Okay, welcome. We will now convene the Park Board Committee meeting. May we have the roll call, please?

Present.

Present.

In the room. Present.

Present.

I would like to acknowledge that our meeting is taking place on the traditional territory of the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh First Nations. We meet on this land respectfully and with honor to each other, the land, and the communities we serve. I would invite you to join with me in committing to acts of reconciliation in our deliberations and in the decisions that we make. Before we move on to our first order of business, I do have a few procedural items I'd like to review. As our meetings are recorded and live web streamed, I would like to remind commissioners and presenters to speak clearly into their microphones. As well, there are cameras

I have an announcement that I would like to make through the chair to staff to acknowledge a staff member who may or may not be with us at our next meeting.

I would love it if you could make that announcement. I don't want to get anything wrong, but I do think it's appropriate for us to acknowledge our staff.

Hello?

Yes, so we are looking at three options on the fee that should be charged to the SNOC partnership for this service. And if the clerk could scroll down to the fee section, it indicates that there's a license fee at market rate. Pardon? So part C, the options are to offer a license fee at market rate to a reduced rate with delegated authority to the GM to negotiate, and no fee. Now, I have, in my view, there's one of those is the better way to go, but are all these fees considered acceptable to the other side, and have they been approached with this same question?

Okay, so they would not be surprised if we picked one or the other of these? I mean, it's an ordinary commercial negotiation. They're a commercial party? Do we have any reason to consider this to be more of a partnership relationship, given that this is a First Nation-led project and this is on unceded Musqueam, Squamish, Vanier Park is unceded Squamish, Musqueam and TTsleil-Waututh land. So would we consider this suitable for a partnership type of rate?

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Yes, I would like to move this motion that we first debate item C sub 2, a reduced rate.

Are you asking questions?

So this welcome centre is temporary in nature and it is for commercial use. So I think finding something in the middle I'm agreeable with, especially because we want to keep in line with reconciliation. And so I think option two is a great option and I will be supporting this motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Verdi. Yes, the possibilities for partnership in Vanier Park are limitless. They can go on many different directions with the three nations that are most interested in the property in that land. I think this is a way of starting that partnership discussion about how the whole of Vanier Park is going to be activated. You know, how are we going to bring back the cultural recognition that was taken away and erased from this land? And for the first time in over 100 years now, we have the opportunity to start... engaging those partnership discussions with the Vanier Park portion of this. So I think this is a good place to start, and I would encourage the GM to not just be limited to the one site of this property, but to consider other areas where we might collaborate with the Squamish partnership on Vanier Park. Thank you.

Thank you. Again, I'm going to just talk a little less about the welcoming centre as a great action for reconcili-action, but think about just creating a space that... welcomes Vancouverites and others to a space that gives them opportunity for housing in Vancouver. This is a great partnership that I believe has like 6,000 spaces for rental, which our city drastically needs. So this welcome centre is going to be a welcoming space for individuals that are looking for spaces to live in Vancouver. And so this... Educational opportunity for them is is important. So I'll be supporting it on that regard as well.

Thank you. I'm happy to introduce the presentation seeking approval to host a public fireworks celebration at English Bay Beach Park. Associate Director Octavia Silva will guide you through the presentation, outlining the event concept, delivery approach, and anticipated benefits of the event.

Okay. We will come back to you after the presentation. Actually, my work computer is logged on right now. Okay. Can we mute her? Okay. Keep going.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. The summary says this event will be free and fully accessible to residents and visitors, yet there is a 100-person maximum capacity of guests. Will those guests be able to be free and fully accessible, or will that be a ticketed or a VIP event?

And who will be providing those invitations?

Thank you.

uh yes thank you um as i do not see any potential dates could you uh are you planning to do this at the same time uh late i think late july early august as the symphony of fires fireworks were sorry

Is there any reason why the dates cannot be publicized, all the potential dates?

Thanks. Okay.

Well, the question is I'm wondering why the dates have been kept secret.

Thank you so much for your presentation. I'm just wondering for, because this is a little bit different than what we've done previously, but are we looking for sponsorships as well? And are we going to be hoping to do any sort of themes in regards to the fireworks?

Okay, thank you so much.

I just wanted to know why the original event was cancelled, and will this event be following similar protocols in terms of rules and regulations and charges?

Um so uh thank you I you know I'm not going to um ask you questions about the appropriateness of this event um uh because I'll take that on a separate line of discussion afterwards. What I would like to ask you is um apparently two two million dollars is coming from the city for this event and what fraction what portion of that uh just order of magnitude can you give us is actually park board expenses that you it's going to be at zero cost to the park board so what's the sort of order of magnitude can you help us understand?

Okay, so that includes beach cleanup the next day, beach preparation, lifeguards during the event.

$10,000 to $15,000. Okay, so that's out of $2 million. So park board's not making a lot of money off of this.

Now, here's actually my bigger... You know, there's a very dry forest. There's going to be a very dry forest at Stanley Park this summer. It's already, we're in the level two water restrictions across the city. And I just want to ask, has preparations been made to make sure there's a lot of smoke and fire? I mean, I'm concerned about the wildlife habitat, but you can't answer that. I'm mostly just concerned about the fire and smoke impacting Stanley Park. Do you have... Will that be properly managed?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Baskin-Vansky is ahead of me in the queue of asking a question already. I can wait for Commissioner Baskin-Vansky.

Oh, thank you.

Yeah, I'm excited to see some fireworks. But there's a... So in previous years, the celebration of light happens kind of late July, and there's usually some other big cultural events that happen around then, and the city's usually coordinating around Pride. And so I'm curious if... In the event that that's one of the weekends that's being considered, would the 2SLGBTQIA plus advisory committee be consulted with any planning around that?

Okay, wonderful. Thank you.

