One second, please.

Okay, here we are. We're doing the right script.

Q, please, and put Councillor Bligh first.

Okay, Councillor Bligh, please go ahead.

It sounded like we didn't have Councillor Bligh earlier, correct?

I'll give it one second effort in case Councillor Bligh is having difficulty with her controls Okay, I'm not hearing anything so let's put Councillor Bligh to the end of the queue Thanks and clerks can you just remind me since I'm participating this item I'm still free to ask questions, correct?

Craig Crawford, Director of Facilities Development, responding to the question regarding the plan for Kitts Pool. In the capital plan, it's indicated that we will have funding for planning for the future options for Kitts Pool, and the final decisions or recommendation has been made with respect to the future of the pool at this time.

It's planning at this point, and the actual actions arising would depend on the scope of the decision in terms of cost and time.

Thank you for the question. We have obviously done a substantial amount of work for this season. We are hoping that the work that we've done to date will continue and have the pool operational as we're actually going into the planning. So, I mean, there's every option to keep it open as long as possible, barring anything... catastrophic, we intend to actually keep ensuring that the pool will be operational as we're doing the planning.

I'm going to let Craig Crawford answer that question, but we actually do have an amount.

YES THE MARPO POOL IS INCLUDED IN THE PLAN BECAUSE IT'S A FUNDING ENVELOPE WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITIVE COST ON IT YET AT THIS TIME IT WAS PREVIOUSLY COSTED BUT THAT COSTING IS STALE DATED SO WE'LL HAVE TO UPDATE THE EXACT COST FOR THE POOL

In the plan and because all the aquatics, all the community centers are part of our funding envelope, we are not bringing forward definitive costing at this time. We're going to work through our due diligence and bring forward more definitive costing when the final scope of work is determined.

Yes, correct.

Yes, absolutely. Lon LeClaire, General Manager of Engineering Services. Yes, and I think that that would be more appropriately coming from our $64 million for active transportation. But, yeah, we plan to do a thorough investigation of that area and see what kind of improvements should be implemented.

Margaret Witkins, General Manager, Arts, Culture, and Community Services. Yes, it is in the plan. I believe the anticipated cost is $15 million, and it includes the kind of fundamental functional as well as accessibility upgrades, such as elevator, improved entrances, and backstage area.

Right now, we're still using carryover funding. We're anticipating to use carryover funding from this term. So this capital plan, we spent $11 million on rehabilitation, planning, and design. We had $6 million on near-term repairs. So this leftover money from this capital plan, we're using it to advance the work on Maple Tree Square, the Portland Loo, and continued interim improvements on Water Street. including some replacement of the concrete barriers with more aesthetic materials.

Thank you, Chair. Question around public safety. The integrated technology platform is described as connecting body-worn camera, live feeds, drone feeds, office relocation, real-time alerts, CCTV feeds into a single operational picture. Has a privacy impact assessment been conducted on this integration layer as a whole, separate from assessments of each individual technology? And what data protections are in place and where is it stored? And what safety precautions are in place to prevent leaks and cyber attacks?

Cut off the phone with Chief Rai. He's en route from another important meeting, but he'll be here shortly. Could I ask that we hold questions for him for a few minutes? Hold. Okay.

I'm just scrolling through the list to get to something else. Okay, streets. 192 million of the 703 streets envelope plans comes from partner funding. How firm are those commitments given the plan's own note about fewer new partner funding opportunities due to growing fiscal deficits? Have senior governments already earmarked this funding and is it liquid? Most of our funding in the streets category comes from TransLink. And those funding commitments in the early years of this plan are quite firm. Going out, of course, it does become risky because, as you know, their financial situation requires some attention. Right, yeah, of course. Okay, does the $80 million active transportation line include safety outcome targets and not just sort of kilometers built? Absolutely. The money that we have set aside for active transportation is largely related to safety improvements for those modes, but also enhancements to encourage the choice of selecting those modes. So expanding walking and cycling greenways and infrastructure. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. For community facilities, the five community centers slated for renewal, Dunbar, Carisdale, Hastings, Roundhouse, Kensington, don't include a downtown east side serving facility. Is there a downtown east side specific facility commitment anywhere in the plan? And is Britannia still in the planning stage? Is that the only sort of downtown east side adjacent project? And why is Raycam not a priority here? Thank you for the questions. So absolutely, Britannia is part of our planning. We're actually in the throes of planning a whole area plan for Britannia, so we've got a whole bunch of issues that we're actually dealing with, and we're also working with the Britannia board on those. We don't have a downtown east side facility in the plan at this time, but we actually are looking at upgrades to Ray Camp, and that is something that we're looking at actively and have been for quite a while. Is that in this plan? We have funding available within our planning that we've actually allocated. What we're exactly doing with RECAM is actually still in the planning stages. We're working closely with BC Housing. We have a partnership with them. So that is the plan right now for the downtown east side. Okay. Kids pool question was asked. Child care delivery, 160 new spaces is... It's entirely developer-led or slash in-kind. Given the plan's own warnings about a development slowdown, what's the fallback if those spaces don't materialize? And are these spaces already approved in principle? And, yeah. I'd like to get back to you with the actual details on that, Councillor, as I don't have them on at hand.

Okay. For housing and sort of the $74.5 million acquisition, SRO replacement and development, what income level would these thresholds apply to this replacement unit, sort of given the concern that downtown Eastside social housing rezoning is only guaranteed at 30% at deep affordability levels? Ryan Bigelow, Managing Director of Non-Market Housing Development. For SRO replacement, you're referring to, I imagine? Yeah, yeah. We'd like to, the target is all those units be replaced at shelter rate, but that's dependent on senior government subsidy being there. So, yeah. So that's the goal, but that... might not materialize yeah it needs to be a partnership with with senior government to do that okay um and then what sorry what's what is uh what are we doing you know obviously i know we're advocating for you know canada builds and and uh obviously we've also advocated you know to the province to restore the community housing fund that would that would be something that would help thanks counselor or you are at time incredibly uh counselor fry go ahead Yeah, thank you. I'm happy to hear the RACAM. I was looking for RACAM in this document and didn't see it, but I'm happy to hear that it is still in the... There is some critical need there and also Britannia, but... So happy to hear that. Thank you. As I look at this just broadly, there's a bucket here for climate and seismic resilience. $52 million doesn't seem like a lot of money for... what is involved. But then as I look through the larger document, it seems climate and seismic resilience is interwoven into a lot of other capital allocations. Can you walk me through the distinction in that $52 million bucket versus the big picture? Yeah, part of that change from last capital plan to this capital plan has to do with how we've accounted for it. Overall, broadly speaking, the levels of investment for these categories is very similar, actually. Slightly down for mitigation, slightly up for adaptation initiatives. And so the nature of climate work is some are bucketed and identified as sort of climate-led initiatives that comprise the envelope you see there. And as I described in the presentation, there are many other initiatives that are baked in and woven throughout the organization through many other facilities and assets that are coming forward through this capital plan. So to be clear, then the $52 million is more very targeted within that, but we're still... managing everything we do is seismically resilient as we make those investments and similarly climate resilient. That would be a very fair way to put it, yes, Councillor. Thank you for the clarity on that. Bikeways for Lon or Paul. Where are we at with ungapping the map on a lot of this, knitting it all together? There's still big parts of the bike network that aren't connected, and I see there's reasonable capital investments in upgrading and completing the bike. What does that look like in actually unmapping the gap? Yeah, so I can give some of the examples.

Of the 20 kilometers of new or improved bikeways, we are anticipating to improve the Adnak bike facility east of Rupert, so Rupert to Boundary, the Stainsbury Greenway, Kent Avenue Greenway, 45th Avenue Greenway. We're also looking at... some opportunities for improved connections to the Granville Bridge connector off the fur ramp to connect to 10th Avenue. And in coordination with the seismic upgrades on the Canby Bridge, some additional walk-in and cycling improvements to the Canby Bridge. That fur ramp upgrade would be very excellent, actually. That's a messy... It's an exciting one. Yeah. How does our 30-kilometer neighborhood streets integrate with... expanding our bikeways. Is that part of the same plan? We know obviously slower, safer streets facilitate different forms of active transportation in a more robust way. Yeah, I mean, these things complement each other quite nicely. It used to be that we would be targeting slower, safer streets on just walking and cycling routes. But yeah, with a more broad approach to neighborhood-wide slower, safer streets, actually this helps probably accelerate some of our work. Okay, thank you. More broadly, and this is probably for Steve Jackson, looking at, and I see we have the park chair here and other park-related commissioner types. As I understand it, the park board's past capital budget from earlier this week is quite different priorities from what's being presented in here. Am I reading that correctly? There's a number of similarities, and, of course, there are a number of differences, particularly in the community facilities. There are assets being prioritized by our board that aren't reflected in the city plan, and there's a couple of assets in the city plan not reflected in the park board plan. And how does park board, not the commissioners, because I understand the commissioners had a $1.4 billion ask, and then park board planning staff came back with a more modest ask. How does the park board determine what they prioritize in their capital plan? So we'll be working with the incoming board in November. So we'll onboard them and acquaint them with the current plan that we've got approved from our board. And then through our annual capital budgets, we'll seek their priorities through that process. And then through that, we seek council's funding commitments through an annual process. Sorry, I meant more specifically the plan that you presented this week. How did you come about with that? Oh, sorry about that, not understanding the question. So we've built our plan based on really sort of two facets. One, the direction from our board in April, and two, the many strategies and policy documents that have been developed over the past decade plus. So things like Van Play, Van Splash, our community center strategy, all sort of community-informed engagement policies. Do facility conditions play into that?

Yeah, thanks, Chair. So just to follow up Councillor Kerbian's question regarding the swimming pool in the Marple and the Sunset. So it is good to see it is confirmed in this capital plan. But when I heard some residents, they were still concerning. Even it is in the capital plan, city is not going to build it. So what do we say to those residents? Well, what I would say is that often when there's a significant change in a neighborhood, that changes the demand and the circumstances. And so this is why we do need to do an investigation to see what's necessary in those areas. I can confirm that funding is available when we come down to what changes would improve the crossings and conditions for pedestrians walking in those areas. Okay, so I'm talking about the swimming pool there. So can we make sure it will be built in this capital plan? That's the question that the residents have. Well, if the need is there, then it will be built. Okay, it will be built. Yeah, that's confirmed. Good, thanks. Another question is, I know this is a $3.5 billion capital plan. Do we know how much money towards renewing existing infrastructure compared to with how much money expanding or constructing new assets? Do we have that number? Sorry, could you repeat the last point? Yeah, so how much money we are actually towards existing infrastructure? How much money we're going to use for expanding or build new infrastructure, new assets? Yeah, so renewal will be approximately 70% of the allocation with the remaining around expanded or new infrastructure. 30% for the new. Yeah. Thank you. Is that normally the same percentage we do in the previous capital plan? So I think with this capital plan, there's a focus on renewal. And as noted in the report and presentation, the increased funding from supported by council to put towards renewal has increased that percentage on the renewal side. Okay. Thanks. So other questions, what are the measurable improvements in those asset conditions should we expect to see in this capital plan? For instance, are we going to use Vans Dash to track the roles, site wall, committee centers, and all the other assets? So I think I'll speak broadly around the asset management. Council has provided direction to continue to develop an asset management framework across city assets. As we've highlighted in communications to council, we'll continue to implement that. And part of that does include... coming back to council with updated information on facility conditions. Okay. Are we going to use VanStat to keep track of this information and make that information available to the public?

