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.
Monday, July 4, 2011
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!
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Foolishness versus illegality
In the seven days in which Ontario Superior Court has heard the case of Friends of Lansdowne versus the City of Ottawa, the complex Lansdowne Partnership Plan has been discussed in great detail. As I have listened to the lawyers present their clients' positions, is has been clear that there is much to criticize.
But for the Court, no matter how unwise or even foolish the arrangement may be, the issue is: do the City's actions constitute a violation of law?
The question of legality goes beyond what is sensible. There is no law against making a bad decision, or, put more bluntly -- stupidity can be perfectly legal.
The argument from the Friends of Lansdowne centres on three issues:
- Can the City of Ottawa ignore its own procurement policies without violating the requirement in the Municipal Act that it establish and maintain such policies;
- Has the financial arrrangment struck with Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group provided a benefit to a private party which is contrary to the Municipal Act; and
- Has the action of the City in withholding information or in presenting misleading information to the public and to elected officials constituted bad faith.
If the Court finds that any one of the allegations by the Friends of Lansdowne is valid, there may be a basis on which the the actions of the City may be nullified.
But in looking forward to the prospect that the Court might indeed quash the City's arrangment with OSEG, what exactly would that mean in practical terms?
While such a decision by the Court would certainly be a major story in the media and could be a political bombshell, it need not set back the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park in a major way. If the City really wants to rebuild the stadium and fix up the arena, it can go ahead and do so. After all, the City is putting up all the money for the redevelopment. If the City would like to have another organization take on the management of the facilities or to take responsibility for maintenance, it can readily run a competition to select firms to supply such services. If the City wants to sell or lease some of the property to generate revenue, it can do so.
In the hearing last week, the Lansdowne Partnership Plan was likened to a marriage. These days there are all sorts of ways in which relationships develop which are not marriages. And many of us would advise our adult children that rushing into marriage can be unwise.
If the Court decides that the LPP marriage should be annulled, that might be the best outcome for both parties.
But for the Court, no matter how unwise or even foolish the arrangement may be, the issue is: do the City's actions constitute a violation of law?
The question of legality goes beyond what is sensible. There is no law against making a bad decision, or, put more bluntly -- stupidity can be perfectly legal.
The argument from the Friends of Lansdowne centres on three issues:
- Can the City of Ottawa ignore its own procurement policies without violating the requirement in the Municipal Act that it establish and maintain such policies;
- Has the financial arrrangment struck with Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group provided a benefit to a private party which is contrary to the Municipal Act; and
- Has the action of the City in withholding information or in presenting misleading information to the public and to elected officials constituted bad faith.
If the Court finds that any one of the allegations by the Friends of Lansdowne is valid, there may be a basis on which the the actions of the City may be nullified.
But in looking forward to the prospect that the Court might indeed quash the City's arrangment with OSEG, what exactly would that mean in practical terms?
While such a decision by the Court would certainly be a major story in the media and could be a political bombshell, it need not set back the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park in a major way. If the City really wants to rebuild the stadium and fix up the arena, it can go ahead and do so. After all, the City is putting up all the money for the redevelopment. If the City would like to have another organization take on the management of the facilities or to take responsibility for maintenance, it can readily run a competition to select firms to supply such services. If the City wants to sell or lease some of the property to generate revenue, it can do so.
In the hearing last week, the Lansdowne Partnership Plan was likened to a marriage. These days there are all sorts of ways in which relationships develop which are not marriages. And many of us would advise our adult children that rushing into marriage can be unwise.
If the Court decides that the LPP marriage should be annulled, that might be the best outcome for both parties.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Rube Goldberg remembered
Back in the thirties and forties, there was a noted cartoonist, Rube Goldberg (and a similar British humourist, Heath Robinson) who drew pictures of very complex arrangements of mechanisms to accomplish mundane tasks. Bubbling tea kettles and bouncing balls combined with other devices to turn pages in newspapers or stir soup pots.
After sitting in court for seven days listening to the description of the Lansdowne Partnership Plan, I could not help thinking of those cartoons from the past. The lawyers from both sides described an extraordinarily complex business arrangement. But try as I might, I could not see the need for such complexity.
Much of the humour in the old cartoons comes from imagining the foolishness which would prompt anyone to assemble such ludicrous arrangements. I would have enjoyed the humour in the complexity of the Lansdowne setup, but I kept remembering that somehow I was paying for it all.
In fact, the more the complex arrangement was explained to the judge, the less funny it seemed. The complexity looked as if it were designed to conceal the reality of the arrangement rather than actually contributing to a positive outcome.
