Two motions, three weeks apart: what council and the board actually asked for
Sources: the council minutes and motion text of May 20–21, 2026; the Park Board’s May 25 notice of motion and June 1 minutes, with the motion as noticed. Every clause quoted below is in those records.
In the spring of 2026 both of Vancouver’s governing bodies took up free beginner swimming lessons, three weeks apart, under nearly the same title. The two decisions are usually reported as one. They are not the same decision, and the difference between them is why, as of September, no program exists and no report has been written. This page sets the two texts side by side so that anyone can check what was actually asked for.
May 20: City Council
Councillor Dominato’s motion, “Carrying on Joe Fortes’ Legacy: Universal Access to Basic Swimming Lessons and Expansion of Aquatic Infrastructure as Core Public Safety Policy,” went to the Standing Committee on City Finance and Services on May 20 and 21 and carried unanimously (Vote 11648). As approved, it has seven clauses:
- A. Affirms that basic swimming ability is an essential life skill and access to introductory instruction “should be treated as core public safety goal.”
- B. Directs staff, “in consultation with the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, to design and implement a program providing free access to the first three levels of swimming lessons (or equivalent beginner stages) for all residents of Vancouver, with priority access for children aged 3 to 12.”
- C. Directs staff to report back with a per-capita aquatic infrastructure target (for example, pools per 10,000 residents) to be achieved by 2035, with current service levels, projected demand, and recommended targets by neighbourhood.
- D. Directs that new or replacement pools be delivered through the Capital Plan, and that the program and strategy be designed to “expand access while managing demand through fair registration practices,” to “increase instructor recruitment, certification, and retention,” and to explore partnerships with the school board, community organizations, and senior governments.
- E. Directs staff to report back “in early 2027,” aligned with the Park Board’s VanSplash update, with a phased implementation plan and pilot locations, capacity-expansion options, a financial analysis of forgone revenue and operating costs, and external-funding opportunities.
- F. Has council “consider funding for both the program and associated capacity expansion through the City’s annual Operating Budget and Capital Plan processes.”
- G. Requests that the Park Board restore pre-COVID operating practices at Kitsilano Pool and all other pools, and report back on the timeline “in advance of the upcoming summer season.”
Three amendments were debated. Councillor Maloney’s, to add collaboration with CUPE 15 and CUPE 1004 on a retention strategy for auxiliary lifeguards, lost (Vote 11645). Councillor Fry’s, to insert “per the statutory role of the Board of Parks and Recreation” into D and to have F read “consider new funding to the Board of Parks and Recreation,” lost (Vote 11646), with the ABC majority opposed. Councillor Dominato’s own, extending G from Kitsilano to “all other pools in Vancouver,” carried.
Two things about the council text matter for everything that follows. It says “design and implement,” not “study.” And its clause D names the instructor pipeline, recruitment, certification and retention, as a design requirement, which is the constraint this site’s data page finds binding.
June 1: the Park Board
Commissioner Virdi’s motion, “Think Free Swim,” carried the same title and, as noticed on May 25 and moved on June 1, mirrored council’s: clause B directed board staff “to work with the City of Vancouver staff to design and implement” the same program, and clause C directed staff to support council’s per-capita infrastructure target. Its recitals disclosed the figures the site relies on elsewhere: about 1,133 lesson programs a year across the first three levels, about 6,498 participants, and about $420,590 in fee revenue.
Commissioner Christensen then moved an amendment, seconded by Commissioner Jensen, that rewrote both operative clauses:
B. THAT Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation direct staff to report back with cost, capacity and service level options for a program providing free access to the first three levels of swimming lessons (or equivalent beginner stages) for all residents of Vancouver, with priority access for children aged 3 to 12; FURTHER THAT the report back clearly indicate the amount of service reductions elsewhere in the Park Board system required by each option; and
C. THAT the Board reaffirm support for the metric (swims per capita) and targets (5.0 swims per capita) for aquatic infrastructure within VanSplash (Pg.55).
The amendment carried four to three (Bastyovanszky, Christensen, Digby, Jensen in favour; Haer, Howard, Virdi opposed). The motion as amended then carried five to one, Howard opposed and Haer abstaining. Two further clauses that had appeared in the May 25 notice, directing staff to restore pre-COVID pool operations and to report back on the timeline before summer, were not moved on June 1.
Where the two texts part
| Council, May 20 | Park Board, June 1 | |
|---|---|---|
| The program | “design and implement” | “report back with cost, capacity and service level options” |
| Who delivers | city staff “in consultation with” the board | board staff, alone |
| Money | council will “consider funding” through the annual budget and capital plan | each option must state “the amount of service reductions elsewhere in the Park Board system required” |
| Infrastructure target | a new per-capita pools target by 2035 | reaffirm VanSplash’s existing 5.0 swims per capita |
| Deadline | “early 2027” | none |
| Vote | unanimous | 5–1–1, after a 4–3 amendment |
What they share is the first clause, word for word, and the program definition: the first three levels, free, all residents, priority for ages 3 to 12.
What the two targets would measure
Council’s example, pools per 10,000 residents, counts buildings. Vancouver has thirteen pools, eight indoor and five outdoor, for 662,248 residents (2021 Census): about 0.2 per 10,000, or one pool per 51,000 people and one indoor pool per 83,000. A target on that metric moves only when a pool opens or closes, and no number of pools says how many children get a lesson. The board’s standard, VanSplash’s 5.0 swims per capita, counts visits: every kind of aquatic visit, including outdoor pools, wading pools and beaches, divided by population. Vancouver rose from 2.4 swims per capita in 1999 to 3.4 in 2014, the last year the strategy had consistent data; 5.0 would mean about 3.3 million visits a year at today’s population, above the 2.0 to 4.0 the strategy says urban centres typically see. That metric can rise on longer hours and cheaper admission with no new building, and it, too, says nothing about lessons. Neither target measures the thing both motions are about. The unit that does is beginner-level seats per child, which the working answer proposes as the yardstick and prices.
Read together, the two records describe a program that council resolved to build without yet funding, and that the board resolved to cost without yet dating. The board’s amendment was not a refusal; a report on cost, capacity and service-level trade-offs is exactly what a program like this needs before it starts, and the board’s recital that access is “constrained by both user fees and limited pool capacity” is the right diagnosis. But the amendment removed the only instruction to implement anything, and attached no date to the study that replaced it.
What has happened since
As of September 8, 2026, no staff report has been published in response to either motion. The board’s VanSplash update, which council’s timeline is pegged to, is expected in early 2027. A freedom-of-information request filed on September 3 asks the City for whatever costing exists for the board’s report-back; its statutory response date falls in mid-October, before the October 17 election. The FOI trail tracks it.
Because the board’s report has no deadline, this site has written a rough public version of it: the working answer takes the board’s question as put, cost, capacity and service-level options with the service reductions each requires, and answers it from released records, with every assumption labelled. It also covers most of what council’s clause E asks for: a phased timeline, capacity-expansion options, and a financial analysis of forgone revenue and operating cost. It does not attempt the external-funding survey council asked for; the one provincial question this project has put to the ministry responsible for sport, whether British Columbia funds swim instruction at all, is due back on September 18.