CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC 1 COMITÉ DES SERVICES

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ORGANISATIONNELS ET COMITÉ DE

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT L’URBANISME ET DE
COMMITTEE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
EXTRACT OF DRAFT EXTRAIT DE L’ÉBAUCHE DU
JOINT MINUTES 2 PROCÈS-VERBAL CONJOINT 2
20 APRIL 2009 LE 20 AVRIL 2009

ASSESSMENT OF STADIUM PROPOSALS: LANSDOWNE LIVE AND

SENATORS SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT (KANATA)
DÉPÔT - ÉVALUATION DES PROPOSITIONS CONCERNANT LES STADES
: LANSDOWNE LIVE ET SENATORS SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT
(KANATA)
ACS2009-ICS-OCM-0003 CITY-WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Mayor O’Brien outlined how the meeting would proceed pursuant to the procedural
memo provided by the City Clerk and Solicitor and the Deputy City Clerk. He advised
that the proponents had agreed to the Senators Sports & Entertainment (SS&E)
presenting first. He then invited staff to provide an update presentation.

Speaking to a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager, and Mr. Rob
Mackay, Manager of Projects: updated Committee on the direction given at the previous
meeting with respect to potential infrastructure funding from the federal and/or provincial
governments outside the infrastructure funding programs for which Transportation
Master Plan (TMP) projects were eligible; outlined options and costing in terms of “base
case” versus option A (Civic Centre limited refit) and option B (Civic Centre full
contemporization); and discussed alternative concepts, including a description of a 1998
proposal prepared by Canderel. A copy of their presentation is held on file.

Responding to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Kirkpatrick advised that, since
2001, annual revenues generated by Lansdowne Park had been around $4M and $5M and
the 2009 actual revenue was $4.5M whereas the expenses for operating the facility were
$5.3M. He explained that under the “base case” scenario outlined in the presentation,
there would be no investment to renovate the facility because the City would merely to
keep it safe for its current programming mandate. However, he maintained that $24M
would be needed for lifecycle renewal at the facility over the next 10 years.

Mr. Cyril Leeder spoke to a PowerPoint presentation in which he provided a detailed

overview of the Senators Sports and Entertainment (SS&E) proposal for a soccer stadium
in Kanata. In particular, he outlined: the benefits of partnering with SS&E; the basis of
the SS&E plan; the proposed terms and conditions for the stadium; and the location in
terms of its accessibility and suitability for this type of venue. In closing, he provided a
rebuttal of the staff report and its analysis of the SS&E proposal. A copy of the
presentation is held on file.

Representing the Lansdowne Live proponents were Mr. Roger Greenberg, Mr. Bill
Shenkman, Mr. Jeff Hunt and Mr. John Ruddy.

Mr. Greenberg spoke to a PowerPoint presentation in which he: talked about Lansdowne
Park’s central location; discussed the group’s vision for the site; referenced the overall
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC 2 COMITÉ DES SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ORGANISATIONNELS ET COMITÉ DE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT L’URBANISME ET DE
COMMITTEE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
EXTRACT OF DRAFT EXTRAIT DE L’ÉBAUCHE DU
JOINT MINUTES 2 PROCÈS-VERBAL CONJOINT 2
20 APRIL 2009 LE 20 AVRIL 2009

need for revitalization of the existing facilities; outlined the group’s proposal for a multi-
purpose stadium and how other uses, such as the Ottawa Farmers’ Market and trade
shows, would continue to be accommodated on the site; expressed a willingness to work
with the City and the community to meet the needs of all residents; and described the
group’s business plan, including the conditional CFL franchise, facilities management,
site considerations, funding model and risks to the City. A copy of the presentation is
held on file.

At this juncture, Committee heard from the following public delegations:

• Mark Cohon, Canadian Football League Commissioner
• Richard Munro, Chief Executive Officer, Football Canada
• June Creelman, Chair, Lansdowne Committee, Glebe Community Association
• Phil Cottrell
• Greg Kazmierski
• David Harrison
• Bob McKeown, Ottawa Canadian Football League Alumni
• Mark Kosmos, Ottawa Canadian Football League Alumni
• Jacques Climie, Ottawa Canadian Football League Alumni
• Scott Bradley
• Michael Pastor
• Dennis Prouse
• Gordon Bunke
• Richard Warnock
• Ian Lee
• Catherine Lindquist, Executive Director, Glebe BIA
• Greg Best, Chair, Glebe BIA and owner, Bank Street Framing, Pom Pom and
Sassy Bead Company
• Gilbert Russell, owner, Brio Bodywear
• Richard Banister, owner, Snapdragon Gallery
• Gordon Vachon
• John Pugh, Owner/CEO, Ottawa Fury Soccer Club
• Peter Bowie, Director, Ottawa Association of Exposition Managers
• Einar Murchison, President, Ottawa Association of Exposition Managers
• Daniel Doyle
• Teena Hendelman
• Bruce Rosove
• Campbell Robertson
• Walter Hendelman
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC 3 COMITÉ DES SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ORGANISATIONNELS ET COMITÉ DE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT L’URBANISME ET DE
COMMITTEE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
EXTRACT OF DRAFT EXTRAIT DE L’ÉBAUCHE DU
JOINT MINUTES 2 PROCÈS-VERBAL CONJOINT 2
20 APRIL 2009 LE 20 AVRIL 2009

• Shelley Goertzen, Kanata Soccer

• Robert Brocklebank
• Kerry Hanrahan
• Marwen Hassan
• Tim Lash
• Brian Tansey
• Devan Fair
• John Reid, Chair, Arts, Heritage and Culture Advisory Committee
• Abdullah AL Haj
• Mark Templin
• Ray Sally
• Steve O’Brien
• Gerry Rochon
• Linda Cook
• Colin Samuels
• Andy Terauds
• Doug Casey
• Andy Haydon
• Douglas Martin
• George Kelly
• Robin Duetta
• Tim Denison
• Toby Sangar
• Rob Campbell
• Morgen Peers

Following the delegations, Committee members posed questions of the proponents,

beginning with the Senators Sports and Entertainment representative.

Responding to questions from Committee members, Mr. Leeder provided the following
information:

• With respect to the risks associated with financing the proposal, he advised that the
group would need the unqualified support of the City to assist in moving forward and
seeking funding support from the upper levels of government. He remarked that just
about every stadium in the country had been build with a shared funding formula
between the province, the federal government and the respective cities.
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC 4 COMITÉ DES SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ORGANISATIONNELS ET COMITÉ DE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT L’URBANISME ET DE
COMMITTEE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
EXTRACT OF DRAFT EXTRAIT DE L’ÉBAUCHE DU
JOINT MINUTES 2 PROCÈS-VERBAL CONJOINT 2
20 APRIL 2009 LE 20 AVRIL 2009

• The soccer stadium would hold 20-25 soccer matches annually as well as 8 to 13
concerts and a number of other festivals and eventually, trade shows.

• The stadium would share parking facilities with Scotiabank Place and this would be
managed by ensuring the two venues did not run concurrent major events.

• The property tax figure of $7.5M referenced in the presentation was an estimate based
on $2.5M from Lansdowne and $5M from additional commercial development that
would occur between the stadium and Scotiabank Place. The stadium would not pay
municipal property taxes because it would be a city-owned facility.

• The construction budget of $100M included contingencies in excess of $10M, which

would be firmed up as the design process moved forward. The proponent envisioned
locking this budget number down through a guaranteed maximum price contract with
a builder, effectively having the builder assume 100% of that risk. As long as neither
SSE nor the City asked for any significant scope changes, they would guarantee the
number. Further, they were confident that they could deliver their project within the
$100M budget envelope. Because they were building on a Greenfield, they felt there
was little risk of unknown factors coming into play.

• Mr. Leeder indicated he did not yet have an estimate of the amount of profit expected
from the development of the rest of the site.

• With respect to timeframe of development, he indicated the first phase would be in

the first three years and the balance would take up to 25 years.

• In terms of the effects of development on employment centres around the City, he

indicated he did not know whether or not this proposal would have any major impact.

• Mr. Leeder confirmed that SS&E would be prepared to negotiate with the City or
change some of the terms submitted. However, he maintained that what they had put
forward was what they felt could work to ensure a viable stadium and a successful
team.

