Report to/Rapport au :

Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee

Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique

and / et

Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement

06 April 2009 / le 06 avril 2009

Submitted by/Soumis par : Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager/Directeur des services municipaux

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Rob Mackay, Manager, Strategic Projects/

Direction de la viabilité économique et de la durabilité de l’environnement

(613) 580-2424 x 22632,rob.mackay@Ottawa.ca

City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

Ref N°: ACS2009-CMR-OCM-0003

SUBJECT:	ASSESSMENT OF STADIUM PROPOSALS – OSEG (LANSDOWNE LIVE) AND SENATORS SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT (SS&E), KANATA
OBJET :	ÉVALUATION DES PROPOSITIONS D'AMÉNAGEMENT DE STADES - oseg (LANSDOWNE LIVE) et Senators sports and entertainment (SS&E)

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve:

1. The acceptance of the staff assessment of the two unsolicited proposals as summarized in this report,

2. That staff be directed to immediately contact representatives of the Provincial and Federal governments to request formal confirmation by 20 April 2009, that there are no opportunities for funding for a new sports and entertainment facility outside of the Build Canada Program or any other program for which Council’s Transportation Master Plan projects would be eligible,

3. That, should Council deem that the construction or reconstruction of a sports and entertainment facility at a capital cost in excess of $100 million dollars represents an infrastructure investment priority for Council at this time, then:

1. That Council direct staff to proceed to the next stage of the evaluation process as per the Opportunity Assessment Framework with the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) and Senators Sports and Entertainment (SS&E) proponents. This stage will involve completing the necessary due diligence of the two proposals to ensure all costs have been accounted for and the City is receiving best value in accordance with the process outlined in this report and prior to end of September 2009, or

4. That, should Council not deem that the construction or reconstruction of a sports and entertainment facility at a capital cost in excess of $100 million dollars represents an infrastructure investment priority for Council at this time, then:

1. That both proposals not be pursued further on the basis that the total cost of either proposal prevents them from being an investment priority for Council at this time,

2. That staff be directed to immediately develop alternative redevelopment scenarios for Lansdowne Park in accordance with the process outlined in this report so that Council may establish a new vision for the long-term redevelopment of Lansdowne Park prior to the end of this year, and

3. That staff be directed to immediately complete a comprehensive study to determine the best location for a new sports and entertainment facility that would be designed to serve the needs of the City of Ottawa for the next seventy-years in accordance with the process outlined in this report.

RECOMMANDATIONS :

Que le Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique et le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommandent au Conseil :

1. L’approbation de l’évaluation du personnel des deux propositions spontanées résumées dans le présent rapport.
2. L’approbation de la demande au personnel de communiquer immédiatement avec des fonctionnaires fédéraux et provinciaux pour demander la confirmation officielle le 20 avril 2009 au plus tard qu’il n’y a pas d’occasion de financer une nouvelle installation de divertissements et de sports hors du programme Chantiers Canada et de tout autre programme auquel sont admissibles les projets du Plan directeur des transports du Conseil.
3. Si le Conseil considère que l’aménagement ou le réaménagement d’une installation de divertissements et de sports au coût d’immobilisations de plus de 100 millions de dollars représente un investissement prioritaire dans l’infrastructure pour le Conseil actuellement :

1. Que le Conseil demande au personnel de passer à l’étape suivante du processus d’évaluation selon le Cadre d’évaluation des projets de stades avec les promoteurs de l’Ottawa Stadium and Entertainment Group (OSEG) et de Senators Sports and Entertainment (SS&E). Cette étape comprendra l’achèvement de la célérité raisonnable nécessaire des deux propositions pour garantir qu’on a tenu compte de tous les coûts et que la Ville obtient la meilleure valeur conformément au processus décrit dans le présent rapport et avant la fin de septembre 2009.
3. Si le Conseil ne considère pas que l’aménagement ou le réaménagement d’une installation de divertissements et de sports au coût d’immobilisations de plus de 100 millions de dollars représente un investissement prioritaire dans l’infrastructure pour le Conseil actuellement :
1. Qu’il n’y ait pas de suivi des deux propositions parce que le coût total de l’une ou l’autre l’empêche d’être un investissement prioritaire pour le Conseil actuellement.
2. Qu’on demande au personnel de formuler immédiatement d’autres scénarios de réaménagement du parc Lansdowne conformément au processus décrit dans le présent rapport pour que le Conseil trace une nouvelle vision du réaménagement à long terme du parc Lansdowne avant la fin de cette année.
3. Qu’on demande au personnel d’achever immédiatement une étude approfondie pour déterminer le meilleur endroit où aménager une nouvelle installation de divertissements et de sports qui serait conçue pour répondre aux besoins de la Ville d’Ottawa pendant les soixante-dix prochaines années conformément au processus décrit dans le présent rapport.

1) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has received two unsolicited proposals for the design, construction, operation, maintenance and programming of multi-purpose sports and entertainment facilities in Ottawa:

Ÿ Lansdowne Live (LL), submitted by the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG), which proposes the rehabilitation of Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre at Lansdowne Park along with additional development on 9.4 acres of this 37.5 acre site. This project team has a conditional Canadian Football League (CFL) franchise; and

Ÿ Senators Sports & Entertainment (SS&E) submission for the development of a soccer specific stadium on City owned land in Kanata, in proximity to Scotiabank Place. This project team has submitted a formal expansion application to Major League Soccer (MLS) and is in ongoing discussions with MLS with regard to bringing a team to Ottawa.

City Council approved a Stadium Opportunity Assessment Framework (2 March 2009, Ref N°:ACS2009-ICS-CSS-0018) to obtain additional information and clarity on these proposals in order to gain a more fulsome understanding of the opportunities, risks, financial implications and how each project compares to other municipal priorities. The following provides the results of this Assessment.

In accordance with the Stadium Opportunity Assessment Framework, following the assessment, the City may, at its sole and absolute discretion, choose to proceed with:

• Further analysis of both projects;

• Further analysis of only one project; or

• No further analysis on either of the projects.

The proposals have been evaluated in accordance with criteria approved by City Council. Commercially Confidential Meetings were held with both proponents. The process was monitored under the supervision of a Fairness Commissioner.

Overall, the evaluation process determined that both submissions, while different in scope and elements, met the evaluation criteria. The extent to which the proposals met the evaluation criteria varied. Indeed, both proposals were identified as having shortcomings and areas for possible improvement. Notably, the SS&E proposal was deemed to carry a higher level of risk to the City, as their proposal requires the City to bear greater levels of construction and operating risks. On the other hand, the OSEG proposal comprises a major rehabilitation of an older stadium structure with potential cost escalation risks. The costs of rehabilitation are to be borne by the City and have not yet been firmly established.

In considering the results of the evaluation it should be recognized both submissions are concepts and not detailed proposals. This level of detail reflects what was requested and is not deemed a shortcoming of the submissions. It does, however result in less information being available for review at this stage. Notwithstanding, both submissions included sufficient information to enable staff to apply the evaluation criteria and complete the evaluations.

In addition to the qualitative evaluation, proposals were also assessed in terms of their cost implications to the City and Section 3 of the Council report will further elaborate on these costs.

Inextricably linked and thus also analyzed for comparative purposes, are go-forward cost estimates to the City associated with retaining and maintaining Lansdowne Park. Numerous options exist in this regard, but under an existing program mandate for Frank Clair Stadium and Civic Centre, this amount has been estimated at approximately $3.8 million annually, comprising operating costs, minor capital and major lifecycle reinvestment.

Staff assessed the costs associated with the SS&E and OSEG proposals, as well as other related options such as the redevelopment of the Lansdowne Park with the removal of the Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre. The financial analysis of the options shows that both SS&E and OSEG proposals require long-term City investment/funding, which is greater than the annual investment needed to maintain facilities at Lansdowne Park ($3.8 million, as above). This additional funding (or gap) ranges from approximately $2.9 million to $8.7 million annually, depending upon the option pursued.

This investment could be lessened in the event the City was able to secure higher level funding for the project (from the Provincial and/or Federal) outside of the Build Canada fund or any other program for which Council’s Transportation Master Plan projects would be eligible. As there is no clear or current commitment for this funding, it has not been assumed in the analysis of the options.

In view of the costs associated with both proposals, Council must determine if the level of investment is a priority to the City. If it is deemed to represent a priority at this time, it is recommended Council direct staff to proceed to the next stage of the evaluation with both proponents, as described in this report and recommendations.

If this investment does not represent a priority, it is recommended that Council direct staff to immediately develop alternate redevelopment scenarios for Lansdowne Park and complete a comprehensive study to determine the best location for a new sports and entertainment facility in the City of Ottawa. This process is also described in this report and recommendations.

1) SOMMAIRE

La Ville a reçu deux propositions spontanées pour la conception, l’aménagement, l’exploitation, le maintien et la programmation d’installations de divertissements et de sports à usages multiples à Ottawa :

Ÿ Lansdowne Live (LL) présenté par l’Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) qui propose la remise en état du stade Frank Clair et du Centre civique au parc Lansdowne, ainsi qu’un aménagement supplémentaire sur une superficie de 9,4 acres de cet emplacement de 37,5 acres. Cette équipe de projet a une concession conditionnelle de la Ligue canadienne de football (LCF).

Ÿ Une présentation de Senators Sports and Entertainment (SS&E) sur l’aménagement d’un stade de soccer en particulier sur un terrain municipal à Kanata, à proximité de la place Banque Scotia. Cette équipe de projet a présenté une demande officielle d’expansion à la Major League Soccer (MLS) et est en discussion actuellement avec MLS pour accueillir une équipe à Ottawa.

Le Conseil municipal a approuvé le Cadre d’évaluation des projets de stades (le 2 mars 2009, n^o de réf. ACS2009-ICS-CSS-0018) pour obtenir de l’information et des précisions supplémentaires sur ces propositions, afin de mieux comprendre les occasions, les risques, les répercussions financières, et de déterminer comment chaque projet se compare à d’autres priorités municipales. Les résultats de cette évaluation suivent.

Selon le Cadre d’évaluation des projets de stades, la Ville peut à sa discrétion après l’évaluation choisir :

• de procéder à une analyse ultérieure des deux projets,

• de procéder à une analyse ultérieure d’un projet seulement,

• de ne pas procéder à une analyse ultérieure d’un projet ou l’autre.

Les propositions ont été évaluées conformément aux critères approuvés par le Conseil municipal. Il y a eu des rencontres commerciales confidentielles avec les deux promoteurs. Le processus a été surveillé sous la supervision d’un commissaire de l’équité.

Le processus d’évaluation a déterminé dans l’ensemble que la portée et les éléments des deux présentations sont différents, mais que ces dernières répondent aux critères d’évaluation. Les deux propositions n’ont pas répondu aux critères d’évaluation dans la même mesure. Elles ont en fait révélé des lacunes et des secteurs d’améliorations possibles. On considère en particulier que la proposition de SS&E comprend un niveau plus élevé de risque pour la Ville parce que celle‑ci doit assumer davantage de risques pour l’aménagement et l’exploitation. La proposition de l’OSEG d’autre part comprend une remise en état majeure d’une ancienne structure du stade et des risques d’escalade possible des coûts. La Ville devrait se charger des coûts de remise en état qui ne sont pas encore établis fermement.

Compte tenu des résultats de l’évaluation, il faut admettre que les deux présentations sont des concepts et non des propositions détaillées. Le genre de détails reflète ce qui a été demandé et n’est pas considéré comme une lacune des présentations. Le résultat donne évidemment moins d’information disponible pour examen à cette étape. Les deux présentations comprennent néanmoins suffisamment d’information pour permettre au personnel d’appliquer les critères d’évaluation et d’achever les évaluations.

Outre l’évaluation qualitative, les propositions ont aussi été examinées pour déterminer les répercussions financières sur la Ville et ces coûts sont décrits à la Section 3 du rapport au Conseil.

Inextricablement liées et donc aussi analysées à des fins comparatives sont les estimations des coûts pour aller de l’avant à la charge de la Ville si elle retient et maintient le parc Lansdowne. Il y a de nombreuses options en ce sens, mais, selon le mandat du programme actuel pour le stade Frank Clair et le Centre civique, ce montant est estimé à environ 3,8 M$ par année, y compris les frais d’exploitation, des immobilisations mineures et un réinvestissement majeur pour le cycle de vie.

Le personnel a évalué les coûts des propositions de SS&E et de l’OSEG, ainsi que d’autres options connexes, notamment, le réaménagement du parc Lansdowne et l’élimination du stade Frank Clair et du Centre civique. L’analyse financière des options révèle que les propositions de SS&E et de l’OSEG exigent un investissement – financement à long terme de la Ville qui est plus élevé que l’investissement annuel d’environ 3,8 M$ nécessaire pour retenir et maintenir les installations au parc Lansdowne. Ce financement supplémentaire (ou écart) se situe environ entre 2,9 et 8,9 M$ par année selon l’option choisie.

Cet investissement serait moindre si la Ville pouvait obtenir un financement (du gouvernement provincial ou fédéral) pour le projet à l’extérieur du programme Chantiers Canada ou de tout autre programme auquel les projets du Plan directeur des transports du Conseil seraient admissibles. Comme il n’y a pas d’engagement actuel ou évident pour ce financement, il n’est donc pas pris pour acquis dans l’analyse des options.

