Jump to main content
2000 Agendas & Minutes

General Purposes Committee Meeting Minutes - September 5, 2000





Tuesday, September 5th, 2000


W.H. Anderson Room

Richmond City Hall


Mayor Greg Halsey-Brandt, Chair

Councillor Linda Barnes

Councillor Malcolm Brodie (4:05 p.m.)

Councillor Lyn Greenhill

Councillor Kiichi Kumagai

Councillor Ken Johnston

Councillor Bill McNulty

Councillor Harold Steves


Councillor Derek Dang

Call to Order:

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.


It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, July 17th, 2000, be adopted as circulated.




(Letter: Aug. 15/00; File No.: 0154-01)

Mr. Clive Rock, Manager, Strategic Planning, TransLink, accompanied by Tamim Raad, reviewed with the Committee, the improvements being planned, the funding options which were currently being considered, and the impact which the Strategic Transportation Plan would have on Richmond in the future. A copy of Mr. Rocks presentation is on file in the City Clerks Office.

(Cllr. Brodie entered the meeting at 4:05 p.m., during the above presentation.)

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and the delegation on issues relating to the proposed financing options, during which the following information and comments were provided:


at the open house to be held in Richmond on Tuesday, September 13th, 2000, display panels would be set up in the room, however, there would be no specific presentations made as the purpose of the open house was to give the public the opportunity to present new ideas on possible alternatives to the proposed financing plan


the Boards of both the Greater Vancouver Regional District and TransLink had approved the Strategic Transportation Plan; TransLink was now assuming that people wanted to implement the plan; if individuals were opposed to paying the proposed levy, then they should make their views known; if there was an overwhelming show of rejection for the levy, then another avenue of obtaining funding for the Plan would have to be found


with regard to whether TransLink had reviewed its programs and priorities with respect to money losers, TransLink staff were currently undertaking a critical performance review, the results of which should be available in the Spring of 2001


with reference to the West Coast Express, the cost to operate this train was approximately $25 Million per year, and TransLink was locked into long term contracts with Canadian Pacific Railway regarding the continued operation of this transit service; as well, TransLink had only committed to purchase additional passenger cars for the existing train, and did not intend to acquire a new train; additional information was provided that the West Coast Express had reduced the cost of providing transit service along this route


concern was expressed during the discussion that the proposed levy not only penalized residents of Richmond who worked within their own jurisdictions, but also seriously impacted on residents of Vancouver who travelled to other areas to work; with reference to Richmond, the suggestion was made that rather than the $75 levy, perhaps a 2 cent per litre gasoline tax would provide a better solution to those Richmond residents who worked in the City


with reference to the Major Road Network program, only those municipalities which had roads included in the program and which met certain road standards would receive funding for maintenance of these roads;


concern was expressed about the lack of cost efficiencies which TransLink had initiated, and the request was made that the City be provided with this information


concern was also expressed about the amount of the proposed levy for commercial vehicle operators ($200) and about the negative impact which this would have on the local economy


concern was voiced about the future and whether TransLink, in 2006 intended to seek additional funding from the public to continue with the Strategic Transportation Plan; advice was given that TransLink intended to update the Transportation 2021 study at the same time the GVRD updated its Liveable Region strategy, which should determine if future additional funding would be required


reference was made to the Major Road Network Program and to the amount of funding provided by TransLink to cities and municipalities to maintain roads which, in Richmond's situation, Richmond had previously maintained at its own expense and for which TransLink now provided funding; the suggestion was made that TransLink should made a decision on whether municipalities should be provided with funding to maintain roads for which they were previously responsible.

The delegation was thanked for their presentation, and they then left the meeting.



(Letter: Aug. 9/00; File No.: 8080-07) (REDMS No. 177687)

Mr. Rolf Borck, accompanied by his wife Penpan, and Mr. David Patterson, of 4691 Pendlebury Road, provided information and commented on the recent attack by a Rottweiler dog on Mrs. Borck. A copy of Mr. Borcks submission is attached as Schedule A and forms part of these minutes.

Mr. Patterson also provided information on the attack and commented on statements contained in the correspondence received by Mr. Borck from the Manager, Community Bylaws and Administration. He reviewed (a) previous incidents which had occurred when the dog in question had threatened and attacked other individuals and (b) the conversations he had had with individuals who were concerned about these attacks. Mr. Patterson also referred to other City bylaws which dealt with the authority of an individual to enter private property, and he expressed concern that Bylaw No. 7137 did not appear to give the SPCA the authority to enter such property to retrieve a vicious or dangerous animal.

Discussion then ensued amongst Committee members, the delegation and staff (including Mr. Shawn Eccles, representing the SPCA) on this matter, during which, in response to questions, the following information and comments were provided:


with reference to the suggestions put forward by Mr. Borck to improve the existing bylaw,


to add the "Rottweiler and Doberman" breeds of dogs to the definition for vicious dog";


to provide stronger enforcement; and


to increase the amount of the penalties,


the comment were made that the penalties stipulated in the bylaw were the maximum amounts set by the Provincial government and could not be increased by the City;


the City's bylaw did allow the SPCA to enter onto private property to ensure that the provisions of the bylaw were being upheld, and through the definition of vicious dog, were permitted to seize a dog running at large on private property


the SPCA did not operate the City of Vancouver pound from which the dog had been adopted by its owner; the SPCA had a policy that any vicious dog which it seized would be destroyed and not allowed to be adopted; the SPCA did not want to be responsible for allowing a vicious dog back on the street.

