5. public-private partnership (p3) for new indoor sports field dome at ben franklin park

partenariat public-privÉ pour un dÔme de terrain de sport intÉrieur au parc ben franklin

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council authorize staff to issue a request for proposals for the provision of an indoor sports field dome at Ben Franklin Park per the framework attached in Appendix A.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU COMITÉ

Que le Conseil autorise le personnel à lancer une demande de propositions pour l’aménagement d’un dôme de terrain de sport intérieur au parc Ben-Franklin, conformément au cadre décrit à l’annexe A.

DOCUMENTATION

1. Deputy City Manager, Community and Protective Services report dated 9 January 2006 (ACS2006-CPS-PAR-0001).

2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 19 January 2006.

Report to/Rapport au :

Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee

Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux

and Council/et au Conseil

9 January 2006 / le 9 janvier 2006

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

Community and Protective Services/Services communautaires et de protection

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Aaron Burry

Director, Parks and Recreation

(613) 580-2424 x23666, Aaron.Burry@ottawa.ca

Ward 9 Knoxdale - Merivale

Ref N°: ACS2006-CPS-PAR-0001

SUBJECT:	Public-Private partnership (P3) for new indoor sports field Dome at ben Franklin Park
OBJET :	Partenariat public-privé pour un dÔME DE TERRAIN DE SPORT INTÉRIEUR AU PARC BEN FRANKLIN

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Health Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend that Council authorize staff to issue a request for proposals for the provision of an indoor sports field dome at Ben Franklin Park per the framework attached in Appendix A.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux recommande au Conseil d'autoriser le personnel à lancer une demande de propositions pour l'aménagement d'un dôme de terrain de sport intérieur au parc Ben-Franklin, conformément au cadre décrit à l'annexe A.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ben Franklin Park is a large, 21.55 hectare park, located in the north-east corner of the intersection of West Hunt Club Road and Greenbank. The site's master plan (December 2000) foresaw a premium sports field development with indoor and outdoor sports fields and park amenities. The park is divided into two major parcels of land, seperated by Knoxdale Road. Phase 1 (12.6 hectare portion east of Knoxdale) was City funded through Nepean's Reserve Fund and constructed in 2004. Phase 1 includes four (4) sports fields, which will be ready for play in the Spring of 2006. Basic amenities such as a parking lot and a fieldhouse are in place and a play structure will be constructed in 2006.

Phase 2 of the development (west side of Knoxdale Road at 12.6 hectares) per the Master plan was intended to house an indoor sports facility, as well as outdoor fields, parking, play areas and landscape features.

Since the development of the City's Public-Private Partnership policy framework and completion of the new P3 Indoor dome at Hornet's Nest, various sports groups and the private-sector have expressed interest in developing the site under a P3. Funds in the amount of $2,079,000 were approved as part of the 2006 capital budget and the Department, in conjunction with Supply Management Division, proposes to issue a request for proposals in keeping with the framework attached in Appendix A.

The framework calls for a high quality, enclosed (year-round) dome/structure with artificial turf, able to accommodate sports groups such as soccer, ultimate frisbee, rugby. In addition to the structure, additional, high quality (irrigated) outdoor sports fields would be an added asset to any proposal. The site should be self-sustaining and provide for users parking requirements on-site and amenity services for the outdoor fields. The framework being recommended requests that the indoor and outdoor facilities be managed and maintained by the successful P3 proponent.

Following review of the submitted proposals, the Department will report back to Committee and Council with a recommendation to Committee and Council on the private sector partner(s) recommended to pass on to Stage 2 – Negotiations and Final Agreement. A negotiation framework, including a public consultation component, will also be recommended at that time.

RÉSUMÉ

Le parc Ben-Franklin occupe une superficie considérable, soit 21,55 hectares, à l'angle nord-est de l'intersection des chemins West Hunt Club et Greenbank. Le plan directeur de l'emplacement (décembre 2000) prévoyait l'aménagement d'un parc sportif de premier plan, comprenant des terrains de sport intérieurs et extérieurs et les commodités afférentes. Le parc est divisé en deux grandes parcelles par le chemin Knoxdale. L'étape 1 de l'aménagement (la parcelle de 12,6 hectares à l'est du chemin Knoxdale), financée par la Ville à partir du Fonds de réserve de Nepean, a été réalisée en 2004. L'étape 1 comprend quatre (4) terrains de sport, qui seront utilisables à partir du printemps de 2006. Les équipements de base, comme le terrain de stationnement et le pavillon, sont en place et une structure de jeux sera construite en 2006.

L'étape 2 de l'aménagement (la parcelle de 12,6 hectares à l'ouest du chemin Knoxdale) devait, selon le plan directeur, comprendre un terrain de sport couvert, ainsi que des terrains extérieurs, un stationnement, des aires de jeux et des éléments paysagers.

