Contract Award Furniture Fixtures Equipment
Motion 8 · Standing Committee of Council on City Finance and Services, July 15, 2026
Summary
- Approved on consent. Contract for pre-qualification of suppliers for furniture, fixtures, and equipment.
Public comments
Read all 15 statements
Transcript
135 segments
Yeah, obviously this is an interesting one. We've received a ton of correspondence, not particularly to this item, but just around the issue. And I don't want to relitigate the issue, but I do think there's some prudent questions to ask in terms of some of the questions that were raised around specifically the judicial review. and the pending decision around that. And I just want some clarity around the process around what happens around this contract. If we don't approve this contract, what happens? If we do approve it, what happens then if the judicial review rules, you know, in a certain way, and now... you know, the building is demolished and we've gone too far kind of thing. I think that's the concern.
So, yeah, I definitely think it would be prudent to ask some of those questions and get some clarity on that process. And I don't know how much you can speak to the judicial review, you know, knowing that they've reserved the judgment, but any clarity you can give us to make the proper decision here would be great.
What staff are bringing forward today is a decision on a recommended contract or an award of a procurement. Should either council or the park board reject the recommendation, then what they're rejecting is the award of a contract.
It could. We haven't deeply contemplated that. We there's multiple things that could happen, but we also do have a building that is in very poor condition. So part of the next step of this would be the chief building officer regularly visiting the site to ensure that that building is still safe to stand. And then the decision around what happens with that facility is under the jurisdiction of the park board.
Right. Of course. Around that, like sort of the idea that this building was unsafe, the letters, you know, say that the court, the city told the court the building was to close because it was unsafe, but then within 24 hours of it closing, it was open to the public on June 28th for private groups with children in the water. Why would... Why would we have children in the water if the building is deemed unsafe?
Right. So, I mean, that specific question is outside of the scope of this report. Sure. Yeah, we're here to talk about the procurement.
Okay. I accept that for sure. So, yeah, so you hadn't contemplated what would happen if we say no to this. So it would go back to the park board to sort of, like, put that contract out again? Is that what I hear?
That's one of many potential options. Yeah. Okay.
Okay. Thanks. Okay. Thanks, Counselor. All right. Seeing no one else on the queue for questions, we will now hear from the Reddit speaker for this report. Public speakers should state whether they are in support or in opposition of the recommendations and may only speak once. I will also ask speakers if they are residents of Vancouver, if it is not noted on the speaker's list. Our first public body representative list has very strong. So our next speaker is Gillian McGrath in person.
Gillian, please go ahead.
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.
you know, a charge. Okay, thank you. Any questions?
Nope. Oh, okay. Well then, I'll see you later. Bye. Thank you.
Okay, so the next speaker is speaker number two, John Gerard.
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.
Thanks, John. That's your time. Thank you so much for speaking to the council. Okay, speaker number three is Meili Alves.
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.
Okay, thank you. The next speaker is speaker number four, Greg Gale.
I'm not canceling my opportunity to speak. You can give me my two minutes back once this paper is full again. I didn't come here to speak to, what, does this five of you? One of you doesn't even live in the city, so I'm waiting.
Which is, could you just remind all of our speakers and guests today that they shouldn't make any disparaging remarks about either staff or counselors? We are here to listen, not to hear insulted. The speakers can speak straight to the material nature of the report, please.
Okay, so let's continue with the next speaker, Greg Gale.
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.
Yes, can you hear me?
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.
Thank you. Speaker number six, Scott Browning.
In person?
Okay, so we're going to come back. Speaker number seven is Maria Luisa Alves.
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.
Thank you. Okay, speaker number eight has withdrawn. Speaker number nine is Adriana Patino. Not on the line. Not on the line. Okay, we're going to come back. Speaker number 10 is Roseanne Wozni. Not on the line. Speaker number 11 is Tori Klaas.
Speaker 11 has withdrawn.
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.
I'm not online. Speaker 14, Lab Wong. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, go ahead.
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.
Thank you very much for hearing my voice.
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.
Not in person. Not on the line. Okay.
Not on the line.
18 is not on the line. Speaker number 19 is Dante Prince. Please go ahead, Dante.
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.
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.
Thank you. Thank you.
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.
Speaker 22 is not on the line.
We have to follow the rules. Thank you. Thank you.
So we understand he is not able to speak. Thank you for letting us know. Speaker number 23 is Gustavo Andres Soto-Reed.
Speaker number 23 has withdrawn.
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.
Yes, I'm on the line.
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.
Speaker 26 is not on the line.
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.
Thank you.
Thank you so much. Thank you for speaking to the council. So this is the end of our speakers list. Now I'm going to go back to the missed speakers. Speaker number six, Scott Browning.
You have been given the chance to speak. You have been given the chance to speak.
No, we have quorum. We have quorum. We have quorum.
Well, yeah, so...
I'm sorry, so you can't direct what council's been doing. So we have six members, more than six members, so we have quorum.
Okay. Sorry, you have been given the chance to speak.
