It was moved and seconded

That the following matters be added to the agenda as additional items:

(1)

Oval Advisory Committees; and

(2)

Youth Gambling.

CARRIED

MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, March 20^th, 2006, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

DELEGATION

2.

Allen Domaas, PPM, President and CEO, Fraser River Port Authority, to provide a briefing on the Authority’s activities and vision for the future.

(File No.:  0140-20-FRHA1)  (REDMS No. 1748616)

Ms. Helen Sparkes, municipal representative to the Fraser River Port Authority, spoke briefly about issues currently being addressed by the Authority, including short sea shipping and dredging.  She then introduced Capt. Allen Domaas, President and CEO.

Capt. Domaas then gave a PowerPoint presentation on how the Port Authority managed the Fraser River with regard to capital and maintenance dredging.  A copy of the presentation is on file in the City Clerk’s Office. 

At the conclusion of the presentation, reference was made briefly to the upcoming tour of the Fraser River on May 16^th, 2006.

(Cllr. Dang entered the meeting – 4:18 p.m.)

Discussion then took place among Committee members and the delegation on:

·            

dredging and when this issue might be resolved; the recognition of the Federal Government to the concerns of the Port Authority about the need for dredging of the Fraser River

·            

flood protection and managing the Fraser River shipping channel, and the need to involve private sector river operators and insurance companies

·            

the BC Port Competitiveness Program and whether this program was available

·            

how the capacity of the Port would be increased

·            

the status of the ‘debris trap’ issue, and the availability of funding for this program

·            

the amount of funding being provided to the Canadian east coast for ice breaking in comparison to the amount of funds spent on West Coast ports

·            

whether the Port Authority could be impacted negatively as a result of increased residential development along local waterfronts; the GVRD Liveable Region Strategy and the fact that this document did not deal with the transportation of goods on the water

(Cllr. Chen left the meeting at 4:28 p.m., and returned at 4:29 p.m., during the above discussion.)

During the discussion, the importance of having municipalities keep their waterfront properties available for future industry and shipping uses.  The comment was made that if these places were not available, then road systems would have to be relied upon to provide access.  A comment was also made that one of the challenges faced by the Port Authority was road access, and a question was raised about whether the proposed extension of Blundell Road to Highway 99 and improvements to the Steveston Highway/Highway 99 Interchange and the George Massey Tunnel would be critical to the Port Authority and the movement of goods. 

In concluding the discussion, the Chair thanked the delegation for their presentation, and they then left the table.

It was moved and seconded

That the order of the agenda be varied to deal with Item No. 4 – Richmond Fire-Rescue – Code of Conduct, at this time.

CARRIED

CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

4.

RICHMOND FIRE RESCUE – CODE OF CONDUCT

(Oral Report)  (File No.:  5140-00)

The General Manager, Corporate Services, Mike Kirk, accompanied by Fire Chief Jim Hancock, advised that interviews had commenced with eight proponents regarding the undertaking of an independent review of the Fire-Rescue Department.  He stated that a report would be submitted to Council on this matter by the end of May, 2006.

Chief Hancock then reviewed the action plan which had been put into place, advising that a copy of the Code of Conduct would be mailed to every employee of the Fire-Rescue Department.  As well, he stated that a bulletin had been issued (with a copy of the Code of Conduct attached) to every fire hall and remote station; that copies of the Code of Conduct had been provided to the Union executive, and that shift meetings would soon be held to review the Code of Conduct and to provide information on the types of behaviour which would be acceptable or unacceptable.  Chief Hancock further advised that he and the Deputy Chiefs would be visiting each of the fire halls to reinforce the importance of the document and to make it clear that any breach of the Code would not be tolerated and that the consequences would be discipline and possible suspension and/or dismissal.

