4.       Public-Private Partnership (P3) For indoor sports dome
at Ben franklin Park - final approval


Partenariat public-privé pour un dôme intérieur
au parc ben franklin - approbation finale

 

 

 

Committee Recommendations

 

That Council:

 

1.      Authorize the Deputy City Manager of Community and Protective Services to conclude and execute all necessary agreements with Thunderbird Management Services Inc. (TMSI) for the provision of a domed playing facility and outdoor sports fields at Ben Franklin Park in accordance with the proposal submitted by TMSI as amended through negotiations, the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal, and the framework contained in this report;

 

2.      Designate 24 Gibbard Avenue, a City-owned property – Ben Franklin Park Phase II Lands – as a Municipal Capital Facility as permitted under section 110 of the Municipal Act and Ontario regulation 603/06 and that this designation be implemented by way of an Agreement, as set out in recommendation 1, between the City and TMSI, and by presenting to Council for enactment a by-law in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Act and this report; and

 

3.      Declare that the Municipal Capital Facility at 24 Gibbard Avenue is for the recreational purposes of the municipality and is for public use.

 

           

Recommandations du comité

 

Que le Conseil municipal :

 

1.      autorise le directeur municipal adjoint des services communautaires et protection à conclure et signer tous les accords jugés pertinents avec la Thunderbird Management Services Inc. (TMSI) en vue de la construction, au parc Ben Franklin, d’une installation de jeu intérieure à dôme conformément à la proposition soumise par la TMSI et aux modifications qui y ont été apportées dans le cours des négociations, aux modalités et conditions énoncées dans la demande de propositions et au cadre de travail défini dans le présent rapport.

 

2.      désigne le 24 avenue Gibbard, une propriété municipale – Terrain Phase II parc Ben Franklin – à titre d’immobilisation municipale à usage public de la Ville en vertu de l’article 110 de la loi sur les municipalités et le règlement 603/06 de l’Ontario et veiller à ce que cette désignation soit établie, dans le cadre d’un accord, selon la recommandation 1, entre la Ville et la TMSI, et par l’intermédiaire d’un règlement soumis pour promulgation au Conseil municipal conformément aux dispositions de la Loi sur les municipalités et aux exigences énoncées dans le présent rapport.

 

3.      déclare que le 24 avenue Gibbard constitue une immobilisation municipale à usage public de la Ville.

 

 

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.      Deputy City Manager's report (Community and Protective Services) report dated
6 February 2007 (ACS2007-CPS-PAR-0001).

 

2.      Extract of Draft Minute, 6 February 2007.



Report to/Rapport au :

 

Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee

Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique

 

and Council/et au Conseil

 

  6 February 2007 / le  6 février 2007

 

Submitted by/Soumis par : Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager/

Directeur municipal adjoint,

Community and Protective Services/Services communautaires et de protection 

 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Aaron Burry, Director

Parks and Recreation/Parcs et Loisir

(613) 580-2424 x 23666, Aaron.Burry@ottawa.ca

 

Knoxdale-Merivale (9)

Ref N°: ACS2007-CPS-PAR-0001

 

 

SUBJECT:

Public-Private Partnership (P3) For indoor sports dome at Ben franklin Park – final approval

 

 

OBJET :

Partenariat public-privé pour un dôme intérieur au parc ben franklin – approbation finale

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:

 

1.   Authorize the Deputy City Manager of Community and Protective Services to conclude and execute all necessary agreements with Thunderbird Management Services Inc. (TMSI) for the provision of a domed playing facility and outdoor sports fields at Ben Franklin Park in accordance with the proposal submitted by TMSI as amended through negotiations, the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal, and the framework contained in this report;

 

2.   Designate 24 Gibbard Avenue, a City-owned property – Ben Franklin Park Phase II Lands – as a Municipal Capital Facility as permitted under section 110 of the Municipal Act and Ontario regulation 603/06 and that this designation be implemented by way of an Agreement, as set out in recommendation 1, between the City and TMSI, and by presenting to Council for enactment a by-law in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Act and this report; and

 

3.   Declare that the Municipal Capital Facility at 24 Gibbard Avenue is for the recreational purposes of the municipality and is for public use.

 

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique recommande au Conseil municipal :

 

1.      d’autoriser le directeur municipal adjoint des services communautaires et protection à conclure et signer tous les accords jugés pertinents avec la Thunderbird Management Services Inc. (TMSI) en vue de la construction, au parc Ben Franklin, d’une installation de jeu intérieure à dôme conformément à la proposition soumise par la TMSI et aux modifications qui y ont été apportées dans le cours des négociations, aux modalités et conditions énoncées dans la demande de propositions et au cadre de travail défini dans le présent rapport.

 

2.   de désigner le 24 avenue Gibbard, une propriété municipale – Terrain Phase II parc Ben Franklin – à titre d’immobilisation municipale à usage public de la Ville en vertu de l’article 110 de la loi sur les municipalités et le règlement 603/06 de l’Ontario et veiller à ce que cette désignation soit établie, dans le cadre d’un accord, selon la recommandation 1, entre la Ville et la TMSI, et par l’intermédiaire d’un règlement soumis pour promulgation au Conseil municipal conformément aux dispositions de la Loi sur les municipalités et aux exigences énoncées dans le présent rapport.