Now let's take five minutes recess. We need to figure it out.
Okay, we have quorum, so let's continue. So I'm going to go back to the speaker. Speaker number six, Scott Browning.
And confirm if Scott is online or in person.
So we have to follow the rules.
I'm sorry, so you cannot disrupt in the meeting. I'm sorry, I have to let security let you go if that's the case.
Okay, sorry, can you sit down because you already spoke.
Okay, thank you. All right, so let's continue. Speaker number six.
Okay, speaker number six, Scott Browning.
Is he online or in person?
Speaker number five is not on the line. Speaker number six is not on the line. Speaker number nine.
Not on the line. Speaker number 10.
Roseanne Walsney. Yes, it's on the line. Please go ahead, Roseanne.
She is unmuted. Oh, Roseanne, can you unmute yourself? Is speaker number 10 online? Okay, speaker number 10, I'm going to give you one more chance.
Are you on the line?
I'm trying to call in. Yeah, please go ahead, Roseanne. We can hear you.
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.
Thank you. Okay, Speaker 11 has withdrawn. Speaker number 13, David, is David on the line?
Speaker number 13 is not on the line. Speaker 16, Colleen Hardwick.
Yep, please go ahead, Colleen. Yep.
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.
Speaker number 17 is not on the line. Speaker number 18 is Brenda Suey. Brenda?
Speaker number 18 is not on the line. Speaker number 22 is Alendina.
Thank you. Speaker number 22 is not on the line. Okay, speaker 23 has very strong. Speaker 26 is Marianne Willand-Alves.
Did you see anyone in the chamber?
Speaker number 26 is not on the line.
Okay, thank you. All right, so this is the end of the speaker's list. Thank you, everyone, for speaking to the standing committee.
Would someone like to move a motion?
Moved by Councillor Dominato. We need a seconder. Seconded by Councillor Montague. Committee members, is there any discussion?
Councillor Bligh.
Yeah, thanks very much. So I appreciate the speakers coming today and their continued advocacy on this issue. It's unusual to relitigate a decision when we have a demolition contract before us. But I think this is a unique circumstance. And there has been enough or there has been plenty of debate on this going back and forward. I am interested in the transcript that's been provided and have read it thoroughly. I think with the ongoing judicial review, we should be considering the decision we're making here beyond a demolition contract to a much bigger decision. And, I mean, I have spoken in support of a 50-meter pool consistently. Last year, we talked about the capital expenditure. And my hope was that that decision would be ongoing. But clearly, that hasn't been the case. So the judicial review creates pause. The transcript, I think, does show a very biased sort of analysis towards a 25-meter pool. And what's behind that, I think, is going to take more time and analysis than I've been able to dedicate to it, which is also giving me pause. I do think that the plebiscite process is what's driving a lot of this. And I don't like the idea that bureaucracy is sort of making decisions for us outside of sort of a broader data and evidence gathering exercise. So that is part of the consideration. And look, I mean, there's a lot of personal stories here. I mean, I would not necessarily endorsing some of the tactics, but I appreciate that when groups of people feel like they don't have any power and they're incredibly passionate about an issue. Maybe not the best discourse comes out, but it still needs to be heard. As somebody who grew up swimming, too, I have a unique connection to what it means to have a 50-meter pool as opposed to a 25-meter. If you haven't had that experience, it's hard to understand what the difference would really be. And my kids, also raised in Vancouver, swam at the aquatic center. um in the not in the 50 meter lane as they were younger they learned to swim there once Percy Norman pool closed we moved there for swimming lessons um it's not just for Olympic athletes I think it's for anybody that has a goal to learn how to swim better and potentially even um do more than what you can do in our existing pool system anywhere else so it provides a unique opportunity that doesn't exist anywhere else and um
You know, and I think that at the end of the day, we can't, I appreciate people want a Hillcrest style pool in this neighborhood as sort of top of mind, the newest facility, but not all pools have to be all things to all people. I think we have to have a little bit of, we have to have some priorities around a center of excellence, which is what the Vancouver Aquatic Center is for aquatic sports, not just swimming lengths, but as we heard, other sports related to pools like Water Polo and others. And the dive pool there, I think, shows that it's a real focus on an athletic training facility, which is important for our city to have, particularly knowing that there's additional pressure in other surrounding municipalities. So I'm just not ready to give up on the 50-meter pool. And again... When I was in my early 30s, going through a lot of my life, I decided to train for a triathlon. And out of nowhere, really. And the cycling and the running and the swimming in that pool became a bit of a respite for me to be able to... during, quite frankly, a difficult time, have a real focus and feel like I had an opportunity to do something that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to do. I have since then swam in Hillcrest a lot in 25-meter pools. I did the triathlon, by the way. And it's not the same. It's just not the same. So it's the way that it pushes you to an edge, to improve, to train. And so for our young people who are growing up in our city, I think we need to send the message that This is a priority, and again, demolition contract is not necessarily the place to take a stand on this, but I just feel in my gut that it is absolutely not the right thing to go ahead with this, and I would like to see the entire process reviewed, and I don't have the confidence I need to make a decision in favor of this based on staff's recommendation regardless of that, so I won't be supporting the demolition contract, and I just really hope that we get to a solution.