Discussion then took place among Committee members and staff on the Code of Conduct, during which, in response to questions, the following information was provided:

·            

the Union would most likely review any discipline handed out in the event that a breach of the Code of Conduct occurred, however, the Union executive had voiced its support for the Code

·            

the Code of Conduct prepared for the Fire-Rescue Department employees did not apply to other City employees; the Code had been prepared in response to the issues which had arisen; City employees were guided by the customer service principles which had been adopted by the City a number of years ago, as well as a mission statement

·            

although the Code did not contain specific reference to harassment, the City’s Harassment Policy would deal with any issues which arose which dealt with harassment; the Code of Conduct was an addition to the Harassment Policy

·            

the Union was not involved in the preparation of the Code of Conduct; the City had a positive relationship with the Firefighters Union and would not jeopardize that relationship; it was within management’s rights to determine what would be addressed in the Code of Conduct

·            

the websites of a number of other fire departments which had implemented Codes of Conduct were reviewed, as well as contacting different departments directly and obtaining copies of various Codes, including the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs and the Canadian Association of Firefighters; because not all organizations had codes, staff also reviewed codes prepared in the private sector and extracted certain wording; the Richmond Fire-Rescue Code now being reviewed was created from all of the documents reviewed by management

·            

with reference to implementation and enforcement, if a breach of the Code should occur, the Fire-Rescue Department was committed to disciplining the person who breached the Code; management had the right to discipline and the Union had the option to grieve the action of the Department; if the Code was breached, discipline would be the result; the Department has insisted that every member of the Department would abide by the Code

·            

the pending external review of the Fire-Rescue Department existing policies and practices would be given the opportunity to comment on the Code of Conduct as part of the review

·            

the initial introduction of the Code of Conduct to Fire-Rescue Department employees could be formal, however, the follow-up visits to the individual fire halls would be more informal with conversational discussions on how issues might be dealt with; the value of the document and its importance would be stressed as much as possible during these meetings

·            

an update on the effectiveness of the Code and a number of other fire hall initiatives would be provided to Council in the future

·            

City Council did not have a Code of Conduct in place.

(Cllr. Steves entered the meeting at 5:06 p.m., during the above discussion.)

During the discussion, concern was expressed that the Code was not sufficiently explicit about what was to be expected of the Fire-Rescue Department employees.  Also addressed was whether the Code of Conduct would fit within the Department’s firefighter community.  Comments were also made during the discussion that the strength of the Code was in its simplicity and a brief discussion ensued on whether there were statements missing from the Code.  Advice was given that staff had endeavoured to make the Code simple but powerful, and that when the informal discussions took place at each of fire halls, the Chief and Deputy Chiefs would be providing specific examples of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in relation to each principle contained the Code.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the Code of Conduct (as outlined in the proposal dated April 3, 2006), be approved for implementation; and

(2)

That current and future members of the Richmond Fire-Rescue Department be expected to agree to the terms of the Code of Conduct.

CARRIED

It was moved and seconded

That staff prepare a formal Code of Conduct , to be inclusive of City Council and all employees of the City, and further, that staff prepare a discussion paper to address existing policies on harassment.

The question on the motion was not called, discussion took place about whether one code of conduct should be written for all employees of the City rather than having two different codes.  Also discussed was the City’s harassment policy and whether the City should have a policy against hazing and demoralizing pranks. 

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

It was moved and seconded

That staff prepare a discussion document on a Conflict of Interest policy relating to City employees and how it would apply to City employees.

CARRIED

The Chair then called for delegations on other agenda items, and the following individuals came forward to speak to Item No. 7 – Tree Protection Bylaw.

Mr. Joe Oeser, 12004 No. 2 Road, circulated a revised submission to Committee, and a copy of his presentation is attached as Schedule A and forms part of these minutes.  In concluding his presentation, Mr. Oeser questioned how many tree removal permits had been refused by City staff since the adoption of the interim bylaw.  Information was provided in response that three applications had been denied, and that for every application received, at least ten inquiries had been received, and that the applicants of permits which would most likely be refused by City staff would be advised not to apply.  Also addressed was the requirement for a title search for each application,

Sherry McBryan, of 11620 No. 2 Road, addressed the Committee regarding the Tree Protection Bylaw.  A copy of her submission is attached as Schedule B and forms part of these minutes.  Ms. McBryan also read aloud an email which she had forwarded to Cllr. McNulty about developers being made responsible for tree protection.  A brief discussion then ensued on the minimum size of tree which could be cut down.

