MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, March 17^th, 2003, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

DELEGATION

2.

Ms. Jane Bird, Ms. Judy Kirk and Mr. David Rink regarding the results of the Public Consultation Process of the Richmond Airport-Vancouver Rapid Transit project.
 

Project Director for the Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project, Ms. Jane Bird, accompanied by Mr. David Rink, of Synovate, and Ms. Judy Kirk, of Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd., reviewed the results of the community consultation process.  Mr. Rink then reviewed the results of the quantitative research document entitled RAV Rapid Transit Study (a copy of which is on file in the City Clerks Office) with the Committee. 

Following Mr. Rinks review, Ms. Bird examined in detail, the Community Consultation Summary Report, April, 2003 (a copy of which is attached as Schedule A and forms part of these minutes). 

(On file in the City Clerks Office is a copy of (i) the press release issued by TransLink (dated April 3^rd, 2003) entitled Strong Public Support for the Proposed Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Rapid Transit Project; and (ii) the Consultation Summary Report, RAVP Community Consultation 2003 (dated March 28, 2003).) 

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and the delegation on:

the phrasing of some of the questions asked in the RAV Rapid Transit Study document and whether this phrasing skewed the results because of the wording

the number of respondents who preferred an elevated system if undergrounding was not possible

the intrusiveness of an elevated system and steps which could be taken to soften the appearance of such a structure

whether sufficient work had been done to explain to the public the rationale for choosing the Cambie Street corridor over Arbutus Street

the rationale for not approaching the residents on the Cambie Street corridor by mail about the survey

the proposed travel times between Richmond and Vancouver and whether any consideration had been given to proposing slightly longer times

how the information contained in the reports now being reviewed would be presented to other stakeholders in the project

the future of buses following the implementation of the new system

the support for the proposed transit system from other communities.
 

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

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

3.

Municipal Appointment to North Fraser Port Authority
(Report:  April 1/03, File No.:  0140-20-NFHA1) (REDMS No. 990141)
 

It was moved and seconded

That nominees for the position of municipal appointee to the North Fraser Port Authority be sought through advertisement in the City Notice Board.
 

Prior to the question on the motion being called, the General Manager, Urban Development, David McLellan, advised that there was no maximum age restriction placed on appointees to the North Fraser Port Authority.

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

COUNCILLOR BILL MCNULTY

4.

Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Delivery System
(Report:  April 1/03, File No.:  0340-20-CSER1) (REDMS No. 990101)

Councillor Bill McNulty, in speaking to his report, commented on the need to address the delivery of parks, recreational and cultural services to the City.  He stated that the current model, which had implemented in Richmond in the 1950s needed to reviewed and improved upon, or replaced with a better model.  Cllr. McNulty stated that it was important to recognize that there was a need for a change in the manner in which recreational services were delivered to the City.

Cllr. McNulty, during his commentary, noted that an amendment was required to the first page of his report, to delete the line, The terms of reference would need to be drafted by the City.

Committee members spoke in support of the proposed recommendation as it was felt that the recommendations, if adopted, would held to resolve some of the problems being experienced with the current service delivery model review.  At the same time, discussion ensued on such issues as:

the source of funding and budget for the proposed $50,000 expenditure

how quickly the Working Group would be in operation

the appointment of two community members at large, and how these two individuals would be selected (the suggestion was made that advertisements be placed in English, Asian and Punjabi newspapers; as well the comment was expressed that these people could be users or potential users of the City's recreational services)

whether existing programs would continue for the remainder of the year

when the implementation of the new program would take place

whether decisions of the Working Group would be by consensus or voting

the relationship of the review of the recreation service delivery model to the development of a Master Plan for Parks which was currently underway

the purpose of the proposed Working Group; whether the current consultation process being undertaken by staff would continue, and whether the Special Public Meeting scheduled for April 29^th, 2003 would still take place

the need to recognize volunteers for their service and involvement, both now and in the future

the need to engage the services of an outside facilitator who was experienced in this type of process

the need to nominate a representative of the Richmond Committee on Disability to the Working Group.
 

During the discussion, questions were raised as to whether or not any consideration had been given to appointing a member of the Richmond School Board to the Working Group.  In response, the comment was made that the Council/School Board Liaison Committee would be the appropriate forum.  Advice was given that this matter would be discussed by the Committee at its May 6^th meeting.

