The request was made that a matter on the closed agenda dealing with the 2006 Torino Olympic and Paralympics Games Mission, be added to the open agenda, however, following a discussion with the Chief Administrative Officer, the Mayor determined that the matter would be dealt with at the commencement of the closed agenda.

It was moved and seconded

That the following matters be added to the agenda for the General Purposes Committee as additional items:

(1)

the recent actions of City Wide Towing; and

(2)

the recent trip of City staff to Turin, Italy.

CARRIED

MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, November 21^st, 2005, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

2.

DFO/GARDEN CITY LANDS, AND TRADE & EXHIBITION CENTRE
(Report: Nov. 17/05, File No.: 08-4105-10-04) (REDMS No. 1700418, 1704551)

Tracey Lakeman, Executive Director, Tourism Richmond, accompanied by Mike Tretheway, InterVISTAS Consulting, and Lorenzo Lepore, President, Tourism Richmond, spoke about the issues being addressed by Tourism Richmond staff with City staff, and the preparation of a business plan, which would include a marketing plan, a description of the facilities, including concept and design, and a financial analysis. Ms. Lakeman stated that the draft strategy would be completed by mid-January, 2006, and at that point, Tourism Richmond would be in a position to approach the Federal and Provincial Governments regarding the financial aspects of the project.

Mr. Tretheway spoke about the major economic business generated for Richmond through tourism, noting that the number of hotel rooms in the City had increased 120% since the signing of the open skies agreement. He also spoke about the initiatives to develop the Pacific Gateway to link Asia/Pacific region to the rest of the NAFTA links.

With reference to the proposed ‘trade and showcase’ centre, Mr. Tretheway explained that the facility was not intended to compete with other convention centres, but rather, to allow the display of goods and culture, Canadian, Asian, and others, on a temporary basis, to potential customers from Asia and other areas of the world. Mr. Tretheway stated that the close proximity of the centre to the airport could allow these potential customers to arrive at the airport, visit the ‘trade and showcase’ centre to view products and then return to the airport, all in one day.

A lengthy discussion then ensued among Committee members and the delegation on the proposal, during which in response to questions, the following comments were made:

§

with respect to the requirements of the City and whether (i) Tourism Richmond would be accomplish the construction of a ‘trade and showcase’ centre; and (ii) the project was realistic – Tourism Richmond was in the process of formulating a plan, a major component of which would deal with a business plan, the end result of which would be the construction of the trade and showcase facility

§

the targeted completion date for construction of the new facility was the end of 2008

§

with respect to whether the requirement for a tiered parking structure would be realistic, Tourism Richmond staff were working with City staff on the best case scenario for the City and the centre; if the structure could be mandated financially, the proposal for tiered parking would be considered

§

with respect to whether the ‘showcase’ centre would compete with the programs to be offered at the Olympic Oval after the completion of the 2010 Winter Games, Tourism Richmond had considered a number of hypothetical scenarios, such as converting the Oval facility to a trade and exhibition centre, however it was felt that a majority of the events would be unique to the trade and exhibition centre and could not be accommodated at the Oval; further advice was given that it was felt that both facilities would be two specifically different buildings for different types of events

§

the proposed ‘trade and showcase’ facility was being designed to meet the needs of a market which required fast and easy access to the airport

§

Tourism Richmond staff were hopeful that many of the questions being raised would be answered through the completion of the business plan

§

the DFO property was the preferred site for the proposed ‘trade and showcase’ centre because the Oval building, at its present size, was too small to make it financially feasible to construct the size of building being proposed for the DFO property; in addition, the Oval building would have to be retro-fitted at a cost of approximately $9.12 Million to become a stand-alone ‘trade and showcase’ centre, and there was the possibility that the Oval building could have a huge economic impact on the Tourism Richmond facility, as well as jeopardizing the legacy funding if the Tourism Richmond building was constructed on the Oval property.

Discussion also centred around the amount of land required for the proposed trade and exhibition centre; whether any excess land could be incorporated into the City property for park development; and the outcome if a trade and exhibition centre was not constructed on the DFO property.

It was moved and seconded

That Tourism Richmond be advised that the City will support the development of a Trade and Exhibition Centre facility at the DFO/Garden City Lands subject to the following:

(1)

That a business plan be requested from the proponent that includes a complete financial evaluation of both the construction and operation of a Trade and Exhibition Centre at an affordable and feasible scale, including all confirmed sources of funding, and based on the most efficient use of the allocated DFO lands that seeks to minimize the footprint for both the building and all its directly associated amenities - including and especially parking;

(2)

That in the detailed business plan options for paid parking be considered in association with a partner that can support the capital construction costs of a tiered parking system so as to guarantee the parking footprint will remain minimal; and further that a parking footprint that extends significantly beyond 10 per cent of the DFO lands will be considered if it is shared and supports adjoining public uses, and other parking strategies are impractical;

(3)

That the proponent work closely with staff to review any and all private sector involvement in order to ensure compliance with the Purchase and Sales Agreements for the DFO properties, given that commercial activities not directly related to the Trade and Exhibition functions will not be permitted;

(4)

That the proponent be advised of the Master Planning requirements for the project, including due public process associated with all development on the DFO lands; and

(5)

That a timeline be assigned to the completion of the proponent’s detailed business planning phase, whereby a report can be brought to City Council by May 31, 2006.