Charlotte Morrow, of 6400 Riverdale Drive, expressed concern about those homeowners who had planted rows of trees as hedging and which had grown to such heights that these hedges blocked the sun for adjacent property owners.  She stated that her property, along with others in the neighbourhood, were one-quarter acre in size, and that the owners of these properties wanted the proposed bylaw to address the maximum height to which hedge trees would be permitted to grow. 

Ms. Morrow also voiced concern about the fact that some homes were being demolished and replaced with new homes with the entire surface of the property being covered in concrete.  She stated that new homes should be required to provide room for trees to grow and that the owners should be required to plant trees.

Discussion then ensued on the City’s requirements on the maximum amount of permeable surface to be provided on a property, and at what stage of the inspection process, if any, would the amount of permeable/impervious ratio be reviewed.  Advice was given during the discussion that typically at the time of final inspection the landscaping would not have been completed and such amenities as outdoor patios not yet installed.  In response, a suggestion was made that the new City arborist, when hired, could be made responsible to investigate situations such as this, and that this should be addressed in the tree protection bylaw.

Ron McBryan, 11620 No. 2 Road, addressed Committee regarding the proposed Tree Protection Bylaw, and a copy of his submission is attached as Schedule C and forms part of these minutes.

In response to Mr. McBryan’s concerns about the cost of completing the documentation required as part of the tree removal permit application process, discussion ensued with staff on the documentation which would be required for homeowners with one tree to remove or several.  During the discussion, Mr. McBryan voiced concern that the bylaw did not indicate whether a homeowner would be exempt from certain actions and that City staff were required to make that determination.  

(Cllr. Barnes left the meeting at 6:05 p.m., during the above discussion.)

Discussion continued on the issue of documentation which was required, during which advice was given that for the 70 permits issued to date for tree removal, additional documentation had not been required.

(Cllr. Barnes returned to the meeting – 6:10 p.m.)

John Massot, 16160 Westminster Highway, spoke to Committee about dead trees and the need to exclude these trees from the bylaw.  A copy of his submission is attached as Schedule D and forms part of these minutes.

Discussion then ensued with staff on the issue of whether the tree protection bylaw specifically dealt with dead trees within the definition of trees; and whether a property owner would be allowed to remove such trees.  Also addressed was the issue of whether senior citizens would be exempted from paying the required fees.

(Cllr. Sue Halsey-Brandt left the meeting – 6:24 p.m.)

Discussion continued briefly on the question of whether a definition for a dead tree was necessary.

Mr. Stan Gray, 5740 Lancing Road, commented on whether hedges should be exempted from the tree protection bylaw.  A copy of his submission is attached as Schedule E and forms part of these minutes.

(Cllr. Sue Halsey-Brandt returned to the meeting – 6:29 p.m.)

Discussion ensued on the issue of hedges, what constituted a ‘significant’ tree in a hedge, and whether Mr. Gray would be permitted to remove the tree he had referred to in his submission.

(Cllr. Barnes left the meeting at 6:30 p.m., during the above discussion, and did not return.)

(Cllr. McNulty left the meeting at 6:33 p.m., and returned at 6:35 p.m.)

Discussion continued, with staff providing information on how a hedge could be trimmed without the property owner having to obtain a permit.  Information was given that the trees in a hedge could be trimmed to maintain their present shape; however, any pruning which impacted the height of the hedge would require a permit. 

In response to further comments, advice was given that if both the owner of the hedge and Mr. Gray agreed that the tree in question was detracting from Mr. Gray’s enjoyment of his backyard, City staff would determine if that was a valid reason to remove the tree, as well as considering other options to increase the amount of sunshine into Mr. Gray’s property.

Lorne Wise, 5180 Cranbrook Avenue, questioned whether the City had a ‘green plan’ in place, and he voiced concern that in spite of the tree bylaw, trees still seemed to be disappearing.  He also questioned whether, if a property was considered to be part of a development permit application, that property would be excluded from the bylaw.

