The Office of the Auditor General (OAG) recently released her second sprint audit for Lansdowne 2.0. The risks are very concerning and, if realized, will lead to tens of millions more in costs.

1. The OAG has, in no uncertain terms, identified public money going to Lansdowne 2.0—capital costs ($15.6 million), municipal accommodation tax ($38.1 million), and ongoing debt repayment costs in the city operating budget ($17.4 million per year for 40 years, for $694 million total) that “represents an opportunity cost as those funds could be used for other City services”—something repeatedly downplayed by the city, as not putting pressure on our operating budget or being able to spend elsewhere.
2. The OAG has flagged a major risk on construction cost, that the contingency amount is not enough and could increase the cost of the project, leading to residents taking on more than the $331 million to which they are already committed. Tariffs, escalation costs and development complications all factor in. Even a modest 5% increase in contingency could add $18 million more to the project.
3. The city has agreed to pay $16 million of the $32 million for "business interruption costs". This won't go to small businesses on site but rather will be paid by the city, for example for lost revenue from the north side stands being torn down. This cost could escalate.
4. There is a financial risk associated with the contract with the developer to build the skyscrapers. After December 29, 2028, if the city fails to complete the transaction for any reason before the final closing deadline of July 31, 2031, the city would pay a penalty of $13 million to the developer, Mirabella.
5. The city has recommended funds ($5 million) that should have gone to affordable housing to instead be allocated to building parking for the residential towers.
6. The OAG has highlighted the significant risk of the long-term nature of the partnership to 2075, and tens of millions of potential downside variances in the waterfall distributions, particularly for the REDBLACKS, as a result: risk of $53 million decrease in waterfall distributions to the city on revenue projections, $30.9 million decrease on expense growth rates.
7. The OAG also identifies a risk the REDBLACKS could leave after 2042, and highlights that the city is taking revenue projections into account with the Ottawa Charge staying at Lansdowne, something the city has fumbled and which is now unclear, to the detriment of fans of the team. 

Top 7 Concerns with Lansdowne 2.0 for the City of Ottawa—New Information

The city released a plethora of Lansdowne 2.0 update reports less than a week ago on October 20, 2025. In those documents, new information and concerns have arisen. The renewed financial arrangements underpinning the Lansdowne Public-Private Partnership (The Lansdowne Partnership Plan – LPP) between the City of Ottawa and the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (Roger Greenberg, Principal of Lansgreen investments, and John Ruddy, Principal of Trinity Sports and Entertainment Partnership), were also released.

1. Lansdowne 2.0 means $17.4 million in new budget spending, per year, for Taxpayers not $4.3 million
   
   In a startling discovery, it appears that the city is planning to add $17.4 million/year into its base operating budget for Lansdowne 2.0 all the way to 2070 and create a slush fund for other city expenditures. This would mean that $17.4 million would displace already existing city services in the operating budget every year and would put pressure on increased taxes. The money would be used to pay off $331 million of new debt for the Lansdowne 2.0 project (and an additional $9.2 million in new debt for parking for Lansdowne 2.0 adds another $480,000 a year in annual debt repayments). Taxpayers are on the hook for the full cost, with the hope that non-guaranteed revenue will help offset those costs over the next 50 years.  If new revenue does come in, the $17.4 will not be reduced, it will remain in Ottawa’s budget until 2070 when the debt is finally expected to be paid off. Any revenue collected from the so-called waterfall profits, property taxes from the new buildings, ticket surcharges, municipal accommodation tax, etc. could be used for any other city expenditures. The total debt repayment for Lansdowne 2.0 over 40 years is $17.4M (project) + $0.48M (parking)/ year = $715,200,000.
   
   
2. Sports Teams Only Guaranteed for 7 More years
   
   New LPP agreements show the REDBLACKS and Ottawa 67’s would only be guaranteed until the year 2032. That is just 7 years away. The city could see both teams sold or not operating after that year. This is significant as all of the financial modelling included the operation of the teams for decades to come. The agreements spell this out in several sections, under ‘Events of Default’, ‘Limits on Dispositions’ and ‘Provisions Applicable to Certain Components’, where it states “The RedBlacks and Ottawa 67’s must operate until December 31, 2032, unless the CFL and OHL cease to operate during that period”.
   
   
3. Ottawa Charge and PWHL Say Lansdowne 2.0 is “not viable for us”
   The Professional Women’s Hockey League (PWHL) have called the Lansdowne 2.0 plans “not viable for us” and could leave the city as a result of the functionally obsolete Lansdowne 2.0 plans.  Amy Scheer, the league’s executive vice president of business operations, told CBC News Friday Oct 24th the reduced capacity is a “tough pill to swallow.” “It puts our league and our team in a position to really not thrive,” she said. “It's a huge step back in terms of having an opportunity for our fans to see our team play. You know, 3,000 less fans a game is a significant hit … it's not a financial model that makes any kind of sense.” The city and OSEG are also employing a strategy to increase ticket prices both through ticket surcharges and through expensive box seats in gated access only areas. Many fans will be priced out of attending these events as a result. The existing Civic Centre arena at Lansdowne Park has the capacity to accommodate and grow the fan base of the Charge. It should be kept in place, and properly maintained at much less cost until such a time that a more viable plan for Lansdowne Park can be supported by the public.
   
   
4. 50 Year Deal to 2075 – Back-End Loaded and Locked-In
   
   The deal is being extended 50 years from now to 2075. Long-term P3 deals have been heavily criticized by the Ontario Auditor General and after Ottawa’s P3 Light Rail disaster. In 2022, the Ottawa Light Rail Transit (LRT) inquiry documented this, noting “the P3 model caused or contributed to several of the ongoing difficulties on the project.” The city is now mired in expensive never-ending legal battles thanks to the signing of the long-term P3. The Ontario Auditor General has found long-term public-private partnership (P3) deals to be costly and problematic, citing evidence that they often cost more than public alternatives and that risk transfer is overstated. In the case of Lansdowne Park, the new LPP would make it more difficult for the city to get out of the deal. It locks us in with partners who may only wish to continue with the retail/stadium deal and sell the teams off. Should the city wish to terminate for convenience the terms are much worse under Lansdowne 2.0 making it almost impossible to do so as it would entail paying out funds projected to be owed to 2075 and all equity. This was not the case in Lansdowne 1.0 and the city would be protected from owing any of OSEG’s losses or equity. The majority of funding in this long-term deal doesn’t start to flow until the year 2052 and beyond.
   
   
5. Council-Directed Affordable Housing Funds Being Siphoned off to Lansdowne 2.0
   
   During the last City Council discussion on Lansdowne 2.0, the following motion was passed:
   
   THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT any additional revenues through the formal Request for Offer process for the disposal of the subterranean and property air rights that are above and beyond the original estimated value of $39 million be split as per the Affordable Housing Land & Funding Policy (50 per cent to the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund and 50 per cent towards the project)
   
   The 2025 staff report indicates that affordable housing will be funded as follows: “Residential Air Rights revenues are $65 million versus the estimated $39 million, allowing a contribution to the Affordable Housing Reserve to be $14.4 million, versus the estimated $9.75 million.”
   
   The math doesn’t add up based on the motion that was passed. $9.75 million was based on $39 million. With an additional $26 million (to get to $65 million), the affordable housing contribution should increase by $13 million, for a total of $22.75 million.
   
   Staff say that instead of affordable housing, those funds will be directed towards parking and construction. “$6.7 million of air rights proceeds will be allocated to offset the additional costs attributable to the preferred bidder’s design which requires integrating the North Side Stands with the mixed-use development, and $10 million will be allocated to the additional 140 parking spaces the city will be constructing to lease to the residential towers, as described in a later section.”
   
   What makes this even more problematic is that during the 2023 discussions on Lansdowne 2.0, a staff report indicated that council should not follow its own policy on affordable housing during land sales, so Council responded with the motion above.
   
   
6. More Parking and City Subsidizing Private Tower Parking
   
   There could be many more cars in and out of Lansdowne’s public area. Not only have staff and OSEG shifted their thinking in the latest report to oppose further pedestrianization of Aberdeen Square (citing tenant leases and the need to drive up, an issue that can and should be resolved), but the city is adding 180 new parking spots for the event centre in a stacked parking model. Previous versions had 35 spots. The city is also continuing on a path to publicly fund 140 new parking spaces to be solely leased by the new private residential tower owners, using new city debt of $9.2 million and $10 million of air rights money (some of which should have been going to affordable housing instead) to pay for it. The city is creating the 140 parking spaces for the for the towers by moving the existing arena/event centre into city park space and the Great Lawn.
   
   
7. Throw-away Costs
   
   The Lansdowne 2.0 plan has been devised mostly to ensure the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group is financially sustainable moving forward. In doing so the city is sacrificing both public support for the plan and is adding up a tremendous amount of throwaway costs. 58,000 square feet of greenspace, a popular toboggan hill, award winning artist Jill Anholt’s Moving Surfaces artwork depicted in all the renderings leading up to a week ago, and 113 healthy trees will all be removed at a cost of $8 million.
   
