the same page (and in other documentation) it is clear that the first payments go into the "Lifecycle fund". This is not a flow of cash to compensate the City; it is a reserve fund for major maintenance of the stadium and civic centre. That fund will be called upon to keep the facilities from deteriorating. It is like the reserve funds of a condo or a portion of rent paid to a landlord to cover real costs. OSEG receives return on its equity and repayment of its equity before any distributions are made to the City.
So how is the City first in line to receive payment?
The more you read these documents, the more questions you have.
1- the staff report to Council (23 pages - available on the city website)
2- the glossy giant-sized "plan" document (56 pages - available on the city website)
3 - a 5 centimetre thick book of appendices
4- a slide presentation to Council (promised on the city website but not there)
But it would be simpler for everyone if the documents didn't contradict each other. Or maybe someone could tell the public which documents are correct and which are in error.
Just to illustrate the problem, here are some of the contradictions.
-- When is the housing built?
The staff report to Council describes all residential components as being in Phase 2 Before Council it was said this was "plug and play" (apparently intended to suggest that residential components were optional and subject to some subsequent decision by Council). This is contradicted by the Memorandum of Understanding including in the glossy plan document. Clause 4.5 of the MOU says "The Stadium, the Retail Component, the Front Lawn, the Holmwood Townhouses and all parking except residential and hotel component parking, must as a condition of the Project, proceed concurrently."
Well, are the townhouses in phase 1 or phase 2?
-- When does the City get paid?
In the staff report to Council it is said that "the City of Ottawa is in the first and fourth position in the waterfall structure" indicating that funds start flowing to the City. But later on the same page (and in other documentation) it is clear that the first payments go into the "Lifecycle fund". This is not a flow of cash to compensate the City; it is a reserve fund for major maintenance of the stadium and civic centre. That fund will be called upon to keep the facilities from deteriorating. It is like the reserve funds of a condo or a portion of rent paid to a landlord to cover real costs. OSEG receives return on its equity and repayment of its equity before any distributions are made to the City.
So how is the City first in line to receive payment?
The more you read these documents, the more questions you have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)