The question on the motion was not called, as Committee members voiced their support or opposition to the proposal. Reference was made to a proposal by Tourism Richmond to ‘walk’ Councillor Steves through the proposal, and the request was made that other Councillors also be included in the discussion.

The question on the motion was then called, and it was CARRIED with Cllr. Steves opposed.

RICHMOND FIRE-RESCUE

3.

RFR – RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
(Report: Dec. 13/05, File No.: 03-1000-18-023) (REDMS No. 1710827)

It was moved and seconded

That RFR 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.

The question on the motion was not called, as advice was given that the 10 year contract would allow financing of the capital costs over a longer period of time. Further advice was given that any increases in costs would be applied to the operating costs rather than the capital costs.

Questions were raised about the costs to other cities as they choose to participate in the program. Advice was given that no other cities would be permitted to participate until after June, 2006, and that while Richmond could not recoup its expenses, the cost of the program would decrease as more cities entered the program. Further advice was given that the cost-sharing formula was based on the number of events and devices attached to the system for each city participating in the program, and that there was a formula in place for new cities entering into the program.

(Cllr. Sue Halsey-Brandt entered the meeting – 4:58 p.m.)

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

FINANCE & CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION

4.

COUNCIL APPROVED PROCESS FOR DISCHARGING RIGHTS OF WAY
(Report: Nov. 29/05, File No.: 06-2285-00/Vol 01) (REDMS No. 1683999)

It was moved and seconded

That the process for approval of discharging rights of way (as set out in the report dated November 29^th, 2005, from the Manager, Lands & Property), be approved.

CARRIED

5.

DISCHARGES OF RIGHTS OF WAY
(Report: Nov. 29/05, File No.: 06-2285-40-01/2005-Vol 01) (REDMS No. 1692035)

It was moved and seconded

That discharges of rights of way be approved over the following properties:

(1)

7371 Westminster Highway;

(2)

6111 London Road; and

(3)

22311 Westminster Highway, and

that staff be authorized to take all necessary steps to complete the discharges, including advertising.

CARRIED

6.

RESCHEDULING OF JANUARY 23RD, 2006 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS
(Report: Dec. 5/05, File No.: 01-0105-01/2005-Vol 01) (REDMS No. 1712591)

It was moved and seconded

That the regular open and closed Council meetings scheduled for Monday, January 23rd, 2006 be rescheduled to Tuesday, January 24th, 2006 to accommodate the Federal General Election.

CARRIED

7.

WINE STORES
(Report: Nov. 7/05, File No.: 12-8060-20-8010; xr 08-4015-00, 12-8275-00 - Vol 01) (REDMS No. 1703569)

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Bylaw 8010, which amends Zoning and Development Bylaw 5300 by amending the definition for a Licensee Retail Stores (Type 2), be introduced and given first reading.

(2)

That Policy 9309 - Guidelines for Free-Standing Licensee Retail Store (LRS) Rezoning Applications be revised to amend the definition for a Free-Standing Licensee Retail Store.

CARRIED

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

8.

INTERIM TREE PROTECTION BYLAW
(Report: Dec. 8/05, File No.: 12-8060-20-8014; xr 10-6550-00) (REDMS No. 1716627, 1716210)

Discussion took place among Committee members, the Manager of Building Approvals, John Irving, and City Solicitor Phyllis Carlyle regarding the proposed bylaw, and in particular on:

§

the amount of the fine faced by any individual who cut, damaged or removed any tree; whether the $10,000 fine would be ‘per tree’, and how the Court would know to impose an appropriate amount

§

whether the bylaw would be an effective deterrent to stop the removal of trees within the City

§

how the City would obtain a ‘replanting’ order

§

whether any consideration had been given to imposing other types of penalties, such as preventing a developer who illegally removed trees, from constructing any further projects in the City; and the feasibility of dealing with these developers when it came time to renew their business licences

§

the proposed hours in which tree cutting or removal activities were prohibited and whether these hours, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. the following day, would create problems for those individuals who worked all day (staff were requested to monitor the situation to determine if any complaints were received about not being able to cut down trees during these hours)

§

the minimum tree size (minimum width of 10 cm, and higher than 1.5 m) which could be removed and whether a tree of this size could be considered a ‘significant’ tree

§

the process to be followed when individuals wished to cut down or remove trees

§

the dispute mechanism which would be put into place upon adoption of the bylaw, to deal with an individual who wished to appeal the decision of the arborist and/or City staff to deny their application to remove a tree

§

whether a mechanism was in place to allow an individual who did not want to have trees on their property, was permitted to remove them and who did not want replant trees on their property, to plant the trees at another location, such as on (i) the property of an individual who could not afford to plant trees, or (ii) City property

§

the number of trees planted within Richmond by the City and various developers on an annual basis.