• With respect to potential fan base, he indicated when he was growing up, baseball
was the popular sport. However, his own kids had never played baseball. Instead,
they played soccer and hockey. Therefore, he surmised that the demographics had
changed and in order to build a fan base, these fans needed to be able to participate in
the sport. Based on this, he was confident that the SS&E could build a strong fan
base for professional soccer.
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC 5 COMITÉ DES SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ORGANISATIONNELS ET COMITÉ DE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT L’URBANISME ET DE
COMMITTEE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
EXTRACT OF DRAFT EXTRAIT DE L’ÉBAUCHE DU
JOINT MINUTES 2 PROCÈS-VERBAL CONJOINT 2
20 APRIL 2009 LE 20 AVRIL 2009

• In terms of why it was important to get a stadium now, Mr. Leeder submitted that the
MLS was expanding now. He noted that they had missed the opportunity for the
2011 expansion but that the league would soon be announcing its process for two
more franchise expansions in 2012 and it was not clear whether it would still be
expanding in three or four years.

• Mr. Leeder confirmed that until a stadium was confirmed, they were unlikely to be
awarded a franchise. The process was to work with the City to get a conditional
approval and a period of time to finalize the documents that would be required for a
stadium agreement. During this same period, they would secure the MLS franchise.
He submitted that in order for the proponent to approach the league to secure a
franchise, it would need to confirm that the City wanted to move forward with the
soccer-specific stadium, confirm the City’s contributions of land and $16.7M and
have the City step forward with them to apply for funding from the upper levels of
government.

Moving on to the Lansdowne Live proponents, Mr. Greenberg responded to members’

questions. The following summarizes the main points raised.

• Speaking to the issue of financial risks, Mr. Greenberg did not believe there were any
risks to the City. Once the proposal was confirmed, the proponents would give
guaranteed price to complete the renovation of the stadium as they had confidence in
the $97M estimate and noted that it contained adequate contingency. Further, he
indicated the proponents would be responsible for all operating losses and be able to
keep all operating gains once the facility was open. He clarified that the $97M cost
estimate was for the stadium and arena components only.

• With respect to life-cycle maintenance costs, Mr. Greenberg referenced a proposed

surcharge on tickets; money that would be placed into a designated reserve fund,
administered jointly by the City and the OSEG and to be spent on major capital
repairs to ensure that at the end of the 30-year lease, the facilities were in top shape.

• In terms of other costs, the proponents have estimated tax revenues from the
commercial development on the site and believe that between this and the $3.8M the
City currently spends to operate Lansdowne Park, it could pay off the $100M
debenture on a 30-year amortization. Further, the speaker maintained that Lansdowne
Park was a city-owned asset, would continue to be a city-owned asset, and at the end
of the 30-year lease, the City would inherit real estate worth in excess of $300M.

• Mr. Greenberg advised that there were approximately 10-12 acres of land at the site
currently not specifically spoken for within their proposal, though they had provided
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC 6 COMITÉ DES SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ORGANISATIONNELS ET COMITÉ DE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT L’URBANISME ET DE
COMMITTEE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
EXTRACT OF DRAFT EXTRAIT DE L’ÉBAUCHE DU
JOINT MINUTES 2 PROCÈS-VERBAL CONJOINT 2
20 APRIL 2009 LE 20 AVRIL 2009

a number of ideas, which they felt were in keeping with what residents wanted at
Lansdowne Park; a 365-day a year gathering place with a variety of activities.
Further, he re-iterated that OSEG would be happy to participate in a collaborative
process with the City with respect to its needs; whether or not all 12 acres would be
developed and whatever process may be undertaken to do so.

• With respect to concerns regarding big box stores, Mr. Greenberg felt that it was a
misnomer to suggest that what they were proposing was a series of big box retail
developments. He maintained this was the furthest thing from their minds. He noted
that they had not gotten into any detailed design vision for the site and submitted this
was something that had to be done in collaboration with the City as this was not their
land and it would likely require an Official Plan amendment, rezoning application and
site plan amendment; all opportunities for public input. He submitted that their
development expertise was an asset they brought to the process but he re-iterated that
they were sensitive to the needs of the local area.

• Mr. Greenberg confirmed that the project cost did not include the various proposed
features such as an amphitheater, formal gardens, reflecting pool, etc. These were
provided as examples to illustrate what could go on the site.

• He acknowledged that the OSEG proposal depended on the parking currently

provided on the City’s land. He noted the City’s current lease with the Ottawa 67’s
required a certain amount of parking and the group would want to maintain a certain
amount of parking on the site to make it work. Though the proponents would be
happy to discuss ways of creating satellite parking or of reducing the need for onsite
parking, he maintained that this was public land and to the extent the City wanted to
do something with it, this would be at the City’s cost.

