Page 1

The following is a best value comparison chart for the City of Ottawa at Lansdowne Park. This comparison model demonstrates the value to the City with the Lansdowne Park Conservancy and the cost to the City with the developer proposal known as OSEG. All figures verified with City figures.

City with Conservancy South Stands North Stands/Arena Building Code Changes Green Space and Grounds 80ft Beacon, Paving, Curling Rink 400ft Digital Wall, cement porch Outdoor hockey rinks Outdoor recreational skating Tobogganing hill Horticulture Building Renovations Coliseum Building Concert Shell Swimming Pool/Pavilion Parking Horticulture Bldg Move Soccer Dome Move Infrastructure Retail Space upgrades Improvements to Aberdeen Total Current Cost to City

48,000,000 29,000,000 0 16,040,000 none none included included included 6,400,000 3,000,000 1,200,000 5,000,000 zero, half of existing zero, building remains zero, building remains 495,000 500,000 500,000

$110,135,000

City with OSEG 39,000,000 44,000,000 23,200,000 16,000,000 7,000,000 9,000,000 none included included 3,000,000 removed none none 22,523,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 (private developer cost) none $178,723,000


Financed over 40 years at 5.35%

City with Conservancy

Total Debenture Cost to City

City with OSEG

$267,286,000

$433,742,000

REVENUES Revenue - Lease Operations Total Retail/Office lease space ft² Net Lease space cost/ft² Annual Net Lease Revenue

110,000 $23.47 $2,581,700

339,000 $28.72 $9,736,080

Total Tower lease space ft² Net Lease space cost/ft² Annual Net Lease Revenue Towers Total – Net Annual Lease Operations Total – Available to Park

0 $0.00 $0 $2,581,700

90,000 $22.00 $1,980,000 $11,716,080

$2,581,700

$1

Revenue - General Operations Pool Revenue Catering, Concessions, Other Aberdeen Pavilion Rentals Number of public parking spots Parking - Revenue Lease Soccer Bubble Solar Revenue South Stands Concert Shell/Festivals Farmer's Market Summer Farmer's Market Winter Stadium Rental Fee CFL Arena Rental Fee OHL Stadium/Arena Total Revenue - Operations Total Available to Park

75,000 100,000 250,000

0 0 0

(Public Parking spots 1250)

(Public Parking spots 660 – Appendix K)

2,142,000 300,000 442,702 250,000 300,000 100,000 300,000 100,000 2,536,000 6,895,702

$6,895,702

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(no pool or pavilion)

(soccer bubble removed) (no concert shell)

$0


EXPENSES

City with Conservancy

City with OSEG

Debt Retirement and Operations Annual Debenture Repayment Stadium/Arena Costs Park and Maintenance Costs Operations Expense Parking Annual Avoided Costs Total Annual Expenses Total Annual Cost to City

Calculations after year 1 Total Annual Revenues Total Annual Costs PROFIT/LOSS after year 1

6,682,150 3,702,000 1,700,402 200,000 -3,800,000

$8,484,552 $0

City with Conservancy $9,477,402 -$8,484,552 $992,850

10,843,550 0 1,500,000 0 -3,800,000

$8,543,550 $8,543,550

City with OSEG $1 -$8,543,550 -$8,543,549


Calculations after 40 years

Total Capital Cost Total Cost of Borrowing

City with Conservancy

$110,135,000

Avoided costs over 40 years

City with OSEG

-$267,286,000

$178,723,000

$152,000,000

Total Annual Direct Expenses Total Expenses after 40 years

$5,602,402

Total Annual Lease Revenue Total Lease Revenue after 40 years Lease Revenue to pay off debt

$2,581,700 $190,274,586

Total Annual Operations Revenue Total Operations Revenue; 40 years Operations Revenue to pay off debt

$6,895,702 $508,222,042

-$412,904,180

$190,274,586

$508,222,042

-$433,742,000 $152,000,000

$1,500,000 $1 $74 $0 $0

-$110,551,915

$74

$863,490,060 to developers

$0

Air Rights (Note no bidders for RFP)

$0

$0

Capital contributions (Waterfall)

$0

$85,000,000

$170,306,447

-$307,293,841

PROFIT/LOSS After 40 years

NOTE


Conclusions

Net park and social benefits

City with Conservancy

City with OSEG

1. A public spacious heritage development 2. Sylvia Holden Park protected, maintained 3. Less density means less traffic 4. All Heritage protected 5. A reserve fund ensuring no taxpayer cost. 6. Greater tourism potential 7. Promoting local business, profits local 8. Swimming pool and pavilion 9. Concert Shell and promotion of arts 10. Outdoor winter skating, hockey, rinks 11. Works within original zoning 12. Competitive bid, ready for RFP 13. Stadium design, low maintenance steel 14. Use of Solar, follows City/Province plan 15. Large space for Farmers to expand 16. Profitable to City and Taxpayer 17. Less complicated, lower risk

1. A private highrise/shopping centre 2. Sylvia Holden park lost 3. Greater density means more traffic 4. Heritage ignored 5. No reserve fund, high taxpayer cost 6. Lower tourism potential 7. Promoting chains, profits removed. 8. No pool or public pavilion 9. No concert shell 10. Curling rinks 11. New zoning, contrary to good planning 12. Sole sourced bid, legal challenges 13. Stadium design, high maintenance wood 14. No use of solar 15. No room for Farmers to expand 16. Taxpayers must pay -$307M 17. Extremely complicated, higher risk

Conservancy generates $170M for the park No taxpayer costs, keeps park 100% public.

OSEG proposal costs taxpayers -$307M and Corporatizes the park.

Comparison Model Lansdowne Park Conservancy and OSEG Developer bid  

Comparison Model Lansdowne Park Conservancy and OSEG Developer bid

Advertisement