Yeah, so I don't think he's going to be speaking, unfortunately. So we will be moving on. Thank you very much. That brings us to the... They said other under the speaking notes, but would somebody... So at the end of the speakers, would somebody like to move the recommendation? Commissioner Verity, can I have a seconder, please? Yeah, we can do that. Commissioner Jensen seconding the motion, the recommendation. We will now discuss the recommendation. Do any commissioners have comments? Commissioner Digby.

Yes. If I was on our speaker, Mr. Holbrook's side of the podium, I would have given that speech but louder. And I am not going to relitigate the issue of whether the city, in a time of significant cutbacks, we're cutting over 400 city staff from the rolls because we're... We refuse to make a reasonable increase in tax rates across the city. Even a modest increase would have solved that problem. Still, we have $2 million for this event. I think if we had $2 million for events, the higher priority would be dozens of cultural events across the city. of course, communities that could use the money, arts communities, other communities. Still, it would be inappropriate for me to go too hard down that line in my role as a park board commissioner. I think this park board has shown itself to be eminently reasonable with requests from the broader city to move on with specific projects that we're asked to focus on, and though we may quibble with it and quarrel with it, I feel that it's our duty to when the broader city and particularly city council and a majority want to carry on with this, I feel obliged to consent to it. We're having full cost recovery, the cost of our beach cleanup, the cost of our lifeguards and any other costs which for these essential services the park board provides are being covered. So, in view of all this, I will be supporting the motion tonight.

Commissioner Bostevansky.

Thank you, Commissioner. But if you were on the other side of that podium, I thought you would vote the way that you would feel your conscience and not be quiet about it. I'm not going to support this. I love fireworks. Fireworks are fun. I think they bring the city to life. But I think that this is going to be a hollowed out experience. I don't believe that it's going to have the same vibe as the celebration of light because it's not a competition. There's nothing at stake.

There's no theme to it. And even around English Bay where there's normally a lot of atmosphere, the fewer food trucks, no stands, like all these types of things that make it fun. And then there's this capacity of 100 guests. that I can't, we have no policy around who is going to allocate those. So we're going to spend $2 million, which somebody pointed out would be about 20 or 30 full-time staff or short funding at the park board, and we don't know who those 100 guests are, and we don't get a say in any transparent way of who attends. So you know what? That's not what the celebration of light is. That's not what that is. And so I think that all the electioneering that's going into this, I'm listening to our speaker. And even though I really like fireworks, I'm going to vote against this.

Thank you. Commissioner Jensen.

Thank you so much. I am going to be supporting A. I actually, again, for this city to be able to realize its financial responsibilities, it needs events like this. It needs to be able to drive businesses so that people are coming into our downtown core, spending money, and hopefully that money is translated into higher revenues, which can hopefully come back to the park board so that more services don't get cut next year. But I'm going to speak a little bit more about why I severed and my issue with B. And that is in this time of belt tightening, to have a private party for 100 VIPs that is being paid for by taxpayers, I think is irresponsible. And I think for the individuals that would like to attend this event and meet other people, they can do that shoulder to shoulder with every other Vancouverite. And I think for... When we look at spending dollars in this time, when we're looking at cutting services at our beaches, where we're raising fees at our parking lots, I think we have to be really mindful of how we spend those dollars and who those dollars are going towards. And at this point in time, I do not see the value in spending an additional amount of money to pay for a private party, for 100 VIPs that are going to be chosen by the mayor and by some other individuals that are looking to you know, try to improve their image. But again, I am not going to support B. I'm going to support A. And I hope that, counter to what Commissioner Basu-Vansky says, I hope this is an extremely successful event that mirrors the successes that Brand Live has done in the past. They're an amazing company that does great work. And I hope that the city comes out to celebrate. But I will be celebrating alongside all of them as well. Thank you.

Commissioner Verdi.

I think the comments around it being too expensive and then it's not big enough, it's not clear where this is going to land. Is it too expensive? Is it not expensive enough? It's not big enough? I think this is more against the mayor because I think the mayor really stepped up this time. The celebration of light was cancelled and he stepped up and gave us an event And I think it's cost effective. And I think those 100 seats are very important because it's a way for us to find someone to continue the event. And this event is special in the fact that Brand Live is going to be working with the city to try to continue what the Honda celebration was. And without this event, it would just die. So I'm in favor of bringing back a fireworks event that the city has enjoyed for years and years and years. And I don't want to make this political, but I've seen in the past in the media, anytime the mayor tries to do something, there's finger-pointing. I mean, he gave us $400 million for community center renewals, and then there's finger-pointing. He stepped up and he's giving us $2 million for a fireworks event and there's finger pointing. So, I mean, there is some electioneering going on the opposite way as well. So I just want to applaud the mayor and I look forward to having this event and for people celebrating. And this promotes Vancouver, especially at a time where FIFA is coming around. It shows, it promotes tourism. There's only positives. And the biggest thing is it's non-ticketed. So everybody can come and enjoy that event for free. That to me is huge. It brings community together and it brings, and it puts us on a stage where people visiting will see a great show. So I will be supporting both A and B.

Commissioner Hare-Online.

You just need to unmute yourself, Commissioner O'Hare. We can't hear you yet. Just take your mute off.

There you go. Thank you so much. I will be supporting this. I think it's really important to take the politics out of this celebration. I think the public has been looking forward and maybe disappointed that the other fireworks events were cancelled, so there's a new event to look forward to. English Bay fireworks are part of Vancouver's identity. This event brings residents, families, visitors, and local businesses together in one of our most ionic public spaces. With the traditional celebration of Lights Not Proceeding in 2026 due to funding pressures, this one-night event helps preserve an important summer tradition for our city. The previous event drew hundreds of thousands of people to English Bay, so there is clear public value in keeping this experience alive. I also appreciate that this approval is not open-ended. It remains subject to the satisfaction of the Park Board General Manager, which protects public safety. park operations, cleanup, access, and overall accountability. The liquor component is limited to 100 guests, so it is controlled and proportionate. This is about supporting a major civic event while ensuring strong oversight of our parks and public spaces. And for those reasons, I will be voting in support of this, both A and B. Thank you.

