Halifax Stadium Discussion

[Empire]

Originally Posted by q12

MOTION DEFEATED 16-3!

One Councillor said if they stopped phase 2 now they would look like a silly little city to the eyes of the country...

You mean like Reg Rankin looks like a silly little councillor to the world?

[fenwick16]

According to the allnovascotia.com, CAO Richard Butts awarded the phase 2 stadium consulting contract on Monday to a Toronto firm.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

According to the allnovascotia.com, CAO Richard Butts awarded the phase 2 stadium consulting contract on Monday to a Toronto firm.

... yes, and The Chronicle Herald reports the same: http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1263154.html

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

... yes, and The Chronicle Herald reports the same: http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1263154.html

Thank you for the link.

I have developed a great deal of respect for Mayor Kelly - being Mayor of HRM seems like an extremely tough job. I can also see how difficult CAO Richard Butts' job must be, and the reason why HRM loses one CAO after another.

In my opinion, since the tender went out a couple of weeks ago, CAO Richard Butts was well within his authority to award the contract. The vote to proceed with the phrase 2 study was 16-6 on August 9th. The Councillors who are against a stadium will have their chance to vote against construction of a stadium, probably in December once the phase 2 study is complete.

If an economical stadium can be built in HRM for close to $60 million dollars with funding partners, then Mayor Kelly, and all the Councillors who supported it, will have provided a major piece of infrastructure for HRM. If the price escalates significantly and funding partners can't be found then the HRM won't be forced into funding it just because they have taken the steps to research it with a detailed design study.

[fenwick16]

I know that many on this forum don't like controversy but I think this is a point to mention. The new CAO of Halifax Regional Municipality, Richard Butts, is being critized by the local media because the stadium phase 2 study was issued on Monday, a day before Reg Rankin's motion to rescind the phase 2 study (which only he and two other Councillors supported). The deadline for receiving the phase 2 tenders was August 30th (or 31st?). So it took CAO Richard Butts almost 2 weeks to select an architectural company - fairly expeditious, in my opinion. However, several local media outlets are making this out to be a scandal since a company was selected 1 day before Reg Rankin's rescind motion (voted down 16-3).

My question - what is wrong with these following media sources? Has doing-things-slowly become the norm for them?

1) http://thechronicleherald.ca/Editorials/1263327.html
2) http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2011/09/14/richard-butts-joins-the-old-boy-network
3) http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1263154.html
4) http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/Blog-Article/b/20625/Ricks-Rants-Thursday-September-15th2011

[Empire]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I know that many on this forum don't like controversy but I think this is a point to mention. The new CAO of Halifax Regional Municipality, Richard Butts, is being critized by the local media because the stadium phase 2 study was issued on Monday, a day before Reg Rankin's motion to rescind the phase 2 study (which only he and two other Councillors supported). The deadline for receiving the phase 2 tenders was August 30th (or 31st?). So it took CAO Richard Butts almost 2 weeks to select an architectural company - fairly expeditious, in my opinion. However, several local media outlets are making this out to be a scandal since a company was selected 1 day before Reg Rankin's rescind motion (voted down 16-3).

My question - what is wrong with these following media sources? Has doing-things-slowly become the norm for them?

1) http://thechronicleherald.ca/Editorials/1263327.html
2) http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2011/09/14/richard-butts-joins-the-old-boy-network
3) http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1263154.html
4) http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/Blog-Article/b/20625/Ricks-Rants-Thursday-September-15th2011

Apparently no one understands that a democratic process was followed and the result was the passing of a motion to move forward with phase II of the stadium proposal. If someone (Reggie) wants to get their kinckers in a twist and derail the democratic process then a bit of inconvenience shouldn't alarm them.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I know that many on this forum don't like controversy but I think this is a point to mention. The new CAO of Halifax Regional Municipality, Richard Butts, is being critized by the local media because the stadium phase 2 study was issued on Monday, a day before Reg Rankin's motion to rescind the phase 2 study (which only he and two other Councillors supported). The deadline for receiving the phase 2 tenders was August 30th (or 31st?). So it took CAO Richard Butts almost 2 weeks to select an architectural company - fairly expeditious, in my opinion. However, several local media outlets are making this out to be a scandal since a company was selected 1 day before Reg Rankin's rescind motion (voted down 16-3).

