Residents are invited to complete a survey and share their thoughts on the recent structural changes to Thunder Bay City Council.
In July, City Council replaced the Committee of the Whole with three smaller Standing Committees: Finance & Administration, Quality of Life, and Growth.
The goal was to streamline meetings and discuss issues in greater detail within specific focus areas. City Council continues to have the final debate and vote on all decisions.
“Governance models aren’t something most residents think about day to day, but they play an important role in how effectively Council does its work,” said City Clerk Krista Power. “The Standing Committee structure allows Council members to spend more time on specific subject areas, to help organize discussions more clearly, and to support more efficient meetings overall.”
Public feedback previously helped inform the recommendations that led to the new structure. Now that it has been in place for several months, the city is seeking input on how the new structure is working, whether it feels clear and understandable and how it could be improved.
The survey is available at www.thunderbay.ca/getinvolved. The city says feedback is welcome from all residents, whether they follow Council meetings regularly or only occasionally.
Thunder Bay’s first-ever multi-year capital budget received its final stamp of approval at the final City Council meeting of the year on Tuesday.
The budget was passed with no amendments.
Councillors offered little in the way of commentary: their questions were addressed at a committee of the whole meeting last week.
The multi-year budget pledges $160 million in spending in 2026 and $148 million in 2027.
The most significant items are $20 million for the redevelopment of the Central Avenue lands, $20 million for transit upgrades including bus electrification, $21 million to construct an organics processing facility, and $12 million for improvements to the Superior North EMS headquarters.
The capital budget calls for a 2.6 percent tax increase in 2026 and a 2.1 percent increase in 2027.
Approximately one-third of the city’s capital expenses will be covered by federal and provincial funds.
Thunder Bay’s City Council has approved a name for the Multi-Use Indoor Turf Facility.
The new structure is going to be called the Tbaytel Multiplex for the foreseeable future.
In exchange for the naming rights, Tbaytel will contribute $50,000 per year towards the facility for the duration of the 10-year agreement.
“This name was proposed by Tbaytel. They do have the privilege of naming the asset as a benefit of what they are purchasing through the naming rights process,” explained Callie Hemsworth, a supervisor with the Thunder Bay community services department.
“This name really symbolizes the multiplex being, multiple uses, multiple sports, coming together under one roof, together as a community.”
All councillors present voted in favour of the new name.
At-Large Councillors Shelby Ch’ng and Kasey Etreni were absent during the vote.
The City’s Sponsorship and Naming Rights Policy encourages the city to seek out businesses to become sponsors of municipal programs, facilities, events, and other assets.
Naming rights offer a way for businesses to support the community while enhancing the city’s ability to deliver programs and services by providing an alternative revenue-generating option.
In August, city council approved an exception to the Sponsorship and Naming Rights Policy to allow administration to negotiate this naming rights agreement without formally advertising the opportunity.
Planning Services has circulated the proposed name to internal departments and external agencies for comment in accordance with the Civic Naming of Streets, Buildings, Structures and Recreational Facilities Policy, and the name was approved.
Administration intends to move forward with branding and marketing for the recreational hub.
Councillor at-large Rajni Agarwal’s motion to amend was introduced at Tuesday’s City Council meeting.
The motion calls to delete the fourth point of the city’s Ten-Part Human Rights-Based Community Action Plan, which outlines a need to develop a temporary shelter village as a transition space for unhoused individuals.
Agarwal has argued that the construction of new affordable and supportive housing units over the last few years, combined with the federal government’s new Build Canada Homes plan, together negate the need for a temporary shelter village.
Not everyone on City Council agrees with Agarwal’s assessment.
“To me, it’s similar to seeing people in the water cancelling the lifeboats because we have a ship on order five years from now. I think we could do both things,” says councillor at-large Shelby Ch’ng. “I think we could have a temporary solution and also work towards a permanent solution.”
Councillor Shelby Ch’ng, left, at a City Council meeting. (Sam Goldstein/September 16, 2025)
Ch’ng points out that the temporary shelter village serves a different purpose than affordable and supportive housing units. She suggests that if the city hopes to earn federal grant money, it ought to have transition spaces.
“I would be looking at places that have a transition program so that when you do put people into permanent housing, that they’re successful, and not going from sleeping in a sleeping bag in the middle of winter… to now having to operate their own apartment,” she says. “There’s a transition period that is absolutely needed.”
Unlike Councillor Ch’ng, McKellar Ward Councillor Brian Hamilton opposed the Hillyard site that Council ultimately voted for. Yet Hamilton still believes the city ought to proceed with a temporary shelter village at Hillyard, now that the plan is in motion.