• Mr. Greenberg conceded that citizens would want to see the entire park redeveloped.
He believed there were many ways to address the situation, though he maintained that
the stadium was one component and that the Aberdeen Pavilion, the retail, the
proposed residential and the remaining 10 to 12 acres were separate additional
components. He confirmed that it would be nice to see all the design pieces come
together but that often, communities were developed in stages.

• With respect to phasing, he submitted that there were serious problems with the
stadium so its redevelopment needed to move forward and that the retail needed to be
developed at the same time. He explained that because the stadium itself would
likely lose money, the proponents needed to move forward with the retail component
in order to make the whole proposal viable. Further, it was expected that the tax
revenues generated by the retail development would help the City finance its
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC 7 COMITÉ DES SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ORGANISATIONNELS ET COMITÉ DE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT L’URBANISME ET DE
COMMITTEE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
EXTRACT OF DRAFT EXTRAIT DE L’ÉBAUCHE DU
JOINT MINUTES 2 PROCÈS-VERBAL CONJOINT 2
20 APRIL 2009 LE 20 AVRIL 2009

contribution to the project. However, he believed more time could be taken in terms
of finalizing designs and developing the rest of the site’s components.

• Speaking to the media reports with respect to the release of the engineer’s report on
the status of Frank Clair Stadium, Mr. Greenberg explained, given that the document
had been around for several months, the proponents were mystified as to why it was
not released a long time ago and why it was not make known that their proposal
incorporated all of the challenges identified in the document. He maintained that it
was a public document and the public had a right to know what it contained.

• When asked why they had not entered their proposal into the previous design
competition for Lansdowne Park, Mr. Greenberg explained that at the time they
started the process to get a conditional CFL franchise, there was no design
competition nor did anyone know about the cracks in the stadium. As they moved
along in their process, information came to light with respect to the condition of
Frank Clair Stadium and the City announced a design competition for the
redevelopment of Lansdowne Park. He indicated they proponents did not have
confidence that the design competition was going to result in a successful process for
the City of Ottawa. Therefore, they decided to submit an unsolicited proposal, which
was within their rights in a democratic society. Conversely, he remarked that it was
within the City’s rights to reject their proposal and continue on with the competition.

• In terms of costs, Mr. Greenberg maintained that the OSEG proposal was revenue-
neutral to the City based upon the City’s current expenditures and that detailed
information in this regard had been provided to staff as part of the proposal. Further,
he noted that in assessing this aspect of the proposal, staff had rated it as exceeding
expectations.

• Responding to a question with respect to the revitalization of Lansdowne Park, Mr.

Greenberg submitted that the football team was just a small part of what OSEG was
proposing as it would only occupy the stadium for about ten dates per year so,
although it was what had started the process and the proponents would be putting a
lot of money and resources into it, the success of the entire effort would depend upon
a collaborative process between the OSEG and the City to come up with an excellent
retail design as well as the 10 to 12 acres behind the stadium. Further, he submitted
that the OSEG would want to manage the site in a way that would avoid conflict
between the various programming taking place there.

• Speaking to the issue of taxes, Mr. Greenberg estimated that the retail component
would generate about $2.5M annually in property tax revenues for the City but that,
as a city-owned facility, the stadium would not be paying any taxes.
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC 8 COMITÉ DES SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ORGANISATIONNELS ET COMITÉ DE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT L’URBANISME ET DE
COMMITTEE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
EXTRACT OF DRAFT EXTRAIT DE L’ÉBAUCHE DU
JOINT MINUTES 2 PROCÈS-VERBAL CONJOINT 2
20 APRIL 2009 LE 20 AVRIL 2009

• Responding to further questions with respect to the retail component, he explained

that their hope was to attract retailers who would be particularly suited towards a
scale and size that made sense in the local area. He referenced an art gallery as an
example as well as theaters, shops and restaurants.

• When asked whether they would be willing to look at making the Aberdeen Pavilion
the permanent home of the Ottawa Farmers’ Market, Mr. Greenberg expressed a
willingness to discuss options. He submitted that the aquarium was an exciting and
incredible opportunity for the City in terms of the visitors it would attract. However,
he noted that this would not have to be at the Aberdeen Pavilion, or even on site. He
maintained that the City had to express its priority for the Aberdeen Pavilion, whether
that was the Farmers’ Market, trade show space or other.