Étant donné les coûts des deux propositions, le Conseil doit déterminer si le niveau d’investissement est une priorité pour la Ville. S’il est considéré prioritaire actuellement, il est recommandé que le Conseil demande au personnel de passer à l’étape suivante de l’évaluation avec les deux promoteurs comme il est décrit dans le présent rapport et les recommandations.

Si cet investissement n’est pas prioritaire, il est recommandé que le Conseil demande au personnel d’élaborer immédiatement d’autres scénarios de réaménagement pour le parc Lansdowne et d’achever une étude approfondie pour déterminer le meilleur endroit où aménager une nouvelle installation de divertissements et de sports dans la ville d’Ottawa. Ce processus est aussi décrit dans le présent rapport et les recommandations.

2) BACKGROUND

2a) Chronology of Events

In June 2008, staff reported to City Council that the Design Lansdowne competition was to be put on hold, pending a structural review of the Civic Centre/Frank Clair stadium complex. The Design Lansdowne process resulted in the development of a series of Guiding Principles for the future design of Lansdowne Park and involved industry and public consultations.

Subsequently, the City received two unsolicited proposals for the development/redevelopment of major sports and entertainment facilities in the City of Ottawa:

Ÿ Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group’s (OSEG) proposal for the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park (Lansdowne Live), dated 20 October 2008 and

Ÿ Senators Sports & Entertainment (SS&E) proposal for the development a soccer specific stadium in Kanata, January 2009.

As well, in August 2008, the City commissioned a Needs Analysis for Multi-Purpose Sports and Entertainment Facilities (CRG Consulting). This study was undertaken to assist the City in determining whether there is a requirement to seek new facilities and/or to expand or renovate existing facilities in the City in order to solidify and strengthen Ottawa’s position in attracting major sporting events, conventions and trade shows, as well as meeting the needs of the community. This study concluded that the requirement for new major sports facilities in Ottawa would be driven by a major need, either facility replacements and/or the need associated with a specific use such as a professional team locating or relocating to Ottawa. The study also concluded that Ottawa could not realistically support more than one new major facility in the near or even medium term. This study was tabled with Planning and Environment Committee on 24 February 2009.

On 2 March 2009, City Council approved a Stadium Opportunity Assessment Framework (Ref N°:ACS2009-ICS-CSS-0018) directing Staff to review the two unsolicited proposals and to provide recommendations as to whether one, both, or neither proposal warrants further evaluation. The assessment consisted of evaluating the two unsolicited proposals against pre-established criteria (as described in Section 5, herein).

3) THE PROPOSALS

3a) Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group Proposal – Lansdowne Live

The City received an initial proposal from OSEG for the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park on 20 October 2008. Additional information has been submitted in the interim and in accordance with the Assessment Framework, a final proposal was received by the City on 18 March 2009. As well the City received a Fact Sheet (Document 1) from the proponent which explains the key points of their proposal, its costs and benefits.

The OSEG proposal calls for rejuvenation and redevelopment of the Lansdowne Park site. The following elements are included in the Lansdowne Live proposal, and are illustrated on the proposed Site Plan (Document 2):

• Renovations to Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre: The OSEG proposes that the 20,172 seat Frank Clair Stadium( previous seating before the loss of the lower south side stands was 26,559) and the 9,261 seat (fixed seats ) Civic Centre be upgraded. It is proposed that the City fund this renovation, and the work be undertaken by OSEG. A Class D estimate is included in the OSEG proposal at a cost of $97 million (2010 dollars). This cost estimate is not considered firm and it is acknowledged by the OSEG that further due diligence is needed on this estimate. The modernized facilities will accommodate the current Ottawa 67’s hockey franchise and a new CFL franchise. OSEG also intends to pursue other sports and entertainment events (concerts, etc.) for the stadium. They have confirmed that the proposed renovations to Frank Clair Stadium would enable the facility to accommodate and be acceptable for professional soccer (MLS). OSEG are not, however, indicating they will pursue an MLS Franchise, rather they are indicating if one exists in Ottawa, it could play at the renovated Frank Clair Stadium as a tenant. Renovations and additions to Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre Arena will result in both facilities being brought up to current life safety codes, accessibility standards and Ontario Building Code requirements.

New Commercial Development: The OSEG submission proposes redevelopment on 9.4 acres of the 37.5 acres Lansdowne Park site. The land proposed for redevelopment is situated mainly along the Bank Street frontage, and involves the demolition of the Coliseum and Horticultural buildings and their replacement with new retail and commercial uses, and associated parking (located underground). OSEG proposes to enter into a land lease with the City for 30 years at a nominal rent. They will construct approximately 232,000 square feet of retail commercial space in seven buildings, the largest being a two-storey 45,000 square foot cinema complex. In addition, the development would replace lost surface parking with 400 underground spaces. Associated property taxes generated by the commercial development on the site are estimated at $2.5 million annually.

OSEG has indicated that they may also develop a further 150,000 to 200,000 square feet of office/commercial and hotel space on the 9.4 acre site, with amounts and timing dependent upon market conditions, support and demand. This is to be negotiated with the City at a later date and not a condition of the Lansdowne Live proposal as presented in the submission.

• New Residential Development: On the proposed Site Plan, a small residential component, of approximately 20-25 units in a medium density configuration, is identified along the south side of Holmwood Avenue. This linear strip of development would buffer existing residents on Holmwood Avenue from the proposed commercial uses. Similar to the future office and hotel development, this is not part of the immediate OSEG business plan. According to the OSEG proposal, the residential development along Holmwood is at the discretion of the City and any proceeds from the development of the land would be to the City’s account and could be used to offset other costs.

• Other New Development: Uses for the eastern half of the Lansdowne site are not part of the OSEG business plan and simply represent conceptual ideas the City could consider that would be compatible with the new stadium and the commercial uses they have proposed. Should the municipality want to consider other compatible uses on the east half of the site, the OSEG have indicated they will work with the City in identifying possible uses for all or part of this portion of the site. This could include: an aquarium (possibly within and/or adjacent to the Aberdeen Pavilion), soccer pitches, and park areas.

• Farmer’s Market: The existing Farmer’s Market is shown as being retained and relocated, also possibly to the Aberdeen Pavilion. Again, this would be a City decision as to how the Aberdeen Pavilion is to be utilized.

• Trade Show & Exposition Space: The OSEG’s proposal would see the removal of some of the existing trade and consumer show space (now 143,000 sq. ft.) at Lansdowne Park (notably the removal of the Coliseum building – 28,000 square feet). It is expected that the Civic Centre could continue to accommodate trade shows; however, there are a number of scheduling challenges resulting from the OHL requirements for prime weekend time. When the hockey arena is in use trade show space would be limited to 33,000 sq ft in the exhibition hall. Should the Aberdeen Pavilion be utilized for other permanent uses such as an Aquarium, an additional 35,000 sq. ft. would be lost.

• Parking: The OSEG’s proposal is based on having 1,980 on-site parking spaces, which includes construction by OSEG of 400 underground spaces to support the new retail uses, and to replace surface parking lost as a result of the proposed development. In order to remove some of the existing surface parking and develop the park-type uses on the eastern portion of the site, OSEG propose that the City build, at their cost, an additional 575 underground spaces, resulting in a total of 975 parking spaces beneath the retail development. An additional 250 spaces would need to be provided within a new parking structure on the eastern portion of the site in order to achieve the overall plan for the east and west sides of the park as proposed by OSEG, shown on Document 2. Remaining on the surface would be 755 parking spaces that would also accommodate general site circulation and marshalling areas for the stadium. The City recognizes there are benefits (more program and/or green space) associated with replacing much of the current surface parking. There are also economies associated with this work being undertaken at the same time OSEG redevelops the site and builds the 400 underground spaces. The City therefore factored into the financial analysis in this report the cost to the City of developing the 575 underground and 250 structured parking spaces to replace surface parking. The OSEG proposal identified that the cost (estimated at $25.6 million) associated with this parking (575 + 250 spaces = 825 spaces) would be the responsibility of the City. The site currently provides approximately 2,200 surface parking spaces, achieving the minimum requirement of the applicable zoning by-law. The parking provided by the OSEG proposal (1,980 spaces) would no longer conform with the City’s zoning by-law. This matter would need to be reviewed more closely at the due diligence stage should Council choose to move forward with the OSEG proposal. Solutions may impact the cost of the proposal such as paying for additional structured parking or requiring cash in lieu of parking to be paid.

• Planning and Design: The Official Plan designates the Lansdowne Park property primarily as General Urban Area, which permits a wide range of land uses.  Based on the conceptual site plan provided, the proposal appears to conform with the Official Plan. More review will be necessary to make a final determination on the Official Plan conformity.

Bank Street, along the westerly boundary of the site is designated as a Traditional Mainstreet. The Traditional Mainstreet policies of the Official Plan affect development on abutting properties. The policies include support for pedestrian-oriented built form along Bank Street, with no parking in-between the building(s) and the street. “Mixed-use” style development (typically commercial / residential) is also encouraged. Except for the proposed parking structure located in the southwest corner of the property, the conceptual redevelopment plan appears to generally conform to the Traditional Mainstreet policies. However, additional review and analysis would be required in the future to ensure that opportunities to enhance the design of the community are achieved.

The proposed plan as designed affects designated heritage structures on the property. This includes the proposed demolition of the Horticultural Building and possible use of all or a portion of the Aberdeen Pavilion, possibly for an aquarium (tourist attraction). These aspects of the proposed design along with potential impacts on heritage easements and viewscapes require additional review by City, Provincial and Federal government staff and by the Local Architectural Advisory Committee in order to determine if they are recommended.

The current zoning by-law regulations on the property permit the existing buildings and uses. However, an entirely new zone for the site that reflects the proposed range of uses that will adequately address the desired “mainstreet” setbacks from Bank Street, appropriate building heights, mix of land uses, urban parking densities and minimum green space requirements will be needed if the redevelopment plan proceeds.

The proposed plan will also be subject to a Site Plan Control approval process. In addition, staff recommends that a detailed redevelopment plan, if submitted in the future, be vetted through the Downtown Urban Design Review Panel prior to being finalised. The redevelopment plan may be subject to additional planning approvals (i.e. plan of subdivision and/or plan of condominium) as part of implementation.

· Governance (Ownership and Operation): Under the OSEG proposal, the City would retain complete ownership of the site. OSEG would lease the entire site, via a 30-year land lease, at a nominal lease rate. OSEG would take over management, operation and maintenance of all buildings and functions, including the renovated Frank Clair Stadium, Civic Centre, and any new or existing parking areas (surface and/or structured) including those that would be paid for and retained by the City. OSEG do not propose to take over the operations and maintenance of any park-type elements, such as reflecting ponds, soccer pitches and gardens on the east side of the site. According to their proposal all risk and/or rewards associated with the operational responsibilities will flow solely to the OSEG. An independent Board (Community Services Corporation) would be established, with representation from OSEG and the City. The Board would oversee the proposed 30-year lease agreement. At the end of the term, the OSEG has requested that the lease include a renewal option at market rates. OSEG will be responsible for programming the facilities and proposes to contract the facilities management. Post renovation, life cycle repairs and capital maintenance will also be the responsibility of OSEG. The initial legal review of this proposed structure using a Community Services Corporation would suggest that this is a potentially viable corporate structure, at least to the extent that it is worth exploring further at a due diligence stage should Council so direct.

• Costs and Funding

City Costs/Investments: OSEG is proposing that the City pay for the renovations of Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre. This estimate is of a Class D quality and totals $97 million (2010 dollars). Given that the proponent will be renovating an old structure having outdated systems, staff believe that this amount may increase and more refinement to this estimate will be needed at the due diligence stage.

OSEG Costs/Investments:

- In summary, the OSEG is proposing to assume construction costs and risks based on a guaranteed maximum price, once the construction budget is finalized during a due diligence period.

- OSEG will assume all operating, life cycle and programming risks for Frank Clair stadium and the Civic Centre once the structures are renovated.

- All operating costs for the Lansdowne site will be the OSEG’s excluding costs associated with the park type features proposed on the east side of the site (e.g. reflecting ponds, amphitheatre, soccer pitches, etc.).

- The OSEG will initially pay $30 million for the CFL Franchise Fee, start up costs to establish the CFL on the site, CFL performance security requirements and working capital.

• Business Impacts: Retail space contemplated as part of the OSEG proposal comprises 232,000 square feet. A further 150,000 to 200,000 square feet of office commercial and hotel space may also be constructed on the site, with these amounts and timing dependent upon market conditions, support and demand. The retail space consists primarily of units in the 5,000 square foot to 10,000 square foot range. The largest single uses proposed are a 45,000 square foot theatre and a 42,000 square foot specialty food store.

- The additional proposed retail space will most certainly increase the retail “synergy” to this segment of the Bank Street and will close the retailing “gap” between the Glebe and Old Ottawa South. It also has the potential of becoming the southern anchor to the Glebe and the northern anchor to Ottawa South.

- The proposed retail will increase area space by some 57% to 643,000 square feet. An increase of space in this order of magnitude is considerable. Impacts of varying degrees, both positive and negative, are anticipated among existing retail outlets due simply to the additional space.

