THUNDER BAY — A suggested list of the City of Thunder Bay’s biggest priorities for new infrastructure prompted debate over where the city should focus its limited dollars — and, yes, calls to focus instead on fixing the city’s roads — at a city council meeting on Monday.
The list, released last week, responded to a council request made earlier this year, laying out what staff consider the city’s 25 most important new infrastructure projects to undertake by 2030.
Coun. Shelby Ch’ng said the list not only gives council and the public a road map, but would also would help the city make its pitch for funding to upper levels of government.
“I know when we have conversations with ministers and whatnot, we’re always asked, what’s your ranking? What’s your priority?” she said. “I’m happy to see this [on] paper.”
“Obviously we’re not going to get everything done, but we have a list we can look at and refer to.”
Staff put items like an indoor turf facility, traffic light synchronization, a green bin program, new cycling infrastructure, and an expanded Port Arthur recreation hub at the top of the list, which was released last week.
Staff considered only new infrastructure projects on the list, not ongoing capital repairs — an approach Coun. Dominic Pasqualino called into question.
“I know the questions from people in my ward are going to be, when are we going to fix the roads — and why aren’t roads on this list?” he said.
That kind of renewal work is included in the city’s regular capital program, which council has recently been seeking to increase by five per cent a year, replied city manager Norm Gale.
Coun. Mark Bentz noted the city’s infrastructure gap is estimated at a whopping $30 million per year, with staff estimating it would jump to $40 million if council approves the projects on the priority list.
“We have to keep saying, that’s a $30 to $40 million shortfall per budget right now,” Bentz said. “This is money we need to find to take care of the infrastructure we have … That should be the priority — taking care of that gap.”
Coun. Brian Hamilton said that perspective should be front and centre the next time council considers an expensive new build.
“I have a growing sense that we do get addicted to shiny new things,” he said. “That’s the hard thing about being a councillor, is saying no to things that matter to people. It’s very difficult, but it’s part of our job.”
“The community does not want us to say no to roads ... They’ve told us that in every citizen satisfaction survey.”
Coun. Shelby Ch’ng pushed back, saying the priority projects largely earned their spot on the list after finding significant support in public consultations.
“This is just a list,” she said. “I know some councillors like to … get very passionate about, ‘We have to say no to things.’ … This is a list that came from the community.”
“I get calls from people, the under-40 group we just spoke about. They want things to be different — they want to see us investing. I’m not going to say yes to everything, but now I have a list to show them, these are some of the things we can work towards.”
Completing all 25 items on the list would cost the city an estimated $316 to $330 million.
That figure was updated Monday after staff said a clerical error pegged phase two waterfront development at $50,000, when it should have been $50 million.
Even that eye-popping total doesn’t capture all of the infrastructure priorities facing the city, however.
The list leaves off major projects led by outside organizations but funded by the municipality, like a requested new police station and a revamp of local library facilities.
“What we can see from this is we have a lot on our plate — this should get you out of the silo mentality,” Bentz told his colleagues. “When a report comes in front of you for a project … start thinking about, we’ve got $400 or $500 million of work here — I’m including the police station, because I know they’re going to be back.”
Mayor Ken Boshcoff questioned the exclusion of a proposed waterfront science centre on the list, suggesting Science North is likely to seek a capital contribution from the city.
Coun. Rajni Agarwal questioned the utility of the list itself, saying the city is unlikely to realize much of it.
“This is a beautiful list, if we had money,” she said, noting many of the projects did not yet have external funding opportunities attached.
“This is very concerning, because the only funding then would be the pockets of the tax payer.”
Gale did not sugar-coat his response, repeating what he’d laid out in a memo to council accompanying the list.
“I don’t see any world in which all this is achievable, unless government comes and says we’re going to give you a lot of money,” he said. “This is why council needs to be strategic and thoughtful in the decisions you make.”
Agarwal called that a “vague answer,” saying council needs to see further details on external funding.
Administration cautioned the financial estimates included with the list are made with “low confidence” — some are early estimates, while all are expected to be impacted by inflation in the construction industry and factors like supply chain challenges.