After sitting in court for seven days listening to the description of the Lansdowne Partnership Plan, I could not help thinking of those cartoons from the past. The lawyers from both sides described an extraordinarily complex business arrangement. But try as I might, I could not see the need for such complexity.
Much of the humour in the old cartoons comes from imagining the foolishness which would prompt anyone to assemble such ludicrous arrangements. I would have enjoyed the humour in the complexity of the Lansdowne setup, but I kept remembering that somehow I was paying for it all.
In fact, the more the complex arrangement was explained to the judge, the less funny it seemed. The complexity looked as if it were designed to conceal the reality of the arrangement rather than actually contributing to a positive outcome.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Myths about the process
Today I had the pleasure of appearing on CFRA as one of the candidates running in the upcoming municipal election and I was asked about the Lansdowne Partnership plan. When I said that I considered Council's decision to proceed was unwise, I was asked to elaborate.
I commented that there are two essential steps in considering a public/private partnership.
The first is to calculate what the project would cost if done as a purely public undertaking. The second step is to solicit bids for alternative approaches from private sector partners. I said that neither of these steps had been accomplished in Ottawa's involvement in Lansdowne.
I was challenged with an assertion that a costing for a public undertaking had been prepared. My retort was that I did not consider that anything approaching a satisfactory examination of the cost of a public project had been done. I continue to believe that is the case and would invite anyone out in the blogosphere who believes this basic first step was done to correct me.
I commented that there are two essential steps in considering a public/private partnership.
The first is to calculate what the project would cost if done as a purely public undertaking. The second step is to solicit bids for alternative approaches from private sector partners. I said that neither of these steps had been accomplished in Ottawa's involvement in Lansdowne.
I was challenged with an assertion that a costing for a public undertaking had been prepared. My retort was that I did not consider that anything approaching a satisfactory examination of the cost of a public project had been done. I continue to believe that is the case and would invite anyone out in the blogosphere who believes this basic first step was done to correct me.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
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.
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.
Defiance of Council by City Manager
Who is running things at City Hall?
I have just begun to read the report of the Auditor General which was delivered at a Council meeting on June 17. Right at the front of the report the AG notes that Council had approved a motion (77/11) on November 9, 2009 in which the City Manager was instructed to "commission an independent study to evaluate the various consequences of dedicating property taxes to a single expenditure in the City's budget and the Auditor General verify the methodology".
The Auditor General notes that "Management did not complete the independent study referred to in Motion 77/11. As such, the Auditor General could not verify the methodology."
So Council directs the City Manager to deliver a study, but nothing is done. In spite of the fact that this is one of the studies that Council directed to be delivered in conjunction with its consideration of the so-called Lansdowne Partnership plan, it seems that Council is about to proceed to consider the plan regardless.
This is the same City Manager that cancelled a design competition for Lansdowne Park even though it had been approved by Council. The City Manager failed to come back to Council to seek its approval for the cancellation -- apparently he just went ahead and did it on his own. Later he did indicate, without remorse, that this may have been an error. Such reversal of a Council decision is something that Council itself cannot do easily, but it appears that the City Manager can do as he wishes.
Now we have the second time the City Manager has defied Council and refused to carry out its instructions.
It is time for a motion of censure to be brought before Council. In addition, any further discussion of the infamous Lansdowne Partnership plan should be deferred until the report called for in motion 77/11 is delivered and considered by Council.
I have just begun to read the report of the Auditor General which was delivered at a Council meeting on June 17. Right at the front of the report the AG notes that Council had approved a motion (77/11) on November 9, 2009 in which the City Manager was instructed to "commission an independent study to evaluate the various consequences of dedicating property taxes to a single expenditure in the City's budget and the Auditor General verify the methodology".
The Auditor General notes that "Management did not complete the independent study referred to in Motion 77/11. As such, the Auditor General could not verify the methodology."
So Council directs the City Manager to deliver a study, but nothing is done. In spite of the fact that this is one of the studies that Council directed to be delivered in conjunction with its consideration of the so-called Lansdowne Partnership plan, it seems that Council is about to proceed to consider the plan regardless.
This is the same City Manager that cancelled a design competition for Lansdowne Park even though it had been approved by Council. The City Manager failed to come back to Council to seek its approval for the cancellation -- apparently he just went ahead and did it on his own. Later he did indicate, without remorse, that this may have been an error. Such reversal of a Council decision is something that Council itself cannot do easily, but it appears that the City Manager can do as he wishes.
Now we have the second time the City Manager has defied Council and refused to carry out its instructions.
It is time for a motion of censure to be brought before Council. In addition, any further discussion of the infamous Lansdowne Partnership plan should be deferred until the report called for in motion 77/11 is delivered and considered by Council.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)