A $70,000 study commissioned by the city of Toledo comes down on the side of building a new arena downtown rather than on the Marina District site on the east side.

The study, obtained yesterday by The Blade, concludes that an arena would draw sports, concert, and ice-show fans regardless of location but that it would generate more profit and economic spin-off if built downtown.

The study was conducted by the Pizzuti Cos., of Columbus, which is the city's selected developer of the Marina District, and by Pizzuti's partner, Garfield Traub Development LLC.

The conclusions amount to the first official nudge in the direction of separating the planned sports and concert arena from the 125-acre Marina District on the east bank of the Maumee River between the Martin Luther King, Jr. and I-280 bridges.

William Carroll, the city's development director, said Mayor Jack Ford wants to hold several community workshops to let residents, particularly those in East Toledo, absorb the conclusions of the long-awaited study.

The study reviews in detail the factors that have been discussed over Toledo-area barbecues and water coolers for years with the addition of a new factor - the cost of building on top of unstable fill soil that covers much of the present site of the Toledo Sports Arena.

The study's authors say that soil borings and old photographs indicate that the river's edge used to be about halfway into the existing arena site. The surface now consists of 7 to 10 feet of fill, which would require caissons or piles to support a parking garage, at a cost of $60 million.

The alternative is 30 acres of asphalt, or "dead space."

"Utilizing valuable riverfront property for parking lots appears less than ideal," the study said.

"Based on this preliminary analysis, it appears that the downtown location may be more appropriate for the development of a new arena," the study concluded. "A downtown arena would complement existing development that has taken place in the downtown area, reinforcing the public and private investments in the area.

"The Toledo community may be better served by utilizing the Marina District for other development opportunities, including destination retail, residential, riverfront, and marina opportunities," the study's authors concluded.

Mayor Ford said he continues to prefer the east side site, while being open to reasonable alternatives.

He said the problem of the soil on the arena site is a new one that adds new costs to building an arena in East Toledo.

"The big issue is if you build a garage that it might cost $60 million, on top of a $60-million arena," Mr. Ford said. "No one had considered those kind of numbers before. If you don't build a garage, then 4,000 spaces would eat up 30 acres of ground, and that's a lot of ground."

Mr. Ford said if the arena site ends up moving across the river, he would insist on a major recreational facility in its place.

The study's authors propose a public ice arena that would serve as a practice facility for the hockey team occupying the new arena and to provide public skating opportunities, according to a cover letter signed by James Russell, senior vice president of development services for Pizzuti, and Ken Portnoy, senior vice president of Garfield Traub.

The ice rink would include complimentary outdoor facilities, such as sand volleyball and basketball.

The study compared Toledo with other cities that have had new arenas built since 1996, including Grand Rapids, Mich. It recommended a size of 10,000 seats for hockey and football and 12,000 seats for concerts. The 58-year-old Toledo Sports Arena has 7,500 seats.

Not addressed in the study is the cost of land acquisition in the downtown versus the present site of the Sports Arena.

But by every measure addressed in the study, the downtown site wins:

w●The Marina District site likely would host 111 events per year, while a downtown site sharing facilities with the SeaGate Centre would draw 121 events.

w●The arena would have revenue of $4 million a year in a downtown location, from a variety of sources, such as rent, ticket rebates, premium seating and naming rights, parking, and concessions. The same sources would generate $3.6 million at the Marina District site.

w●With operating costs of $2.7 million, the downtown site would have an operating surplus of $1 million, while the Marina District site would return $723,500.

The study does not say how to pay for the arena.

Mr. Carroll said the model of Fifth Third Field, built by Lucas County, is one that could be followed. Such a development could involve the county taking over control of the arena.

Mr. Carroll said a new referendum would not be necessary to build the arena if the city is not spending money on the project.

In 2001, city voters gave the city permission to spend city money in support of an arena in the Marina District. The vote was necessary to override a provision in the city charter, Section 79, that prohibits the use of city money on an arena.

The study has been in the city's possession for about two weeks, Mr. Carroll said, but was not released until after Mr. Ford returned from two city-related trips last week to Las Vegas and Quebec.

Contact Tom Troy at:

tomtroy@theblade.com

or 419-724-6058.

First Published June 2, 2005, 2:25 p.m.