Annual Procurement Report 2025 (Information)

I have them up on my screen and I'm sharing. Perfect. Rich. Excellent. Good morning, everybody. My name is Megan Pate. I'm the Associate Director of Integrated Projects and Engineering Services. I'd just like to note that we do have two representatives from Circle Ferries who's involved in this project here with us as speakers today. So very pleased to be able to provide you an update on this opportunity to establish electric passenger ferry service adjacent to Harbor Green Park and Coal Harbor.

The city received a proposal from Circle Ferries, which is in alignment with Council's March 2025 motion. Today I'm going to provide you an overview of the proposal, the city's review of this proposal, as well as outline a proposed approach and next steps if Council supports proceeding and authorizing staff to negotiate an agreement enabling use of city land for this service.

SO ON THE SCREEN HERE IS YOUR MOTION FROM MARCH 2025 TO EXPLORE THE FUSIBILITY OF AN ELECTRIC FERRY SERVICE, CONSULT WITH THE LOCAL NATIONS AND REPORT BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS. PARK BOARD HAD A VERY SIMILAR MOTION IN FEBRUARY 2025 ASKING STAFF TO REPORT BACK ON OPPORTUNITIES TO CHANGE THE USE OF HARBOR GREEN DOCK AND WORK WITH PARTNERS INCLUDING US.

TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL THAT WE RECEIVED FROM CIRCLE. IT'S HERE ON THE SLIDE. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE PROPONENT OVER THE LAST YEAR TO REVIEW THE FEASIBILITY OF THIS INITIATIVE. SEVERAL LANDING LOCATIONS FOR THE SERVICE WERE CONSIDERED AND ACCOMMODATING A FERRY SERVICE AT HARBOR GREEN WAS FOUND TO BE THE MOST FEASIBLE OPTION. This concept would be supported by various marine and land-based infrastructure that I'll show you on a subsequent slide. The land-based infrastructure specifically does include a large electrical service, of course, with an electric ferry, this is important, and it would be trenched through Harbor Green Park, which is care, custody, and management of the park board. So if this work proceeds, we would continue to work with our park board colleagues to facilitate this work while minimizing impact to the park and the seawall. The Harbor Green dock infrastructure is proposed to be reconfigured and largely replaced with a new dock. And it could make potential reuse with some gangways, but primarily a new facility. The proposal does include a viewing platform and a recreational boat moorage, which I'll show you in a couple slides. And this is in alignment with the Cole Harder ODP that requires these public amenities. The proposed service itself would connect Vancouver to Bowen Island and the Sunshine Coast at Gibson's, and the target service commencement is in 2028.

THIS SLIDE HERE SUMMARIZES THE WORK COMPLETED TO DATE GOING BACK TO LAST YEAR WHEN WE STARTED THE DISCUSSIONS WITH CIRCLE. SO THROUGHOUT 2025 CIRCLE HAD A CONSULTANT TEAM LOOKING AT THE TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND THIS PRODUCED THE PREFERRED ARRANGEMENT FOR THE DOC SITE ITSELF. THERE IS CONTINUED COORDINATION WITH VC HYDRO AND US AS WELL AND THAT WILL CONTINUE IF THIS PROJECT PROCEEDS. Circle Ferries has engaged with Musqueam Indian Band, Squamish Nation, and TTsleil-Waututh Nation around their proposal and potential opportunities to have involvement or representation, and they've also performed market research to confirm that there is ridership interest.

and plan to continue public engagement. Similarly, city staff have notified the local nations, and we are also planning public notifications for residents, businesses, and key interest holders, for example, the Vancouver Rowing Club, who is close to this site, if this project proceeds. last week on monday april 13th the park board did endorse this concept for changes to harbor green dock and to enable this ferry service they indicated support for us to negotiate an agreement with circle ferries and they approved the transfer of the dock ownership including operation and maintenance to engineering services contingent on an executed agreement so that we could proceed They also did request a share of the revenue that the city receives as part of this service, and that's something that we will work with them on. So this brings us all to today, where we are seeking council authorization to negotiate and enter into a licensing and operating agreement with Circle. So to give you a bit more detail on the project location itself, so this figure shows an aerial view of the existing dock, as well as the boundary of the city lot that we're proposing to have this service land in. The proposed location of the reconfigured dock would be in that blue box. So in this image, you can see the adjacent Harbor Green Park, the float plane terminal, as well as the edge of the convention center. Placing the dock on the eastern edge of this water lot does mean that it is closer to the rapid transit that is in this area. And then as I mentioned on the last slide, the existing dock that you can see in the image there will be removed and reconfigured as part of this proposal. Over time, the existing facility has experienced significant wear due to site conditions and usage beyond its original design capacity. And this has meant that ongoing maintenance has been required and that the dock has been closed for quite some time. A KEY BENEFIT OF THIS PROPOSAL IS THE DELIVERY OF A RENEWED DOCK WITH MAINTAINED PUBLIC AMENITIES AT NO COST TO THE CITY.

