Contract Award Vancouver Aquatic Centre Demolition

Statement Watch

Yeah, thank you. So yeah, I think we all understand that the number one requirement from the plebiscite was a 50-meter pool. And yeah, so what we found is that management buried their own engineering report that clearly stated that a refurbish is possible and practical. This would get rid of all this problem here about demolition. My main concern is the Thurber report, which pointed to potential serious contaminations underneath the site that once the wrecking ball comes in, releases those chemicals into the beach, the adjacent beach. And I would hate to see the beaches have to be closed for a substantial period of time because of released petrochemicals. The Thurber report clearly stated that a full environmental review should be completed before this project moves forward into demolition. That has not been completed. And in fact, the city's reports say that there is only a danger of asbestos and doesn't mention anything from the Thurber report. That's a serious concern. Multiple trees are to be removed. I think it's between 60 and 70. We're trying to increase our tree canopy in this city. We don't want any more heat islands. The current plan would see the pool closed for at least four years and a huge construction zone in the west end. That seems pretty unacceptable when a refurbish is possible. There is, as Councillor Orr stated, a legal case pending. I think the next couple of speakers will speak more fulsomely to this, but there are serious concerns about staff coordinating with the architects what they called a pathway to yes with the architects and pushing the safety narrative. Your own reports say that there's no safety problem with the Vancouver Aquatic Center. Your own engineering report says there's no safety concerns, there's no structural concerns, and there's netting in there. There haven't been any more tiny flakes of concrete falling. And as we've seen, it's been open for children swimming in there very recently at a private event. We have only recently found some of these documents. We are reviewing them. They've been in a massive freedom of information dump. We are reviewing them. But my sense is that these backroom dealings may even rise to the level of criminality. and potentially even perjury in court. So my recommendation is that we just hit the pause button on this demolition, because once you start demolishing something, those chemicals are released. There's no bringing that back. And we have a look at how this misconduct will be handled. It's clear misconduct, whether it rises to the level of criminality is... yet to be decided, I guess, once we've had a chance to talk to the VPD and our lawyers. I would also remind councillors that according to the Vancouver Charter, an abstention is a yes vote. It is counted as a yes vote. That's a weird little law that you have in the Vancouver Charter. So I would encourage councillors not to abstain on this vote. This is very, very important for the safety of people in this city. I know our mayor... has promised that children can have swimming lessons. My children took swimming lessons at the Vancouver Aquatic Centre. If you go there during lesson time, it is full of multiple, multiple kids getting swimming lessons. That is not possible in a 25-metre pool. That is not possible in a lazy river. And, yeah, I just I encourage you to give this to the kids. You know, these kids, we want we want our kids to be able to train in a facility where they could potentially go to the Olympics, where they could potentially, you know, reach their dreams. And they're not going to do that in a lazy river. They really aren't. I understand this isn't necessarily about the lazy river. This is about the safety of the public. And this is about doing the right thing and maybe avoiding.

Statement Watch

Just before I begin, I want to make sure that you all have the document I sent in to the clerk yesterday night. I sent it at 4.40 p.m. ahead of the deadline, and I never received an email reply. So my time is running. I don't want my time to start because I'm discussing a matter here. Well, okay, I'll pause yours. Yeah, thanks. So can you confirm if you have the slide I sent the document? Clerk, can you confirm we received the presentation?

It's a transcript, yeah. There we go. Okay, I'll restart your clock. Thank you. Please go ahead.