   Other throwaway costs for Lansdowne 2.0 include tearing out new retail built in 2014 worth $12 million, tearing out the Civic Centre and North Side Stands valued at over $100 million, $10 million in lease disruption costs paid to OSEG from tearing out the arena and stands, $23 million in stranded debt from repairing the arena roof, in addition to the $8 million to remove the greenspace and Ms. Anholt’s artwork.
   
   The Plan for Lansdowne 2.0 is unpopular and when residents find out what the city is planning, they oppose the deal. That polling will be released this week. All councillors should be asking whether their residents support the plans or not in their newsletters.

OTTAWA’S PUBLIC SQUARE

Lansdowne Park is often referred to as Ottawa’s Crown Jewel. And for good reason - In 1847, the then Bytown was deeded 24.5 acres by the government of the ‘Province of Canada’. Lansdowne would host exhibitions, welcome troops in the historic Aberdeen Pavilion, regularly showcase its rural roots as a fairground and has been owned by the people of Ottawa for over a century and a half. This history, and our own experiences attending Lansdowne Park, is where inspiration is drawn and why we fight for Lansdowne Park. It is a simple matter- This public space deserves the best of us. It represents us as a city.

In recent history, we have witnessed successive planning exercises that have allowed sole-sourced unsolicited concept plans from one private entity to consume city hall bureaucracy and deepen its grip over this historic place.

Lansdowne 2.0 is a highly unpopular plan that will tear out useful and valuable assets, and includes a financial strategy which will shift more risk onto the city, add significantly more long-term debt while relying on highly uncertain cashflows to service that debt, and ignores reasonable alternatives that would cost far less.

WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?

For the public to truly understand why this occurring so soon after the last redevelopment they must read these reports with the following lens:

• The City’s made significant expenditure of about $210 million on Lansdowne 1.0, and has a current balance of roughly $100M in debt. Under Lansdowne 2.0, the City will spend another $418.8 million plus $19.2 million for a developer parking lot for residential towers — totaling $648 million in public spending. That number does not include the $44 million for a retail podium and is likely to increase. The Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) has equity in the deal mostly made up from construction cost overruns during Lansdowne 1.0 which they managed, and covering cash flow losses (for which they currently earn 8% interest) – for a business model that OSEG proposed to the city and has been responsible for operating.
• OSEG has a P3 contract with the city where they are responsible for maintenance of the civic centre arena and the north side stands, amongst other facilities. It is their responsibility to address and prevent issues, paid for through revenues to the partnership (ie: any issues with vendors citing bathroom repairs or water infiltration maintenance is the responsibility of OSEG).
• The city has signed a long-term P3 deal (and extended it) with OSEG that lasts to 2054 (now recommended to increase to 2075) and which has retail extension options past the year 2100. When the city signed this deal they never anticipated nor did they advocate for the demolition of the North side stands and historic Civic Centre. In fact those facilities are in good condition and the city invested a lot of money to ensure those assets would remain structurally sound until 2054 and beyond (understanding they would not function as well as a brand-new facility, quite obviously).
• As part of the original deal signed by OSEG, they paid rent at $1 a year to use all the entertainment and sporting facilities and fund any cash flow deficits at the end of the year. The cash flow deficits, especially in the early start up years where they have had to contribute more than anticipated, have worked out to more than anticipated for OSEG.
• From 2019 to today it appears that OSEG has actually contributed very little if anything to cover the cash flow deficits, and instead the city has been floating new loans, and backing the increase of existing loans, and allowing access to the maintenance reserve fund to float OSEG operations and ensure that OSEG doesn’t have to put in any more cash flow deficit funds. A critical departure from the original existing agreement where OSEG agreed to cover losses.
• Now it appears that despite the city making these concessions, OSEG has threatened to walk away from the deal and default. If they did this, they would not recoup any of their equity. If there were any deficits left at the end of the deal, the city would not be responsible for paying these, as this is part of the original agreement that was signed.
• OSEG was in a tough spot as a result and crafted another unsolicited proposal to the city to tear down the higher maintenance buildings (and some brand new retail), the city would take on a lot more debt and risk, but it would keep the partnership alive – critical for all the political promises made from 2012 to today. Hence – Lansdowne 2.0
• The city started negotiating with OSEG without a back-up plan in the event of OSEG leaving and, in fact, has spoken against creating a back-up plan (and council voted 12-11 against creating a back-up plan). Having a “Plan B” is fundamental to any negotiation. But so intertwined have they become with the P3 deal, that they could not imagine working with another partner or not-for-profit organization, or have in-house operation of Lansdowne Park. The city has right of first refusal on the Redblacks and 67’s to ensure the teams stay and, in fact, stands to benefit substantially through more independence and untangling itself from this long-term financially and legally risky deal.

LANSDOWNE 2.0 IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE PUBLIC

In every region tested in the city, people are majority opposed to Lansdowne 2.0 when they discover what the city is planning.

Its no wonder that is the case, as the plan itself will result in a worse experience for park goers, sports fans and families with kids:

• It will have no roof over the north side stands
• It will remove 58,000 square feet of greenspace from the park / great lawn
• It will reduce seating in the arena (to just 5850) and the stands (by 3000 seats)
• It will increase ticket prices with the focus shifting towards high end less affordable options for families
• It will spend $8 million just to remove the green berm/hill where people peruse games from afar, remove half the height of the toboggan hill and 113 healthy trees as well as potentially scrap the Moving Surfaces artwork by Jill Anholt.
• It will tear out brand new valuable small business retail just built in 2014 in the ‘J-Block’ (including Goodlife, Beandigen café, cigar man, cinnaholic, etc) and instead pay $39 million to build nearly identical square footage retail it already owns. This may also mean GoodLife moves to the Horticulture Building with OSEG running the building instead of the parks department, which would displace many events which bring in $300,000 in revenue annually.
• It will mean 9-10 years of heavy truck construction to 2035 in a highly pedestrianized area, and the shut down of the great lawn for at least 2 years.
• It will strand the 2014 public investment of renovations including into the Civic Centre Arena and north side stands, and the city invested $23 million into the steel roof and other deficiencies. If the buildings were to be torn down the city would still need to continue paying down that roof loan, which has about $15 million remaining.
• The city would forego mandatory parkland funding normally paid for most other developments in the city, costing the city $4 million (we would lose greenspace and not recoup any funds because of the structure of the deal).
• The city would waste $10 million in leasehold payments to OSEG for the stands being lower capacity as a result of construction disruption. The city would also pay at least $1 million for temporary stands instead of the private partner.
• It will include no improvements to transportation to the site for urban, suburban or rural areas

NEW FINANCIAL FIGURES – COSTS AND DEBT HAVE GONE UP FOR LANSDOWNE 2.0 IN LATEST REPORT

It is doubtful the financial figures will be presented in this manner in the report so we are providing this for an apples-to-apples comparison between November 2023 to October 2025 estimates. Costs and debt have gone up, not down.

November 2023 City Cost Exposure:

Main Project                              $419.1M

Parking                                       $18.6M

Total Project Cost 2023            $437.7M

Retail podium

loan (city guarantee)               $34.7M

Overall cost exposure             $472.4M ($331 million in new city debt)

Oct. 2025 City Cost Exposure:

Main Project                             $418.8M

Parking                                         $19.22M

Subtotal 2025                           $438.02M

Retail podium

Construction (direct cost)         $6.7M

Total Project cost                       $444.72M

Retail Podium

Loan (city guarantee)                $39.2M

Overall cost Exposure               $483.92 ($340.2 million in new city debt)

The argument has been made that Lansdowne somehow inexplicably will only cost 1/3^rd of its price tag. But this is a fundamentally flawed position for the following reasons:

• City property tax received from on-site buildings is not ‘free’. It is property tax money that would otherwise go to all services city wide. Contrary to what proponents of Lansdowne 2.0 say, the units would in fact develop over time in the area. 500 to 770 units are not being filled by brand new residents to Ottawa. It’s also not “new” or “extra” to what the city would receive. Building towers at Lansdowne doesn’t add to the total number of towers in the city and thus, property tax base —it just shifts where they get built. Developers already own land across Ottawa with city approvals for literally 1000’s of units in place, but they don’t build everywhere at once because of a number of factors like financing limits and market demand. So towers at Lansdowne doesn’t mean the city gets two extra towers and extra tax revenue. It just means those towers got built at Lansdowne instead of somewhere else (where the taxes would go to all city services instead of Lansdowne 2.0).
• The sale of public space/air rights is not ‘free money’, it is selling a city asset in a public park that could be spent on a variety of priorities such as paying down long term debt, transit, homelessness and community centres. Instead most of it is being spent on Lansdowne 2.0 (including some that is proposed to be diverted to parking and retail instead of affordable housing as directed by council).
• The risky reliance of cash flow from waterfall payments is in no way guaranteed, and has been identified as a top risk. Original waterfall amounts never materialized under Lansdowne 1.0 for the city despite assurances they would. Under the city’s own projections, these are accrue in much later years after 2050 (back end loaded), adding further risk to this uncertain return.