I think we'll, like we, I think as staff will work to determine the appropriate means to effectively communicate this to council through a variety of forums. I can't speak specifically to the VanStat forum, but I can say that we will under council direction report Okay, let me think about that because of the council direction. And also the other question is, can we explain the operational importance of replacing the aging police vehicles, fare operators, and also the Marine Patrol vessel? I know the Chief Wright is not here. Maybe Chief Wright can. Why is it so important to replace fare trucks? Yeah, so fire trucks have a requirement to be replaced every 15 years to meet our standards under NFPA. And in the city of Vancouver, apart from that 15-year replacement, we put a lot of wear and tear, and they are ready to go and really can't even be moved into a reserve status after that. Does that answer your question? Yeah, thanks, Chief Wright. So I'll ask Chief Wright the same question when he is here. Okay, so the other question, to follow up Councillor Fry's question about Park Board, does this proposed capital plan process respect Park Board's legal jurisdiction under Vancouver Charter?

Yes, the process followed in the development of this capital plan, which is being presented to Council, is lawful in accordance with the Vancouver Charter. Okay, thanks.

Okay, can I ask a second round question, Chair?

I'll come back. Thanks, Chair. Councillor Bligh, please go ahead. Thanks very much. I'm going to ask that question maybe in a different way. And forgive me if it was asked earlier while I was not here at the meeting. But if Council approves one capital plan for... Parks and Recreation and Park Board has approved a different capital plan. What happens in terms of delivery? Yes. So as outlined in the information shared with council and publicly available around the questions raised on this, to answer the question specifically, there can be two capital plans, a Park Board plan and a city plan. And as outlined, the process is that, as Steve Jackson indicated, that in successive annual budgets, the Park Board would consider and propose a budget to council, which council has jurisdiction to approve or amend under the Vancouver Charter. Future decisions. Yeah. Okay. So it's more about the amount of money on the plebiscite, essentially, that sort of sets us up for the future decisions around the capital plan, not necessarily what will be delivered. I think the capital plan, as part of the report recommendation, seeks council approval for plebiscite questions, which will go to the electorate. And then there are processes under which council is able to adjust the capital plan and approve annual capital budgets. Thank you. I appreciate that. Just a question on... So, and I'm going back to your presentation. So these are just questions that were flagged during that presentation. So closing the gap based on our current deficit, it was, I think, forecasted over 20 years rather than 40 or 30, give or take 10 years. It's obviously adjusted for inflation over that 20 years. Yes, that slide that you're referring to, we've considered estimates of inflation and assessing the impact. Okay, and then in terms of the 0% budget and its impact on reserves and unplanned expenditures for this year, how is that impacting our reserves that will be relied upon for debt servicing? Like, I'm connecting it back to the capital plan when it comes to our borrowing capacity. So what's been the impact on our reserves due to the 0% budget? Yeah, so again, I'll respond in the context of this capital plan item. So any borrowing capacity reserves that are set aside for the repayment of future debt are like under the charter are very specific to debt and those can't be reallocated to other areas. So I can confirm that we have and will continue to build our budgets in accordance with the charter and ensuring that there's appropriate reserves for repayment of debt in future. Okay. Part of the – we did move a motion around the suicide bars and the means prevention fencing, I should say.

Thank you for the question. At the Orpheum, there's continued work related to roofing and mechanical systems, and at Queen Elizabeth Theater, as well as the Playhouse, there is accessibility upgrades, as well as mechanical system upgrades and other kind of foundational system requirements.

I just appreciate more details.

Thanks for the question. She's Steve Jackson, general manager of Vancouver Park Board. So the park board does have some plans and money allocated towards park washrooms as well, both renewal as well as new, and I can get you some specific details around some of the priority areas we're looking at. Okay. What about English Bay Bathhouse? Is that contemplated? I'd have to double check.

Yes, I would say that we found that the bundling created a lot of efficiencies and also attracted a quality of contractor that we wouldn't have otherwise achieved. Also, working in parallel helped us standardize a lot of the components, and so we'll be using those in the new ones. I will point out there are a few unique ones in there. There's the fan site right on Robson Street, 100 Robson, which is going to be a unique design right in front of the stadium. And also, Yale Town is looking at the... Helm can block for permanent plaza, which also might be a very unique design.

Yes, that one, because of the full block development on half of that street, which is the new hotel that's going in there, we will be coordinating the construction of that plaza along with the restoration that naturally comes in front of a big development like that.

Yes, what we're looking at doing is changing the way the laning works across the entire bridge. So as the final phase of the seismic upgrade is a fully resurfacing of the bridge deck. which would allow us to put the cyclist facility on the other side of the vehicle barrier, actually take some space away from the southbound cycling. It's a little bit complicated. It's a change to the center median, but it does achieve a much more balanced approach for both walking and cycling across the bridge.

Well, there's seven full blocks of Broadway that are going to be reconstructed as a result of the restoration of the stations. Those are all covered under the project. So that's the provincial government work. We developed the design, which largely reallocates the bus lane space to sidewalk. So people will see a very different Broadway on those seven blocks. And then the remaining blocks, it's really up to the city and future development to take advantage of opportunities to transform Broadway.

Thanks. My first questions are for Chief Fry. We have 19 fire halls. How many fire halls will still need seismic upgrades after the two dealt with in this capital plan? Thank you. I'm going to turn it over to Ari. No worries. Hi, Carrie Hughes, and I'm the Director of Facilities Management and Operational Excellence. So there's 19 fire halls in total. Seven of those would be considered higher risk, and we are addressing four of them, two in the current capital plan, two in the upcoming capital plan. And then we will be addressing other targeted structural and non-structural seismic in the remainder. All right. So there are three that are unlikely to be dealt with in this capital plan? They will be, but in more targeted aspects. So it will be falling in under the capital maintenance program. All right. Thanks.

How many fire halls need things like HVAC replacements to ensure proper cooling or other? Perhaps Chief Fry might want to weigh in about... other capital priorities for upgrading fire stations, fire halls.

Yeah, thank you for that. I don't have the exact numbers of the ones that we have adequate HVAC. I know number one is definitely on the plans, and the majority of our older halls have insufficient HVAC systems. REFM has been adding it to the ones that can. We have electrical capacity issues in a lot of them. So for us, that is one of the most important capital infrastructure investments in our existing halls, as well as seismic upgrading. Yeah, and perhaps someone else could give me an idea of how far along we're likely to be with the current wording of the 2027 to 30 capital plan in addressing the needs that have just been outlined by Chief Wright in terms of HVAC and electrical capacity. Thank you. Of course. Could we get you a detailed account for that? We're keeping a track of all of the questions that are being asked that we can't answer. So we'll definitely get that for you. And I think you'd be better informed that way. Absolutely. We'll send it as a memo to everyone. Is there any way of, I think it's an important enough issue that if there's any way of giving a broad indication during this meeting, that would be very welcome. We'll try. Absolutely. Thank you. Sorry to put you on the spot with that.

Now, I've just got a question about swimming pools. So I guess it's a park board question.

When is the newly built Vancouver Aquatic Centre set projected to be open on current plans.

Hi, Steve Jackson, General Manager, Park Board. Thanks for the question. So right now the projected, if we keep pace with the plan, is 2030. Okay. Now, there are various... I'm interested in the prospects for a 50-metre indoor competition... grade swimming pool with diving facility suitable for water polo. Can you outline to me on the current capital plan that's contemplated being approved by this council how long it's going to take to get that? I may have to defer to Craig Crawford on that one. I can speak to the park board's plan. We have planning money for a 50-metre facility, so we would complete that work in the next four years with the hope of being able to proceed with design and construction in the following plan. So what year would we be looking at if that proceeds as planned for a new competition? I would say mid-2030, so 2034, 2035, assuming it would come from the subsequent. So is that ribbon cutting or commencing construction? One of those two options, yes. I think there are a lot of people in this city that are very interested in the answer to that question. All right. Well, look, I'll... somewhere between 20 – can you – sorry, do you just remind me what range of years that would be? Somewhere between 20 – Somewhere between 2034 to 2036, giving a good enough range. All right. Good. Thanks. Great to know. I'd like to talk about active transport and cycling infrastructure. That is your time, Councillor Mulvaney.

Councillor Dominato, go ahead. Thanks, Chair. Yeah, sort of a general question. I don't know who's going to take this one, but I'm curious. We have some projects that will be complete in the current capital plan, but we have some that are carrying over. I'm curious if you could just comment and give us the broad strokes of which major capital projects will... be continuing forward in the 2027 2030 plan carrying over from the current plan Britannia springs to mind but I think there's probably others I'm curious if staff could comment on what they see as sort of the top projects that are carrying over aside from the obviously like pipes water sewer that's ongoing but other major investments So I think, again, in the report and presentation, I think where we highlight the current capital plan, some of the projects, for example, the Vancouver Aquatic Center comes to mind, significant work in a number of the engineering utility areas, for example. But I think in general... The more detailed information is in the report. If helpful, we can identify some of the key ones that are listed.

We have a few. We've got the animal shelter, and that's in the report as well. We have fire halls. Vancouver Aquatic Center comes to mind being one of the largest ones that's being carried over and slated for completion in the next capital plan. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. And I'm noting, because I think there has been a little bit of confusion on the part of the public, as my colleague asked about the 15-meter pool. There is indeed, this is prioritized in this plan. A location hasn't been identified, but It is contemplated in here, correct? I'm probably answering my own question, but if you're nodding, yes. Correct.

The capital plan is setting aside some funding for planning of it, and siting of it is a key first consideration for that. So the short answer is yes. No site has been landed on, but the planning feasibility funding is going to be available for that exercise. Okay, fantastic. Thanks for clarifying that. And then I'm interested on the public engagement side of this as I'm looking at slides 84 and 85, 86. Just... I'm curious. Some of this, the format looks a little bit different from previous years in terms of how we've gathered input, but I took a great interest in seeing respondents' interest in the focus on transportation and streets and community facilities and parks. And I'm curious how much, when you looked at that, how much that informed the planning development of this plan, because it seems different from previous years. in terms of what we've received as input into the plan.

We've heard oftentimes the public saying, you know, focus on housing and child care, even though they're not our jurisdiction, but I see a much stronger focus on the part of the public around transportation streets, community facilities, parks. So you're looking for the responses to the prior engagement that we did on the past capital plans? I'm curious if you've observed a difference in the public's... on how we invest in capital because it seemed, I didn't get a chance to cross-reference with previous surveys, but my instinct says that this input is different than what we've seen in previous years. Okay. If you can give me a moment, I can get that exact detail for you. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. So my question is, I think in this report, staff estimates Vancouver facing the annual infrastructure deficit of $500 million. How does this capital plan will help us reduce that gap? YES, THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. THIS CAPITAL PLAN MAKES SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS TO REDUCING THAT GAP. AS OUTLINED, IT WILL TAKE TIME. IT ACCUMULATED OVER MANY DECADES AND WILL TAKE TIME TO RESOLVE. BUT BECAUSE OF THE DIRECTION PROVIDED BY COUNCIL TO INCREASE THE INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY TO 2% FROM 1% ANNUALLY, THAT IS ESTIMATED TO HAVE THE TIME THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CLOSE THAT FROM 40 YEARS TO 20 YEARS. Okay, so we cut time by half in this capital plan. Perfect, thank you. Okay, the other questions, I know, I remember after the general report found 72% of the recreation facility were in poor or very poor condition. How does this plan help us improve the condition? Do we have any estimate at the end of the plan? What will be the percentage? So again, I'll just speak to, like, at Council's direction, the current plan includes a significant focus on renewal of facilities, and that is reflected in the plan, and that will support improvement of facilities conditions. I think as noted in some of the earlier comments, for many of the projects, there is due diligence work that is needed in order to provide sort of specific answers to details, but broadly I can say that by prioritizing investment in these areas, it will make meaningful progress towards improvement of conditions. Do we have any estimation by the end of the plan? What will be the percentage? In terms of facility conditions? Yes. I know it's probably hard to predict. Thank you for the question. It would absolutely be difficult to predict on the fly right now, to be honest. I think we'd rather have a bit more of a detailed account as to where exactly our FCIs are with our buildings so we can actually give you a more informed answer. But as the existing facilities start aging, can we make sure that the percentage will be getting better? Absolutely. That's the goal. That's the answer I want. Thanks. Of course. Okay, the other question is, I think this plan anticipated we're going to have only $200 million in partner contributions, down from the $450 million from the last plan. So what advocacy or the funding strategy will Citi pursue to secure a fair contribution on the senior level of government? I'll start by just emphasizing again that we will continue to advocate. And as in prior plans, should senior government announce that additional funding, then we do have the ability to bring to council amendments to the plan and budget and future budgets and quarterly capital reports.