 

3.   de déclarer que le 24 avenue Gibbard constitue une immobilisation municipale à usage public de la Ville.

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

On February 8th 2006, City Council approved the issuance of a request for proposals (RFP), for the provision of an indoor sports field dome at Ben Franklin Park, which sought a partner to construct, operate and maintain the facility and outdoor fields. 

 

Further to the results of a cross-departmental evaluation team, Thunderbird Management Services Inc. (TMSI) was recommended as the preferred partner.

 

At its meeting of July 11, 2006, Council directed that an external Fairness Commissioner be retained by the City to audit the evaluations and advise the City by September 2006 whether or not it concurs with the recommendation of the preferred partner. 

 

A Fairness Commissioner was retained, who confirmed staff’s original recommendation to enter into negotiations with Thunderbird Management Services Inc. per the Fairness Audit report considered by Council at its meeting of September 13.  At that meeting, Council authorized staff to enter into negotiations with TMSI and directed staff to convene a local public meeting to present the project and to identify and seek resolutions to any outstanding issues with a report back to Council on the outcome of the negotiations in January 2007.

 

A public meeting was held on December 8, 2006 to present the concept and receive feedback on potential concerns.  Approximately 80 people were in attendance. 

 

Neighbourhood concerns were raised with respect to increases in traffic, noise emanating from the parking lot, and the visual impact of the Dome itself and fear of lighting spillage into the residential area.  From a user perspective, concerns were raised regarding the process to allocate the existing and new outdoor fields as well as the indoor field.

 

In response to feedback received, TMSI submitted a revised site plan, included in Document 2, that proposes adjustments to access and exit points as well as the parking lot location to minimize traffic and noise concerns.  As part of the Site Plan Application process, a traffic study will be required, in any event, to confirm the road/volume capacity and implement any resulting recommendations.  Additional berming and landscaping along Gibbard will be included in the site plan application to assist in screening the new facilities.  New lighting technology will be implemented that does not permit the interior dome lighting to penetrate through the canvas as older domes have experienced. The new technology has also provides a subtler cream-coloured exterior rather than the stark white colour that is commonly seen. Since the outdoor fields are not to be lighted, there are no concerns with late night games disturbing the community. Lastly, the parking lot lights will conform to minimizing “night light pollution” ensuring the lights reflect only downwards towards the lot and not open to the sky.

 

With respect to allocations, the outdoor fields will be accessible to all groups including soccer, ultimate and football and to all age groups. The outdoor fields will continue to accommodate permitting of “mini” soccer bookings, dividing a full size field into three minis. 

 

Given the successful negotiations and community consultations, this report recommends authorizing the Deputy City Manager of Community and Protective Services to conclude and execute all necessary agreements with TMSI. 

 

The finalized agreement will provide that TMSI and the City enter into a 20 year agreement for the provision of a year round air supported structure at Ben Franklin Park.  The report proposes that the City be responsible for $2,079M in capital investments (previously approved in Parks and Recreation 2006 capital budget) as its contribution towards the establishment of much-needed indoor and outdoor recreational assets. Since the City’s investment pertains to the extension of municipal services to the site, a new parking lot and outdoor fields and the installation of artificial field turf, all of which will be inherited at the end of the term, the municipal asset will have been enhanced by way of the partnership, while serving the needs of its residents.

 

The report recommends designation and declaration of the lands as a capital facility to waive property taxes and development charges for the site given that the facility fulfills a municipal mandate.

 

Should the City have pursued this endeavour on its own without a private partner, the required total capital contribution would have been equal to $6,148,991.00

 

 

RÉSUMÉ

 

Le 8 février 2006, le Conseil municipal a approuvé la publication d’une demande de propositions (DDP) pour la construction d’un terrain de sport intérieur à dôme au parc Ben Franklin, qui sollicitait un partenaire pour construire, exploiter et entretenir l’installation et les terrains extérieurs.

À la suite des résultats de l’équipe d’évaluation interservices, Thunderbird Management Services Inc. (TMSI) a été recommandée à titre de partenaire privilégié.

À sa réunion du 11 juillet 2006, le Conseil a ordonné qu’un commissaire de l’équité externe soit engagé par la Ville pour vérifier les évaluations et indiquer à la Ville, plus tard en septembre 2006, s’il souscrit à la recommandation relative au partenaire privilégié.

Le commissaire de l’équité engagé a confirmé la recommandation initiale du personnel d’entreprendre des négociations avec Thunderbird Management Services Inc. dans son rapport de vérification de l’équité que le Conseil a examiné à sa réunion du 13 septembre. Lors de cette réunion, le Conseil a autorisé le personnel à entreprendre des négociations avec TMSI et a ordonné au personnel de convoquer une réunion publique pour présenter le projet, pour relever les questions non réglées et pour tenter de les résoudre, et de présenter un rapport au Conseil sur les résultats des négociations en janvier 2007.