Depuis la mise en place du cadre stratégique de la Ville sur les partenariats publics-privées (PPP) et l'achèvement du dôme à Hornet's Nest en vertu d'un PPP, différents groupes sportifs et le secteur privé se sont montrés intéressés à aménager le site en vertu d'un PPP. Un montant de 2,079,000  $ a été approuvé à cette fin dans le budget d’immobilisations de 2006, et les Services communautaires, en conjonction avec la Division de la gestion de l’approvisonnement, se proposent de lancer une demande de propositions, conformément au cadre décrit à l'annexe A.

Ce cadre prévoit la construction d'un dôme ou d'une structure fermée (toutes saisons) abritant un terrain couvert de gazon synthétique et se prêtant à des activités sportives comme le soccer, le jeu Ultime et le rugby. Outre cette structure, des terrains de sport extérieurs supplémentaires de haute qualité (irrigués) constitueraient, pour toute proposition, un atout avantageux. Le parc sportif devrait être financièrement autonome et offrir sur place le stationnement à ses utilisateurs, ainsi que les services et commodités pour les terrains extérieurs. Le cadre recommandé prévoit que les installations intérieures et extérieures seront gérées et entretenues par le promoteur du P3 retenu.

À la suite de l'examen des propositions reçues, les Services communautaires présenteront au Comité et au Conseil un rapport contenant une recommandation quant au(x) partenaire(s) du secteur privé à retenir pour la deuxième étape du processus (négociation et accord final). Un cadre de négociation, y compris son volet de consultation du public, fera également l'objet d'une recommandation dans le même rapport.

BACKGROUND

In the Branch's Community Infrastructure Strategy and its Long Range Financial Plan 2, three (3) Indoor Sports Domes were identified as a requirement over the next 10 years. The intent is to see additional domes strategically located throughout the City that would offer an "enhanced" level of service for indoor sport participants. Because this is beyond our basic level of service (outdoor fields) and restrained financial resources, domes are deemed to require substantial outside funding in order to be successfully built in the near future. In 2004, the City's first indoor dome partnership was developed at Hornet's Nest on Bearbrook Road. As an "added value" to sports users, an indoor sports component was added in the City's P3 partnership with the four-plex arena at the Sensplex.

DISCUSSION

Since there have been several inquiries and expressions of interest in developing an indoor sports dome at the site by the private-sector and sports groups, an opportunity exists to initiate an open Request for Proposals to all that are interested in pursuing a partnership with the City. In order to clearly establish the requirements and expectations of the City, including the limitation of site, the Framework (attached as Appendix A) identifies the parameters of the project that the City is prepared to entertain and evaluate.

The framework calls for a high quality, enclosed (year-round) dome/structure with artificial turf, able to accommodate sports groups such as soccer, ultimate frisbee, rugby. In addition to the structure, additional, high quality (irrigated) outdoor sports fields would be an added asset to any proposal. The site should be self-sustaining and provide for users parking requirements on-site and amenity services for the outdoor fields. The framework requests that the indoor and outdoor facilities be managed and maintained by the third party proponent.

Following a review of the submitted responses to the RFP, staff will make a recommendation to Committee and Council on the private sector partner(s) recommended to pass on to Stage 2 – Negotiations and Final Agreement. A negotiation framework, including a public consultation component, will also be recommended at that time.

It is possible, that following the evaluation of the proposals, no respondents are recommended to proceed to the next stage.

Impact of Lansdowne Agreement

It should be noted that Coliseum Inc., the operators of the dome at Lansdowne Park, in the amended agreement arising out of the settlement of the dispute involving scheduling conflicts with late season football games, were given the right to remain at Lansdowne Park until March 2015, unless there was a bona fide redevelopment plan for Lansdowne Park that would preclude their seasonal operation.

If there is a bona fide redevelopment of Lansdowne Park, "the City agrees at that time to grant Coliseum Inc. an option to lease a portion of Ben Franklin Park. If Ben Franklin Park is at the time of exercise of the option to lease, the subject of any bona fide redevelopment plan which precludes the installation of an inflatable dome structure of the kind currently operated by Coliseum Inc., then the City agrees to grant an option to lease to Coliseum for a similar City-owned property within a 10 kilometer radius of Frank Clair Stadium".

The Department considers the above to be low risk scenarios and the Parks and Recreation branch is prepared to examine alternate sites should the need arise.

CONSULTATION

This report has not been the subject of a public consultation, but the proposal will be subject to a consultation process, undertaken by the preferred proponent, in conjuction with the City. 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The 2006 capital budget includes $2,079,000 in funds available to meet City obligation in the partnership.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Appendix A - Request for Proposal (RFP) Framework

DISPOSITION

Upon approval of this report, the Parks and Recreation Branch will form a team of Departmental representatives, to implememt the project, including Parks and Recreation, Planning and Growth Management and Corporate Services, with Supply Management Division taking the lead in the procurement process.