Yeah, thanks. Kind of echo some of the statements there from my colleague. It's clearly a lot of anger and frustration and mistrust here. And, you know, also dealing with a number of overlapping jurisdictions, you know, REFM, Parks Board, Supreme Court, and City Council, of course. I don't think staff anticipated us to really get this whole discussion on a contract. So thanks to them for their patience. But yeah, I agree. I think there's a lot of stuff that worries me. I did read the transcripts. I just looked over briefly from what I could see of the Thurber report that actually demolishing this would... There's a number of chemicals under the ground. I mean, you know, I'm not an expert. I just don't know. Like I said, like Councillor Bligh said, we don't have the information there to make this decision, I think. But I think the main thing is the judicial review and that I do think we would be prudent to not award this contract, you know, considering that that decision has been reserved. So... Thanks to staff for bringing this forward. But, yeah, I don't think I can support either. Thanks.
Councillor Corbiel?
I'll hold for a minute. Thanks.
Councillor Maloney?
Okay. I just have a couple of brief questions. I think there's no part board staff here, so I'm going to ask the city manager through the chair as a point of information. When is the new pool likely to be delivered at this site?
My microphone is just turning on, but I'll ask our staff might have a better understanding of that.
Sorry, let me turn on your mic, please.
Yeah.
Hello, Marco Quilicari, FM City staff. The pool is likely to be delivered by the end of 2030.
2030. All right. And what's the rush here? Am I right in understanding that if the construction doesn't start by the end of this year, that we lose the capital funding that's been approved?
I can't speak to that, but I can say that we're just going by the...
Sorry, perhaps. Do we lose the capital funding if we don't start construction by the end of this year? Please. And I'm sorry I'm in a rush because I've only got five minutes.
Can you confirm? Yes.
So I call on a general manager of finance and supply chain. So there is some funding components within this that are contingent on plebiscite borrowing authority that is time constraints. However, I'd point out that primarily the urgency is around the timeliness of delivery and the costs of not proceeding in accordance with the approved capital project.
Alright, so there's no funding for a different design in the 2027-30 capital plan. I've been advised by a park board commissioner after questioning, because I'm very seriously interested and concerned about doing the right thing, especially given the level of interest there is in this, that if we don't If this doesn't go ahead, then it's likely that money for a redesign won't be available until the 2030 to 2034 capital plan. Construction won't happen until the late 2030s and at best you'll have a pull by 2040. Can anyone tell me whether that is an accurate reflection of the situation?
All right.
I'm really running out of time and I want to give some reasons for what I'm thinking about, so I think I'll just have to give up on that.
There is no... I am deeply wanting to have a 50-metre indoor competition swimming and diving facility in the city of Vancouver. I'm worried about... losing this opportunity to have a pool by 2030 in the VAC location. There's no 50-metre indoor competition pool in the 2027-30 capital plan, and that doesn't reflect the Park Board's preferred capital plan funding, which has two options for an indoor competition pool. Now, I voted in favour of funding the VAC renewal like my colleagues, with the exception of one that wasn't there, in no small part due to advice from staff that this building is extremely seismically unsafe, right? And I know it seems like a renewal is possible and cost effective, but a renewal that makes one of the most seismically unsafe public buildings in our city seismically safe is a different level of expenditure. I'm seeing nods here. So I really want a 50 metre indoor pool. I understand that in my last 30 seconds, that this process has become the focus of legitimate concerns. However, we often talk about respecting the jurisdiction of the Park Board and it's our role to approve or not approve a procurement contract. So I will be voting in favour. I'm very regretful that my council colleagues on the majority... haven't logged on to speak and justify themselves at all. Thank you.
Why aren't you getting on to justify yourselves?
I'm sorry, everyone, sorry. I have a point of order. Okay. Chair, I have a point of order.
Chair, we're not able as councillors to complete, to do our...
Okay, so...
I think we're good now. Let's do it now.
Yeah, thanks, Chair. I'm going to be very brief. I'm a swimmer. I'm formerly on the Park Board. I'm on Council. And I just want to provide global comments with respects to the fact that we're deeply committed to expanding aquatics across the city. We hear it at every level, from competition pools to outdoor pools. There will be an allocation to look at siting a 50-meter pool in the upcoming capital plan, which Council is currently dealing with. That is currently slated in there. And I just want to appreciate, despite some of the behavior, I want to appreciate the sentiment from a lot of the speakers who genuinely expressed how much the pools and the community amenities mean to them. And that is why we're trying to step up the investment overall. Again, I'm not going to get into sort of the other specifics, but I will say that these kind of amenities are incredibly important to people in our city. I am an outdoor swimmer. Kitts Pool, for example, I try to go to every year. I didn't make it on opening day this year. I made it on day two. But I understand and appreciate how important these assets are to people, and we are trying to improve the level of access. And we've got a lot of aging infrastructure, I'll just say generally, that needs to be dealt with. So thank you.
