Photo: “Moving Surfaces” by Jill Anholt was installed at Lansdowne in 2014 and temporarily removed in 2017 to make way for Grey Cup seating. If the berm goes, where will the sculpture go?
Photo: Liz McKeen
Auditor General says city underestimated Lansdowne 2.0 costs by $75M
By Carolyn Mackenzie
Ottawa’s Auditor General (AG) says the cost of Lansdowne 2.0 could be $75 million higher than estimates presented just last November, bringing the total bill for the redevelopment to close to half a billion dollars.
Nathalie Gougeon’s findings following a close look at the City’s Financial Strategy of Lansdowne 2.0 – basically what it will cost and how we will pay for it – were presented June 11, and they were not good news for supporters of the deal with OSEG. As well as rising costs, she also warned of falling cash distributions to the city – they could be $10 to $30 million less than estimated, meaning less money to pay for the redevelopment leaving taxpayers to fill the gap.
On top of that, the AG pointed to significant risks with the city’s revenue forecasts, because the financial plan wouldn’t see the city get much cash from Lansdowne until the latter half of the 40-year deal. Forecasting 20 to 40 years out is always riskier than a short-term estimate. But the city seems fine taking on this additional risk, forcing the next generation of taxpayers to deal with any shortfalls. Of course, decision-makers now will no longer be around to be held accountable.
Importantly, last November, staff was given the go ahead to keep developing the plan for Lansdowne 2.0. They were also directed by Council that if something material were to change, staff must come back to Council with an update.
But staff don’t accept the AG’s recommendations. By not accepting them, they are not technically obligated to update Council on what a revised Financial Strategy would look like. What could it cost taxpayers if the AG estimates are closer to reality? We don’t know, nor does Council. What is the point of the AG spending time on an audit if her findings are ignored?
Taxpayers were initially told that Lansdowne 2.0 would cost us nothing. Last fall, Mayor Mark Sutcliffe promised that it would only cost $5 million a year (if all goes very well) for the next 40 years. But the AG report suggests it could be a lot more.
At the same time, as the city grows, the plan is for a much smaller 5,500 seat arena that will be too small to accommodate the Professional Women’s Hockey League crowds that filled the Civic Centre last season or to draw bigger-name concerts. There will be no roof for football fans. There will be no green roof on the arena, whose relocation will result in significant loss of public park and green space. Berm as toboggan hill and football or concert seating? Gone.
If costs continue to rise while park elements are diminished, will the Council have the courage to insist on a better plan at a final decision point 18 months from now? Or will they just point to all the time and effort staff put into this deal, ignore the obvious weaknesses, hold their noses and say they don’t see how they can say “NO”? They don’t have another option, as the Council only asked staff for one. And how soon after will there be a call for more spending through Lansdowne 3.0?
We need a responsible solution for the financial failure of Lansdowne. Lansdowne 2.0 is an increasingly expensive proposal, so we must demand that the Council is properly informed. Council must be clear-eyed about the debt we are taking on as taxpayers for what looks like a very compromised redevelopment. If it’s not good enough, the time to say so and to insist on another option is now, not in 18 months. Let your views be known. Write to Mark.sutcliffe@ottawa.ca, with a copy to shawn.menard@ottawa.ca.
Carolyn Mackenzie is the planning chair for the Glebe Community Association (GCA).