My question - what is wrong with these following media sources? Has doing-things-slowly become the norm for them?

1) http://thechronicleherald.ca/Editorials/1263327.html
2) http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2011/09/14/richard-butts-joins-the-old-boy-network
3) http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1263154.html
4) http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/Blog-Article/b/20625/Ricks-Rants-Thursday-September-15th2011

If Council didn't want the contract awarded prior to the (failed) motion, it should have extended the tender award date through a formal process. It is not befitting of a Government to play fast and loose with procurement.

Council has every right to question these things - but it does NOT have the right to re-write contract rules whenever is sees fit. When it issues a request for proposals, it is forming the basis of a future contract. If it doesn't play the game fairly, Council opens itself up to litigation. Council should be embarrassed that it doesn't understand procurement rules (or forgot to check), rather than incensed that the CAO followed the rules set out in the request for proposals.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

If Council didn't want the contract awarded prior to the (failed) motion, it should have extended the tender award date through a formal process. It is not befitting of a Government to play fast and loose with procurement.

Council has every right to question these things - but it does NOT have the right to re-write contract rules whenever is sees fit. When it issues a request for proposals, it is forming the basis of a future contract. If it doesn't play the game fairly, Council opens itself up to litigation. Council should be embarrassed that it doesn't understand procurement rules (or forgot to check), rather than incensed that the CAO followed the rules set out in the request for proposals.

Well that's exactly it - you hit the nail on the head. I had to do a couple of RFPs for a consultant we hired out here, fortunately the contracts didn't require council approval (they fell below the threshold). But imagine the legal mess that a city would get into if it approved the progression of a project, then recinded that decision the next council meeting (or in this case, a month later)?

If they wanted the right to veto the contract, then the direction should've been given that the RFP be done, but that council would be the final decision makers. They've done that before with a few procurements for road services and what not, I've seen it on the agenda countless times.

Yes, this appears like the CAO did something that went against the council agenda, but he was doing what he was directed too. Council voted to proceed - that was the direction right up until the vote. So there was nothing wrong with it. If administration for city's had to do a follow up "are you sure we're good to go" report; things would be even slower than what we see today! Trust me; I've dealt with government (as I'm part of it) for almost 10 years now...I don't like how slow things work and I'm part of the system!

[someone123]

I can think of bigger scandals than the CAO awarding a contract as directed by an overwhelming council vote.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by someone123

I can think of bigger scandals than the CAO awarding a contract as directed by an overwhelming council vote.

Whether or not the contract award was directed by council is almost a moot point. Once the documents are released, any firm that responds to them creates a contract between them and the city. The city could have opened itself up to legal action by cancelling it after the closing date. It may be a little far fetched, but something tells me that if the proponents had wished, they could pursue compensation for potential work lost as a direct cause of spending their resources pursuing work that the city did not intend on awarding.

Beyond that, the municipality has a certain responsibility to be a good citizen and treat its contractors and business partners fairly.

In effect, the CAO awarded the work based on the contract that the municipality set out.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

Whether or not the contract award was directed by council is almost a moot point. Once the documents are released, any firm that responds to them creates a contract between them and the city. The city could have opened itself up to legal action by cancelling it after the closing date. It may be a little far fetched, but something tells me that if the proponents had wished, they could pursue compensation for potential work lost as a direct cause of spending their resources pursuing work that the city did not intend on awarding.

Are you sure about this? Contracts are not always awarded from RFPs. Certainly there are times when somebody looks for bids, gets nothing suitable, and decides not to go ahead with a project. It sucks for bidders but that's the nature of contract work. I would guess that HRM uses boilerplate documents stating that there's no promise of work for anybody, but I do not know if that is actually the case. Maybe they have crazy legal requirements.

The situation where a contract is awarded and then torn up by council is clearer.

[fenwick16]

Based on what I have read, although the HRM is not obligated to accept non-compliant bids they must consider all compliant bids - ones which meet all the terms and conditions set out in the tender documents. Usually the one selected out of the compliant bids would be the one offering the lowest bid.

I believe that I read in the September 14th issue of the allnovascotia.com that the bid selected had a bid price of $269,000 which was below the $275,000 in the tender. Also, I think the story stated that only one bid was below $275,000 (I can't access that issue of allnovascotia.com, so I can't check it). So maybe the bid selected (a Toronto company) was the only compliant bid (?)