Une réunion publique a eu lieu le 8 décembre 2006 en vue de la présentation du concept et de l’obtention des commentaires relatifs à toute préoccupation éventuelle. Environ 80 personnes y ont assisté.

Les membres du voisinage ont fait part de leurs préoccupations relativement à l’augmentation de la circulation automobile, au bruit émanant du stationnement et à l’impact visuel du dôme lui-même de même que relativement à la crainte que l’éclairage s’étende à la zone résidentielle. Du point de vue des utilisateurs, on a fait part de préoccupations relatives au processus d’attribution des terrains extérieurs actuels et des nouveaux terrains extérieurs de même que du terrain intérieur.

En réponse aux commentaires reçus, TMSI a soumis un plan d’implantation modifié, figurant dans le document 2, qui propose des modifications aux points d’entrée et de sortie de même qu’à l’emplacement du stationnement pour minimiser la circulation automobile et le bruit. Dans le cadre du processus de demande de plan d’implantation, il faudra effectuer une étude de la circulation de toute manière pour confirmer la capacité des routes et de débit et pour mettre en œuvre toute recommandation en résultant. On intégrera à la demande de plan d’implantation des talus et du paysagement supplémentaires le long de Gibbard pour aider à masquer les nouvelles installations. On mettra en place une nouvelle technologie d’éclairage ne permettant pas que la lumière se situant à l’intérieur du dôme passe à travers la toile, contrairement à ce qui se produit avec des dômes plus anciens. La nouvelle technologie prévoit également un extérieur de couleur crème, plus subtile, plutôt que la couleur blanche vive couramment utilisée. Étant donné que les terrains extérieurs ne seront pas éclairés, on ne craint pas que les parties se poursuivant tard le soir dérangent la collectivité. Enfin, les lumières du stationnement seront conçues de manière à minimiser la « pollution des lumières de nuit », garantissant que les lumières ne pointent que vers le bas sur le stationnement et qu’elles n’éclairent pas les environs.

Quant aux attributions, les terrains extérieurs seront accessibles à tous les groupes, y compris les équipes de soccer, de disque volant suprême et de football ainsi qu’à tous les groupes d’âge. Les terrains extérieurs continueront de permettre les réservations de « minis » terrains de soccer, soit la division d’un terrain complet en trois mini terrains.

Étant donné le succès des négociations et les consultations de la collectivité, le présent rapport recommande d’autoriser le directeur municipal adjoint des Services communautaires et de protection à conclure et signer tous les accords jugés pertinents avec TMSI. 

L’accord définitif stipulera que la TMSI et la Ville concluent une entente sur 20 ans prévoyant la construction d’une structure de jeu à toit gonflable exploitée à l’année longue au parc Ben Franklin. Le rapport propose que la Ville soit chargée d’effectuer des investissements en immobilisations de 2 079 millions de dollars (montant déjà approuvé dans le budget d’immobilisations 2006 de Parcs et Loisirs) à titre de contribution à la construction d’installations de loisirs intérieures et extérieures nécessaires. Étant donné que l’investissement de la Ville a trait à l’extension des services municipaux à ce site, à un nouveau stationnement, à des terrains extérieurs et à l’installation d’un terrain à gazon synthétique, qui lui reviendront à la fin de l’accord, le partenariat aura rehaussé les actifs de la Ville tout en comblant les besoins de ses résidents.

Le rapport recommande que les terrains soient déclarés constituer une immobilisation municipale à usage public pour que le site soit exonéré de taxes foncières ou de redevances d’aménagement étant donné qu’ils remplissent un mandat de la Ville.

Si la Ville avait entrepris elle-même ces travaux sans la participation d’un partenaire privé, la contribution totale requise aux immobilisations aurait correspondu à 6 148 991 $.

BACKGROUND

 

On February 8th 2006, City Council approved the issuance of a request for proposals (RFP), for the provision of an indoor sports field dome at Ben Franklin Park per the framework set out in the report, which sought a partner to construct, operate and maintain the facility and outdoor fields.  The RFP was issued in March and closed on May 15, 2006. Further to the results of a cross-departmental evaluation team, TMSI was selected as the preferred partner and a report brought forward to Committee and Council July 11th   to that effect. Rather than confirm the preferred partner, Council directed that “an external Fairness Commissioner be retained by the City to audit the evaluations conducted by City staff on all the proposals received for the P3 New Indoor Sports Field Dome at Ben Franklin Park and to advise the City by September 2006 whether it concurs with the recommendation of the preferred partner or, alternatively, if it does not agree with the recommendation”; and also directed a public meeting on the recommended proposal be held in the community before the proposal is submitted to Council.

 

The services of a Fairness Commissioner was retained (Knowles Consultancy Services Inc.) and their report appended to the third report to Committee and Council September 13 2006. The last report confirmed staff’s original recommendation to enter into negotiations with Thunderbird Management Services Inc. and directed staff to report back on the outcome of negotiations in January 2007.

