General Purposes Committee Meeting Minutes - February 2, 2004


 

 

General Purposes Committee

 

 

Date:

Monday, February 2nd, 2004

Place:

M.2004
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie, Chair
Councillor Linda Barnes
Councillor Derek Dang
Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt
Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt
Councillor Rob Howard
Councillor Kiichi Kumagai
Councillor Bill McNulty
Councillor Harold Steves

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
(Report:  Jan 20/04; File No.:  0970-03-01)  (REDMS No. 1115373, 1114057)

 

 

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)

            Service delivery                                                      89% (1)
                                                                                         11% (2)

 

 

Development Applications:                                                 100% (1)

            Service delivery                                                        89% (1)
                                                                                          11% (2)

 

 

Zoning Processes:                                                               100% (1)

            Service delivery                                                       100% (1)

 

 

Environmental Planning:                                                       78% (1)
                                                                                          22% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        22% (1)
                                                                                          67% (2)
                                                                                          11% (3)
 

 

 

Transportation planning and development:                             100% (1)
            Service delivery                                                       22% (1)
                                                                                         78% (2)

 

 

Infrastructure development and maintenance:                       100% (1)

            Service delivery                                                      44% (1)
                                                                                         56% (2)

 

 

Development of short and long range capital plans:              100% (1)

            Service delivery                                                      67% (1)
                                                                                         33% (2)

 

 

Agricultural viability initiatives:                                             67% (1)
                                                                                         33% (2)

            Service delivery                                                      11% (1)
                                                                                          78% (2)
                                                                                          11% (3)
 

 

 

Urban design plans and initiatives:                                       100% (1)

            Service delivery                                                      56% (1)
                                                                                         44% (2)

 

 

Building permits and inspections:                                         89% (1)
                                                                                          11% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        33% (1)
                                                                                          56% (2)
                                                                                          11% (3)
 

 

 

Works Yard Operations:                                                       78% (1)
                                                                                          22% (2)

                                                                                          44% (1)
                                                                                          56% (2)
 

 

 

Land acquisition and disposal:                                              89% (1)
                                                                                          11% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        44% (1)
                                                                                          44% (2)
                                                                                          11% (3)
 

 

 

Services that promote the social development of the City:

 

 

Recreation and cultural programs and services:                      89% (1)
                                                                                          11% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        11% (1)
                                                                                          78% (2)
                                                                                          11% (3)

 

 

Library Services:                                                                  78% (1)
                                                                                          22% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        44% (1)
                                                                                          56% (2)

 

 

Social Planning:                                                                  56% (1)
                                                                                          44% (2)

            Service delivery                                                       11% (1)
                                                                                          44% (2)
                                                                                          44% (3)

 

 

Community Grants Program:                                                22% (1)
                                                                                          56% (2)
                                                                                          22% (3)

            Service delivery                                                        22% (1)
                                                                                          44% (2)
                                                                                          22% (3)
                                                                                          11% (4)

 

 

Programs and services that promote sound, sustainable fiscal management:

 

 

Development of economic/financial plans:                            100% (1)

            Service delivery                                                      56% (1)
                                                                                         44% (2)

 

 

Treasury and Investment Services:                                      100% (1)

            Service delivery                                                      44% (1)
                                                                                         56% (2)

 

 

Programs that promote community, economic and business development:

 

 

Economic development initiatives:                                         33% (1)
                                                                                          67% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        11% (1)
                                                                                          78% (2)
                                                                                          11% (3)

 

 

Business liaison services:                                                    22% (1)
                                                                                          56% (2)
                                                                                          22% (3)

            Service delivery                                                       44% (1)
                                                                                          56% (2)
 

 

 

Customer service and Front of House:                                100% (1)

            Service delivery                                                      100% (1)

 

 

Client Services:                                                                   67% (1)
                                                                                          33% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        89% (1)
                                                                                          11% (2)

 

 

Community Safety and Protective Services:

 

 

Fire Rescue:                                                                       100% (1)

            Service delivery                                                       100% (1)

 

 

Policing Services:                                                                89% (1)
                                                                                          11% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        56% (1)
                                                                                          44% (2)

 

 

Snow removal programs:                                                      78% (1)
                                                                                          22% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        22% (1)
                                                                                          56% (2)
                                                                                          22% (3)

 

 

Community bylaws development and enforcement:                  89% (1)
                                                                                          11% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        44% (1)
                                                                                          44% (2)
                                                                                          11% (3)

 

 

Recycling and Environmental programs:                                78% (1)
                                                                                          22% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        11% (1)
                                                                                          56% (2)
                                                                                          33% (3)

 

 

Corporate Governance and Administration

 

 

City Council and Mayors Office:                                        100% (1)

            Service delivery                                                      100% (1)

 

 

City Clerks Office:                                                              89% (1)
                                                                                          11% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        89% (1)
                                                                                          11% (2)

 

 

Various public processes:                                                   100% (1)

            Service delivery                                                        56% (1)
                                                                                          44% (2)

 

 

Budget and accounting services:                                          100% (1)

            Service delivery                                                        78% (1)
                                                                                          22% (2)

 

 

Corporate and strategic planning:                                          78% (1)
                                                                                          22% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        67% (1)
                                                                                          33% (2)

 

 

Tax collection:                                                                    100% (1)

            Service delivery                                                        78% (1)
                                                                                          22% (2)

 

 

Payroll and Benefits:                                                            89% (1)
                                                                                          11% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        78% (1)
                                                                                          22% (2)

 

 

Fleet Management:                                                              78% (1)
                                                                                          22% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        33% (1)
                                                                                          56% (2)
                                                                                          11% (3)

 

 

Purchasing:                                                                         78% (1)
                                                                                          22% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        56% (1)
                                                                                          44% (2)

 

 

Risk Management:                                                              89% (1)
                                                                                          11% (2)

            Service delivery                                                       33% (1)
                                                                                          44% (2)
                                                                                          22% (3)

 

 

Legal/legislative services:                                                     89% (1)
                                                                                          11% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        22% (1)
                                                                                          78% (2)

 

 

Corporate Records Management:                                       100% (1)

            Service delivery                                                      67% (1)
                                                                                         33% (2)

 

 

IT Services:                                                                         89% (1)
                                                                                          11% (2)

            Service delivery                                                        33% (1)
                                                                                          56% (2)
                                                                                          11% (3)

 

 

Human Resources:                                                            100% (1)

            Service delivery                                                      78% (1)
                                                                                         22% (2)

 

 

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
Chair

Fran J. Ashton
Executive Assistant, City Clerks Office

 

 


07.16.04 14:34