(Cllr. Dang left the meeting at 5:02 p.m., and returned at 5:05 p.m., during the above discussion.)

During the discussion staff were congratulated on the preparation of the proposed bylaw.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Tree Protection Bylaw No. 8014 be introduced and given first, second and third readings.

(2)

That Council provision funds of up to $96,000 be allocated for implementation and administration of the Tree Protection Bylaw No. 8014 for a period of six months.

CARRIED

OPPOSED: Cllr. Howard

9.

CITY WIDE TOWING

It was moved and seconded

That staff review the operation of City Wide Towing in terms of jurisdiction relating to controlling the company or having an effect on their operations; and the methods of the company when towing vehicles which have been illegally parked.

CARRIED

10.

RECENT TRIP OF CITY STAFF TO TURIN, ITALY
(Oral Report)

Chief Administrative Officer George Duncan, with reference to the recent staff trips to Turin, Italy, to view the construction of the Oval Lingotto, provided the following information:

§

the trips had been approved by Council in June, 2005

§

the nature of the trips was to undertake technical inspections of the Oval Lingotto site through to substantial completion and commissioning of the Oval, as well as the test events

§

the budget for these trips had been approved at $60,000 for the technical inspections and $30,000 for the test events; the cost of the trips were lower than allocated budget amounts

§

many benefits had been obtained from undertaking the technical inspections of the Oval Lingotto, and could result in a potential cost savings during the construction of the Richmond Oval

§

the Oval Lingotto was the most recent speed skating oval to be constructed and provided the only opportunity for City staff to study the construction of such a unique facility

§

the City is committed to holding test events when construction of the Richmond facility is completed; and observing the test events at the Turin facility would provide staff with valuable experience for the future

§

staff did not visit the speed skating ovals in Calgary or Salt Lake City because the facilities have been in operation for a number of years; visiting the Turin site allowed staff to have access to the designers and the contractors who were responsible for the Oval Lingotto

§

a total of seven different staff members visited Turin, Italy but not all at the same time, as they had different departure and return dates.

Discussion ensued among Committee members and Mr. Duncan regarding the staff trips, during which concern was expressed that Council had not been informed of the trips taking place, and about the lack of an announcement to the public on this matter. In response to questions, advice was given that the technical inspections had now been completed. Reference was made to upcoming trips, and Mr. Duncan was asked to provided a detailed accounting of the action being taken by the City with regard to the Richmond Oval, for release to the public.

During the discussion, Mr. Duncan stressed to Committee that the trips were not ‘junkets’, but very exhausting in nature, especially due to the difference in time between Richmond and Italy.

Support was offered for the trips because of their importance to the success of the Richmond speed skating oval, however, the request was made that because of the need for ‘transparency’, that Council be provided with regular updates on visits to Turin and the status of the budget for these trips.

Information was provided by Mr. Duncan during the discussion that the Director, Richmond Olympic Business Office, Lani Schultz, would be providing a comprehensive update to Committee in January, 2006, and that improvements were being made to the monthly newsletter to provide a complete update to Council, and to the public in the local newspapers.

Concern was expressed about whether the City staff with the technical expertise were the individuals who made the trip to Turin, and information was provided that the Director of Engineering; the Manager, Facilities Operations and Maintenance; the Chief Administrative Officer; and the Manager, Major Projects, were the technical experts sent to Turin. In addition, the General Manager, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services; the Director, Richmond Olympic Business Office; the Senior Manager, Policy Development and Corporate Programs; and the Manager, Economic Development, observed the test events.

Mr. Duncan then commented further on the issues being faced with the construction of the Oval Lingotto which staff had been able to address with the consultants responsible for the preparation of the design plans for the Richmond Oval. He also spoke about the release of information to the public.

Reference was made to the possible reduction in size of the building footprint for the Richmond Oval, and information was provided that a decision had not been made on whether the footprint would be reduced. Mr. Duncan advised that staff had to ensure that the building footprint complied with the operational requirements set by VANOC.

(Cllr. Barnes left the meeting at 6:10 p.m., and did not return to the open meeting.)

In concluding the discussion on this matter, Mayor Brodie requested Mr. Duncan to provide a written summary of the trip to all Committee members.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:11 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, December 12^th, 2005.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Chair

Fran J. Ashton
Executive Assistant, City Clerk’s Office