 

A public meeting was held per Council direction and the results can be found under the Consultation Section of this report.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

In 2004, the City, using Nepean Reserve funds, developed the east side of the park per the original Nepean Master plan for Ben Franklin Park, commonly referred to in this report as phase I lands. (Document 1). The west side of the park (phase II lands) as originally contemplated in the Master Plan is to be developed under a Public Private Partnership (P3) agreement. Indoor domes are not considered to be part of the Branch’s core mandate, only outdoor fields, and in order to construct such recreational assets, municipal funds must be supplemented by other sources of funding such as the private sector. In anticipation of the release of a Request for Proposal, Parks and Recreation Branch received as part of its approved 2006 capital budget allocation, $2,079M for its contribution towards the project.

 

Given the significant growth in soccer, ultimate, rugby and the corresponding demand for year-round training and play, TMSI is proposing the following plans for the phase II -west side lands of Ben Franklin Park:

 

 

It should be noted that the following proposed partnership agreement is similar and based on the City’s first P3 indoor dome agreement developed for Hornet’s Nest. Both projects include the enhancement of a City asset whereby non-serviced municipal lands will be serviced and new recreational assets developed and used by residents, without an on-going municipal operating budget contribution such as the purchase of hours in the dome.

 

Design and Construction

 

TMSI will be responsible for the design and construction of the entire project including the provision of the dome, Club House, site amenities (parking lot, entranceway, pathways etc.) and the two new outdoor natural turf fields. All works will meet or exceed City standards, with the quality and final costs being certified and executed by a professional engineer.

 

Ben Franklin Park site is currently City-owned land, and will remain as such during the term of the agreement. TMSI will operate under a Municipal Capital Facilities Agreement with the City for a period of 20 years, with a possible two, five-year extensions at the end of the initial term. This is described in further detail under Financial Framework.

 

Operations and Services

 

TMSI will be solely responsible for the management and operations of the dome, clubhouse and outdoor fields (new ones on Phase II lands and the (4) existing ones on Phase I lands per the RFP), including the development, marketing and delivery of programs. TMSI will also have discretion to set and collect user fees according to market rates, which includes indoor and outdoor field rates. The existing outdoor fields will be re-categorized from a 1A classification to a premium-level field by TMSI supplementing the City’s basic maintenance i.e. more frequent over-seeding, aeration, fertilization, grass cutting and providing users with a higher level of service such line painting, net installations, staffing of existing support building etc. The City will not be purchasing blocks of time at the facility; users will purchase directly from TMSI at market rates.

 

As a result, all outdoor fields (phase I and phase II fields) will be permitted by TMSI, in addition to the indoor field. The City will not be responsible for any of the allocations, nor will the City determine who will receive the permits. Further to the interest generated by this project, various sports groups and leagues, eager to enter into agreements, have been in contact with TMSI. Even prior to construction being underway, it has become apparent that the demand, for both the outdoor fields and indoor, will outstrip the supply available, especially during the prime hours of Monday to Thursday. The City has been dealing with this type of problem since before amalgamation in attempting to ensure that some form of equity amongst the competing groups is established and given access to the City’s limited inventory of fields. Knowing a P3 was planned for the phased II lands, all of the 2006 Ben Franklin park permits included a clause under the Conditions of Use - “This is a temporary allocation of Ben Franklin Park until the results of the P3 agreement are clear”, reinforcing no future commitment was being made. Since the new fields will not be built in time for the 2007 season, the City will issue permits with the same conditions for this year. For 2008 and onward, TMSI has committed to ensure prime hours are distributed to different sports, various teams and leagues within the given sports and available to all age groups including children, youth and adults.

 

In ensuring fairness and equitable access to the total inventory of outdoor fields, TMSI will provide the City with a final listing of hours and fields allocated to each group prior to the City issuing its seasonal allocation of fields throughout the city. The City will in turn, have regard for the hours permitted at Ben Franklin Park when providing the sports groups’ total allocation on other City fields. As a result, the outdoor hours permitted at Ben Franklin Park or lack thereof will be reflected in the allocation provided by the City in other fields.

 

TMSI will be responsible for all maintenance on the Phase II lands including winter operations for the new parking lot and fire route. As the City does not presently winter maintain the phase I lot, the status quo will be maintained, as TMSI will be availing their lot to potential cross-country skiers interested in using phase I and II lands for their winter recreational activity. 

 

TMSI will have the right to pursue sponsorship, advertising etc within the domed facility and Phase II lands on condition that the spirit of the City’s policies and by-laws are respected such as bilingualism, restrictions on tobacco and alcohol, use of pesticides etc. The commemorative name of the park, Ben Franklin shall remain however TMSI is given naming rights to the actual Dome & Club House and outdoor fields.

 

Per the TMSI proposal and discussion at the public meeting, an advisory committee will be established, comprised of representatives of all stakeholders including community members and user groups. With the committee in place, any issues raised can be dealt with in a timely manner. In addition, TMSI will undertake focus group analysis of their services to the public and attend local community association meetings on an as-needed basis.