Great. I'll just make a comment in terms of I think our speaker said it better than I ever could to sort of capture the difficult position that we're in. You know, and I'll just take this time to sort of comment on that. I find it immensely frustrating that, you know, when we request a small 600,000 for, you know, to keep our beaches safe. We are turned down, but the mayor will step up in the case of a $2 million fireworks show. I think that that dichotomy is disappointing. I would have liked to see city council step up a little bit more in supporting... you know, things that I think are more critical to our city than a fireworks show. However, I'm not going to play tit-for-tat politics here and turn this event down. I think everyone and a lot of people in the city would like this to go forward, and I don't think I'm going to stand in the way of that. for actions that the City Council has made on other items. I don't think that's fair. But I do want to take this moment to just acknowledge that there is a real problem with the fact that we're spending $2 million on a fireworks show when we can't find the money to properly lifeguard our beaches. And we are cutting many jobs and frontline services at the Park Board right now. Point of order. Yes, Commissioner Herr.

Yeah, we should just stick to the motion that we're talking about.

Thank you, Commissioner Herr. I will stick to the motion. Yes, so I will be supporting this begrudgingly, and I hope that City Council appreciates our support of this and keeps that in mind as we move forward in budget discussions. So seeing no further comments, I'll call a vote by a show of hands. We're going to sever this vote, so we're going to be voting on A and B separately. So I'll be calling a vote on A first. So all in favor of A, please raise your hand. I see Commissioner Verdi, Commissioner Christensen, Commissioner Digby, Commissioner Jensen, Commissioner Howard, and Commissioner Hare. All opposed to A, Commissioner Bastiwanski. So A is carried. I will now call a vote on item B. All in favor of B? I see Commissioner Verdi, Commissioner Christensen, and Commissioner Digby, Commissioner Howard, and Commissioner Hare. All opposed? I see Commissioner Jensen and Commissioner Bastiwanski. B also carries. Thank you.

So that brings us to the end of that item. And as there's no further business, the meeting is now adjourned. Yep, so we'll be moving on to the board meeting. We're going to take a, can we have 10 minutes? Okay, five minutes. Okay, thank you. Five minutes.

Okay. Commissioners Hare and Howard, we are coming back online with a regular park board meeting.

If you're there, please check in. There's Commissioner Hare and there's Commissioner Howard. Great. Welcome to the people of Vancouver and the commissioners around the table and virtual. We'll now convene the regular park board meeting. May we have the roll call, please?

Present.

Present.

Present.

Excellent. Thank you. Again, I ask commissioners attending virtually, please leave your cameras on. Otherwise, you'll be marked absent for the meeting. So let me begin with a land acknowledgement, as we always do. We begin tonight's meeting by acknowledging that we are on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh First Nations. In past land acknowledgements, I have reflected on the meaning of the word unceded. And I've called on the provincial and federal crown to fulfill their long-standing obligation to negotiate treaties with Indigenous peoples who have stewarded these lands since time immemorial. This June will mark 180 years that this obligation to negotiate treaties has remained unmet by the provincial and federal crowns. And today I want to call for political courage from provincial and federal leaders to bring treaty negotiations to completion and from the public to be ready to support those agreements when they're brought to us. An example of the small, courageous steps towards reconciliation came up in the committee meeting earlier tonight, where this table considered the short-term rental of a small section of Vanier Park to the Squamish Partnership. And I want to thank commissioners for their grasp of the complexities of reconciliation and the thoughtful discussion we had about that. As a reminder, the Sanak Reserve was illegally seized by the federal government in 1913. And the story of the 1913 seizure is shocking, and I encourage everyone in Vancouver to learn the truth of that story in order to position their thinking about how that history is now being reconciled. Now, some of the story is laid out in an important court case, the Federal Court of Canada, known as the Squamish Ban versus Canada. That decision came down in year 2000. It took another 19 years for the Crown to negotiate a settlement agreement based on that court case. So in 2019, Canada formally returned the Sanhok lands to the Squamish as reserve lands. And from these lands, we now see the remarkable Sanok Towers rising at the foot of Burrard Bridge. But neighboring Vanier Park itself remains unceded territory of the MST nations. The land is owned by the federal government and managed by us. The jurisdiction is the Park Board. But because it is an unceded territory, it was recently repeated in the Cowichan decision that Aboriginal title underlies and coexists in Vanier Park. So, Commissioners, I commend your work tonight at the committee meeting for recognizing that these negotiations are in process. They are not yet resolved. And the only path forward for all of us is for government and First Nations to work together to resolve the land claims based on truth and the goal of reconciliation.

We'll move on to the chair's report, which commissioners are reminded to please send in their photograph. This report covers events attended by park board commissioners since the last meeting. In my role as park board liaison, I attended meetings with Carisdale and the community center of Champlain Heights and the Sunset Community Center AGM. attended the 40th anniversary of the Dr. Sun Yat-sen Classical Chinese Garden, which is an important park board operated property with Councillor Orr and former Premier and former Mayor Mike Harcourt. On Earth Day, I attended Stanley Park Ecology Society in celebration with Commissioners Bastiavansky and Jensen and members of the Stanley Park Ecology Board. And we have a friendly visitor in Commissioner Jensen.

A week later, I attended the other Earth Day Fest with Everett Crawley Park Committee up in Everett Crawley Park, seen here with Damian and Evie from the Everett Crawley Park Committee and from Rob Baxter, who's the president of the Champlain Heights Community Center.

Well, here's an attractive group. Commissioners attended the Earth Day Dinner at Van Dusen Botanical Garden with VSB Chair Young there and staff members.

Commissioners Hare and Virdi attended the Sick Heritage Month Proclamation alongside city councillors and school trustees.