Okay, good morning. My name is John Gerard. I'm Managing Director of Protecting Our Vancouver Aquatic Center Society. I'm currently suing the City of Vancouver and the Park Board, as you probably know. That decision is under judicial review and the decision is reserved. I'm here to ask you a simple question and to put your answer on the public record. Why is this contract in front of you today, regardless of if they're going in there tomorrow to demolish or not, the fact that a contract to approve the procurement while the matter is still before the Supreme Court of British Columbia? That is the question. The lawfulness of this project is under judicial review right now. Justice Christopher Jayashi has heard the case and reserved his decision and under reserve for over a month now. The very validity of the project under the borrowing authority on whether it will proceed at all, that question is not settled. It is live. and it's in his hands as we speak. Yet today, we're here because the contract to demolish this facility is up for approval. The optics of that decision are going to have repercussions, especially with upcoming elections, as I'm sure you're aware. No reputable city approves a contract to demolish the very thing a court is still ruling on. It's that simple. No reputable city approves a contract while that decision is under judicial review. Demolition is not a delay you can reverse. It's not a decision you can revisit if the judgment goes against you. Once the building's down, that's it. The renovation is off the table. And as we know from city staff emails that we've made public, renovation was, in fact, a tangible option. It was removed by way of improper channels. If you approve this contract today, you're not left waiting for the rule of law. You're racing to outrun it. The transcript in front of you is shocking. We've uncovered that from our discovery documents. I'd like you all to look through it, but the architects in that transcript use words like the 50-meter pool looks so reasonable. They discuss how to make it look less reasonable for the park board commissioners who then based their decisions off of that.

Statement Watch

Three minutes. Three minutes. Yeah.

I'd like to start by asking who you are second here on the bench that's scoffing and laughing while people are presenting. No, you have no name? Just...

No, you can't do stuff like that. Sorry about that. Please go ahead with your speech.

My name is Mayali Alvarez. I'm here representing the Protecting Our Vancouver Aquatic Center Society. I've been a Vancouver resident for over 20 years. I've used the Vancouver Aquatic Center in various capacities over the decades, and I competed there. I have not trained at that facility for over a decade, but I'm still standing here defending it because I believe this city deserves this pool. And it's outrageous that in the year 2026, the city of Vancouver is still pretending that buildings are not rehabilitable. Like, I don't know what you're sitting over here, what your positions are, but you're scoffing at things that you think we don't know about. We have the documentation. We have the colluding script, the transcript that you just had up. If you all bothered to read through it... John's been so kind to even highlight some points. It is clearly, excuse me, I'm not talking until Ken Sim comes back in here. You can stop my time.

Statement Watch

Hello. My name is Greg Gale, and I live in the West End here in Vancouver. I am here today to voice my opposition to the proposed demolition of the Vancouver Aquatic Center at this time, while the BC Supreme Court's decision is still reserved. As a member of the English Bay Masters Swim Club, I feel not enough has been presented to me to prove that the present facility is not able to be renovated and modernized. The layout of the aquatic center at present is ideal for the many clubs and the general public to use at the same time. During our practices, other club members and the public taking swimming lessons are all using the pool. This is due to it being an adaptable 50-meter pool. The proposed 25-meter layout is not appropriate to accommodate all users. Thank you for your time.

