General Purposes Committee Meeting Minutes - January 7, 2002

CARRIED

PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DIVISION

2.

BRITANNIA HERITAGE SHIPYARD FRONT DOCK
(Report: Dec. 4/01, File No.: 2025-20-003) (REDMS No. 574113)

The Manager, Facilities Planning & Construction, David Naysmith, reviewed the report with the Committee.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on the proposal, during which concern was expressed that the report had not been submitted to the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Advisory Board for its review.

In answer to questions, information was provided by staff that the proposal (i) complied with the overall plan of the Britannia Business Plan; (ii) would allow the City to undertake dredging; and (iii) would ensure that the structure was replaced to current Building Code standards. Further information was provided that if the project was approved by Council, construction would proceed according to the deadlines imposed by the Department of Fisheries with respect to dredging and pile driving.

Reference was made to the budget approved for the upgrade of the front dock and questions were raised about the need to install sprinklers under the deck, and advice was given that the sprinklers were a requirement of the Building Code.

Questions were raised about (i) the estimate for "Design, Permits and Overhead" costs to replace the existing piles; and (ii) the depth of the dredging to be undertaken and whether this depth would be sufficient to accommodate seine and other large boats, and information was provided by Mr. Naysmith on these matters. Reference was made by Councillor Steves to the length of the existing piles and discussion ensued briefly between Cllr. Steves and Mr. Naysmith on this matter, during which Cllr. Steves questioned whether the existing piles could be reused.

Discussion then ensued on whether the report should be referred to the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Advisory Board for its review and report to the General Purposes Committee. Also discussed was when the capital budget for the overall project had been approved, and whether referral of the report would delay the proposed dredging and piling, and thereby resulting in the window of opportunity for dredging being missed.

Mr. Bob Ransford, Chair of the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Advisory Board, stated that it was his understanding that the Board was to oversee all capital projects for the Britannia site to ensure that the City got value for its dollar. He stated that the Board had not seen the details of the overall project or the proposed changes. In response to questions from the Chair, Mr. Ransford stated that the turn-around time for review of the report could be completed quickly.

Discussion continued briefly on whether the proposal being considered this afternoon was within the parameters of the Britannia Business Plan, after which the following referral motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the (report dated December 4^th, 2001, from the Managers, Cultural Services and Facility Planning & Construction respectively), regarding the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Front Dock, be referred to staff to obtain the comments of the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Advisory Board and report to the January 21^st, 2002 meeting of the General Purposes Committee.

CARRIED

COMMUNITY SAFETY DIVISION

3.

PARKING REVENUE
(Report: Dec. 17/01, File No.: 6455-05-01) (REDMS No. 580910)

The Manager, Community Bylaws, Sandra Tokarczyk, reviewed the report with the Committee.

A lengthy discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on such matters as:

the provision of pay parking in specific areas, including Steveston;

whether or not the report should be submitted to the Steveston Parking Task Force;

proposed parking rates;

monitoring and enforcement of pay and timed parking areas, and how this monitoring and enforcement would be undertaken;

the rationale for not completing the activities in Phase II before implementing Phase I;

whether a parking policy should be developed to deal with parking on main streets and high traffic areas;

the need, if any, for the creation of a parking commission;

employee parking;

the proposal to provide on-street exempt parking permits for a fee;

the length of time which would be allowed for timed parking restrictions;

the amount of revenue expected to be generated in 2002 by the four existing four City parking lots;

the provision of timed parking in Minoru Park, and those areas of the park which would be so designated;

the feasibility of including the City Centre (Area 4 identified in Attachment 8 to the staff report) in the Phase I activities in order to immediately implement a pay parking program in the area; and

the various components of the analysis to be undertaken by staff as part of the Phase II activities, and the length of time required to complete this work.

It was moved and seconded

That the following Phase 1 and 2 recommendations relating to parking revenue be endorsed:

Phase I activities:

(1)

Confirm the practice of pay parking on the following four City parking lots:

(a)

Gateway/Chapel/Family Place;

(b)

Brighouse Park;

(c)

Lawn Bowling Green Road; and

(d)

Gravel Lot Westminster Highway and Alderbridge Way.

(2)

Add the following additional sites to the pay parking lot inventory:

(a)

balance of Minoru Park parking lots;

(b)

City owned lots in Steveston; and

(c)

Garry Point Park.

(3)

Authorize a call for proposals from private contractors to operate the pay parking lots identified in recommendations (1) and (2) above for a two year period;

(4)

Authorize staff to introduce time parking restrictions in the remainder of Minoru Park;

(5)

Authorize staff to explore and if feasible enter into an agreement with the Vancouver/ Richmond Health Board that would allow local Health Care Nurses on-street time exempted parking permits for a fee;

(6)

Authorize staff to explore the opportunity of revenue sharing with ICBC for the collection of outstanding city issued parking tickets;

(7)

Endorse the philosophy of towing from both on and off street parking where violators have two or more outstanding unpaid parking tickets.

(8)

Staff to prepare a Report to Council that contains a communications strategy for Phase I activities.

Phase II activities:

(1)

Instruct staff to identify new on-street timed parking areas that would be feasible areas for on-street pay parking;

(2)

Instruct staff to identify existing on-street timed parking areas that would be feasible areas for on-street pay parking;

(3)

Authorize staff to conduct a proposal call for the introduction of pay parking on selected new and existing on-street timed parking areas (identified in (1) and (2) of Phase II above);

(4)

Staff to identify areas into which monthly on-street parking permits should be introduced;

(5)

Staff to prepare a Report to Council on the required capital expenditures in order to introduce recommendations (1) through (4) of Phase II above;

(6)

Staff to prepare a Report to Council (companion to (5) of Phase II above) that provides a cost comparison on delivery of parking services by the city and by private contract.