Very nice. Commissioner Jensen attended the Tree Talks and Walk at Callister Park, hosted by Egan Davis. Also pictured is Biljana Valkova, who painted the beautiful watercolor Cherry Blossoms.

Commissioner Jensen attended the Keresdale Days Little League Parade and spoke at the opening ceremony to kick off 2026. Pictured here with VSB Chair Toria Young. Let's play ball. Keresdale. And since the last meeting, Commissioner Jensen visited Pandora Park, Harbour Green Park, and the playground beside the nearly completed new school in Coal Harbour, Seaside Elementary. Thank you, Commissioners, for your work in the community. Does the Clerk have any correspondence of note for tonight?

Mercifully, thank you.

Thank you, GM Jackson. Commissioner, there's a lot of interesting items there. Any questions for our general manager?

I will thank the general manager for keeping the wheels on the buggy and keeping us rolling.

Tons of great stuff. I heard from one youth organizer at a community center. They have 80 kids in there on a Friday night, and it's the most fun thing to do in that particular neighborhood. Super motivated staff and a great event for the kids. And even Commissioner Jensen used to be a youth worker once before he got elevated to the high position he now holds.

He was probably higher back then, as you're saying. Okay, thank you, Commissioner. Commissioners, notices of motion. Do any members have notices of motion they would like to bring? And I was expecting Commissioner Hare to put her hand up. Commissioner Hare, can you give us the title of your motion? Have you submitted in writing, and can you give us the title of motion for the record?

I have submitted it in writing, but I've got two.

Okay, please read them both.

Okay. My first one is honoring Charlie Cosetto, Beaconsfield Park Community Legacy.

Thank you.

And then my second one is urgent review of beach parking fees, affordability and accessibility at Jericho, Tocarno and Spanish Banks.

Thank you, Commissioner. Very descriptive title. Any other notices of motion?

I have a notice of motion, which I have sent to the clerk, and it's entitled Reducing Parking Fees at Spanish Banks for 2026. So we'll have a battle of the motions. And Madam Clerk, may I ask, will these be on the agenda for next week's meeting?

With those on it. All right, then. So that is any other motion seeing none, I'll move on. Any members have other business tonight? I do. Ah, I see Commissioner Christensen. Please go ahead.

I have an urgent motion I'd like to bring.

An urgent motion. Under other, you have other...

Or just urgent business, sorry.

You have urgent business to bring. Have you submitted your motion in writing?

I have, yes.

Well, we'll have to evaluate if it's urgent or not. Would the clerk please raise the motion? And we'll see if it's urgent, we can deal with it tonight. If it's not, we can't. So, Commissioner, without asking for a seconder, I'll just ask the Commissioner to read the motion and give a brief description and sufficient that we can evaluate whether it's urgent or not.

I'll let Commissioners read the motion rather than me reading it out. I'm sure Commissioners can read faster than I can read it aloud. Maybe I'll just give Commissioners 30 seconds to read it.

30 seconds to read it, Commissioners, and then you'll tell us what makes this urgent.

SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS HAVE READ THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE READ THE MOTION. MOTION. IT RELATES TO THE CAPITAL PLAN IT RELATES TO THE CAPITAL PLAN AND WHY IS IT URGENT?

So I think we know that staff are currently working on the capital plan right now. I think it's important that if there's direction for the capital plan, we need to give it to staff now. We're on quite a tight timeline for the capital plan. So I think if we don't have the correct direction to staff, there are financial implications to the park board. in terms of how our capital plan is structured and what projects are included on that. So I see that as a financial matter of significance for the board. I think there's also a legal matter of significance here, which has to do with the jurisdiction of the board and how that relates to city council's jurisdiction. So I think you'll see that in part B there. So there's the legal matter that needs to be clarified, and I think there's an importance and urgency to clarifying that jurisdictional matter there.

All right. So as the commissioners in public know, urgent business requires that it relate, it's in connection with a public health or safety or a financial or legal matter of significance to the Vancouver Park Board. So I'm going to pause the meeting for just one minute while I consult with the clerk to say if, so I can make a determination.

Commissioners I have a ruling on this and I'll just explain I rule that this motion is not urgent because Because these are even though the capital planning process is critical and it is rolling out and it does have to be decided the next month basically hearing the motion next week would give the other commissioners fair notice of what's in the motion and would give them a chance to decide so my ruling is we will motions not urgent and I hear a point of order from Commissioner Bastiwanski.

I'd like to challenge the ruling of the chair.

Challenge the chair. Is there a seconder for that? Commissioner Jensen seconds the challenge of the chair. Now, here's how this works, folks. Under the procedure bylaw, a commissioner is entitled to challenge the ruling by moving to that effect, a motion to that effect. And what I need is two-thirds of the members present. So there's seven of us present. So I need two-thirds to vote in favor of this motion. challenge to support my ruling in order to sustain my ruling. So I need five of seven commissioners to vote in favour with me to sustain this. So we'll now, without debate, we'll have a vote by show of hands. Vote for those who wish to sustain the chair and move this motion to next week. Please raise your hand. All those in favor of supporting the chair, and I see Commissioner Verity, Commissioner Hare, Commissioner Howard, Commissioner Digby, and all those opposed to sustaining the chair, I see Commissioner Baskovansky, Commissioner Jensen, Commissioner Christensen. Therefore, the challenge to the chair succeeds, and we will proceed to discussing and debating this motion. Commissioner, thank you for your introduction. First, I'll ask for a seconder. We had Commissioner Jensen as a seconder on that. And now I will give the Commissioner three minutes to introduce the motion in full.