- Existing area businesses will also be impacted by increased traffic associated with special events which often serve to keep local shoppers away on major event days.

- On the other hand, much of the retail is intended as destination and entertainment type uses and this will bring additional people to the area thereby broadening the market base, rather than diluting the demand for existing businesses. Further, additional parking on the site will strengthen the area’s appeal as a retail destination causing some spill over shopping to occur up and down Bank Street.

- Additional research would be needed to fully assess impacts on area businesses.

• Other Impacts: The proposal and staff’s review to date address in a preliminary fashion a number of site-related issues including parking, bus service and traffic circulation to and from the site. A preliminary traffic study has been commissioned by the OSEG; however a more detailed study as well as other site investigations to address the matters below will be undertaken by the proponent once Council decides on next steps for Lansdowne. At the due diligence stage, staff will review in more detail issues related to the following:

- Traffic impacts;

- Parking

- Servicing & Infrastructure;

- Planning (NCC, Parks Canada, City);

- Heritage matters;

- Land Claims;

- Economic and Business Impacts;

- Existing Lease Obligations & Service Contracts at Lansdowne Park (with Coliseum Inc., Ottawa 67’s, Aramark, Canadian Gateway, CCEA);

- Labour Issues relating to unionized employees that maybe displaced;

- Trade show space.

• Summary Analysis

- In addition to the operating, programming and life cycle risks assumed by the proponent, the OSEG will deliver the renovations of the Civic Centre and Frank Clair Stadium, structured and underground parking, and their mixed use component at a fixed price once agreed by both parties. Given that this is a renovation project, staff are aware that costs may escalate and an open book process will be needed to ensure a fixed price related to the City’s cost elements are arrived at and validated by the City’s subject matter experts;

- The Proponent has also indicated that it would be the City’s choice to structure above and below grade parking on the site to allow more areas of Lansdowne Park to be developed with park type elements. This parking would have an additional cost to the City (estimated at $25.6 million). Operational risk for this parking could be transferred to the proponent who would as well have access to the parking revenues. Staff have considered this scenario and believe there may be some merit in considering paying for these structures and freeing up more of the site for public realm purposes. These structures could be developed by the proponent concurrently with the 400 underground parking spaces they are proposing for the site.

- The OSEG proposal bundles a number of business lines together to ensure the financial viability of the overall project. For instance without offsetting revenues from the retail development, the stadium operations would generate an operating loss. Lansdowne Park would become the home of professional football, OHL hockey, other entertainment events and uses as well as a new mixed-use campus. MLS soccer could as well be accommodated in the stadium if a franchise is secured by a third party. At this time, the OSEG has indicated that they are not pursuing a soccer franchise. In this instance the proposal addresses City needs as outlined in the recent CRG study by providing a multi-purpose facility that combines sport and entertainment uses.

3b) Senators Sports & Entertainment (SS&E)

In January 2009, the City received a second unsolicited proposal for a new stadium from the Senators Sports & Entertainment group (SS&E). Additional information has been submitted from this proponent since that time and a final proposal was received by the City on 18 March 2009. As well, the City received a Fact Sheet (Document 3) from the proponent which explains the key points of their proposal, its costs and benefits.

The following elements are included in the SS&E proposal. A Site Plan of the proposal is included (Document 4).

Ÿ A New Stadium: The SS&E proposal calls for the construction of a new stadium that would be developed on a 30 acre parcel of land owned by the City of Ottawa along Palladium Drive in Kanata. The stadium would have a soccer specific design but its use would not be soccer exclusive. It would accommodate other events such as concerts, outdoor festivals and community uses. The stadium as proposed, would seat 20,000 people for soccer, and accommodate up to 27,000 for concerts and other special events. According to SS&E, major concerts (e.g. U2, Rolling Stones, etc.) and events that would draw crowds of 30,000 would be infrequent (estimated at 1 event every two years) and would be tightly managed from a parking and traffic perspective. The anchor tenant for the new stadium is proposed to be an MLS soccer team, which would be purchased and owned by SS&E. The team would enter into a long-term lease agreement for the use of the stadium. No conditional franchise award exists at this time, although MLS have indicated they are looking closely at Ottawa as a possible expansion location for the 2012 (or 2013) season. A letter of support from the Commissioner of the Major League Soccer Association is included as Document 5.

The stadium facility is also proposed to house:

- new head offices for the Canadian Soccer Association;

- new training centre for Canada’s national soccer teams; and

- new office and training facilities for Ottawa based soccer clubs;

SS&E is also including three practice soccer fields which would be made available at times to the community. Two of the fields would be developed with artificial turf; one field however would be the primary practice field for the MLS team.

SS&E have indicated the stadium can be designed, either initially or as part of a later renovation, to accommodate professional football (CFL). At this stage, the SS&E have not incorporated CFL into the design of their facility, and have also not expressed interest in pursuing a CFL franchise at this time. Rather, they have indicated that if this is to occur, it should take place several years from now once an MLS soccer team has firmly established itself in the City with necessary revenues from sponsorship, advertising contracts, etc. that will ensure the franchise is sustainable.

• Other Development: In addition to the new stadium, SS&E proposes to develop three full size community fields with one professional field adjacent to the main stadium. Two of the fields will have artificial grass and one or two fields are anticipated to have inflatable covers. Community usage of facilities is envisioned, although priority usage of the stadium would be granted to the MLS Team.

SS&E also proposes to develop the adjacent 76 acres (also owned by SS&E) currently used as parking lots for Scotiabank Place with an Entertainment Village, and expects the stadium and nearby Scotiabank Place to act as a catalyst for this project. The first phase of the Entertainment Village would be comprised of a 400-room hotel, 200 residential condo/apartment units, as well as 150,000 square feet of entertainment retail space (restaurants, bars, shopping), and 200,000 square feet of office space. The value of this additional construction is estimated at $500 million, and if developed, would generate $5 million annually to the City in property taxes. Ultimately (by approximately 2035), the Entertainment Village is proposed to include 900,000 square feet of office space, 450,000 square feet of retail space, 750 hotel rooms and 450 residential apartment units. The Fact Sheet provides further details on the economic impacts and tax revenues associated with the SS&E proposal. There is no firm commitment on the timing of development.

• Parking: New on-site parking next to the stadium would be developed but limited to approximately 460 spaces. While a 20,000 seat stadium would typically demand approximately 5,000 parking spaces for a stadium/arena use, the intent would be to share the existing 8,200 parking spaces already developed at the neighbouring Scotiabank Place which contains 20,500 seats and requires parking for 5,125 vehicles. This facility is also owned and managed by SS&E who will agree not to operate concurrent events at both stadiums. This will allow the provision of 8,660 parking spaces (460 proposed plus 8,200 existing) for an event held at either stadium. However, the site is not currently zoned to permit a stadium, and parking, traffic, servicing, design and other planning and engineering matters would require further due diligence.

• Transit and Traffic Impacts: To minimize traffic impacts, minor transit improvements are possible. However a larger shift to transit services will in time require a dedicated transitway to be constructed and this infrastructure is identified in the planning horizon of the current Transit Master Plan (2031). Staff notes that traffic congestion in the area would increase, as would delays experienced in going to and leaving a larger stadium event. Significantly greater parking/traffic impacts would occur if concurrent events were held at Scotiabank Place and the new soccer stadium.  However, as previously stated, SS&E have provided assurances to the City that they would not hold concurrent events in these facilities.

• Trade Show & Exposition Space: The SS&E proposal indicates the potential for the inclusion of trade and exposition show space within the adjacent Entertainment Village. Details on how this component is to be funded and by whom are to be worked out at the due diligence stage.

• Governance (Ownership and Operation): SS&E proposes that the City would retain ownership of the land and the stadium. SS&E would manage the design and construction process and the City would be required to sign the design-build construction contract. The general contractor will provide a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) and completion guarantee, supported by either a corporate guarantee from the contractor or performance bonds from an insurer acceptable to the City. Should there be any escalation over the GMP, SS&E will assume the next $1.5 million in construction risk, with the City assuming any residual risk not absorbed by the contractor and SS&E.

SS&E will operate and manage the MLS team and the stadium complex pursuant to a long term Management Services Agreement. They will assume operational risks for the stadium up to a $300K limit, beyond which operating and maintenance costs would be shared 50:50 with the City. The City would similarly share in any profits on the same 50:50 basis once the 300K reserve is replenished.

SS&E will be responsible for programming and will benefit from utilizing facilities management, marketing, sales and programming executives and staff from the nearby Scotiabank Place to oversee and supplement the management team operating the new stadium.

Life cycle repairs and capital maintenance would be funded through a capital reserve fund to be funded out of general stadium revenues.

• Costs and Funding: Cost estimates provided by SS&E are at a conceptual design level and based on a cost analysis of other similar quality stadiums developed in North America over the last 5 years. The stadium and field complex will cost $100 million to develop, plus the value of the land ($10 million). SS&E are proposing this amount would be financed as follows:

- Federal funding $36.67 million (1/3);

- Provincial funding $36.67 million (1/3);

- City funding $26.7 million ($16.7 million cash plus City land with an estimated value of $10 million); and

- An SS&E cash contribution of $10 million.

• Business Impacts: SS&E proposes to develop the adjacent 76 acres as an Entertainment Village (this land also owned by SS&E). Demand for additional retail commercial space in the Kanata-Stittsville market is anticipated to continue for some time, a function of continued population growth, a continuously expanding secondary market and the need to bring the area up to the standard level of service of many other municipalities. On the other hand, the availability of office space is likely to remain above balanced conditions, at least in the near term and will likely impact the timing of new development in this sector.

Since much of the new retail space is intended to be destination and entertainment oriented, this will bring additional people to the area thereby broadening the market base, rather than diluting the demand for existing businesses. This impact will be different for different store types and overall the area has a finite retail potential and thus development near the new stadium will impact when or how much will occur elsewhere. This is particularly important for the Kanata Town Centre, which is planned for intensive office and mixed-use development. Impact may also be felt by those operating soccer domes, as there are already other domes in the area. Additional research would be needed to fully assess impacts on area businesses including demand-supply for inflatable domes.

• Other Impacts: The proposal and staff’s review to date address in a preliminary fashion a number of site related issues including parking, traffic circulation, servicing requirements, etc. A Previous traffic study for the Scotiabank area was considered by the SS&E when preparing their proposal, however a more detailed study as well as other site investigations to address the matters below will need to be undertaken once Council decides on next steps. At the due diligence stage, staff will review in more detail issues related to the following:

- Planning;

- Traffic impact;

- Parking;

- Servicing & Infrastructure;

- Land Claims;

- Business and Economic Impacts;

• Summary Analysis

- The SS&E submission proposes that the City and higher levels of government (Provincial and Federal) pay most of the costs for the construction of the new stadium and three soccer fields. The proponent will manage the construction process and take on some of the construction risk as described above. They will also assume a portion of the operating, maintenance, life cycle and programming of the stadium. Profit would also be shared between SS&E and the City. The stadium will be operated under a long-term lease agreement.

- The SS&E proposal, like the OSEG submission, represents a pooling of numerous and related businesses and operations in this case MLS soccer, other entertainment events, plus new real estate development. The proposal envisions operating economies by utilizing existing parking and the same operator for both the new soccer stadium and the existing Scotiabank Place. Similar to the OSEG proposal, the overall submission is tied together and works financially by bundling all of these components.

- A review of the business plan suggests that there are a number of risks the City will need to consider such as the uncertainty of obtaining funding the from Provincial and Federal governments, the lack of a conditional franchise from the MLS, and construction and operational risks. Due diligence and negotiations on these matters during the next stage could mitigate some of these risks.

4) CURRENT STATUS OF LANSDOWNE PARK

4a) History

Lansdowne Park is a 16-hectare (37.5 acre) site located within the central Glebe neighbourhood of the City of Ottawa. Frank Clair Stadium, an open-air 20,172-seat stadium and the 9,261-seat Civic Centre arena dominate existing development on the site. Both were constructed in 1967 as an integrated complex.

Several other buildings are located on the site, including the Coliseum, the Horticultural Building, the Aberdeen Pavilion, and other smaller accessory buildings. The Horticultural and Aberdeen Pavilion buildings have heritage designations, which protect them. The balance of the site is generally open and used for surface parking. An air photo of the existing site is included as Document 6.

4b) Current Status, Condition and Costs

Lansdowne Park facilities are generally considered to be in below average condition. The Civic Centre and Frank Clair stadium facilities are approximately 42 years old and while they have benefited from upgrades and repairs over the years, both are reaching the point where comprehensive life cycle renewal is required if they are to continue to provide usable space to host major events.

