Electric Ferry Amendment (Bring Terms Back to Council)

So moved, Councillor Bligh.

No problem. Okay, so Council Committee members, is there any discussion? Okay, so Councillor Kerbion on the queue. Can we put Councillor Kerbion on the queue?

That's okay.

Please go ahead. Yeah, thanks. Before we get into any further discussion, I did have an amendment that I wanted to propose. Chair, if you want to move this to amendment queue. Okay, sure. Yeah, please add yourself there.

Yeah, please go ahead.

Yeah, thank you. Yeah, so the amendment's a fairly simple one. And as we heard in questions earlier to our procurement staff, normal practices for similar style contemplated partnerships and relationships usually involve the terms and or lease being brought forward to council. And I think that that's important due diligence that council does with respects to... having clarity around use of the dock and sort of the proposed lease terms sometimes I know that happens in steps sometimes a summary of terms is brought forward to council and then a legal agreements completed at a later date for example but I think council would be remiss and not doing that due diligence as has been consistent past practice and we have done with other types of services that also access and utilize public space. And so that essentially is the substance of the amendment that I sent in. It's just that that piece come back to council, which I assume since staff are fairly far along in these discussions should not be an onerous piece in order to bring back a summary of those terms, et cetera. So that's the amendment on the floor. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you, Chair. A point of information through you to staff or the city manager. Just curious if staff can comment on the ability to bring back proposed terms prior to the end of July. Because I think this is a good idea. I think the services would be a real benefit to the existing transportation hub that we have there in the harbor. But I would like to understand the ability to bring it back, whether it would come in camera or would it come in open, and the ability to meet an expedited timeline.

Please go ahead. Okay, no problem. There we go. Thank you. Through to the Councillor. So, yes, that, in fact, would be our effort. As it will be a legal agreement, we will bring it in camera. It will be endeavoured to be done before July, so before the end of July. During that time, of course, we'll finish the legal drafting as well as proceed with the notice of intent. Okay. And just, Chair, a follow-up to that question is, I guess, I just want to reframe back what I'm hearing, though, is I'm getting some assurance, though, that this would not jeopardize this advancing, that it would be taken into account that we want this done expeditiously. You're certainly getting the assurance that city staff will... do this expeditiously. I can't speak to any impact this may have on the proponent, but the legal drafting as well as the notice of intent will happen as quickly as possible to get back. It has to happen anyways, right? So it would just be an extra step of having in-camera meetings to be called as well on short notice. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Chair.

We'll have a seconder for the amendment. I'll second. Okay, seconded by Councillor Domonato. All right, Councillor Bligh.

Yeah, thanks very much. I wonder if it would be appropriate, based on the city manager's question or comment to Councillor Domonato's question, to put in an amendment to the amendment that basically says, you know... that bring back the proposed terms before the end of July, contingent on whether or not that can happen before the end of July. And I mean, generally speaking, I don't think this is necessary. I think the terms by which the agreement are going to be negotiated are in the report. And I don't actually agree that something that requires this much upfront capital to build the infrastructure to even allow this project to go forward is not commensurate to other examples that have been raised like Lime Scooter. There was no roads needed to be built by Lime. There were no parklets that needed to be established. with significant multimillion-dollar infrastructure capital investment before even getting going. So it's actually not the same thing at all. And I do have concerns that if we don't get this back by July and the two parties negotiating, it's already the end of April. In May and June, to have something back by July actually isn't likely from my perspective. then it risks this project. This project is funded, capital investments have been funded. This is all very transparent, has been discussed for the last year by interested parties. It has huge benefits related to reducing GHG emissions, opening up regional transportation. I don't understand why we would actually risk this project to satisfy, you know, maybe just one or two, I don't even know if there are two, folks on council who don't feel as confident in it. I mean, at the end of the day, we are responsible to make sure that these projects are not, that we're not sort of hindering the progress. So unless there's some language that says that if it can't come back by July, that staff have the ability to negotiate the terms and keep the project moving forward. I can't support this. I actually think it creates a lot of risk around the project.

Okay, thanks. Councillor Maloney.