Okay, so on this slide, we do have a digital rendering showing the proposed concept. This is subject to further refinement and detailed design, but it does show the key elements of the proposal. In the orange there is the charge barge. So this is where passengers would wait to get onto the ferry, and it also has large batteries that would then charge the electric vessels. You can see the ferry departing there in the bottom left of the screen. One of the benefits of having the vessels dock for a long time in charge is that passengers would be able to actually go on the vessels early, use washrooms and amenities on board, and this would take some pressure off of the amenities in the adjacent area.

In green there up on the screen, you can now see the public access areas of the new dock. So there is an elevated viewing platform there in that circular shape, as well as a new dock for public moorage. And the good news is, is that with the new design, we can make sure that all of the gangways and areas are accessible to the public.

So on to our proposed approach.

So the Circle Ferries proposal under the city's procurement policy is considered an unsolicited proposal. Recognizing that this does align with the city's corporate and policy goals as well as your motion, Engineering Services is supporting this pursuit as an initiative under a permitted single supplier sole source. And this means that once an agreement has been negotiated and finalized with Circle, we would do a notice of intent to contract with them. And this notice of intent to contract would notify the market that we intend to have a contract, and this would provide an opportunity for others to lodge complaints or concerns in response to this. Any responses that we would receive from the market in response to this would be presented to Council for review along with the final decision on whether to proceed with a sole source.

SO STAFF ARE SEEKING A COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION TODAY TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. THIS SLIDE HERE HIGHLIGHTS THE KEY COMMERCIAL AND OPERATIONAL TERMS THAT ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS AGREEMENT. IT'S NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST AND THE FINAL TERMS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE OUTCOME OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES, BUT WE WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THE KEY PIECES. So this service will be at no direct cost to the city, with the city's contributions being in kind. So that includes providing Circle Ferries with access to the licensed operational area. We are proposing an initial term of 10 years for this service, with the potential for future extension. We would do the review and permitting ancillary infrastructure upgrades. So this could look at wayfinding or perhaps loading zones to support this service on adjacent streets. And then we would also like to explore opportunities for the city to provide operational support for the publicly accessible infrastructure. So this could mean continuing our bylaw enforcement that we do now for Harper Green. On the Circle Ferry side, they are going to be responsible for designing, constructing, and delivering all infrastructure, including the public areas, per permits and regulatory requirements. They would operate and maintain all infrastructure. And then they would also be sharing some revenue with us. So their proposal includes $1 per passenger. And with 1,000 passengers estimated per day, this would equate to over $300,000 a year. Of course, they would indemnify us and obtain all appropriate insurance policies, and they will continue to engage with the local nations.

So with that, we have recommendations here for your consideration. And I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

Yeah, thanks very much for the presentation. I appreciate the work. I've got a couple of just clarifying questions, and they're really around roles and responsibilities. So I understand it's the proponent's responsibility to construct, maintain, et cetera, the dock. In the event that the service doesn't sustain, who owns the dock? Yeah, so we are going to build in terms into the agreement that we would have the ability to take over the dock, but we would also like to build in terms that they could remove it. So we're going to build out a number of options that would allow us to have flexibility if and when the service would end. Okay, so what I read from that is that the specific terms of an agreement, including a license to use the dock, still need to be finalized, and then will that license agreement be coming back to Council for approval? Yeah, so with the notice of intent to contract process, we would finalize the agreement, we would do the notice of intent to contract, and we would bring it back to you for final approval. Okay, in that vein, my other question around financial implications, and I appreciate it, I'm sort of thinking about the Lime example, right, in terms of similarly no cost to the taxpayer, but it's actually a revenue positive. I know that there's a proposed passenger fee share here of $1 per passenger, and there's some city in kind. The license agreement to utilize the space, will that carry a... Is that proposed to be at cost and at market rate? I don't see an explicit reference to that in the report of your presentation. Yeah, so we're not recommending a license fee for this. We are expecting the revenue share and the in-kind contributions of the dock to be the contribution from Circle in that sense. For perspective, Harbour Green Dock has cost about $1.4 million just to maintain over the last 10 years, and so there is great value in having them rebuild the facility and also maintain and operate it for us. Okay, so reflecting back, let's see if I've got this clear. We're applying a different standard to this than to Lime, where they are paying us a revenue share but also paying for use of docking stations, for example, and use of access to city-owned and managed space because we feel there's value in the dock. So they are getting a break on anomalies, whereas Lime did not. Correct.