The City recently completed a report entitled “Overview of Lansdowne Park Civic Centre & Stadium Facilities (City of Ottawa, March 2009)”. This report outlines the condition of the major facilities on the site, and presents costs under five scenarios. These are shown in Table 1 below:

TABLE 1

SCENARIO NO	DESCRIPTION	ESTIMATED COST	END-STATE SEATING CAPACITY	ESTIMATED USEFUL LIFE
1	Ramp down existing stadium and Civic Centre facilities by 2012. Demolish to clean slate condition in 2013.	$15M	None (by 2013)	4 Yrs
2	Maintain “Status-Quo” operation of current stadium facilities and Civic Centre through nominal end of life in 2037.	$31M	12,300 (N.Stands) 7,900 (Upr. S. Stands) 9,261 (Arena)	28 Yrs
3	Demolish S. Stands and maintain “Status-Quo” operation of N. stadium facilities and Civic Centre through nominal end of life in 2037	$30M	12,300 (N.Stands) 9,261 (Arena)	28 Yrs
4	Re-development and Contemporization	$125M	13,567 (N.Stands) 9,261 (Arena) 12,310 (S. Stands) (Proposed)	40 Yrs
5	Demolish existing stadium facilities and Civic Centre. Construct new, contemporary stadium infrastructure.	$185M	12,000 (N.Stands) 10,000 (Arena) 13,000 (S. Stands) (Estimated)	70 Yrs

As shown, should the City choose to ramp-down the facility over the next 4 years, the estimated cost including demolition has been identified at $15 million.

The minimum approach to retention and upgrading (Options 2 or 3) requires an investment of about $30 million and would yield an additional operating life of approximately 30 years. Most of this capital is required to be spent within the next ten years, and thus equates to an annual investment of approximately $2.4 million during this period, with operating and minor capital expenses added for a total cost of approximately $3.8 million annually over the next ten years.

At the far end of the spectrum, complete replacement of the stadium and arena carries an estimated capital cost of $185 million and an associated life of 70 years.

5) ASSESSEMENT FRAMEWORK

5a) Process

The assessment process consisted of evaluating the two unsolicited proposals against pre-established criteria. The process began in March 2009, with both participants signing waivers agreeing to the Assessment Framework and how their final submissions would be reviewed. Prior to and during the assessment period, Commercially Confidential Meetings and other consultations were held with both participants who were collaborative and responsive to queries made by the members of the evaluation team.

The opportunity assessment was conducted by a cross-functional team represented by City staff and third-party subject matter experts. Each team member signed a declaration confirming they had no conflict of interest and that they would adhere to the confidentiality requirement of the assessment.

Additionally, Deloitte & Touche LLP and P3 Advisors Inc. were engaged to assess the business plans and financial pro-formas contained in the submissions. A Fairness Commissioner was also engaged and will be reporting separately on the evaluation process. He has confirmed that the process was carried out in an open, fair and transparent manner and free of favouritism and bias.

The following disciplines were represented on the Evaluation Team:

• Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability;

• Strategic Projects;

• Real Estate;

• Design, Construction

• Infrastructure Approvals

• Asset Management

As well, representatives from Deloitte and P3 Advisors Inc. were on the team evaluating the submissions.

The objective of the Opportunity Assessment was to review the two submissions and rate their respective merits in order to determine whether these submissions addressed City evaluation criteria and warranted further discussion. A consensus scoring approach was utilized using the evaluation criteria approved by Council from the Opportunity Assessment Framework (Document 7). Pointing was assigned based on categories of criteria commonly used where submissions were either below expectations and did not receive more than 70% of the points to higher graduated categories were expectations where either met, clearly met or exceeded.

The financial analysis of the proposals was not evaluated as a rated criterion as the overall cost of each proposal needs to be considered independent of the qualitative considerations of the proposals. The financial (quantitative) analysis is discussed below.

5b) Financial Impacts to the City

Approach and Base Case

The following section outlines the financial impacts of the two submissions, based on a number of options. The “base cases” are formulated from the submissions that were put forward by the applicants. The outcomes measure the short and long term cost implications to the City.

The benchmark that was applied in the analysis is the current funding level required to continue programming at Lansdowne. This funding level (as per Section 4 of this report) totals $3.8 million and consists of the annual operating subsidy ($650,000); minor capital requirements ($750,000) and lifecycle investment ($2,400,000 per year on average over the next 10 years). The lifecycle investment assumes the facility will be wound down over the next thirty years.

Each of the scenarios is summarized in the table below (Table 2) : Opportunity Assessment. The table presents the incremental cost to the City for each scenario over and above the current funding level required for Lansdowne Park. The detailed financial assumptions related to Table 2 are provided as Document 8.

Regardless of which proposal is selected, the financial implications require a capital investment in excess of $100 million. The corresponding budget pressure for the City will vary depending on the investment priority and whether funding is available from the Federal or Provincial governments.

Council will be required to set its investment priority. If Council deems that either of the proposals are a priority, the additional annual costs will range from $2.9 to $8.7 million over a 30 year horizon. The wide range in cost reflects the varied opportunities that each submission offers. The $2.9 million investment will provide for the refurbishment of a 42-year-old stadium and arena complex. Alternatively, an investment of $8.7 million, together with the sale of approximately 40% of Lansdowne Park, will green the remaining 60% and provide for the construction of a soccer stadium in Kanata and a new OHL arena elsewhere in the City, assuming it is constructed on City-owned land.

TABLE 2

OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT – SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL EVALUATION
Scenario	Details/Comment	Impact on Annual Operating Costs	Net Present Value Over 30 yrs.
Senators Sports Entertainment (SS&E) Proposal:
SS&E Proposal (Base Case)	-City construct new stadium on city owned land. -Investment $33.3 million Federal Govt. -Investment $33.3 million Provincial Govt. -Investment $33.3 million City (including land). -Investment $10 million SS&E. -SS&E operate and share risk/rewards.	2,250,000	$28,400,000
SS&E with Option A	-City construct new stadium on City owned land. -No Federal and Provincial Investment. -City investment of $100 million (including land). -SS&E investment of $10 million. -SS&E operate and share projected revenues.	$6,920,000	$94,700,000
SS&E with Option B	-Same conditions as with Option A -Demolition of Stadium and Civic Centre -Cost avoidance of $3.5 million net annual operating and lifecycle costs. -Assume OHL team plays at Scotiabank with no incremental cost to City. -Assume sale of +/-14 acres of Lansdowne Park (est. at +/- $1.5 million per acre) with proceeds to pay for demolition and to green approx 60% of the site.	$3,420,000	$51,810,000
SS&E with Option C	- Same conditions as Option B. -Assume City constructs 8,000 seat OHL arena to replace Civic Centre and related programming. -City investment of $65 million. -Considers allowance for annual operating loss and lifecycle. -No allowance for land value.	$ 8,760,000	$132,150,000
Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG)
OSEG Proposal (Base Case)	-City to invest $97 million to renovate and upgrade Frank Clair Stadium and Civic Centre. -OSEG to lease for nominal amount 9.4 acres of land for private commercial development. -OSEG to operate facility and lifecycle at own risk. - Cost avoidance$3.8 million annual operating and lifecycle cost savings achieved as a result of renovation and OSEG accepting cost/risk.	$2,990,000	$47,870,000
OSEG with Option A	- Base Case with adjustment of cost to $125 million to consider higher contingency for renovation risk.	$5,030,000	$76,800,000
OSEG with Option B	- Base Case plus cost of $30 million for parking structures and greening remainder of site (approx. 30%) with park type elements.	$5,130,000	$78,200,000
OSEG with Option C	- Option A (cost adjustment) and Option B (cost of parking structures and greening approx. 30% of site).	$7,1700,000	$107,140,000
Key Financial Assumptions are Appended – see Document 8.

5c) Evaluation of Weighted Criteria

Overall, both proposals addressed the criteria and each received more than 70% of the points. The OSEG received over 80% of the points and SS&E received over 70% of the points. Both proposals also had shortcomings/weaknesses with respect to certain elements of the criteria. However, these weaknesses were not considered insurmountable and could potentially be resolved with further due diligence and discussions with the participants.

A summary of each proposal and how or to what extent it met each of the five weighted evaluation criteria is presented below.

1. Overall Need (total of 25 points)

OSEG Proposal: Overall Need (Meets Expectations)

The proposal from OSEG was deemed to satisfy the basic criteria that were included in the framework, with respect to addressing Overall Need. The proposal and assessment illustrated the following:

• OSEG Proposal addresses the requirement for a prestigious venue for the City that can accommodate major attractions;

• The proposed facility provides enhanced sports and entertainment uses. It allows for multi-purpose use, is of sufficient size, is scalable and includes a number of amenities. It will accommodate multiple sports (e.g. OHL hockey and professional CFL football), as well as other entertainment and community events. OSEG also confirmed they can accommodate soccer at the stadium, but did not contemplate pursuing a professional soccer franchise. The OSEG have a conditional CFL franchise;

• Community support for the facility is demonstrated, through market research that was included in their proposal;

• Community access is included. Continuity of the Ottawa 67’s on the site provides community benefits; as do the operations of other ancillary uses on the site;

• Does not identify a social or cultural component; however, retains options for the Farmer’s Market and the proposed aquarium use; and

• Accommodates trade show space, although the amount of available space is reduced compared to current amounts. OSEG have stated they are open to investigating developing additional trade show space on the site, if the business plan is reasonable.

SS&E Proposal: Overall Need (Meets Expectations)

The proposal from SS&E was also deemed to satisfy the basic criteria that were included in the framework, with respect to addressing Overall Need. The proposal and assessment illustrated the following:

• Addresses the requirement to provide a prestigious venue for the City that can accommodate major attractions. The new stadium would accommodate professional soccer as well as concerts and special events. The facility is designed for soccer, however SS&E confirmed that it could also accommodate professional football (CFL), although they do not intend to pursue this use/sport at this time. Their stated preference is to focus on the MLS franchise and possibly investigate accommodating the CFL in the future. They expressed concern about the launch of two new professional sports franchises in Ottawa at/near the same time;

• Demonstrated community support, in the form of letters of support, as well as market research;

• Community access is included in the form of three additional practice soccer fields. The extent or conditions under which community use could be accommodated on these fields is not explicit in their proposal; and

• Does not include a social or cultural component nor does the proposal include any trade show space. SS&E have stated they would be open to considering a trade show facility as part of their adjacent Entertainment Village, but this is not expressly part of their proposal.

2. Business Plan (total of 20 points)

OSEG Proposal: Business Plan (Meets Expectations)

The proposal from OSEG was deemed to satisfy the basic criteria that were included in the framework, with respect to their Business Plan. The proposal and assessment illustrated the following:

• Proposal provides a sustainable business plan for the stadium, arena and ancillary operations. This includes a long-term lease with OSEG for the stadium and arena and land for their commercial development, which buildings would revert back to the City at the end of the term. A review by subject matter experts did identify areas that required further due diligence and possible refinement, but overall the business plan was deemed to be reasonable. The proposal demonstrates experience in real estate development and in operating similar facilities (i.e., Ottawa 67’s);

• Programming and operating plans are provided including reasonable assumptions (costs, revenues, etc.). Synergies of multiple uses/sports are identified, but the business plan involves pooling of income to offset losses in certain sectors and an overall marginal bottom line. Life cycle re-investment was included but at a relatively low rate and could be at risk as it is proposed to be funded through a surcharge on ticket sales. The base budget does not accommodate other site enhancements such as greening and additional parking;

• Confirmed equity in the project, in the form of the CFL franchise fee and real estate development equity. OSEG will also provide the CFL with a letter of credit as a performance guarantee related to the franchise. During the operational phase, OSEG have suggested they will contract with a specialized and experienced firm familiar with operating stadiums however a contract does not exist at this stage;

• Funding Model is identified, and the concept put forward does not rely on Federal and Provincial funding. It does however rely on the City funding renovations with a cost estimated at $97 million; and

• Economic benefits are described in the proposal but no firm estimates resulting from the renovation and operations of the facilities related to job creation or induced investment in the Ottawa economy are provided. Tax generation is referenced for the retail component.

SS&E Proposal: Business Plan (Below Expectations)

The proposal from SS&E was determined not to satisfy the basic criteria with respect to their Business Plan. The proposal was below expectations for the following reasons:

• Provided a business plan for the stadium, however there was considered to be some overstatement of number of events and attendance anticipated ;

• Programming and operating plans are provided however the Business Plan is deemed to weigh in favour of the proponent specifically in terms of operating revenues and how they are to be split between the MLS team and the City as the owner of the stadium;

• Synergies of multiple uses/sports are identified and each business line is managed separately, however the overall allocation of business activities requires clarification and refinement;

• The overall bottom line is marginal and while life cycle re-investment is included, it is at a relatively low rate;

• The proposal does strongly demonstrate related experience in operating similar and specialized facilities, in Ottawa and elsewhere.