 

Financial Framework

 

Upon finalization of the agreement, TMSI and the City will enter into a 20 year agreement for the provision of a year round air supported structure at Ben Franklin Park, with an option of two, five-year extensions. At the end of the term, the new infrastructure and amenities (dome, club house, outdoor fields, parking lot, pathways, site services, etc.) will transfer to the City for a nominal fee and at that time, the City may require TMSI to dismantle and remove the dome and club house at TMSI’s cost.

 

TMSI will purchase and erect a year round air-supported dome, installation of artificial turf, construct Club House, 2 outdoor natural turf fields and amenities such as parking lot, pathways, landscaping and berming etc. They will design and construct the extension of municipal water, storm and sanitary sewer services and install a separate power supply to the Domed Facility. These capital investments result in a total estimated cost of $5,862,150M.

 

TMSI will create an endowment Fund that will make charitable contributions towards community based projects and initiatives and allowing for groups to access the facility at a greatly reduced cost or for free. TMSI intends to partner with groups such as the United Way and Ottawa Boys and Girls Club to create the Field of Dreams program aimed at providing under-privileged families with access to facilities in Ottawa at no charge and free summer camps. The local community is to have free access to the meeting room in the Club House as well as free-use of the trophy display case. TMSI’s initial contribution of $50,000 will be supplemented with a minimum annual allocation of $5,000.00

 

All repairs and lifecycle costs associated with the infrastructure on phase II lands will be the exclusive responsibility of TMSI.

 

The City contribution of $2,079M was preset in the RFP. The City will lease the phase II lands for a nominal fee during the period of the agreement, while retaining ownership.

 

Contingent on the condition of the original artificial turf in the dome, the City will pay the full replacement cost of the turf at the end of its lifecycle, which is anticipated to occur in approximately year 10 of the agreement, 2018. This investment is estimated at $550,000 in 2007 dollars.

 

Municipal Capital facilities Agreement

 

Under section 110 of the Municipal Act, a municipality is permitted to enter into a Municipal Capital Facilities Agreement where the facility is established for the purposes of the municipality or for public use. In order to provide property tax relief for the site, and exemption from applicable municipal charges, the City and TMSI will enter into a Municipal Capital Facilities Agreement. This will exempt the facility from both the municipal and education portions of the property tax, as well as development charges. The value of these exemptions as a result of a Municipal Capital Facilities Agreement with TMSI is discussed under the Financial Implications section.

 

Risk Distribution

 

Under this P3 project, TMSI assumes the design and construction risk for the provision of an air supported playing structure and artificial turf, club house, outdoor natural turf fields, parking lot and all support services; water, sewer, power etc. They further assume all responsibility for the performance and revenue risk associated with the operation, maintenance and management of the facility as well as the existing outdoor fields on Phase 1 lands.

 

TMSI’s capital construction costs will be equity financed with no debt financing thus reducing the City’s exposure. The equity financing will be raised by issuing ownership units in the project to private investors through an investment vehicle such as a limited partnership.

 

The City is responsible for $2,079M in capital investments as its contribution towards the establishment of a much needed indoor and outdoor recreational assets. Since the City’s investment pertains to the extension of municipal services to the site, a new parking lot and outdoor fields and the installation of artificial field turf, all of which will be inherited at the end of the term, the municipal asset will have been enhanced by way of the partnership, while serving the needs of its residents.

 

The City is not responsible for any guarantee and/or safeguarding of the revenue stream as all operational costs are to be bourn by TMSI. Should there be a deficiency in cash management requirements, shareholders per their agreement signed, will require a mandatory cash infusion by the owners to meet any cash management requirement for the operation.

 

Similar to the SuperDome P3 at Hornet’s Nest, the agreement provides for remedies should there be problems with the construction and/or operation of the facility such as; performance of covenants, in the event of bankruptcy, insurance requirements, indemnity, event of default and in the case of a dispute, an arbitration process.

 

City Benchmark

 

Included in the Branch’s approved Infrastructure Strategy and Project Listing (2005), four (4) indoor domes were deemed as requirements to meet the indoor recreational needs of the new City. Their geographic locations were identified as one in the west (BellSensplex), central (Lansdowne), east (SuperDome) and now south (Ben Franklin). Any partnership undertaken must be a win-win proposition for both partners and as such, the City established its benchmark As previously noted, the City would not pursue an indoor dome on its own as it is deemed to be an enhanced level service, requiring additional funding sources other than municipal. However, for comparative purposes, and with the assistance from our centre of expertise in RPAM, the required total capital contribution for City construction is equal to $6,148,991.00.  This is compared to TMSI’s total capital project cost of $5,862,150.00. The City contribution of $2,079,000.00M will offset TMSI’s cost that will be applied to the capital expenditure, for a net TMSI total capital contribution of $3,783,150.

 

If the City built and operated the facility, it would be responsible for all annual operating costs associated with staffing, equipping, maintaining/repairing, marketing, administering etc. the new sports complex. The P3 will not add to the City’s operating budget in any significant way other than the requirement for .6 of an FTE. Since the inception of P3’s in the Parks and Recreation Branch (Sensplex, Ray Friel, SuperDome, Kinburn Arena and RVCA Headquarters) no additional staff have been hired to monitor and oversee our P3’s. These functions have in the past been absorbed within the work program that cannot be further sustained.