So we would continue to advocate and continue... to adjust the plan in future as funding commitments are secured. But as noted, given the situation in terms of senior government deficits and recent budgets, we are anticipating that funding will be lower. And so this plan has been developed accordingly. Thanks, Colin. So the other question, so we all know we are in a really tough economic situation right now because of many factors. So if the construction costs continue rising or the revenues still continue falling down, can we confirm the essential infrastructure and the core services will be protected if there's any prioritization system? So in the development and prioritization of this plan, council direction to prioritize essential infrastructure was a key factor in the development of that, of the prioritization of the plan. And in addition, the other factors as noted, including existing long-term service plans and strategies. as well as those other indicators such as asset condition. So effectively, that's how this plan has been prioritized. There are processes through annual budgets and future capital plans to continue to assess the priorities and to continue to follow council's direction to prioritize accordingly. Also the midterm review as well, right? Yeah. Okay, so again, I'm going to ask the question. I'm not sure if anyone from the police department can answer that. Why is it so important to replace the aging police vehicles? I'm not sure if anyone can answer that question. If not, that's okay.

Just to share that the chief is en route and assures me he is getting there.

Okay. Yeah, I had questions for Chief Rye as well, but okay. Can you go over the process around annual sort of capital budget reviews and the midterm reviews, what that looks like and what council can do in those opportunities, in those times? Yes, so in terms of annual budgets, and also we do quarterly reports to council on capital budgets, so as part of that, staff can bring forward proposed adjustments to capital budgets and plans. And, of course, throughout that period, there still is opportunity to provide direction to staff around prioritization. Okay, yeah, sounds good. Sorry to cut you off, just my time. For just a clear question on like the sort of legality around park board versus sort of city council. So city council can say, no, we don't want to fund that. We want to fund our own priorities, which is what it looks like this has happened here. What happens now then to park board? Park board can also just say, no, we don't want to accept that capital plan. or we don't want to accept that money and we won't build those things. It's really confusing. Got it. Yeah. So again, like through the, we'll follow the charter process as it relates to annual budget setting. And as has been indicated, Park Board will submit an annual budget to council and council has the jurisdiction around what funding is allocated and what funding isn't. Council has the ability to, So should Park Board not approve a project, Park Board has the jurisdiction for projects related to improvements on park land, and so should they not choose to proceed with a project which council has directed be funded, then council can determine how to use that funding and if it should be allocated. Okay, interesting. And then, so $500 million for five community centers, is that realistic? So the estimates provided, again, are, I think, based on our best information and achievable within the funding envelope set aside. As has been noted, we'll continue to do due diligence and design and updated costings and bring that information to council, and we'll look to always identify efficiencies and opportunities to deliver in a cost-effective way, and that will inform specific budget requests that come to council in the future. Okay, in terms of, we talked about Britannia and RACAM, but there are other sort of jointly operated facilities, I think West End, what else, Thunderbird, Strathcona. What advocacy is done, you know, with the Ministry of Education, and what would that look like?

Would that look like council direction to direct RAFM to sort of work jointly with the school board to... To find as many efficiencies, I think. Find efficiencies and advocate for funding. No, absolutely. And so we're working closely with any agency that has jurisdiction and or even doesn't necessarily have jurisdiction but would be interested in helping funding. So that partnership funding is something that's key. Okay, thanks. And then kids' pool, is it still leaking currently? Is it? There's a lot of, yeah. Yeah, of course. Hi, currently it is not. We have done seasonal maintenance before opening the pool. And we... Each year we need to do seasonal maintenance and reduce any kind of leaking that's happening. So there is a normal water loss that happens, but it's not due to any piping issues at this time. And you're confident we'll get through the next capital plan with... We are hoping to, unless there's something catastrophic that does happen. However, yeah, so just taking into consideration each year we do need to do seasonal maintenance. Okay, and then just my last, with my last 30 seconds around the public engagement piece, I noticed it was kind of located, the questions in the presentation were those five community centers. where, like, what would your priorities be at these five community centers? Is that, like... Did you ask about other community centers? What would you like to see at these other community centers or just those five? Those five community centers were outlined in the council motion. So that public outreach was done because of our council direction? Correct. And then there was some additional work that was done around neighborhood houses and other gathering places for individuals where notices were provided to let folks know about that public engagement.

My timer was running this whole time.

Okay, but for a third round? Okay, no.

They've aligned on sort of the priorities as a group, and that's what's reflected in our plan. In your plan. Did they have any comment on any other plan? My understanding is they've provided communications to council directly. Yes, okay, I will look for that. But they did endorse the park board's plan. I'd have to take away if they formally endorse, but I know we've received many comments of support from those APG presidents, and I know we've got a couple of commissioners ready to speak who can likely comment on that as well. Okay, that's great. Thank you very much. I just have one other question, actually, Steve, while you're there, is Queen Elizabeth's Fountains, in terms of, and just that space generally on the top by Bloedel, what are the plans for... Just generally, what's the future vision of that plaza? It's vast. And in a very hot, sunny day, it's very hot. And there's very little shade. And I wonder if that is affecting how many people think to utilize that area specifically. Yeah, so just wondering what the future vision is for that area. Yeah, I think two pieces on that. One, we are planning to do a Queen Elizabeth Park master plan exercise as part of the next capital plan. The other piece, just for awareness, is that is over top of Metro Vancouver water assets, and so there's a bit of a limitation in terms of what we can do in that concrete paradise space. So we're making the best use of it as we can, but part of it is restrictions in terms of what we can put on top. Can I get some more information on what those conflicts are between just what's required in terms of access, it sounds like, for Metro Water and what we would like to do with it? Certainly. Great. Thank you.

Sorry. Actually, back on for Steve. Sorry, Steve Jackson. On the Kitsilano pool, am I correct? We did get some renewal options planning kind of considerations last year, but I see it just sort of – is Kitsilano pool in good enough shape to last through – there's no investment in this capital plan, correct? It's just planning? Yes, I would probably defer to REFM. I think just reiterating what they have said, they will likely need to invest some maintenance dollars every year to make sure that any leaks are tackled. What we can never really predict is if any major storm comes through and causes more sort of catastrophic damage to that site and what would be required. So the planning material that we received last year is not... I don't believe any of those three options are informing this plan. I think it's status quo in the park board plan. Our board has endorsed the $40 million protect option. Right. And so, okay. So the planning that's prescribed in this capital plan is a whole new planning approach to the future of Kitsilano pool, basically. Yes. I'm seeing nods. Yes. Okay. All right. Okay. Moving on, and this could be kind of a Steve thing too, is just more general. In the last capital plan, I was really keen on seeing us move towards a... a natural asset accounting approach to capital budget planning and looking at natural assets and how they can be accounted for in our daily reckoning. So obviously forests and that kind of natural systems permeability kind of help impact our need for storm sewer separation, all those kind of things. Have we moved the dial at all on those kind of considerations in our capital planning, specifically natural asset accounting?

I can say that the city is actively involved in discussions with relevant accounting bodies and peer agencies around the changing accounting standards in that area. So work is being undertaken. I will say that that's more relevant to the capital budget versus the capital plan. And you will be able to see the reporting that was included in our annual financial statements that were released several months ago, and there is a section around the progress on related accounting standards. It is a work in progress, so we'll continue to update as standards change. Well, and that pleases me to hear, so it is actually moving towards a standard that professionals are starting to incorporate in asset planning generally, because that is, is that what you're saying? Because that makes me very happy. Yes, I think that we do participate in those discussions and we do use that to inform our planning processes where appropriate. Okay, I appreciate that. Thanks, Colin. On to probably more of a lawn thing and accessibility and how we...

integrate actual sort of access this accessibility act and accessibility in our in our infrastructure planning is it do we have more i mean it's it's tangentially mentioned here but thinking things like audio crossings curb cuts tactile surfaces do we have a very specific earmarked budget to pursue that, or is it kind of like an incidental as we do general improvements, we add a little bit of accessibility? And can we talk about targeting accessible interventions? Yeah, so the accessibility objectives are integrated into the active transportation budgets. It is a factor in the escalation of a lot of the cost of our items. So traffic signals used to be $200,000, now they're half a million and they end up being more just because of all the accessible attachments that get added to that. Council gave us really good direction in the lead up to this capital plan to eliminate the backlog of requests for accessible ramps. So curb ramps, we are fully caught up. We had a backlog of about 400 or 500 requests. So we're able to tackle those all. And now we're able to install a curb ramp in any location where we get a request. So I feel like we have kind of got back, got cut up on the deficit that we had in funding specifically for accessibility. And now moving forward, all accessibility is included in new work. Do we have a strategy on audible crossings specifically? We do. And what does that look like? How many audible are we planning to add? It's included with any new signals and any retrofits. So I could share with you how many signals we expect to rehabilitate from the past and kind of bring up to standard. That would be great. Thank you. Okay. Okay, thanks Councillor Fry, Councillor Maloney. I'd like to move to suspend the rules and have a third round of questions.

Great. Okay, great. Please go ahead, Councillor Maloney. I'm conscious that that took 30 seconds. Could I possibly have my time reset, please?

I'll do my best. Thank you. So this is a question for the Head of Engineering. The consultation showed that protected bikeways and cycling connections were the highest ranked transport and street improvements. And we've heard that it is budgeted to have 20 kilometres of both new and renewed protected bike lanes or bike routes. Could you break down for me how much of that is likely to be renewed existing bike routes and how much is to be new bike routes and how much of that is aimed at south and east Vancouver? I CAN GET BACK TO YOU ON THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF HOW MUCH OF IT IS NEW VERSUS RENEWED, BUT I DO HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU IN THE QUADRANTS. SO OF THE MONEY, WELL, THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED EARLY ON, AND OF COURSE THE LIST OF PROJECTS CAN CHANGE. But in the northeast sector of the city, we're expecting about 30% of the kilometers of new improvement would occur in that area. And then in the southeast sector, about 40%, which remains the rest of the city, which I would describe it as west side and central. would be the remaining 30% of lane kilometers. Now, that's a little bit different than the dollar values as well, because in some cases, you know, doing a kilometer of bikeway might be easily achievable on a local street that's adaptable versus kind of the more expensive interventions that we do on, say, the Canby Bridge or the Granville Bridge, where the length of the improvement's not that significant, but the cost is very high. Thank you. And I mean, I find it a bit disappointing that we're only aiming to do 20 kilometres of new and renewed bike routes in the next four years. So can I just confirm that the limiting factor there is qualified staff time? I mean, ultimately, there's a couple of things that we would suggest. I mean, the one thing that is a big factor for our active transportation program is we get good contributions from TransLink. Once we've exhausted those dollars, you know, we get $0.50 or $0.25 on those investments. Once we've exhausted that cap, then it's 100% city-costed. which of course means that it's going to cost taxpayers more. In terms of the network, we do feel like the foundational network has become quite well developed. The number of gaps that we have to close in the citywide network are shrinking over time. And then what we're finding is going back to older bikeways that really need an upgrade is actually a better use of our time rather than kind of closing existing gaps sometimes. And does the funding cover resurfacing of bike lanes?