• Confirmed equity in the project is included in the form of SS&E’s $10 million contribution plus the MLS franchise fee;

• Funding Model is identified, however the concept put forward relies on three levels of government agreeing to fund the construction cost of the stadium. As well, the City would need to agree to provide its land and redirect the proceeds into the stadium and away from assisting in the costs of establishing a new City operations garage that had been proposed on the site; and

• Identifies and quantifies economic benefits resulting from the construction and operations of the stadium;

3. Site Considerations (total of 10 points)

OSEG Proposal: Site Considerations (Meets Expectations)

The proposal from OSEG was deemed to satisfy the basic criteria that were included in the framework with respect to Site Considerations. The proposal and assessment illustrated the following:

• Proposal makes use of existing infrastructure, although some concern about the total amount of parking available/needed on the site;

• Re-establishes an existing stadium use;

• Includes a transit response and a parking solution (although neither may be ideal);

• Some rezoning needed;

• Overall servicing plan is deemed feasible (does not require large offsite servicing upgrades) but additional detail and analysis required for a complete assessment;

• Represents an efficient re-use of numerous existing facilities; and

• Numerous issues would have to be addressed/resolved prior to proceeding

SS&E Proposal: Site Considerations (Clearly Meets Expectations)

The proposal from SS&E was deemed to satisfy the basic criteria that were included in the framework with respect to Site Considerations. The proposal and assessment illustrated the following:

• Utilizes existing infrastructure and transportation networks. The project proposes the stadium will utilize, through staggered scheduling, the adjacent (Scotiabank) parking, interchanges and roads in the area ;

• Significant parking, transportation and servicing issues if concurrent events held at the new stadium and Scotiabank Place (however proponent has confirmed they will not have simultaneous events);

• Overall servicing plan appears feasible; as long as there are no concurrent events; however the timing of the project would require the construction of temporary sanitary infrastructure. The Carp River restoration plan and its related Third Party Review may also have an influence on the timing and serviceability of the stadium ; and

• From a planning perspective, uses are compatible with the surrounding community and there is consistency with the Official Plan.

4. Facility Design and Overall Concept( total of 10 Points)

OSEG Proposal: Facility Design & Overall Concept (Clearly Meets Expectations)

The proposal from OSEG was deemed to satisfy the basic criteria that were included in the framework with respect to Facility Design and Overall Concept. The proposal and assessment illustrated the following:

• Overall concept includes and accommodates a mix of uses and intensification. The proposal is scalable for larger events and comprises multiple sports as well as trade show space (although reduced), continuation of the Farmer’s Market (optional locations to be explored), new commercial space and community uses;

• Concept enhances the site including access/site lines to the Rideau Canal, and improves Bank Street retailing node;

• Project phasing is included ;

• The submission does not address in detail the impact on the neighbourhood, including business impacts, noise, traffic, parking; and

• From an environmental perspective, some issues require additional review and assessment.

SS&E Proposal: Facility Design & Overall Concept (Clearly Meets Expectations)

The proposal from SS&E was also deemed to satisfy the basic criteria that were included in the framework, with respect to Facility Design and Overall Concept. The proposal and assessment illustrated the following:

• Overall concept includes and promotes a mix of uses (sports and entertainment) and the design is flexible and could accommodate other sports (now or in the future);

• Creates/solidifies a Community Hub;

• Project phasing and future expansion is included (Entertainment Village), however there are no commitments on timing for this development.

• Minimal neighbourhood impacts, and facility orientation provides some noise control.

• From an environmental perspective, development may result in more gridlock on major roads and increased vehicle trips causing green house gas emissions.

5. Risk to the City ( total of 35 points)

OSEG Proposal: Risk (Clearly Meets Expectations)

The proposal from OSEG, for the most part, demonstrated balanced risk to the City. The proposal and assessment illustrated the following:

• Overall distribution of risks between the proponent and the City is reasonable; however renovations costs can be a large variable and may go beyond the $97 million OSEG estimate. The proponent has indicated a willingness to undertake an open book process to review the ultimate costs and value engineer where necessary;

• The project requires City funding but does not depend upon Provincial or Federal funding;

• Large risks associated with operating and programming will be the responsibility of the proponent;

• Involves some risks to the City associated with lifecycle replacement and reversion, since the annual expenditure is to be funded through ticket surcharges and is relatively low by industry standards;

• There are some risks that the 2^nd phase of the retail campus may not be developed, e.g. hotel, office;

• There are labour and other risks associated with existing collective agreements, and existing lease obligations; and

• Mitigation plans related to risks are not fully articulated in the submission.

SS&E Proposal (Meets Expectations)

The proposal from SS&E was deemed to satisfy the basic criteria that were included in the framework, with respect to Risk. The SS&E proposal was deemed to carry significantly more risk to the City than the OSEG proposal. This is illustrated by the following:

• SS&E proposals carries risks associated with proposed funding from the Federal and Provincial governments;

• SS&E proposal involves sharing construction and operational risks with the City. After the implementation of a guaranteed maximum price design-build agreement with a contractor, SS&E will only assume the first $1,500,000 of the construction financial risk. The City would be at risk for any over-runs from exclusions to the GMP over the $1.5 million, etc that cause the costs to go above this amount.

• From an operational perspective, SS&E would share any losses with the City over a reserve amount (they would also share in any profits once the reserve amount is replenished);

• SS&E proposal carries a franchise risk, as the proponent has not secured an MLS Franchise;

• Risks associated with the delivery date due to the Carp River review and the timing and probability of receiving an MLS franchise

• Risks to the City associated with lifecycle replacement and reversion; and

• Mitigation plans related to risks are not fully articulated in the submission.

6) NEXT STEPS

A series of recommendations are presented to Council for their consideration in this report. In accordance with the direction staff received from Council in March 2009, the two unsolicited proposals have been evaluated using the Opportunity Assessment Framework. Both submissions received favourable scores using Council’s assessment criteria. The Framework also required that the total cost of each project be considered. This report not only identifies the proponents cost estimates for their proposals, but also provides costs under several alternate scenarios that should form part of Council’s debate on this matter (see Tables 1 and 2).

Recommendation No. 1

In applying the Opportunity Assessment Framework, both submissions scored well, and the point spread between the two was not significant. Staff is recommending that Council endorse the assessments.

Recommendation No. 2

The two unsolicited proposals have a base cost in excess of $100M to the City. The business plan from the SS&E group is based on two thirds funding of their Sports and Entertainment Facility coming from the senior levels of government. Staff would recommend that is should be determined if any funding is available for a Sports and Entertainment Facility at this time from the federal and provincial governments beyond the Build Canada Program and other programs that might direct funding to the City’s Transportation Master Plan.

Recommendation No. 3

Council can choose to support Recommendation No. 2 and direct staff to make this inquiry before the 20 April 2009 public delegation meeting on this matter, and/or support Recommendation No. 3, if a sports and entertainment facility is an infrastructure investment priority that they would like to proceed with immediately.

If Council decides the facility is a priority and they want to fund the expenditure either separately with municipal funding or other government funding (if it is available), then Council can direct staff to undertake the necessary due diligence of the two proposals to ensure best value is achieved and all costs are accounted for.

Staff estimates the due diligence and the required review associated with the facility would take 5 months to complete and will require approximately $300K in City funding. This funding will be used to hire the required expertise to review the design submissions for the two Sports and Entertainment Facilities. Experts will be engaged to review all aspects of the submissions including overall design elements, interior and exterior finishes, fire and life safety systems, mechanical and electrical requirements, etc. Typically a quantity surveyor is also engaged to ensure all pricing is valid to allow the City and the proponent to arrive at a final cost that can be supported and a contractor is prepared to guarantee.

Given that it is recommended that both proponents would go through this process and only one facility will ultimately be funded, staff is recommending that a Best and Final Offer process be undertaken to ensure the City receives best value. As one proponent or both may not be directed to move to the legal agreement stage with the City, staff are recommending that an honorarium, based on industry standards be made available to both proponents to recover reasonable out of pocket expenses in this due diligence period. If best value is clearly demonstrated at the end of this process, staff will seek Council’s direction to negotiate the necessary legal agreements with the successful proponent.

Recommendation No. 4

Should Council deem that the construction or reconstruction of a Sports and Entertainment Facility at a capital cost in excess of $100 million dollars does not represent an infrastructure investment priority for the municipality at this time, it can direct staff to no longer pursue the unsolicited proposals and develop alternative redevelopment scenarios for Lansdowne Park.

6 a) Process for Redeveloping Lansdowne Park

Lansdowne Park – Design Competition – November 2007

In November of 2007, Council approved the “Lansdowne Park- Design Competition” staff report which initiated the Design Lansdowne competition process for the Park based on a Rights to Development approach. This process is fully outlined in Report Ref N: ACS2007-PTE-POL-0067. The process required, as a first step, a Design Brief to be prepared that would include information such as the vision, competition goals and objectives, findings from the public consultation, site context and conditions, background studies, criteria for evaluating submissions, schedules, etc. Due diligence research would feed into the design brief and would include land appraisals, environmental site assessments, serviceability and transportation impacts. High level criteria were appended to this report that would be used to promote public discussion (Document 9). More detailed criteria would be developed using public input received through consultation sessions which occurred during 2008 (Document 10).

The Design competition would be launched with a public release of the Design Brief. Stage 1 would involve an Expression of Interest (EOI) process that would pre-qualify a short list of competitors interested in establishing a new vision for Lansdowne. Their submissions would generally include their professional experience, qualifications and vision for the site. Stage 2 would allow the short listed participants to submit their detailed design proposals and pro forma’s to ensure the winning scheme can be implemented. A competition jury would be established that would evaluate the submissions based on aesthetics, technical and financial criteria. A winning design would then be announced or not announced if the jury found that none of the submissions were acceptable.

Rights to Development

In deciding who should be invited to Stage 1, staff recommended Council follow the Rights to Development approach as it would result in an inexpensive competition process and a quick implementation of the winning design vision. A detailed pro forma would be required to ensure the design could be built as envisioned.

The staff report also identified two other approaches that could be utilized to establish a vision for Lansdowne.

Monetary Prize

Under a Monetary Prize approach the winning submission receives a cash award for the vision and in turn, the City is able to buy the design. Under this approach the City would be responsible for implementing the vision which would take longer than the rights to development approach due to the additional procurement stages.

The Professional Services

Under the Professional Services approach, proponents of the winning submission are compensated with rights to further contracts with the City (e.g. for refinement of the design, detailed working drawings and preparation of tender packages for public infrastructure components of the site’s development/redevelopment, etc). The proponents work directly with the City towards implementation of their vision. This approach tends to be most common when the works to be completed remain under public control. However if there are elements of the site that are to be privately developed, the approach can be combined with the Rights to Development approach.

Design Lansdowne Suspended

In June of 2008 the Design Lansdowne competition was suspended pending a complete review of the building condition of Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre, and the anticipated receipt of the OSEG’s business plan/CFL proposal. The building condition review was seen as a vital step in assessing the health and remaining life span of the facility.

In October 2008, the OSEG submitted Lansdowne Live as an unsolicited proposal. Staff subsequently informed Council by way of a memo that they would undertake a review of this submission to assess its value. This assessment and the building condition report have now been completed and summarized in this report.

6. b) Developing a New Vision for Lansdowne

Step 1 - Information Gathering

For the most part this step is completed; however some additional meetings with key stakeholders would be undertaken with the farmers market, exposition industry, etc. to better understand their requirements. Staff has reviewed both the high level and detailed criteria/design principles that came out of the consultation sessions with the community prior to suspending Design Lansdowne. These criteria address, among other things, the amount of desired public open space, heritage, built form, transportation and parking requirements to be considered when developing a new vision for Lansdowne. As well, the criteria speak to retaining Frank Clair Stadium, the Civic Centre and the exposition space on the site.

Over the last year and half, staff has also commissioned various studies to gain a better understanding of soil, phase 1 environmental assessments, building condition reports, etc. on the site. Zoning, traffic, bus service and parking has also been reviewed and several meetings have occurred with outside agencies such as the NCC and Parks Canada.

Timing – On-going

Step 2 - Undertake a Comprehensive Site Location Study

In developing a new vision for Lansdowne staff believes it would be important that Council understand the various options that could exist for locating a new stadium with or without an arena at Lansdowne Park or elsewhere in the community. A detailed comprehensive site location study for a new stadium/arena or a stadium with a separate arena is proposed in Recommendation 4(c). As an example, the arena could be developed jointly with a planned community arena or other recreational use elsewhere in the City. This study would be an extension to the CRG’s Needs Analysis for Multi-purpose Sports and Entertainment Facilities study recently tabled with Council, and would evaluate a full range of scenarios and locations based on comprehensive criteria and planning requirements.

Staff is recommending this study be undertaken immediately and brought back to Council at the end of Q2 for approval. Should there be a viable alternative to Lansdowne Park for provision of this facility(ies), staff would initiate Step 3.

Timing – Q2 2009

Step 3 - Completion of Design Brief

Staff is proposing that the Design Brief now be completed with the information that has been pulled together to date on Lansdowne. The design brief will be further informed by financial scenarios staff have prepared for this report, including the cost of building parking structures, creating park type elements, and removal or maintaining the Civic Centre and Frank Clair Stadium. Depending on Council’s direction coming out of Step 2, staff would include in the Design Brief the requirement to have or not have a Multi – Purpose Sports and Entertainment Facility at Lansdowne Park. Exhibition space and a farmers market would be included in the Design Brief. Also, staff would propose that a reasonable amount of development rights be permitted along Bank Street, Holmwood and elsewhere on the west side of the site. Land could be leased for this development which would establish a revenue stream that could be used to offset the cost of the public realm elements proposed elsewhere through the process in Step 4. Staff would request Council adopt the Design Brief and direct staff to release an Expression of Interest as part of Step 4.

