A very proper Auditor General

Much of the press coverage about the Auditor General's report on the Lansdowne redevelopment scheme has been highly misleading.

In his report delivered June 17, the City Auditor General was very clear that he had a tightly defined mandate. Put simply, he took the figures provided by the proponents of the project, he accepted their hypotheses about flows of funds, and verified that the numbers could produce the results the proponents claimed. Stated more bluntly, he checked the arithmetic and but was not allowed to question whether the calculations made any sense.

Quoting directly from the AG's report -- "The audit scope was limited to an assessment of the financial information contained in the LPP proposal. The audit did not include generating independent figures, nor was it intended to provide an opinion on the development itself. As such, it does not represent an evaluation of the merits of the underlying concepts for re-development of the Lansdowne Park site as presented in the LPP proposal (e.g., a private-sector partnership, revenue neutrality, the use of property taxes, the optimal site for a stadium, etc.)."

By contrast, we have seen all sorts of press statements such as 24hours which ran the headline "makes sense" with the sub-head "City's AG gives thumbs up to Lansdowne partnership".

The reality of what our cautious City Auditor General said is quite different from the unrestrained boosterism of the local media.

Press the reset button!

On Nov. 12 I appeared before the Committee of the Whole and delivered the following speech.

Quote
In my view, the appropriate decision is to "press the reset button". I urge you to end this process now and stop wasting resources on a faulty approach. I am not challenging the assertion that you have been acting legally. I expect you to avoid illegality; I hope that you seek to make wise decisions.
So I have written my remarks with the objective of contributing to your debate. Feel free to steal any ideas you like.
Back on April 22, Council authorized negotiations with Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group. You provided an impossibly weak negotiating position to the City team involved in the process.
As far as I can see, Council’s instructions were – come back with a deal, any kind of deal. You did not put the City negotiating team in a position in which they could walk away from the table. Such negotiations result in one-sided arrangements.
And now that the outcome of the negotiations is before you, here are some pointed questions I urge you to address in your debate.
Why should taxpayers stump up $110 million for upgrading the stadium and arena? The correspondence from the Canadian Football League does not call for luxury. The documentation before you does call for some work on the facilities. It notes that strengthening of the raker beam is required to end temporary loading restrictions, but with those restrictions the stadium can be used. It calls for cleaning and painting the stadium roof and addressing the problem of water infiltration. The documents do not specify the need for comfy new seats or crystal chandeliers in the VIP boxes. And it is not just a question of inflating the cost of the upgrades, this also delays until 2013 the possibility of having a football (or soccer) team on the field generating revenue.
Why should taxpayers provide $19.3 million for parking? None of this parking is for the stadium or civic centre. Those parking requirements are fully grandfathered – what ever that is supposed to mean. No, the parking paid for by the city is for the customers coming to the shopping centre and cinema. I expect that small business owners who are forced to satisfy the zoning by-law’s onerous demands for parking might question why their competitors receive this kind assistance.
And if the parking requirements for the stadium and civic centre can be grandfathered because those facilities exist today, why could the same not be done for the trade and consumer show industry?　
Consider the fundamentals. In a risky business venture, a prudent businessman will attempt to limit his financial exposure by minimizing the investment up front. In the Lansdowne Partnership, the investment in upgrading the stadium is the most risky part of the project. That is paid 100% by the taxpayers but we have seen no real analysis to reduce this up-front investment.
Now some people consider that the project at Lansdowne is "revenue neutral" and will not cost a penny. I submit more of our citizens believe in the tooth fairy than in the fiction of "revenue neutrality".
For decades Council has consistently failed to adequately provide for upkeep at Lansdowne but now your solemn pledge to do so in the future is bankable? Not at my bank!
Moreover you are contemplating a new policy in which property taxes can be designated to support specific city undertakings. Please do not take this path. If you truly believe that taxpayers’ money should go into rehabilitating Lansdowne, say so. Do not hide behind this Enron-style accounting sleight-of -hand.
Finally, the only financial return to the city from this partnership comes from net cash flow dribbling down through the famous "waterfall". Note that the Auditor-General has pointed out that there is no definition of "net cash flow". It is whatever is left over after OSEG has been fully reimbursed for its management, coordination and other services (of which I am sure there will be many).
In conclusion, it is time to abandon the Lansdowne Live detour. We have wasted eighteen months on this fruitless exercise. Get back on track by making decisions about what is to be done and how it will be funded. Take more than a passing interest in the financial impact on the taxpayer. Put to rest ideas of inventing new ways of cooking the books. Secure good value for the tax dollar. Press the reset button!
Unquote

I guess my delivery (by which I managed to fit all this into five minutes -- not easy -- try reading it outloud with a stopwatch) was a bit vigorous. At any rate, Dave Reevely, writing in his blog "Greater Ottawa" described it as "virulent". Well I probably should be happy that he saved "violent", "vituperative", "vitriolic", "voluble", "virus-spreading" and "vulgarizing" for another day. However I wouldn't have minded "vulpine".....

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.

Distractions and perplexities

So what is the deal for Lansdowne that is up for discussion anyway?

The media is carrying stories indicating that Councillors are actively working to restructure the great Lansdowne Partnership which was proclaimed with such ballyhoo on September 2. It is surprising that some Councillors who rushed to praise the proposal on the moment of its release (and, in one case, lauded the arrangement prior to seeing it!) are now working to shore up the plan and patch its weak points.

To be fair to OSEG, the private sector players in the deal, they have been consistent in affirming that there is some flexibility to their proposal. However today, Mr. Greenberg, as spokeman for OSEG, indicated that he is coming to the end of his patience. He wants Council to sign on the dotted line in early November, commiting the City to the arrangement.

I suspect that much of the activity by Councillors is in reaction to the possibility that OSEG will walk away. No doubt some Councillors are so closely associated with this plan that they will offer further concessions to OSEG to keep them in the game.

The principals of OSEG say that their interest is in bringing football back to Ottawa. Put aside all the discussion about other matters and talk about what they claim is their objective.

Unfortunately the entire discussion is obscured by the notion of "revenue neutrality". In order to generate tax revenues to pay for the stadium and civic centre renovations, some Councillors are convinced that they need to grant land for a shopping centre, offices, a hotel and residences.

Mr. Greenberg is right when he says that if the shopping centre is reduced in size, tax revenues would be diminished and (using the crackpot accounting favoured by some) the delicate balance of "revenue neutrality" would be disturbed. Mr. Greenberg goes on to say that with a reduced shopping centre, the "gap" in tax revenue could be made up by authorizing offices, a hotel and residential development.

All this discussion is akin to the medieval issue of how many angels could dance on the tip of a pin. The concept of "revenue neutrality" is simply invalid. We should stop talking about a nonsense topic.

The real question which Councillors should be considering is whether they are willing to commit 129.3 million dollars. Any Councillor who votes to support that should explain why that is the most important investment for the City to make -- in particular, why it trumps fixing the sewer system or improving transit. He/she should also explain why such a large investment is required.

If the purpose is to extend the use of the civic centre, they should ask exactly what that would cost. They should eliminate the frills and invest in the basics, if they want to do anything at all. Then they should look at the stadium. If they really want to have a working football/soccer stadium, determine how little could be spent to make it workable. Invest that minimal amount and see if football/soccer is viable. From the revenue generated from the civic centre and stadium make further investments as appropriate.

But this discussion about restoring the civic centre and stadium should be divorced entirely from the concept of "revenue neutrality".

There is no reason to size the commercial development on the site to generate a specific amount of property tax. If there is a market for the commercial enterprises proposed, they will be built somewhere and taxes will be paid.