THE COST OF DOING NOTHING – DISINGENUOUS AND GLARING OMISSIONS

Much has been made by various actors indicating that the cost of doing nothing is higher than the multi-hundreds of millions about to be expended. Here is what is being relied upon to make that argument.

A November 2020 city report suggests a possible cost range of $118 million to $407 million over 40 years in a worst-case scenario with no operator and limited activities on site. Not often disclosed by the actors making this argument is the key assumption that underlies this range estimate: “depending on the length of time the impacts of the pandemic are experienced,”. When challenged on this as being unrealistic, new figures were created by staff to help justify that the cost of doing nothing is somehow inexplicably higher than the $437 million price tag for Lansdowne 2.0.

• The initial assessment assumed $4.5 million to $12.5 million/year of city spend to fully operate Lansdowne with the following assumptions:
  • This was calculated with pandemic level attendance figures
  • Nearly all activities on site are assumed halted
  • OSEG defaults and leaves the deal with the city doing nothing to find a not-for profit or other entity to run the site.
• When pressed for a more detailed and reasonable approach, staff resorted to the following: $8.5M a year city spend based on cash flow deficits over the first 12 years of Lansdowne P3 operations and dividing by 10.
  • This includes the exceptionally costly initial start-up years (ie: $37 million deficit in year one) that are irrelevant to any estimate going forward.
• Finally, in this report, it appears finance staff are taking only the last 5 years of operations (including the pandemic) and extrapolating to say about $8 million in annual cost for the city.
  • This is a total disconnect from the independent analysis provided by EY in its 2023 Due Diligence Report that shows Lansdowne 1.0 being essentially cash flow neutral from 2025-2030 and cash flow positive as of 2030 and beyond.

• • EY’s graphic below (annotated with red and blue text for emphasis) clearly depicts this.

Graphic Source: Ernst & Young Lansdowne 2.0 Financial Due Diligence City of Ottawa Reliance Restricted report, September 13 2023, p. 89

As EY reported:

“Under this scenario, annual cash flows become positive for a short period in 2015 and 2027 and then starting again in 2030.”

If the city is to use a simplistic and unrealistic approach to evaluating the cost of doing nothing with it being their main talking point, why would they at least not base it on EY’s actual forecasts? These forecasts show that “doing nothing” comes with positive cash flows ahead, and having avoided a $437M spend.

ARE THE NORTH SIDE STANDS AND CIVIC CENTRE BUILDINGS “END OF LIFE”?

The proponents of Lansdowne 2.0 have vested interest in communicating as negative a story as possible on the state of North Side Stands, the Civic Centre, the new small business Retail built in 2014 and the public grass berm (which OSEG terms Cheapskate Hill).

To do so, they mostly rely on one engineering report that called the buildings ‘functionally obsolete’. Meaning that the civic centre doesn’t function as well as other sports facilities. Now staff are inexplicably saying this ‘function’ is only acceptable until 2037.

Engineering reports, auditor general reports and city staff reports have all contradicted the claim that the north side stands and the arena are ‘end of life’, and indeed show significant investment into the north side stands, brand new roof repairs, arena, brand new retail (all set to be torn down) and other measures consistent with the long-term operation of the existing facilities:

 2007-2009 Assessment of North Side Stands/Civic Centre – Structurally Adequate and Good Condition

“The North Side stands/Civic Centre were the subject of extensive building and structural condition assessments from 2007-2009, during the initial period of the Lansdowne Park redevelopment discussions. The City commissioned Adjelian, Allen, Rubeli Limited (AARL) to complete a structural adequacy report for the North Side stands/Civic Centre complex in 2007. This report recommended additional investigation for specific structural elements. Fourteen engineering reviews were completed by AARL on behalf of the City from 2007 to 2010. The summary of condition showed the Civic Centre complex and North Stadium Structure to be in generally good condition. The Arena complex was deemed to be structurally adequate and capable of supporting anticipated loads. Reports prepared for OSEG by Morrison Hershfield at the time of the Agreement reached similar conclusions.”

 Auditor General—Audit of Lansdowne Accounting/Waterfall November 2020

“When the Lansdowne 1.0 reconstruction was finished in Q3 2014 the city valued the stadium/arena post-renovation at $134,264,049 with a 60-year lifespan to 2074.”

 2015 Loan to fix steel roof repairs

$23.5 million was spent with a city of Ottawa backed loan to permanently fix corroded steel in the former Ottawa Civic Centre when it was redeveloping TD Place at Lansdowne. About $15 million of this loan remains and would remain on the book to pay off if the buildings are torn down.

 2019 TD Place Functional Obsolescence Report by ROSSETTI

“The renovations to the Stadium North stands and Arena, started in 2012, addressed many of the essential “physical life” cycle needs…”

 2019 Morrison Hershfield Report – Building Condition Assessment and 35-year Capital Repair and Replacement Report TD Place – Lansdowne Park 

“September 30, 2019 - Morrison Hershfield Limited was retained by Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) to review and assess the current conditions of the existing components to create a 35-year capital repair and replacement plan until 2054 (40-year plan from the 2014 date of construction). The Capital Repair and Replacement Plan includes a five-year plan and a 35-year plan. The plan is based on the continuation of the current use of the building for the time period. The plan assumes that the building will continue to be used as an arena and stadium beyond the 35-year timeframe of this report (e.g., the plan does not assume demolition of the facility...).” 

2020 Action Plan: Morrison Hershfield Report – Updated TD Place Capital Plan

• Some expenditures between 2044 and 2054 year were deleted with the expectation that increased maintenance could achieve a longer service life of existing components. Individual components can be replaced upon failure as needed under the operating budget. 
• Some expenditures between 2039 and 2049 year were adjusted to account for capital repairs including repairs, rebuilding (e.g. pumps), partial replacements (e.g. ceiling tiles), and rehabilitation of systems (e.g. heat exchangers) to achieve a longer service life of existing components. 
• For the TPO membrane roofs, the second scheduled replacement in years 2041 (arena and north stands) and 2044 (south stands) was removed. It is assumed that a more durable roofing membrane (e.g. modified bitumen) with a longer typical service life will be installed at the first scheduled replacement. 

 “Current estimates from Morrison Hershfield based on a 40-year capital repair and replacement plan for the facility and to keep the old building operational and demolish it at the end, would require an investment in the order of $40 million.” ($1 million/year) - City of Ottawa’s Next Steps report.

 2022 April 26, 2022 “Lansdowne Partnership Sustainability Plan and Implementation Report” 

 “The facilities, built in 1967, remain structurally sound, however even with an annual maintenance budget of over $1 million, the facilities remain below current (2022) building standards.”

A point that is important to remember in all of this is that there are brand new south side stands and brand-new retail and brand-new greenspace complementing the older structurally sound facilities. We have a mix of both new and historic in Ottawa at Lansdowne. It is outlandish that the city is tearing down its useful and valuable facilities in order to ensure OSEG is financially benefitted for a deal that they signed and now want to break.

GREATEST RISKS IDENTIFIED ARE COMING TO FRUITION

EY was wisely engaged to produce an independent report including the risks the city faces with this deal. Nearly all of those risks have come to fruition. This is early enough that the city can recognize these high risks, mitigate these risks by saying no and ensure due diligence in the expenditure of public funds.

 “The greatest risk comes from waterfall distributions that are not guaranteed” (source: -Page 124 of October 2023 City Staff Lansdowne 2.0 Report).

This included:

• Stabilized growth rate of operating expenses and revenues
• Number of new events
• Sponsorship and naming rights
• Average mortgage interest rate

“Based on the foregoing, there are a number of factors that elevate the overall risk profile of the Lansdowne 2.0 redevelopment project above other competing projects of similar scale.” (Source: Ernst & Young Lansdowne 2.0 Financial Due Diligence City of Ottawa Reliance Restricted Report, September 13 2023, p. 87.)

EY flagged many risks – indicating that Lansdowne 2.0 is more uncertain than similar projects of its kind.

• Warning of an overly long 40-year projection period (confirmed):  Inherently risky, and EY warned that its economic model may not accurately reflect what will happen over such a long time.
• Sports Risk (confirmed): Revenues are tied to team performance – Redblacks have below-average attendance, and north side stands without a roof won’t help this.
• Competition from a new sports and entertainment district (confirmed):  A Senators arena downtown (and now Live Nation’s new 2,000-seat venue) both now confirmed, served by the LRT, pose major competition.
• Ticket Surcharge Risks (confirmed):  The city assumes it will recover significant costs through ticket surcharges. But EY says the city takes on all the risk, with no control over ticket sales or pricing. Only $300K is guaranteed in the first 10 years, although $700K is included in debt service plan.
• No Opportunity Cost Analysis (confirmed): No analysis was done to weigh this $437 million investment against other city priorities or options served by the LRT. 
• OSEG Track Record (confirmed): OSEG have failed to meet their own projections to date, incurring initial cost overruns, and steady operating losses.  The City hasn’t disclosed EY recommendations rejected by OSEG that impact financials.

WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE

OSEG, as party to the partnership agreements, currently is legally obligated to operate, manage and administer those sections of Lansdowne Park that are governed by the Master Limited Partnership Agreement, Project Agreement, Retail Lease, Stadium Lease and other material agreements. While OSEG has asked the city to accept its unsolicited proposal, if the proposal is not approved, the “no” vote would not release OSEG from performing these legal obligations.

In 2020, city council provided further substantial benefits to OSEG, and OSEG agreed to ensure that the sports teams would continue to play at Lansdowne for 18 years from the lease commencement date of 2014 – to 2032, just 7 years away.

A “no” vote would simply reject the unpopular Lansdowne 2.0 proposal as presented. It would not be a vote to end the partnership. OSEG would remain bound to its partnership obligations.

Should they choose to default for convenience, the city would not need to pay anything to OSEG nor any equity accrued, and the city would have right-of-first refusal for the teams. The City would also receive all of the retail component rent revenue streams that are being generated now (where Whole Foods, Cineplex, and Sporting Life are the anchor tenants). This is in fact the most financially beneficial scenario to the city.

Focus on Inexpensive Improvements

The city should:

• Improve transportation to and from the site for rural, suburban and urban area with modest investment in shuttle service for more events, increase park and ride and dedicated transit access for events, and ensure connectivity with the canal (Transportation Appendix 12 of 2023 report -point 6 – “TDM plan for special events under Lansdowne 2.0 will be largely the same as the current TDM program”)
• Focus on 9-5 programming and dead zone improvement at Lansdowne Park with work hubs, further animation of Aberdeen Square, expansion of 613flea and farmers market, community hub services in Horticulture Building and Aberdeen Pavillion and winter activities for families.
• Improve accessibility both inside the sporting facilities and outside gated ticketed access areas including conversion to accessible on street parking, new ground way finding, accessible seat conversions and bathroom accessibility renovations.
• Keep the loved facilities we have – the roof over the north side stands, the new small business retail, the berm and trees on site, the great lawn square footage, the historic civic centre capacity and invest in maintenance of these facilities for another 30-40 years.
• Immediately assess management performance, with on-site hands-on expertise including where savings could be achieved in operations and investigation into various legal disputes and their impact of fees on financials and the non-arm’s length deals that may be adding cost to operations.
• Allow OSEG to continue operating the teams on site if they wish and rent the sporting facilities at market rates.
• Give consideration to a renewed business model that would involve an expert Board providing management oversight to Lansdowne Park as a whole.  Sports teams, facility and retail leasing operations should be contracted directly and transparently, in the process of facilitating improved oversight by Council. 
• The city’s commissioned engineering reports noted that the north stands and arena, currently valued at roughly $100M, can be maintained for another 40 years for $1 million a year. Far less than the expensive and risky proposal in front of Council.

CONCLUSION

Lansdowne 2.0’s financial plan will shift more risk onto the City, add significantly more long-term debt while relying on uncertain cashflows, and ignore reasonable alternatives that could cost far less.

There is no stadium emergency.

It's hard to rationalize a $483.92 million investment at Lansdowne with $340.2 million in new debt when Ottawa has:

• A $10.8 billion infrastructure deficit to support essential city services,
• A housing crisis, with record high rates of homelessness,
• A $120 million transit budget deficit,
• Community facility centre repair and replacement deficits it can not fund

For a city that claims it is financially strapped, Lansdowne 2.0 just doesn’t make sense.

Lansdowne Park is a 40-acre parcel of city-owned land that has been part of Ottawa’s history for 150 years. Centrally located with unique heritage features, green space, local sports, and city facilities.

The Lansdowne Partnership Plan (LPP) 

On October 12, 2012, the City of Ottawa and the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (the “Partners”) entered a 30-year limited partnership agreement for the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park. Some concerns about the proposal and the process at the time can be found here.

The City of Ottawa 

• Funded the renovation of the stadium and the development of the Urban Park 
• Is responsible for the programming and management of the Urban Park which includes the Aberdeen Pavilion, Horticulture Building, Aberdeen Square, the Great Lawn, skating court, children’s play structure and community garden. 
• Manages a long-term contract with the Ottawa Farmers Market  
• Leases the Stadium/arena and retail land to OSEG for $1/year 
• Retains ownership of all 40 acres of land  

 Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group 

• Manages the sports teams on the site (with the city as a 50% silent partner for the 67’s and RedBlacks). The Project Agreement requires that the CFL team be operated for at least 8 years “unless the CFL ceases to operate during such period”. The team has been operated through 6 years being 2014 through 2019. The CFL did not operate in 2020, so two years of operation remain in this obligation. 
• Is responsible for the operation and programming of the stadium, arena and parking  
• Built and manages a mixed-use development that includes an office building and a large retail complex with restaurants, stores and a cinema (took out a loan for this). 

The Subsidiary Businesses 

• Ottawa 67s Limited Partnership (“Ottawa 67s”)  
• Ottawa REDBLACKS Limited Partnership (“Ottawa REDBLACKS”)  
• Lansdowne Stadium Limited Partnership (“Lansdowne Stadium”)  
• Lansdowne Retail Limited Partnership (“Lansdowne Retail”) 

The funding that goes into the partnership does not include: 

• The sale of condo’s and associated fees on the site (air rights sold to Minto by the city) 
• The other sports franchises 
• Annual fees received from loan guarantees to the partnership 

A complicated ‘Waterfall’ structure was set up to provide returns to the City and OSEG. 

• The city is currently projected to receive $0 from this waterfall. The city funded $210 million of improvements to the stadium, arena, parking garage, horticulture building relocation and retrofit, urban park, and soft costs. The city took on debt and maintains a loan (Stadium and Parking Garage is $127.6M and $26.4M for the Urban Park), which it pays annual interest on. The only deemed equity considered in the waterfall for the city was $23.75 million for the ‘market value of the retail lands’. 
• OSEG is deemed to have contributed $152 million. The city is estimating this contribution will increase. It is important to note that most of OSEG’s contribution ($97 million) came from annual ‘operational losses’ incurred, which are rolled back into the waterfall for OSEG with an 8% annual return. In the last two fiscal years, operational losses only occurred because of the depreciation of assets in the accounting.  
  

Lansdowne 1.0 Timeline

• October 2007: The City of Ottawa initiates a redevelopment of Lansdowne Park due to cracks discovered in the stadium.
• October 2008: OSEG proposes a plan to revitalize Lansdowne Park by entering into a partnership with the City of Ottawa.
• April 2009: City Council directs City staff to work with OSEG to develop a plan to revitalize Lansdowne Park.
• September 2009: City of Ottawa staff and OSEG present City Council with a plan to redevelop and transform Lansdowne Park under a Lansdowne Partnership Plan (LPP).
• November 2009: City Council approves(External link) the Lansdowne Partnership Plan and directs staff to negotiate a project agreement framework with OSEG.
• June 2010: City Council approves the Lansdowne Partnership Plan and Implementation Report and votes to proceed with sole-source negotiations with OSEG after reviewing studies on the proposal.
• June 2011: Ontario Municipal Board Decision on Lansdowne
• October 2012: The legal closing of the LPP is approved by City Council and the City enters into a 30-year partnership with OSEG.
• November 2012: Construction begins on the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park.
• August 2014: Construction completed and Lansdowne Park reopens.

P3s are multi-year, often multi-decade, contracts in which a corporation or consortium of corporations assumes responsibility for activities previously undertaken by the public sector. These responsibilities include direct financing of infrastructure, as well as management, operation, maintenance and/or ownership of facilities.

P3 models have varying degrees of private involvement. At one level, the private sector may operate or maintain public sector infrastructure, delivering services within the municipality’s prior budget and retaining a portion of any savings. At the other extreme, the private company may design, build, finance, own, operate and maintain the facility. In between, the private partner undertakes some combination of these tasks. In some cases, assets are sold to the private sector and then leased back over the life of the contract.

Contracts range in length from 20 to 40 years (Ontario’s Highway 407 is an extreme 99-year contract), though service contracts can be shorter. The attraction for the corporation or consortium is that private delivery of municipal infrastructure and services can be extremely profitable. The return on private equity can be as high as 10 to 20 per cent, and in some cases higher. Long-term high rates of return at a low risk guaranteed by the public sector are very attractive for private sector investors in the current economic climate.