Statement Watch
Good evening, Council and Mayor. My name is Karina Talvila. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I'm here to speak in favor of this motion. which advocates for approval of plug-in solar panels in Vancouver. For me, personally, the issue is primarily about hastening our shift to renewable energy sources to reduce the climate-changing effects of burning fossil fuels. But it's not just about shifting to hydro-generated electricity over fossil fuels, because here in BC, we're feeling the effects of climate-change-induced droughts that are lowering the level of water in the rivers, and hence... reducing our ability to generate hydroelectric power. So it's not just about electricity, it's about solar-generated electricity. The plug-in solar panels are reasonably inexpensive, easy to install, and would help to reduce energy bills. The first U.S. state to allow use of the panels was Utah, not exactly a leader in the charge against climate change, but for that very Republican state, the panels were about an opportunity to save money. an excellent argument that we just as applicable here. The panels would also be very empowering for people. Urbanites have never been able to generate our own power before, but these panels would give average people that power and some control, power to do something easy about the climate and control over their electricity bills. For these reasons, climate change adaptation and mitigation, reducing electricity bills and energy empowerment I am in support of Councillor Frye's motion. Thank you.
Statement Watch
Good evening. Thank you, Mayor and Council, for this opportunity to speak, and I'll be brief because you've had a long day. I've been a resident of Vancouver since 1983, and I am very excited to speak in favor of Motion 12. Thank you, Councillor Frye, for bringing this forward. Climate crisis is here now, and fossil fuels are the main cause of the climate crisis, hands down. And yet, our elected officials at all levels of government continue to keep citizens hooked on fossil fuels. And this council is no exception. Recently, they overturned a ban on gas for new bills. So with this motion, we have good news on clean energy, just as Councillor Fry outlined in presenting the motion. Earlier this year, I read articles raving about the IKEA plug-and-play solar panels. And as a renter, I look forward to taking those steps to have a solar panel on my balcony and taking control of my energy sources that reduce my emissions and match my values. This is truly a very positive initiative. And absolutely, I want to see the city get on board, look for ways to leverage this technology, form partnerships, engage with BC Hydro, get on board with this pilot project that Pete outlined, provide the staff the support they need to prepare the regulatory framework. I encourage all of you to vote in favor of this motion. It is so exciting. If you could see me, I was yelling yay after everything Pete said in his opening. So thank you very much. I look forward to the results of this motion. Thank you.
Statement Watch
Thank you, Chair. I am pleased to support Motion 12 because it looks ahead to how Vancouver can generate and use energy more affordably, sustainably, and reliably. Electricity demand is growing. Electric vehicles, building electrification, air conditioning during heat waves, and digital infrastructure are all placing greater pressure on the grid, while we are asking residents to move away from fossil fuels. Well, we should be. That transition requires not only more clean energy, but a more resilient and decentralized energy system. This motion recognizes that emerging plug-in solar technology could be part of that solution. Instead of relying entirely on centralized power generation, residents could produce a portion of their own electricity through small-scale balcony, patio, or backyard systems. The benefits are clear. In a cost-of-living crisis, households could reduce energy costs. Distributed generation could ease peak demand and strengthen grid resilience. When paired with batteries, it could even help residents to maintain essential cooling during heat waves or power outages. Importantly, plug-in solar could expand access beyond traditional homeowners. As mentioned in the motion, renters and people in apartments such as myself or strata buildings have largely been excluded from rooftop solar. This technology may offer a more practical and affordable way for them and me to participate in the clean energy transition. We can also look to international experience. In Australia, widespread rooftop solar adoption has reduced electricity bills and contributed back to the grid, while also requiring governments to update standards and grid management. It shows both the opportunity and the importance of planning ahead. What I appreciate about this motion is that it does not rush ahead without safeguards. Certification and testing are still underway, and the motion asks the city to work with BC Hydro and other authorities to ensure these systems can be introduced safely. It also calls for consideration of standards, permits, inspections, and equitable access. That is the right approach. Prepare early, follow the evidence, and remove barriers once safety is established. Climate action is not only about reducing emissions. It is also about affordability, resilience, and giving residents greater control over their energy future. This motion positions Vancouver to be ready rather than reactive. Thank you.
