Once again, Thunder Bay's proposed turf sports facility is up for discussion at city council

The proposed turf sports facility in Thunder Bay, Ont.,could take a step forward during tonight'scity council debate.

City administration is recommending that council approve going ahead with a design-build request for proposal (RFP) for the building, which would be constructed next to the Thunder Bay Community Auditorium.

Administration is also recommending a bid cap of $42.7 million for the RFP,and future budgets to include "operating costs and resources for the facility and commit required capital lifecycle renewal costs."

Kayla Dixon, the city's director of engineering and operations, said if the facility goes ahead, it will be built to the city's building design standardsand have energy efficiency improvements.

"We would still be looking at construction start in 2025," Dixon said.

"If it is a design-build RFP that goes out, those do need to be out on the market a little bit longer in order to allow your design build team to do a design and propose a facility."

Preventing 'same mistakes' from before

Michael Veneziale, president of Soccer Northwest Ontario (SNO), said he was optimistic, but also hesitant, about Monday's recommendation. He noted council has been in a similar position before: the city's previous council voted against awarding a tender to construct a turf sports facility at Chapples Park,the preferred location at the time.

"I do feel that council will support administration's recommendation [in] going forward to the next step, but the devil's in the details," Veneziale said. "It's going to be very important to make sure we don't make the same mistakes that happened previously.

"If council does vote to move forward on Monday, we have to make sure that the package that goes out for this design, build, RFP, or whatever they decide,is very well laid-out to ensure that exorbitant costs aren't added that aren't required, that will increase the cost of the facility but not benefit in any way.

"That was one thing that we had found afterthe fact last time, so ensuring that only what is needed to go into the facility is put in and that we make sure we really stay on top of the cost to ensure it doesn't go up like it did last time."

Balancing spending andlong-term needs

Brian Hamilton, city councillor for McKellar Ward, which is where the facility would be located if it goes ahead, said he plans to support Monday's recommendation.

"To be honest, I've been all over the place on this project," he said. "I really see the need for us to look at big capital projects like this holistically.

"It was only a few weeks ago that we were talking about our asset management plan and our inability tomend up the infrastructure gap. And here we are talking about potentially spending $40 million on a turf facility."

The asset management plan, which was presented to council earlier in May, stated the city's infrastructure deficit is currently $32 million.

However, Hamilton called the facility a "massive evolution" in terms of recreational service delivery in the city.

"We know we need to create affordable, low-barrier access points for citizensin all financial conditions," he said. "We also know that Thunder Bay, like much of Canada, is getting a high proportion of immigration.

"There is a proclivity towardssoccer, cricket and much of the activities that would be provided in a turf environment."

But, Hamilton added,people "have every right to have reservations about spendingupwards of $40 million."

"I am one of those people," he said. "However, you really do have to balance that with the needs of the future.

"I think city council has the potential to [take] a very courageous and visionary step into the future, creatinga long-lasting legacy, a 70- to 80-year-build, which would actually serve the community and ultimately the needs of the future, especially considering we need more and more low-barrier, affordable and accessible activities for youth and their families."

Current River Coun. Andrew Fouldssaid he'll also support the recommendation on Monday.

"The other part of this report is it does talk about the ongoing maintenance and making sure that there is sound financial planning to make sure that there is ongoing maintenance and renewal, so that this asset is protected long-term," Foulds said.

"I think we're a lot more mindful of that today, and what I'm seeing is a strategic way forward to maintain this asset."

Most people favour new location:publicsurvey

The city also released the results of public consultation on the proposed facility. The majority of respondents to an online survey supported the location, but some concerns were also raised around parking, the potential reduction of the size of a nearby dog park, the loss of a baseball fieldand possible increased traffic on nearby roads.

"At this time, we're recommending that the parking requirements be assessed over the first twooperating years of the facility, just to see the extent of conflicts that do exist between large events where you would have additional parking requirements, possibly when we have an event that's happening at the auditorium as well as maybe an event at the soccer facility or maybe the complex," Dixon said.

We know we need to create affordable, low-barrier access points for citizensin all financial conditions.- Coun. Brian Hamilton

"There are quite a few recreation facilities in the area, so we would assess that and see if there really is a need for additional parking or between all of those facilities," she said. "There isa significant amount of parking in the area that possibly people would use.

"There's also on-street parking south of the facility, so that would be monitored."

With regards to the potential loss of dog park space, Dixon said that would depend on whether more parking is needed.

Meanwhile, the baseball diamond could be relocated, which Dixon said has been proposed by the city's parks department; any such decision would fall on city council.

"About 20 per centof the respondents to [the] surveygenerally are not supportive of the project at all," Dixon said. "Otherwise, people are supportive of having a facility that meets cost effectiveness and energy efficiency. That was certainly something that we heard.

"Some respondents are interested in seeing some additional amenities awalking track was one of them. Some are speaking about having a bit of a larger field, not much larger, but just large enough to have some sanctioned events."

'We can do this'

Veneziale said people shouldn't "get caught up too much on what the previous facility that we brought forward looks like when it comes to layout."

Details like field size, the number of washrooms and showers andthe number of spectators the building can accommodatewill change if council goes ahead with a design-build RFP, as the winning bidder would come up with its own design for the facility.

"Iknow people have made comments aboutit just being an ugly building without windows," he said. "That's not what's going to come forward. It was just to show how you can build this to be as cost effective as possible.

"Anything else the city wants to add in, [it can] feel free to do so," he said. "There's additional cost to that. We can do this as long as we make sure that these design-build RFPsgo out in a way that doesn't increase the cost."