[Notable examples of Municipal P3s in Ottawa include Ottawa's LRT, and Lansdowne Park]

TEN ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS TO ASK

P3s can negatively affect public services, local democracy and the public interest and are neither the best, nor the only option. The following 10 questions should be considered by mayors, councillors and citizens whenever public-private partnerships are proposed for the delivery of local infrastructure projects:

1. Will there be full public consultation about the project, including the question of whether the project should be publicly or privately delivered?
2. Will elected officials be fully informed about the alternatives and be able to speak freely about the information they receive concerning development of the P3?
3. Have the full, lifetime costs of delivering the project through a P3 been calculated and compared to public alternatives delivering the same level and quality of service, and will the detailed information and calculations be made public?
4. To what extent does the financial viability of the P3 proposal rely on cost savings through risk transfer to the private sector, and if so, was the analysis objective and will it be made available to the public?
5. Could any promised risk transfer instead be delivered through a public procurement process that involved a fixed price contract?
6. Will the municipality be responsible for guaranteeing the private sector’s profits? Who will be liable for cost overruns, or project deficiencies?
7. Does the municipality have the capacity and resources to properly evaluate, administer and monitor a contract of the length, scale and complexity of the P3?
8. Does the P3 permit the municipality the flexibility to make future changes in service delivery or other public policy decisions, to end the P3 in the procurement stage, and to terminate the contract if it is not meeting the public interest?
9. Are the private consultants involved in the project truly impartial or are they affiliated to organizations or businesses that have profited from or have an interest in the delivery of P3s? For example: the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships or P3 bidders.
10. What impact will the P3 have on the local economy and on workers’ jobs, pay and benefits?

A Visioning Exercise for Lansdowne Park—April 2, 2019

Overview

The re-development of Lansdowne Park was undertaken as a partnership between the City of Ottawa and the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG). The agreement between the two parties called for revenue distribution to follow a “waterfall” method, whereby the costs of capital investments would be paid back before other payments were made. The city would receive payment on accrued interest on “deemed equity”. Further down the waterfall, OSEG and the city would split any profits.

With the 2017 Lansdowne Partnership Annual Report comes news that the economic and financial outlook of the park has been adjusted. It is now predicted that the City of Ottawa will not receive re-payment for interest accrued on deemed equity, nor will we earn any profits throughout the life of the 30-year agreement. Further, OSEG is not expected to receive re-payment on $120M worth of capital investment.

Narrative 

Lansdowne has been a thorny issue for the city, for Capital Ward and for the Glebe for many years. Originally used as an exhibition grounds that would help animate the waterfront along the canal, the park has taken on numerous iterations, and hosted a variety of events and organizations—from agricultural expos to military exercises; from sporting events to the Central Canada Exhibition. Currently, it is best known as the home of Ottawa’s CFL franchise, the Redblacks. 

Before the rejuvenation of the park, Lansdowne was in a sad state. The lower level of the south side stands had decayed beyond repair. The grounds were essentially a giant, rut-filled parking lot. Despite still hosting—often successfully—some events, the park was mainly a testament of urban decay. It was—and had been for years—a significant expanse of underutilized, under-performing and under-visioned city property...not to mention a neglected part of Ottawa’s history. 

The city moved on, though. It grew and expanded. The surrounding community, the Glebe, continued to prosper, with an engaged community, vibrant shopping and commercial district, and lively street culture. 

It was hoped that Lansdowne would fit in and benefit from this thriving urban community. It was to be an “urban village” that would offer a wider variety of stores, restaurants and residences. It would enhance and complement what was already working so well in the Glebe. 

But it has not quite worked out the way it was sold to the community 

But that doesn’t mean we have to accept defeat. We have decades left in the current arrangement, and it is imperative—again, for the city, the ward and the neighbourhood—that we do what we can to fix the problem that is Lansdowne. 

A New Vision Statement 

If we want to get Lansdowne right, we need to decide what it is we should expect from the park. It’s clear that the current vision for Lansdowne—a place of big events and bigger festivals—has failed, neither bringing sustained financial benefits nor fostering a consistent, active and animated urban environment. The urban village has been reduced to an urban wax museum, where life-like city vibrancy can be seen, but can’t come to life, can’t interact, can’t speak to you. 

So let’s talk about what Lansdowne should be. 

Most importantly, it should be... 

A Place for People 

Sure, this sounds simplistic or obvious, but in all the desire to “fix” Lansdowne, a focus on people has gotten lost. Pedestrian areas are overtaken by fenced off patios and parked cars. They’re used for loading zones, staging areas and storage. The layout and the traffic don’t make space for people to walk, wander, linger and make the grounds their own. 

A Place for Families 

There are many events that are family-friendly at Lansdowne, but there are many that don’t make space for parents and children—they are expensive, loud, lack amenities for kids or have an over-reliance on alcohol consumption. 

However, kids have always made the best of Lansdowne—whether it’s the play structure, the skatepark or the sledding hill, children animate the park more than any other demographic; yet, children’s space is relegated to the back of the park, away from anything for parents (including shade). It’s regularly taken over for staging special events. And to get to it, children are forced to navigate car traffic that regularly drives too fast and too negligently through the park. 

Restoring much of the park for families will make for a livelier space; it will invite more people at more times to the park; and it will help ensure that a generation grows up with a fondness and connection to Lansdowne Park. 

A Place for Mobility 

Lansdowne Park has become a place for cars, first and foremost. Even the most recent store opening was of a car dealership. It’s an odd look for an “urban village”.  

We have routinely made more and more accommodations for driving. Shortly after the opening, we painted lines all over the park, making the “Pedestrian Priority Zone” an afterthought—nothing more than a couple of signs posted at the side of a typical road. Stores are allowed to offer validated parking, further incentivizing driving at the expense of other modes of transit. We routinely allow parking all over Aberdeen Square. We allow parking on the south and east sides of Aberdeen Pavillion. We lack parking enforcement. When people were parking illegally near the basketball courts, we simply made that parking legal, conceding even more space to cars.  

We focus so much on driving that we ignore the fact that it does not enhance mobility. Moving around the park is uninviting and challenging, as the sides of the Pedestrian Priority Zone are clogged with parked cars, and the rest of the Pedestrian Priority Zone sees an immense amount of traffic, often speeding, often using the park as a cut-through between the QED and Bank Street. 

We need a more inviting space for pedestrians, bicyclists, people on scooters, skateboarders and everyone else not in a car. 

And this goes beyond the park grounds. The Glebe has insufficient infrastructure for active transportation. We need to get people to the park using buses and bikes. We need them to be able to walk. 

A Place for City Life 

There’s no coffee shop at Lansdowne. Sure, there are places to get a cup of coffee, but the two legitimate coffee shops have closed down. Imagine an “urban village” that can’t support a coffee shop. 

It might seem like a weird complaint, a trifle, a peccadillo, but it’s quite telling. Lansdowne lacks a vibrant urban street life. It lacks the basics of city living. There are reasons for this, much to do with the built environment, but it’s also about our intentions—the approach we’ve chosen for Lansdowne. 

Reading the recent report, you’ll learn much about the special events at Lansdowne (The Grey Cup! CityFolk! The Mayor’s Breakfast!), but as fun as these may be, they offer nothing in terms of day-to-day vibrancy. Lansdowne is slow and dull on a Tuesday morning (while a block away, Bank Street is alive). 

Choosing to create an event space is completely at odds with urban living. It’s not that festivals or special events can’t take place in an urban environment, of course they can (La Machine! The Great Glebe Garage Sale!), but the festivals must fit into the life of the urban environment. The urban life can’t be made secondary to special events.  

Yes, throwing 181 events in a year will get you a lot of visitors at those events, but it will be hollow. You don’t want people to use the park; you want them to enliven the park. 

Proposals 

So we’ve identified the need for a new vision; here are a few things to do to make the park more livable, inviting and dynamic. Some will overlap, but that’s okay. There’s a spectrum of options and there should be a harmony to various improvements: 

Reduce the number of cars on the grounds

• Eliminate all non-accessible surface-level parking (excluding car share) 
• Close off the grounds entirely to cars (except to access the parking garage) 
• Close off the grounds entirely on weekends or in the summer 
• Reduce the number of “roads” cars can travel on 

Provide more pedestrian space 

• There are numerous pinch points for pedestrians, especially around patios—create more space exclusively for pedestrians around these pinch points 
• Ask the province for permission to let restaurant patios be open, not walled off. This would facilitate a lot more movement and interaction between visitors 
• Improve the intersection of Exhibition Way and Bank Street—it's dangerously wide and difficult to cross. 

Animate Aberdeen Square 

• Don’t allow parking on the square 
• Install tables, benches, chairs and other furniture (maybe giant swings!) 
• Put up canopies in summer to provide more shade 
• Install interesting lighting across the Square 
• Install a monument, statue or fountain in the centre to act as wayfinding/placemaking. It needs a landmark to visually anchor it for people walking through the park (other landmarks at Lansdowne tend to be big—you won’t tell someone to meet you at the stadium) 
• Don’t have car traffic encircling Aberdeen Square 

Improve Winter Use

• Maintain Aberdeen Plaza for continued use throughout the winter 
• Launch the winter market 
• Add a second skating rink 
• Sell hot chocolate outside 
• Provide fire pits/warming areas so that people can enjoy outdoors during winter 

Provide consistent, year-round free space/programming 

• Create a community drop-in in an empty storefront or in the Horticulture building where people can stop in to read, work or drink coffee 
• Create a Lansdowne Museum or Wall-of-History telling the stories of Lansdowne. Some really interesting stuff happened! 