Statement Watch
Hello? Can you hear me? Yes, we can, please. Okay, perfect. Hi, Mayor and Council. This is Annette Riley. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I'm here to speak in support of Motion 12. This motion, to me, is about the future. Don't know about you. I'm a giant nerd. I love science fiction. My biggest fandom is Star Trek. Shout out to all my fellow Trekkies here, but... I digress. One of the things, though, that I love about sci-fi is that it imagines these technologies that make everyday life so much better. And, you know, most of those times those technologies stay fiction, but sometimes they become a reality like this. This motion is the start of a plan to give the residents of our city access to technologies that benefit all of us. And that has some serious Star Trek vibes. In a world where we've had these extreme heat events, wildfire smoke, atmospheric rivers, and all these growing concerns about whether our electrical grid can actually keep up with this increasing demand, this is exactly the kind of forward thinking that we should all be doing. In a political climate where so much of our decision-making has had to be reactionary, this motion looks ahead. It says, let's understand this technology. Let's work with BC Hydro. Let's identify the barriers now so that when the technology is ready, we are too. And that, to me, is smart planning. There's nothing I like better than a good, actionable plan. I would sign up for a solar panel on my patio in a heartbeat. Let me be a test subject here. I mean, actually, we use them when we're out camping with my friends and family. We use portable solar technology to recharge our lights, our phones, even speakers so we can have some music. And then we don't have to worry about disposable batteries or any noisy generators. So this technology right now, it's not in the distant future. It's not fantasy anymore. It's already here. And this motion is simply asking Vancouver to be ready for the next generation of it. Get it? It's about exploring ways for homeowners, renters, people in apartments, and those living in multifamily buildings to participate. This is not the final frontier, but it might be the next one. So let's be proactive instead of reactive. Let's embrace innovation. Let's prepare for what's coming. And let's help build a city that's more resilient and more sustainable and a little bit closer to the future we all imagined. Thank you.
Statement Watch
Thank you. Mayor and Council, thank you for having me here today. My name is Tasha Maynard, and I am the co-founder of Hayek Arts. Before we start, I want to highlight we are speaking about NZEVs. These are already Transportation Canada approved. You can drive and park on the road just like a regular car, and you need a driver's license to drive them. We're not talking about the green mobility scooters we see on the Greenway. Those are simply illegal. So when the city of Vancouver needed shuttles for people with mobility challenges during FIFA planning, they rented our carts. This matters because it shows these vehicles are not theoretical. They're already being used by the city for exactly the kinds of short, practical, accessibility-supportive trips we're talking about. The difference is that when the city operates a shuttle service, it can do so under its own authority. To date, HAYA carts have been privately and safely used for shuttle service by the Vancouver Pride Society, Ironman Canada, the Vancouver Marathon, City of Vancouver, Oak Ridge Park, Vancouver BIAs, Destination Vancouver, and even recently the Institute of Transportation Engineers Conference that was just held in Victoria. However, if HAYA wanted to provide the same kind of shuttle service to the public with commercially licensed drivers and vehicles inspected every six months through the commercial vehicle inspection program, we currently cannot. We are not asking for a loophole. We are not asking to avoid regulation. We are asking for a clear pathway under the existing passenger transportation license framework. So normally the approval process for a general passenger transportation license is roughly six to eight weeks. We applied last year and our application has now been sitting for months with no meaningful response. To be fair, as far as we know, nobody in BC has applied before to operate neighborhood zero emission vehicles for passenger service with commercial drivers. We understand that this may be new for the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. We understand that staff may not know exactly where or how these vehicles fit. But right now, they're not asking us questions or giving us a pathway. The only answers we get is, keep waiting. Meanwhile, these vehicles are already street legal, they're registered, they're Transportation Canada approved, they're ICBC insured, and operating safely as self-drive rentals. They're fully electric, quiet, low-speed, and right-sized for short trips in busy visitor areas. Driver-guided NZEV tours and shuttles would help visitors, seniors, families, cruise passengers, and people with mobility limitations experience more of Vancouver without needing a full-sized car, taxi, van, or bus. They could support Stanley Park, Canada Place, Coal Harbour, Gastown, and our local events. Approval of this motion would send an important signal that Vancouver supports safe, insured, inspected, and properly regulated NZEV passenger services. Thank you.
Statement Watch
Thank you. Julie Struleski here, and I am in support of this motion. If you have seen the news, there are 800 active wildfires burning in Canada alone that are causing a lot of devastation right now. As we can see around the world, we are in a climate emergency. Hopefully this government will start taking this seriously as scientists have recommended. I think we have an ethical responsibility to take as much action as we can. NSAIDs have been around since the late 1990s. They're a proven solution, and it's long past time that all governments approve them for passenger services. If you are aware of the social and environmental impacts of EV battery life cycles, good news. The world's largest EV battery repurposing mega factory has opened in Surrey. and turns retired EV batteries into storage systems for hospitals, factories, and more. So I hope you will support this motion. Thank you.