• Responding to questions with respect to the housing component, the proponent

explained this was proposed in order to protect the residents on Holmwood by
maintaining a residential feel for those residents. He suggested it was only a
proposal, though they felt it made good planning sense.

• With respect to traffic complaints, he submitted that regardless of a venue’s location,

there would always be complaints about traffic. He referenced Scotiabank Place’s
location and noted that currently, on game nights, west-end residents complained that
the increased traffic caused delays in getting home from work.

• When asked whether they had done a market analysis in terms of potential fan base,
Mr. Greenberg indicated they had not done a specific study. However, he submitted
that, no withstanding good reasons otherwise, Ottawa fans had always supported
football. He believed the problems with previous franchises stemmed from poor
management and the fact that the facilities left a lot to be desired. He re-iterated
some of the improvements the group would be making to the facilities and expressed
confidence in Mr. Hunt’s management and the quality partnership associated with this
group.

• Speaking to a $10M costing for an aquarium, Mr. Greenberg indicated the OSEG
proposal did not require that the City provide any funding, front-ending or otherwise,
for the aquarium.

• In response to questions with respect to above-ground versus under-ground parking,

he suggested this was something the City would have to decide. He noted that
although above-ground parking was cheaper, it took up space and it would be up to
the City to decide how much of the excess acreage it wanted to use for this purpose.
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC 9 COMITÉ DES SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ORGANISATIONNELS ET COMITÉ DE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT L’URBANISME ET DE
COMMITTEE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
EXTRACT OF DRAFT EXTRAIT DE L’ÉBAUCHE DU
JOINT MINUTES 2 PROCÈS-VERBAL CONJOINT 2
20 APRIL 2009 LE 20 AVRIL 2009

However, he advised that the proponents would provide, at their expense, enough
parking for the retail component as well as for the parking spaces displaced by that
retail development.

• With respect designing and developing significant pieces of public property, Mr.
Greenberg acknowledged that his company did not have this type of development
experience. However, he maintained that Lansdowne Park was not a park, in the true
sense of the word and he reported have a level of comfort with the types of uses being
proposed for the site.

• Responding to questions with respect to the value of a football franchise, Mr.

Greenberg indicated a previous speaker had suggested that one Grey Cup event could
generate $80M in local economic activity.

Addressing the issue of the sequence of events and the design competition, Mayor
O’Brien pointed out that his office was having discussions with the entire organization
regarding possibilities in a general manner months before the design competition came to
the table and that he had approached Councillor Hume to suggest some cost-effective
solutions for Lansdowne Park. He remarked that three days later, Councillor Doucet had
made a public announcement regarding the design competition. However, he maintained
that by then, discussions had been taking place, in a philosophical way, for some time.

In response to questions with respect to a deed to Lansdowne Park and limitations with
respect to what could or could not be done on the site, Mr. Rick O’Connor, City Solicitor,
indicated staff had done a title search and had not found any such deed or trust but that a
more in-depth search would be undertaken and the results reported to Council at its 22
April meeting.

Responding to questions with respect to upper-tier financing, Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated

there were elements where the federal government would entertain private sector
proposals. He noted that in terms of these proposals, the facilities would remain in the
municipality’s ownership. Therefore, these would not be considered private-sector
proposals. He expressed staff’s belief that these proposals would not be eligible for the
infrastructure stimulus fund because of the criteria related to timelines. He re-iterated
that the projects would be eligible under the Build Canada program and it was up to
Council to decide whether its priorities would be to apply to that program for funding.
However, he reminded members that TMP projects were also eligible for the Build
Canada program.

Councillor Brooks expressed concerns with respect to the sewer project for the Village of
Manotick. The City Manager confirmed that staff would be following through on
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC 10 COMITÉ DES SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ORGANISATIONNELS ET COMITÉ DE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT L’URBANISME ET DE
COMMITTEE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
EXTRACT OF DRAFT EXTRAIT DE L’ÉBAUCHE DU
JOINT MINUTES 2 PROCÈS-VERBAL CONJOINT 2
20 APRIL 2009 LE 20 AVRIL 2009

Council’s direction and would be applying to the Build Canada program to fund the
referenced projects.

