Steel beams form the base structure of the Anderson Arena. The building it set to be finished by next fall. (David Huynh/The Crest) 
Cranes and construction crews work steadily to build Anderson Arena next to Cretin Residence Hall. (David Huynh/The Crest) 
Brick walls take shape on the sides of the Anderson Arena. (David Huynh/The Crest) 
The Anderson Arena next to the soccer field. Most of the outer structure is completed. (David Huynh/The Crest).
Timeline
Appeals threaten arena, construction timeline
The Minnesota Court of Appeals ordered the University of St. Thomas and the City of St. Paul to submit a revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Lee and Penny Anderson Arena on July 8, furthering the ongoing dispute between the university and community residents over the arena as construction continues.
The decision resulted from appeals by the Advocates for Responsible Development, a neighborhood group concerned with both the environmental and residential impact of the arena.
In a statement issued after the court’s decision, the university vowed to appeal the decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court while also expressing confidence that it would meet the standards of the new EAW.
“We remain committed to making sure that we’ve done all our due diligence on anything environmental related,” director of construction John Silva said. “ … We’re looking to get that resubmitted and into the approval process as soon as possible.”
Silva said the court noted the need to consider the “cumulative impact” of the arena in conjunction with other projects like the Schoenecker Center. ARD president Dan Kennedy said that his organization agrees with the court’s appraisal.
“When you study the project as a whole, meaning all the projects that St. Thomas is undertaking on the South Campus, then you reevaluate everything, not just the greenhouse gasses, but you reevaluate every aspect of the EAW,” Kennedy said.
On July 22, the ARD also attempted to halt construction by filing a motion for injunctive relief, which would have paused work until the university either completed a new EAW or successfully petitioned the Supreme Court on the July 8 ruling.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals denied the motion on August 29, however, stating that the July 8 judgment could not be officially entered until the Supreme Court reviewed the petition.
Meanwhile, Silva said the construction has been making “significant” progress since it resumed after the St. Paul City Planning Commission denied ARD appeals on the arena’s site plans on May 22.
However, that pause on construction — which began on April 16 — caused the team to miss a critical window in the project’s timetable, according to Silva.
“We lost two good months in spring, summer of generally better weather,” Silva said. “Now it’s pushing that, what we call envelope or weather-tight, (stage) that would have been two months sooner than where we are right now.”
Being “weather tight,” Silva said, is mainly a matter of giving the structure a roof to shield it from the elements. He said that the team intends to set roof trusses in early October and begin work on roofing “as soon as possible” with the ultimate goal of finishing by the end of the year or in early 2025.
The university and the construction team have held weekly meetings to determine whether construction is falling short of its established timetable, but the fall 2025 deadline remains in place as of September 18, according to Silva
In light of the shortened timetable, Silva said that the university and Ryan Companies are working to limit spending within the guaranteed maximum price — the spending limit set by the contract past which Ryan would absorb extra costs.
“At this point in time we’re not tracking anything outside of that GMP, that contract value, though does it tighten things on the university side in terms of money that then needs to be committed to overtime that otherwise would have been available for other items? That’s exactly what that would mean,” Silva said.
Kennedy said that the ARD is hopeful that the Supreme Court will choose not to review the case, which would shift responsibility back onto the university and city to then complete and validate the new EAW. In the meantime, he said the group will continue to make its presence known by protesting on the intersection of Cretin and Summit Avenues in addition to replacing stolen lawn signs.
“Going back a year, we didn’t know how we would respond to an insufficient EAW,” Kennedy said. “What we did do is we put in a lot of comments and hoped that the city would reevaluate the EAW or order an EIS, and they did neither of those, and we ended up bringing the lawsuit, and those same options are still available.”
Kevin Lynch can be reached at lync1832@stthomas.edu.
Megan Farrell can be reached at farr9505@stthomas.edu.