Statement Watch

Okay. My name is Laura Lamb. I'm a resident of Vancouver. I oppose the recommendations. I'm mystified by this plan to tear down the aquatic center. It doesn't stand up to common sense. I can't understand why this plan is ignoring the wishes of the citizens who stated clearly in the consultation that they want a 50-meter pool. Your councillors are here to... represent those people and should do the right thing by stepping away from this ill-conceived plan. I can't understand why the planners are ignoring how much easier and more sensible it is to preserve and protect the asset we already have by simply making repairs. I can't understand why they are advocating to destroy a valuable community asset that is already in place. On top of the cost of constructing this needless project, tearing down the present building would waste multi-thousands of gigabytes of embodied energy. Embodied energy, as I'm sure councillors are aware, is the sum of all the energy required to produce a good, in this case the aquatic center as it exists. At a time when we are facing climate catastrophe, we need to be prudent and make sensible decisions and not participate in mindless consumerism on a multimillion-dollar level. Why would we want to waste millions of dollars and harm the environment for a fancy bobble the community doesn't want or need? It is especially obnoxious when, at the same time, the city is clawing back community services in other areas, claiming that we can't afford them. Finally, I can't understand how planners could completely ignore the added risk to the public of various contaminants that may be present in the ground underneath the building. I urge the council to step back and order appropriate assessments, including an embodied energy assessment, before taking any further action towards this wasteful and ill-conceived destruction of a community asset. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Good morning. My name is Maria Luisa Alvarez. I'm a longtime resident of Vancouver, and I'm here to speak in opposition of the demolition contract you are planning to award today to erase the Vancouver Aquatic Center. Unlike any of you here today, I was at the VAC's closing day. Let me rephrase that. I was there on the last day the VAC was open to the public. We now know, of course, that the pool was rented out not only once, but twice to private groups. So I guess safety is not actually an issue here. On the last day that the VAC was open to the public, I spoke with many of your heartbroken, tax-paying voters. One gentleman has really stuck with me. He shared lovely stories of his time at VAC, he was a part of a Big Brothers program, and he first went to VAC as a nine-year-old boy. What stuck with me most about our conversation was a quote he shared with me from a plaque that he loves in New York City. Unlike Vancouver, New York City is, of course, a place that cherishes its history. The quote is, Is it not cruel to let our city die by degrees, stripped of all her proud monuments, until there will be nothing left of all her history and beauty to inspire our children? If they are not inspired by the past of our city, where will they find the strength to fight for her future? Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis I ask you all to contemplate this quote as you prepare to demolish yet another of the city's historic landmarks. The engineering reports commissioned by the city itself called remediation, and I quote, feasible and practical. Throughout this undemocratic process, I continuously keep hearing that the VAC has reached the end of its life cycle. Oh, how I wish that this undemocratic process could come up with less mediocre excuses. There are many pools around the world that are much older than the VAC, many still standing strong in cities that have survived major and catastrophic earthquakes. and yet these cities recognize the value and cultural significance of these pools. Unlike any of you, I was also at the Supreme Court hearing, a hearing funded by taxpayers and the incredible and relentless work of the Protecting Our Vancouver Aquatic Center Society. I was witness to the judge asking the city's lawyer to provide evidence of the city's safety issue argument. Sure enough, your lawyer never provided actual evidence, only opinions given by people who are not experts in this matter, nor are they qualified engineers. What is public record is that the city's own commission engineering reports state that there is no structural issue with the VAC. Therefore, if this is untrue, would it not be absolutely cynical to allow the public to continue using the facility? as long as it did since those reports. I guess it only became unsafe on June 28th. Oh, let me rephrase that. It became unsafe after the two private rentals. I ask that you defer this decision today until the court has ruled their verdict, until procurement questions are answered for the public, until voters have had their say in October. And after that damning bombshell that landed in your inboxes yesterday, I would hate to be on the wrong side of this. You carry the weight of this decision the rest of your lives. Please, make the right choice. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Hi, my name is Ian Shortinghouse.

I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I oppose the recommendations. When I was growing up here in Vancouver, I learned to swim at swimming lessons at a local pool that was only a few blocks away. I find it appalling that chicanerous actions have been taken to demolish this historic, structurally sound indoor pool and build a new one. Going through with demolishing this pool would be a misdeed committed against residents of our city, due to them not having a pool near their homes while they await construction of a new one, which will take longer than renovation. It would be a misdeed against democracy because those who participated in the process had faith that their voices would be listened to and that taking part in it was meaningful. Lastly, it would be a misdeed against our city's reputation for striving to be the greenest city, which was earned through a decade-long city-run initiative. When our stadium, BC Place, was in need of repairs, we didn't knock it down and build a new one. We did the logical thing by renovating and upgrading it. I suppose at that time, our politicians weren't lacking in common sense.

I implore you with...

I sincerely implore you to save our VAC pool by awarding a contract to renovate this facility.

