General Purposes Committee Meeting Minutes - February 2, 2004
General Purposes Committee
|
Date: |
Monday, February 2nd, 2004 |
|
Place: |
M.2004 |
|
Present: |
Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie, Chair |
|
Call to Order: |
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. |
|
|
|
MINUTES |
|
|
1. |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, January 19th, 2004 and on Thursday, January 22nd, 2004, be adopted as circulated. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER |
|
|
2. |
FINANCIAL STRATEGY |
|
|
|
Chief Administrative Officer George Duncan spoke about the exercise recently undertaken by Council which resulted in the adoption of the Sustainable Financial Strategy. He stressed the importance of ensuring that the implementation of the plan continued to reflect Councils goals; that the Plan was workable; that progress was being made, and that a reality check was undertaken to determine if the plan was working as anticipated. |
|
|
|
Mr. Duncan explained that this meeting would be focussing on (i) core service delivery areas; (ii) what the core services should be and their mandate; and (iii) non-core services. He emphasized that this meeting was intended to be an inter-active session between Committee and staff; that there were no right or wrong answers, and that the meeting was intended to provide staff with an understanding of Councils will. |
|
|
|
The Director, Corporate & Intergovernmental Relations, Lani Schultz, through a PowerPoint presentation (a copy of which is on file in the City Clerks Office), reviewed: |
|
|
|
● |
Background |
|
|
|
● |
Process |
|
|
|
● |
Concept of a Great City |
|
|
|
● |
Inside the System |
|
|
|
● |
Establishing the City's Role in Making Richmond a Great City |
|
|
|
● |
Ground Rules |
|
|
|
● |
Framing the Picture |
|
|
|
During the presentation, discussion ensued among Committee members and staff on: |
|
|
|
|
● |
the question of Why Do We Exist, What Business Are We In? |
|
|
|
● |
what should constitute core and non-core services |
|
|
|
● |
the need for long term planners and leaders to ensure that the City was examining the newest and best practices |
|
|
|
● |
the need for proper land use planning |
|
|
|
● |
whether the City's vision and mission statements should be reviewed and possibly rewritten |
|
|
|
● |
waste management. |
|
|
|
Ms. Schultz then addressed the question of Do We Have the Right Services? with the Committee, indicating that the responses of the Committee would determine the criteria/principles by which to choose the City's core services. As a result of the discussion, the following criteria and principles were developed: |
|
|
|
|
1. |
Is it required by the Community Charter? |
|
|
|
2. |
Does it contribute significantly to the City's vision and mandate? |
|
|
|
3. |
Is there a sound business case for the provision of this service; are we getting value for money? |
|
|
|
4. |
Does the service respond to liveability goals and objectives? |
|
|
|
5. |
Does it help to make Richmond a desired/balanced community? |
|
|
|
6. |
Does it build long term community concept? |
|
|
|
7. |
Is it fiscally responsible to our taxpayers? |
|
|
|
Using these criteria, Committee members then reviewed the services presently offered by the City and determined (a) whether the service in question should be a core service, and (b) how the service should be delivered, based on the following two sets of questions: |
|
|
|
|
● |
(a) with respect to the identification of core services, (1) Core Must Have; (2) Important to Have; and (3) Not essential. |
|
|
|
● |
(b) with
respect to the delivery of services, (1) City as a primary provider;
(2) Combined City/Partner Provision; (3) Primarily Through Other
Parties; and (4) No City Involvement in Provision. |
|
|
|
(It should be noted that the percentages shown below are based on the input of all nine Committee members, and that the numbers shown in brackets relates to the above sets of questions, with identification of core services being the first and service delivery the second.) |
|
|
|
|
Services that address the physical development of the City: |
|
|
|
Land Use Planning and OCP Implementation:
100% (1) |
|
|
|
Development
Applications:
100% (1) |
|
|
|
Zoning
Processes:
100% (1) |
|
|
|
Environmental
Planning: 78%
(1) |
|
|
|
Transportation planning and development:
100% (1) |
|
|
|
Infrastructure development and maintenance:
100% (1) |
|
|
|
Development of short and long range capital plans:
100% (1) |
|
|
|
Agricultural
viability initiatives:
67% (1) |
|
|
|
Urban design plans and
initiatives: 100% (1)
|
|
|
|
Building permits
and inspections: 89% (1) |
|
|
|
Works Yard
Operations:
78% (1) |
|
|
|
Land acquisition
and disposal: 89%
(1) |
|
|
|
Services that promote the social development of the City: |
|
|
|
Recreation and
cultural programs and services: 89% (1) |
|
|
|
Library
Services:
78% (1) |
|
|
|
Social
Planning:
56% (1) |
|
|
|
Community Grants
Program: 22% (1) |
|
|
|
Programs and services that promote sound, sustainable fiscal management: |
|
|
|
Development of economic/financial plans:
100% (1) |
|
|
|
Treasury and Investment
Services: 100% (1) |
|
|
|
Programs that promote community, economic and business development: |
|
|
|
Economic
development initiatives:
33% (1) Service
delivery
11% (1) |
|
|
|
Business liaison
services: 22% (1) Service
delivery
44% (1) |
|
|
|
Customer service and Front of House: 100% (1) Service delivery 100% (1) |
|
|
|
Client
Services:
67% (1) Service
delivery
89% (1) |
|
|
|
Community Safety and Protective Services: |
|
|
|
Fire Rescue: 100% (1) Service delivery 100% (1) |
|
|
|
Policing
Services:
89% (1) Service
delivery
56% (1) |
|
|
|
Snow removal
programs:
78% (1) Service
delivery
22% (1) |
|
|
|
Community bylaws
development and enforcement:
89% (1) Service
delivery
44% (1) |
|
|
|
Recycling and
Environmental programs: 78% (1) Service
delivery
11% (1) |
|
|
|
Corporate Governance and Administration |
|
|
|
City Council and Mayors Office: 100% (1) Service delivery 100% (1) |
|
|
|
City Clerks
Office:
89% (1) Service
delivery
89% (1) |
|
|
|
Various public processes: 100% (1) Service
delivery
56% (1) |
|
|
|
Budget and accounting services: 100% (1) Service
delivery
78% (1) |
|
|
|
Corporate and
strategic planning:
78% (1) Service
delivery
67% (1) |
|
|
|
Tax collection: 100% (1) Service
delivery
78% (1) |
|
|
|
Payroll and
Benefits:
89% (1) Service
delivery
78% (1) |
|
|
|
Fleet
Management:
78% (1) Service
delivery
33% (1) |
|
|
|
Purchasing:
78% (1) Service
delivery
56% (1) |
|
|
|
Risk
Management:
89% (1) Service
delivery
33% (1) |
|
|
|
Legal/legislative
services: 89%
(1) Service
delivery
22% (1) |
|
|
|
Corporate Records Management: 100% (1) Service
delivery 67%
(1) |
|
|
|
IT
Services:
89% (1) Service
delivery
33% (1) |
|
|
|
Human Resources: 100% (1) Service
delivery 78%
(1) |
|
|
|
Administrative Services: 100% (1) Service delivery 100% (1) |
|
|
|
During the discussion, it was agreed that specific services, including Economic Development Initiatives, Business Liaison Services, and Emergency Services, needed to be better defined. It was also agreed that further discussion was required on: (i) the provision of police services, (ii) social planning, (iii) the Community Grants Program, and (iv) Economic Development Initiatives. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the meeting be recessed until 4:30 p.m., on Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004 (6:10 p.m.). |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
The General Purposes Committee meeting reconvened at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 17th, 2004, with Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt absent. |
|
|
|
|
Ms. Schultz referred to the memorandum and material circulated to the Committee (a copy of which is on file in the City Clerks Office), and reviewed briefly the results of the February 2nd meeting of the Committee. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on : |
|
|
|
|
● |
the definition of core service to be an essential service |
|
|
|
● |
whether the City should be the primary provider |
|
|
|
● |
whether a category should be created between important service and non-essential service |
|
|
|
● |
the need to break major issues down into more manageable components |
|
|
|
● |
the question
of, if the City's policy was to have a safe community, why was the
primary provider was only listed as a 5, and what would the
alternatives be. |
|
|
|
At the request of the Chair, the Manager, Budgets & Accounting, Jerry Chong, reviewed the display boards which provided a comparison of rates between Richmond, Delta, Burnaby, Surrey, Coquitlam, New Westminster and Vancouver, for business and residential taxes. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion then ensued on: |
|
|
|
|
● |
Richmond's industrial tax rate |
|
|
|
● |
how the revenue from taxes from the industrial business and other classes compared to the City's residential tax base |
|
|
|
● |
the comparison presented by staff of municipal recreational and community facilities with other Lower Mainland municipalities |
|
|
|
● |
the options which were available to the Committee with regard to taxation, (i) keep tax rates low relative to its competition and reduce service levels; (ii) keep tax rates around the mid-point relative to its competition with average service levels; or (iii) increase tax rates in order to provide greater service levels and choices |
|
|
|
● |
how the City could become more desirable to families and businesses |
|
|
|
● |
the most important issues facing the City and the impact which the available tax options could have on planning and future development |
|
|
|
● |
the availability of other options, including finding efficiencies within the City and additional revenue sources |
|
|
|
● |
the impact which the loss of $5 Million in municipal grants had had on City reserve funds |
|
|
|
● |
the City's long term financial sustainability strategy and the purpose of that strategy to increase revenue in the reserve funds |
|
|
|
● |
the need to find a way to attract high quality, industrial and commercial developments which required close proximity to the Pacific Rim and to the United States |
|
|
|
● |
the feasibility of having businesses adopt community centres, similar to the City's adopt a trail program |
|
|
|
● |
the City's tax
rates in comparison to other Lower Mainland jurisdictions and
whether Richmond's rates should be higher, lower or in the middle of
Burnabys and Surreys rates; whether the City could have low taxes
and at the same time, a high quality of living |
|
|
|
During the discussion, it was agreed that the topic of the City as a primary provider should be discussed in greater detail at a future meeting. Information was also requested on the amount of funding which other cities and municipalities had in their reserve funds on a per capita basis, and on a comparison of which jurisdictions had business taxes and property taxes. Also requested was information on potential efficiencies and alternative revenue sources. |
|
|
|
|
Reference was made during the discussion to the preparations for the 2004 Budget and advice was given that a budget meeting had been scheduled for Tuesday, March 2nd, 2004. |
|
|
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (7:30 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, February 2nd, 2004, and on Tuesday, February 17th, 2004. |
|
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
|
Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie |
Fran J. Ashton |