Kitsilano Pool / Renfrew / Joint Facilities Amendment (Orr)
Motion 4 · Council Meeting, July 16, 2026
Summary
- Amends the capital plan in three parts: (1) commits to a program of Kitsilano Pool rehabilitation (not merely planning) with a report back as part of the 2027–2030 midterm capital update; (2) adds Renfrew Community Centre to the list of centres for renewal; (3) directs REFM to intensify efforts with the Ministry of Education and BC Housing to advance jointly operated facilities including Britannia, West End, Raycam, Thunderbird, and Strathcona.
- Park Board commissioners had requested all three items; staff confirmed options analysis for Kits Pool is complete, with a $40 million rehabilitation option identified that could extend pool life 15–20 years.
- Debate centred on whether adding Renfrew (estimated $90–120 million rebuild) was realistic within the funding envelope; supporters cited the Rupert-Renfrew area plan's explicit commitment to renewing Renfrew Park Community Centre and the centre's high-growth catchment.
- An earlier version of the amendment was withdrawn and revised; the clause striking Renfrew from the list was voted on separately and defeated, keeping Renfrew on the renewal list.
- The Kitsilano Pool and provincial advocacy clauses passed; the Renfrew inclusion passed over opposition from some ABC-aligned councillors who argued the envelope could not accommodate a sixth centre.
Vote
Transcript
29 segments
The one that we're contemplating right now. So these are all options that are within the capital plan considerations that we're looking at. But we haven't landed exactly yet on where we're going to actually go with the kids pool. So we've actually got it as a priority. Right now we're just juggling where that priority will lie. So maybe, I don't know if you can help me understand that. I'm trying to understand the rationale then for the first resolution of this amendment. Is effectively the planning's complete and we're just looking at the different options and it is effectively earmarked in the plan. So I don't know if someone else wants to take a stab at understanding that. I'm just not clear on why this is in there or proposed. Maybe the mover of the motion wants to address my question through point of information.
Yeah, happy to do that. This is just, like I said, it was based on the understandings of the park board commissioners and hearing that answer in terms of that the planning has been done, then this kind of just makes sense then that we take away the wording in the capital plan from planning to designated to committing to that $40 million that was mentioned. Thanks.
Okay, I'm still not clear, but I'll leave it there. Maybe somebody else can address the questions. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Kirby Young?
Yeah, also a follow-up question through you, Chair, to staff. And I think, you know, everybody, what I hear roundly around the table is that everybody's very committed to ensuring the continued use of Kitspool and a good future for all the residents. That was the first question that I asked was the resiliency and what was actually in the plan. But I heard back from staff, and this is my question, was that Kitspool is a priority. In the plan already, so can you am I correct in in reflecting that back?
Again I don't know why I'm starting at 222 chair but over two minutes I'm just starting now
Yes, we're exploring. There were a number of options and items that we were looking at, Councillor.
We were actually looking at a fundraising capacity that we were exploring. That necessarily isn't coming to fruition at this point. I don't really know, to be honest, where we are with that. I think if Steve can probably give us a bit more information on exactly where that's at.
Okay, so just because the answer, through you, Chair, again, if I might, the answer to the earlier question was that it is a priority. So what would this language change for staff that is different than is in the plan in your mind?
Yeah, no, I understand that. It's a bit difficult to answer that. We have put it as a priority, but we would actually have to make concessions to actually move other priorities on our list forward. We've actually said during the course of this proceeding that we're actually just looking at all of our due diligence for all of the projects that are on the plan that are a priority. And we are going to likely have to make some adjustments to that. I don't exactly know what those are. But the kids pool planning has actually been in process for well over a year. And we actually have that completed now. So we have the three options that we are looking at. I'm going to have Steve to talk a little bit about the fundraising if you're interested.
Maybe I can ask a question explicitly just for time. So if council were to pass this language, you're saying it's a priority and then you would therefore take funding away from other projects? Correct.
