The City has had some limited experience with using P3s for infrastructure and service delivery. The success of The City's experience has been mixed. These partnerships have at times raised issues related to public access and the appropriate role of the municipal government. The majority of these projects can be considered examples of the Operation License and/or Operation & Maintenance P3 models. The level of risk transfer and private sector at-risk capital appears to be minimal. In addition, none of the projects discussed above formally went through the rigorous evaluation process described later in this policy paper.
Regional Recreation Centres | ■ 3 regional recreation centres, Westside, South Fish Creek and Cardel Place under "P3" arrangements ■ involve partnering with a not-for-profit community-based organization (NFPO). |
Westside Recreation Centre | ■ $25 million capital contribution from The City ■ $2 million raised by the community for a capital maintenance reserve. ■ built by The City and then turned over to the NFPO to operate under a 15-year license of occupation ■ automatically renewed for another 15 years unless the termination conditions are triggered ■ operates on a full cost recovery basis, ■ characterized as a well-run facility |
South Fish Creek Recreation Centre | ■ $25 million capital contribution from The City ■ $15 million raised by The City through other means ■ required significantly more assistance from The City ■ eventually The City contracted with the YMCA to operate the recreation facility through a 99-year lease ■ operated as a YMCA, including the fee assistance program ■ arena is operated by the NFPO ■ houses a Separate high school and a public library ■ long planning and negotiation process between all groups before the facility was built, with considerable assistance from The City |
Cardel Place | ■ $35 million capital contribution from The City ■ additional $10 million raised through The City in the form of grants and naming rights ■ NFPO operates the facility, but follows The City's fee assistance program ■ lengthy planning and negotiation process. |
Large Sporting or Cultural Centres | ■ The City has partnered with community groups in providing sports centres and cultural facilities ■ The City typically provides the land and also may provide some grant funding ■ The NFPO is responsible for the capital and the operations of the facility ■ The City may fund some or all of the lifecycle costs |
Outdoor Pools | ■ The City transferred the outdoor pools to a NFPO ■ NFPO hired a private contractor to operate and maintain the pools ■ The City provides an annual subsidy |
Leisure Centres | ■ The City has received unsolicited proposals from the private sector to operate and maintain Southland and Village Square leisure centres ■ after value-for-money assessment, proponents were no longer interested in Village Square ■ The City rejected the proposals |
Energy performance Contracting | ■ private sector operator replaced building equipment ■ funded through realized energy cost savings resulting from the project ■ disputes with respect to the terms of the contract have resulted in on-going litigation |
Louise Crossing | ■ an agreement between The City and the La Caille Group ■ integrates a fire station into a parking structure and an affordable and at-market housing complex ■ greater investment in the up-front planning and negotiation process ■ expectation of lower costs on a per square foot basis ■ the project offers benefits in terms of a high density development and the achievement of highest and best use of the land ■ no tangible benefits realized yet |
Portrait Gallery of Canada | ■ The City recently submitted a P3 bid for the Portrait Gallery of Canada ■ not a P3 for City infrastructure or services ■ The City is providing the land for the Gallery and essentially played the role of a facilitator for a P3 between the federal government and a private sector participant ■ provides an example of the resource coordination required to evaluate P3s (resources from Planning, Law, Finance, Supply and Corporate Properties were involved) but the risks faced by The City were relatively minimal ■ P3s for City infrastructure and services will require significantly more resources dedicated to the evaluation and procurement processes |