Timing – Q3 2009

Step 4 - Expression of Interest and Detailed Design Proposals

Similar to Stages 1 and 2 of the Design Lansdowne process, this step would see the City issue a Request for an Expression of Interest (RFEOI) to the marketplace with the goal of obtaining an understanding of the number and type of potential consortia of design teams that would be interested in assisting the City in developing costed alternative redevelopment scenarios for Council’s consideration. Using the information generated from the RFEOI, the City would then move to issue a Request for Proposals to retain such a consortium to undertake the work. Council would then either select from the alternative redevelopment scenarios or choose elements from each in establishing a final vision for the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park.

Timing – Q4 2009/Q1 2010

Step 5 - Implementation

Development lands within the approved concept plan could proceed by way of an RFP, while other procurement methods including the Professional Services approach could be used to advance the public realm elements.

Timing – Q2 2010

7) CONSULTATION

At the request of the stakeholders, staff have met with the Ottawa Association of Exposition Managers, as well as the Ottawa Farmer’s Market Association who have concerns that the OSEG proposal at Lansdowne Park could negate their own viability and/or plans for expansion. Staff has also met with a proposed aquarium operator to review possible opportunities and constraints with respect to locating an aquarium at Lansdowne Park.

Staff acknowledges these concerns and opportunities and recognize that a full review will be required at the due diligence stage should Council want to move forward with the OSEG proposal. Meetings will be established with these groups and the proponent to determine if solutions can be proposed.

8) FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Should Council approve Recommendation No. 3, and deem that the construction or reconstruction of a sports and entertainment facility at a capital cost in excess of $100 million dollars represents an infrastructure investment priority for Council at this time, any debt issuance would be incremental. As well, the City would have an operating pressure that ranges between $2.9 million to $8.7 million per year, dependent upon the scenario selected.

Alternatively, should Council approve Recommendation No. 4, and direct staff to (1) undertake to develop alternative redevelopment scenarios for Lansdowne Park to establish a new vision for the long-term redevelopment of the Park; and (2) to immediately complete a comprehensive study to determine the best location for a new sports and entertainment facility, the balance of funds in the Design Lansdowne project account ($292,000) can be transferred for the purpose of funding these studies.

9) LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Appropriate steps have been taken to minimize any legal risks as far as proceeding to the due diligence stage, should Council direct staff to do so. Through the oversight of the Fairness Commissioner, the applicants will be treated fairly. Consequently, there are no legal/risk management impediments to implementing any of the Recommendations of this report.

10 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 – OSEG Fact Sheet

Document 2 – Site Plan - OSEG Proposal

Document 3 – SS&E Fact Sheet

Document 4 - Site Plan - SS&E Proposal

Document 5 - Letter from Commissioner of Major League Soccer

Document 6 - Air Photo of existing Lansdowne Park site

Document 7 - Opportunity Assessment Framework

Document 8 – Financial Assumptions

Document 9 - Guiding Design Principles

Document 10 - Draft Detailed Design Criteria

11 DISPOSITION

Should Council direct staff to undertake further due diligence with respect to the OSEG’s and/or the SS&E’s proposal, it is anticipated that this process would require approximately 5 months to complete. Staff would report back to Committee and Council at the end of September, 2009 with a recommendation which seeks authority to negotiate and enter into the necessary legal agreements with one proponent, if best value is clearly demonstrated by one of the proposals.

Alternatively, should Council direct staff to undertake a process to develop a vision for Lansdowne Park, and undertake a detailed analysis of where a long term stadium should best be sited, this process would be completed by the end of Q2 2010. A project budget would be required to advance either of these Council directives. The balance of funds within the Design Lansdowne account could be utilized for this purpose. This budget amount will need to be increased if the City decides to offer an honorarium to the three short-listed consortia as part of Step 4 in Section 6 of this report.

OSEG FACT SHEET DOCUMENT 1

Opportunity Assessment - Multi-Purpose Sports Facility
Project Name	Lansdowne Live	Location	Lansdowne Park
Partnership Name	Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG)
	Project Cost	Annual
Construction Costs	$97 Million for Stadium and Civic Centre refurbishment	No annual cost to City
Land Costs	N/A	N/A
Contribution from the private sector partnership	$30 Million in Sports and Entertainment $120 Million invested in new private development
Required Contribution from the City	$97 Million debenture to refurbish Frank Clair stadium and the Civic Centre	No annual cost to City
Operating Costs		100% Paid by OSEG
Cost avoidance opportunities
Economic Benefit	Employment benefits during construction phase.	On-going direct and spin-off benefits from new retail development and increased year round sports and entertainment events providing region wide attractions.
Municipal Tax Revenue		$2.5 Million direct from site
Description of the Project and Outline of the General Business Concept
The four Partners behind the bid have deep roots in the Ottawa community and possess the financial resources and managerial expertise needed to make Lansdowne Live a success. John Ruddy, William Shenkman and Roger Greenberg, head up three of Canada’s leading development firms. Under Jeff Hunt’s leadership, the Ottawa 67’s have become one of the country’s most successful junior-hockey franchises both on and off the ice. They have been awarded a new CFL franchise for Ottawa, conditional only on an acceptable agreement with the City for Frank Clair Stadium. Lansdowne Live will build on the site’s current attractions — junior hockey games, amateur sports, farmers’ market, trade shows and exhibitions, concerts and shows — with the refurbishment of Frank Clair Stadium for 25,000 seats and the Civic Centre, the return of a CFL team, and the addition of a 250,000 sq. ft. retail node with a variety of shops, boutiques and restaurants. Possible additional elements include a hotel, office space and aquarium. The completed project would transform Lansdowne into a popular multi-faceted destination; visitors can arrive before and stay after events to meet, eat or shop. The proposal involves a unique agreement between the City and Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG), an independent company owned and operated. The football and hockey operations will be 100 percent owned by OSEG. OSEG will lease the land hosting the sport and retail components from the City’s Community Services Corporation (“CSC”). The CSC will be set up under the Municipal Act to contract with OSEG for the site. OSEG will enter into leases for these different components with various end users. OSEG may form a Limited Partnership for the ownership of certain elements as would be expected under normal development conditions. The facilities would always remain under public ownership and would be under a management lease to OSEG for a 30-year initial period. The City would retain ownership of the site and an independent board (with OSEG representation) would be established and granted a supervisory mandate. The Partners would look to the City to provide guidance as to a governance structure that would ensure adequate protection of the facility, reporting models and the assurance of continued and enhanced public access. The board would then grant OSEG a 30-year lease for the site for a nominal fee. Over the life of the lease, OSEG would manage and operate the facilities, sports franchises and retail lands. Upon expiry of the lease, all assets returned to City control including the retail development. The Partners will manage the complete design-build process with a budget of approximately $97 million to transform Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre into world-class facilities. OSEG will assume all design and construction risk. OSEG will assume all risks associated with Lansdowne Live operations and management. At the end of the lease, the site reverts to its full market value. This approach virtually eliminates any risk to the City. The City retains ownership of all land. During the life of the lease, the City receives additional property-tax revenues estimated at $2.5 million annually and a net value of $40 million over the term of the lease. Development of other components, such as office space, hotel and aquarium, would generate additional tax revenue for the City. Lansdowne Live is a pedestrian-friendly, accessible, community-oriented, human scale project that will restore an historic park to its rightfully prominent place in City life. By refurbishing the City’s most valuable yet dilapidated site, the project will enhance adjacent neighbourhoods. The site will attract residents from across the region, along with tourists from around the world. The project will eliminate the so-called ‘dead zone’ along Bank Street and connect Ottawa South with the Glebe, and increase business for local retailers. Lansdowne Live protects sightlines to and from the Rideau Canada and Aberdeen Pavilion. The construction of a stadium in a centrally located facility promotes the usage of multiple modes of transportation: public transit, bicycle, pedestrian traffic. The central location minimizes the distances travelled by visitors from across the region. Key Milestones: · Finalize agreements and with the City Fall 2009 · Planning and other Approvals 2009-2010 · Construction 2010-2011 · CFL Season Start Summer 2011 Ekos Research conducted an independent, scientific and credible study of Ottawa residents’ attitudes regarding Lansdowne Live. Key findings include: · 79 percent prefer a central location for a new complex · 78 percent prefer to see Lansdowne redeveloped into a venue that includes a multi-purpose sports stadium, arena and civic event complex. · 69 percent believe that Ottawa should have a CFL franchise · 79 percent express support for Lansdowne Live · 88 percent believe the project will generate economic benefits for Ottawa
Average Attendance at Sports event		Number of Sports Events
Key Attributes
See above

SITE PLAN – OSEG PROPOSAL DOCUMENT 2

SS&E FACT SHEET DOCUMENT 3

SITE PLAN SS&E PROPOSAL DOCUMENT 4

LETTER FROM COMMISSIONER OF MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER DOCUMENT 5

AIR PHOTO OF EXISTING LANSDOWNE PARK SITE DOCUMENT 6

OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT 7

Multi-purpose Sports Facility

Opportunity Assessment Framework

Prepared March 2, 2009

Updated March 19, 2009

1.0 Introduction

The City received two unsolicited proposals for the design, construction, operation, maintenance and programming of a multi-purpose sports facility. The first, received in the fall of 2008 consists of the refurbishment of the Frank Clair Stadium as part of a redevelopment of Lansdowne Park (“Lansdowne Park Project”). This project team has a conditional Canadian Football League franchise.

The second is a proposal received in January 2009 and involves a soccer stadium to be built near Scotiabank Place as part of a larger mixed-use development (“Kanata Project”). This project team has a submitted a formal expansion application to Major League Soccer (“MLS”) and is in ongoing discussions with MLS with regard to bringing a team to Ottawa.

The two project teams will herein be referred to as Assessment Participants.

The City is interested in obtaining additional information and clarity in order to gain a more fulsome understanding of the opportunity, its risks, the financial implications and how each project compares to other municipal priorities. The following document provides a framework for the manner in which the information will be obtained and a brief description of how the projects will be assessed.

2.0 Objectives and Purpose

The objective of the Opportunity Assessment Framework (the “Assessment”) is to assess each of the project(s) based on the final submissions provided by the Assessment Participants in order to determine how it fits within other municipal priorities. Following the assessment, the City may, at its sole and absolute discretion, choose to proceed with:

· further analysis of all projects;

· further analysis of only one project; or

· no further analysis on either of the projects.

This is not a procurement process and there is no commitment by the City to proceed with any of the projects that have been submitted and/or are being assessed through this Opportunity Assessment Framework.

3.0 General Terms and Conditions

Prior to proceeding further with the Assessment, the Assessment Participants are required to:

· sign a release

· agree in writing with the Opportunity Assessment Framework

· agree to the compressed timeframe (as shown in Section 7.0)

The Terms and Conditions described below shall apply to the Assessment.

3.1 Contact Person

The Assessment Participants must submit all communications related to this Assessment to the Contact Person at the coordinates listed below, or as otherwise directly by the Contact Person:

Mr. Rob Mackay

A/Director, Community Sustainability Services

Tel.: (613) 580-2424 (ext. 22632)

Email: Rob.Mackay@ottawa.ca

3.2 Fairness Commissioner

The Fairness Commissioner will be involved in the Assessment in order to ensure that it is conducted in a fair, open and transparent manner.

3.3 Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

The City of Ottawa is subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M.56, as amended (“MFIPPA”) with respect to, and protection of, information under its custody and control. Accordingly, all documents provided to the City in response to this Assessment may be available to the public unless the party submitting the information requests that it be treated as confidential.

All information is subject to MFIPPA and may be subject to release under the Act, notwithstanding the Assessment Participants’ request to keep the information confidential.

3.4 Submission or Final Submissions Non-Binding

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Opportunity Assessment Framework, this Assessment is not a tender and is not an offer to enter into either a binding contract or a contract to carry out the Project. For greater clarity, the purpose of the Opportunity Assessment Framework is to identify one or more Assessment Participant(s) with whom the City may move forward with (without any obligation on either party to do so).

3.5 General Rights of the City

The City may, in its sole discretion:

1. reject any or all of the Submissions and Final Submissions;

2. enter into negotiations with any Assessment Participant, person or persons with respect to the project or any part thereof that is the subject of this Assessment;

3. accept to proceed with any Submission;

4. elect not to proceed with the projects that are subject to this Opportunity Assessment Framework;

5. change or elect to discontinue the Assessment at any time before the end of the Assessment;

6. not proceed further with an Assessment Participant that fails to cooperate in any attempt by the City to verify any information provided by the Assessment Participant in its Submission or Final Submission;

7. determine the member of the assessment committee and scoring;

8. alter the Timetable, the process described in this Opportunity Assessment Framework or any other aspect of this Opportunity Assessment Framework; and

9. cancel this Opportunity Assessment and subsequently conduct a competitive process for the project (or any part thereof) that is the subject of this Opportunity Assessment or subsequently enter into negotiations with any person or persons with respect to the project (or any part thereof) that is the subject of this Opportunity Assessment or advertise or call for submissions for the same subject matter of these Opportunity Assessment Framework, or proceed in any other manner they determine in their sole discretion.

These terms are included for greater certainty and are not intended to limit the rights of the City or the Assessment Participants to conduct themselves in accordance with the common law governing direct commercial negotiations in effect and in accordance with Applicable Law.