Maintain public space 

• Hold fewer events that take over large sections of the park, including the water feature, skate park and basketball court  
• Fix broken or damaged infrastructure in a timely manner (the state of Uplift has been an embarrassment) 
• Provide more space for teenagers to hang out—over lunch hour, students from the Element will gather on the play structure to just sit and chat; it’s great, but it’s not necessarily the most desirable spot for them. 

Improve transit access   

• Improve transit service...at all times 
• Create a shuttle that would run from downtown to Lansdowne (maybe also to Little Italy or Hintonburg) and/or introduce fare-free transit along Bank Street. 

Conclusion 

The office of councillor Shawn Menard is committed to working with various stakeholders from the city, OSEG and the community to help make Lansdowne Park into everything it can and should be. To that end, we are looking to re-establish the Lansdowne Park Working Group, to ensure better synchronization between the city, OSEG and the neighbouring communities. 

It’s okay to admit a mistake. In fact, we must admit our mistakes if we’re able to move forward and build a better city. This is our chance to correct the mistakes of the past five years and make Lansdowne a thriving part of a larger, dynamic community. We can’t squander this opportunity. 

It’s time to make Lansdowne Park A Place for People; A Place for Families; A Place for Mobility; and A Place for City Life. It’s time to make Lansdowne Park our own. 

Click here to download the PDF.

The press release put out by Councillor Menard's office at the time:

For Immediate Release

October 25, 2019
Updated November 4, 2019

CITY LOOKS TO GIVE AWAY FULL CONTROL OF LANSDOWNE PARK TO FOR-PROFIT PARTNERS

Ottawa—In a staff report coming to the Finance and Economic Development Committee (FEDCO) on November 5^th, 2019, the city is seeking to direct staff  to strike a deal with the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) to transfer operations, programming and city control of half of the site over to OSEG. This would mean Aberdeen Pavilion, Aberdeen Square, the Horticulture Building, the Great Lawn and other areas of Lansdowne would be transferred in a commercialization of the remaining public space at Lansdowne. No business plan has been presented for such a move. No vendors who rent the space have been informed and zero public consultation has taken place. 

“The city programming has been quite good on the site,” notes Capital Ward Shawn  Menard. “We have good programming that is free and family-friendly, like the Farmers’ Market and 613Flea. There are nearly 100 free events we offer in a public park right now. The city is also under budget and returns funds back to city coffers every year.” 

The report does not articulate a real public policy concern that would be addressed by ceding control of the public park. It speaks of the need to avoid scheduling conflicts, but the coordination of programming has not been a big issue, argues Menard.  

In fact, the report raises the question of whom Lansdowne Park should be benefiting. This report was initiated by a letter from OSEG to the city on September 24^th, 2019. One month later, a city report has been released echoing this position. 

“If anything,” says the Councillor, “keeping the city involved in programming helps ensure that Lansdowne is run for the benefit of the city, as a whole—for the benefit of all residents. That is the city’s job, to look out for residents. I would be more than happy to find some middle ground on this, but the report is black and white”. 

The report will go to FEDCO on November 5 and then to City Council the next day on November 6, giving the public and city councillors very little time to deliberate on this important issue. Community Associations in the area have organized a hastily-called public meeting to discuss the issue on Monday, October 28^th, 2019, from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm at the Horticulture Building at Lansdowne Park. 

“It’s very disappointing,” laments Menard. “Lansdowne is a tremendous public asset, and yet the city seems eager to turn it all over to a private entity, whose primary objective is to make profit, with little public oversight or scrutiny.” 

You can download this press release here [PDF].

A full note covering Councillor Menard's concerns at the time here.

Proposal Defeated

Over 2,500 residents signed a petition organized by Councillor Menard's office opposing this proposal. Hundreds came to a community organized public consultation. Residents wrote to Councillors and the mayor. Residents showed up to a rally organized by the Councillor's office before the Finance and Economic Development Committee (FEDCO) meeting, and then they came in and gave thoughtful, passionate delegations in defense of public space. The proposal was eventually withdrawn as a result of these efforts.

Press Release Put Out by Councillor Menard's Office at the Time

For Immediate Release

Over 200 residents joined an online Zoom public meeting hosted by the office of Capital Ward Councillor Shawn Menard to discuss changes to the Lansdowne Park deal proposed by city staff.

The staff proposal, framed as a response to the pressures brought on by COVID-19, seeks to change key aspects of the Lansdowne Park Agreement, including extending the term of the deal by ten years to 2054.

Capital Ward Councillor Shawn Menard expressed concern about the deal after it was released at the last minute without any input from the public or city councillors, worrying that the deal is a “a short-sighted stop-gap measure created out of panic”.

Today, the councillor’s office released a backgrounder on the Lansdowne deal today on the councillor’s website, the document notes:

There are significant problems with the city report that requires more reflection.  

It is very unlikely that OSEG would choose to default, and they have not indicated this. Any decision by OSEG to walk away from its obligations at Lansdowne would represent a default under the Material Agreements that would result in OSEG losing the equity (>$150 million) that it has invested in the project. That is, and will continue to be, the major deterrent to OSEG withdrawing from Lansdowne. 

At tonight’s meeting, residents expressed concerns about the deal, pointing to the lack of financial details and questioning what benefit it would actually bring to the city.

“This is the only time the community will be able to come out and discuss this important issue before the FEDCO meeting. That’s not good governance; that’s not respect for our constituents; that’s just not right,” argues Councillor Menard.

City management declined to attend the public meeting. The city has not held any public consultations on the issue.

“We had over 200 engaged citizens make time and come out on short notice,” he continued, “and city management wouldn’t even come out and participate in the discussion or listen to residents’ concerns. This is no way to run a city.”

OSEG CEO Mark Goudie joined the beginning of the meeting to speak to OSEG’s position, explaining that the pandemic has affected the retail and commercial businesses at Lansdowne, as well as forcing the cancellation of the corporation’s large events, including the 2020 CFL season.

June Creelman, a Glebe resident and member of the Community Association, was also invited to speak at the event. Creelman has been involved in the Lansdowne issue from the community side and expressed concerns about the lack of transparency or consultation from the city and OSEG, noting that “it’s hard to have a public space where you don’t involve the public.”

The staff report will be considered by the city’s Finance and Economic Development on Thursday. If it is accepted, it will go to city council on November 25 for final approval, without any further public consultation events.

- 30 -

Download this press release [PDF].

More info on the proposal released by the Councillor's office at the time

 This proposal would extend the deal for an extra ten years to 2054; and would give up future rental income and net retail profits for the city until 2066. 

Under the Lansdowne agreement, the original waterfall was expected to deliver further gains for the city and OSEG. Under the proposal in front of Council, here is what it looks like: 

*OSEG’s contributions have mostly come from annual operational losses, which are returned to the waterfall as equity which earns interest. 

While some short term offer of assistance to get through the pandemic might make sense, the deep, long-term changes being proposed are a question mark for the city. There is no vision behind it right now. And there is no business case supporting it. 

We received a report from the Auditor General on Tuesday regarding the Lansdowne Waterfall. It is very concerning and does not bode well for sweetening the deal. You can read the report here. 

Our office has also put together a financial assessment of the proposed deal, you can read it here. Lansdowne is a valuable public asset and should be treated as such.  

The proposal was supposed to be considered at this week’s council meeting, but the Mayor has indicated he now wishes to move the report to the December 9^th Council meeting. This is the same day the budget will be considered.  

City staff developed a lengthy report on the possible future of Lansdowne Park. The report addressed the infrastructure needs of the park—including how to deal with the north side stands and civic centre—as well as how to better utilize the public amenities and animate the site in order to improve the day-to-day experience of residents. The report passed promising public consultation before a proposal was brought forward. This did not happen.

You can read the full report here.

An OSEG proposal to re-build the north side stands and civic centre at Lansdowne goes to committee and council during its lame duck period at the end of its term. The proposal includes building three towers of 35, 40 and 46 storeys along the stadium, and building a new event centre into part of the great lawn. The entire project is proposed to cost $332.6M, and the city would take on significant new debt and interest payments. The previous direction for the city to engage in consultations was not followed. The Councillor's office organized another last minute consultation of their own, and put out a list of top ten concerns with the proposal. The proposal was approved in principle with final approvals and decision making left to the next term of council.

In an unprecedented move, members of the Finance an Economic Development Committee, including Mayor Watson, refuse to allow Councillor Menard's motion to be tabled and discussed. However, the Councillor was able to make some improvements to the original plan proposed later at the Council table.