Statement Watch

Okay, first of all, we are on a very important subject. And I just noticed that a lot of council members stepped out. But anyway, I don't feel like speaking in front of the public, but I must have my voice heard because we are dealing with something very important to the benefit of people living in downtown Vancouver. We are trying to preserve the one and only legacy 50-meter indoor swimming pool in the downtown core. Multiple generations of Vancouver residents have benefited from this pool for the past 52 years. We are not against the demolishing of the aging pool, but just that there are too many ambiguities and unanswered questions in the process. The 15-meter pool is already there. Why reduce it? With lack of clarity, I'm asking the City Council. to defer your decision in demolishing the pool until the outcome of the Supreme Court. Once it's demolished, there's no turning back, as we know that. Last but not the least, we hope in one way or the other, we can keep the 50-meter pool. This is the only 50-meter public pool in the core of downtown Vancouver.

Statement Watch

I'm Matthew Ho. I'm a water polo player with three clubs based out of Vancouver and UBC. I'm also the grants coordinator for the Whiskey Jacks Water Polo Club, which is the LGBT water polo club here in Vancouver. Most of our team has just competed internationally at the Gay Games in Valencia in Spain. And last month, we hosted our inaugural tournament. featuring over 200 athletes across North America, which unfortunately had to take place at the UBC Aquatic Center because the city of Vancouver simply has no facilities that could host an event such as that. I used to live in Vancouver, but currently have been priced out and reside in Richmond. But I play water polo in Vancouver because that sport is not available down in Richmond. I oppose the demolition of the VAC, not because I don't think the VAC shouldn't be renewed. At the core of the plebiscite issue, I don't think a lot of people necessarily want the VAC to be just running as it is for the next decade or so, and probably would agree with me. I oppose the demolition of the VAC because of the irreparable harm that both the demolition and the current renewal plans of the facility does to water polo in Vancouver, and by extension, the aquatics community. Without the VAC, the community has gone from additionally renting out the dive tank to accommodate new intakes to clubs fighting just to survive because the VAC is closed and carousels not open and families are pulling out from clubs. In tearing apart these communities, there's just no going back and this is not the Vancouver I hope to see. If the city of Vancouver wants to continue hosting aquatics or lessons or world sporting events, removing the VAC and promoting Hillcrest as the way forward, a 50-meter pool that doesn't even allow for competitive swimming, let alone water polo, is not the way forward. If pushing the city to be a more affordable city, forcing clubs to go outside to pay out of municipality premiums, if those municipalities allow it, when players' insurances have been going up, or going to pools at UBC where lifeguards are paid half of what City of Vancouver lifeguards receive, that's not the way I think should be going forward. and if it's pushing itself to be a more accessible and green city, I don't think forcing kids here in Vancouver to be driven an hour out to UBC, Surrey, or Coquitlam is the right direction we should be going either. I've seen firsthand how trust in municipal institutions is eroding, including at Parks Board and here at Council, and ignoring the plebiscite is an example as to why this is happening. And at the end of the day, I believe delaying the demolition in the interior in order to preserve the aquatics communities and bringing back transparency and accountability in building a 50-meter pool earlier than what's being currently planned and proposed in the 2030s as per the draft capital plan would, I believe, would be the first step in doing so. That's all.