[halifaxboyns]

The process depends on that City and their procurement process. A city I worked for had a process where it could back out even if there were compliant bids to the price because there was still an evaluation of the project proposal with the RFP. So it was a score not only of how they met the costing, but understood the project, how they proposed to complete the project, timeline and resourcing. So when you'd write an RFP, you had to setup a scoring system and a minimum score to even be considered was often 50 (if scoring out of 100). In that city; I had an RFP to review and all the bidders met the financial side no problem. But over half the bidders scored well below 50 because despite a rather detailed RFP with the project details and requirements they really didn't get it. If I recall, I don't think we got anyone that scored terribly well, so we scrapped the RFP and dit it ourselves.

Every city is different.

[TedWilliamsHead]

Stadium property proposals come in
City gets expressions of interest from three developers
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE City Hall Reporter
Fri, Sep 16 - 4:55 AM
Thursday was deadline day for property owners with land potentially suitable for the region’s proposed stadium to contact Halifax Regional Municipality.

The invitation for expressions of interest, posted last month on city hall’s website, is hooked to the second phase of a project feasibility study.

The city’s procurement update says three landowners met the deadline. It says Summit Rock Developments, Parkdale Developments and North American Development Group responded to the municipality’s notice by 2 p.m. Thursday.

The notice says the city is only interested in testing the waters right now, not entering into formal real estate negotiations with anyone.

Regional council hasn’t approved the building of a stadium. Council has authorized a study that, so far, has cost taxpayers about $375,000.

Council this week reaffirmed its support for the second phase of the study, research that is to include a cost estimate, design proposals and candidate sites.

The municipality is considering building a multi-use stadium with 20,000 permanent and temporary seats that would host sports competitions and other events. Mayor Peter Kelly and other venue supporters say such a development would be an asset for the region.

Stadium foes say the project could be a drain on the city’s public purse. They also say a stadium would have limited use throughout each year of its life.

At a minimum, a landowner should have an eight-hectare piece of property for sale, the municipal notice said. It should be close to the province’s 100-series highways.

"Should the municipality elect to proceed with further investigation and/or development of a stadium on privately held lands, it may enter direct negotiations with any or all of the respondents at any time . . . for the purpose of attempting to finalize an acceptable agreement," the notice said.

Parkdale Developments has proposed it would build the stadium at their 81-hectare property near the Halifax airport, a source close to the company said. The site is off Highway 102 near exit 5A. The proposed size of the stadium site is about eight to 15 hectares, the source said.

If councillors vote for a stadium and decide to deal with a private landowner, they would discuss those negotiations in secret. All land transactions are routinely handled behind closed doors.

Shannon Park in Dartmouth, owned by Ottawa, has been mentioned as a candidate location. The former military housing district has a waterfront locale and is close to one of Halifax’s two harbour bridges.

Whether the Harper government has any interest in selling the property is unknown. If it does, no one knows whether the government’s asking price will be within the budget of city hall and other stadium planners.

Halifax wants to host soccer games during the 2015 Women’s World Cup and a test event a year earlier. FIFA, the sport’s world governing body, has awarded the tournaments to Canada.

[TedWilliamsHead]

I really hope it doesn't get built out near the airport.... does anyone know where the other bid properties may be?

[q12]

3 developers offer land for Halifax stadium

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/09/16/ns-stadium-sites.html

CBC News Posted: Sep 16, 2011 7:50 PM AT Last Updated: Sep 16, 2011 9:19 PM AT

Halifax Regional Council has started looking around for a place to build a stadium, and three private bidders offered up some land for sale to the city this week.

Two of them are old quarries.

Parkdale Developments wants to sell the city 50 hectares of land along Highway 102 next to the Halifax Stanfield International Airport, and the group that owns Dartmouth Crossing is offering a similar sized lot near its shopping village.

Anne-Louise McKinnon, Dartmouth Crossing's general manager, said the site is perfect.

"Right now, where we're standing, we're all serviced for electrical and natural gas so we could easily put up a new stadium and it's very close to the highway so ingress and egress is quite convenient," she said Friday.

The site must be large enough to build 20,000 seats, and it has to be close to a 100 series highway.