And $1.4 million was the total maintenance cost over the 10 years total? Yes. Correct, yeah. So the maintenance of Harbour Green has been escalating over the last number of years. The challenge with the wave conditions in the harbour is that the dock in its current state is not designed for its current environment. So we see getting a new facility that would be well over $1.4 million is good value for the city. Okay. My other question is it suggests that the hours for public access will be commensurate with the operating hours of the ferry service. Can you notionally tell us what those look like? Does that mean daily access for the public or what is from morning till evening? What does that look like? Yeah. So the ferry service is intended to operate 365. And so it would be morning to night that the publicly accessible areas would be available.

Okay. And does that differ or is that consistent with what we've had previously? Generally, yes. The current access for Harbor Green is from dusk till dawn. So that varies seasonally. Whereas Circle Ferry's hours of operations would be more consistent. And I believe that it's around like 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. So they've kind of got a 12 to 14 hour operational day. So they'll actually likely have longer access in the winter compared to the dusk to dawn that exists today, but perhaps slightly shorter in the summer when, for example, dusk is not until 10 p.m. So there might be an hour gap in there. But that is something that we can explore with Circle if needed. Okay, and so last final question, just to be crystal clear about it, is that Council's approving this notional direction. You still have a sort of whatever the terminology was, a notice of intent going out to the market, but Council still has the ability to approve or not approve the license if we don't like the terms of the agreement as they are proposed, for example, around what happens to the dock, that kind of thing, right? Okay. Hi, Steve Brown, Director of Engineering Projects and Development Services. We're getting the authority today to negotiate and finalize that contract. The only reason why it would come back is if there was, through that notice of intent to contract, if someone comes forward then. Sorry, can I just clarify that before I run out of time? I was told, I just want to be clear, the contract will come back to Council? The contract will not come back to council. You and your colleague just said two different things. Yeah, I know. I just wanted to actually clarify that. I'm going to ask for a second round, Chair, before I run out of time. So I ask this question.

So how does council have confidence without giving additional direction, is my question, while I have time, that we are going to be happy with the agreement around the dock at the end of the day?

That's right. The parameters are getting approval today to then be finalized through the GMs. And I get, I'll come back on for the other question. I want some further information on that.

I have a question.

My clock has been running since five minutes.

Okay. Oh, their programmation. Okay. Okay. So let's stop at 12.

So just need a motion on the floor. Who is going to propose an emotion? Okay. We need to... We haven't seconded yet.

Okay. So we're going to stop at 12.

Thanks. Yeah, kind of following the same line there that Councillor Kirby Young was talking about. So the $1 per passenger there, what ridership assumptions is that based on? And what happens if those projections don't materialize? So Circle Ferries is projecting about 1,000 passengers per day. So their vessel is 150 people, and they're expecting about 50% full on each sailing. With 1,000 passengers per day times a dollar, with 365, we're looking at around $350,000. If they do not have 1,000 passengers per day, we would not see the increase. We would not see that guaranteed amount. So the revenue share is dependent on how many people are riding their boat. So our revenue share would decrease if... Okay. Yeah, if their service is not... But the ridership numbers are based on Circle's own ridership? Yeah, their market research study. Okay.

Obviously, there's been talk recently about privatizing our sort of public space and our waterfront space, and I know this council has debated this before. So what are we kind of displacing in terms of public use and... And how are we measuring those impacts? I know we're coming back in 10 years, but I mean, what are we doing today to mitigate that? So the proposed dock, the reconfigured dock, does continue the public amenities in principle that are outlined in the Coal Harbor ODP. So the Coal Harbor ODP requires public moorage and then also access for the water to the water for the public. So today we did some work to look at how many people are actually mooring on the existing Harbour Green dock. And what's proposed is a three vessel, recreational vessel space. And that's consistent to what we kind of see is the maximum of use at Harbour Green. So we believe that this new dock provides comparable public access. Okay. So why is this location being prioritized when staff acknowledge that better transit connection locations Are we kind of locking ourselves into a suboptimal site in terms of those connections? So this site, there were three sites that were considered, one being the Hello Terminal, one being the Seabus Terminal and Harbour Green. Both the Seabus Terminal and Hello have existing agreements with different operators. And so we weren't able to proceed with either of those options. The infrastructure that Circle is proposing, the charge barge, for example, it can be relocated. So if at some point there was an opportunity closer to rapid transit, we would be able to look at moving it. But Harbour Green was the most viable location at this time. Okay. So in that case, if we do move the charge barge or whatever, what if this plan fails or what sort of liabilities? I know the city is indemnified, but just in terms of stranded infrastructure, so they move the barge, they find a different site.

