In my previous post, I presented the text of my "virulent" oral submission delivered to Council on November 12. I had submitted my text in advance (and changed only a few words in oral delivery). I also provided Councillors with a series of questions which they might wish to use in their debate on the Lansdowne Partnership Plan [LPP].
For your interest and entertainment, here are the questions:
-In the staff report for the Sept. 2 meeting of Council, it is noted that "The proposal also included the development of complementary commercial space, the revenue streams from which were identified as necessary to offset the operational costs of the stadium and civic centre functions." Do such offsets represent a subsidy to tenants and users of the stadium and civic centre, the principal users being the professional sports tenants? As such does this represent a subsidy to professional sports teams as forbidden in motion of Council of April 22?
- In the motions adopted at the meeting of Council of April 22, it was resolved that "the City’s contribution to the revitalization of Lansdowne Park be limited to a dollar amount to be established during the negotiations, to be based on not increasing the overall cost to the taxpayer." It is proposed that the budget allocation for capital costs in the future be increased from the present level of less than $2 million to approximately $3.8 million. Does this represent an increase in overall cost to the taxpayer?
- The staff report to the Sept. 2 meeting of Council stated "The financial due diligence carried out by the City and its consultants on the OSEG proposal has demonstrated, among other things, that the City would be receiving fair value under the Plan." Because there was an absence of competitive bidding, the usual assurance of fair value was not available. What other procedures to demonstrate fair value were employed? Are those studies available for scrutiny?
- It is proposed that Council await a review of the financial assumptions and projections of the partnership proposal. Should the Auditor General be required to prepare such a report using his office’s resources or should he be provided with resources to retain outside expertise to prepare such a report? Is Council prepared to wait until May 2010 for such a report?
- In the staff report for the Nov. 12 meeting of Council it is noted that the proposed Stage Three would involve "...construction of the retail and parking components. Subsequent to this, would be the Civic Centre and Frank Clair stadium rehabilitation...". Why does the rehabilitation of the civic centre and stadium need to await completion of the retail and parking construction?
- In view of the fact that there is no zoning or like issue which could be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, is there any reason that the rehabilitation of the civic centre and stadium could not be initiated immediately?
- It is proposed that the Implementation Plan include a "detailed assessment of the forecasted property tax revenues to be paid by retail and commercial development proposed by the LPP with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation...". Will this examination reveal whether the land value under the retail development will be subject to property tax or will remain exempt from tax as City property?
- It is proposed that a termination agreement form part of the final project agreement for the LPP. Can the City terminate the process now without incurring additional cost?
- It is intended that the partners of the LPP provide "programming that suits Council’s objectives for the site". Is there at present a document setting forth Council’s objectives for the site or is this document yet to be written?
- It is indicated that a Municipal Service Corporation could be created under the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001 and its regulation 599/06 which forbids the creation of subsidiaries. There is also reference to the Ontario Business Corporations Act and the creation of Hydro Ottawa (which clearly does have subsidiary companies). What exactly is the recommendation for creation of a corporation? Which legislation is applicable to the LLP?
- It is indicated in the staff report that the requirement for public consultation regarding the establishment of a Municipal Service Corporation has been fulfilled as part of the LPP featured in the six public consultations held in September and October. How did the prospect of an MSC feature in those consultations?
- It is proposed that shuttle services be instituted to bring patrons to events at Lansdowne from satellite parking locations. Is it envisaged that by-laws protecting the monopoly over transit service enjoyed by OC Transpo will need to be altered to allow such shuttle service?
- Parks Canada is reported as having a "willingness to work with the City to achieve Council’s objectives for the site". Has an outline of Council’s objectives for the site been conveyed to Parks Canada? Is this document available for examination?
- It is proposed that the City’s property of 59 acres adjacent to the Albion Road site of the Central Canada Exhibition Association (CCEA) be transferred to the CCEA for use as parking. Is the property to be sold or granted to the CCEA? What is the value of the property in question?
- How was it determined that the requirement of the trade and consumer show industry "...would create significant conflicts to achieving the other goals set out by Council for Lansdowne...". Which specific goals create conflicts?
- It is indicated that "...purpose built trade and consumer show facilities in most cities are usually located outside the central areas of thos cities..." How was this determined? Is there a list of cities studied to produce this statement?
- Why should the search for an alternative site for trade and consumer shows be initiated with Shenkman Corporation particularly? Are there no other landowners in Ottawa who could have property which could be used for this purpose? Why is it not intended to issue a general request for proposals?
- If no alternative site for the trade and consumer show industry is identified, does this render void the LPP and require that show space be provided at Lansdowne?
- It is proposed that the lease for the stadium be a "net net lease". What is this exactly and why is it proposed? Are similar arrangements proposed for the civic centre?
- At the public consultations held in September and October, "city staff and other subject matter experts were available to receive input from residents...". Was any report prepared about the input received at those events by staff and experts?
- In the motion of Council adopted on September 2 authorizing public consultations reference is made to "...public consultation plan included in the Lansdowne Partnership Plan". In the plan document appears the the text "The format would be a series of open houses, with the opportunity to ask questions of City staff and the private sector principals. Similar to the Official Plan Review’s ‘City Café approach, these sessions would allow for a comprehensive discussion of the proposed redevelopment...". Did the public consultations conducted in September and October follow the procedures set out in the Plan and subject to Council motion?