This included a direction to staff to embark on a public consultation strategy, covering the overall concept plan, the rezoning application for the proposed skyscrapers, and the improvements to the urban park and public realm, as well as a full explanation of the proposed business model, including the selling off of public land and air rights. Councillor Menard also passed a motion improving the transportation planning around the site, including directing staff to plan for low- or no-cost shuttle service on Bank Street, to review parking requirements for the proposed residential developments, to devise mitigation measures to improve transportation through the site, and, importantly, to work with OSEG on a Traffic Impact Study, supported by consultation with the Glebe Community Association, the Glebe BIA and the surrounding community associations. Finally Councillor Menard passed an amendment to the plan, directing staff to explore different massing and heights for the three proposed skyscrapers and explore making the green roof of the event centre accessible.

In an attempt to make the proposed Lansdowne 2.0 "revenue neutral", staff are recommending that council approve use property tax uplift to help pay for the development. You might be wondering what property tax uplift is, what it means for city tax revenue and how it differs from tax incremental financing.

Community member Alexandra Gruca-Macaulay has provided a brief explainer on property tax uplift and its affect on our ability to pay for city services in the future here.

Gruca-Macaulay also prepared this written primer here.

Full Text

This is a disappointing report that has come to council. 

It’s a bit strange to read all the work that went into the consultant’s report only to be dismissed so that we could just do things the way we’ve always done them. 

And we’re abandoning the notion of a competitive bidding process, sole-sourcing the project to an architectural firm that the city did not even select in the first place. 

And despite the fact that sole-sourcing a major project never leads to the best outcome, we’re hoping this time it will mean that a procurement method that finished a distant sixth in scoring can be elevated to a semi-distant fourth, in relation to all the other procurement methods we could have chosen. This report comes without any input or consultation of the public who will be paying for it.

So disappointing is the word, but maybe not the right word. Maybe it’s too charitable. 

When it comes to Lansdowne Park, when we listen to the public, good things happen…and it brings people together—like the new inexpensive benches, patio umbrellas and planters finally being installed at our urging in Ottawa’s public Square, Aberdeen Square. For that project, we consulted and listened to the public—and thank you to our parks staff, this is what will bring people to come and stay at Lansdowne: small but impactful quality-of-life improvements.

For Lansdowne 2.0 and this report, we haven’t listened to the public and to sports fans who have written to us. This project will make Lansdowne Park worse.

• The Civic Centre has been regularly sold out. That means 10,000 fans for 67’s games, PWHL games and special events. Building a new arena that has half of that capacity is absolutely ridiculous.
• The RedBlacks have regularly sold-out games in their brief history. In response, we’re reducing the number of seats at Frank Clair Stadium and increasing ticket prices while removing the roof over peoples heads.
• When a rebuild was contemplated, no one said that the entire civic centre would be moved—removing 58,000 square feet of precious and loved greenspace in the core—while we spend taxpayer dollars to fight with lawyers in court to preserve golf course greenspace in Kanata.
• I would challenge any of my colleagues in this room to tell me how much the city is actually projecting to lose in operations dollars for the new events centre and stadium: it’s $164.9M, and that’s the most optimistic projection.
• Another $20 million in this report for a so called “line-of-credit” that the city will have to backstop. Staff have now confirmed: this really isn’t going to be paid back; it’s going to be more long-term debt and it’s something the original LPP did not allow.
• That’s not to mention the waste this represents—after the city invested heavily in the last decade building brand new retail that is set to be torn down. The city recently invested $23 million into the steel roof, also set to be torn down with us continuing to pay down a loan for a facility that doesn’t exist. And, of course, the value of the building at $130 million, which would be torn down. All of this not because the buildings are at end-of-life, but because the city wants to make Lansdowne financially sustainable.

Well guess what: this isn’t a financially-sustainable plan. Over $500 million in new debt payments isn’t financially sustainable. Saying the teams will only be guaranteed to stay here for another eight years to 2032 isn’t sustainable.

So, what’s it going to take for this Council to change course? What’s another $4 million here and there, another $20 million long-term loan, the same old procurement model after a full-scale LRT public inquiry?

For years, legions of residents tried to tell this city what was needed at Lansdowne, and what was missing from the plans. But they haven’t been listened to. In November, our office tried to help make improvements to the plan so that it would actually give our residents what they needed. We brought motion after motion to improve this plan:

• A green roof on the event centre
• A roof over the North side stands
• Enhancing transit and active transportation options to the site
• Marginally increasing spending on public realm enhancements in the park 
• Preserving more greenspace and not waiving our cash-in-lieu of parks policy
• Requiring not-for-profit housing on site
• Providing a higher amount of revenue from the deal to our capital budget for affordable housing 
• Favouring bids that propose rental housing when that’s the kind of housing supply we need 
• Limiting parking on the surface of the site, while adding new accessible parking

We know that Lansdowne 2.0 isn’t the only option. But we’re never given that choice. We’re never given an alternative to the failed P3 model, unimaginative designs, and expensive procurement models. 

This historic site deserves better than that.

As we hit future decision points or “gates” for this file, we should be looking for ways to make this redevelopment more in-line with community feedback and the public good. That’s what my team’s Better Lansdowne campaign attempted to do, and that’s what I will continue to do as the local representative. 

Ultimately, this report represents another checkpoint for a project I opposed at council last year; one that continues to fall short. This report also brings with it additional financial risks and offers a sole-source procurement option that I am not convinced will deliver the public the best results. It is for these reasons that I will be voting against the report today. 

Legislative & Consultative Timeline:

March

• Public education & Awareness on the Lansdowne 2.0 concept Plan
• Targeted and Public workshop

April and May

• Launch City initiated Zoning By-law Amendment
• Community public consultation
• Introduce key ideas for the future of Lansdowne 2.0
• Gather feedback and ideas
• Targeted and Public workshop

June and July

• Community public consultation
• As we heard it report
• Incorporate feedback on the key ideas for Lansdowne 2.0
• Funding Strategy and Business Plan to Finance and Corporate Services Committee
• City Council votes on the final Funding Strategy and Business Plan

August to December 2023

• Finalize the plan in response to comments received
• Zoning report to Planning and Housing Committee
• City Council votes on the Zoning report for Lansdowne 2.0

January – March 2024

• Next steps on Site Plan, Design and Construction 

The City of Ottawa Launches an Engage Ottawa website for the Lansdowne 2.0 Proposal. This website includes an initial "Overall Concept Survey", as well as information about the proposal, background information about Lansdowne Park and the P3 agreement, and a timeline for the current proposal. Residents are invited to direct questions about Lansdowne 2.0 to [email protected]

Kevin Page, Michael Wernick, Paul Champ, Joanne Chianello, and Penny Collenette pen an open letter to Mayor Sutcliffe requesting more meaningful public engagement and financial transparency before further Lansdowne decisions are made.

View the open letter here [PDF]

Councillor Menard hosts a site tour of Lansdowne Park for members of the media and interested residents on June 26th. Preliminary results of the Better Lansdowne survey are released at this time, with a full report released a few days later.

Video From The Site Tour

Key Findings

"The main takeaway of these survey results is that there is very little public support for the current Lansdowne 2.0 proposal whether taken as a whole, or broken down to its constituent elements. Residents do, however, support proposals for meaningfully affordable housing and residential development at Lansdowne; they support public realm enhancements and transportation solutions that prioritize public transit and active transportation. Finally, residents oppose the continued use of the P3 model at Lansdowne, and they feel that the city has not been transparent about the financial aspects of the P3. These results largely hold true regardless of what area of Ottawa respondents live in."

Read the Full Report Now

Key Takeaways from the Report: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly 

Read this in PDF format here

Given the length of our comments provided in the report, we have prepared a list of key points from those comments, while also highlighting further details in a breakdown of what is good, and not so good, in the current Lansdowne 2.0 proposal.

Full Comment from the Report

For Immediate Release 

October 26, 2023 

TD PLACE NORTH SIDE STANDS AND ARENA SAFE—CAN BE MAINTAINED FOR DECADES TO COME 

Ottawa—Despite assertions to the contrary, the City of Ottawa has repeatedly and unequivocally stated that the north side stands and TD Place are safe and functional, and can be maintained throughout the duration of the Lansdowne partnership. 

Further, city staff have confirmed that if OSEG were to leave the partnership agreement, the city would have the right of first refusal on the sports franchises—the Ottawa REDBLACKS and the Ottawa 67’s—and could continue to operate them or sell them. 

Residents deserve to know these facts. 

Too often, city council is pressured into a decision—made to feel as though there is no other choice. Such pressure tactics rely on a lack of transparency and the withholding of information. This was a key theme of the recent LRT Public Inquiry. 

These situations compromise council’s ability to be proper stewards of the public funds. 

Over the last two weeks, OSEG has been paying for YouTube ads, has commissioned an EKOS Survey and has recently sent out an email to all 67’s fans, REDBLACKS fans and TD Place event-goers that called the buildings “End of Life”.