And we don't know what those projects might be. But we don't really know what all of the costing for all of the other priorities are.
If I can ask a follow-up just for time. Is it... Do you feel that you need that direction from council? Or is it, have you heard clearly it's a priority and staff would like to have flexibility to come back with recommendations about how much funding is allocated to each project based on the needs of what needs to be spent when?
I would believe that your second option is probably the wiser one to go with.
Okay. Thank you. I'll leave it to save time. Thanks.
Yes, thanks, Chair, to the amendment. I'm going to move an amendment.
So, yes. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. Let me just circulate this to Council for a moment.
So we're ending the amendment? Yes. So, Council, I'll just wait for it to come in your inboxes.
I've just circulated an amendment. And this stems from hearing our staff address the subject of the Kitsilano pool rehabilitation.
Very clear from the comments there is that, yes, we have the planning work underway. There's some options that have been looked at. But as we heard in the last answer, that advancing this would take away funding from other capital projects that are already contemplated. And again, this is the challenge of capital planning is there's trade-offs. And same thing. And so I've struck that and I've struck the addition of the Renfrew Community Center again as well, not because it's not important, but because at the end of the day, we do have to make some choices here and we have a certain envelope to work with. But I do also agree, like my colleagues, the importance of the advocacy with the province, particularly around some of these other projects.
The West End and Britannia, for example, there's a lot of overlap with VSB and in the city. And so I think that's a great addition. But I'll leave that there for Council to consider. Can I get a seconder?
Second by Councillor Meiszner. Councillor Bligh? Yeah, thanks very much. I just would like to better understand why... the Renfrew Community Center was crossed off. And so I guess through a point of information to the mover of the amendment, it was notable to me that Commissioner Christensen, when calling in, really made a specific plea. And did I get that? It was Renfrew, I think. And really expressed sort of the dire... situation that that particular community center is in. And so, look, we don't, we have a lot to do in this particular council. It strikes me as something we should be listening to the commissioners that focus just specifically on community centers and their best advice. And while there's a lot of wrestling for which community centers first, I thought it was quite notable that she identified that this one isn't in sort of critical situation. So, and I know the move of this amendment to be quite prudent when it comes to these things. So I really do need to, before I can vote on this, I need to understand how that was heard maybe from a different perspective and whether or not this is the best way forward.
That's a point of information to the mover of the amendment.
Happy to address it, and I appreciate it. I think that's the point I'm trying to make is there is obviously enormous need across the city for a variety of capital infrastructure, but we have to make choices here, and we have a certain envelope to work within, and there's not capacity within that envelope to include another community center. So that's where it comes from. But, of course, there is need across the city for a number of community centers and a number of other areas of infrastructure that have had little attention over the years.
Okay, thank you. That's helping me understand where you're coming from. Council Dominato is the mover of this. I can't support it. I think that, you know, while I recognize that we've always got to make difficult choices, there's a difference between, you know, some community centers that haven't gotten... maybe as much attention or love in the capital plan as in the, they're looking for bathroom upgrades or they're looking for maybe some, you know, accessibility upgrades, which are critically important, but we're talking about a community center that's been flagged as, as one that is both a high, high need in the community and also in, in sort of a state of disrepair that needs a prioritization and, and, it's been on that list and it was a priority. And I'm looking at the other community centers that were identified in the ABC supportive motion of the five community centers that bumped this off the list. And they don't strike me as ones that take priority over something that is serving thousands and thousands of residents of our city and is in need of prioritization. So I don't think that that... is practical. I don't think it's pragmatic at all. And I think we need to be prioritizing Renfrew Community Center, among others on this list, quite frankly. But in terms of being prioritized within this capital plan, I support Renfrew Community Center most certainly. I can certainly live with not supporting a strike out of Kitsilano pool, recognizing it's opening later and later and later every season. And it is a sort of a critical piece of our outdoor summer community infrastructure. So I can't support this at all.