I will be following the debate with interest to see if any of these questions arise. If nothing else, it would be a way for a Councillor to give the impression that he/she had actually read some of the documentation.
Showing posts with label trade show. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trade show. Show all posts
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Sweeping statements
There is too much salesmanship masquerading as analysis around the Lansdowne project.
I have been re-reading the staff report to Council on the Lansdowne partnership proposal and am irritated that what purports to be analysis is in fact a sales brochure.
In my earlier posting "Contradiction and confusion" I noted that the staff report claimed that housing would only be built in phase 2, an optional second stage of the project. This is contradicted by the Memorandum of Understanding.
I also noted that the infamous waterfall of revenue is misdescribed in the staff report. The report suggests that the City is in first and fourth position to receive revenue. In fact the first revenues simply go into a reserve fund. The City is dead last to get anything out of the project.
But on re-reading there are other statements that leap out as unsubstantiated claims. For example, it is maintained that "enhancing trade show and consumer show space on the site would have jeopardized... ...a transformation plan that respects the intention of Council's motion, the unique characteristics of Lansdowne Park, and the financial viability and long-term sustainability of the site." I have seen no evidence to support such a claim.
On the financial front, the staff report says "Compared with historical operations of Lansdowne, the project is expected to generate positive cash flow to the City over the life of the proposed agreement with OSEG". What does such a sales pitch mean? Does is mean that a positive cash flow will be received over the life of the project? Or maybe it means that the negative position of the City will be less than in the "historical operations of Lansdowne"? What is taken into account in coming up with such a statement? How would the cash flow compare if a different sort of arrangement were struck (selling an asset, or receiving rent for example)?
And the most laughable of all is the statement "The financial due diligence carried out by the City and its consultants on the OSEG proposal has demonstrated, among other things, that the City would be receiving fair value under the Plan." For suspicious outsiders, the failure to release any of the meaningful analysis backing this statement looks strange. Moreover, the fact that the City is proposing to strike this deal with the consortium that refused from the outset to contemplate entering into any sort of competition, raises no end of red flags.
Now the really dedicated reader will have noted that there is a document prepared by Pricewaterhouse Coopers among the many documents issued in respect of this proposal. Some might be lulled into believing that a large and highly regarded firm has blessed this project and declared its finances above reproach. No, the Pricewaterhouse Coopers document has an interesting disclaimer at the end. Translated into layman's language is says - 'we were hired to prepare some Power Point slides and here they are'.
Frankly the staff report, thrust under the Councillors' noses at the last minute on September 2 is a disappointment. It is not surprising that the Councillors adopted a flurry of motions to try to get answers to questions which the the staff report failed to address.
Redevelopment of Lansdowne is an important issue for Ottawa. It should be the subject of sensible debate and analysis. Sweeping statements of assurance are to be expected from a salesman. What we need is real analysis.
I have been re-reading the staff report to Council on the Lansdowne partnership proposal and am irritated that what purports to be analysis is in fact a sales brochure.
In my earlier posting "Contradiction and confusion" I noted that the staff report claimed that housing would only be built in phase 2, an optional second stage of the project. This is contradicted by the Memorandum of Understanding.
I also noted that the infamous waterfall of revenue is misdescribed in the staff report. The report suggests that the City is in first and fourth position to receive revenue. In fact the first revenues simply go into a reserve fund. The City is dead last to get anything out of the project.
But on re-reading there are other statements that leap out as unsubstantiated claims. For example, it is maintained that "enhancing trade show and consumer show space on the site would have jeopardized... ...a transformation plan that respects the intention of Council's motion, the unique characteristics of Lansdowne Park, and the financial viability and long-term sustainability of the site." I have seen no evidence to support such a claim.
On the financial front, the staff report says "Compared with historical operations of Lansdowne, the project is expected to generate positive cash flow to the City over the life of the proposed agreement with OSEG". What does such a sales pitch mean? Does is mean that a positive cash flow will be received over the life of the project? Or maybe it means that the negative position of the City will be less than in the "historical operations of Lansdowne"? What is taken into account in coming up with such a statement? How would the cash flow compare if a different sort of arrangement were struck (selling an asset, or receiving rent for example)?
And the most laughable of all is the statement "The financial due diligence carried out by the City and its consultants on the OSEG proposal has demonstrated, among other things, that the City would be receiving fair value under the Plan." For suspicious outsiders, the failure to release any of the meaningful analysis backing this statement looks strange. Moreover, the fact that the City is proposing to strike this deal with the consortium that refused from the outset to contemplate entering into any sort of competition, raises no end of red flags.
Now the really dedicated reader will have noted that there is a document prepared by Pricewaterhouse Coopers among the many documents issued in respect of this proposal. Some might be lulled into believing that a large and highly regarded firm has blessed this project and declared its finances above reproach. No, the Pricewaterhouse Coopers document has an interesting disclaimer at the end. Translated into layman's language is says - 'we were hired to prepare some Power Point slides and here they are'.
Frankly the staff report, thrust under the Councillors' noses at the last minute on September 2 is a disappointment. It is not surprising that the Councillors adopted a flurry of motions to try to get answers to questions which the the staff report failed to address.
Redevelopment of Lansdowne is an important issue for Ottawa. It should be the subject of sensible debate and analysis. Sweeping statements of assurance are to be expected from a salesman. What we need is real analysis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)