(7)

Staff to prepare a Report to Council that contains a marketing and public communications strategy for Phase II activities.

The question on the motion was not called, as the following amendments were introduced:

That Parts 2(b) and (c) (Phase I activities) of the main motion be deleted and referred to the Steveston Parking Task Force for review and report to Committee as quickly as possible.

CARRIED

That Part 2(a) (Phase I activities) of the main motion be relocated to the Phase II activities.

DEFEATED

OPPOSED: Mayor Brodie
Councillor Barnes
Sue Halsey-Brandt
Howard
Kumagai
McNulty
Steves

That the Phase I activities be amended by adding the following as Part (9),

"That the City Centre area (bounded by Garden City Road, from Blundell Road north to Sea Island Way; Sea Island Way, from Blundell Road, west to the Middle Arm of the Fraser River; Blundell Road, west from Garden City Way to Gilbert Road; Gilbert Road, north from Blundell Road to Westminster Highway; Westminster Highway, west from Gilbert Road to No. 2 Road, and north to the Middle Arm of the Fraser River), be given a high priority to determine the feasibility of implementing pay parking in this area."

The question on the motion was not called, as discussion ensued on the length of time which would be required by staff to complete the analysis if the City Centre area was included.

The question on the amending motion was then called, and it was CARRIED with Councillors Greenhill and Howard opposed.

The question on the main motion, as amended, was not called, as the request was made that Part 1 (Phase I activities) of the resolution be dealt with separately.

The question on Part 1 (Phase I activities) of the main motion, as amended, was then called, and it was CARRIED with Councillor McNulty opposed.

The question on Parts 2 through 9 (Phase I activities) of the main motion, as amended, was then called, and it was CARRIED.

The question on Parts 1 through 7 (Phase II activities) of the main motion, as amended, was then called, and it was CARRIED.

FINANCE & CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION

4.

2002 RICHMOND CITY GRANTS
(Report: Dec. 19/01, File No.: 1085-01) (REDMS No. 586344, 568478, 568522, 567813, 568533, 568640, 568719, 568807, 572968, 568847, 568856, 572923, 568865, 572899, 569530, 569447, 569544, 569553, 572916, 569562, 569573, 569639, 572886, 571805, 571836, 571894, 581549, 586041, 571783, 549153)

The Manager, Customer Service, Anne Stevens, briefly reviewed the recommendations with the Committee, during which she referred to the grant application from the Richmond Community on Disability and advised that as part of the budget process, funding requests for the Independent Living Centre and the Richmond Therapeutic Equestrian Society were being considered as part of the additional level of service budget process.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on specific grant requests and the rationale for recommending the amount being proposed. It was noted during the discussion that any grant awarded to the Richmond Committee on Disability and the Richmond Therapeutic Equestrian Society would be additional, and subject, to, any funding approved as part of the budget process.

Reference was made to the late applications submitted by RADAT, the Steveston Community Society and the Richmond Christmas Hamper Fund, and concern was expressed that these organizations would not be receiving grants in 2002. Discussion then ensued on how the current criteria was used to determine the amount of grant approved and whether this amount was based on the level of service provided to the City by the applicant.

A suggestion was made during the discussion that the Richmond Committee on Disability should be given an additional $15,500 and that RADAT and the Steveston Community Society should each receive the same grant approved in 2001. However, the suggestion was also made that the staff report should be referred to staff to determine if the grant to the Richmond Committee on Disability could be funded as a result of reducing grants to other organizations. Discussion ensued briefly on how this action could be accomplished, without having a negative impact on the services provided by specific organizations.

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

That the report (dated December 19^th, 2001, from the Manager, Customer Service), regarding 2002 Richmond City Grants, be referred to staff to examine individual grants for a reduction of not more than 10% of the recommended amount, with the resulting funds being placed in a pool.

WITHDRAWN

That the Richmond Committee on Disability be awarded an additional grant in the amount of $15,500, for a total of $17,000.

The question on the motion was not called, as concern was expressed that the recommendation, if adopted, would result in the surplus which had resulted from two applications being late, being given to one group, without any consideration being given to increasing the grant amounts of equally deserving organizations.

(Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt left the meeting at 6:30 p.m., and did not return.)

The question on the motion was not called, as the following amendment was introduced:

That RADAT and the Steveston Community Society be awarded grants in the amount of $7,500 and $4,000 respectively, which represent the amounts awarded to these organizations in 2001.

CARRIED

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

It was moved and seconded

That the report (dated December 19^th, 2001, from the Manager, Customer Service), regarding 2002 Richmond City Grants, be referred to staff for review, and that an amount be included in the Grants Budget for the Richmond Christmas Hamper Fund.

CARRIED

That a 2002 base level operating budget of $4,135 be approved for the Sister City Committee;

That the Mayor and Councils elected representative to the Committee (Councillor Lyn Greenhill), as well as the Committees Chair and Vice Chair, or their alternates, be authorized to attend the All Japan Flower Competition and;

That the appropriate funding be allocated from the 2002 Council Contingency Account.

CARRIED

The question on the motion was not called, as discussion ensued among Committee members and Mr. Bruce on the proposed recommendation. It was noted that a policy had been adopted by the City for the rental of facilities at City Hall, and that the organizer of the festival had been aware of, and agreed to, that policy. Concern was also expressed by several members of the Committee that waiving of the fees would set a precedent for future events held at City Hall.

The question on the motion was then called, and it was CARRIED with Councillor Howard opposed.

CARRIED

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 Monday, January 7^th, 2002.