Appendix A

PROPOSED P3 FRAMEWORK

The rapidly increasing popularity of a number of sports such as soccer and ultimate frisbee, as an example, and the impressive increase in population over the past few years have created significant pressures on the need for additional outside playing facilities. Equally important is the need for domed/indoor playing facilities to allow for winter access. Implicit with these facilities is the need for artificial turf, similar to the surface installed at Hornet's Nest.

There has been significant interest shown by the private sector and sports leagues to partner with the city to advance the construction of these types of facilities and it is recommended that this project proceed as a public-private partnership. The process has been designed to offer the potential partners the opportunity to bring forth innovative solutions, which meet the City’s overall objectives.

1.0 Site Specific Parameters

1.1 Site Infrastructure

The City-owned site in question is undeveloped lands, with no existing services on-site. The development proposal will need to include service connections from the Gibbard Street Right-of-Way, as well as storm water attenuation requirements. A traffic plan will need to be persued, looking closely at access and egress and with possible works required as a consequence.

1.2 Zoning

The proposed partnership would seek to entertain proposals that will respect the existing zoning, which is identified as Parks and Recreation (Public) under the existing Nepean Zoning By-Law. The designation allows for City-owned sports facilities or P3 development of the same. In order to respect the zoning, the commercial development portion within the project must only support the recreational facility and if deemed to go beyond the scope, a re-zoning would be required. The City's preference is to maintain the existing zoning.

1.3 Required Elements

The City's intent is to develop in partnership, a high quality, enclosed (year-round) dome/structure with artificial turf, able to accommodate sports groups such as soccer, ultimate frisbee, rugby. In addition to the structure, additional, high quality (irrigated) outdoor sports fields would be an added asset to any proposal.The site should be self-sustaining and provide for users parking requirements on-site and amenity services for the outdoor fields.

1.4 Operational Elements

The City is not interested in managing or maintaining the indoor and outdoor facilities, nor the purchase of time on behalf of sports group. Proponents may wish to consider the newly-developed (4) outdoor fields on the east portion of the park as part of a comprehensive partnership proposal to the City. Presently the City maintains and will be allocating the outdoor fields.

2.0 Selection of Preferred P3 Partner

2.1 The selection process will consist of two stages:

Stage 1 – Request for Proposal (RFP): The objectives of the RFP are to:

• solicit information from respondents on their corporate financial strength and experience of the firm / team on similar projects;
• gauge their understanding of the City’s objectives, and
• obtain specific information about the respondents’ proposed concept.

This process will validate the feasibility of the concept from a financial, operational and “fit” perspective. The evaluation will take into consideration the amount of risk retained by the City and the value of the facility to the City’s overall programming ability on that site.

Generally the city will evaluate the responses based on the following elements:

Corporate Overview

• description of the legal entity submitting the proposal including details of the individual companies if this is a consortium
• description of the project team and their related experiences and roles on similar projects

Project Overview

• the nature of the concept
• type of programming and target market
• Market analysis
• any special conditions that are specific to the proposal
• phases to the project

Business and Financial Plans

• Overall cost, including risk and value added components
• Expectations of the City e.g. in-kind contributions, guarantees, exemptions, etc.
• Track record in achieving the committed costs on other projects
• Ownership structure
• Methods of financing for the initial construction and ongoing cash management requirements
• Phase-out plans
• Relationship management, including simplicity versus complexity of the agreement

Design, Development and Construction Plans

• Design and construction, including the start and completion dates
• Facility design and urban development – environmental sensitivity
• Site suitability – traffic, location, accessibility, residential vs. non-residential
• Impact on other municipal services and/or revenues
• Relationship to adjacent facilities and services
• Implementation plan, including delivery and timing commitments

Operations and Maintenance Plans

• Facilities management, including life-cycle planning, ongoing maintenance and committed investments
• Recreational planning and ongoing marketing
• Quality assurance, including customer satisfaction, quality of the services, etc.
• Management approach, including responsiveness and pro-activeness
• Building and performance standards
• Service levels
• Innovation

Customer Service and Community Relations

• Customer service plan
• Community involvement plan, including ongoing community relations approach, including a process to address complaints from the public

Value Added Elements

• Other services to be provided and their impact on the City services or communities to be served

The RFP will be developed in conjunction with Supply Management Division . It will include the standard requirements plus specifics to this project such as:

• Scope of the project
• Goals, Objectives and Principles of the P3
• Description of City of Ottawa Available sites
• Instructions to proponents
• Proponent proposed concept
• Proponent proposed design, development and construction plans, including planning process and timing
• Proponent proposed management, operations, maintenance plans, including service levels, performance standards, customer care, capital renewals, branding, community communication (users and neighbors)
• Proponent proposed business plan, including business relationships, payment mechanism, ownership structure, expected commitments from the City, etc.
• Evaluation criteria and Basis of Award Strategy
• General Conditions

Following the RFP process, staff will make a recommendation to Committee and Council on the outcome of the P3 process, and if successful, the preferred private sector partner(s) recommended to pass on to Stage 2. It is also possible, however, that following the evaluation of the proposals, no respondents are recommended to proceed to the next stage.