Statement Watch
Thank you. Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Vincent Kwan. I'm the Executive Director of the Strathcona Business Improvement Association. I support the direction of this motion because overdose prevention and harm reduction services are an important part of the broader response to the toxic drug crisis. That is also precisely why we need to get the implementation right. The motion begins to establish clear expectation around cleanliness, public order, operating plans, monitoring, and enforcement. If overdose prevention and harm reduction services are essential healthcare services, they should be managed with the same discipline, resources, and duty of care that we'd expect from every other essential public service. Success is not simply opening a service. Success is delivering quality care while maintaining confidence among clients, neighboring residents, businesses, and the surrounding community. For this framework to work, there must be a clear chain of accountability across the entire system, from the operator to the city, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the province. The community should not be left trying to determine which institution is responsible when problems arise. It should be clear when the operator must respond, when the city must monitor or enforce and when VCH or the province must become involved because additional authority funding or changes to the service model are required. That is where the good neighbor agreement becomes important. Although the agreement is between the operator and the city, it should also provide the surrounding community with a clear way to raise concerns and understand what happens next. And properly, the good neighbor agreement becomes a community-facing connection to the broader accountability framework. It should help ensure that concerns are assessed, recurring problems are recognized, unresolved issues are escalated, and outcomes are reported back. The community has an important role in providing honest and timely information as well about what is happening around the operation. While the responsibility for assessment, corrective action, and enforcement remains with the appropriate public institutions. The effective business improvement areas can also help connect those two sides. As place-based organizations working closely with both its members and the city, BIAs can help ensure that agreement reflects actual conditions on the ground, recognizes recurring patterns, and gives community a practical way to reach the institutions responsible for acting. For that reason, we ask Council to ensure that the affected BIAs are formally consulted and invited to help shape the good neighbor agreement before it is finalized. That consultation should happen early, not after the agreement has already been written, so that the BIs can help shape how concerns are raised, the processes involved, recurring problems, how recurring problems are recognized, and resolve issues brought to the right authority. Ultimately, the measure of a good neighbor agreement is not written... Sorry, Vincent, that's your time.
Statement Watch
Good evening, Chair. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Joshua Davidson. I'm the Director of Operations at the Downtown Vancouver BIA, also known as Downtown Van. I'm also a resident of Vancouver. Overall, Downtown Van is prepared to support this motion. However, we have outlined four recommendations for consideration that we believe would strengthen the framework. For many years, Downtown Ban has been advocating for greater accountability, consistency and transparency around the plans and operations of overdose prevention and harm reduction facilities. This motion moves us in the right direction. We recognise that the toxic drug crisis remains one of the most significant public health challenges facing our city. Harm reduction services save lives and are an important part of our health system. At the same time, we hear almost every day from businesses, employees, residents and visitors about the impacts that occur when facilities like these are not supported by clear operational standards and effective management of the surrounding public realm. What we appreciate about this motion is that it begins to establish expectations around licensing, operating plans, cleanliness, reporting, good neighbor agreements, and community accountability. Therefore, should staff develop this framework, we encourage council to ensure that it includes the addition of the four following elements. First, meaningful consultation before facilities are approved. Engagement needs to happen early, and it should include business improvement associations, local businesses, residents, and other affected stakeholders. Second, measurable operating standards with clear consequences when operators do not meet them. Expectations should be transparent and consistently enforced. Third, good neighbor agreements should be developed with the support of business improvement associations and the surrounding businesses, and they should include clear response times, complaint resolution processes, and ongoing communication. And finally, ensure that any locational criteria give appropriate consideration to neighborhood context, cumulative impacts, and the unique role of key commercial districts, which includes the Granville Entertainment District. Downtown Advance's position has always been that these conversations are not about choosing between compassion or accountability, they require both. When these services are properly located, appropriately resourced and well managed, they can improve health outcomes while reducing impacts on surrounding neighbourhoods. A clear regulatory framework provides greater certainty for operators, businesses, residents and the community, while helping restore confidence in how these services are planned and managed. We thank Councillor Fry for bringing this motion forward, and if Council adopts these four recommendations that I've outlined today, Downtown Barnet is pleased to support the motion. Thank you.
Statement Watch
Hi, good evening. I'm also calling to support this motion. It's not surprising that many Vancouverites have become opposed to any safer consumption sites or OAT services in their communities. We've had a bad run of operators opening sites that aren't structurally adequate for client needs and which aren't adequately resourced. Then when trouble happens in the community around the site, operators shrug their shoulders and say that what happens outside isn't their problem. This is a dynamic that we see taking place over and over again in Vancouver. Critical services for at-risk people are inadequately managed. There are neighborhood impacts, and everyone is left to fight with one another while the people responsible, the funders and operators of the sites, including government, either steer clear or exploit the fallout. Eliminating these services will cause people to die. Let's not avoid that. And I am worried that there's an alarming cohort mainly but not entirely of online bots and trolls that say that they want drug users to die. There are people stoking that hatred at all levels of government. But I don't think that community members who don't want to deal with crime and nuisance around safe consumption sites want people to die. I think that mainly people want folks to get help. We need better service delivery models. People need to be able to get off the street. They also need immediate access to support services, including recovery oriented services. But we also need to do our best to make sure that people don't die. This is a route forward because at its heart, it's an accountability framework for everyone involved. There's accountability for the city, which is currently on a collision course with the federal government that we can ill afford. There's accountability for the province, for the health authority, for the operators, and for folks using the sites too. I think it's past time for everyone to come to the table to ensure that folks don't die and to ensure that service delivery models respect community needs. I don't think it's impossible, and I think it's incumbent on all of us to try. Thanks.