Statement Watch

Hello, my name is Dante Prince, and I'm here to implore the committee members to oppose the demolition of Vancouver Aquatic Center. I play for two local Vancouver water polo clubs, the Whiskey Jacks and the Vancouver Seniors, and I also sit on the Provincial Water Polo Board of Directors, where my goal is to advocate for the younger generations, which is also what I'll do here today. I'm a proud Vancouverite. This is a world-class city. We hosted Olympics and just recently we hosted the World Cup. Despite that, as of two weeks ago, we can't host a single game of water polo. For our facilities, we had the Vancouver Aquatic Center, which was a world-class facility capable of hosting water polo competition along with a ton of other sports that we've heard about today. And then for our children, they were trained in Karisdale, which is also currently closed. I understand there may be safety concerns with the Vancouver Aquatic Center, but what I have not been convinced of is that demolition is the only way forward, and there is not a solution for a refurbishment. I've looked for these documents. I haven't found them. I've heard from other speakers today that maybe there's a more insidious situation going on there, but I have not been convinced that this needs to be taken away from our community. In addition, the replacement pool that will be proposed, or has been proposed, that is not even here yet, will not support water polo. So even if that is somehow, we've convinced you that our needs matter in the future, we will still be without facilities for years. For our clubs in the city, this means two things. Either death, or they become Vancouver clubs in name only. I know teams who are practicing at UBC, Surrey, Burnaby, and this has a number of impacts on the teams. First of all, the travel times, the costs go up. There's out-of-city penalty or premiums because they're not Burnaby residents. And there's also overcrowding because these cities also have residents that they built these facilities for not to take care of Vancouver's residents because we don't have our own facilities. As I mentioned previously, I'm here to advocate for young people, so I want to give a few examples of what impact this will have. For our elementary school age kids, this means not having the opportunity to learn a team sport, which is all about teamwork, friendship, building confidence, and having a place to belong. For our teenagers who have aspirations of representing Canada in the Olympics or internationally, or getting scholarships for their universities or colleges, They are not able to reach the potential they could if they had the facility and the ability to train in their home city. They have to go far. They have to pay more. It becomes a burden on their family and on their skill, and they will not reach the heights they could. And for myself, for the young adults, Most of us, we found a sport for life. This is something I hope to play for the next 40 years. We're being signaled by the city that this is not possible, and we need to move on and find something else. We're losing these connections. We're losing these decades of health, wellness, fitness, community. This is being taken away from my generation. So I urge the council to delay this demolition until we are able to explore whether the VAC is able to be refurbished so that our generation can have this. And furthermore, to oppose the 25-meter plan. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Hi, I'm Kathy Wolverton. I'm a Vancouver resident and voter. My perspective is as a former lifeguard, competitive swim coach, synchronized artistic swimmer, water polo player, and former president of the Vancouver Kids Water Polo Club. 20 years since the build on Hillcrest, and over 50 years ago when BAC was built. Those are the only 50-meter pools. The new proposed pool and Hillcrest do not meet the needs of competitive swimming, artistic swimming, and water polo, the competitive athletic sports. I also have extensive experience in procurement and on boards. I'm one of the many that's demanding that you halt the demolition of Vancouver Product Center and defer any irrevocable action until this serious unresolved questions about how this decision was made has been investigated independently. Demolition and issuing a demolition contract is foolish at this point in time. It's one that cannot be Demolition cannot be undone. Wrong for three reasons. The Supreme Court of D.C. has not ruled yet. The safety claim is based on unqualified evidence and conflicts with the city's commissioned engineering report, as well as serious misconduct on how this process has happened. Therefore, I call on you to immediately pause the approval of any demolition and halt that until... That must not proceed while the courts and the public still have unanswered questions. Defer it until the process has been investigated independently through the Office of Auditor General and the pending outcome of the litigation of the Supreme Court. And demand full transparency from your own administration and city staff who are providing misleading information to the Parks Board and the City Council. No reasonable city approves a contract and destroys an asset while under Supreme Court review. A vote for pause is a vote for democratic accountability, evidence-based decision-making, and integrity.