Reference was made to the proposal of the Intercultural Advisory Committee to have focus groups with respect to such issues as cultural policies and community involvement, and a question was raised as to whether this group could be included in the Working Group.  In response, advice was given by the General Manager, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services, Cathy Carlile, that she would have discussions with Urban Development staff to determine what would be effective and whether there were comparable issues which could be addressed.

Further comments were also made about the current service delivery model, it being felt that the current program would not be able to continue into the future; that a new model was required which would delivery comprehensive recreational services to the majority of Richmond residents; and that a new model was required which was patterned after the needs and demographics of the City.

Reference was made to the appointment of two Council representatives, and the Mayor advised that he would recommend that Cllrs. McNulty and Steves be appointed as non-voting Council representatives to the Working Group.

Mr. James Sullivan stated that it was important that people with disabilities be included in the Working Group.  He agreed with previous statements that the current service delivery model could not maintain itself and required changing, and he voiced his support to the proposed resolution which would seek consensus from so many members of the community.  Mr. Sullivan stated that there had been misinterpretation and misunderstanding about the new model proposed by staff, but reiterated that there had to be changes to the manner in which programs were delivered.

Mr. Greg Robertson, representing the Council of Community Associations, and the South Arm Community Association, spoke in support of the proposed resolution.  He questioned the proposed timeline for implementation, noting that the contract with the Richmond Fitness Association to provide fitness instructors would expire in July of this year, and he expressed concern about the loss of continuity within the system, if the instructors were not replaced.

Discussion continued among Committee members and staff about whether a representative of the School Board should be included as a member of the Working Group.  The suggestion was made that a member of the School Board be invited to attend Working Group meetings, rather than being appointed as a member, and this was agreed to by the Committee.

As a result of the discussion, the following amended resolution was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Richmond City Council establish a Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Renewal Community Working Group consisting of the following volunteer representatives:

(a)

three representatives nominated by the Council of Community Associations;

(b)

one representative nominated by the Richmond Sports Council;

(c)

one representative nominated by the Richmond Chinese Community Society;

(d)

one representative nominated by the Richmond Heritage Commission;

(e)

one representative nominated by the Child Care Development Board;

(f)

one representative nominated by the Community Arts Council;

(g)

one representative nominated by Intercultural Relations Committee;

(h)

one representative nominated by the Richmond Community Services Advisory Committee;

(i)

one representative nominated by the Seniors Advisory Council;

(j)

Councillors Bill McNulty and Harold Steves as the non-voting Council representatives;

(k)

two community members at large, who would be selected following an advertising campaign;

(l)

one representative nominated by the Richmond Committee on Disability; and

(m)

one representative of City youth.

(2)

That the Working Groups Terms of Reference are to make recommendations to Council on  the Master Plan and the renewal of the parks, recreation, and cultural services delivery system adhering to the guiding principles for the service delivery system adopted by Council, with specific recommendations on:
 

(a)

a framework for a new Recreation service delivery system that identifies weakness in the current system and necessary improvements including a community involvement model including the roles of the volunteer, an implementation strategy for the new model and  the financial impact.
 

(3)

That the City commit funds related to managing and supporting the process for up to $50,000, with a report to Council on the budget and source of funding. 

(4)

That the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Renewal Community Working Group report to Council by the end of September, 2003.

The question on the motion was not called, as staff were requested to provide Council with a proposed budget and source of funding prior to the April 14^th, 2003 Council Meeting.

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

ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION

5.

Viking Way Watermain Replacement
(Report:  March 28/03, File No.:  6340-01) (REDMS No. 989159)
 

It was moved and seconded

That the proposed Gilbert Road Watermain replacement project identified in the 2003 capital program be substituted for the Viking Way Watermain replacement project.

CARRIED

FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION

6.

Road Exchange Bylaw - 7510 Shepherd Drive
(Report:  March 29/2003, File No.:  8060-20-7510) (REDMS No. 989314, 989313)
 

It was moved and seconded

That Road Exchange Bylaw 7510 be forwarded to Council for introduction and first, second and third readings.

CARRIED

7.

