Electric Ferry – Amendment Item D (Revenue Share)
Motion 4 · Board Committee Meeting – April 13, 2026, April 13, 2026
Vote
Opposed 1
Transcript
15 segments
Thank you. We'll need a seconder for that. Commissioner Bastivansky, thank you. We'll move on to questions to the mover of the amendment. Any questions? Commissioner Digby.
Commissioner Verdi.
I'm just curious, do you think it's fair to ask for 50% if we're not doing any of the maintenance work?
Yeah, we are giving over a valuable asset for someone else to manage. So normally you don't just give that away for free. I mean, I do appreciate what staff said, that there is a rebuild on the dock, and it should reduce some of our maintenance costs, relieve us of certain maintenance costs, and that's great. But there's a bigger upside to that, and there's no reason why that should all go to the city.
Commissioner Jensen.
that we sever this, if we could, please. Secondly, the consultation, it states that before initiating the service operating, and it also includes extensive, do you see the value in doing extensive consultation potentially the day before operations of this ferry service?
I was going to leave it to the city to determine when and where they should do that, but it certainly has to be before the service is initiated. So you can amend that, but I'm content that the city will act on it appropriately in that regard.
And are you referring to actually the construction of the pier, like the consultation happening before that or before service is operated by the provider?
Okay. Thank you.
So no further questions. The mover will move on to comments. Commissioner, do you want to comment before I call a vote?
This is just on the amendment. Yeah, comments on the amendment. Commissioner Best, if you'd like to make a comment. Go ahead. I want to thank the Commissioner for the amendment. I do like the idea that some revenue should come to park boards. It's in a park, regardless of what lines are drawn on the map. People are going to be using the bathroom, the green spaces. It's going to be an active area. And yes, at some point, we might get adjacent revenue, but the reality is like... It's a park board asset park board did move this motion first in partnership with City Council And so I think there's it should be 50-50 so that's internal and also this probably should have come in camera beforehand I'm not entirely sure why we're doing this publicly In terms of the second part, the extensive public consultation, that one, like, I'm normally, like, pretty, like, you know, I think it's important for the public to be consulted. I think they have with this. Like, there's a dock there now, and there was a Bowen Island ferry that was...
operating there and recreational ferries and stuff. And the space, it's just not in good condition. So I think getting the upgrade, keeping within the footprint, and the volume of traffic they're talking about doesn't seem like it's going to be... like overwhelming and won't impact. So I appreciate that the severage, but I'm going to go, I'm supporting the request for funding, but I think enough public consultation has happened with the neighborhood. So I'm probably not going to support E. Thanks. Commissioner Verdi.
I think this is costing us quite a bit of money right now to maintain. So I think the city taking it over is already a positive. and it adds to our bottom line. So I don't think it's fair for us to ask for 50%, especially when they're going to be paying for all the maintenance. And this would probably overcomplicate things in terms of jurisdiction, so I won't be supporting D. But I do think some more engagement is necessary because some of the rowing clubs haven't been consulted, and I think that's very important because they do use the waterways very extensively. So I will be supporting E. Thank you.
Thank you.
I'd just like to echo what Commissioner Basavansky said about the revenue supporting, particularly the washroom usage. You know, you're going to have passengers coming and going, and they're going to be needing to use the washroom at some place. Yes. And I think a lot of that will fall on our public bathrooms in Harbour Green, and that will obviously increase the amount of cleaning required and maintenance on those washrooms. Maybe not be 50%, but I think there is some argument to say that some of that should come back to the park board so that we can maintain Harbour Green Park, particularly the washrooms. And I do want to note that both D and E are requests. There's encouragement in requests, so I'm happy to support both in that they are requests, and I think it's good that we support both of those moving forward. Commissioner Jensen.
Yeah, I'll just echo that when surrendering over this asset, that surrenders the opportunity for future business opportunities with the park board. We know about the Falls Creek ferries. We know about the Aquabus. Those are two entities that could be looking at at one time doing a Coal Harbour ferry. This is not going to be able to support that. So this is taking offline a potential that the park board... will have in the future. So in light of that potential revenue, it is important that the park board ensures that some revenue comes back to ensure that the supporting infrastructure, the parkway, the walkways, the water park, the bathrooms, all of that, there is funding that's able to support that. increased 150 people per every so trip that is coming down to the waterfront to use that. So certainly going to support A. B, again, this has been since 2003. There was consultation in advance of that. This is a highly active space, and I believe, again, that the consultation has occurred. I think that it's important that this is a project where there is a real need, if we saw especially at Easter time, a real need for passengers to get from the Vancouver Island to Vancouver and from Vancouver to get to Vancouver Island, or well, not in this situation, Vancouver Island, but to Bowen and to Gibson. And so certainly I would rather see that service starting sooner rather than later. Thank you.