Thank you. I was just informed from... Can those online see the screen now? Okay, great. I'll just introduce it. I'm not going to read it in full, but I will just explain it. There are two parts to this. There is a Part A, which gives direction to staff with a capital planning process, which is... to not include the list of projects of the Council motion of April 22nd, which included a list of projects. And it asked staff to continue with our current plan strategies and previous board directions. And I'll just explain that briefly. So on April 22nd, Council passed a motion, which was back to community, establishing strategic priorities and consolidating Council direction for the 2027 to 2030 capital plan. Within this, it directed staff to allocate funds within the capital plan for the new construction, renewal, or redevelopment, specifically of park board assets, including community centers, pools, spray pucks, turf fields, and park washrooms. However, I think it's unprecedented from as far as I can tell that Council has provided direction for the allocation of funding of assets under park board jurisdiction prior to... and without Park Board's approval. This is unprecedented for Council to direct how Park Board will be, what projects will be included in the Park Board capital plan. That's never, as far as I can tell, has ever happened before. The Vancouver Charter is very clear that we do have exclusive jurisdiction and control of all parks, permanent public parks and temporary public parks. And within that, the authority to determine how that property is used and including what improvements will be made on that land. Improvements being things like pools and spray parks and fields and community centres. So in my reading of the Vancouver Charter, it's very clear that we have jurisdiction of what is built on park land. And for council to pass a motion that directs funding and directs projects that happen on park land, I believe is out of their jurisdiction. Therefore, my part A of this is directing staff to... continue with our plan strategies in previous board directions, which I think were very clear and have been guided by many years of work and public engagement to provide equitable plans to move forward with our projects. And we should be looking to those plans and strategies for our capital planning, not looking to a list of projects that the mayor's office has developed. The second part of the motion is asking to retain legal counsel to look at this jurisdictional issue right now. What happens when city council is overstepping their jurisdiction in these capital plan allocations? And what is the park board's jurisdiction in this versus city council's? And I think that needs to be clear as we move forward to this capital planning process. As for the costs, we do already have legal... fees set aside that we did back in January of 2024. There is money remaining there, so we can draw on that. So this will not require any further funding from our budget. And I'll be happy to take questions.

Thank you, Commissioner. We'll take questions from the other commissioners.

Commissioner Verdi, please.

By moving this, do you think that we would jeopardize this unprecedented amount of $400 million that the park board will receive on projects that are identified as requiring renewal?

I think we'll be continuing to work with city council on this and for them to withdraw funding because they've overstepped their jurisdiction, I think would be petty of them. So I would hope they wouldn't do that. And I hope that they would be willing to work with us to develop their plans in a better way, looking at our strategies and plans that we can find a way forward. that uses our prioritization that this board has developed over many years and use that rather than their list. So hopefully we can collaborate with them and keep the $400 million number or perhaps increase it, but look to our strategies and plans for that prioritization work.

So you don't think that it jeopardized it because of our pettiness?

I don't think this is pettiness. This is very clearly about equity, that the park board has generated these plans and strategies over many, many years with public engagement, and that we need to follow those. Because this is exactly why we have inequity in the city, is because you get city councillors or park board commissioners, you know, you get this political draw that is pulling funding to certain areas because we're not following a strategy and a plan that is grounded in equity.

Just to answer the question specifically, further questions, Commissioner Verdi?

No, good.

Thank you.

No further questions. Commissioner Hare, questions for the mover.

Thank you. Do you not think that over the years, and I completely understand what you're saying, that the staff and others have worked very hard to see where projects should land and where amenities or... or even recreation centers or services should be so that we could serve the public generally in a much better way. But do you not think that over the years, especially over 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, things change, and the council would have probably looked at how has the city evolved, how has the city changed, especially with the Broadway Skytrain Station going in or other types of... changes that have happened, generally speaking, and densification as well. Do you not trust that the council and the mayor... would have looked at where these amenities might have to go before they would have made these decisions. I mean, $400 million towards recreation centers, towards rebuilding recreation centers that are in dire need of replacement is a hard thing to pass up. And I'm worried, just like Commissioner Verdi, that if we pass this up, we might not get this opportunity again. I hope you're not making this political.

Okay, I wasn't sure whether there was a question there, but I guess I'll say that I'm not sure there was a question.

Was there a question there? You're not making this political?

No, no, I think I'm trying to make this apolitical is exactly what I'm trying to do, which is to look to our plans and strategies. If you're talking about these strategies being out of date, they're not that old. And if your thought and your issue and concern is that our strategies are out of date, The correct course of action is to get staff to update those plans and strategies to reflect reality, just like we asked staff to update van splash based on the changes that have happened over time. That's the correct course of action. I don't think that the action is to override all of staff's work and pick what, you know, someone who has, you know, as a elected official, I would say doesn't have the full picture of all the data in the background. And the years of public engagement that went into those strategies, I don't think that a city councillor necessarily has that background to make those decisions in the most informed way. And I think that that work is best done by the experts that we have on our staff to do that prioritization work, which is exactly what we have. And in short, I think this motion is aiming to make this process apolitical, which is to put it back...

We'll just interrupt the speaker to ask, yes, your point of order.

Yeah, I just feel like Commissioner Christensen is raising her voice, and I asked a simple question. I just wish she would speak just softer.

We will leave the tone of her voice to her discretion as long as it's not intimidating or harassing anyone in the room, although I acknowledge Commissioner Hare requests that... We take it down a notch, but that's at your discretion, Commissioner.

Thank you.

Anything else to answer regarding City Council and their views?

No? Okay.

Commissioner Jensen.

Commissioner Jensen.

This motion, I heard like the small, I know it's small, a $400 million amount being mentioned, but... This board passed $1.48 billion as a... at a motion recently that was a kind of a wide net that looked at not just community centers looked at a whole bunch of other investments would that be in jeopardy by this motion or would that be kind of the direction that would be sought is to look at that 1.48 billion as a guidepost for us to move forward with instead of the you know kind of the 40 million dollars which is a 150 million dollar cut

I don't think necessarily that this motion speaks to the dollar value. It does say, without regard to the projects listed, it doesn't speak to that $400 million number, nor does this override our request that we made to City Council.

I would just like to do another point of order. I have a point of order again.

State your point of order.

Thank you. Thank you. I thought we had voted to not discuss and move this as an urgent motion.