4100 No. 5 Road Right of Way Sanitary Sewer at King George Park
(Report:  March 19/03, File No.:  2285-01) (REDMS No. 982175)
 

It was moved and seconded

That a right of way for sanitary sewer be granted over a portion of 4100 No. 5 Road, (as outlined on the sketch plan attached to the report dated March 19^th, 2003, from the Manager, Lands & Property). 

CARRIED

PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES DIVISION

8.

Wooden Boat Festival
(Report:  March 31/03, File No.:  7400-01) (REDMS No. 989212, 989812)

The Director, Parks, Dave Semple, accompanied by Site Supervisor, Britannia, Brian Klassen, indicated that they were available to answer questions from the Committee. 

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on such issues as:

the reasons why the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Society and the Britannia Advisory Board were not interested in taking control of the project

the rationale for requiring a decision at this time on whether to host the Wooden Boat Festival

whether wooden boat festivals held in other locations had been successful in obtaining grants from other levels of government

whether it was realistic to expect (i) that sponsorships would be found for the Wooden Boat Festival, based on the City's experiences in endeavouring to find sponsors for the Tall Ships Festival; and (ii) sponsorships in 2005 for the Tall Ships Festival after holding the Wooden Boat Festival in 2004

the final drop dead date by which a decision would have to be made on whether to proceed with the festival

the proposed location of the Wooden Boat Festival, and how access to the boats would be permitted

the use of volunteers to operate concession stands

the need to address parking for visitors to the Festival

the need to use existing resources rather than renting equipment, such as tents, for the event

the proposed budget, and whether the figures given for revenue and expenses were realistic.
 

During the discussion, reference was made to the proposal to charge a $5 per person gate fee, and the suggestion was made that this fee should be reduced to $1. 

Discussion continued, during which comments were made that an event should be held annually to showcase the Steveston waterfront; and that the Wooden Boat Festival should be held the week leading up to July 1^st and the Steveston Salmon Festival.  However, concerns were also expressed that adoption of the staff recommendations would mean that the City was endorsing the concept, which it was felt, could open the door to future requests.  Further comments were made that staff should be approaching interested groups and asking them if they wanted to assume responsibility for the festival, with the City having only a minimal role.

Reference was made to the issue of sponsorship of the event, and comments were made that it was important to have a commitment for the funds before proceeding any further. 

Questions were asked about the status of the Wooden Boat Festival in 2005, when the Tall Ships Festival was proposed to be held, and advice was given that the two events would be combined into one. 

Mr. Bob Ransford, a member of the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Society, questioned the extent of the City's commitment to the project as it had been noted during the discussion that neither the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Society or the Maritime Society had requested the event.  He also questioned what would happen if the Federal Government did not provide a financial contribution, and who would be responsible if the financial support was less than needed.  

A brief discussion then ensued among Committee members and Mr. Ransford regarding the proposed Wooden Boat Festival and who would be responsible for the cost of the event, signing cheques and approving invoices.  During the discussion, Mr. Ransford brought to the Committees attention, an apparent shortfall between the revenue and expenses of City in-kind.

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

It was moved and seconded

That the report (dated March 24^th, 2003, from the Director, Parks and the Manager, Heritage & Cultural Services), regarding the Wooden Boat Festival, be referred to staff to provide staff with the opportunity to approach those groups which might be interested in becoming involved with the festival, and that staff report to Committee with a plan which would include (i) the City's responsibilities and obligations, including a budget, and (ii) the names of the interested parties, along with the roles in which the members of those groups would be involved.

The question on the motion was not called, as staff were requested to complete the work as quickly as possible.  Staff were also requested to prepare a revised budget which did not include any financial contributions from the Federal Government, and to correct the discrepancies in the current budget between expenses and revenue and the City's contribution. 

Discussion also ensued on the timing of the report being prepared on the hosting of events and whether that report should be dealt with prior to dealing with the Wooden Boat Festival proposal.  During the discussion, the comment was made that the event report would not answer the question of whether the Wooden Boat Festival should be held.

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

9.

Richmond Library Project
(Report:  April 2/03, File No.:  2052-01) (REDMS No. 989039)
 

It was moved and seconded

That the East Richmond Branch Library project and the first phase renovations to Brighouse Library, each be proceeded with, as outlined in the 2003 Capital Budget process.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:31 p.m.).

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, April 7^th, 2003.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Chair

Fran J. Ashton
Executive Assistant, City Clerks Office