that works better, maybe there's a new CBUS terminal, what happens with that infrastructure? So we would be requiring Circle to get appropriate insurance to cover us if their service terminated. So we would have insurance in order to be able to remove the infrastructure that's there. And again, our intent is to be able to provide us an opportunity to also choose to take on the ownership of the facility if the service was to fail. Okay, there's an option to take on. Okay, that's interesting. How does this integrate with the broader transportation network? It just kind of seems like a standalone service with limited connectivity to the rest of the network.

Lon LeClaire, General Manager of Engineering Services. I did want to mention that this location in the dock in the community plan, the kind of official community plan that was originally developed, did envision this dock to be used for ferry services. Similar to what we would see in Falls Creek where we see aqua bus or Falls Creek ferries, we envisioned that that type of service might start in that location providing service to... Stanley Park or something like that. As part of the broader network, it is a little far from the Seawest Terminal, which is where we would want it to be. The fact that it is a barge and potentially quite movable, as soon as TransLink has the ability to accommodate them at that location, we would like to see them move for sure. Okay, that's good to know. And then last question is just on fare equity in terms of... Is there going to be sort of, you know, low-income fairs for seniors, children, people with disabilities, things like that? So we haven't gotten into those specific details with Circle Ferry, and they would be better able to answer that question, but it's certainly something we can raise with them. Okay, thanks.

Yeah, thanks. And if you can reset my timer, that'd be great. I think it was five minutes. My follow-up question is around the lease. So I just want to be very clear, because I know that in other scenarios, and I'll be careful about what happens in camera and what doesn't, but generally speaking, other significant agreements that contemplate use of public space have come to Council for approval. So just looking for clarification that Council can direct having the lease come back for approval of the terms. Is that correct? Because they are... not fully formed in this report. Thank you, Councillor, for your question. Alex Ralph, Chief Agreement Officer. So, yes, in other large, similar type of contracts, we have come to Council to ask for permission to be able to enter into negotiations so that we can start talking about the initial agreement. And we, in those cases, we have come back to Council to be able to brief you on those terms and conditions that we have actually agreed upon and then ask at that point for just approval of the actual contract award. In that case as well, if there's any challenges to the notice of intent to contract, we would have to bring those to council to be able to inform you about them. So that would be consistent with our past practice? It would be consistent instead of deviating from it, correct? That is correct. Thank you.

Yes, hello. I am a resident of Vancouver. And I'm here to voice my support for the Circle Ferry, the electric service ferry to run from Coal Harbour and will serve Bowen Island and Gibsons. This was brought to my attention by the advocacy of Councillor Bligh. I think it's great that it's electric. It means a lower carbon footprint and a quieter engine than a fuel-based boat. I think Vancouver needs more ways in and out of the city especially if we want Vancouver to continue to be the hub of this region. Gibsons and Bowen Island could certainly use another ferry option, and frankly, I'm very excited about this, and I see nothing but benefits, and give my wholehearted support for this service, which I hope will be a viable enterprise. Thank you for your time.

I'm not arrested. Okay, that's okay. Please go ahead.

Great, thank you. So my name is Calum Campbell. I'm co-founder and CEO of Circle Ferries, and thank you for having me here today. Last year, through motions with the Park Board and the City Council, we were offered an opportunity to work with city staff to explore whether Harbour Green could support an all-electric, passenger-only ferry service connecting downtown Vancouver to nearby coastal communities. And we fully leaned into that opportunity, bringing our own resource to the table. We've engaged with leading Vancouver-based marine engineers, naval architects, and BC Hydro to assess the technical feasibility of reconfiguring the dock. We've also worked closely with city staff to understand the history of the site, as well as the financial and public benefits of reconfiguring the dock. We've also worked closely with staff and a local naval architecture firm to bring all of this together in a design that balances sustainability, public benefits, and a viable operation. What we're bringing now is a design that allows a ferry landing, but just importantly, improves public access to the dock. It's safer. It's more accessible. It adds a new viewing platform connected to the seawall and helps revitalize the space for the public. And more broadly, this decision helps to create a more connected city, while offering real benefits to local residents. Through an all-electric, passenger-only ferry service, we'll introduce new connections from Coal Harbor to Gibsons and Bowen Island, building on the transportation network that Vancouver has developed for decades, and extending it over the water. These are individual communities coming together, shaping their own future, and I'm really excited about how these pieces are coming together. Deployment is desirable, viable, and within reach. We're really proud of the work we've done with city staff to get to this point, and we appreciate the opportunity to be here. We're excited about this ferry service, tailor-made for Vancouver. It's going to offer new transportation options for coastal residents.

