Welcome! VanSplash Advisory Group Meeting - Monday May 13, 2019 - City of ...

Welcome!

  VanSplash
Advisory Group
   Meeting

      Monday May 13, 2019

Purpose

  Discuss and reach consensus on group feedback
  on the remaining Draft strategy recommendations
  that have not yet been discussed, and begin the
  discussion on community concerns.

                                                    2

We are here

              3

Agenda
 Session                                                                                            Time
 Welcome, housekeeping, correspondence                                                              6:00 – 6:15 p.m.

 Review, discuss and refine online feedback on                                                      6:15 – 8:00
 recommendations not already discussed
 Discuss potential wording of group feedback re: lack of                                            8:00 – 8:20
 trust
 Review and begin discussing community concerns raised                                              8:20 – 8:45
 in Dec. 2017
 Discuss whether an additional meeting (beyond remaining                                            8:45 – 9:00
 two) is desired/needed, evaluations and wrap-up
Post-Meeting Note: Due to detailed discussion on Recommendations, agenda was again adjusted during the meeting in consultation
with the Advisory Group. Discussion on Recommendations (beaches, wading + spray, innovation) will continue next meeting, and
discussion on community concerns is also still to come. The group has agreed to an additional meeting to ensure there is time to4
discuss all outlined content.

Our Code of Conduct

   • Respect is our guiding light
   • We will take a City-wide view for a City-wide
     strategy
   • We will work together in a spirit of collaboration
     and compromise
   • Balance air time
   • Raise hand to speak and wait until called upon
   • One person speaks at a time (no side
     conversations)                                       5

Our Code of Conduct cont.

   •   Monitor ourselves for time management
   •   Challenge ideas, not people
   •   Listen to understand, and learn from each other
   •   All questions are welcome
   •   We value diversity and inclusion
   •   We will not attribute comments or input to
       individuals, and we respect confidentiality of
       personal information                              6

Summary of Correspondence
Total 22 emails received May 1-12 through VanSplash
address, direct to Jennifer and/or forwarded from AG
members:
• 9 emails calling for replacement of Mt Pleasant outdoor pool
  and/or supporting outdoor pools in general
• 1 expressing support for full-service aquatic centre in
  Hastings Sunrise area
• 1 suggesting replacing Templeton with a new facility at
  Hastings Community Centre
• 1 suggesting VanSplash should state no pools will be
  decommissioned but will be upgraded, renovated, enshrined7

Summary of Correspondence con’t
• 1 from AG member to Board suggesting “benchmark”
  package for all public pools (i.e. 25m+ tank, whirlpool,
  sauna, steam, diving tank, etc.) and that priority #1 is
  addressing service gaps
• 1 supporting community pools and Templeton in particular
• 1 with concerns AG not following Board motion from January
  to only consider expansion + improvement
• 1 supporting large facility on the West side of Vancouver
• 1 calling for more small pools like Byng
• 1 calling for renovation and expansion of existing facilities
                                                              8

Summary of Correspondence con’t
• 1 with concerns about lack of adequate aquatic training
  facilities, support for proposed sport training pool at
  Connaught, calls to continue improving sport training at VAC
  and Byng until new pools delivered
• 1 calling for more lane swimming capacity + more outdoor
  pools with lanes
• 1 with concerns about lack of information/communication re:
  VanSplash
• 1 with question about plans for new outdoor pool at Marpole
  Community Centre
                                                             9

Follow-Up Items from Last Meeting

• Glossary
• Update communications (poster, postcards, e-blast,
  Facebook ad)
• Approach re: translation of update
• Survey results re: staff’s role

                                                   10

Follow-Up Items from Last Meeting

Survey results re: staff’s role:
• Prefer staff for whole meeting: 8
• Prefer staff for part of meeting: 4
• Prefer minimal staff presence: 4

Your comments: staff needed to answer questions / for fact-
checking; important for staff to hear discussion; group input
takes priority; could be uncomfortable with staff when we
discuss lack of trust                                           11

Feedback on Recommendations Continued

  We are picking up from where we stopped last
  meeting
   Reminder: summary of input for indoor pools
    comes from Survey #1 (completed before last
    meeting)
   15 completed responses to survey (out of 19 AG
    members = 79% response rate)
   The Delaney team has summarized the input;
    you also received the full survey report         12

Indoor Pools
           13

Indoor Pools – Online Input

Recommendation 8 – summary of online input:
 12 people are OK with this as-is
 3 are not:
   • Health and wellness focus is too narrow
      o This should be a large, multi-purpose facility serving the
        needs of a wide variety / all user groups – wellness, health,
        sport training, competitive meets, diving, lessons, etc.
      o Downtown location needs to serve families, visitors, etc.
   • Don’t like co-located outdoor pool; already one nearby at
     2nd Beach                                                 14

Indoor Pools – Online Input

Recommendation 9 – summary of online input:
 13 people are OK with this as-is
 2 are not:
   • Support recommendation, but should be higher priority /
     moved up in timeline
       o Could this be a good location for destination competitive
         facility?
   • Don’t agree with co-locating with rink
   • Intensive consultation with community is needed
   • Needs upgrades; not convinced of replacement                    15