 

Fairness Commissioner

 

Although Council directed staff to hire a Fairness Commissioner to review the initial evaluation and recommendation of the preferred partner, Knowles Consultancy Services was retained to extend its fairness review to include the negotiation phase of the contract finalization. In summary, the Fairness Commissioner provided suggestions for continuous improvements but found no evidence to suggest that the recommended final contract as proposed by City staff is inappropriate from a fairness perspective.

 

“While we have provided suggestions for continuous improvement, as Fairness Commissioner, we can find no evidence to suggest that the recommended final contract, as proposed by City staff, is inappropriate from a fairness perspective. Indeed City staff took considerable care in reviewing each issue to ensure that:

1)     The terms and conditions, as specified in the RFP, have been substantively retained;

2)     The commitments and costing undertaken by the Successful Proponent have been substantively retained; and

3)     The risk exposures of both parties are comparable to those defined in both the RFP and in the Successful Proponent’s proposal.”


 

Phase 1 Lands – Operations and Maintenance

 

In the Request for Proposal, proponents were requested to consider the newly developed (4) outdoor fields on the east portion of the park as part of the comprehensive partnership proposal. TMSI included full management and maintenance of Phase 1 including allocation of hours and issuance of permits in their submission. The complete management of Phase 1 and the premium service level upgrades offered by the proponent are exceptional and exceed City practice and procedure. Prior to ruling on whether this would be considered a material change, the financial arrangements for this specific portion needed to be separate out of the proposed budget, in order to determine whether the proposed change would be an advantage to the proponent, cost neutral or to their detriment. Through simplification of roles and responsibilities, the joint delivery of Phase 1 operations and maintenance was deemed to be an advantage of between $3,000-$6,000 annually to the proponent. However, normal City practises on City-projects consider up to 10% variance in costs identified in Tenders, Request For Proposal and Request for Quotation  as minor and acceptable. Of an anticipated $493,000 gross operating budget, the additional funds (1.2% or less) are not considered as a material change. It should also be noted that TMSI has voluntarily increased the size of the dome (associated increased capital cost) in order to provide for additional space along the sideline, as well as reconfiguring the original site plan to mitigate community concerns. The reconfiguration will also add capital costs to TMSI that have yet to be finalized.  

 

The Fairness Commissioner determined that,

 

“Given the rather small impact on the Operating budget and the more than offsetting adjustment to the Successful Proponent’s Capital budget, it was our view, as Fairness Commissioner, that the issue of City grass cutting had no impact on fairness.”

 

 

Term of the Agreement

 

The Request for Proposal stated “It is anticipated that the partner agreement will be over a twenty year period.” This change was deemed fair as the word anticipated was used, as well as the proponents submission and figures were based on 20 years plus several 5 year renewals. This is a similar situation given the negotiated and completed P3 agreements for the ice pads in the east and west and the SuperDome.

 

The Fairness Commissioner determined that,

 

“… it was reasonable for the City to settle for 20 years plus 2 optional 5 year renewals at the agreement of both parties as the basis for the contract duration given that:

1)     The RFP used the word “anticipated” regarding the 20 year time frame;

2)     The Proposal indicated the Successful Proponent would be asking for 20 plus three 5 year renewals;

3)     The proposal figures were based on 20 plus 5 years;

4)     The Proponent had been evaluated based on this offering;…”

 

Turf Life Cycle

 

The proposed agreement has the City being responsible to replace the turf at the end of its useful life which is anticipated in year 10-12 after opening. The Request for Proposal was silent on the matter and again, the City is being consistent with this element as it was also included in the SuperDome P3 agreement.

 

The Fairness Commissioner determined that the turf replacement issue passes the test for fairness, but found that there were certain inadequacies in the City’s Request for Proposals document which should be addressed through continuous improvement.

 

“While the RFP contained clear evaluation criteria, the lack of specificity regarding deliverables and format within which to provide information on financial obligation (pricing) made it difficult to directly compare one proposal vs another. This made determination regarding fairness in negotiation difficult on certain matters.

 

This was particularly the case regarding the issue of turf replacement.

 

In determining impact on fairness, as Fairness Commissioner, we determined that, during the evaluation process, the Successful Proponent received points for the financial commitment made i.e. paying for the installation of the turf.  This is the only firm commitment that was made. The fact that the City staff decided to negotiate such that the City would pick up the entire cost of the subsequent replacement is within the bounds of what the Successful Proponent said it would negotiate.

 

This projected cost of $550,000 (2007 dollars) in ten years is partially offset by the voluntary increase by the Successful Proponent of $475,650 to pay for newly defined capital needs not in their original proposal. See Section 2.4, New Capital Commitments.

