MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, July 18^th, 2005, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

MAYOR MALCOLM D. BRODIE

2.

CITY OF RICHMOND COMMUNITY SPIRIT AWARDS

(Report: August 24^th, 2005; File No.: 01-0083-01) (REDMS No. 1641935)

Mayor Brodie briefly described the concept and development of the City of Richmond Community Spirit Awards.  Discussion then ensued on this subject and it was agreed that the awards should not duplicate other award programs, nor should it necessarily be limited to 6 awards.  A request was made that the promotion of these awards be publicized in a variety of different community newspapers.

Staff were directed to advise the City’s Advisory Committees of these awards as soon as possible because of the short time-frame before the nominations deadline.

It was moved and seconded

That Council approve the development, promotion and delivery of the City of Richmond Community Spirit Awards to be introduced as part of the program for the Civic Appreciation Reception in October 2005, provided that the number of awards should not necessarily be limited to six.

CARRIED

COMMUNITY SAFETY DIVISION

3.

RFR – RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACT
(Report:  August 29^th, 2005, File No.:  5140-01) (REDMS No. 1629997)

In response to queries from the Committee, Mr. Geoff Lake, Deputy Fire Chief advised that:

• the voting system was weighted based on the amounts paid towards the records management system – Richmond’s vote is 26% and Vancouver’s vote is 74%.  He noted that this would change if and when other municipalities bought into the system;

• the Management Committee, consisting of staff, would make decisions within the scope of the project, although additional levels of funding would have to be approved by Council;

• FDM software was reliable and widely used in North America, all regular updates were included in this package;

• long term replacement of hardware had been budgeted;

• other departments in the lower mainland were interested in joining this system; and

• the data gathered would be highly beneficial for arson investigation, inspection reports and gathering of statistics.

In response to a query from the Committee, Ms. Carlile, City Solicitor, advised that the contract established a dispute resolution process involving  arbitrators who were chosen by mutual consent.  She also advised that a list of pre-approved arbitrators had not been compiled, but that this could be assigned to the Management Committee to examine.

Discussion then ensued concerning the voting model as it pertained to budget matters and whether this process was equitable and fair to the City.

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Fire Rescue enter into a contract to participate in a new regionally shared Fire Records Management System (RMS) that will be housed at, and managed by E-Comm, integrated with the Computer Aided Dispatch System and various Richmond databases, provided that in the event that Richmond disputes an increase in budgetary funding, the matter would be referred to an arbitration process.

CARRIED

FINANCE & CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION

4.

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENTS – PLAZA PREMIUM LOUNGE, AND STATESIDE BAR & GRILL, VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

(Report:  August 23^rd, 2005, File No.:  8275-30-017) (REDMS No. 1640449)

In response to a query from the Committee, Ms. Stevens, Manager, Customer Relations, advised that the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch would assume responsibility for ensuring that the YVR community has an opportunity to have input into the amendment of these licences.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Council decline comment to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch with regard to the applications by Plaza Premium Lounge, and Stateside Bar & Grill to amend their Liquor-Primary licences at Vancouver International Airport; and

(2)

That a copy of the resolution be forwarded to the LCLB in accordance with the legislative requirements.

CARRIED

5.

REQUEST TO APPOINT A COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE HEALTHY COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE STEERING COMMITTEE

(Report:  August 24, 2005, File No.:  01-0100-01) (REDMS No. 1642341)

It was moved and seconded

That Councillor Linda Barnes be appointed to serve on the Steering Committee of the BC Health Communities Coalition until the inaugural meeting in December, 2005.

CARRIED

ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION

6.

UNION OF BC MUNICIPALITIES EMERGENCY PLANNING FUNDING APPLICATION

(Report:  August 8^th, 2005, File No.:  1087-11-01) (REDMS No. 1630239)

It was moved and seconded

That the application to the provincial government, via the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, for funding under the 2005 Emergency Planning Program, as outlined in the staff report dated August 8, 2005, be supported.

CARRIED

7.