Thank you. All right, speaker number three is Darren Piera.

Yeah, please go ahead. I'm Aaron Council. I'm a resident of New Westminster.

Okay. I'm speaking. I am the co-founder of Circle Ferries, just to clarify that. We've been working on this for the past four years on Circle Ferries and four years ago this was essentially just a vision with toner ink on printing paper and we keep getting closer to making this an operational reality. The motion that you passed last year, which was unanimously voted yes, and big thank you to that, has brought us closer, and it's brought us closer to bringing, to working with city staff and First Nations and communities who've all bought into the vision and realized this is a big need, especially for communities who are outlying. They really need this service. Revitalizing Harbor Green is going to help them, It's also going to give Vancouver the chance to also stand shoulder to shoulder with other cities around the world who have embraced this technology. Zero emissions is here. We used to run from coal ships to diesel ships to now electric ships. And trust me, my first ship was a steamship. So I fully understand the transition to zero emissions. And Transport Canada is also pushing for a zero emission 2050. It's been a really long road climbing a mountain, but we keep getting closer. And I do hope that you do envision what we're going to do and hopefully vote yes for this. We're very excited, and I really thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker number four is Louise Mercier.

Speaker four is not on the line. Okay. Speaker number five is Nathan Davidovich. Nathan?

Thank you, Chair and members. I spoke at the Parks Board on April 13th. You know, the report doesn't even give you the minutes. I just send you the minutes. You know, I mean, that report by the city staff here is not complete. And it doesn't address, you know, BC Ferries. 2050 plan to implement passenger-only ferries on various routes. We want public transit. We do not want private transit. That's why we have next Tuesday, the 28th of April, we have the launch of a new group called Public Transit Alliance of BC. And we have the Parliamentary Secretary for Transit, George Anderson, the main speaker.

He does not agree with the Minister of Transportation, who does not seem to support public transit. So that's the position of city council. They should support BC Ferries' report of public transit on ferries and building passenger-only ferries owned by the BC government. And, I mean... To add insult, on February the 2nd, we have the city manager and assistant city manager signing off to cancel the bus stops on Pender and Turlow and Pender and Butte, which would access this particular dock. So how are we going to have accessibility when the bus stops have been canceled already? You know, and I mean, this is whole, you know, I mean, I've written so many things to the Parks Board about this, you know, proposal, you know, and you have, and I spoke to city council on April 13, 2022, on the RAF bylaw number 13323, that does not allow private companies to use the city docks, you know, and I mean, Councillor Kirby Young spoke about it back four years ago, and Councillor Wiebe also opposed that. And here we are, the city staff, doing completely opposite what, you know, the city council asked in 2022. You know, it's just amazing. You know, and as I said, you know, I mean, this RAF is one, as was mentioned, is one possibility, but the CBUS terminal is the best one. And we can expand the CBUS terminal. We can get a new terminal to do it. So, anyhow, thanks very much for your help.

Thanks everyone.

Welcome to TELUS Conferencing.

To join the conference, enter your access code followed by the number sign.

Hi Tamara, can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me? Excellent. I can hear you too. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

everyone we don't have quorum right one two three four we need two more

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, perfect.

There we go.

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.

Okay, it's there. Perfect. Going back to the main queue, Councillor Kirby.

Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Tara. I'll just say it is the job of council to do the due diligence, and this is an important public asset. I was not able to receive a material response to my question around what are the agreed upon parameters for what happens to the dock in the event, and this is a 10-year lease that's contemplated for the initial term. And then what happens in the event that, and we hope, and I know there's demand for the service, that they fully hope that it is successful. But in that event, I think that's a pretty material question because they are being provided preferential leave terms in acknowledgement of the... benefit to having that dock be one that can be accessed by the public and I think that's a really good thing so to me this is due diligence and I have a hard time in voting for something when we don't have a material answer on a key component of the agreement at this point so I will leave it at that at this for now thank you

Chair, can I please get a vote assist in favor, please?