Councillor Feltmate asked about funding for the proposed aquarium at Lansdowne. Mr.
Mackay confirmed that the proposal from Marinescape suggested there would be an
upfront contribution from the City of $10M, in U.S. funds, with the suggestion that they
would pay that back through a lease and taxes.

The Councillor maintained that Council had to look at Lansdowne Park as a whole.
Therefore, she wondered if the taxes that would be generated by the proposed retail
development would be enough to cover the City’s costs, not only for the debenture
associated with the OSEG proposal but also for the rest of the development and greening
of the site. Staff confirmed that the entire development, as referenced in the Councillor’s
question, would require additional funds because the tax revenue generated by the retail
development, coupled with the amount the City currently spent on operating Lansdowne,
would only cover the debenture.

Responding to a question with respect to timelines for developing a design proposal for
the entire site, Mr. Mackay indicated the staff report outlined a process that would take
about five months to go through community consultation and build on the work already
done.

Councillor Hunter inquired about the snow dump at the Kanata location and costs of
relocating that municipal facility. Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated, as part of approving the
City’s participation in the Kanata West owners’ group, Council approved that there would
be revenue through the disposal of some of that property in the order of $8 million.
While their request was for donation of the property, there would still be an $8M funding
issue in terms of continuing to fund the City’s partnership in the Kanata West owners
group.

With respect to relocating the facility, staff indicated the facility was slated to be ramped
down and a budget had been identified to acquire new land. To that end, Real Estate
Services was searching now for a new location. However, the funds from the sale of the
referenced property were proposed to be reinvested into the expansion of the Maple
Grove works facility.

Responding to a question on the principle of “just in time”, Mr. Kirkpatrick confirmed

that in the case of the Kanata proposal, a stadium would not be needed right way and
therefore its construction would be subject to an MLS franchise. With respect to the
Lansdowne Live proposal, there was a conditional franchise and the current stadium in
need or repair or reconstruction.
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC 11 COMITÉ DES SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ORGANISATIONNELS ET COMITÉ DE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT L’URBANISME ET DE
COMMITTEE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
EXTRACT OF DRAFT EXTRAIT DE L’ÉBAUCHE DU
JOINT MINUTES 2 PROCÈS-VERBAL CONJOINT 2
20 APRIL 2009 LE 20 AVRIL 2009

Councillor Bloess posed questions with respect to the City’s risks associated with the
Lansdowne Live proposal. Mr. Kirkpatrick referenced the staff report, which indicated
the proposal had score well in this regard on the basis that they would assume any over
expenditures, both on the capital side and operations. However, more work needed to be
done in terms of programming elements and firming up cost estimates.

Responding to a further question from Councillor Bloess, Mr. Mackay confirmed that in
moving forward on the Lansdowne Live proposal, staff would look at what was the
proper mix of retail on the site.

In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, staff estimated the revenues that would
be generated by the retail component would not quite be enough to carry the debenture
costs. There would be a minor funding gap. Mr. Mackay confirmed that staff had hired
the Corporate Research Group to look at the proposed retail, particular the impact it
would have and whether it was sustainable and that their comments were in the staff
report. However, from an impact perspective, staff would want to undertake more work.

Councillor Holmes referenced developing the rest of the site and inquired as to the City’s
debt capacity. Ms. Marian Simulik, City Treasurer, assured Committee that there was no
problem with debt capacity. She explained Council had set an upper target that debt
servicing would never exceed 7.5% of the City’s revenue sources and it was currently at
about 4.4% to 4.5%. Further, she indicated Council had designated what was termed
legacy debt and had not set any limits on this. She suggested this project could qualify
under that definition.

As a result of questions from Councillor Monette, staff accepted to take as direction to

come back with information with respect to anticipated future property values.

Councillor Chiarelli introduced a motion, to be tabled for consideration at the 22 April

Council meeting.

On a Point of Order, Councillor Doucet noted that, on 16 April 2009, he had submitted a
motion of deferral, which should take precedence. Mayor O’Brien confirmed that the
deferral motion would be considered at the 22 April meeting of Council.

