THUNDER BAY – City council has voted to explore building an indoor turf facility next to the Community Auditorium, embracing a proposal from a local soccer group over recommendations against the move from city administration.
Council expressed little interest in recommendations from city staff to stick with a different design at Chapples Park estimated to cost over $50 million.
Staff had flagged concerns over issues like parking and higher greenhouse gas emissions with a proposal by Soccer Northwest Ontario (SNO) to build a more basic, hangar-like facility next to the Thunder Bay Community Auditorium.
A report from administration also concluded the SNO proposal was unlikely to deliver hoped-for savings, pegging its cost at $33 to $53 million, rather than the $20 million figure SNO had promoted.
SNO leaders had questioned those conclusions, and on Monday, councillors appeared to share their misgivings.
“How is it… that a metal rigid structure could go up to that expensive of a cost?” asked Coun. Rajni Agarwal while questioning staff on the estimates.
Veneziale, meanwhile, claimed two local developers had expressed confidence to SNO that the design could be built for under $30 million.
The city will test that theory as it prepares to launch a request for proposals to build the facility at the soccer group’s preferred location.
Council directed administration to report back by November with a proposed financing plan for the revised project, and by the first quarter of 2024 with results of renewed public consultation.
Council also compromised on concerns over energy efficiency, voting to pursue a version of SNO’s suggested steel-supported structure upgraded to city design standards.
That will include meeting the LEED Silver sustainability standard, and the city’s own Clean, Green and Beautiful guidelines for landscaping and public art.
Staff argued an existing design planned at Chapples, which council previously rejected over its $51 million cost, represents better value for money than SNO’s proposal, offering more space and amenities and a net zero emissions design.
Veneziale countered that many of the elements that make the Chapples design more expensive – like a walking track, more extensive change rooms, first aid room, storage areas, and more spectator and gathering space – are not considered important by user groups.
Aside from soccer, the indoor turf facility is intended to host sports including cricket, football, and Ultimate Frisbee. Groups representing those other users have endorsed the SNO proposal.
Staff also made the case for Chapples as a better location, raising concerns like parking and public transit connections.
Those arguments met with skepticism from councillors, with several expressing excitement that the Auditorium site could cut costs and build a “sports hub” alongside the Port Arthur Stadium and Canada Games Complex.
Parking concerns found little traction, with councillors saying Chapples posed even greater traffic challenges.
Coun. Trevor Giertuga, a member of the Community Auditorium’s board, said the venue is in favour of the SNO proposal and not concerned about parking capacity.
Questioned by Coun. Mark Bentz, staff acknowledged potential parking conflicts in the case of simultaneous major events in the area would be relatively rare.
Coun. Brian Hamilton questioned council’s willingness to depart from the advice provided by staff and consultants, specifically on parking and traffic flow issues.
“We’ve got Stantec engineers, and we’re actually disagreeing with them here,” he said. “What do we know about traffic analysis? But I bet you the private sector’s going to be doing their own analysis, and if they’re not satisfied, we may not have a partner.”
On Monday, consultants from Stantec pointed out what they called “limited consideration for pedestrian access, active transit access, sightlines and security, and landscaping” in the original SNO proposal.
Overall, they said the design often ignored “best practices” when it came to the building’s lifespan, efficiency, and environmental impact.
The city’s EarthCare advisory committee also raised serious concerns over the prospect of a project that wouldn’t meet the city’s climate commitments.
Committee chair Coun. Andrew Foulds noted meeting the city’s 2050 net zero target requires all municipal buildings to be net-zero emissions by 2035.
“The one thing we shouldn’t be in a race to do is build the cheapest building at the expense of those operating and maintenance costs,” he said. “We did declare a climate emergency… Although we may not go with the design at Chapples, I’m hopeful we do as much as we can.”
The city has set aside over $17 million in a capital fund intended to support an indoor turf facility, though council could decide to spend those dollars elsewhere.
In an interview after the meeting, Veneziale said he was feeling “positively optimistic, but fearful because of past experience,” saying he’d hold his breath until council firmly commits to building the facility.
He said he believed council had been won over by a cost-conscious proposal driven by major user groups.
"For a lot of the expert advice, they were comparing two different buildings, and to be fair to them, the $60-million building and how it was proposed does have slightly better amenities, so I understand that part of it," he said. "But when it comes down to it, this building will do exactly the same thing the other building did at a much cheaper rate.
"I think council saw that, and there’s no argument when it comes to the location, when it comes to the build cost for those two spots."