I had a bit of a bone-jarring experience on my way to City Hall and I know that it's an accessibility issue for a lot of cyclists, particularly seniors. For road surface renewals, those really fall under that $104 million that Council identified for local streets. We would prioritise locations where they're particularly bumpy and in locations where active transportation is well used, where we see a lot of cycling. So that $104 million will also cover... It does. It does. It has a benefit for the bike network as well as the road network, if you want to think of it. They're both sharing the same space. That's very helpful, thanks. I might save the rest of my questions for the third round. Thanks very much.

The integrated technology platform is described as connecting body-worn camera live feeds, drone feeds, officer location, real-time alerts, CCTV feeds into a single operational picture. Has a privacy impact assessment been conducted on this integration layer as a whole? What data protections are in place? Where is it stored? And what safety precautions are in place to prevent leaks and cyber attacks? Thanks for the question, Councillor. In our business, privacy is always at the center of most decisions because of our public aspect of the intersection with the public. So, yes, a privacy assessment is done on each individual tool you just mentioned. Every single technological tool that we introduce has a privacy assessment completed. The fusion of all as a whole, how body-worn video is integrated into our command center Decisions can be made in real time. That overall assessment is also done on the fusion of everything. It follows best practices from the provincial oversight body on privacy. We have a dedicated expert in our privacy section that does it, who's qualified to provincial standards. We report out to the privacy commissioner as a professional courtesy or obligation. And what was the other?

Where is the data stored? The data is stored in the provincially mandated digital evidence management system. It's in a cloud. But it's the entire provincial justice system is moving to that. Police already have. The courts will be. They're working on it now. But it's all our elected representatives own that. Yeah, okay, thanks. And then just on CCTV, the report cites Surrey and Richmond moving in this direction and warns Vancouver risks becoming a regional gap if it doesn't follow. Is there independent evidence CCTV networks reduce crime, or do they primarily sort of displace it to areas where there isn't CCTV?

So part of that is a sociological question. So we could argue the sociology of what's disbursement. So CCTV going up in Surrey, 600 cameras, and Richmond, depending on how that plays out with their challenge there. it will disperse crime from those areas to potentially our area. Now, we could argue that. We could debate it. But if we don't start keeping up with the 21st century criminal who goes where it's easiest to do crime... then for sure we'll be dealing with the displacement from other cities into Vancouver.

Right now, we're holding the line. Crime on the street is combated through good old police work beats and bicycles and talking to people. But there's a whole other industry that's come up around the 21st century, and that's crime from other parts of the world. And you saw that in the extortions and all those kind of things and frauds and child luring and predatory behavior. So that whole new industry, we're going to have to keep up with that as well. So that's where the technology, whether it's CCTV or drones or whatever, we've got criminals flying drones over top of police drones to see where our drones are so they know where to go do crime. So it's just, you know... AI, this is a good conversation, but yes, you could argue there's displacement, but we could be the victims of that displacement in Vancouver. I believe that's most of my time. With 30 seconds left, I do believe, sorry, can I ask questions to somebody else? Yeah, okay, so just around sort of that question around whether or not the community center associations endorsed the park board plan. I believe they did. There's a letter that we have. saying that they endorsed the $496 million for recreation facilities and named as priorities Hastings, Kensington, Renfrew.

Yeah, I'm happy to hear the answer for Councillor Orr's question.

Yes, correct. You did receive a letter and they did in fact endorse the Park Boards Capital Plan. Thanks, Steve. Okay, so I have just one very quick question to Chief Rai. So can you explain to the council, also the public, why it is so important to replace those aging police vehicles? If there's any risks if we delay this replacement? Okay, so first of all, let me just say our fleet, we manage our fleet with the city fleet system. So we partner with the city on governing best practices on replacement of fleet. So on average... We replace our fleet vehicles at about 10-year mark, 7, 8, 9, depending on the wear and tear on that particular vehicle. You want to replace the fleet in emergency police operations, whether it's fire, ambulance, or police, because if you don't replace the vehicle, it's going to cost you more to maintain an expensive vehicle. vehicle with lots of components in it and it creates liability and risk for the city and the police department if you're driving around in old vehicles and half the time you're driving you're operating it as an emergency vehicle uh going over the speed limits and you know there's higher risk driving involved so you must have a uh A fleet that keeps up with best practices. So, like I said, we try to replace it at 7 to 10 years in conjunction with the city. All the vehicles are tracked through software, and we're trying to move to more hybrid. We've got, I believe, the highest hybrid... fleet in the city system out of all the departments. So we're trying to be mindful of the costs around not only operating, but there's also a pride factor for the city. We don't, you know, if you look down in the south and some of the cities that are struggling, like Detroit and driving around in, you know, 30-year-old police cars, we don't want that image for Vancouver, top five cities. So there's all sort of aesthetic reasons, but safety is the biggest thing. Thanks, Chief.

Thanks very much. Councillor Maloney. Thank you. I just was wondering maybe if you have an answer, Armin, to my question about how many, what the cost would be involved in the necessary HVAC replacements for fire halls to get proper cooling. So currently there are approximately 12 of the fire halls that require HVAC upgrades. As part of that, there are some work that needs to happen in advance through BC Hydro. So we're partnering with BC Hydro to do some upgrades. There's also electrical upgrades that need to happen prior to the HVAC work. And it's about... altogether about $2.5 million to do that work for each fire hall. Okay, thanks very much. On to sidewalk rehabilitation, how much sidewalk rehabilitation is needed compared to what is in this capital plan?

Yes, as part of the VanStat presentation, we did identify areas where sidewalk renewal was required across the city, and it was a very large number. But if you recall, a lot of that was in areas that weren't heavily occupied, so light industrial areas where very few people walk. So with this capital plan, it's a significant increase. It's about like 300% increase in the amount of sidewalk renewal. Our priority was still to look at those maps of overlays that we generated, which was where are the people, where are the concerns, where are the trip hazards, and try to focus those in areas where the difference, it'll have the most impact. Okay, so it's a prioritised plan with the money that you have. That's correct. Thanks very much. On to tree canopy. Is expanding the tree canopy included in this capital plan? I didn't see it detailed in the climate resilience budget line. If yes, how much is included? Yes, so there's approximately $6 million in the capital plan associated with the urban forestry. When you compare it to the previous plan, you will note that it's a significant decrease, but that is due to some GCCC funding that we've received in the current plan, which will be spent through the upcoming four years as well. So we are going to continue to progress our work towards the urban forest canopy improvements with that funding, and it's roughly the same as what we've been encountering over the last four years. And very quickly, when is East Park likely to be finished being built? East Park, so we're through the design of that first phase of East Park. We should be tendering that and beginning construction in this next capital plan. It is one of the noted priorities in the capital plan for the Park Board. So likely completion date approximately this year? It could be completed by the end of this capital plan, but I can get some more specifics. All depends on tendering and how long that project construction timeline is.

Okay. And if it were the case, I'm back on the Vancouver Aquatic Centre, we know that if everything goes as planned, it's going to be finished around 2030. If it was not to be commenced by the end of this calendar year, what are the consequences of that? I think the only consequence of it not commencing by the end of this year is any potential inflationary changes that happen in the industry between now and starting awarding that contract. Are there any factors that might endanger the funding and put it off? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. Is there any funding, this is I think one for Lon, is there any funding set aside for the demolition of the viaducts? What's the likely timeframe and is there any prospect of federal funding any time soon? No, in the plan we do... At this point, the replacement of the viaducts is not costed. Of course, we do have the plan for what we should be doing. In the meantime, until we do come up with a way of funding the replacement of those viaducts, we are including ongoing investments. So, in fact... This year we'll be starting the replacement of expansion joints on the Georgia Viaduct. We have to keep them safe and operational in the meantime, so we'll be investing in regular maintenance of those structures. And what's the likely cost of that compared to demolishing them? Well, for the viaducts in the near term, it's in the millions. So I think it's less than $10 million. I can probably pull that up. Ultimately, if the various parties and agencies that benefit from the Northeast Falls Creek Plan come together, of course, we would contribute any maintenance funding or funding that we had set aside for those viaducts towards that plan. Okay, that's all. Thanks very much. Thanks very much, Councillor. Councillor Frye. Yeah, thanks. General question. Sort of a Steve Frye question, but it's also more of a general question. In past capital planning, we talked about investing in the City Hall campus and the opportunity cost around... new SkyTrain development. We're leasing a lot of facilities, including the police HQ down the street on Canby, and consolidating that in a new sort of city hall campus. I don't really see any conversation about that anymore. Is that no longer on the books or table? We've looked at it extensively, and we are looking at other options at this time. Obviously, we haven't consolidated all of our information, but there is no plan right now apart from the planning that we've already done so far. So we had a little bit of money left over from the last plan to actually finish off some of the feasibility work, but that has halted.

But I am correct in surmising that a lot of our significant office spaces is currently leasehold, and the Auditor General had talked about this, and including, obviously, Police HQ is leased land, and we're spending money on that. We are. We're taking all of that into account. The feasibility is actually expanded around what the campus could look like. We have another area that we're sort of looking at right now, but again, very, very early stages. But at this time, we are not looking at the City Hall campus for extensive redevelopment. Okay, but given that we have the major SkyTrain infrastructure going in, is there an opportunity cost that we're missing out on here by not taking advantage of this? Yes, yes, absolutely. And we are looking at the north side as a specific area, not necessarily a VPD headquarters, but certainly redevelopment in the future will definitely be part of a redevelopment campus. And is there a reason this was deprioritized? I think, to be honest, I think it was a bunch of priorities that we actually had to look at over and above what that cost could be at this time. But it's a significant redevelopment option that we would have to look at very seriously. But a substantial amount of work, councillor, has already been done, and that report is available. So that work is not actually, will not really necessarily be wasted. It's still very relevant. Okay, and so maybe if I can ask Steve Rye, Chief Rye, about just the, you know, police HQ capital needs. Obviously, you've got different facilities, Gravely, the one down by the rail tracks, the leasehold. Where is the police strategically thinking around investment in consolidating headquarters? You mentioned how Powell Street's a bit run down and infested. No, appreciate the question, Councillor. So, Armin, we've been working... really well with uh city leadership uh and uh you know we're trying to meet somewhere with finance to help us plot a uh a plan our earthquake emergency uh or earthquake uh we were working off a 20 year old earthquake assessment most of our buildings so we have five main buildings i believe about 11 other buildings they are not up to 21st century earthquake readiness When when something does happen like that the command rooms have to be protected because that's where the work is going to be done So we would like a campus Not for us, but for the city to be ready to help people.

It's always on the agenda somewhere, but we're just not getting that traction to move forward to next steps. So we're hopeful that leadership, and I'm hoping looking at Colin, that we can find a way to get that done. So yes, we spent a lot of time driving back and forth between different buildings.

