Thunder Bay

Thunder Bay City Council halts proposed indoor turf facility

The construction of a proposed multi-use, all-season turf sports facility was halted by Thunder Bay City Council on Monday night.

Councillors vote 7-5 against awarding tender for construction of building

Thunder Bay City Hall.
Thunder Bay City Council voted against awarding a tender for a proposed indoor turf sports facility on Monday. (Matt Prokopchuk/CBC)

The construction of a proposed multi-use, all-season turf sports facility was halted by Thunder Bay City Council on Monday night.

At their meeting, councillors voted against awarding the tender for construction of the facility to Tom Jones Corporation, which would have been built at Chapples Park.

The motion to award the tender was defeated on a 7-5 vote; all councillors were present except Trevor Giertuga, who is on a leave of absence.

"Most of it … boils down to the fact of the cost of it," said Coun. Rebecca Johnson, who voted against awarding the tender. "When you look at the fact that we are looking at nearly $46 million, I think that was, not just for me, but for other individuals and other councillors around the table, it was a money factor."

The $46 million includes about $37 million for the facility itself, plus about $8.8 million in interest accrued over 25 years on a $15 million debenture, which the city intended to use to cover some of the facility's cost.

There would also be an HST rebate of about $4.3 million, which would bring the total cost — including debenture interest — down to about $41.5 million.

The full cost breakdown is available in the agenda for Monday's council meeting.

Johnson noted the cost of the facility has risen since it was first brought up by Soccer Northwest Ontario (SNO) in 2014, when it was estimated at about $30 million.

"It's too much money right now," Johnson said. "The other was the fact that we're getting no other funding from other levels of government."

"If we awarded the tender, any opportunity to get other levels of government funding was gone."

Johnson was also concerned about the 25-year debenture limiting what else the city could do in the community during that time period.

"Personally, I was not prepared to put a debenture on the backs of the taxpayer at this point in time," she said.

Michael Veneziale, president of SNO, said he was frustrated by council's decision.

"I think there's a lot of things that were spoken about [Monday] night that kind of took away from the point of this facility already is approved, and it's already approved at Chapples," Veneziale said. "This facility is going to go up, regardless of what this tender decision was. It's just now going to take longer to get there."

Veneziale made a deputation on Monday's meeting, in which he also spoke about the facility's estimated cost.

"The cost of the facility has gone up a lot because of the decisions of councils past," he said. "Rebecca Johnson herself said the facility itself was around $30 million when it first came [to council], now it's higher because of the decisions they didn't make at that time."

"We can't go back in time now, but we can right a wrong. We know the costs are going to continue to increase."

Veneziale also said it's "misleading" that the earlier $30 million cost is being cited without interest, but when current cost estimates are discussed, interest is being included.

"Anytime somebody is purchasing a home, you don't build in the cost of the mortgage over the entire time," he said. "It's the cost at the time when you're paying for it."

Veneziale said SNO will continue to push for the new facility, which he's said is needed due to a lack of space for indoor turf sports in Thunder Bay.

"We have more potential indoor turf users than any other recreational user in our city, and for some reason they haven't been heard, and they haven't been listened to with this," he said. "Why do we keep telling the largest group no, when so many others are getting subsidized usage in our city facilities?"

Monday's decision still needs to be ratified at the March 22 meeting of council; at that point, council may hold another vote on the matter.