At this juncture, Councillor Chiarelli tabled the following motion, for consideration at the
22 April 2009 meeting of City Council:

WHEREAS the City of Ottawa has received an unsolicited proposal from The Ottawa
Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG), called ‘Lansdowne Live’, designed to
revitalize Lansdowne Park and return a Canadian Football League team to Ottawa;
and
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC 12 COMITÉ DES SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ORGANISATIONNELS ET COMITÉ DE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT L’URBANISME ET DE
COMMITTEE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
EXTRACT OF DRAFT EXTRAIT DE L’ÉBAUCHE DU
JOINT MINUTES 2 PROCÈS-VERBAL CONJOINT 2
20 APRIL 2009 LE 20 AVRIL 2009

WHEREAS the public has said that they would like Lansdowne Park to have more
green space, pedestrian linkages to the Rideau Canal, enhanced Trade and Consumer
Show space, and public spaces designed to support community initiatives like the
Ottawa Farmers Market and festivals; and

WHEREAS revitalizing the Civic Centre and Frank Clair stadium are an important
part of the ‘Lansdowne Live’ proposal, and an engineering study has identified that the
structures at Lansdowne Park will require millions of dollars to maintain and restore;
and

WHEREAS the City of Ottawa currently spends approximately $3.8 Million in

operations and maintenance and we are limited in sources of new revenue to fund the
redevelopment or urgent repairs;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff be directed to negotiate a partnership

agreement with The Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) to redevelop
Lansdowne Park, including revitalizing the Civic Centre and Frank Clair stadium,
enhancing Trade and Consumer Show space and protecting the Ottawa Farmers’
Market, based on a revenue- and value-neutral basis, subject to Committee and
Council approval and based on the following conditions:
1. That the City continue to support the Central Canada Exhibition’s move to the
Albion Road site;
2. That the City of Ottawa’s contribution to the revitalization of Lansdowne Park be
limited to a dollar amount to be established during the negotiations, based on the
principle of not increasing the overall cost to the taxpayer; and
3. That any revenues generated from the revitalized Lansdowne Park not be used to
subsidize any professional sports teams; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the negotiations take place within a 60-day

timetable; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that revitalizing Lansdowne Park be confirmed as our

stadium priority project for Federal and Provincial infrastructure funding.

Speaking to his motion, Councillor Chiarelli maintained that the City had to deal with
Lansdowne Park and that only one group had come forward with a reasonable and solid
offer to do so. He felt it would be irresponsible for the City to not explore this further.
He noted that the motion called for the City to enter into negotiations to develop what he
hoped would be a better model.
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC 13 COMITÉ DES SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ORGANISATIONNELS ET COMITÉ DE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT L’URBANISME ET DE
COMMITTEE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
EXTRACT OF DRAFT EXTRAIT DE L’ÉBAUCHE DU
JOINT MINUTES 2 PROCÈS-VERBAL CONJOINT 2
20 APRIL 2009 LE 20 AVRIL 2009

Before introducing her motion, Councillor Deans asked that the City Clerk’s office
provide clarity, for Wednesday’s Council meeting, as to whether or not her motion would
be viewed as an amendment to the previous motion, tabled by Councillor Chiarelli, or
whether it would be viewed as a stand-alone motion.

Councillor Deans then tabled the following motion, for consideration at the 22 April 2009
meeting of City Council:

WHEREAS City Council has already approved a series of guidelines for the
transformation of Lansdowne Park, including the following:
- That a substantial portion of the existing hard surface area must be reserved as,
and designed as, public open spaces that are green and sustainable, suitable for
recreational use and complementary to Lansdowne Park’s overall function;
- That the Aberdeen Pavilion 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, and the façade of the Horticulture Building be retained;
- That public pedestrian and bicycle access to the Rideau Canal, to the recreational
pathways and gardens that abut Lansdowne Park and links to adjacent parks be
improved;
- That Frank Clair Stadium and the Civic Centre be enhanced;
- That plans recognize Bank Street’s designation as a Traditional Mainstreet in the
Official Plan;
- That the opportunities for use of the site by community stakeholders, such as local
sports groups, should be enhanced;
- That the plan should provide for the continuation of the seasonal Ottawa Farmers’
Market in an exterior public space;
- That the plan should also explore opportunities for outdoor performance and
festival areas;
- That any proposed buildings should achieve a minimum standard of LEED Silver;
- That plans are able to be implemented in a timely fashion, and keep in mind the
City’s financial ability to contribute to the redevelopment; and