If you add that up, police officers shouldn't be driving back and forth. Sure. Between buildings. We shouldn't be leasing from ICBC for your headquarters. I agree. Is the plan ultimately for a consolidated big facility campus kind of thing? We would love to, you know, fire Karen and I talk, would love to share something together, love to share something with City Hall. We'd like to get, you know, Peel Regional just is investing over $1.3 billion on a new headquarters, and their old headquarters isn't that old. A lot of the cities have... modern, state-of-the-art emergency headquarters. So we're still working towards that here. Okay. Thanks, Chief. Okay. Thanks very much, Councillor. All right. Now, we will now hear from registered speakers for this report. Public speakers should state whether they support or oppose the recommendations and may only speak once. I'll also ask speakers if they are residents of Vancouver, if it is not noted on the speakers list. Our first public body representative is Jason Murray. Jason, I think you might want to adjust the height of that. Fantastic. You're correct, Chair. Thank you. Jason Murray from Vancouver Police Board. I am a resident of the city of Vancouver. It's my pleasure to appear today to support the board's submission to the 2027 to 2030 capital plan, which forms part of the public safety chapter of the plan. Our board chair has asked that I represent the board today in my capacity as our board's finance audit and risk committee chair. As you know, the statutory responsibilities of each of the police board and city council are unique within the architecture of of municipal governance. And so the board and council work at their best when they collaborate in pursuit of their mutual interest in public safety and to ensure adequate and effective policing and law enforcement in the community reflects the levels of police service required to meet public safety needs and priorities. You've just had the opportunity to address specific details of the police board's submission with Chief Rye, and the board thinks it important to appear before council to take ownership and to offer its unambiguous support of its submission that forms part of the capital plan. The board carefully reviewed its submission over several months, culminating in a board meeting and vote on July 2nd, where the board approved its submission to council. The board is satisfied that the proposal reflects the responsible fiscal planning and supports the Vancouver Police Department's long-term operational requirements consistent with its strategic and planning processes. board is mindful that public resources must be managed carefully and the proposed investments are phased over four years they prioritize operational safety and necessity focus on maintaining essential assets while supporting future police requirements I'd like to offer you three highlights from the board's perspective the first is that more than half of the board's capital plan is dedicated to capital investments in technology services

Second, that a significant portion of the plan is devoted to asset lifecycle replacement rather than new spending initiatives. And the third is that the plan includes an investment of $5 million to maintain and renew existing police facilities, including improvements to several of its buildings. These investments preserve essential infrastructure while the city continues planning for a future purpose-built headquarters, subject to the last round of questions. The plan is fundamentally an investment in the infrastructure that officers rely on every day to keep Vancouver safe. It ensures that critical policing technology, fleet assets, and facilities remain reliable, secure, and operational for the next four years. It addresses historic underinvestment. Importantly, the plan recognizes that capital investments in technology are best funded as part of a capital plan, not as an item of operational funding. And the Board considers this to be an improvement in its governance, financial transparency, and in public accountability. In sum, the board believes this capital plan represents a balanced and responsible investment in public safety. So on behalf of the Vancouver Police Board, I respectfully ask council to support the proposed 2027 to 2030 capital plan submitted on behalf of the board for $68.2 million over the period, ensuring that the Vancouver Police Department remains equipped to meet the city's current and future policing needs. Thanks very much. Okay, our next public body representative is Tom Digby.

Good afternoon, councillors, and thank you for having me here. The Park Board supports this capital plan. The dollar amount in the capital plan dedicated to the Park Board would be $739 million, about 20% of the overall... And even though we put forward a proposition for $1.4 billion investment, which is fully justified, we are satisfied that this council is actually taking a historic step forward. It is a historic increase. in funding for the park boards. And so I think you should take credit for that and be thanked for that. I also want to acknowledge that this is, I think, the outcome of a long-standing park board strategy starting over four years ago. This meeting four years ago did not deal with park board issues nearly at the level that all of you are dealing with it now. And I want to say that's the advocacy of the Park Board. We've been working on this. We brought it forward in January this year. We really started activating on it, started asking staff hard questions. You can find a billion dollars to invest in community services. in recreation facilities and parks here in Vancouver. And while you didn't quite get to a billion, but I want to thank staff for working on that as well and getting there. So that is some progress. Now, there is a big, significant problem that the park board list of recreation facilities is different.

than the council's list. And I wish I could say what the police board had just said, which was that, you know, the best things come together when council and the park board work together. It's a huge regret of mine that we have not been better connected over the past four years, and thus we've wound up with two separate lists. Now, the park board sent me up here to make three specific requests to you today. One is that the Kitsilano pool in the recreation facilities list be elevated from a planning project to a renewal project. The GM, the park board did say it's approximately a $40 million plan the park board has endorsed. There is no guarantee the pool will last through the next four-year cycle. You do remember that the pool did not open until August. I think, is that 23 or was that 24? It was delayed for eight weeks for opening, and that kind of damage could happen any time again, and we would be delayed, and we may actually lose the pool. The second thing we want to ask you to do is move the Renfrew Community Center onto your list of community centers. It's the number two on the park board list. And the third thing I'm sent here to ask is that you request that the REFM intensify its efforts to work with the province around the Ministry of Education and BC Housing to get our shared joint facilities moving together. We think that is needed to get Britannia, Thunderbird, Raycam, Strathcona, and West End Community Center on the agenda. And we hope you'll intensify your efforts on that in the coming term. Thank you very much. Thanks very much. Okay.

Yes, John Irwin, former park board commissioner, speaking for myself, and I'm a resident of Vancouver for quite a few years now. So basically, we, you know, do appreciate the 500, 496 million being invested in the park board facilities. But my ask and the ask, I think, of the community center associations would be to bump that up a bit. I'm worried that the community centers won't be there. Now I'm worried about the police facilities as well when a seismic event happens. And I think they need to be there because people will not have houses. Some of the population in that event hopefully doesn't happen within our lifetimes or our children's lifetimes. I would also like to say, echo Chair Digby, that we accelerate its pool and the 50-meter pool. I don't know that it's acceptable for a city like ours to go for eight years without a competitive pool. I'm not sure about that. And then regarding the priority, I would argue we should stick to the priority that was worked on so hard, 2,000 contacts with citizens. Regarding the current public engagement, respondents noted recreation facilities are 78% of the priority in that folder. Infrastructure is 64%. Park renewals and amenity upgrades, 62%. Urban forest and natural areas, 60%. So, you know, I think that, you know, again, we can say that the, you know, community pools need attention. The ideal goal would be two rebuilds and two pools per capital plan cycle to get back to where we really need to be so kids can have their swimming lessons. people can recreate, and they have cooling centers to go to. And once again, I feel that, you know, the mayor and the majority are ignoring the park board, the CCAs. We've heard that the CCA All Presidents Group endorsed the park board list. At the meeting that I attended for the park board capital budget, basically there were 120 registered speakers, almost half supported the draft park board, plan, while only three opposed it. The rest simply indicated other, and some of that other was give us Sunset Pool, we're on board. I think some of them are here and they'll speak after me. And so I'd argue the mayor and the ABC majority need to stay in their own swimming lane and respect the jurisdiction of Vancouver's duly elected park board, and we have legal opinion from a barrister that it is the jurisdiction of the park board. Thanks for your time and your energy. And I approve the rest of the plan, by the way.

Thanks very much. Okay. Our next speaker is Michael Burdick.

Okay. Okay. Very good. All right. So the next speaker is Tyler Peterson.

Hi, hello, councillors. Welcome. My name is Norman Soddenberg. I am a resident of Vancouver.

First of all, let me offer my sympathies. Democracy seems to take a great deal of time for you. I'm here to... Oh, I like this. This is great. Thank you. I'm here to talk specifically about one item on the capital plan, and that is the Marple Pool. Marple Pool has been discussed for a very long period of time. We lost the pool 30 years ago, and it's been a conversation in the community since then. About five years ago, it was discussed even further, and then through Van Splash, it was given a priority, and all the associations at that time accepted that. that document. So they were all on board that the Marple Pool should be the next one. What I will say lastly is that all the infrastructure is there for the pool. So the most efficient use of funds at the moment would be to put it towards the Marple Pool. Everything is in place now. And for both the pool and the pool house, it's a result of the new Marple Community Center. and they put the infrastructure for the pool in place. So it's the most efficient use of funds, and it would be a project that could go ahead the quickest and could be completed in the shortest period of time. So give that your consideration, and thanks very much. Thanks very much. Okay, our next speaker is Speaker 6, Bellwinder Warwick.

Hello, Bellwinder.

Thank you, good afternoon. My name is Balwinder Singh Varad, president of Sunset Community Association. I'm speaking on behalf of the association in supporting of the city 2730 capital plan. I want to begin by thanking council for your vision and commitment to investing in Vancouver future. Preparing a capital plan requires balancing many important priorities across a growing city, and I appreciate the thoughtful approach. you have taken to strengthen our neighborhood and improve the quality of life for the residents. On behalf of the SCA and the residents of South Vancouver, I sincerely thank you for including a new aquatic facility at Sunset Park in this capital plan. I also wanted to thank you for including the marble, revising the marble pool too. Not many will support the sunset. For many years, our community has advocated for equitable access to recreation. South Vancouver is home to thousands of families, children, youth, seniors, and newcomers who deserve the same opportunity to enjoy quality recreation facilities as residents across Vancouver.

Given the limited public resources available, I recognize that collaboration and thoughtful planning are essential. I respectfully encourage the city and the park board to continue working together to deliver an equitable citywide park and recreation system that serve all Vancouver residents. A new pool is much more than... recreation facility. It is an investment in public health, water safety, accessibility, inclusion, and community well-being. It is a place where children learn life-saving skills. Seniors stay active and healthy. Families connect and able to build communities. The Sunset Community Association looks forward to continue to work collaboratively with Council, the park board, city staff, and a community partner to help bring this important project to fruition. Thank you, city, Councillors, for your commitment to ensuring that under the Vancouver Charter, every residence has equitable access to quality recreation opportunities. Today, your support for this capital plan is an investment, not only in infrastructure, but in people, in community, and in future generations. Together, we can leave the legacy that will benefit Vancouver families for decades to come. I respectfully encourage council to approve the 2730 capital plan. Thank you again for allowing me to speak. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Aaron Jasper was a former Park Board Commissioner from 2008 to 2014. I'm here to speak in favour of the plan approved by the Park Board on Monday night. I want to thank or acknowledge Steve Jackson and his team. I think the work that they have done over the years with all the different plans, the Fan Splash, the Community Centre Association process, all of that, I think... It was probably, in my opinion, probably one of the best capital plans I've seen in many, many years. So hats off to the staff, but also to our commissioners. I think the park board commissioners really led the charge in trying to expand the funding envelope. I myself wasn't optimistic that they were going to get the 1.4, but I think the fact that this envelope is what it is was initiated from the commissioners. I think they should be commended. I also want to thank all of the different user groups, in particular, Jerry Fast and the Community Centre Association presidents and all the associations that have worked for many years. And again, that's the point. I think there's enough credit to go around. I applaud the mayor for making a commitment to $400 million towards community centres. And I applaud city staff for trying to also expand the spending envelope. that we all stay within the jurisdiction boundaries that have been settled by the Vancouver Charter. Obviously, you have a decision as to whether or not you want to spend or fund the projects identified by the Park Board, but as has been illustrated and as has been submitted to this council, It is park board jurisdiction to identify those priorities, and I would request that you stick with that. I won't regurgitate, reiterate all the good comments from the chair of the park board. I want to touch on a couple of quick points. One is the consultation process. I've been involved as a private resident and as a commissioner in many different capital plan consultation processes. And I mean, no disrespect to staff, but I think this one wasn't as good as in the past. I take serious issue with the fact that only five community centres had open houses, that in five community centres, the ones that were identified in the Mayor's motion were the only ones that had big, beautiful posters with brand new community centres. Those are the only ones that had postcards mailed out in those neighbourhoods, and they were the only ones that had open houses. If you went to any other community center in this city, there wasn't even so much as a postcard on a bulletin board. So I think we should really think about how the consultation process is done going forward. And again, I mean, no disrespect to staff. I also just want to take issue or contradict staff's assertions. $400 million is not enough money. to do all of the community center listed on the mayor's plan. It costs about 110 to $120 million per community center. So I think you just be realistic about what you can achieve with the funding envelope that's going to be approved.