Yeah, thanks very much. Listening to the conversation, and I think Clause A in the recommendations is what provides the comfort that council is, if it supports this, and I fully expect they will, it was unanimous vote on the motion, and Clause A actually states that And since the signal that council is endorsing this service, it says that council authorized staff to negotiate the terms of a license and operating agreement with Circle Ferries Incorporated for the operation electric passenger ferry generally as described in the report. That recommendation stands. I think that signals council's very clear intent that this would be the second approval from council towards that step. One, in terms of considering the idea of the motion. Two, now that it recommends moving forward with an agreement. I think, again, it's important that the due diligence is done here with respects to to utilization around public space and providing some answers to those questions. We've heard from staff that they're moving and making their best efforts to do that. I don't see why this would risk the project at all with a resounding support from council. So to me, that doesn't present a material risk, but it does allow council to do its due diligence. And so I thought I would provide that additional perspective. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Chair, and I appreciate the due diligence component. I am going to propose we put a timeline on this. I'm appreciating that the city manager has spoken to this, but I think it would be appropriate to do so. So I'm going to offer an amendment. I'm just sending it along here. It would be just to add to the amendment that the terms and lease be provided to Council for approval by June 30, 2026. If that is an unreasonable time frame, I certainly would welcome staff speaking to that now before I send it through, but I am going to move that. That would give us the window of July for it to be put on an agenda.

I'll put it through. Council can deliberate, but I think... I think it would be appropriate just so that everyone has assurance that, one, we've done the due diligence, and two, that we're meeting the timeline to satisfy the project.

Yeah, thank you. I mean... I think it's important just to hear from staff. I appreciate Council Dominato's timeline. Interestingly enough, put forward an amendment that I haven't had a chance to move that states a timeline of July 15th. And if unable to meet the timeline, approval will be granted to proceed with the agreement without further council approval. We are in an election year, of course. In October, there will be a blackout period of any decisions of council until after the election. Whatever happens, then there's a budget likely this would not come back until Q1 of next year, which, as I say, I think puts enormous risk on this project. I also have a concern about sort of manufactured timelines, if you will, that are going to accelerate agreements and. and not provide staff the time needed for their due diligence uh legally and otherwise so i wonder if there is uh an opportunity for just a quick legal opinion through the city manager through you chair as a point of information as to whether or not um this timeline works as put forward by council donato in which case if it does i'm happy to support it um and more so for the legal due diligence um in negotiating these agreements i know that they do take some time

So city manager. Thank you. Thank you to the council members.

Realizing the June 30th date, I believe the last and I'm just getting the deputy city manager looking up our last date in June. That timeline might be a little tight. I certainly think council has been very clear that it needs to come back no later than July, but there's no council meetings. I'm just looking at the last one that may exist. I think it's mid-June. So the mid-July date would, in fact, be better just in terms of timing. I will say in practice, just... not via motion, but in practice, if for some reason there were unforeseen circumstances that arose throughout this process, staff would certainly be bringing back an update to council no later than July anyways to probably seek the same sort of assurances that, I see there's two amendments that have been proposed, but if there was unforeseen circumstances, we'd probably seek a similar arrangement to the one that we've just requested as part of the recommendation. I don't know if I've been direct or clear, but we would probably, if something forbid us from getting the terms of reference, sorry, the deal done, we would come back to council in July regardless.

Okay. Well, okay. Well, so yeah, I'm not going to support it only because I think the timeline is too short for it to be as I think helpful as was intended by council dominato. So I do appreciate the intent for sure. I'm not going to support it. And I think it just speaks to the role that we have as council. We've endorsed the proposal. We've endorsed the idea, micromanaging the agreement between the two parties, city of Vancouver, that we, sort of delegate negotiating authority to our very competent city staff that worked through the park board already. And now we've just basically at that finish line, I think what it does is it really tells the proponents and their investors that we're serious about not standing in the way of this project. And, you know, we all sit in, in our realities, but the reality out there is that these are very, you know, difficult times and investments and, and, projects like this can feel, can be jeopardized by just a delay of three months without the certainty. Approving this report without any amendments today both protects the city and also protects the project and provides certainty that come July, there wouldn't be some change of heart or some change of direction, which happens not just at our council, but just happens generally. So yeah, I'm not gonna support amendments i think we should just approve the um i think we should just approve uh the proposal is put forward as i say i think i just really have not heard any sound rationale as to why this is needed okay thanks counselor so seeing no one else on the queue

Seconded by Councillor Klassen. Yeah.

Chair, can I please get a vote of system paper, please?

Councillor Montague?

Yeah, just having an issue with my computer.

Okay, so it's a tie.

No, that's all. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, can we project on the screen?

Vault.

All right, so going back to the amendment queue.

Yeah, it's over there.

Where's the tie?

Unless we have further questions?

Councillor Bligh, you have an amendment. Do you want to speak to your amendment, Councillor Bligh? No, I haven't put it on the floor of the chair.

Thank you, though.

Chair, can I please get a vote assist in favor, please? Noted. Thanks, Mayor.