Statement Watch
All right. Everyone can hear me? Yeah. Great. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Nick Popel, and I'm speaking today as the co-chair of the Renter Advisory Committee, and we are speaking in strong support of this motion. Renters represent more than half of the households in this city. The renter office was originally created because renters facing eviction, displacement, or unsafe housing were being sent between city departments, provincial agencies, and nonprofit organizations, often while the clock was running out on the time on their homes. The office gave renters a front door. It provided information, referrals, and coordination. Over the three years that it was running, it cost approximately $1.8 million, an average of about $600,000 per year. When it was reviewed in 2023, staff recommended that it continue. Instead, council eliminated it, setting concerns about efficiency, duplication, and which level of government should take the lead. The problem is when everyone is partly responsible, nobody is truly accountable. Council recently approved nearly $5 million to extend the Granville Street pedestrian pilot for seven weeks, including $1.25 million for programming that we're still figuring out what it's about. To be clear, I'm not arguing against pedestrian streets or public events. I'm a theater grad, and I love this stuff. It's a question of priorities. That seven weeks expenditure is roughly equal to eight years of the renter office at its previous average cost. And I'm going to be honest here. I'm not just speaking theoretically. Personally, I have fought through three arbitrations. I won them, but it was hell. But it was nothing like the nightmare I saw my apartment neighbors go through just before that. We had a new owner come in, and they issued fictitious notices claiming everyone in the building had to leave. They told us they had secured permits from this city. Their generous offer to vacate was well below what tenants were legally entitled to receive. I personally fought hard. I learned a lot about renters' rights and the RTA. Almost every single one of my neighbors was scared out of their home. Seniors, single parents, immigrants, people who had been built their lives in that building. Only three of us fought back and remained. That building had 24 homes, almost 50 people. One call to a properly resourced renter's office might have protected not just me, but dozens of other people. Across Vancouver, that one call could protect hundreds. The motion today is not to bring the renter's office back. It's to have a study come back from staff that will likely go to the next council. The cost of studying is negligible. The cost of doing nothing is measured in people's homes.
Statement Watch
Thank you, Chair. I support this motion because renters make up the majority of households in Vancouver. I'm also a renter, and they deserve accessible, coordinated support from their municipal government. Housing discussions often focus on building new homes, but we must also ensure that people already renting in our city can easily navigate the systems designed to protect them. Today, renters often have to deal with multiple agencies and organizations when facing maintenance concerns, displacement, relocation questions, or uncertainty about their rights. That can be confusing and difficult to navigate, as mentioned in the first speaker's experience. This motion proposes a practical solution. Re-establishing a centralized renter's office to improve coordination, provide clearer information, support enforcement efforts, and help renters access the services they need. Importantly, this office would not duplicate the work of the residential tenancy branch or community organizations. Instead, It will strengthen coordination, improve data collection, identify service gaps, and provide council with better information to guide future policy decisions. Good government should be easy to access. We already dedicate significant resources to working with developers, builders, and property owners. It is equally reasonable to ensure renters, the majority of Vancouver households, such as myself, have a dedicated point of contact within City Hall. Funding the office through empty homes tax revenues is also appropriate, given those revenues are intended to support housing-related priorities. Ultimately, this motion is about improving service delivery, strengthening accountability, and ensuring renters have a stronger voice within municipal government. For those reasons, I encourage Council to support the motion. Thank you.
Statement Watch
Hello, committee members. My name is Vincent Shi. I'm a staff lawyer at First United Legal Advocacy Clinic. I'm also a resident of Vancouver's West End, and I'm speaking in support of the motion. For over 50 years, our legal advocacy clinic has provided support for tenancy issues for low-income renters in the downtown Eastside, including for unlawful evictions. Our advocates assist over 1,000 clients per year, including hundreds of renters. seeking urgent support to avoid homelessness. Nonprofit service providers like us take on enormous caseloads. Every day we work with people facing multiple barriers, such as disability, language barriers, low income, or just simply not knowing what their legal rights are. These community members need resources to avoid displacement and homelessness, and so we continue to be troubled by the decision to close the renter's office, given its critical role for the community. The renter's office had filled an important gap in resources. It provided advocacy and direct education to renters at risk of displacement and eviction. Importantly, the renter's office was not duplicative of the services that nonprofits like us provide. The office provided support where we couldn't and vice versa. For example, the office is the only place that can give direct information and assistance on the city's own tenant protection policies. No other organization is in the position to do so. Municipal policy is also outside the scope of what the RTB can help with. This becomes even more critical given the Broadway plan and downtown Eastside rezoning make TRPPs a fundamental part of the redevelopment scheme. And also, the terms of these policies are complicated and can be confusing even for a lawyer like me. While First United welcomes the expansion of TRPP coverage, it is just as important that city give information and assistance on these policies through a renter's office to make its protections accessible and meaningful. For us, the loss of the renter's office has eliminated a critical service and important partner for homelessness prevention. It's raised barriers to help that has been devastating to both our organization and the clients we serve. So we urge council to reestablish the office to ensure that renters are protected. Thank you so much.