Councillor Brian Hamilton, right, at a city council meeting. (Sam Goldstein/September 16, 2025)
“I do see a need in utility for this type of facility in the community in the interim and at least for the midterm to get through this economic and housing crisis that we find ourselves in,” Hamilton says.
Hamilton is also skeptical of Agarwal’s pitch to get federal funding from the Build Canada Homes plan.
“There’s so many unknowns to that. That’s not a guarantee… It’s not even on the table. What is on the table right now is the crisis on our doorstep,” he explains. “It’s going to be years in the making before we actually bring new units online.”
Neebing Ward Councillor Greg Johnsen welcomes further debate on the temporary shelter village.
“It’s the democratic process… It’s good for the community in the sense that some people are aggressively against this, and some people are aggressively for it,” Johnsen says. “So here’s another opportunity for residents to weigh in.”
City Councillor Greg Johnsen. (Sam Goldstein/October 7, 2025)
Johnsen opposed the Hillyard site in part because he feels the public didn’t have sufficient time to engage on the issue.
“It was a last-minute resolution that found favour and I voted against it,” he states.
If Agarwal’s motion passes, the big question will be whether the city’s ten-point plan for addressing homeless encampments can succeed without a temporary shelter village.
“I was told that the temporary village is the crux of the ten-point plan. It is the linchpin,” Johnsen says.
“So one of my questions will be… if we remove the temporary village, well, where is the ten-point plan? Does it dismantle altogether, or does it remain afloat… I’ll be very much paying attention to that answer as well,” he adds.
Ch’ng believes there is no ten-point plan without the temporary shelter village. Legally, the city cannot dismantle homeless encampments without having a temporary space where unhoused individuals can be taken.
“If we do not have a temporary solution, we cannot move the tents, bottom line,” she says. “It opens us up to huge legal and liability risk and quite frankly, I don’t want to spend our tax dollars on liability when the cheaper option is to put up a temporary solution until permanent housing is built.”
Agarwal’s motion will come before City Council to be debated and voted on at the next meeting on October 21.
The Hillyard Site has been selected to host Thunder Bay’s temporary shelter village initiative, but a member of city council would like to see other options investigated.
The site located next to 8th Avenue, near Central Avenue, was selected in July.
Red River Ward Councillor Michael Zussino is proposing a new direction at Tuesday’s city council meeting.
He is looking for city council to rescind the decision to confirm the location, and would like to see other host sites investigated.
“So anytime a member of council has the option to bring forward a notice of motion to change direction, to change course, they can bring a notice of motion to rescind or to amend a decision,” explained the Director of Legislative Services and City Clerk, Krista Power.
“He’s bringing it forward in three parts. The first part is to suspend the rules.”
Normally, a notice of motion requires a presentation at a meeting, followed by no debate or discussion until a later council meeting.
“He’s asking to essentially override that provision to wait the two weeks and make the decision the same night, which is in the same vein of what counsellor Etreni did on a previous notice of motion on this file. So that’s the first piece, is that they will vote and need 9 votes to suspend the rules. If that passes, they will then go to the notice of motion to rescind.”
If councillors opt not to suspend the rules, then the notice of motion to rescind will simply move forward to be debated at the September 16th meeting.
“If it passes and they debate it and they decide to rescind, then they would go to decision point three, which is to refer the matter back to administration, to look for an additional site,” added Power. “If they rescind as per Councillor Zussino’s motion, they are rescinding Hilliard.”
The decision would also eliminate additional sites previously looked at, including Cumberland, Miles St. and Kam River Park from being rebated at a later point.
“I am bringing forward this Notice of Motion to Rescind to allow City Council an opportunity to consider a change in course as it relates to our response to supporting people who are currently unhoused in our city and those that are impacted,” said Red River Ward Councillor Michael Zussino. “While a temporary village may be the best path forward, it is my position that Hillyard may not be the best location for this project.”
If council passes debating the item on Tuesday, but chooses not to pursue a new location, then the status quo will remain and the city will move forward with the Hillyard Site.
More than 100 of Thunder Bay’s Intercity businesses and healthcare facilities, known as the Intercity Business Collective (IBC), are asking the city to reassess the Hillyard Site.
The group backs Councillor Zussino’s motion to rescind approval of the location.
“Placing vulnerable individuals in a facility without integrated medical, mental health, and addiction support is concerning,” says an IBC spokesperson. “This approach could lead to worsening health outcomes, increased strain on emergency services, and unsafe conditions for both residents and the surrounding community.
“A coordinated healthcare model is essential to ensure this project truly helps the people it’s meant to serve.”