Mr. Frye. Yeah, sure, and I'm sorry I had to step away. I'm wondering if, so I missed some of the presentation and some of the comments from Commissioner Christensen. I'm wondering if, through you, I could ask some questions of the Deputy City Manager, Armin. So first and foremost, this Renfrew Community Center renewal, has it been costed and is Renfrew Community Center in some capacity eligible for financial support given its proximity to the Rupert Renfrew planning and the transit-oriented development areas?
It seems to me that we are targeting this area for significant growth in transit-oriented development. investment and infrastructure. And I know that it is in need. I think you can note that this capital plan aims to blend or combine opportunities and projects where we can both renew and expand the capacity in growing areas. So I think, to your point, we can... most certainly i think we would expect that we would pair some growth related funding with renewal funding for projects like that community center yes so we're anticipating growth there yes and we could anticipate that there would be funding available through Exactly. Support the growth, which needs the support there. Okay, that is helpful. And do we have a sense of what Renfrew would cost for the necessary renewal to just get it up to... Obviously, it's not costed here, so... Yes, thank you for the question. We're looking at anywhere from about $90 to about $120 million on any renewal of a community center. It would just depend on the extent of the renewal, but I don't actually have the FCI actually with me right now, Councillor, but this, I suspect, would be a complete rebuild given the age of the community center. So that would be a consideration to look at and the pull on the capital plan against that. And when we see the word renewal, does that imply like a complete rebuild or is renewal? To be fair, it's a constant debate within the development industry whether renewal means completely new build or the other way. But once we get in there, we would actually have to look what the feasibility study decides. it makes more sense. I mean, there could be a renewal where you keep a certain part of the infrastructure and cost that out against what a complete new build could look like. And a lot of times where you have aging infrastructure at this level, it usually means a demolition and a new build, usually. But I don't have the feasibility in front of me. But while you're up, I just also would like to ask about the, specifically around the Kit Solano pool and the difference between the planning and the $40 million and I think I heard somewhere that the feds were willing to chip in on keeping it going. Are we leaving money on the table? We're not going to leave any money on the table. And in fact, we've just got a not sizable but a small insurance claim that we made good on actually just a little while ago on Kitsapool. So happy to hear that. We don't leave any money on the table. And we will explore every single dollar that we can get from any infrastructure pool. I hope we understand the distinction here that it's earmarked in the plan as planning, but it's actually a spend for keeping it going.
One's operational and one's capital, right? So the operational, whatever we spend keeping it going would be from the operational side of the ledger, not the capital planning. Okay. Yeah. Does that answer your question? Yeah, yeah. Okay, thank you. You know, I'm going to, I could probably live with the kids' pool, but I do feel strongly that this... that keeping Renfrew Community Center on the table is important. And while we're at it, I think the kids' pool also is a significant asset and much beloved and obviously the subject of a lot of political interest lately. But I really also think that, so I think striking Renfrew out of this would be a mistake. I think given the anticipated growth and the Renfrew-Rupert planning paradigm, It seems that this is, at the very least, something we should be contemplating as renewal, and it doesn't add a dollar amount to this. I don't support striking this. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Dominato. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to withdraw my amendment, and I'm going to revise it and resubmit to Council. So I move to withdraw. Any discussion? All the question? All in favor? Opposed? Carries. Thanks very much. Thank you. So we are withdrawing the amendment to the amendment. And I will work on a revised amendment to the amendment. Thank you. We still have the amendment on the floor, so we'll go back to Amendment Q1.
Counselor, you're there, obviously, so you'll probably advance. I'll take myself off for a moment. Okay.
So we do have... Here we go. Counselor Bly? Sorry, no, that is an error. Okay, I'll advance you here. So we do have, are you asking for a short recess?
Five? Okay. All right, yeah, we've been going for a little while.
So let's just take a five. Thanks very much.
Hi everyone, we're gonna bring the meeting back to order.