Statement Watch

Yes, my name's Bruce Gibson. I'm a city of Vancouver resident and long-time user of VAC. I'm here to say pause this demolition until the Supreme Court rules on this issue. This is nonsense. This should not be happening. This has to be stopped. There's serious concerns... of the process that's been reached and communicated to the citizens of Vancouver. so far uh for pool renewal renewal uh there's serious concerns about corruption of process from management down to senior city uh city of vancouver staff uh things uh senior city staff have breached their duty of full transparency transparency to the public this demolition has to be stopped i strongly oppose we have to wait for the Supreme Court decision. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Around the room here, I think we're all on the same team. I think we all want what's best for Vancouverites. As you know, for over 50 years, the VAC has served as a training ground for athletes, Olympians, and competitive teams. It has also been my training facility for the past 15 years. And as a fin swimmer, access to a 50-meter pool for both training and competition in my unique discipline is not a luxury, but a fundamental requirement in my sport. I live directly across this street from the Vancouver Aquatic Center, and it has truly been my second home all these years. I honestly don't know where I will be able to continue my training, and I have no idea where West End residents can swim, exercise locally, where it won't be overcrowded for the next, realistically, five to seven years. While we wait for this massive project to be completed with its new features, I might add, such as a 25-meter swimming lane and lazy river, which frankly, nobody wants. If an independent poll were to be conducted today, it would show undoubtedly overwhelming support for preserving the existing facility while undertaking the upgrades necessary to ensure its safety, accessibility, and long-term viability. The community is asking for a modernized version of the facility it already values, not a fundamentally different recreation center. As you know, when public funding was approved to address the aging vac, the understanding was that the facility would be renewed while preserving its defining feature, the 50-meter swimming lanes. The commitment has been abandoned for reasons that many of us are deeply concerned about. I feel it's also worth mentioning that adding to these concerns, the proposal to demolish the Cherished Community Garden beneath the Burrard Bridge is going to go ahead. And for more than 20 years, dedicated volunteers have curated and cultivated the space, making it an important part of our neighborhood. The growing number of signatures to protest the garden reflects how deeply the community values this amenity as well. As part of my advocacy, I've spoken to various contractors and engineers who have insisted that the existing vac can be rehabilitated, structurally upgraded, and at a significantly lower cost and lower time than the new proposal. While I recognize that there are different opinions, I believe these alternative perspectives deserve meaningful consideration. Many residents have also expressed concerns about the transparency of planning, procurement, and decision-making process surrounding both the demolition and development proposals. I respectfully ask that you pause any further movement on this demolition until all available evidence and alternatives have been seen. And I encourage you to reconsider the current course of action. If a small group of concerned citizens can raise nearly $100,000 in donations to its defense, I say it's most well certainly worth a reevaluation.

Statement Watch

Hi, I am Terry Meyer, Vancouver resident. I have lived on Beach Avenue for the past 14 and a half years. I strongly oppose the redevelopment of the pool to a smaller size and oppose the demolition of the building. The property needs to remain as a 50-meter pool for the people of Vancouver. I have a certificate in architectural technologies and building development. I have spent the last 45 plus years in design and project management. For example, here's a plot of dirt, build a grocery store, bank, quick service restaurant, commercial space, and hand it over to the owner. That's what my experience has been. In my opinion, the building has had very poor record in regards to maintenance. Simple paint peeling off of walls. is the easiest to maintain however apparent in many locations over the last decade was a structural assessment completed on any any sort of annual basis the building is made of concrete and should have a substantial lifespan providing provided the city completes regular maintenance and upkeep regarding the entrance overhang that fell a short while ago was there any regular structural inspections done prior to the fall again city's responsibility to maintain the building this should have been listed on the regular building maintenance schedule why has the building why has the building exterior not been maintained covered in moss should have been looked after with regular scheduled maintenance against city's responsibility to maintain our building in my opinion the building belongs to the people who are city to maintain our building cost to rebuild replace and the building is excessive given the lifespan of a concrete building is substantial and can stay in place with simple cost-effective upgrades refurbished do not demolish i believe the city is doing something very underhanded and illegal and this is such and this is still in the courts waiting for review to be completed this does not speak well for the city and how they are treating the process Why would you even consider issuing a demolition contract at this stage? Makes no sense. Stop lying or fabricating untruths to the people you work for. Very disrespectful and unprofessional. Perhaps you should do the right thing and step down. Lastly, stop wasting our tax dollars and do what you know is right. Shame on all of you. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Hello, good morning. I am Charlene Robson.

Sorry.

My moon is in Cancer, so emotions are often right there.

So I probably will cry. Yes, I am in opposition of the immediate, at least, demolition of the center. I am going on the possibility that it doesn't need to be replaced. And, of course, there's been much said about that. But I'm simply highlighting the possible long-term absence of any center there that has been supportive to a lot of people like myself. I haven't had a family like that in a very, very long time.

And so in lieu of that, familiar places and faces provide a sense of security.