So why are we discussing this now? Commissioner misunderstood that that motion did not pass. It was... The declaration it was not urgent was overturned by the board and now we're back debating the motion. So you actually need to read the motion carefully because you're going to be asked to vote on it very shortly and ask your good questions of the commissioner who moved the motion. Commissioner Jensen, were you finished?

Yeah, I think like the Commissioner answer my question. Thank you so much. Yeah a hundred and the four hundred million dollars is Totally encapsulated in the one point four eight billion that this board passed.

So thank you So yeah, I think that request that one point four a billion request is not necessarily overridden by this.

Thank you Commissioner Howard you have a question for the mover We can't hear you quite yet and your

Sorry, my mic is now on. I'm just unclear on why we're discussing a motion tonight when we had a four against three vote to discuss it tonight.

Thank you. The procedural rule is that you need two-thirds of the table to sustain the chair. So that required five out of seven in favor of my ruling, and we only had four out of seven. And there were three opposed. It means my ruling could not be sustained. So I was tossed out, and we moved to voting on the motion.

Okay. So two-thirds is 4.66, so it counts as five. Thank you for clarifying.

Thank you for the math. That was very quick.

Now, we'll go to Commissioner Bastiwanski for first round of questions.

Thank you for bringing this is urgent business um so With the council motion like I appreciated like your reasoning can you can you tell me is the council motion?

Aligned at all with any of the growth areas like Oak Ridge Broadway or the can recorder oh I Think some of them maybe but some of them may not be I honestly I haven't I've been working on a mapping exercise But it's it's it's coming

Then okay, my other question was then about you mentioned the equity lens. Yeah, so are there are there high needs?

Community centers over on the east side that are not mentioned in the council motion I Will say that I do know that Renfrew because I'm their liaison is very high on the list and was not included But I think that is not necessarily the point of this motion. It's not to Go through those specific things. I think it's giving staff direction and to work with our plans and strategies that we already have, including the community center strategy, which did provide a prioritization list of community centers.

And so the capital plan has to be approved by the public at the end. And so are you concerned that if the council moves funding that is not actually in line with the community engagement or strategies, that that capital plan wouldn't pass?

I think you mean the borrowing questions.

The borrowing question at the election.

You know, potentially I can't speak to what the electorate may do at that time, but it would be, I think there's a jurisdictional question of, you know, what happens when city council puts funding on something that park board doesn't approve or isn't in line with park board's direction.

So it lacks legitimacy is what you're saying.

If that's your opinion, don't put words in my mouth. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. And I will actually ask a question at this point, which is, yes, I did notice some deficiencies with the council motion April 22nd. There was no mention of the Kitsilano pool. And there was no, which has always been a long priority at this board, there's been no mention of Britannia. Well, it was referred to as we'll work towards a solution. So is that you're suggesting to staff we continue to work on those projects on our side and hopefully bring them up with our council colleagues for funding?

The direction is really to keep working with our current plans and strategies, and I know that Britannia is on that list of things that we're working on. So, yes, I think that it's to continue working on those projects that the board has identified as priorities in the past.

Thank you. Second round of questions, Commissioner Verdi.

So do you think council highlighting certain things and providing money for it and then park board not agreeing to it, do you think that's a problem in the structure of having two boards?

Think in this case the the point of the park board that was created is to provide a buffer from City Council To you know do things with parks for reasons that might not be in the best public interest And I think what this motion does is does exactly what park board is intended to do Which is to provide that buffer and that protection from a City Council? making actions or implementing projects that may be in a political interest or a for a specific reason rather than being guided by a city-wide, equity-driven, pragmatic decision-making approach that is driven by our plans and strategies. So I think that this is exactly Park Board doing its job by following its plans and strategies and not allowing city council to step in and direct where funding is going.

So if we never receive money from city council and we have different priorities... It sounds like the system's not working the way it's set up.

Well, it's been working for over 130 years, and this is the first time that this happened. So I don't think this is an issue necessarily with Parkward and City Council. It sounds like this is an issue with this specific council.

Do you think, have we received $400 million before? Do you think it's an unprecedented amount? Do you think it'd be usable and wise to accept that money?

I see John Irwin in the back pointing that there was a $400 million. almost $500 million investment in the past. So I don't think it's unprecedented, the $400 million. I think it's a great number, and I think that I'm very happy that city council is willing to put up that number. But where those community centres go should be driven by the community centre strategy and by Park Board's work, rather than I'm not exactly sure where they got their list from, but it's not consistent with what the community centre associations themselves have asked for. So I think that it's great that they've made that investment and I'm very appreciative of City Council stepping up and providing that funding. But the correct course of action in this is for Park Board to be deciding where that money goes because it's our parkland. We are the ones who control the community centres and we should be driving where that investment goes because we are the body that knows best of what those needs are. So we should be driving that and not City Council. But I appreciate them providing the funding for this and stepping up to support parks and recreation.

So you're not at all concerned of that $400 million being gone?

That would be very unfortunate for City Council, I think, to pull the funding because they feel like they're not getting their way. I think that would be quite petty of City Council to do that.

We're repeating questions here, so thank you, Commissioner, for your enthusiasm. Commissioner Hare, we have one last question, and then Commissioner Jensen. We do have a full, long in-camera portion after this meeting, Commissioner, so please focus your questions and your responses. Commissioner Hare, please go ahead. Can't hear you. Can't hear you, Commissioner.

Sorry about that. I'm concerned, like, are you not worried wasting $20,000, if not more, towards, let's taxpayer money, by the way, $20,000 that you're, we're getting $400 million to build infrastructure, but you want to waste $20,000 plus maybe more on legal costs. Are you not worried that if we... Bring a legal, like independent legal advice. This is going to slow down the whole process of actually building brand new recreation centers here in Vancouver.

A point of order. Yes. Commissioner Herr, will I interrupt you? Commissioner Basu-Vansky?