So let's get everyone seated Okay, so All right, so we're Okay, are you gonna go back on the queue for amendment one I Put me on the queue clerks. Can you put me back on the queue? So very things there you go Yeah, so we're on amendment the amendment discussing counselor orders amendment custer domino to go ahead Yeah. Thanks, Chair, and thanks for the patience. I've recirculated a revised amendment to the amendment, and I've made changes to the first clause specifically to support the commitment of a committed program of the Kitsilano Pool rehabilitation in the capital plan, but to have a report back as part of the midterm capital update, just given what we heard from Armin in terms of... We've got some costing. There's also some fundraising sponsorship opportunities we're looking at. And so that's the revision. We'll go to the amendment Q2 here. So I'll just advance you, go right ahead. I think I'll leave it there. I've just spoken to it. Thanks very much, Councillor Cunningham. To the amendment, to the amendment. The second amendment, Councillor Meiszner.
Okay, can I go ahead, Chair? Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, thanks. I mean, we've had lots of dialogue and discussion around Kitzbühel, and I've sort of spoken very clearly and publicly about it, that it needs to be a priority. It's a jewel of the city of Vancouver. It's something I think many of us grew up with and have a lot of fond memories of, and it's hard to imagine a Vancouver without Kitzbühel. And so I think that that is the intent in the plan, that it's a priority, but signaling that I think is always helpful to the community if it provides more clarity. But I do believe that staff are very well aware of Council's desire to sort of see a solution found there and how sort of sad it is when the pool either has to be not open late or it has to close or whatever the case is. I'm very happy supporting that one. I think that's particularly important. I'd actually rather be swimming in kids' pool at the moment. I've been trying to find time to do that this week and have unsuccessfully. With respects to the second clause about adding Renfrew Community Center, just responding to sort of comment I heard across the chamber about putting something in even if we don't have budget for it, I actually think that that's... not a great thing to do for the community because it creates expectations when we're not able to follow through. I will say, and I have the benefit now of one park board term and two councils, and I am super excited that we are making an unprecedented investment in parks and recreation facilities than I have ever seen in the city of Vancouver. And in fact, we heard the park board chair speak to that and recognize it. And I think that that is really sort of the good news story of this capital plan is that we're going to either replace or significantly upgrade five community centers, along with a number of other beloved recreational opportunities, parks, et cetera, to the tune of seven hundred and thirty nine or three quarters of a billion dollars. And that is very significant. We cannot do everything in one plan. It's very similar to our fire halls where we. excuse me are upgrading them progressively over time but what we are doing with the additional two percent that we've put forward and closing the gap from 40 years to 20 years with the unprecedented significant investment in parks and recreation is getting there much more quickly and investing money quite frankly in what the city of Vancouver in my opinion should be putting money into which is these community facilities across neighborhoods that are beloved and and add to the quality of life in Vancouver so I think councils had a pretty vigorous debate previously leading up to this capital plan and I think Renfrew would be a great candidate for the next capital plan but tackling five in a very meaningful way is pretty significant for one plan just like we here we do a couple of fire halls every time and we progressively move forward so this is a trajectory that I'd like to see continue that we have a Again, next time, a very parks, recreation, and community amenity-focused capital plan. And I think that I'm starting to hear a lot of coalescence around that with the different bodies that really do, I think, have the same goals, which is delivering great facilities for our residents across Vancouver. So those are my comments. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Bligh. Actually, I think I've just answered my own question, that this is, of course, the amendment, then it's just a strike, that the original language is what's in there around Kitsilano Pool. So in terms of the amendment, okay. So the vote really is not necessarily on Kitsilano Pool because that was part of Council Orr's original amendment. The conversation is whether or not Renfrew Community Center gets bumped from the list. And I'm just noticing that in the second or third part, I guess, of the original amendment, it's not on that list either. So what happens in that regard? Renfrew is not on any list now from what I can gather. am I reading about not, not withstanding the park boards capital plan, but like we have to deal with that later, obviously, because now we're going to have two park board capital plans. So, so I would just wonder if there's an appetite to at least make sure that it is on some priority lists for the benefit of those who are paying attention to this and rely on referee community center in the longterm.
