City debates management models for Indoor Turf Facility

City Council’s Quality of Life Standing Committee weighed management options for the Indoor Turf Facility currently under construction at Tuesday’s meeting.

The councillors present were presented with differing management models: a city-run facility, a not-for-profit third-party-run facility, or a for-profit third-party-run facility.

Thunder Bay’s city government has dedicated $36 million to the project and expects the facility to be open by October 2026.

Councillors at the committee meeting overwhelmingly agreed that a city-run model would be preferable.

“We went to the public to ask them to build the facility with private dollars, and that never did materialize,” said Councillor At Large Shelby Ch’ng at the meeting. “So to hand it over to a private company now to reap the rewards, I think will not go over well with the city of Thunder Bay, who footed the bill for the facility.”

The city put forward a call for proposals from private operators in August to gauge the feasibility of handing the facility over to a third party. It received three responses from for-profit entities and one from a non-profit entity.

The standing committee was told that the benefits of a third-party operation included less financial risk to the city and a greater capacity for raising capital funds in the future.

Meanwhile, a city-run venture would offer greater flexibility in running the operation, and the possibility of a small financial surplus.

The city estimates that should the turf facility be city-run, it would bring in revenues of $1.4 to $1.6 million in its first year, with expenses of at least $1.35 million.

City Manager John Collin explained that any public-private-partnership agreement would require a thorough contract with a private entity, and any use of the facility not foreseen in that contract would be off the table until the contract expired.

Collin expressed his own preference for a city-run operation as well.

“The city of Thunder Bay has tremendous experience in running recreational facilities,” he said. “In fact, with the exception of the tournament centre, we run them all – golf courses, aquatic centres, sports fields, etc… So we have a level of experience that mirrors the best of the for-profit organizations in running this.”

As a purely information-based discussion, the committee made no recommendations, despite the opinions of councillors.

City Council will discuss the management of the Indoor Turf Facility again in the future.