4.0 Process

The City will continue its assessment of the information obtained from the Assessment Participants. During the Assessment phase, the Assessment Participants will have the opportunity to provide supplementary information, documentation and clarify their initial submission, with the intent to enhance their submissions so that they more closely align with the City’ objectives. It is the Assessment Participants’ sole responsibility to ensure that the City has sufficient information to properly assess their project against the criteria set-out in Section 8.0. Prior to the date set out in Section 7, the Assessment Participants are required to provide a duly authorized final submission (“Final Submission”), which the City will use to evaluate the merits, costs, risks and other factors that the City considers to be of importance.

The City reserves the right to provide the Assessment Participants with individualized information requests in order to obtain clarity on the submission; however, the City is under no obligation to do so. The submission contents do not have to be identical for each Assessment Participant. The differences relate to the differences regarding scope, quality, detail and commercial terms. Notwithstanding these differences, the opportunity assessment criteria, as set out in Section 8 will be applied fairly and equitably to the Final Submissions that are received.

The City expects that the advantages that were provided by the Assessment Participants will be preserved. Where applicable, Assessment Participants are encouraged to address the elements identified by the City in the manner that they deem appropriate through the Assessment. A Fact Sheet will be prepared containing the key elements of the project. The Fact Sheet may be made public, in whole or in part, and would be used to undertake the Assessment. Assessment Participants will be expected to approve the content of the Fact Sheet prior to the date set out in the timetable in Section 7.0

5.0 Commercially Confidential Meetings

The City may, in its sole discretion, convene commercially confidential meetings with Assessment Participants (“Commercially Confidential Meetings”). These Commercially Confidential Meetings are bilateral meetings between the City and its representatives and Advisors and individual Assessment Participants, and their representatives and Advisors to discuss their Submission. The following shall apply:

1. While attendance at Commercially Confidential Meetings is not mandatory, Assessment Participants are strongly encouraged to attend. An Assessment Participant’s failure to attend a Commercially Confidential Meeting is at the Assessment Participant’s sole risk and responsibility.

2. If the City holds Commercially Confidential Meetings, the Fairness Commissioner may be present during some or all of those meetings.

3. No statement, consent, waiver, acceptance, approval or anything else said or done in any of these Commercially Confidential Meetings by the City or any of its Advisors, employees or representatives shall be binding on the City or be relied upon in any way by Assessment Participants, Assessment Participant Team Members or their Advisors except when and only to the extent expressly confirmed in writing by the City.

4. The Assessment Participant, its Assessment Participant Team Members and their respective Advisors and representatives and any of their attendees at Commercially Confidential Meetings acknowledge and agree that:

a. any statement made at a Commercially Confidential Meeting by the City or any of its Advisors or representatives is not and shall not be deemed or considered to be an indication of a preference by the City or a rejection by the City of anything said or done by the Assessment Participant, Assessment Participant Team Member or any of their respective Advisors or representatives;

b. any statement made at a Commercially Confidential Meeting by the City or any of its Advisors or representatives shall not and will not be relied upon in any way by the Assessment Participant, Assessment Participant Team Member or any of their respective Advisors or representatives for any purpose, including any purpose in connection with the Assessment, the Project or otherwise, except and only to the extent expressly confirmed in writing by the City;

c. The City may share process-related information, including clarifying information, with all Assessment Participants if the need arises; and

d. the Assessment Participant, its Assessment Participant Team Members and their respective Advisors and representatives:

i. shall participate in the Commercially Confidential Meetings in accordance with the guidelines, procedures and processes set out by the City;

ii. waive any and all rights to contest and/or protest the processes and guidelines set out herein, including the Commercially Confidential Meetings, based on the fact that such Commercially Confidential Meetings occurred or on the basis that information may have been received during a Commercially Confidential Meeting by another Assessment Participant, Assessment Participant Team Member or their respective Advisors or representatives that was not received by the Assessment Participant, Assessment Participant Team Member or any of their respective Advisors or representatives; and

iii. agree that the Assessment Participant, its Assessment Participant Team Members and their respective Advisors and representatives must treat information received at a Commercially Confidential Meeting as Confidential Information.

6.0 Timetable

The City have established the following timetable for the completion the assessment stage:

	Date
Final Submission and draft Public Fact Sheet provided by the Assessment Participants	March 18^th, 2009 @ 16:30
30 minute Presentations by Assessment Participants with Q and A’s afterwards to the Evaluation Committee	March 19^th, 2009
Commercially Confidential Clarification Meetings with the Assessment Participants	March 23^rd, 2009
Final Fact Sheet is signed off by Assessment Participants	By March 25^th, 2009
Report is tabled at a special meeting of Council	April 6^th, 2009
Presentations by the Assessment Participants and public delegations at a joint Planning and Environment Committee and Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee	April 20^th, 2009
Final report considered by Council	April 22^nd, 2009

The City reserves the right to make changes to the dates, at its sole and absolute discretion.

7.0 Assessment of the Opportunity

The following criteria shall be taken into consideration when determining the overall value of the project in relation to other municipal priorities:

	Evaluation Criteria	Maximum Points
1.	Risk to the City · Overall risk distribution between the City and proponent · Benefit cost analysis of proponent vs. City operated facility · Construction, operating and programming risks · Provincial and municipal legal/legislative requirements · Ability to draw on senior government funding · Opportunity costs of stadium sites · Alternate uses for stadium sites · Performance risks · Proposed risk mitigation measures	35
2.	Overall Need · Prestigious venue for the City that can accommodate major attractions · Provides enhanced sports and entertainment uses that are needed in the community · Overall support from the community · Provides community level access and addresses social and cultural needs in the community · Accommodates tradeshow space	25
3.	Business Plan · Sustainable business plan · Programming and operating plans · Funding model · Municipal policy considerations · Economic benefits and timing	20
4.	Site Considerations · Location and adjacent land uses · Transportation · Servicing · Efficient use of existing infrastructure · New infrastructure requirements not anticipated · Planning implications · Other site considerations	10
5.	Facility Design and Overall Concept · Ability to accommodate multi–uses · Future expansion potential · Proposed mixed use component and access to other existing amenities · Phasing · Neighbourhood impacts · Environmental considerations · Innovations	10
Financial Impacts to the City – Presented separately with no points

8.0 Honorarium and Assessment Participant Expenses

There shall be no honorarium or other compensation paid to the Assessment Participants for their participation in the Assessment. Assessment Participants are solely responsible for their own costs and expenses in all matter related to this Assessment including but not limited to preparing and submitting a Final Submission.

9.0 Next steps

It is understood that Council may direct staff to continue to the next stage which could involve due diligence; identification and resolution of specific issues and opportunities; determination what specific uses are included in the project; or other matters that are deemed necessary by the City to proceed further. If the City chooses to proceed further with one or more Assessment Participants, a separate and distinct process will be established and agreed upon by the party or parties involved in the subsequent stage.

10.0 Instructions to Assessment Participants

The Final Submission must be received in accordance with the directions provided by the City.

FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS DOCUMENT 8

Detailed Financial Analysis and Assumptions

Financial Review – SS&E Proposal

SS&E Base Case Scenario

The base case option reflects the financial impact to the City based on the submission put forward by SS&E. The proposal is premised on the Federal, Provincial and Municipal governments sharing equally in the net cost to develop the stadium as envisioned in the proposal. With respect to Lansdowne Park and decision the City may make if a new Kanata stadium is built, the SS&E proposal further assumes that the City will continue to operate the Civic Centre and Frank Clair Stadium and wind it down over a 30-year period.

The construction costs of the SS&E stadium is $100 million and is based on a Class D cost estimate. A high-level staff review which considers that the stadium will be built on a greenfield site, suggest that the costs appear to be reasonable for the solution presented by the SS&E. The SS&E team has offered to manage the construction under a design build process. In order to account for some construction risk they would absorb the first $1.5 million of any cost overrun beyond the fixed price contract that the City would enter into with the Contractor for the construction of the stadium.

The proposed stadium will sit on approximately 30 acres of City property fronting Palladium Drive that is being used as temporary Snow Disposal Facility (SDF). Funding for the new SDF site is in place. The site represents the northern portion of a 64-acre parcel in the Kanata West Development Plan (KWDP). The larger parcel includes land for the Maple Grove Works Facility, a future storm water management pond to service neighbouring land developers, lands for recreational pathways, and future transportation corridors. The proposed site is considered to be surplus to City needs.

The Kanata West Ownership Group (KWOG) Agreement requires all property owners in KWDP with developable land (including the City) to pay a proportionate share of community servicing costs. The servicing costs associated with the 30 acres are estimated at $2.5 million (2010). Assigning the site to the SS&E for development of an out door stadium will not eliminate the KWOG liability of $2.5 million. In addition, Council has directed that the future proceeds from the sale of the 30 acre parcel be applied to offset some of the cost to replace the Public Works structures at the Maple Grove Facility destroyed by a fire in 2006. By moving ahead with the SS&E project, the City will have to fund the $7.5 million that it would have generated by selling the property. The total lost opportunity cost and the liability for services associated with the site is $10 million.

As a result, the construction cost for the SS&E proposal are $100 million for the stadium plus $10 million for the land component SS&E will invest $10 million in equity under the base case scenario leaving $100 million to be funded from the three levels of government at $33.3 million each.

The base case proposal assumes that the stadium operations, with an anchor MLS team, concerts, beverage/concessions, special soccer events, and parking revenue will generate a profit that will start in year one at $81,000 and would increase to $441,500 in year 30.

This option assumes that the City would continue to operate Lansdowne Park and maintain “status-quo” operations. The first year budget pressure is estimated at $2,250,000 with a present cost value of $28,400,000.

SS&E Option A:

Option A starts with the Base Case and further assumes that the funding is not received from the Federal and Provincial governments thus leaving the City to pay $100 million worth of the project. This option assumes that the City would continue to operate Lansdowne Park and maintain “status-quo” operations. The first year budget pressure is estimated at $6,920,000 with a present cost value of $94,700,000.

SS&E Option B

The SS&E proposal is independent and does not have a direct relationship to Lansdowne Park. However, the development of a stadium in Kanata will create alternate options for the City that will in turn have financial consequences. Option B assumes that Federal and Provincial funding is not received and that the facilities on Lansdowne Park are demolished and the site is greened within the next 3 years. Furthermore, this scenario assumes that the OHL hockey team finds alternate accommodation, presumably at the Scotiabank Place, and there is no incremental cost to the City.

The demolition of the stadium is estimated at $15 million with basic greening costs for park type elements at +/-$250,000 per acre. To recover the costs of demolition the City would have to sell +/- 10 acres of Lansdowne Park. To create a reserve fund to green the remainder of the site an additional 4 to 5 acres ($6 to $7.5 million) would have to be sold. As a result, Lansdowne Park would be 40% developed and under private ownership with 60% left for park development and under City ownership. We note that this is not a staff recommendation and is presented to solely to demonstrate an option to be revenue neutral when considering the financial implications.

The demolition of the stadium complex and arena will create a cost avoidance for the City in the amount of $650,000 operating, $750,000 minor capital and $2.4 million in unbudgeted major capital. This total of $3.8 million is adjusted to account for park maintenance costs. An operating cost of $300,000 associated with the maintenance of the park area was calculated based on the cost associated with Strathcona Park on Range Road.

This option assumes that the City will not operate Lansdowne Park and have a net cost avoidance of $3.5 million. The first year budget pressure is estimated at $3,420,000 with a present cost value of $51,810,000.

SS&E Option C

Option C represents the SS&E submission without receiving any Provincial or Federal funding and adding an OHL facility at a cost of $65 million dollars. All programming currently in the Civic Centre would be transferred and the 67’s hockey team would enter into a market rent reflective of current conditions with parking and concession revenue sharing.

Based on current operations, and an industry review, it is anticipated that this facility would have an operational pressure estimated of $785,000 per annum inclusive of lifecycle. The incremental cost is adjusted upward to account for operating loss. This is adjusted downward by the cost avoidance of 3.5 million associated with the demolition of the Civic Centre and Frank Clair Stadium. The financial impacts of $8.76 million and $132.15 million are premised on building the SS&E stadium, the City ramping down Lansdowne operations, demolition of the arena/stadium, the sale of 40 % of the site, the greening of the remainder and the construction of a new OHL 8,000 seat arena to replace the Civic Centre programming.

Financial Review OSEG Proposal (Lansdowne Live)

In contrast to the SS&E proposal, the OSEG submission has a direct impact on Lansdowne Park operations given that the base case deals with the current condition and long term use of the main building components. The premise of the OSEG submission is that the funds supporting current operations could be redirected to fund debt that would in turn be used to renovate the facility.

OSEG Base Case

The base case option reflects the financial impact to the City based on the OSEG submission that assumes no funding from the Federal and Provincial governments. The OSEG proposal requires the City to bear the cost to rehabilitating Lansdowne Park estimated at $97 million dollars. In addition, the City is required to surrender 9.4 acres of land at the corner of Bank Street and Holmwood Avenue for a term of 30 years at nominal cost.