 

In our view as Fairness Commissioner, we feel that the negotiation on this point meets the test of fairness to Proponents given:

·        The Successful Proponent’s declaration in the proposal that they would only pay for the initial installation of the turf;

·        The fact that they were evaluated on that basis;

·        The additional contribution of $475,650 by the Successful Proponent to deal with other capital requirements not in their original proposal;

 

 

Continuous Improvement

 

Given the difficulty this point caused in determining a basis for fair negotiations, it is suggested that, in the future, RFP processes designed to establish 3 P partnerships:

 

·        Evaluate financial obligation separately from consideration of the quality of the deliverables;

·        Provide Proponents with more specifically defined deliverables;

·        Require Proponents to specify all financial obligations for both parties in a consistent manner such that one proposal can be objectively compared and scored with another;

·        Require Proponents to quote all financial obligations for the entire life cycle of the partnership arrangement rather than indicating that certain costs/financial obligations will be subject to future negotiation”

 

 

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The facility and fields will be available to users from across the City, including rural residents who will have access to these new recreational assets.

 

 

CONSULTATION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

As part of the P3 process and directive from Council, a public meeting was held on Thursday December 8th 2006 to present the concept to the local community and user groups, and receive feedback on potential concerns and to mitigate, where possible appropriate solutions. Approximately 80 people were in attendance to view the plans and review the partnership proposal. Of greatest concern to local residents is the potential impact the increase in traffic will have on those living north of Gibbard Avenue, the noise emanating from the parking lot, the visual impact of the Dome itself and fear of light spillage into the residential area. From the sports users point of view, concerns were raised regarding the process to allocate the existing and new outdoor fields as well as the indoor field. In response, the following is provided;

 

 

NATURE OF COMMENT

Proposed Partnership Response

 

 

General support for the project and the need for the facility

 

Traffic

 

·         From the local community north of the park, need to alleviate traffic and parking along Bateman/Atkinson/Conover/ Knoxdale. Experiencing major traffic issues with the church expansion at Bateman & Greenbank, project will aggravate existing situation. Traffic study required, too much traffic at Atkinson Gate and Gibbard

 

 

·         Investigate dead-ending Atkinson Gate to ease traffic

·         Look at moving parking lot and the two access roads to come off Knoxdale rather than Gibbard

·         As part of the Site Plan process, a traffic study will be required to confirm road/volume capacity. Further to the public meeting and concerns raised, TMSI investigated (6) options relating to a more ideal entry and exit point, location of the fields, parking lot and the Dome relative to the residential community. Revised Site Plan in Document 2 is the preferred option by TMSI, fully supported by staff that best addresses local concerns.

·         Will be investigated as part of the Traffic Study

·         The revised site plan amends the traffic flow off of Gibbard for entry and exit using Knoxdale.

Parking

·         Insufficient parking allotted especially during tournaments

 

·         Parking should be reoriented to Knoxdale

·         Phase 1 already having parking issues, ensure adequate parking is available, more than the proposed 184 spaces

 

·         Similar to City constructed and operated  facilities, parking requirements are not established based on special events.

·         Revised plan reoriented off of Knoxdale

·         TMSI recognizes the issue and the revised plan shows 204 spaces. Additionally, information packages on alternative modes of transportation i.e. car pooling during tournaments will be included in TMSI’s marketing

Noise

·         Concerned with noise generated from the parking lots as field users exit

·         Use more berming and landscaping to screen residents

 

·         Parking lot has been moved away from the residential area in the revised site plan

·         Project includes a comprehensive landscaping plan and berming along Gibbard to help screen local residents

Lighting

·         Concern with lights spill into residential area from parking lot, fields, dome, pathways

 

·         Lighting fixtures for the parking lot and pathway to the dome will have cut-off lenses ensuring lights reflect only  downwards. The outdoor fields will not be lit and newer material for the dome contains light from within.

Safety

·         Protection needed to prevent sport balls/disks from entering traffic on Hunt Club and Knoxdale

·         Who’s liability

·         Berms of any height will not contain the balls

 

·         Revised plan moves the fields away from Hunt Club. Netting if required will be investigated as with the other City fields.

·         Liability is determined by the courts

·         Agree, the berms were not intended to function as netting.

Booking of Fields

·         Will current City and user agreements be honoured by TMSI

·         To whom and how will the fields be allocated, Local groups should be given priority

·         City should retain control over allocation

 

·         There are no agreements in place with the City

·         TMSI to establish a clear and transparent allocation process that ensures a varied mix of users have access to the facilities

·         Main objective of the P3 project is to give the partner the tools required to successfully manage the business and exclude the City in assuming additional management/operating costs. The City will have regard for the hours allocated to groups at Ben Franklin for outdoor fields when it allocates its fields and bookings city-wide.

Location of the Dome

·         Large facility that is intrusive

 

 

 

 

 

·         Move the dome to the corner of Knoxdale & Huntclub, along with the parking lot

 

·         Indoor sports field was previously planned for at this location. A new fabric material is now available and will be used which is a more “cream-coloured” than the stark white colour presently seen on existing domes in the area.

·         Because of the configuration of the site, placing the dome in the southeast corner becomes problematic as the original dome location is not wide enough to ensure a north-south alignment (sun-orientation) required for premium outdoor fields, there is a federally owned sewer easement crossing the site on the Knoxdale frontage that prevents facility construction over top.