It was moved and seconded

That the matter of enforcement issues relating to a dog complaint submitted by Mr. Rolf G. Borck be referred to staff to:


determine if the enforcement clauses contained in the City's Animal, Bird and Beekeeping Bylaw No. 7137 were sufficient to deal with vicious dogs;


determine if penalties relating to dogs could be increased;


address the ability of SPCA officers to enter onto private property to seize a vicious dog;


review the advisability of adding the "Rottweiler and Doberman" breeds of dog to the definition for vicious dog.

for report to Council, through the General Purposes Committee.

The question on the motion was not called, as concern was expressed about the fact that the SPCA was indicating that no previous calls had been recorded about the dog and the attempted attacks made by the animal on other individuals, prior to attacking Mrs. Borck. Discussion ensued on this issue, during which Mr. Eccles of the SPCA provided information on the process which was in place in the event of an emergency call being received outside of normal operating hours. Reference was also made to steps taken by the cities of Edmonton, Alberta and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, to ban vicious dogs from their city limits, and Mr. Borck advised that he would provide staff with copies of these bylaws.

The question on the motion was then called, and it was CARRIED.



(Report: Aug. 18/00, File No.: 7000-09-20-001) (REDMS No. 174820)

The General Manager, Engineering & Public Works, Chuck Gale, briefly reviewed his report with the Committee.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on whether the proposed location (west berm adjacent to the City Hall building) was an appropriate location for the art piece, and on the estimated cost of $50,000 of relocating the art piece to that site. The suggestion was made during the discussion that the matter should be reviewed by the Public Art Commission and the artist before a final decision was made on relocating the "Span". It was noted that staff were presently reviewing the City's Public Art program and the manner in which public art would be dealt with, however, the comment was made that the future of the "Span" at the City Hall site should not be delayed until this review had been completed.

As a result of the discussion, the following referral motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the report (dated August 18th, 2000, from the General Manager, Engineering & Public Works), regarding the Public Art piece "Span", be referred to staff for the preparation of a report to Council, through the General Purposes Committee, on:


suitable locations for the art piece, (which could include locations not at City Hall); and


the cost of relocating this piece to both the proposed City Hall and alternate sites; and

that the comments of the artist and the Public Art Commission on the proposed relocation of the "Span" be obtained and included in the report.




(Report: July 19/00, File No.: 1085-01) (REDMS No. 188238, 160160)

The Manager, Customer Services, Anne Stevens, reviewed the report with Committee members.

Discussion took place among Committee members and staff on the proposal to receive Casino Funding applications three times annually and the confusion which could result because of the overlap with the City Grants process. There was general agreement during the discussion that applications should only be received once each year. The suggestion was also made that perhaps the casino funding revenue received for a particular year could form part of the next years budget. Because applications for casino funding revenue would not be requested until mid-November, by the time the budget review process was completed in February or March of the next year, Council and staff would know exactly how much casino funding was available.

Reference was made to the Casino Funding Application form, and the comment was made that the form should be amended to clearly indicate that appeals would not be allowed.

Discussion continued, during which concern was expressed that the funding received by the City with respect to casinos might not be an ongoing funding source. The suggestion was made that a procedure should be implemented whereby a certain percentage of the funds received would be allocated for a particular use, such as policing and a percentage allotted to a sustainable fund program to be used to provide funding for projects if and when the casino funding ends, so that actual capital funding would not be depleted to fund these projects.

Reference was made to the first paragraph of the General Principles of the Casino Funding Procedures, and questions were raised about the appropriateness of the first paragraph. As a result, it was agreed that this paragraph would be deleted from the procedures.

It was moved and seconded


That the Casino Funding Procedures (as stated in the report dated July 19, 2000 from the Manager of Customer Service), be adopted, on the understanding that applications for casino funding would only be requested once each year.


That staff solicit in mid-November, Richmond-based community groups that may wish to receive Casino Funding, and that staff report on this matter to Council, through the General Purposes Committee no later than early 2001.




(Report: Aug. 27/00, File No.: 0100-20-RBTF1) (REDMS No. 181744)

The Manager, Business Liaison & Development, Marcia Freeman, reviewed the report with Committee members, during which she responded to questions on the various components of the status report. In response to questions, Ms. Freeman provided information on such issues as:


the Agricultural Viability Study and whether the study focussed on the removal of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve - advice was given that that option was not part of the process and that the initial survey was very clear in indicating that fact


the development and construction of a Trade and Exhibition Centre and the City's role - advice was given that the City's role in the development of this proposal was passive in nature; Tourism Richmond has been requested to prepare a marketing proposal on how the project would proceed


the City's progress in becoming the most efficient - the comment was made that the fact that the City was continually receiving awards from different areas was proof that the City was making progress


with regard to the hiring of consultants to complete certain components, such as the undertaking of a complete review and analysis of current practices, the consultant was hired as part of that process and not as a result of the Business Task Force report


with respect to the purpose of the Business Task Force report, advice was given that the report was not intended to be an implementation strategy


reference was made to the proposal to update the 1997 City Centre Transportation Plan, and the suggestion was made that the review be delayed until after the upcoming implementation of the #98 B Line transit service on No. 3 Road had been in operation for a number of months.

It was moved and seconded

That the status report of the staff review of the Richmond Business Task Force Recommendations for Council Action: 2000 - 2002, be received for information and that staff continue the review process and provide a progress report to the General Purposes Committee for December 2000.




That the meeting adjourn (6:35 p.m.).




Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Tuesday, September 5th, 2000.



Mayor Greg Halsey-Brandt


Fran J. Ashton

Executive Assistant

07.16.04 14:34
2/28/2013 2:15:10 PM