The OSEG will spend approximately $63 million to develop 232,000 square feet of commercial space in seven separate buildings in a retail cluster on 9.4 acres. The OSEG proposes to invest approximately $19.0 million in equity and mortgage $44 million to construct the retail component. All revenues from the commercial development will be to the OSEG account. The buildings will revert to the City at the end of the 30-year term or the City and OSEG could enter into a lease at market rent. Based on the business pro-forma for the retail provided by OSEG the reversion value is estimated at $20,000,000. Given that the OSEG is developing the site and surrendering the asset this represents a credit to their account. Conversely, the City is surrendering a net land rent revenue estimated at +/-1,050,000 per annum for 30 years. This lost rental income has a present net worth of +/- $18 million and is a debit to the account of OSEG. The reversion value of the commercial improvement and the present value of the forgiven rent are close enough in value as to cancel each other out. Essentially, the City is paying for the commercial properties 30 years into the future by foregoing an annual land rent.

Once the stadium and arena are renovated the OSEG will assume operations of the entire facility including lifecycle thereby relieving the City of its $3.8 million annual expenditures. All revenues associated with the Frank Clair Stadium, the Civic Centre, parking, including trade show space would be to the account of OSEG. Management of the grounds and the farmers market (if it were to remain) were not specifically addressed, however these costs were not considered to be significant as to impact on the base case evaluation.

This option assumes that the City will relinquish operations of a renovated stadium/Civic Centre and control over 70% Lansdowne Park. The first year budget pressure is estimated at $2,995,000 with a present cost value of $47,870,000.

OSEG Option A

This option is based on the base case scenario. A financial risk factor of (30%) has been applied to the construction cost, based on feedback from both staff and external third party consultants. The revised construction cost is $125 million. To properly vet this cost will require a significant amount of due diligence.

This option assumes that the City will relinquish operations of a renovated stadium/Civic Centre and control over 70% Lansdowne Park. The first year budget pressure is estimated at $5,030,000 with a present cost value of $76,800,000.

OSEG Option B

Option B includes the City building 575 parking stalls below grade and 250 above grade structured parking spaces and the greening of the eastern +/-18 acres of the site with park like elements. The parking carries a cost of $25.6 million and is predicated on economies of scale with the construction completed concurrent to the OSEG construction of its commercial parking. The revenue generated from the structured and underground parking would be managed by OSEG including lifecycle with no incremental cost to the City. The greening allowance is approximately $5.0 million. The total for the additional City works projects at Lansdowne is $30 million.

This option assumes that the City will relinquish operations of a renovated stadium/Civic Centre, parking structures and control over 70% Lansdowne Park. The first year budget pressure is estimated at $5,130,000 with a present cost value of $78,200,000.

OSEG Option C

Option C includes the risk adjusted construction costs described in Option A as well as building 575 parking stalls below grade and 250 above grade structured parking spaces and the greening of the eastern 18 acres of the site with park like elements.

This option assumes that the City will relinquish operations of a renovated stadium/Civic Centre and control over 70% Lansdowne Park. The first year budget pressure is estimated at $7,170,000 with a present cost value of $107,140,000.

Assumptions

The following variables were used in the analysis found in the Financial Impact Section of the report.

$250,000 Per acre market value Kanata stadium site;

$2,500,000 Net present cost for KWOG servicing associated with stadium site;

$650,000 Lansdowne Park annual operating subsidy (average over last 5 years);

$750,000 Lansdowne Park annual minor capital (average over last 5 years);

$2,400,000 Lansdowne Park annual major capital (forecast over next 10 years);

$35,000 Concurrent cost to construct an underground parking space;

$18,500 Cost to construct a structured parking space.

$250,000 Average cost to green 1 acre at Lansdowne Park;

$15,000,000 Operational ramp down and demolition cost of Civic Centre and stadium;

$1,500,000 Per acre land market value for low to mid density mixed use development;

$997,500 Per acre land market rent (long term) based on 7% return;

+/- $18,000,000 Net present value of land rent over 30 year term

+/- $20,000,000 Reversion value of the OSEG retail development;

$65,000,000 Cost for new 8,000 seat Civic Centre type facility (excluding land);

$170,000,000 Cost for new Civic Centre and stadium (excluding land)

5.75% Current long term debenture interest rate; and

6.0% Net present cost discount factor for cash flow projections.

3.0% Inflation

GUIDING DESIGN PRINCIPLES DOCUMENT 9

Public Open Space

A substantial portion of the existing hard surface area must be reserved as, and designed as, public open space. Open spaces must be green and sustainable, suitable for recreational use and complimentary to Lansdowne Park’s overall function.

1. The Aberdeen Pavilion and Horticulture Building - Heritage Structures

The Aberdeen Pavilion: Competition submissions must showcase this nationally designated heritage structure. The Pavilion will remain in its current location and plans must preserve and enhance sight lines to this building from the surrounding streets and from the Rideau Canal. The Horticulture Building: The façade of this building has a City heritage designation. Plans must highlight this building and propose adaptive reuse.

2. The Rideau Canal

Proposed plans must recognize and respect this designated World Heritage site, and propose improved public access to the Canal and adjacent scenic pathways.

3. Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre

These facilities will be retained on site and enhanced.

4. Bank Street

The proposed plans must recognize Bank Street’s designation as a Traditional Mainstreet in the Official Plan, and propose uses and built form to accommodate that designation.

5. National Capital Commission Lands

The plans should enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to the recreational pathways and gardens that abut Lansdowne Park

6. Community Focus

The opportunities for use of the site by community stakeholders, such as local sports groups, should be enhanced. The plan should provide for the continuation of the seasonal Ottawa Farmers’ Market in an exterior public space. Plans should also explore opportunities for outdoor performance and festival areas.

7. Sustainable Buildings

Any proposed buildings should achieve a minimum standard of LEED Silver.

8. Site Access and Community Connections

Proposals should improve community access to the site and enhance the relationships between Lansdowne and the adjacent parks.

9. Value to the City of Ottawa

Designs will be evaluated in part upon on their ability to be implemented in a timely fashion, keeping in mind the City’s financial ability to contribute to the redevelopment.

DRAFT DETAILED DESIGN CRITERIA DOCUMENT 10

The following draft Detailed Design Criteria were derived from the January/February 2008 Design Lansdowne consultation process. They are staff’s analysis and synthesis of public opinion. The draft Detailed Design Criteria have not been vetted internally or publicly.

Draft Detailed Design Criteria

Public Open Space and Community Integration

Design a minimum of 35% of the site as public open space that allows for creative and flexible public use and programming (e.g. civic ceremonies, public events, arts and culture, local markets, passive space) [1].

Create public open spaces that attract a diversity of users from across the City, and that are vibrant and keep Lansdowne Park actively used, throughout the year, during the day, at night and on weekends.

Create a hierarchy of adaptable, multi-function spaces so that it is possible to host informal, small-scale gatherings (e.g. street performers, casual recreation) as well as large, pre-planned events (e.g. festivals and cultural activities).

Ensure that the grain of open space and built form design is scaled for pedestrians and that the site is designed for pedestrian priority.

Improve pedestrian and cycling connections to Lansdowne Park and integrate the re-design of the site with the adjacent community park[2].

Preserve a zone of public open space lands that provides an appropriate landscape setting and that preserves clear and comprehensive views to and from the Aberdeen Pavilion and the Rideau Canal.

Ensure that landscape design is ecologically sustainable, contributes to site habitat and biodiversity, reduces required energy and resource inputs, provides means to reduce the urban heat island effect, and reduces storm water runoff.

Heritage Structures

Create a dynamic arrival sequence, from all park entrance points to the heritage structures, that focuses on the pedestrian arrival experience.

Integrate community activities into heritage structures[3].

The Aberdeen Pavilion

Respect the established heritage values of the Aberdeen Pavilion and the requirements of the cost-sharing agreement and the legal conservation easement on the property, including the protection of key views and viewsheds (to and from the Aberdeen Pavilion).

Enhance key views and viewsheds related to the Aberdeen Pavilion, including the views toward all entrances of the pavilion (especially from Bank Street) and those between the Aberdeen Pavilion and the Rideau Canal and its adjacent park-like corridor. Enhance key views and viewsheds from surrounding streets.

Strengthening the relationship between the Aberdeen Pavilion (National Historic Site) and Rideau Canal (UNESCO World Heritage Site) with visual and physical connections.

Retain the Aberdeen Pavilion in its current location and enhance its setting by ensuring land uses that are consistent with the character of the place, in terms of type, scale and density.

The Horticulture Building

Enhance the setting of this municipally designated heritage structure and propose adaptive reuse.

Create view corridors to and from the Horticulture Building and enhance links (visual and physical) to the Canal and to the community.

The Rideau Canal and National Capital Commission Lands

Ensure that this UNESCO World Heritage Site (WHS), and the 30-meter buffer zone around it, is recognized, protected and respected[4].

Protect and enhance the visual setting and broader viewsheds around the Rideau Canal. Preserve the key arrival experiences of the Corridor, in terms of the skateway, the recreational pathways and tourism boating.

Provide a fully integrated design vision from Lansdowne Park to the Canal. Though integrated, the design should maintain the distinction in the ownership and the feeling of linearity of the Queen Elizabeth Driveway corridor.

Enhance public accessibility – focussing on pedestrian and bicycle access to the NCC scenic corridor and Rideau Canal - without unduly impairing the continuity of vehicular flow along the Driveway or the scenic quality of the Driveway.

Ensure respect for the cultural landscape value of the Driveway corridor, through the provision of appropriate setbacks to any new built development, from the federal property limits onto the Lansdowne site and ensure a high quality of sensitive, context-appropriate landscape and urban design for the entirety of the Lansdowne site.

Protect the recreational pathway through this corridor, ensuring its continuity and its quality of setting, design and experience.

Built Form and Infrastructure

Design buildings with active ground-oriented frontages that contribute to the public realm and provide visual variety, and that create interesting views and focal points.

Design buildings where all facades are considered, and thereby offer informal supervision and surveillance of streets, open spaces, walkways etc.

Design buildings to achieve the highest environmental standards, including a reduction in material and resource consumption through construction and over their life-cycle, a reduction in consumption of non-renewable energy, an increase in alternative energy sources, contribution to community energy efficiency, and neighbourhood generation of renewable energy.

Design and locate the built form to enhance positive microclimate conditions, such as solar access and wind patterns, and extend the use of public spaces into the fringe seasons (early spring and late fall).

Enhance the opportunities for use of Lansdowne Park’s indoor facilities by city-wide users, participating in a wide range activities (e.g. amateur sports, arts, culture, local markets etc.).

Bank Street

Ensure a visual and physical integration of Bank Street with the remainder of the site. Future development along Bank Street cannot limit access to Lansdowne Park, in particular for pedestrians and cyclists.

Create a vibrant pedestrian environment (e.g. wide sidewalks and trees, short block lengths and fine-grained fabric, active and diverse ground-oriented uses) along Bank Street and within the site.

Implement the City’s direction for Bank Street as a Traditional Mainstreet and ensure architectural variety and innovative design.

Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre

Retain and enhance Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre and preserve their use as facilities for amateur sports.

Improve the quality of pedestrian access to the Civic Centre.

Transportation and Parking

Reduce the impact of cars accessing the site and encourage the priority of non-vehicular movement on site.

Limit the number of streets on site and design these with broad sidewalks, street trees and on-street parking.

Roads within the site are to be public and low speed.

Meet the requirements of the Bank Street redesign as described in the Bank Street EA.

Improve transit access to the site and enhance public transit waiting areas adjacent to or on site; provide convenient, safe and legible access to these areas.

Replace existing surface parking with above and/or below grade structures; accommodate parking for new uses in above and/or below grade structures.

Design any above grade parking structures as multi-use buildings that achieve design excellence.

Locate any above grade parking structures such that they do not block or degrade views to and from the site.

Ensure appropriate functionality of the site and facilities (e.g. provision of vehicle loading/ unloading areas, proper access to service areas).

Exposition Space

Match the existing amount of exposition space on site within new and/or existing buildings.

Ensure appropriate functionality of the site and facilities for exposition events (e.g. provision of vehicle loading/ unloading areas, proper access to service areas).

Site elements and uses that will not be considered for the site

New road connections from Holmwood Avenue to the site

Additional vehicular connections off Bank Street

Individual private access driveways onto QED

Alterations to two-lane configuration of the QED and/or proposed turning lanes on the driveway

Traffic signalization on the QED

A casino

Drive through uses

Gas station / motor service uses

Big-box / large format retail

Singles, semis, townhouses and residential surface parking

Uses which compromise the heritage status and character of the Aberdeen Pavillion (both exterior and interior)

Stormwater management infrastructure or facilities on, or the direction of runoff to, NCC lands

Changes to lands owned by the NCC and Parks Canada. This includes submissions that propose decorative water channels that connect physically to the Rideau Canal and through NCC property.

---

[1] The calculation of 35% public open space does not include land within any road rights-of-way or any land dedicated to surface parking or above grade parking structures. Frank Clair Stadium’s field space also does not count towards the calculation of 35%.

[2] Sylvia Holden Park is not part of the site and is not to be redesigned through this process. However the current barrier fence could come down and a seamless connection between the two sites could be created.

[3] As per the Cost-Sharing Agreement with Parks Canada, the function and continuing use of the Aberdeen Pavilion is to remain as a public facility.

[4] The 30-meter buffer serves to protect the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the Rideau Canal (UNESCO World Heritage Site).