Thank you for your time and thank you for all the work you do. Thanks very much. Okay, our next speaker eight is Carola Mansfield.

Hello. Hi there, go right ahead. Oh, yes. Hi. My name is Carola Mansfield, and I'm speaking for myself. And I'm not a Vancouver resident, but I work in the City of Vancouver. I'm going to speak directly to the Parks and Recreation portion of the capital plan, both capital plans. The closing of the Vancouver Aquatic Center without providing alternate pool capacity during its renewal, and while Carisdale Pool is still offline, indefinitely was short-sighted the city's aquatic users as a whole are only now coming to understand how this will impact every one of them not just the vac users I understand that South Vancouver needs pools, but to have outdoor pools as the sole deliverables during the upcoming period will do nothing to alleviate the 8,000 and growing person swimming lesson wait list. Lives will be lost as a result of generations of children not having access to swimming lessons, free or otherwise. The three community centers prioritized for renewal in the Park Board's draft plan were identified through public consultation and verifiable research. Let me speak about the Hastings Community Center. It has land, it has no pool, but is close in proximity to the Templeton Pool, which is not currently in any plan, but also needing renewal when its turn comes. This could be the opportunity to use a little forethought and planning and avoid the current situation we have with the closure of pools with no alternatives. In renewing the Hastings Community Center, you could include a 50-meter pool that would expand aquatic capacity and programming flexibility. The crisis would be averted when Templeton's turn comes for renewal. The same could be applied to the renewal of the Kensington Community Center and to including pools at either of the community centers in South Vancouver. A standalone 50-meter modular pool indoors at sunset would cost less than $30 million and would increase capacity and flexibility of programming. Once the site is identified, a modular pool can be open in 15 months. The key is that the city has an extreme pool capacity deficit and building outdoor pools that are only operational three months out of the year will not address the shortfall or the lack of access to swimming lessons. I ask that you amend either plan to change Sunset 25-meter outdoor pool to a 50-meter indoor pool. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Okay. Speaker 9 is Kate Stewart.

Speaker 9 is not on the line.

Not on the line.

hello uh stephen menon uh resident of vancouver and speaking neutral for the motion I'd like to thank the mayor and council for your time today. I would also like to thank the park board and council for recognizing the need for significant investments in our parks, community centers, and pools. In particular, the 60% increase in funding for community centers represents an opportunity to begin to pay down some of the infrastructure of debt that is accumulated and leading to 70% of our community centers being in poor, very poor state. The funding is a start to also demonstrate to citizens that the Park Board and city can be able to deliver multiple community infrastructure projects running in tandem. We need to be able to show taxpayers that these projects can be delivered. I want to recognize the Park Board staff for their hard work and community-focused process in identifying achievable projects within the budget envelope provided. My criticism... is that was very clear in the park board meeting that happened on Monday night, that the city has two different plans that residents are unsure about. was represented between the both of them and that has created tremendous around confusion for citizens it is simply not acceptable the media also highlighted the need and the importance for an independent park board to work in collaboration with the city and other levels of government activities have occurred in the variety of plans since april in the back and forth the legal expenses and the clear to clarify jurisdiction has simply been disappointing we are not setting up staff And these projects are a success without clear guidelines between both bodies.

Thanks very much. Speaker 13 is Jamie Hahn.

Hello? Hi, Jamie. Are you a resident of Vancouver? Yes. Go ahead. And I'll be speaking in favor of the capital prime priorities recommended by the park board. When I was a kid, I had learned how to swim from years of swimming lessons and also enjoyed playing with my friends at a variety of pools, not just indoors, but outdoor pools too, like at kids. I had learned how to skate at Killarney, and it would be the highlight of my week, especially since it happened around the Olympics, so all of us there felt inspired by the athletes to try our hardest. In addition, I got to experience a plethora of arts and music programs, in addition to what I already did in school, as well as programs for students during various breaks in the school year. I would not have been able to access all of this, a wide variety of programs, if it weren't for the support that existed for my family and if the facilities themselves were forced to close due to being in a poor state from years of inaction from government. I support ensuring that the next generation of kids that come after me are able to experience the same joys and the same growth that I got to experience. Therefore, it is vital that families are able to continue having low-cost access to all the various recreation programs at facilities that are built to last. It is important that this city respects the jurisdiction of the Park Board in making its decisions that best reflect the needs of Vancouver residents. In priorities outlined by the Park Board, it had recommended investments to community centers in lower-income neighborhoods such as in Granby Woodlands, Kensington-Seer College, Renfrew-Collingwood, Hastings-Sunrise, Strathcona, and more. And Council will abandon lower-income Vancouver residents by continuing with its current prioritization of community centers, pools, or other facilities outside of those already found in past reports as having a higher priority in needing renewal or replacement. Council must listen to the Park Board when it has already recommended actions that best reflect the needs of its residents, and I urge Council not to abandon residents who rely on community centers in lower-income neighborhoods. Thank you. Thanks very much. Okay. Speaker 14 is Laura Christensen. Hello, everyone. Hi, City Council. My name is Laura Christensen. I'm speaking as a Park Board Commissioner. I am generally in support of the capital plan, but would like to request amendments to the listed recreation facilities priorities. On Monday, the Park Board passed our capital plan and made some requests of Council, including that you revise your priorities to match that of the Park Board. City Council has the jurisdiction to set the funding envelope. The Park Board has the jurisdiction to set the priorities of where that money is spent. This is how it has worked for over 130 years until this specific Council. A major incongruency between our plans are the community centers for renewal. The five community centers included in the city priorities were purportedly selected based on FCI, the Facility Condition Index, which is just a ratio of the deferred capital renewals needs by the total replacement value.

However, a May 25 memo to council noted, I quote, while FCI is an important metric, it represents only one component of a much broader and more complex infrastructure investment challenge. It goes on to say, costing and prioritization across city asset portfolio is significantly more complex than can be represented through FCI in isolation. That is the advice from your staff. By contrast, the community center strategy completed by Park Board, which is only four years old, considers 13 different criteria, including FTI, but also seismic resiliency, emergency use requirements, service gaps, and growth in the area. The Park Board strategy is the best source of data to guide this decision. The CCAs themselves agreed that they want to stick to the prioritization in the community center plan.

Further, fitting five community centers into a single plan is unrealistic. A single, no-frills community center is well over $100 million, promising five community centers that's unrealistic expectations for the public. The park board plan includes Hastings, Kensington, and Renfrew, the three highest priority community centers. I request that you please at least add Renfrew to the list as they're desperate for renewal and need expansion as they're in a very high growth area. Beyond community centers, I'd also like to request that you include upgrades needed at Kids Pool. This was the subject of a briefing that we both received. A modest investment here will keep the pool operational for at least 15 years. Although repairs have been made to the pool, every year we are still reacting to damages from winter storms, and the opening every year is tenuous. Making an investment in this capital plan will avoid the possibility of delayed openings and unexpected and expensive emergency repairs. Because I do have a few extra seconds to talk, I do want to note that on Monday, the Park Board did approve to proceed with the feasibility analysis of a co-located, renewed community center. meter pool and rink at either Hastings or Kensington. There's no action required by council right now, but I want you to know that Park Board is advancing this work on a 50 meter pool and I hope you'll support it in the future. So please stay in your jurisdictional lane and let Park Board set the priorities for Parks and Recreation. Thank you. Thanks very much. Okay, I'm going to go back to the top of the list here for the speakers we missed. Speaker 3, Tyler Peterson. No, not here. Okay. Speaker for Razum Rani, I think, has said he's not coming. Okay. Speaker number nine, Kate Stewart.

Yes, I'm on the line. Go right ahead, Kate. Thanks. Hello, Deputy Mayor and Council. Members of staff and fellow speakers. My name is Kate Stewart. I live in Kitsilano, and I work in real estate, and I'm also a practice goalie with the Golden Eyes, Vancouver's first professional women's hockey team. I'm here in general support of this capital plan, particularly the $400 million investment in renewing five community centers. I'm asking Council to also seize the opportunity to make the needed renewal of Vancouver's ice rinks a meaningful part of that investment. Our ice rinks are in a dismal state. Vancouver has not added a net new ice rink since 1976.

Since the 70s, our population, as well as the demand for recreation, particularly in women's sports, has grown significantly. At the same time, investment in our ice facilities has been deferred for decades. The result has been rising operating costs and increasing service disruptions. We saw that this past season when the Brine League at Carisdale Arena canceled two months of the figure skating and minor hockey seasons. The city's own data in the latest FCI report shows that Vancouver's ice rinks have an average unmet demand of 42%. In other words, nearly half of the demand for ice cannot be accommodated, compared to only about 8% for community centers. When Vancouver can't meet demand, families and coaches spend their time in their cars traveling to Burnaby and Richmond or further for ice time, increasing their costs and contributing to the state of congestion in Metro Vancouver. But this capital plan is an opportunity to change that. Both Carisdale and Britannia are among the five community centers receiving renewal funding under this plan. Because the arenas are located beside or near their swimming pools in these communities, these projects would be an ideal opportunity to capture waste heat from the refrigeration systems that can then heat pools and community spaces. That reduces operating costs, lowers greenhouse gas emissions, and makes the city's investment work much harder for taxpayers. These high-efficiency integrated projects can receive significant outside funding from BC Hydro and the federal government. The Canucks Partnership of Britannia is demonstrating what can be possible with alternative funding. Council should build on that success by pursuing additional partnerships with local sports organizations that want to play where they live, not at private facilities and in other municipalities just because it's the only option available to them. This further contributes to privatization. Invest in our modern ice facilities. Keep the opportunities for sport in Vancouver. I encourage Council to ensure that ice rink renewal is treated as an integral part of these community center projects. and to direct staff to pursue every available partnership and funding opportunity to maximize the value of this investment. I would also welcome the opportunity to share additional information and to support the implementation of these ideas with any interest holders. Thank you for your time. Thanks very much. Okay. One last possible speaker. Number 10, Jenny Yu.

Not on the line. Okay. Thanks very much. All right. Council, that is the end of our speaker's list. Thank you for everyone who came to speak to council. Would somebody like to move the motion? Second. Second, Councillor Zhou. Moved by Councillor Kirby Young. Council members, is there any discussion? See Councillor Zhou. Councillor Zhou, go right ahead. Yeah, thanks, Chair. So I just sent everyone an amendment, so hopefully you can move me to the amendment queue. Very good. We'll go to the amendment queue, and I'll put you on there. Whoops, I'm going to clear the amendment queue. Okay, Councillor Zhou, do you want to put yourself in the amendment queue? There you go, I advance you. Go right ahead.