Commissioner Herr, it appears to be getting angry and her tone is elevating. If she could bring it down a notch.

All right, all right, commissioners. We're not going to play that game, but Commissioner Herr, please ask your question. Is that focused enough?

I can answer that. Before you do that, all the mics are on. Can we just turn all the extra mics off?

If everyone can turn their mics off. It's causing some reverberation. Well, I only have one mic and it's quite loud.

No, no, so I'm not talking about you, Commissioner Herr. It's just that all the mics in the room are on right now. It's causing some echoey issues. To answer your question, that $20,000 has already been allocated to legal advice so it's not any additional money. So we're not spending any more money, no. That money is already been allocated. It's not slowing anything down. This isn't causing any delay in our capital. That can be your opinion, but I don't see it causing any slowdown to our capital plan process. When you bring in legal advice, that's what happens.

Thank you, Commissioner, for your questions. We'll move on to the last speakers. Commissioner Jensen, for one more question, and we'll move to a vote, please.

Yes. The capital planning that the park board does, can you speak to those that are involved with this and kind of elaborate that this is more than simply just the park board commissioner sitting around a table and making these numbers up?

Yeah, from my understanding of the capital plan process, there are many, many staff members involved all across the park board group. So they know what is most needed in our facilities and in our parks. There's lots of staff members who have been doing this their whole lives. They know the park board system very well. and they are the ones who are providing the input into the capital plan. This isn't commissioners coming up with the stuff out of thin air. It's the staff who know the system, who look to our plans and strategies, and make smart allocations across the city that will provide equity to all Vancouverites.

And does this also include the elected commissioners, though, as well as the staff of the park board, the city as well?

Yes, so the park board staff do work in conjunction with city staff, city finance group, to come towards this capital plan. So they will be working together, and then it does come to the board for approval at the end of this, as well as city council after us.

So every single commissioner that is attending this meeting tonight has the opportunity to share their concerns, to raise their voices during our capital planning process. Is that correct?

Yep, yep, there are briefings that we've had about the capital plan where commissioners have had the opportunities to ask questions and talk to staff about capital planning processes.

And do you think that is where the $400 million directed towards community centres came from based upon the last capital planning process that we were involved with, which actually coincided with the mayor's announcement where... commissioners were attending an announcement and not being present at the workshop.

I don't quite follow your question, but I think whatever you're alluding to, I would invite you to make clear during the comment section.

Yeah, so the question is, is that at the last orientation? Is that when recreational or community centers was?

Yes, yes, we did have a briefing specifically on facility planning, and that would have been a great place for commissioners to raise any questions or concerns or ideas they had about the capital plan with regards to community centers.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Jensen. Commissioner Howard, do you have a question? Or is that, did you withdraw your question?

No, I'm good.

Withdrawn. Okay. Commissioners, thank you very much for your very good questions to a challenging motion. And we will now move to comments on the motion before we move to a vote. So I would be happy to take commissioners online virtually to speak in order. Commissioner Howard, would Commissioner Howard like to speak to this?

Sorry, your name is still on the voting queue.

So comments, as we move to a vote, comments from the speakers?

From the commissioners. Commissioner Verdi, please go ahead.

$1.48 billion is a nice number. I'd love to have that much money. I'd love to have $10 billion. But reality is, where is that money going to come from? We can't raise property taxes to a point where it's unsustainable. $400 million was a great plan. And it's funny, when we talk about the $400 million, we talk about, oh, there's going to be borrowing involved. But when we were talking about the $1.48 billion plan, no one mentioned anything about borrowing or where that money is going to come from. So I think the $400 million is a great plan. And I think this dialogue here highlights... the problem within the system. When you have two boards, ultimately no one is responsible.

Excuse me, a point of order has been raised. Yes, your point of order.

We are discussing the issue at hand, and that does not resonate with the recommendation that we are commenting on.

Okay, I'll ask the Commissioner to keep focused on the motion, and please continue. Commissioner Verdi?

Okay. But my point is, Council's not just a bank, and we're treating them as a bank right now. They also have, say, that's where the money is coming from Council, right? It's in order. I think the commissioner is referring to the capital plan part of the motion yeah okay and it's coming from council so my point is council's not just a bank they know what the city needs as well and REFM is ultimately at the city and they know what community centers need renewal so I'm sure with that motion REFM had a role to play to telling us which community centers come first And REFM, in my view, is probably the most expert in the condition of which community centers require money and renewal. My problem here is we're getting a ton of money, which we could do a lot of good work with, and we can fix a lot of community centers. But my problem is that politics is going to play a role in this, and we might not lose that money just the way the structure is set up. And I'm afraid South Van might lose a pool that everyone was excited about, which they didn't have for so long, and they lost two pools recently. And so... You know, these back and forths might cost us a lot. And I think everyone needs to keep the politics out of this and really think about what's at stake here. And that's $400 million for our community centers, for our children, for everybody that uses those community centers. And it's not about election promises or anything. It's about the money and putting it to good use. So I wouldn't like to jeopardize that. So I will not be voting in favor of this motion.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Jensen for comments.

Well, if we're going to talk about the capital budget, first of all, I'm going to thank the Mayor for following my direction of $400 million that I made the week before when I raised the amendment to the $400 million amount. So, you know, I cannot complain about $400 million to community centres because that is the Mayor following direction from the Park Board. I will tip my hat to him and say thank you very much for listening. I will say that our last capital plan was $550 million. So $400 million, if this is what the mayor's promise is, is $150 million cut to capital spending in the next capital plan. the capital plan that was passed by this board was much more inclusive. And so I would direct individuals to look at that, to listen to the robust discussion that happened that night. And again, that was just a stepping stone to allow this board to hear from the public so that we can actually move forward with our capital planning in a non-political environment that looks at all of the needs across the city, prioritizes those needs, and then looks at one number that can be presented to Council on June 2nd for their consideration. This is historically how things have gone in the past. Sadly, I feel that political promises are getting confused and clouded with capital planning. And so when I look at the capital plans, those are not my promises to the community. That's the promises of this board towards this community. And it is driven by strategy. considered by staff and by years and years of expertise. And I think that that's the best way to go to consider the historic way that things have gone in the past. So I will support this and hope that that continues.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Basu-Vansky.