So that's a point of information to the mover of the amendment if there is consideration to add that to like a future rather than prioritize it in 2027, 2030, but prioritize it in a future capital plan.
Councillor, are you? I'm asking a point of information to the mover of the amendment. Yeah. To? The mover of the amendment. Okay. Staff, could you repeat the question? just whether or not there's an appetite to add this community center to be identified to some other future planning process for a future capital plan, to give some certainty, basically. I think, I'm not sure I can address that question, Councillor. We're really focused on the 2027-2030 capital plan right now. And as was noted by my colleague, the focus being an unprecedented investment in community centers. I think our staff, whom I have an immense respect for, will continue to monitor the state of conditions of our facilities and make recommendations going forward. So I would certainly rely on that as well going forward. OK, so, yeah, I won't I won't be supporting this strikeout then. You know, I think that we've even just yesterday had a pretty intense situation where we're finding ourselves. in having to make decisions from a reactive and urgent nature because of shuttered communities amenities that have not been forecasted, planned, or prioritized many, many years ago. And I thought we want to get out of this cycle right now that we've seen in the last four years of pools and community serving facilities having to suddenly close because of not being prioritized.
And I suspect that we have not perhaps learned the way we should in the past few years, what happens when we're not necessarily listening to the information we're getting, the evidence we're getting, the expert advice we're getting. And in that expert advice, what we heard was room for a community center, not just from the commissioner, but from the facilities. state of the facilities report says that Renfrew is a priority. So I can't support this. This is, this is, there's blinders on here and I can't support this.
Thanks. Yeah. I just maybe have a point of parliamentary privilege just around the process of this. If this could be severed, maybe a point of through, through the chair to clerks. certainly we can sever this. So why don't you let us know what you'd like to do, and then... I would like to, yeah, I would like to sever, I guess, just all three, I suppose, or... Vote on each of the three clauses. Well, my intention, what I want, is to vote separately on the strikeout of the Renfrew Community Center. It's been struck through right now, so your choice is to... You can sever. But then the amended... You can sever A and C, I guess. You can sever on the next round? Right. So I vote no to this, and then... Okay. That's all my questions. Okay. Well, when we get to the vote, we'll do that. Thanks very much. Councillor Frye.
Yeah, I appreciate the amendment for Kitts Pool. I think that is thoughtful, but I don't support the striking of the Renfrew. You know, I had to think about Renfrew Community Center a little bit in the context of... The Rupert Renfrew area plan that we just passed in the last year that contemplates significant population growth, I think like almost 20,000 new residents. And it very explicitly and specifically talked about renewal for the Renfrew Community Center. And I recognize that obviously we're naming Thunderbird here, but Thunderbird's a little bit more complicated because it is one of those sort of partnership sites. And indeed, I went back and looked, and it is in the Rupert Renfrew plan that we approved under Section 3.5.19, very specifically renewing the Renfrew Park Community Center. You know, it is a transit-oriented development plan. It is a plan that we've put a lot of, muscle into when we put a lot of community stake into. And I feel like it would be a mistake to not acknowledge that and recognize that this is a key growth area, that this is a critical need that has been identified by our staff and reinforced by Park Board staff and apparently Commissioner Christensen when they called in.
So I think that, you know, it's not a hard commitment. We're not like, you know, this is one of the highest use pools in the city. And I think we can at least commit to the language around renewing Renfrew Community Center because the idea of hunting this down the road, but... At the very same time, accelerating the implication of high density in that neighborhood seems thoughtless. And I think as we've learned from previous investments in new communities, but not keeping pace with things like, you know, we blame the province for not keeping pace with schools in new communities. But here we are with one of our very own facilities where we have the opportunity to keep pace with growth, get ahead of growth. And I think we should support that as an aspirational goal. Again, without a hard cost number, I think it's fair.
