-

From Wikileaks

Copy of contract for new residence leaked to media

BRENDAN WEDLEY (Peterborough examiner)
Wednesday July 8, 2008

A Trent University official refuses to comment on the specifics of a report about a planned residence development that has been leaked to the public, but he says it's been an open planning process.

Several neighbours and the Trent University student union oppose the development planned for 1633 Water St. Some residents and students have criticized the university for not consulting the public and for wanting a private developer to build on university land.

The city's committee of adjustment will consider an application for a 99-year lease to Residence Development Corp. on Tuesday.

The property is part of Trent's roughly 1,460 acres of undeveloped endowment lands that surround the core campus.

The development of the land is part of the endowment land master plan the board of governors of the university approved in January 2006, said Don O'Leary, Trent's vice-president of administration.

"We went through an extensive (public) process when we completed the endowment lands. We went through numerous open houses," he said. "This particular parcel was identified for the development that we now are looking at for this property.

"It's fully serviced. We invested in municipal services several years ago."

O'Leary added the university put advertisements in local papers and national publications in February or March last year calling for proposals for the development of the property.

The 11.12-acre property is on Water Street across from Nassau Mills Road, Trent's main entrance. It is bordered by Water Street along its eastern edge and residential properties on Champlain Drive to the west.

Peter Lawless, a local lawyer, represented Trent at the committee of adjustment meeting last month.

The concept plan for the first phase of the development shows four townhouse buildings with a total of 24, four-bedroom units; a building with 36, three-bedroom units; and a building with commercial space on the lower level and 56 bedrooms on the upper two floors, he said at the meeting.

A Trent report that has been leaked to the public and posted on a website, http://wikileaks.org, shows the first phase would include a 256-bed, 10,755- square-metre (119,500-square-foot) residence plus 1,143 square metres (12,700 square feet) of commercial space.

That phase would be worth $17.3 million, the report shows. It would be completed in August next year.

Then, within five years the developer would build another residential area with as much as 12,600 square metres (140,000 square feet) of floor space and 1,143 square metres (12,700 square feet) of commercial space

The two phases would total about 284,000 square feet.

A Trent University student newspaper, the Arthur, reported on the development and the leaked document in February.

City councillors Bob Hall and Dean Pappas read from the document at the city council meeting on Monday.

"It's unfortunate" that the document was leaked, O'Leary said yesterday. "It's a confidential document that somehow made its way to the community," he said.

O'Leary also refused to release engineering reports on the site.

"There's nothing in them. They're just engineering reports," he said. "There's nothing nefarious to it at all. It's quite a simple engineering study."

And O'Leary refused to release a survey that shows there's great support from students for the project.

"It's not mine, it's the company's," he said, referring to the company the university hired to do the survey.

More than 75 per cent of students who voted in a referendum in March opposed the proposed development, said Meaghan Kelly, vice-president of the Trent student union, the Trent Central Student Association.

"It's a pretty strong indication," she said.

The student union has a policy against private residences, Kelly said.

"This is corporate space on university land," said Kelly, a third-year cultural studies student. "We find that the corporatization of university space is extremely problematic in that this is supposed to be a public institution."

The university definitely needs more money and it has budget issues, Kelly said.

"I don't think this is the answer," she said. "They're essentially selling off our land to solve a housing crisis that doesn't exist on our university."

The second phase would be a duplication or mirror image of what's proposed in the first phase, O'Leary said.

The arrangement with the developer would require the occupants of the residential units to be students, whether they're graduate students or undergraduate students, O'Leary said.

"It is zoned for university use and it is being used for university use," he said.

There will be limited retail use permitted on the property, O'Leary said. "There's no question this is for the university," he said. "We're not in the real estate business."

The developer has experience building similar residences at the University of Western Ontario, the University of Guelph and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa, O'Leary said.

"They're first-class facilities," he said.

The land was zoned in 1973 for university or college use, O'Leary said.

O'Leary said he's not sure if the university bought that property or if it was donated to the institution.

"I know for a fact there are no conditions on any of our endowment lands," he said.

There are limited commercial opportunities permitted on property zoned for university or college use, said Ken Hetherington, the city's planning division manager.

"When we met with Trent earlier when they were bouncing this off us, they were talking about more far-reaching commercial uses and they know those uses require rezoning," he said.

Hetherington said any commercial uses have to be set up for use by students, not for drawing in people from outside the campus.

The planning department has expressed support for the preliminary concept, he said.

In the confidential report, O'Leary states the university will work with the city to get development charges and property taxes waived for the development.

Trent is exempt from development charges -- fees levied against development to help pay for growth-related infrastructure -- but the planning department's initial interpretation is this project wouldn't qualify for that exemption, Hetherington said.

That exemption is more for the development of a new science building or library, not for financial gain by Trent through the lease of property to a private developer, he said.

O'Leary wouldn't tell The Examiner how much money Trent will receive for the lease of the property.

"There is obviously a financial benefit. That's just business. That's part of the arrangement," he said.

Trent would collect $1,779,200 in land lease payments for the two phases of the development, the report shows.

In addition to land lease payments, the private developer would pay Trent five per cent of gross revenue starting in year 20 of the lease, O'Leary states in the report.

"Based on RDC's present revenue forecasts, this payment to the university, commencing in year 20, will be substantial," he states.

Trent would also get payments for any refinancing of the project by the developer and for any change in ownership durin the lease, O'Leary states in the report.

The developer would cover the cost of development charges and property taxes but if the university can convince the city to waive the fees the developer would pay Trent for those cost savings, O'Leary states.

The university appreciates there are concerns in the neighbourhood, O'Leary said.

"It is a change, for sure," he said. "The university has to stay to the facts here, stay with what we're doing, stay on course. There have been a lot of things said about the project, a lot of statements that we'd like to challenge that we can't. There's been some misinformation, some outrageous statements made."

There's been no consultation process for this development, said Kelly, who added the information session held last week doesn't qualify as consultation. "We were told explicitly that there would be consultation and yet this decision was made during closed sessions of the board of governors," she said.

"If they want it to be of benefit to the university, they should listen to the people who created and belong to the university.

"It's essential to Peterborough's identity and Trent's identity.

"I want to be proud of my university."

First appeared at http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1108213 . Reprint rights remain with the Examiner.

See

• Trent university land privatization