For me, and I think there's quite a few people like myself walking around, at least in Kitsilano, where I live, lots of loners. And I'm actually just over the bridge, so it is my nearest venture through most of the season. And so, you know, I was saying that there's a number of us who have a certain vulnerability. or various vulnerabilities that attend the center. And one of them, they include lack of family support, vulnerability to addiction, and mental health concerns. And so I am just very sincerely concerned about a long-term absence of a place where healthy habits can be developed sort of as a transmutation of the addiction energy. and racializing can occur. So I'm concerned about the sociological consequences. So, I mean, I've worked hard at developing a discipline to, you know, attend a yoga studio and community centers such as the VAC, church, et cetera. I navigate through awkwardness and social anxiety and boredom at times in conversation. This only goes so far. We only connect so deeply, mostly, but it is considered by health scientists to be co-regulation. and vital for neurological health to be out and about interacting with people in the community. I do know people personally like myself and people who are even more invested, and a lot of the speakers today clearly are, in the community life that BIC provides or any center that has been there sort of thing. I'm speaking from that point of view that with all that it provides, the gym fitness, the sauna, and I have also developed a sauna practice and swimming and all of the health benefits, just what's going to be happening while it's gone. I am so sincerely quite concerned about... about a lot of individuals and what the consequences may be for them. So it's just too long a wait, really. And I really wanted to highlight that. Thank you, Charlene.

Statement Watch

Okay, thank you very much for taking my call. Yeah, my name's Roseanne Wozni. I've been swimming at the pool most of the time since the 1970s when it was built and having a great time doing my laps, even though I'm now in my 70s. I'm just speaking today to say that... I'm against deciding today about awarding the contract to demolish the Vancouver Aquatic Centre. The reason is, as John Girard and others are leading this fight to save our pool, it's still within the hands of the Supreme Court. The decision is pending. you know, it might be disrespectful to demolish the pool at this point when the judge hasn't made his decision yet. Also, I'm worried about the fact that the true information hasn't really been given to the public because the lawyer at the court hearing did not give any actual professional... information that the pool apparently is totally safe. There was a survey and the pool is safe, but they used that argument. Unfortunately, the judge decided to close the pool anyway. But the thing is, then the very next day after the pool closed, apparently there was the swim club in there with kids. I don't know how old they were swimming. So the pool actually must be safe. Anyway, I'm urging you, because there seems to be some kind of big problem, very big problem with what's going on, lack of... lack of information to the public, because this is a democratic city, and I would like you to hold off on making the decision about giving the contract to demolish the pool until the judge has made his decision, and also, I guess, also until the elections, actually, would be great. Thank you for listening to me.

Statement Watch

Ah, there we go. Yep. Good afternoon. My name is Colleen Hardwick. I'm a lifelong Vancouverite and lifelong swimmer in the Vancouver pool system. When I was a little kid, we all went through Red Cross swimming and had our lessons and earned our badges. When we got a little bit older, we started to swim competitively, first at Percy Norman Pool. From roughly 10 to 16, my siblings and I swam twice a day, before and after school, on weekdays and meets on weekends. Our lives revolved around the pool, originally with the Percy Norman Swim Club, then the Vancouver Amateur Swim Club. And when I was a teenager, the new pool was built, the Vancouver Aquatic Center in the West End. We then advanced to the Dolphin Swim Club, and several of our members became Olympic swimmers. 50 years later, the VAC is slated for demolition. And it's hard to believe that this was the new pool when I was a teenager. Clearly, maintenance has not kept up since the pool has been in such drastic disrepair. But be that as it may, the pool is up for replacement. And despite the original promise of replacing the 50-meter pool, suitable for training at the Olympic level, the current regime is cutting it back to a 25-meter pool. I suggest this is unacceptable. It is a betrayal of the public trust since the public voted in the plebiscite on the ballot for a 50-meter pool. And it is also, when you analyze it, ultimately it boils down to a business deal that ultimately trumps the public good. So I oppose making this contract for demolition and suggest if we need any confirmation that the public is behind a 50-meter pool, put it on the ballot for October 17 with the rest of the capital budget items for plebiscite. Thank you.