The decision to build a major events complex that would include a new Sudbury Arena will likely be a five-year process — and would have significant implications for a number of other potential big projects — says a staff analysis headed to city council today.
The 77-page document councillors will review includes a detailed look at all 16 projects presented at a special meeting last November. The two biggest proposals are for events centres that include a new arena. One is in the city's South End, estimated to cost $74 million, the other is on The Kingsway, estimated to cost $60 million.
The locations themselves present a dilemma, since it would mean moving the arena out of the downtown. There's already opposition to the move among downtown groups, and the analysis by Greater Sudbury Development Corp. staff recommends council consider the impact of relocating the arena.
Councillors should give “consideration as to whether it is in the community's best interest to have such a facility in the downtown,” the report says. “If not downtown, future consideration should be made with respect to potential uses for the existing Sudbury Community Arena.”
And either project would affect another proposal — the Synergy Centre, which would be located downtown. A big part of that project is a convention and performing arts centre, both of which are part of the arena proposals.
And the arena projects could include a second ice pad, meaning an existing arena might have to close. Another issue is a plan to build a casino in Sudbury, the report said.
“Future proposals for a new casino in Sudbury will likely include conference and performance facilities as ancillary to the casino,” the report said. “Potential bidders for a new casino have also indicated an interest in partnering in the development of a new sports and entertainment facility, if located in the immediate vicinity of the casino.
“If this is occurs ... the business case for the proposed Synergy Centre also changes drastically if a new casino or entertainment centre includes conference and performance facilities.”
However, both arena proposals are sound, the report said, with qualified people capable of making the proposals a reality.
Other findings in the big projects analysis report: The Art Gallery of Sudbury and the Greater Sudbury Library staff are looking at working together on creating a shared facility to house both the new gallery — estimated to cost $21 million to $27 million on its own, and library, estimated to cost $20 million on its own.
“With limited municipal dollars available and multiple projects coming forward at various stages of development, the Art Gallery has been encouraged to consider pairing with other projects to maximize access to resources,” the report said.
“To address this, staff have co-ordinated discussions between the AGS and the library as these two projects are seen to have particularly good alignment in terms of mandates, missions and goals, which is noted as a crucial priority if any partnerships are to be sustainable.”
A working group has been formed with representation from AGS board and staff representatives, as well as the library. The group, together with staff, will look at sharing a location.
The report expresses doubts about a proposal for a $5-million film studio.
On the plus side, the burgeoning industry has had a $51-million impact on the city's economy, and having a film studio would give the city a competitive advantage over nearby cities in the North.
“Staff have also received indications that other private sector production companies are increasingly interested in setting up businesses in Greater Sudbury and/or supporting existing businesses and infrastructure,” the report said. “Additional city investments in the film/television sector may be worthwhile in encouraging this growth.
However, the report says the industry is reliant on government subsidies to thrive.
“(Subsidies) may be uncertain over the long term, as has been the case in other provinces such as Nova Scotia, where the cancellation of their film funding program has had detrimental effects on their film sector regionally,” the report said.
“From a staff perspective, the suggested cost of $5 million may not be sufficient to cover actual capital expenses associated with the film studio as laid out in the presentation, as a purpose-built approach to such a facility that includes all the components mentioned may cost more to construct.”