User Groups and Local community

·         Request for on-going dialogue with both local community and sports groups

 

 

·         Will there be a mechanism in place to address local community concerns

 

·         Advisory and focus groups to be established by TMSI, including representatives of the local community and user groups

·         TMSI will be available to attend association meetings to address concerns as they arise.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The City has financed its capital contribution of $2,079M through Parks and Recreation’s 2006 capital budget allocation; Development Charges (375K), Tax Supported Reserves ($1,655M) and Tax Supported Debt (50K).

 

In approximately year 10 of operations, the City will be responsible for the replacement of the artificial turf within the facility at an estimated cost of $550,000 (2007 dollars). This commitment will be tracked under our debt authority reporting and will be funded at the appropriate time, as per the conditions of the agreement.

 

Under the Municipal Capital Facilities Agreement, the City will forgo revenues from property taxes, and development charges that would be charged to the site. The value of the property taxes to be waived for this facility is estimated at $270,000 annually, of which $126,000 is the educational component. The development charges to be waived are estimated at $ 750,000. 

 

As part of the Department’s draft 2007 Operating Budget Pressures, $35,000 or .06 FTE has been identified to assist in over-seeing and monitoring the City’s P3 indoor playing fields; Superdome at Hornet’s Nest, indoor field at the Sensplex and the new dome at Ben Franklin.

 

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1 – Location Plan

 

Document 2 – Revised Site Plan

 

 

DISPOSITION

 

Community and Protective Services, in consultation with the Legal Services and Supply Management Branches, will finalize and arrange for execution of the necessary agreements to implement this public-private partnership with TMSI.


Corporate Services and Economic               Comité des services organisationnels

Development Committee et du développement économique

Report 2      rapport 2

 

Extract of draft Minutes 3

6 february 2007

 

Extrait de l’ébauche du procès-verbal 3 – 6 février 2007

 

 

Public-Private Partnership (P3) For indoor sports dome
at Ben franklin Park – final approval

Partenariat public-privé pour un dôme intérieur au parc ben franklin – approbation finale

ACS2007-CPS-PAR-0001            knoxdale-merivale (9)

 

Mayor O’Brien advised he was a former partner in TMSI Sports Management and that, although he had sold his entire interest in TMSI, he would declare a conflict of interest and remove himself from discussions on Item 5 of the agenda.  Pursuant to his declaration of interest, Mayor O’Brien left the room during discussions on this item and in his absence, Councillor Desroches chaired this portion of the meeting.

 

Councillor Deans referenced the complexity of Public-Private Partnership (P3) arrangements and suggested that before the City entered into more of them, Council needed some sense of the success of those already underway and whether or not they were problematic so that, if there were problems, past mistakes would not be repeated by approving additional P3s. 

 

Mr. Kirkpatrick maintained staff had recommended this particular P3, and last fall, Council had agreed to it in principle with some directions with respect to public consultation to ensure the local community’s issues were satisfied.  He reported that staff’s position had not changed in terms of recommending this proposal.  He referenced the risk assessment and submitted that the benefits to the community and to the City warranted those risk assessments.  He noted that Council would be receiving a report in the spring from the Auditor General as part of his 2006 audit workplan.  He acknowledged that there would always be issues with P3s, which the City would need to manage on an on-going basis.  To the extent that those issues would require Council to amend its delegated authorities, staff would approach Council for this at such time as it became relevant.  However at this time, in terms of how the City was doing on other P3s, Mr. Kirkpatrick re-iterated he would not recommend anything different in terms of the proposal currently before Committee. 

 

Mr. A. Burry, Director of Parks and Recreation, added that there was a similar P3 operating in the East end; the Hornet’s Nest, where to date, there had been no financial or other implications. 

 

Responding to a further question from Councillor Deans with respect to other P3s in the recreational area, Mr. Burry believed Council would be seeing some indications of how  some of the larger and more complex ones performing.  However, in terms of this particular scale of project, he submitted this was a simpler project, requiring a simpler level of investment.  He compared it to the Hornet’s Nest, which was performing according to the plans outlined. 

 

Following this brief exchange, Committee voted in support of the report recommendations.

 

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:

 

1.      Authorize the Deputy City Manager of Community and Protective Services to conclude and execute all necessary agreements with Thunderbird Management Services Inc. (TMSI) for the provision of a domed playing facility and outdoor sports fields at Ben Franklin Park in accordance with the proposal submitted by TMSI as amended through negotiations, the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal, and the framework contained in this report;

 

2.      Designate 24 Gibbard Avenue, a City-owned property - Ben Franklin Park Phase II Lands - as a Municipal Capital Facility as permitted under section 110 of the Municipal Act and Ontario regulation 603/06 and that this designation be implemented by way of an Agreement, as set out in recommendation 1, between the City and TMSI, and by presenting to Council for enactment a by-law in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Act and this report; and

 

3.      Declare that the Municipal Capital Facility at 24 Gibbard Avenue is for the recreational purposes of the municipality and is for public use.

 

            CARRIED