Thank you, Chair. So I'm supportive of this. The park board is created as a check and balance. Its role is to include equity as part of its decision-making framework. It looks at following systems and strategies with community input. What Council moved does not do that. In fact, the Chair received a report this week from the Mayor's Chief of Staff, and that report is evidence of how deeply flawed the Council motion was. That report was incorrectly referenced. That list was not provided by staff. The data in that report is was explicitly for preliminary analysis not to determine citywide priorities So this report that we've got from the mayor's office It the usage data shows current activity, but not unmet needs. There's no or future demand It's not aligned with any growth areas follows no strategy And there's even a gap between where the report comes from and how the decision made it into policy There's a big vacancy. There's no transparency of how that was happened. Even the report says that the process should be collaborative and that step was skipped. This council report, it replaces a multi-criteria community informed strategy with a narrow technical filter and a list in areas that aren't aligned with growth or equity. The condition data even tells the stuff that we might need, that might, something needs work, but it doesn't tell you what level of investment the community needs. It makes no difference between renewal or renovation because that is a policy decision. And equity in that report shows up as a footnote. not as a decision driver. And that's why the board is here. The park board listens to the community. It aligned all the strategies. The recommendations are driven by input from the community. And moving away from that means that the mayor and council are at risk of not having their budget asked on the ballot. voted on by the public because if it's too partisan if you're allocating money into neighborhoods that Are not aligned with growth or any other strategy, and they're just some random I mean the CCAs the community center associations that were on the list they were not consulted Nobody was this list was made in the shadows And so I applaud. And you know what? I'm glad that we still have some money left over because the independence of the park board protects the entire city. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner, for your comments. Commissioner Hare, you're next on the list.

Thank you, Chair. I cannot support a motion that directs staff to move forward without regard to council and commits public funds towards potential legal conflict. Residents expect us to deliver parks and amenities, not engage in institutional disputes. This approach risks slowing down capital projects, creates unnecessary division, and takes resources away from where they're needed most. We can uphold the park board's role while still working collaboratively to get the results for Vancouver. And for these reasons, I will not be supporting this motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Hare.

Does Commissioner Howard have any comments at this point?

No? Would you like to go first ahead of me? Commissioner Christensen, please go ahead.

Thank you, Commissioner Vasilevsky. Really great comments there. I did want to just make the point that if you know me and you know my political aspirations, you'll know that this is a very apolitical motion. It doesn't have to do with politics for me. I'm not a political person. and I don't have political aspirations. This to me is really about following the process that is going to give the best outcome for Vancouver. This is about following our plans and strategies. that are grounded in equity and fairness that the city deserves. And I said this earlier, but the reason that we have inequity in our city is because we get elected officials who pick and choose where to put projects, community centers or pools based on their view of the city. And that's why we have inequity because that's happened over generations. Our strategies and plans have aimed to correct that inequity And all we need to do is just act on those plans and strategies, and we will solve the problems in this city. So this motion is asking us to do that. You know, we can talk about the park board or not the park board. I hope that council and us can work together. You know, council provides the funding. We say we know best where it goes, and I think that's how it's worked over the last 130-plus years. Let's just keep doing that. I'm optimistic that Council can work with us on this and we can come to a list of projects that meets our plans and strategies. And I hope that we don't have to make this into a fight. It shouldn't have to be. We've talked to city councillors, Commissioner Digby and I, and they are listening and willing to talk. So we'll continue those discussions, and I think that we can continue with this capital planning process in a way that respects the park board's jurisdiction over parks and recreation spaces.

Thank you, Commissioner. I'll finish up the comments by... noticing a couple of points that have not been noted already. Commissioners need to know that for the capital plan vote to succeed, it must have absolute public confidence. And public confidence comes from knowing that we are maximizing the public benefit for these public dollars that are being invested in our community facilities, in our parks and open spaces across the city. And contrary to some of the other commissioners, it's not the amount of money that's the question here. The question is, does the public have confidence in voting for it because they know that a fair and equitable process has been followed? And I can tell you, I know some of the board members of some of these community centers who are deeply embarrassed that they have been put ahead of the front of the line, ahead of community centers with known, known equity needs that are serving hundreds of children meals a day and after school care and preschool care and daycare. And these are underfunded community centers and these other community centers somehow plucked for some reason are, elevated and they are frankly embarrassed to have to look at their colleagues and say yes we are first. So you know and I do acknowledge that several commissioners at this table made every effort to attend and participate in the capital planning meetings that staff hosted. There are several commissioners at this table that did not attend at all. and are here denouncing what we are doing here. It is the public, maximizing the public benefit is our job here, commissioners, and I want to point that this is the at-large system we vote in in Vancouver. This is one of the real benefits of an at-large system, is that you can look across the whole city, and if you're from a different neighbourhood that's not getting in or out of the game, but you're on the sidelines watching, you want to make sure that everything is fair in the city because you want to know that when your turn comes 10 years from now, 20 years from now, that you will be treated as fairly as people are being treated today. So commissioners, I will be voting in favor of the motion and I will call for a vote by a show of hands. All those in favour of the motion as written, please raise your hand. I see Commissioner Christensen, Commissioner Jensen, Commissioner Basti-Avansky, Commissioner Digby. All those opposed, please raise your hand. I see Commissioner Howard, Commissioner Hare and Commissioner Verity. The motion passes and we will move on. Thank you for your attention, Commissioners.

Next motion is order of business inquiries. Does anyone have inquiries for the staff? Seeing none, then we'll move to adjournment and an inquiry from Commissioner Verity.