Statement Watch
Beautiful. Hi. Hello again. I'm Annette Riley. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I am here to speak in support of this motion. I will keep it short. It's been a long day for all of you. I would like to actually say thank you so much for all your hard work today. You're almost there. I just have one number for you. It's 165,455. That's the number of households in Vancouver that rent. That's not the people that live in those houses. That's just the households. Voting to bring back this renewed renter's office means that you are showing each person in each of those 165,000 households that they matter to you. City Hall has an open door for almost everyone involved in housing, builders, developers, engineers, property owners. Renters deserve access, too. City Hall, I mean, I can sit here and I can extol the virtues of this new renter's office in City Hall. But honestly, I shouldn't need to because the previous version of this office was a success. The evidence is there. We saw it working. We know what it can do. And this is just a new and improved version of that. So please show the majority of Vancouver residents that you care about their needs. I would appreciate that as a renter being shown through a vote that you care about us. I urge you to support this motion. Thank you.
Statement Watch
Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Matthew Thiessen, and I'm the Managing Partner at Somerville Community Relations. Every day, my team is on the ground, working directly with residents to navigate TRPP and tenant plans. Our focus is simple, lead with empathy, prevent the loss of housing, and ensure renters are supported. Because we do this work every day, I'm here to speak in support of the intent behind Councillor Fry's motion. this motion correctly identifies a critical systemic flaw and problem, there is an unhealthy tension when the exact same department is responsible for writing policy. regulating it, and serving as the primary public-facing support for renters. Right now, that system is broken, and tenants are paying the price. Recently, I wrote to the general manager of planning, requesting urgent action on two frontline issues, greater clarity around tenant compensation, and more consistent communication on how the TRPP interacts with the Residential Tenancy Act. The response, we were told these critical issues were deferred to future review with no concrete timeline. That means 40 plus tenants were left in limbo. Instead of addressing this policy gap, the GM and the housing division chose to build a wall. They created a new unlisted city email account to communicate with our team. And quite frankly, it's completely invisible to the public. The messages sent from it are entirely anonymous, yet these anonymous emails contain official city instructions that developments must follow for approvals. Following this, we began receiving official housing division memos, documents confirming that applicants have met requirements to issue tenant notices. circulated with no signatures. Mayor and Council, anonymous emails and unsigned memos do not protect tenants. They do not resolve policy gaps. What they do do is shield public servants from accountability, create confusion, and slow down the delivery of housing and tenant supports. When the department responsible for tenant protections goes anonymous, it is a clear signal that the current system is failing. Whether the solution is a reestablished renter's office or a deep structural overhaul of the existing housing division, one thing is clear. The foundation of our housing administration must be built on transparency, accountability, and professional service. We cannot protect Vancouver renters with anonymous emails and deferred decisions. I urge council to support the spirit of the motion, acknowledge the deep operational issues within the housing division, and demand a return to accountability, transparent public service for renters and housing providers alike. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you, Matthew.
Statement Watch
Hi again.
So thank you very much. So in January, this council heard from tenants and tenant advocates about routine violations of the law in rental housing across the city. We heard tenants describe persistent threats to life and safety. We heard that there are landlords who avoid the legal consequence by outlasting an overtaxed, uncoordinated system, leaving individual tenants responsible for systemic failures. And at that time, council broadly supported doing more. This would be a really good way to do more. The reason we knew about many of the issues that council discussed in January was because of tireless organizing and reporting by tenants and allies at the Vancouver Tenants Union. Deep respect to the VTU for their work. But I would also say that the city shouldn't have to rely on crowdsourcing to get information about noncompliance with city bylaws. In my experience representing tenants, the lack of an adequate monitoring compliance and enforcement system coordinated with provincial partners and legal services has facilitated some of the routine abuses we see from exploitative landlords. I have a lot of respect for the work of city staff, but I have also represented tenants whose landlord was unlawfully emptying out a building in contravention of city bylaws under staff's notes. Staff in January thought that they were on top of serious fire safety issues in a building where tenants clearly reported the issues unresolved. Staff regularly report to council that tenant relocation and protection policies are operating as designed when tenants and advocates clearly know otherwise. We hear stories constantly of tenants who are struggling to get systems that nominally exist to support them and protect their rights to function the way that they should. We are still dealing with landlords I first dealt with many years ago who are still breaking the law in exactly the same ways over and over again. This is not a problem of individualized lack of diligence. These problems have persisted across many years of my work and practice in the field. These problems are systemic. We still owe it to Vancouver's renters not to leave them to individually fight off landlords who are well resourced and determined to break the law. We need to make better systems to give effect to the laws and policies that council already supports. The renter's office was the only entity I've ever encountered that was positioned to do that work. Please reinstate it. Thank you.