.
This article states the criteria with which the City of Ottawa has asked it's assessment committee to evaluate the two stadium proposals:
Lansdowne or Kanata?
Committee sets stadium criteria
TIM WIECLAWSKI/ METRO OTTAWA
March 11, 2009 05:50
[i]While some people may be trying to determine whether a sports stadium is best built in Kanata or at Lansdowne Park, others may be trying to decide which is the “least worst.?
“Both of the proposals call for taxpayers to undertake some risk in making payments that could be repaid if the stadium and the franchise is successful,? said Knoxdale-Merivale Coun. Gord Hunter. “But if they are not successful ... then that’s a risk to the taxpayers. We won’t get a long-term return on investment.?
Yesterday, the city’s planning committee approved the assessment process for evaluating both proposals.
Out of six main criteria, risk to the city is weighted at 35 points out of 100. The overall need for a stadium will be scored out of 25 points. Just how strong the business plan for each stadium is will be weighted at 20 points. The remaining 20 points are spread evenly between facility design and site considerations.
By stressing the amount of risk to the city, Capital Ward Coun. Clive Doucet said, it could cast an element of doubt on both proposals.
Since there is a trend toward central urban intensification, Doucet said a stadium out in Kanata is not a good long-term location and the focus of the debate should be if either of the sites are ideal for the next 100 years.
A seven-member assessment team consisting of city staff with expertise in finance, real estate and servicing, as well as a consultant who has already evaluated the Lansdowne Live proposal will be tabling a report with their recommendation on March 25.
Both the Lansdowne Live group and Senators Sports and Entertainment will present their vision to a joint meeting of the city’s planning and environment and the corporate services and economic development committees on April 6.[/i]
Advantage: Jeff Hunt & co.
35/100: RISK.
If the new CFL franchise goes belly-up, and must exit their lease, the City of Ottawa comes out ahead with Lansdowne Park. Right now, they pay $5M per year for a park that does nothing. In the event that the CFL franchise folded, and the Hunt group continued to manage Lansdowne park, they would be paying $5M in interest payments on the loan per year, while enjoying tax revenue from all the activity taking place in the retail/office/hotel/convention/acquarium space. They would probably come out ahead.
In the event that the Hunt group tossed in the keys and stopped managing Lansdowne, the City would again need to take over those approximate $5M in maintenance costs, plus the interest payments on the loan which could mean another $5M, but they would also become the proud owners and managers of all that commercial space. One hopes that the city could manage to cobble together a deal to lease the space for at lease a combined $5M per year, and that is probably way on the low end, and is no worse off than when they started. Essentially, this is no risk for the city.
Suppose, despite all Melnyk's heart-felt personal guarantees, his soccer franchise goes in the tank. Not only is the city stuck shelling out $5M per year for empty Lansdowne park, they now become the owners and operators of an empty 30k seat soccer stadium in Kanata with natural turf (more expensive to maintain) and no revenue-generating tenants. They don't get any revenue from the development of Melnyk's big business development, that is scheduled to be built after the soccer team is established. Worst case scenario: the City of Ottawa has the nightmare of empty Lansdowne x2.
25/100 OVERALL NEED FOR A STADIUM
I have no idea what this is supposed to measure. Furthermore, how are the two proposals supposed to score differently on the city's overall need for a stadium?
20/100 BUSINESS PLAN
I have every confidence in both Hunt and Melnyk to make strong business cases. So far, Melnyk's team has tended to present fudged numbers to Council, particularly regarding the CFL's revenue-generating capabilities. The Hunt group has spent more time with city planners, so hopefully their plan has addressed more of the city's concerns than has the Melnyk proposal. One of the assessment team members has been involved with the ongoing Lansdowne Live assessment, so hopefully familiarity breeds confidence. For the sake of arguments, lets call it a draw.
20/100 FACILITY DESIGN AND SITE CONSIDERATIONS
Hunt is proposing a multi-use facility in the heart of the city on a site that is currently an enourmous drain on city resources. Melnyk is proposing a new toy for his own exclusive use in the middle of a parking lot way the hell out in Kanata. Again, hopefully the fact that Hunt & co have had more time with city planners will play to their advantages here, and the fact that Melnyk seems to change his mind every week as to what this stadium will ultimately do in the end will make the assessment team nervous.
