50-Metre Indoor Pool Planning Amendment
Motion 6 · Council Meeting, July 16, 2026
Summary
- Amends the capital plan to direct staff to expedite planning for a year-round 50-metre indoor swimming and diving pool suitable for training, competition, and water polo.
- Goal is to ensure siting, consultation, and design decisions are advanced in this plan period so construction can be included in the 2031–2034 capital plan.
- Council sought legal advice on whether this language improperly bound a future council; legal confirmed it does not, as any future council can revisit the direction.
- Context: Vancouver has no competition-grade 50-metre indoor pool; the rebuilt Vancouver Aquatic Centre (targeted 2030) will not fill this gap. Park Board commissioners noted they are already advancing feasibility analysis for a co-located 50-metre pool and rink at Hastings or Kensington.
Vote
Transcript
12 segments
Yeah, thanks, Chair. I have a point of information through you, if I might, and I'll preface it by saying I'm very supportive of the siting that we included. That was direction previously from Council to include planning and siting for a 50-meter pool, along with a direction for the historical unprecedented investment in community centers. So I'm very happy to support that. That's consistent with the direction that Council's already given. My question through you, and it might be to staff, is just is it lawful for this Council to federate a future Council for a future capital? Plan because this refers not to the 27 to 2030 but to the 2031 to 2034 And so I'm just wondering if law has an opinion on that I know we can't better for future operating budgets, but can we for future capital plans? It will be two different different councils from now And that's probably a question for law Finance can weigh in but I've got limited time
Do we need a break to have... Yeah, we don't have a representative from legal here, but I will speak to it in the sense that as the motion is worded, the direction is to expedite planning, including the options listed there. And so in terms of the... THE FEDERING FUTURE COUNCILS THAT, AS THIS IS WRITTEN, THERE WILL STILL BE THE CONSIDERATION PROCESS OF A FUTURE COUNCIL CONSIDERING A CAPITAL PLAN, AND SO THAT WOULD BE...
DOES IT SAY, MAY I, COLIN, THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF I MAY, DOES IT SAY CONSIDERATION, IT SAYS ENSURE THE INCLUSION OF THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF THE PROJECT. DO YOU READ THAT AS CONSIDERATION? BECAUSE I READ THAT AS ENSURE THE INCLUSION OF CONSTRUCTION. I see I understand where you're... Do we need a break, Chair, to have Law weigh in before I burn up my time, or no? I could clarify. This is my time, so no thank you.
Okay, Chair, I'm going to come off the queue. Can I get an answer if legal can or cannot respond to this, please? That is my question.
We've got someone, Grant Murray from legal, who is going to appear shortly to respond.
Okay, I'll come off the queue and come back on. Thanks.
Okay, thanks very much. Councillor Maloney. I could probably obviate the need for legal to look at this by agreeing to slightly amend the wording to something to the effect of maximise the chances of inclusion at the construction stage in order to alleviate the concerns raised by Councillor Kirby-Young. So I would like to then... Do you mean to amend the amendment then? Yeah, I would like to... Perhaps we could use the proposed recess time for legal to help me come up with a form of words that would make it less obligatory and more maximising the chances.
Okay. I see Grant Murray coming here right now. He's going to be responding, so perhaps... One moment here. I'm going to pause your clock for a second, Councillor.
We've got two things going on here. One, it's the same time, so the potential for amending this amendment, but a question that came from Councillor Kirby Young. I've just paused the clock. I'm just going to get Grant. Sorry, it's Grant Murray from Legal Services. I don't understand that this would bind the council in the future. It could be amended at any time. And I don't think, like, a lot of the, many of the policies undertaken by the city go beyond the term of the current term and even beyond the next term. I don't think that it's improper to say that it'll ensure something when it could certainly be amended at a later date. I acknowledge this is largely about the current capital plan, but in order to better place something for a future capital plan during this capital plan doesn't strike me as something unlawful. It can be voted down if you don't like it, but I don't think that it could be objected to as something that is in any manner compelling a future council to do something when it's always open to be revisited by that future council. So what I'm going to do is, Councillor Kirby, I'm going to just bring you back on. Councillor Maloney, you can add yourself back to the queue.
Yeah, thanks, Jared. No, I appreciate the answer. I just always want to make sure that we are voting on something that is lawful so that we are not unduly raising expectations, again, for a community if we do not have the ability to do something. So I'm satisfied with the answer that law has given, and I appreciate the response to the question. Thank you.
Sorry, I was walking. Was there another question as well, or is that? No, no. Thank you. So with that in mind. Go back to the Cascadia room. With the response. Thanks very much, Grant.
No, you're still there. Go ahead.
No, I came off the cue 15 seconds ago.
Okay. So, Councillor Maloney, based on what we're hearing right now, Thank you. I don't need any more advice from legal, and I acknowledge that it was worth asking the question in order to get that clarification. So thank you to Councillor Kirby Young for that. All right. Councillor Kirby Young?
No, I came off the queue. Okay.
Very good. All right. Then we are going to vote on the amendment on the screen.