WHEREAS any development of Lansdowne Park must respect the scale and character
of the neighbourhood;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff be directed to incorporate the following

conditions into any partnership agreement that will be negotiated to redevelop
Lansdowne Park, including revitalizing the Civic Centre and Frank Clair Stadium,
subject to Committee and Council approval:
1. That the design principles incorporate the following:
a. That the composition of retail, commercial, and community-benefit public
space, including the Farmers’ Market, for the balance of the lands at
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC 14 COMITÉ DES SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ORGANISATIONNELS ET COMITÉ DE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT L’URBANISME ET DE
COMMITTEE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
EXTRACT OF DRAFT EXTRAIT DE L’ÉBAUCHE DU
JOINT MINUTES 2 PROCÈS-VERBAL CONJOINT 2
20 APRIL 2009 LE 20 AVRIL 2009

Lansdowne Park give regard to the criteria established by Council, listed in

Document 1 of the Lansdowne Park-Design Competition report, and be
determined through a design process; and
b. That the plan respect the scale and character of the neighbourhood and the
public nature of the site, and that:
i. There be no housing component;
ii. There be no big box retail stores;
iii.Commercial uses be limited to uses that support the main uses on the site,
and that the commercial uses be “boutique” in nature;
iv. Public transit options be considered; and
v. The Trade Show and Consumer Show space be enhanced; and
c. That the design process includes a comprehensive public consultation process
prior to a final decision by City Council; and
2. That the City of Ottawa’s contribution to the revitalization of Lansdowne Park be
limited to a dollar amount to be established during the negotiations, to be based on
not increasing the overall cost to the taxpayer; and
3. That any revenues generated from the revitalized Lansdowne Park not be used to
subsidize any professional sports;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the negotiations include consultations with the

National Capital Commission and an understanding from the Federal and Provincial
Governments regarding their level of financial commitment.

Councillor Deans submitted that, regardless of who the City may negotiate with for
Lansdowne Park, the public had clearly indicated there were some things Council should
not give away in any negotiations, that this was a sacred trust and an important public
land. As stewards of this land, she felt Council had to consider the public’s advice. She
noted that although there was not unanimity, there were concerns with respect to how
Council would direct future negotiations and her motion sought to limit the scope of such
negotiations.

Councillor El-Chantiry asked that staff provide a definition of big box retail in time for
the Council meeting.

In response to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry regarding the infrastructure

stimulus fund, Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated the deadline was May 1st for the City to submit
its priority list. In terms of the two proposals, he re-iterated staff’s position was that
neither would qualify based on timeline criteria.

Councillor Wilkinson, tabled the following motion, for consideration at the 22 April 2009
meeting of City Council:
CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC 15 COMITÉ DES SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ORGANISATIONNELS ET COMITÉ DE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT L’URBANISME ET DE
COMMITTEE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
EXTRACT OF DRAFT EXTRAIT DE L’ÉBAUCHE DU
JOINT MINUTES 2 PROCÈS-VERBAL CONJOINT 2
20 APRIL 2009 LE 20 AVRIL 2009

WHEREAS the City of Ottawa has received an unsolicited proposal from the Senators
Sports and Entertainment (SS&E) to provide a stadium for professional soccer in
Ottawa; and

WHEREAS the growth in popularity of soccer would benefit from a dedicated facility
and the provision of community fields would be beneficial to the City of Ottawa;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ottawa be directed to negotiate an

agreement with the Senators Sports and Entertainment (SS&E) to develop 30 acres of
City-owned land along Palladium Drive, subject to SS&E receiving confirmation of a
Major League Soccer (MLS) Franchise and Committee and Council approval, based
on the following conditions:
1. That the subject lands be leased to SS&E for $1, with the term of the lease to be the
subject of negotiations and conditional on the development of a soccer-specific
stadium to house an MLS team and community fields; and
2. That the City in return for the provision of community fields, designate the fields
and stadium as a municipal capital facility and provide a contribution of up to $10
million.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the negotiations take place within a 60-day

timetable.

Speaking to her motion, the Councillor submitted it was a companion motion to the ones
on Lansdowne Live. She believed everyone recognized the need to revitalize Lansdowne
Park and that she did not oppose this but she wanted to keep the field open to see if the
proponents could raise the additional funds to provide the facility.

Moved by Councillor R. Chiarelli

That the tabled motions be referred to Council for its consideration on 22 April
2009.

CARRIED