Seconded by Councillor Kerbion, I think. Thanks. Okay, thanks. So, yeah, I think it's just an amendment to include an important safety improvement initiative in this capital plan and the installation of a new traffic signal on the pedestrian crossing at 53rd Avenue on Main Street. I've been in conversation with MLA Sunita Deer and also, as we heard from today's committee leader, Bob Winder, and many residents in this area. Also, I had a couple of meetings with Long and Paul from our engineering department about this matter already. We all know the intersection serves the Sunset Committee Center, where a new senior center has been already completed. It will attract many more seniors and visitors to this area. And as the usage of this site increases, it is critical that we provide safe and accessible ways for people to cross Main Street, which I witnessed so many cars driving really fast in this particular intersection. So currently, there's no traffic light or even flashing beacon at this location. It creates some challenges and safety concerns for pedestrians, particularly for the seniors and people with mobility challenges, families, kids, and anyone who needs more time to cross the busy Tierra Road intersection. Investing in this crossing is about more than traffic management. It's about making sure our infrastructure keeps pace with the needs of our growing community. It will improve accessibility, enhance safety, and help ensure everyone can access new senior centers with confidence. So I really hope my colleagues will support this to be included in this capital plan. And I believe it's a meaningful difference for the Sunset neighborhood and everyone who use this important community hub. I know we have already a funding envelope for road safety. So this amendment is just to prioritize these specific areas near the Sunset Community Center and the Senior Center because of this new facility there. So that's all my amendment. Thanks, Chair. Thanks very much, Councillor Kerbio.

Thanks very much.

Councillor Blighthe. Yeah, thanks very much. I just have a point of information through you, Chair, to Lon.

And I appreciate and kudos to Sunita Deer, MLA Sunita Deer, for her advocacy on this. I think I met with Lon and Paul to discuss this crosswalk. signal uh maybe even in february and my recollection so i'm just asking for your clarification is that this is slated for 2027 q1 of 2027 um but i also recognize that 49th in maine 50th in maine uh 52nd in maine which has a light i believe and then now this is 53rd so What's in the plan already? Because I know it's already sort of identified as a priority, as I say, for Q1 2027, and I support this fully, but I just want to be clear on what I'm voting on.

Can we have the mic on, please? Yes, so we generally have hundreds of requests for traffic signals across the city, and in response to those requests, we do investigations, and those investigations consider all of the factors of safety, including special generators like senior centers or schools and things like that. What's new about this location, I would say, is that the change is relatively recent, and I don't think we have updated studies. It may change its priority in terms of the investments that we'll put there. But at this point, yeah, I don't exactly know exactly when any changes would come. Okay. Is there a way just to provide, even after this, a memo or update? Because as I say... Yeah, I'm checking with my team right now. Okay, well, there's more people on the queue. If I can get that information back, it'd be great. For now, I'll leave it. I mean, I'm supportive of this, but as you can probably hear, there's a number of conversations and meetings ongoing, again, related to MLA Deer's outreach, and I think it is correct that that particular street does need a focus sort of action to... increase safety and eliminate risk or at least reduce risk. So I'm supportive of this, but I'd like to see how it factors into what's already slated and whether or not this is in addition to or instead of. And so I'll be waiting to get that information back as soon as possible. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor. I'll just remark that I am also going to be very supportive of this. And again, this is a prioritization. Oh, you're asking me. I have to cede the chair. Cede the chair to Deputy Mayor Kirby Young. Thanks very much.

Just noting that in our attempts to become a more age-friendly city, that the establishment of the Senior Center at Sunset as a fantastic new amenity for the community should be combined with the tools that we need to make sure that people are safe when they're coming to and from that very center. I think all of us have seen that there is quite a bit of traffic on Main Street in that area. And having a crossing signal would allow a big part of the neighborhood to get there a lot more safely. So thanks very much. And with that, I'll take the chair back and we'll go to the vote.

Sorry, my clock is running for some reason. Is that right? Okay. Oh, sorry. I'll just see if I can pause that.

Okay. I'm sorry. Just making sure. All right. So that passes with all present. Thanks very much. Okay. So we'll go back to the main queue. Councillor Zhou. I'm good. Thanks. I'll come back. Councillor Oh. Yeah, thanks so much. I have also circulated an amendment, and it's to do with what we heard from the park board's commissioners, and there's sort of three asks. And, yeah, so if you want to move to the amendment. Okay, I'll take us to an amendment queue. Councillor Orr, just put yourself on there, please. Just hang on a sec. I'll just add you in advance. Okay, go right ahead. Yeah, pretty simple, just that we add a section that we commit to the Kitsilano pool rehabilitation and not just be designated as planning, that we add Renfrew Community Center for renewal. AND THAT WE DIRECT RAFM TO INTENSIFY ITS EFFORTS TO WORK WITH THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND B.C. HOUSING TO FIND SOLUTIONS TO THE JOINTLY OPERATED FACILITIES, BRITANIA, WEST END, RAYCAMP, CENTERBURG AND STRATHCONA.

THANK YOU. Councillor DOMINATO. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I'll throw you a point of information to the city manager. I'm just curious if the city manager could comment on the planning work associated with Kitsilano Pool, because as we know with some of these major capital projects, You need to determine what is going to be your next step, whether you're doing a brand-new pool, whether you're rehabilitating an existing pool. It's a hybrid. So I'm curious if a facility manager could comment on that in terms of the planning work that's necessary around this project.

kids pool options as actually completed. We've actually completed that plan. We have three options that we're looking at. One of them is a... I want to say it's a renewal, but really what it is is it's actually an upgrade to what we've got right now, just ensuring that we can actually withstand storms and so on, and any of the other catastrophic items or issues that actually happen that degrade the pool. And that is about a $40 million option right now, and that's the one we're actually looking at. That will extend the life about 15 to 20 years. We'll get more detail on that as we go forward, but that is the option that we're looking at. Okay, and appreciating that, so can you refresh for me what is included in the capital plan then currently, or sorry, for the 2027-2030 plan?

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?

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.

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.

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.

I would believe that your second option is probably the wiser one to go with.

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.

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 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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

Councillor Maloney? Very good. So that passes with all present. Thanks very much. Okay. Now we go back to the main queue. Unless there's other comments to be made? No? We're all good? That's done. I'm going to clear the floor. Sorry. Clear. I'm going to clear the queue. Sorry. Going back to a main queue. Councillor Dominato. Yes. Thank you, Chair, for helping us navigate that. And thank you to the clerks as well. I'm moving an amendment. It would be in addition to Resolution A as a second clause. And I've circulated to Council earlier. It's just after 3. And I'll read it aloud. And that Council directs staff to include an uncosted line item for means prevention fencing on the Granville Street Bridge in the 2027-2030 capital plan as previously directed in June 2026. And to report back to council with a costed capital adjustment recommendation as soon as the conceptual design and costing work is complete. This responds to questions and concerns that the members of the public and other stakeholders weren't clear that the means prevention fencing was indeed included in the capital plan. We did hear very clearly from our head of engineering that indeed it is. but they still need that conceptual design in order to establish the costing of that fencing. And so this is just to provide that clarity and that at the appropriate time, staff report back with costing. So I'm going to take us to an amendment. Yes. You've done your preamble, so just add you there. I'm sorry, go ahead, and I'll advance you. I'll leave my comments there in the interest of time. Okay, thanks very much. Okay, any other discussion on this amendment?

Okay, seeing none, let's call in the vote. Clerk Tatus, a voting panel on this amendment by Councillor Domenato.

Okay, thanks very much. That passes. It was all present. All right, so we'll go back to the main queue. Councillor Domenato? I know. And I think there's... Sorry. All done? Sure, yes, I am done for now. Councillor Maloney. Thanks. Can I be taken to an amendment queue? Sorry, Councillor, I hit that button too quickly. I'll take us to the amendment queue right now.

Just add yourself in advance. Thank you. This amendment, I've emailed around three amendments, but this one... is about the 50 metre indoor swimming pool. So that's the one that I want to have up on screen at the moment. And it reads that council expedite planning for a year round 50 metre indoor swimming and diving pool suitable for training competition and water polo. Therefore... thereby ensuring timely consultation design and location decisions can take place to ensure the inclusion of the construction stage of the project in the 2031 to 2034 capital plan, recognising the pool's significance for families swimming in water polo competitions and high-level training in the city. Now, this amendment aims to give clear direction to staff that the siting, planning and construction of a 50-metre competition indoor swimming and diving pool to acknowledge the importance of competitive swimming, diving, water polo, and I should probably have added water hockey apparently, but I would like to shout out water hockey players. I, along with almost everyone I speak to about this, including members of this council, want to see a new 50 metre indoor competition swimming pool built within the city of Vancouver as quickly as possible. You know, we find ourselves in an unfortunate position as a result of prior funding decisions and priorities, but we can do everything possible to ensure that we cut the ribbon on a rebuilt Vancouver Aquatic Centre. Sorry. In 2030 and that we also...

the ribbon on a 50 meter indoor competition pool in 2034 or sooner okay uh thanks uh councillor kirby young

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...

We've got someone, Grant Murray from legal, who is going to appear shortly to respond.

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.

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.

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?

Very good. All right. Then we are going to vote on the amendment on the screen.

Okay. All right. Back to the main queue. Councillor Maloney. Thank you. I circulated also an amendment about fire halls, and I would like to move that amendment, which I will just get to. So fire halls one and two are already considered in the plan, as we heard. This amendment endeavours to ensure provision of essential services after an earthquake, especially as fires are more likely to arise due to the release of methane gas in buildings in case of an earthquake, but also the general medical services provided by fire services. And the latest modelling from the city showed that due to building risk alone, we could have more than 1,300 severe injuries after a magnitude 7.2 earthquake, meaning that emergency responders will be urgently needed. And I think we could do more to be prepared and not leave some neighbourhoods to effectively be more at risk. due to potentially slowed down emergency services response. I'll take you to an amendment queue. You've already given your rationale there, but I want to see if we have anyone to speak to the amendment. I'll put you on there first, Councillor Maloney. You've done that. Okay. Can I just advance Councillor Kirby Young?

Can we reset that?

Councillor Maloney? Yeah, I mean, I appreciate Councillor Kirby-Young's comments. I generally feel like we're not prioritising seismic preparedness enough in this plan and I've made that view clear on a number of previous occasions. I didn't elaborate on the fact that we've got in this proposed amendment maintenance and rehabilitation of fire halls HVAC systems as well. I generally would prefer to see our fire services in a position to provide to Vancouver's residents in the event of an earthquake rather than potentially being injured themselves due to the lack of seismic preparedness of our fire halls. So for me, this is a really big priority. I recognise that we have... There's been council direction... about priorities in the capital plan. I haven't always agreed with those priorities. And for me, this is a very, very big one. So I'll be voting in favour of this. Thanks. Okay. Clerk, can you take us to the voting panel, please?

That fails with Councillor Klassen, Kirby Young, Dominato, Montague, Meisner and Joe in opposition. Okay, so we'll go back to the main queue. Councillor Maloney? I'll jump back on after. Okay, thanks very much. Councillor Bligh? Oh, no, there's a whole... Councillor Kirby Young? Councillor Maloney? Thank you. I have another... amendment to move about road safety it will take you to the amendment queue and advance you good The current capital plan, as it stands, allocates funding for only 16 new signals over the last four years, and this is far from sufficient. It won't be enough to install signals at every site where a fatality has or might have occurred, and it falls short of addressing the existing signal installation queue. Previous capital plan also includes... also funded 16 signals but included an extra provision for 32 more signals through development. This is not something contemplated in this capital plan, so this amendment is bridging the gap. It also aims at increased budget for traffic calming in selected neighbourhoods, ensuring we keep the same level of efforts as we did in the previous capital plan and even advance our efforts to further reduce injuries and fatalities. The capital plan puts up none of the city's own money towards active transport and relies instead entirely on development fees and TransLink cost share to support active transport, which is clearly not sufficient. The funding envelope for active transport should be much higher, but with the funding envelope as it is, let's make sure the money we do have is well spent on projects that will have the greatest benefit to Vancouverites. That means investing in net new infrastructure in underserved communities, not just upgrading existing infrastructure that already works well. This amendment also calls for staff to take another look at whether our active transport funding is enough at the mid-term update. The mid-term update comes after TransLink approves its 2027 investment plan. and the next provincial budget, which could unlock new cost share opportunities that the city will need to chip in its share to unlock. I also want to underline that based on a five-year average fatality and injury data from ICBC, by the time we review another capital plan, 72 people will likely have been killed and 30,000 more injured on the City of Vancouver's roads. So we have an opportunity to use the city's transport safety program to reduce this number and to do so we need to provide this program with an adequate budget.