Saint Mary's University wants the city to consider renovations to Huskies stadium.

The site that usually comes to mind is Shannon Park, an abandoned armed forces neighourhood owned by the federal government.

But Northwest Arm- South End Coun. Sue Uteck doesn't think it's the site.

"Well, Shannon Park, we abandoned that before the Commonwealth Games because it was a $33-million rehab. So I'm sure that's why the federal government is anxious to hand it to us," she said.

Uteck — a Saint Mary's alumni — believes a revamped Huskies Stadium would be a good fit.

She said parking is limited, but there are solutions.

"I don't believe it will be a problem. You have Point Pleasant Park. You have Pier 21. You have a bus service. You have a shuttle service from anywhere downtown," she said. "I don't believe that parking will be an issue."

Council still hasn't signed off on a plan to build a stadium. If and when it does, it's expected as many as a dozen sites will be on the table.

If Halifax wants to remain in the running as a host city for the FIFA World Women's Soccer Event in 2015, it has to make a final decision on the construction of a stadium by December.

Here is the Dartmouth Crossing location on google maps:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=44.710329,-63.561198&spn=0.006367,0.013937&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6
The location has been suggested on this forum as an ideal location for an affordable sunken bowl stadium.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Sue, its not about what you want, you represent everybody in your district... who I doubt want a massive renovation for SMU, which I don't even think needs it considering the facilities of many Nova Scotian universities.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by q12

Here is the Dartmouth Crossing location on google maps:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=44.710329,-63.561198&spn=0.006367,0.013937&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6
The location has been suggested on this forum as an ideal location for an affordable sunken bowl stadium.

This is an interesting location for a sunken bowl stadium. I downloaded a 3D Warehouse model of Stanford Stadium (http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pic...states/california/stanford_stadium.shtml), which was drawn by username - NICK, and placed it at the Dartmouth Crossings Quarry location (below). A smaller, economical stadium, such as the 20,000 seat Pizza Hut Park, would probably fit at that site very well. (http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pic...ited_states/texas/frisco_pizza_hut.shtml)

There are positives and negatives of that site. Positives - land cost might be cheap, it is an interesting topography for a sunken stadium, it is close to restaurants and other amenities, and close to highways. A negative point is that it is quite far removed from the urban core and established public transit.

[Welkin]

Fenwick-nice work. Thanks for helping us visualize the site. I have always considered the Dartmouth Crossing site the most practical location for a stadium because of its access to highways and availability to large, near-by off-site parking. Sure it does not have the harbour views of Shannon Park or the peninsula location/current public transport of SMU or other downtown locations, but it also doesn't have the massive site preparation costs associated with those sites. It appears that total cost of the project will be the driving force in selecting a site and the Dartmouth Crossing location seems to offer the lowest overall project cost when compared to other locations. I think that downtown sites will cost way to much to prep the sites and that the airport location is just too far away from everything. My money is on the Dartmouth Crossing location.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by someone123

Are you sure about this? Contracts are not always awarded from RFPs. Certainly there are times when somebody looks for bids, gets nothing suitable, and decides not to go ahead with a project. It sucks for bidders but that's the nature of contract work. I would guess that HRM uses boilerplate documents stating that there's no promise of work for anybody, but I do not know if that is actually the case. Maybe they have crazy legal requirements.

The situation where a contract is awarded and then torn up by council is clearer.

No... I'm not sure. In fact, I'm quite certain that there the city probably included the right to refuse to award the work to anyone.

1. That's different than issuing an RFP without intent to award.

2. Other jurisdictions have found out the hard way that the clauses inserted are pretty weak protection against lawsuits. A judge would consider that a refusal to award to an entity that scored well according to the criteria outlined by the Municipality would have to be based on pretty solid grounds. Indecisive councils aren't really a good excuse.

The hypothetical situation here in HRM would not be that the Municipality decided not to award to the highest scoring bidder, and instead went with someone else (which is what those clauses are supposed to allow - weakly, in my opinion).

Admittedly, it would not be a clear-cut case. I also doubt anyone would really challenge this. My gut is that any consultant that did not win this RFP would be happy in the long run. I can imagine that with a Council like this, fees would be quickly exhausted, with very little appetite on the part of the Municipality to compensate for extra work.