Save Union Station

Bulletin

SAVE UNION STATION - Bulletin No. 24, May 7, 2004.

*****

City councillors continue to struggle free of past decisions about the future development of Union Station and strike out a new direction. It is an amazing and welcome turn-around.

As reported in Bulletin No.23, the Toronto South Community Council decided unanimously on April 7 to seek independent advice on the public objectives for the redevelopment of the station. This decision was confirmed by the Planning and Transportation Committee on April 27. More importantly, the next day the Administration Committee decided to recommend canceling the bidding process altogether and asked staff to propose a new course of action. This decision, as well as the decision about independent advice will be before City Council when it next meets on May 18.

1. What you can do right now

It is important that as many people as possible write to members of Council expressing support for the two key decisions that Council will be considering on May 18 - abandoning the Union Pearson bid and the bidding process, and seeking independent advice for defining public objectives. We urge you to write or telephone your councillor and one or two other councillors before May 18. Email addresses and telephone numbers may be found at www.toronto.ca and click on Council Members.

2. The decision of the Administration Committee

City staff prepared a report, dated April 19, which was on the agenda of the Administration Committee for April 29. This report was quite unexpected since it stated that staff and the Union Pearson Group had reached a financial parting of the ways. The report reads

"Union Pearson Group has advised that, as a result of its continuing due diligence and the passage of time, Union Pearson Group has identified increased costs not included in its original proposal, which must be addressed in the Master Agreement. The recent recommendation of the Toronto South Community Council relating to a Master Plan review could create further delays.

"Therefore, Union Pearson Group proposes revising the Master Agreement to provide that as a condition of closing, once a reliable construction start date can be reasonably established, additional source(s) of funding are to be secured to pay for the increased costs to Union Pearson Group's project resulting from such delay and representing:

(a) Actual net costs of inflation to project costs, from December 2003 to construction start date; and

(b) Costs relating to deferred maintenance/continuing deterioration at Union Station from December 2003 to construction start date; and

(c) Costs, if any, related to changes that may result from the proposed review of the Master Plan and proposed public consultation process.

"In the event no alternate source(s) of funding was forthcoming, Union Pearson Group would look to the City to cover these costs. During discussions with Union Pearson Group, the additional costs not included in their original proposal have been quantified in the amount of $15,000,000.00 based on their most recent due diligence review and assuming a construction inflation factor of 3% and a construction start date of September 2005. However, the amendments Union Pearson Group proposes to the Master Agreement would effectively result in an open ended financial issue that could not be resolved until a reliable construction start date is established.

"City staff have maintained that they are prepared to recommend a fixed adjustment amount totalling $3,300,000.00 of these proposed costs. This leaves unresolved the actual amount of the additional costs and how they would be addressed, which could only be fully resolved and quantified once a reliable construction start date is established.

"It is recommended that:

"1. City Council reject the Master Agreement requested by Union Pearson Group and that the City terminate the RFP process;

"2. the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, report back to Administration Committee on alternatives and financial implications for the City to proceed with the restoration, revitalization and operation of Union Station. "

When the committee met on April 28, it took the recommendation in stride as though it was just normal fare. There was limited debate, and the only opposition to the staff proposal came from Councillor Doug Holyday, in the past a fierce champion of the process which led to Union Pearson Group winning the bid. Holyday argued that a mediator should be appointed to try to broker an agreement between city staff and Union Pearson.

But the committee had no interest in that idea, and voted 6 - 1 for the staff recommendation (In favour: Michael Walker; Janet Davis, Shelley Carroll, Frank Di Giorgio, Rob Ford, and Sylvia Watson. Opposed: Doug Holyday. Absent: Frances Nunziata.) Walker and Ford have been against the deal from the very start, so their votes were consistent with past positions. During the past council Di Giorgio supported the Union Pearson bid. Davis, Carroll, and Watson were first elected last November.

If this decision holds at city council, there is a good chance that a more reasonable proposal can be advanced for the redevelopment of Union Station, perhaps one with similar characteristics to the redevelopment of Grand Central Station in New York City, where the public parts of the Station remain in public control, and only the private parts of the station (restaurants and so forth) are leased to the private sector.

3. The decision of the Planning and Transportation Committee

The Planning and Transportation Committee had met on April 27. What was surprising was the degree of consensus about the need for an independent outsider to help draft a Master Plan for Union Station. For instance, even David Garon, chair of the Union Station Advisory Committee appointed by City Council last year - a committee the Save Union Station Committee resigned from, since it seemed ineffective and not much interested in looking at the bigger issues - agreed on this process to retain an independent outsider, as did the all the councillors on the committee including Peter Milczyn who in the past had generally been supportive of the Union Pearson bid.

Good questions were asked by Councillors Bill Saundercook and John Filion and there seemed to be no great issues of concern with the recommendations from the Toronto South Community Council which sailed through without dissent..

4. What's Next

The key question is whether these two decisions will be approved by council when it meets on May 18. Much depends on councilors hearing from their constituents that these decisions are in the public interest and should be passed. That kind of public pressure will help contain the disappointment of Union Pearson supporters - all but eight councilors voted for the Union Pearson Group last July - and the possibility that the Union Pearson Group might say it will proceed in spite of the financial challenges.

This is the opportunity, on the basis of staff advice, to move forward - to abandon the flawed process which has marked the past three years and to begin again with a process which can gain and hold the public trust, and secure the public interest.

***

Our Email address is signup@saveunionstation.ca and please visit our website at http://www.saveunionstation.ca