Thanks very much. On the amendment, Councillor Meiszner.

Do I need a seconder, please? Okay, go ahead.

Okay. Clerk, please take us to the voting panel on the amendment.

Chair, it's Mayor Sim. Can I please get a vote assist in opposition of Councillor Maloney's amendment?

Yes, you can. Okay. Thanks very much. So that fails with Councillor Claston, Kirby Young, Dominato, Montague, Meisner, Joe, and Mayor Sim in opposition. Okay. So back to the main queue. Councillor Maloney. Thank you. Can I be taken to an amendment queue, please? Okay, go right ahead.

One sec. There you go. This next amendment is that council add $1 million to the capital budget for capital investments to the city building seismic upgrade program, ensuring greater prioritisation of seismic upgrades for city-owned buildings. The city has to catch up on seismic preparedness of its buildings. Many public facilities remain vulnerable to earthquakes, making it critical that the city accelerates plans for upgrades and retrofits. We need to upgrade more than five city-owned buildings as part of the next capital budget to take a more proactive approach to ensure the resilience of our infrastructure. Delaying action could not only put more residents... and workers at risk, but it could also result in greater costs and disruptions in the future. We can clearly do more. We invested $2 million for fireworks. We're taking life safety here into account here. I think this is proposing a responsible approach. Thanks. Can I get a seconder?

Councillor Fry, a second. Okay.

Okay. So that motion fails with Councillor Klassen, Kirby Young, Dominato, Montague, Meisner and Joe in opposition. Okay. Going back to the main queue again, Councillor Maloney. That's it. Thanks. Okay. Thanks very much. Okay. We'll advance you then. All right. So that brings us to the decision on a vote. So can I get a vote of the voting panel, please, clerk? Please put it on the screen. Yeah, can we just have the... Okay, so we'll just take a... How much time? Okay, we'll take a five-minute recess just to get everything on the screen so we can vote on that one. Thanks very much. Oh, I see... Okay, I'll come back to you, Councillor Kirby.

Councillor Maloney?

Go ahead. Thank you. Can I be taken to an amendment queue? I forgot one. Okay, we'll just add you. One second. Go right ahead. This one, I'll read it out, that council directs staff to report back... to Council on the opportunity to accelerate and expand the delivery of sidewalk rehabilitation wherever accessibility improvements are needed, as well as accessibility improvements of park buildings and infrastructure through the addition or reallocation of funding in the capital plan mid-term update in 2028. As part of our commitment to advance policies and measures that create a more inclusive city, we should prioritise accessibility improvements where we can. And sidewalks are the first obstacle for accessibility for many seniors, but also for persons with disabilities. This is a question of whether someone can safely go outside every day or not. So it has an important impact for many Vancouver residents. And the plan foresees 30 kilometres of sidewalk rehabilitation. I'd like staff to consider how we can do more during the midterm update of the capital budget. More inclusive spaces are also facilitated by more accessible bathrooms in parks. Accessibility improvements for park infrastructure should also be reviewed. Currently, two to four sites are included for the capital budget for $1 million. We can definitely do more than that and prioritise reconsidering this budget line as part of our mid-term update in 2028. Thanks very much. Can I get a seconder? Council or okay advancing. Councillor Domonato. Oh, sorry. I couldn't get myself on the queue. But I just wanted to note. Sorry. I just want to put the amendment. I just want to note for the benefit of council is that there's 104 million in this capital plan allocated for sidewalks. And so I think that's just really important to bear in mind given the amendment. But I just wanted to flag that. Thank you. Else or? Yeah, I just was going to speak in support of the amendment. I think it's, I appreciate that there's 104 million set aside, but I think, you know, we both sit on the people with the Disabilities Advisory Committee and we know that this is a priority for them, for that committee. And also, you know, I think it saves the city. potentially in the long run for any potential lawsuits that come out if people are tripping and falling or hurting themselves on our sidewalks. And I know that this is prioritized. I know engineering is doing their best, but there's some lag, so I'll support this.

Thanks very much. Okay, so that fails with Councillor Klassen, Kirby Young, Dominato, Onagu, Meisner, and Zhou in opposition. Okay, so we'll go back to the main queue. Councillor Maloney? That's it for me, thanks. Okay, Councillor Kirby Young.

Thanks very much. Councillor Zhou. Yeah, thanks, Chair. So also, I also thank staff from all the departments for your effort in preparing this capital plan. Also, I'd like to support this 2027 to 2030 capital plan. So, you know, a capital plan can look like a very large collection of numbers, but at its heart, This plan is about something quite straightforward. That is protecting core services Vancouver residents rely on every day. It's about clean drinking water. It's about sewer and drainage systems that work. It's about roads, sidewalks, bridges that are safe and reliable. It's about fire halls, emergency vehicles, community centers, recreation facilities. and the basic infrastructure required to keep a growing city functioning. This plan proposed $3.5 billion in city-led capital investment, with a clear focus on renewing aging assets, maintaining service reliability, and addressing years of infrastructure underinvestment. The focus is very necessary. This plan began to address many challenges we are facing in the city of Vancouver. I want to highlight a few critical things. $989 million for drinking water, rainwater, wastewater infrastructure, replacement of 32 kilometers of aging sewer mains, 3 kilometers of water transmission mains, and 40 kilometers of water distribution mains. $703 million for streets, including 134 kilometers of roads and 30 kilometers of sidewalks, while advancing critical work on the Granville and Canby bridges. Council direction of the $104 million to improve condition of our arterial roads, local roads, and sidewalks. expect us to maintain the infrastructure they already use before allowing it to deteriorate further. Also, $400 million in renewal or rebuild community centers. That's also very key for our residents. Community centers deliver recreation, child care, senior programs, youth activities, community services close to where people live. Keep them safe, accessible, and functional is a part of delivering core municipal services. Also, public safety is always key for our residents. This plan includes a new four-bay firehouse number two, as well as replacement of aging police vehicles, fire vehicles, marine patrol vessels. First responders cannot provide reliable emergency services without safe facilities and dependable equipment. Also, you know, it's very true. Let's be honest.

This plan does not solve Vancouver's entire infrastructure deficit in just four years. No responsible plan could do that. But it moved us in the right direction. Expected to reduce timeline for addressing the renewal gap from 40 years to only 20 years. This is very impressive. Also, public engagement result is very clear. So people need these core services in our city. Vancouver residents are asking us to be fundamental rights. So that's exactly this capital plan delivered by investing in infrastructures, core services that keep our city safe, functional, and livable. So we are facing what is aging, protecting what residents depend on, and planning responsible for the future. And also, thanks for the confirmation from staff about the Marple Pool. So, you know, I think the residents really need that. Also, I appreciate the council's support for the traffic lights or pedestrian crossing on 53rd and Main. So for that reason, wholeheartedly support the recommendations in this capital plan. Thanks, Chair. Councillor Maloney. Thank you. Yeah, I'll be voting in support of this plan, despite some reservations that I have about, especially about discarding the priorities set out in the Park Boards 2022 plan. report on community centres, which I really think is a model for us on how to depoliticise and how to have a really clear, transparent, weighted consideration of how to prioritise expenditure on upgrades. And I'd like to see that used as a model for future expenditure in many respects. As I said, I'm pretty worried about the state of our city in terms of seismic preparedness and especially the preparedness of our community centres and emergency services, buildings and infrastructure. to be in good continuous operating condition. I really would like to have had my amendment about fire halls, both seismic preparedness and HVAC upgrades approved and the road safety amendments. And I think that for me, it's fundamental to have accessibility prioritised as well. It makes a real difference to many people, but especially disabled folks, to have accessible washrooms, sidewalks, curb cuts and benches. It makes a huge difference to their ability to get out to work, school. do their errands and generally participate in our city.

So I would like to have seen some different things, but overall I'm very grateful that some of my amendments were passed and grateful for amendments of others. So I'll be voting in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Okay, a reminder that any council member participating virtually whose video is disabled will be marked as absent for the vote pursuant to Section 1413 of the Procedure Bylaw. I am now going to call the vote. Clerk, can you please take us to a voting panel?

And, Chair, can I please get a bold assist in favour?

Okay, so that passes unanimously. Thank you very much. And thank you very much to our staff. This is a huge amount of work. Really, really appreciate everything you've done. Thank you. We have a couple more matters of business before we recess. First of all, we have to bylaw 37 for enactment, which is subject to approval of report three. So before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes that they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict of interest to disclose? Would somebody like to move the motion? Thank you very much. That was Councillor Kerby-Young and Councillor Bligh and Dominato. Thank you very much. All those in favour, please say aye. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. The approved bylaw can be found on the city's website. We have an urgent business motion regarding scheduling here. I'll just read the text provided to me. Staff have requested that council... that a council member bring a motion as urgent business to cancel the special council meeting scheduled for July 22nd, 2026 at 5 p.m. and extend the meeting reserve on the same day from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. Can I have a motion to that effect?

Sure, go ahead. Sorry, could you just repeat? We have staff present. The city clerk can speak to questions. Yes. But I don't have a mover or a second. Do I have a mover, please? I have a mover from Meisner. Yeah.

I'll repeat it for you. And I am on the queue. Staff have requested the count that... that a council member bring a motion as urgent business to cancel the special council meeting scheduled for July 22nd, 2026 at 5 p.m. and extend the meeting reserve on the same day from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. And we have a mover from Councillor Meiszner. And I need a seconder. Councillor Zhou second. Now we have questions from Councillor Dominato. Go right ahead. Yes, thanks, Chair. I would have happily moved it had I known the rationale for it. So I was hoping staff could just explain the rationale for the changes. Jason Tuas, City Clerk. Thank you for the question, Councillor. The special meeting that was scheduled for July 22nd, the primary purpose of that meeting was to be able to enact the Villages Plan. Given the public interest in the Villages Plan, we're not going to be in a position to have council have considered whether to approve that or not. So we know that by the time that special council meeting happens, We won't be able to have that approved at that point in time.

So this enables what we will do is we'll move the enactment, should council approve it, we'll put that onto the July 28th council meeting. And because of council's busy schedule, we're looking at using that time that was going to be used for the special council meeting for reserve dates so we can continue with public hearings. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for that clarification. Also, Chair, I was on the queue to ask just when we will dispense with the other business on our agenda. And so maybe I'll switch that in a moment as well as the other. Absolutely. I can. But happy to complete this item first. When we will resume the council meeting. We have a date.

I'm happy to complete this item first and then I can address that question address. It's this meeting because we still have a couple of items. This meeting is scheduled to be reconvened on Tuesday, July 21st at 9.30 a.m. Thanks very much. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So is there any further discussion? Can I, all those in favor say yay? Any opposed? We've got, we had a mover and a seconder. Okay. Okay. The motion carries unanimously. Thanks very much. And we will now recess until the morning of July 21st at 9.30 p.m. Thank you.