Indoor Pools – Online Input

Recommendation 10 – summary of online input:
 13 people are OK with this as-is
 2 are not:
   • With therapy focus, concern is other facilities will not
     prioritize therapy components
       o Therapy needs are varied – one pool won’t meet all therapy
         needs
       o Therapy users need to have options close to home
   • Should this facility be made larger?
   • More discussion / community consultation required            16

Indoor Pools – Online Input

  Recommendation 11 – summary of online input:
   14 people are OK with this as-is
   1 is not:
      • Concern that partnerships will make it more
        expensive for users (i.e. higher admission fees)
      • More discussion needed on types of partnerships
         o What is meant by agencies?

                                                           17

Outdoor Pools
            18

Survey #2 Overview

  Outdoor Pools Recs were covered in both
  Survey #1 and Survey #2
   Survey #2 had 16 completed responses + 2
    partial responses
   16 out of 19 AG members = 84% response rate
   Again, summary of input done by Delaney team
   Full survey report will be shared by email
                                                   19

Outdoor Pools – Online Input

  Recommendation 1 – summary of online input:
   14 people are OK with this as-is
   1 is not:
     • This is not a priority right now
         o Should be a medium-range item

                                                20

Outdoor Pools – Online Input

 Recommendation 2 – summary of online input:
  16 people are OK with this as-is
  2 are not:
    • Service gaps need to be addressed by (new) indoor
      pools, because they are year-round
    • Prioritize replacement of demolished outdoor pools
      before locating new outdoor pools
       o Renovation of existing should be priority across city
                                                                 21

Outdoor Pools – Online Input

  Recommendation 3 – summary of online input:
   12 people are OK with this as-is
   3 are not:
     • Don’t limit uses / create individually-focused facilities
     • Need to ensure ability / space for actual swimming in
       all outdoor pool facilities
         o Dedicated swimming space with lines and straight walls
         o Swimming first, then additional experiences
                                                                    22

Outdoor Pools – Online Input

  Recommendation 4 – summary of online input:
   15 people are OK with this as-is
   2 are not:
     • As long as size and scope of indoor pool isn’t
       compromised
     • Too broad – need definition of spray park
         o Only support if community consultation shows desire
           for these additional features
                                                                 23

Outdoor Pools – Online Input

  Recommendation 5 – summary of online input:
   All 15 survey respondents are OK with this
    recommendation as-is
   No need for discussion?

                                                 24

Outdoor Pools – Online Input

  Recommendation 6 – summary of online input:
   14 people are OK with this as-is
   1 is not:
     • Remove limitation / focus on South Van

                                                25

Outdoor Pools – Online Input

  Recommendation 7 – summary of online input:
   14 people are OK with this as-is
   4 are not:
     • Same as Rec #2 and Rec #6 re: South Van –
       redundant (x2)
     • Don’t limit to South Van
     • Concern that making it naturally filtered will hold up
       development of this badly-needed new outdoor pool
                                                                26

Group Feedback re: Lack of Trust

 Heard from some of you in last meeting a desire to
  strengthen wording re: community engagement /
  consultation
    • To ensure meaningful consultation is done with impacted
      communities, user groups and stakeholders
 Heard from some of you in last meeting a desire for
  transparency and clear + regular communication
  from Park Board
 FYI - quick activity coming up to understand if this
  is how everyone feels
                                                       27

Group Feedback re: Lack of Trust

   Suggest feedback from group could be around
    call for meaningful engagement, based on the
    City’s core values and guiding principles for
    engagement
     • Effective + transparent communication is included in
       these values

                                                              28

From
vancouver.ca:
How we do
community
engagement

                29

From
vancouver.ca
How we do
community
engagement

               30

Group Feedback re: Lack of Trust

   Suggest feedback from group could be around
    call for meaningful engagement, based on the
    City’s core values and guiding principles for
    engagement
     • Should this feedback be related to some
       recommendations (i.e. specific to Byng, Templeton,
       Connaught)?
     • Or does it apply across all recommendations?
   Does anyone disagree?                                   31

Group Feedback re: Lack of Trust

  In 2-3 words, how would you describe /
  characterize the relationship between
  your community and the Park Board?
   This is anonymous – use a sharpie and
    write on the pink post-it only (so all look the
     same)
   Stand up, walk around and keep passing
    the post-its until I say to stop                  32

Additional meeting wanted / needed?

   June 10 is currently last “working” meeting
   Still to discuss:
         Community concerns con’t. (?)
         Amendments proposed by previous
          commissioner
         Greenhouse items
   Final meeting in July is for reporting back and
    group wrap-up
                                                      33

Next Steps

   Meeting notes will be emailed for review
     • Please note any changes / additions by email by
       specified deadline
   Next meeting: Monday June 10:
         Finish community concerns discussion
         Discuss amendments proposed by previous
          commissioner
         Discuss greenhouse items
                                                         34