Councillor Bligh. Thanks. I may see where Councillor Orr was going with the severing because I actually support the first strikeout, but I don't support the second. So can that be severed? Yeah, I think if we do the vote, we can get the clerk. Yeah, perfect. Okay, great. Thank you. I'd be requesting that then. Is that it? Okay, thanks very much. All right, so we'll now call the vote. We are going to sever... A and C, I guess, if you want to call it that.
Sure, please, yeah. So we're just going to highlight the ones to vote on. So the first clause, so we'll just call the vote on that one. So we'll bring up the voting panel, please, Claire.
okay so that one passes with all present okay so we'll go now to see hey oops a sec now we're voting
it's we're just highlighting see the last clause okay so we can do that just a moment okay we'll have to reconsider the vote then okay so can I get a motion to reconsider the vote and just because there's a little confusion there move second in all in favor okay can we just reconsider that vote please now just to be clear we will I guess we are going to be voting on the strikeout either so a vote in support and is to support the strikeout and in opposition is to not support the strikeout so there we go okay so we're now voting on they highlighted further that
okay so that that passes with counselors fly fry or Maloney in opposition that's who now will vote on the third was you you
Okay. Councillor Maloney?
Okay, so that passes as all present. Thank you very much. All right. Very good. So we'll go back to the main queue. Councillor Orr? That's everything for me, thanks. Councillor Domenato? Yes, Chair. I do have an amendment I've circulated. Just give me a moment to bring that up. So, Clerk, can we just bring that up on the screen, please? And we'll go to an amendment queue. I'm sorry. It was sent at 3.06. This is an amendment sent at 3.06. I'll just pause your clock here a second.
I probably should reset it.
Oh, we haven't completed that yet? Oh, so vote on the amended? Okay, sorry. I'll wait until we complete Councillor Orr's item. Okay, sorry about that. Yeah. Okay, so we're going back. We're still in the amendment queue.
Yep. Okay, I'm going to remove you off here. Okay. That is correct. Sorry, we moved a little too quickly there. So, very good.
So that is... The amended amendment. Okay, there we go. So we have amended.
Okay, very good.
So we see it on your screen.
Hang on a sec. Yeah, can you just...
Just forward it to you, Leslie. Oh, you got it.
Folks, let's just let the... Okay, Counselor Orr, hang on a sec. One moment.
Also, go ahead. Yeah, I believe that wasn't what we just voted on. It wasn't on the screen. I know that's what it was emailed out, but it wasn't on the screen. It was emailed out as that, but then when what was on the screen that we just voted on, that the report back to council as part of the 2027-2030 midterm capital update was not on the screen. May I suggest, Chair, that we then move a full reconsideration of the amendments and Given that what was voted on was inaccurate. I'm fine with that. But I just want to make sure that the clerk understands. It would be starting with reconsidering of my amendments to the amendment. Okay. Reconsidering those three votes. Very good. Just so that we can get clear and get the proper language up.
So I'm happy to move that we reconsider the three votes. Okay. I think a seconder. Second. All in favor. Okay, so we will reconsider the amendment and then the amendment to the amendment. Is that correct? I can recirculate the amendment for everyone. I'm going to re-forward it to everyone.
I'm going to help everybody out here and just recirculate the language. I'll bold the new text and include some strikeouts.
I think we do. I'm going to take just a two-minute recess to clear this up. Thanks.
Yeah, we have quorum.
Let's move and vote on this amended amendment. Okay. So, clerk, can you just put that up on the screen? It is up on the screen, so that's great. All right, everyone, do you please want to just read this? This is the amendment as amended, and we're going to vote on this right now.
That's correct. Councillor Frey? We're voting on the amendment as amended.
Councillor Meiszner?