ESTABLISHMENT OF MOSQUITO CONTROL ADMINISTRATION AND COORDINATION SERVICE – GVRD BYLAW APPROVAL
(Report:  August 19^th, 2005, File No.:  10-6125-04-14) (REDMS No. 1638789, 1594346, 1589938)

It was moved and seconded

That participating area approval be given to the adoption of the Greater Vancouver Regional District Mosquito Control Administration and Coordination Service Establishment Bylaw No.1034, 2005.

CARRIED

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

8.

“MATERIALLY AFFECTED” CONSULTATION - PROPOSED SLOT MACHINES HASTINGS RACECOURSE (2901 EAST HASTINGS STREET)

(Report:  August 17^th, 2005, File No.:01-0155-20-VANC1) (REDMS No. 1633037)

It was moved and seconded

That the City of Vancouver be advised that Richmond will not be “materially affected” by the proposed addition of 600 - 900 slot machines to the Hastings Racecourse at 2901 East Hastings Street in Vancouver.

CARRIED

9.

SIGNIFICANT TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY - MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND BYLAW
(Report:  August 24^th, 2005, File No.:  6550-04) (REDMS No. 1555986)

Discussion ensued on the following topics:

• the definition of “significant trees”;

• the budget estimated for each program option, particularly as it pertained to staffing;

• whether a permitting system for cutting down trees was desirable, and that if one were required, it should not be too onerous for home owners;

• that “problem trees” should not be included on the significant tree list;

• that the development process needed further review as it pertained to tree retention;

• whether the ratio for tree replacement was adequate;

• the effectiveness of negotiating compensation for improper tree removal; and

• the possibility of contract employees being used to carry out the program.

It was moved and seconded

That the report (dated August 24^th, 2005 from the Manager, Building Approvals and the Acting Director, Development) be referred to staff to develop an option for a tree management program for significant trees on private property based on the following four  principles:

(a)

the provision of replacement planting for the removal of significant trees;

(b)

minimizing the unnecessary removal of significant trees;

(c)

reducing the cutting or wilful damaging of significant trees; and

(d)

making it illegal to cut a tree prior to development application;

and that staff provide further analysis on the following issues as outlined in the report:

·         What constitutes a “significant tree”

·         What will be regulated (e.g., tree cutting, pruning, wilfully damaging a tree, etc.);

·         Any exemptions (e.g., pruning, dead trees, damaged trees, roots which damage underground systems, hazardous trees);

·         Problem trees (e.g., Linden, London Plane, European Ash, Tulip, Lombardi Poplar) which are to be discouraged;

·         Trees in Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA’s) which are to be managed differently than non ESA areas;

·         How the requirement will apply when tree removal requests result from development applications, property maintenance, hazardous conditions or interference with public utilities;

·         Application requirements and procedures;

·         Inspection requirements;

·         Staffing requirements;

·         Bonding for trees;

·         Enforcement requirements;

·         Offence penalties;

·         Equipment requirements;

·         Public education (e.g., for property owner, developers, contractors);

·         Administration based on a cost recovery model;

·         Implications to existing City bylaws and policies (e.g., The Public Parks and School Grounds Bylaw, the Boulevard Maintenance Bylaw);

·         Which department will manage the program; and

·         Which departments will be involved in the program.

CARRIED

OPPOSED:  Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Rob Howard

10.

RICHMOND OVAL PUBLIC ART PLAN

(Report:  August 12^th, 2005, File No.:  1000-09-01) (REDMS No. 1630165, 1579982, 1611451)

Discussion ensued on whether the budget should be included when a call for proposal was made for the Oval Public Art Plan. 

It was moved and seconded

That staff execute a call for proposals for a Public Art Consultant to prepare an Oval Public Art Strategy and Implementation Program and report back to Council with a short list of candidates and a proposed budget to prepare the Oval Public Art Strategy and Implementation Program.

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

It was moved and seconded

That the budget of $80,000 be included in the call for proposals for the Oval Public Art Strategy and Implementation Program.

CARRIED

OPPOSED:  Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie

Councillor Derek Dang

Councillor Kiichi Kumagai

Councillor Bill McNulty

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

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:14 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, August 29^th, 2005.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Chair

Desiree Wong
Committee Clerk