A negotiation framework, including a public consultation component, will also be recommended at that time.

Stage 2 – Negotiations and Final Agreement: The purpose of this phase is to formalize the agreement with the respondents.

The City is seeking partners who will provide the best value solution in a manner that recognizes the importance of fitting that solution within the community within which they operate. They will operate the facility in a way that reflects the image of the City and provide a quality service to the users. They will support the City on issues management and by being responsive to the City’s needs, adjusting to an environment that may change over the course of the partnership. The partner will also seek to provide value-added services during the term of the agreement, continuing to apply best practices in this area of activity.

3.0 Timelines

HRSS and Council approval for RFP Authority - Jan 19 & Feb 8, 2006

Request for Proposal Release Date - Mar 15, 2006

Proposal Due Date Apr 12, 2006

Selection of Preferred Partner Apr 26, 2006

Report to CSED and Council - Preferred Partner Negotiate Jun 6 & Jun 14 (or 28) 2006

Negotiation (estimated completion date) July / August 2006

Report to CSED and Council - Agreement First Available dates in September 2006

Construction - Anticipated Opening Date September 2007

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP (P3) FOR NEW INDOOR SPORTS FIELD DOME AT BEN FRANKLIN PARK

PARTENARIAT PUBLIC-PRIVÉ POUR UN DÔME DE TERRAIN DE SPORT INTÉRIEUR AU PARC BEN FRANKLIN

ACS2006-CPS-PAR-0001 KNOXDALE-MERIVALE (9)

Aaron Burry, Director of Parks and Recreation, provided Committee with a brief overview of the report.

In reply to a number of questions from Vice Chair Alex Cullen, Mr. Burry confirmed that the evaluation of the capital and operating elements were consistent with that of other projects, as well as the ability of the City to deliver these services. He also reaffirmed that the City was not interested in managing or maintaining the indoor and outdoor facilities, nor the purchase of time on behalf of sports groups.

Councillor Cullen put forward a Motion asking that staff be directed to develop a capital project for the facility at Ben Franklin Park, to be considered as part of the 2007 Capital budget process. The Councillor put forward the view that a public process was the most efficient model, as has been demonstrated over the past one hundred and fifty years in the City of Ottawa.

Councillor Georges Bedard asked that, in future, projects like this be prioritised to help in the decision-making tool. The Councillor also asked Mr. Burry whether the City was obligated to accept any of the Requests for Proposals and whether developing this project could be reconsidered at any time. Mr. Burry confirmed this was the case in both scenarios.

Speaking to Councillor Cullen's replacement Motion, Councillor Gord Hunter (Knoxdale Ward), felt it was important to see what the private and not-for-profit sectors could come up with and too early in the process to decide that a P3 model was not suitable. He asked that staff indicate how it would respond to a group interested in developing a domed facility at an existing facility as opposed to Ben Franklin Park. Mr. Burry advised that the first P3 project evaluation for a facility at Minto Park had been deemed not appropriate, and that staff would have to also look at how much more the Sportsplex site is able to accommodate.

Councillor Jan Harder (Bell-South Nepean) pointed out that the location of Ben Franklin Park makes it a city wide facility, and will benefit from the extension of Hunt Club Road to Highway 417 later this year. She averred that staff have a window of opportunity and need to move on this proposal. The Councillor reminded the committee that this was part of the Nepean Legacy Fund and paid for by residents of that former municipality.

In reply to a question from Chair Diane Holmes, Mr. Burry said it was difficult to estimate the cost of this project if the City were to completely fund it, citing unknown factors such as capital and operating costs at the back end.

At this juncture, the committee considered the following amending Motion:

That the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee direct staff to develop a capital project for an indoor sports field dome at Ben Franklin Park for the 2007 Capital budget.

LOST

NAYS (4): G. Bedard, P. Feltmate, J. Stavinga, D. Holmes

YEAS (1): A. Cullen

That the Health Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend that Council authorize staff to issue a request for proposals for the provision of an indoor sports field dome at Ben Franklin Park per the framework attached in Appendix A.

CARRIED

(A. Cullen dissented)