Further, one of the EKOS Survey questions makes an apparent threat, wrongly implying that if council does not approve Lansdowne 2.0, the sports and cultural activities at Lansdowne Park would end.[i] 

In recent years, the city has commissioned multiple reports examining these topics (excerpts below). 

Lansdowne 2.0 carries enormous financial risk for the city; we can have an alternative. 

2007 - 2009 Assessment of North Side stands/Civic Centre – Structurally Adequate [Reference: 2021 Lansdowne City Council Report From City Staff] 

The North Side stands/Civic Centre were the subject of extensive building and structural condition assessments from 2007-2009, during the initial period of the Lansdowne Park redevelopment discussions. The City commissioned Adjelian, Allen, Rubeli Limited (AARL) to complete a structural adequacy report for the North Side stands/Civic Centre complex in 2007. This report recommended additional investigation for specific structural elements. Fourteen engineering reviews were completed by AARL on behalf of the City from 2007 to 2010. The summary of condition showed the Civic Centre complex and North Stadium Structure to be in generally good condition. The Arena complex was deemed to be structurally adequate and capable of supporting anticipated loads. Reports prepared for OSEG by Morrison Hershfield at the time of the Agreement reached similar conclusions. 

Auditor General—Audit of Lansdowne Accounting/Waterfall 

When the Lansdowne 1.0 reconstruction was finished in Q3 2014 the City valued the stadium/arena post-renovation at $134,264,049 with a 60-year lifespan to 2074. 

2019 “TD Place Functional Obsolescence Report” by ROSSETTI  

“The renovations to the Stadium North stands and Arena, started in 2012, addressed many of the essential “physical life” cycle needs…” 

This obsolescence report will also address the venues offerings, amenities and experience which contribute collectively to its ability to measure up to other facilities and compete in a competitive marketplace for attention and entertainment dollars. A facility’s life span is determined by its ability to respond to technological advancements, sports entertainment industry trends and a community’s needs. It is demonstrated within this report that the existing North Stands and the arena at TD Place currently function at levels well below contemporary standards and will continue to decline in performance. 

2019 Morrison Hershfield Report – Building Condition Assessment and 35-year Capital Repair and Replacement Report TD Place – Lansdowne Park 

“September 30, 2019 - Morrison Hershfield Limited was retained by Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) to review and assess the current conditions of the existing components to create a 35-year capital repair and replacement plan until 2054 (40-year plan from the 2014 date of construction). The Capital Repair and Replacement Plan includes a five-year plan and a 35-year plan. The plan is based on the continuation of the current use of the building for the time period. The plan assumes that the building will continue to be used as an arena and stadium beyond the 35-year timeframe of this report (e.g., the plan does not assume demolition of the facility at 45 years of age).” 

2020 Action Plan: Morrison Hershfield Report – Updated TD Place Capital Plan Assuming Demolition at 40 Years (2054)  

Morrison Hershfield Limited was retained by Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group to develop a Capital Repair and Replacement Plan for TD Place.  

For the attached Capital Plan to account for demolition after the 40th year (2054), we have completed the following analysis. 

• Allowing more robust debate amongst Council on future alternatives such as better, smaller retail; housing additions above the low-rise retail, and future operations of the site. 
• Some expenditures between 2044 and 2054 year were deleted with the expectation that increased maintenance could achieve a longer service life of existing components. Individual components can be replaced upon failure as needed under the operating budget.  
• Some expenditures between 2039 and 2049 year were adjusted to account for capital repairs including repairs, rebuilding (e.g. pumps), partial replacements (e.g. ceiling tiles), and rehabilitation of systems (e.g. heat exchangers) to achieve a longer service life of existing components.  For the TPO membrane roofs, the second scheduled replacement in years 2041 (arena and north stands) and 2044 (south stands) was removed. It is assumed that a more durable roofing membrane (e.g. modified bitumen) with a longer typical service life will be installed at the first scheduled replacement.

“Current estimates from Morrison Hershfield based on a 40-year capital repair and replacement plan for the facility and to keep the old building operational and demolish it at the end, would require an investment in the order of $40 million.” ($1 million/year) - City of Ottawa’s Next Steps report. 

2022 April 26, 2022 “Lansdowne Partnership Sustainability Plan and Implementation Report”  

The “facilities, built in 1967, remain structurally sound, however even with an annual maintenance budget of over $1 million, the facilities remain below current building standards.”   

Capital Ward Councillor Shawn Menard’s Comments: 

The professional facility assessment reports that have been released indicate that the buildings can be maintained for at least three more decades (if not more), and that they are not at “End of Life”, structurally—the opposite of what OSEG has communicated. The functional obsolescence report was aimed primarily at comparing fan experiences in modern sports facilities, that is, assessing the excitement factor of the experience, in contrast with the physical life function. At TD Place—the stadium and the Civic Centre—we have a combination of new modern facilities on the south side accompanied by older facilities that must be maintained. If, as all of the condition reports suggest, the facilities can indeed be maintained and improved, the question becomes: with competing crises in Council’s Strategic Priorities—such as affordable housing, transit and climate change—why is Lansdowne 2.0 the largest public investment being proposed this term of council? A better plan would be to take the time to get Lansdowne right while, at the same time, making minor investments to fix what actually ails Lansdowne: 

• Implementing a proper Transportation Plan that includes addressing Bank Street congestion, providing hop-on hop-off shuttle service, stopping cut through traffic through Aberdeen Square, and provides more park-and-rides from the suburbs. 
• Animating the park during the 9-to-5 Monday-to-Friday dead zones by adding items such as a work hub in the Horticulture Building. 
• Improving Lansdowne’s public realm with a proper splash pad and winter family activities. 
• Creating a safe connection with Queen Elizabeth Drive, including a canal dock. 
• Providing value-for-money oversight of operations on the site. 
• Allowing time for city staff and council to consider the Auditor General’s professional recommendations expected in early 2024. 
• Allowing more robust debate amongst Council on future alternatives such as better, smaller retail; housing additions above the low-rise retail, and future operations of the site. 

Having full, accurate information—including the existing viable alternatives—will best position council to make the right choice for Lansdowne and for our residents. 

- 30 -  

[i]  

PDF version of this release is available here, or below.

In Brief

On November 10th council took another step towards approving the Lansdowne 2.0 proposal, with decisions to come on the procurement model and an Auditor General’s report. This is a complex deal, but here are the basics. The project cost is estimated at $419 million—not including various associated costs. With interest, taxpayers will pay $656 million over the 40 years, $16.4 million per year…but this is only an estimate. Prices could still go up.

The project will see the demolition of the north side stands, arena and the adjacent retail building (“J-Block”), which currently houses multiple businesses, including GoodLife Fitness.

A new arena, with a capacity of 5,500 - 6,500, will be built by the eastern end of the stadium where the berm currently sits. The berm will be demolished, and we will lose some public space adjacent to the hill. Despite some talk of eliminating the berm and sledding hill, we passed a motion directing staff to re-create the hill and ensure the artwork currently on the berm, Moving Surfaces, remains at Lansdowne.

A smaller grandstand will replace the north side stands, with about 3,000 fewer seats, adding 900 standing-room-only spots. Behind it, two 40-storey towers will be erected, with a retail podium underneath. The air-rights for the towers will be sold to a developer.

We passed a motion directing staff to explore adding a covering to the new north side stands to improve the fan experience.

Thankfully, council rejected the city’s plan to avoid affordable housing obligations, instead devoting 25% of the sale of the air rights (approximately $9.75 million) to affordable housing, and directing additional revenue to affordable housing, should the air rights sell for more than expected. I’m disappointed council did not ensure dedicated affordable housing units be provided at Lansdowne, as we have done with other developments in the ward.

Disappointingly, the plan offered no transportation strategy, nor any concrete plan to improve the public realm of the site, despite promises to the contrary throughout this whole process.

At the meeting, we were able to begin rectifying these oversights: adding specific transportation upgrades the city’s Active Transportation Project List, making them eligible for funding; instructing staff to review day-to-day transit service along Bank Street, including potential promotional fares and increased service; directing staff and OSEG to collaborate on a strategy for providing appropriate transportation for medium- and large-sized events; directing staff to investigate closing off Aberdeen Square to cut-through traffic; and including transportation demand management criteria when the city sells air rights for the towers.

We passed motions prioritizing popular public realm improvements that can be included in future budgets during the construction phase, and that directed staff to collaborate with the NCC and Parks Canada about improving connections to the canal, including boat-up access and a new Pedestrian Crossover on Queen Elizabeth Drive.

Despite these important victories, the overall project is disappointing, saddling residents with hundreds of millions of dollars in debt just to replace a stadium and arena that still have decades left in their lifespan.

This decision will haunt this council and our city. We carry more financial and legal risks with the new deal. Residents and local businesses will suffer through ten years of construction. It is dispiriting that this is what the city prioritizes.

Lansdowne 2.0 Full Record of Motions and Votes