Discussion ensued on this issue, with advice being given that development permit and rezoning applications were exempt if as part of the process, a landscape and replacement tree plan was in place. 

In response, concern was voiced by Mr. Wise that the replacement trees were not the same height as the trees which had been removed, and he suggested that to remove every tree from redevelopment properties was a total lack of foresight.  He also expressed the opinion that the penalty for the illegal removal of a tree was not sufficient and should be higher, especially if the same developer continued to ignore the bylaw. 

Mr. Wise, in answer to questions, advised that he had a problem with properties being clear cut and the fact that the replacement trees specified in the bylaw were not as tall as the trees which had been removed.  He added that the bylaw appeared to target the homeowner who had lived in his home for many years.  

Discussion ensued with staff regarding homes being constructed with expanded building envelopes which required the removal of trees and how this could be resolved.

Mr. Doug Louth, 4140 Dallyn Road, expressed his opinions about the proposed bylaw, and a copy of his submission is attached as Schedule F and forms part of these minutes.  He also provided members of the Committee with copies of brochures prepared by the City of Vancouver regarding that City’s Street Tree Management Program and it’s Tree Bylaw Summary.  Copies of these documents are on file in the City Clerk’s Office.

(Cllr. Howard left the meeting - 7:00 p.m.)

Discussion took place among Committee members and Mr. Louth on whether the interim tree protection bylaw currently in place or the proposed bylaw now being considered had the most strength.  Also discussed was the question of whether the tree protection bylaw should be abandoned.

(Cllr. Howard returned to the meeting – 7:03 p.m.)

Further discussion ensued with staff on whether a homeowner was required to plant a replacement tree after removing a tree from their property; and under which circumstances would a homeowner be permitted to remove a tree.

Evelyn Feller, a Richmond resident, spoke in support of the time and money which had been spent by the City to hold public meetings regarding the implementation of a tree bylaw, and indicated that she did not want to start over if the bylaw was abandoned.  She added that efforts should be made to save significant trees.

Ms. Feller addressed the hedge height issue, expressing the belief that the bylaw had the ability to protect certain species of trees and stating that the hedge situation should be monitored to ensure that specific trees were not being removed more frequently than other types of trees.  She also referred to fruit trees, voicing concern that these trees, some of which could be heritage trees and which had an aesthetic and cultural value, had no protection.

Ms. Feller urged the Committee to proceed with the new bylaw and then to monitor the bylaw over the next year in order to provide statistics on its performance. 

Michael Wolfe talked about his vision for the City – a vision with the City covered in trees on private and public lands, and stated that the City could learn from the mistakes and problems of other municipalities.  He voiced support for the bylaw, but expressed concern about Section 3.2.1 of the bylaw, and in particular, clauses (a), (c) and (d).  He then spoke about these requirements in more detail, noting that dead trees had even more value then when they were alive.

(Cllr. Evelina Halsey-Brandt left the meeting – 7:17 p.m.)

Mr. Wolfe voiced concern about the number of standing dead trees which had been cut down by the City unnecessarily, and stated that the City should review its policy, with more focus being given to protecting coastal trees.  He also expressed concern for the removal of trees for the installation of roads and other municipal services, suggesting that this could accelerate global warming. 

(Cllr. E. Halsey-Brandt returned to the meeting, and Cllr. Chen left – 7:20 p.m.)

Mr. Wolfe further suggested that any reference to development permits should be deleted from the proposed bylaw, and he provided examples of developments now underway where trees had been totally removed from the properties being redeveloped.  He added that if the bylaw was adopted by Council, that different development restrictions should be put into place for the West Cambie area to protect the heritage and significant trees in that area.  He stated that the public needed to be educated about trees, and asked that the bylaw be applied to public and private properties.

(Cllr. Chen re-entered the meeting – 7:22 p.m.)

Discussion then took place among Committee members and staff on:

·            

the intent of the phrase ‘poses an imminent danger’

·            

with regard to the West Cambie area, how trees would be protected in that area, especially those significant trees which were located within proposed new roads; and the steps taken by staff to retain as many trees as practical; advice was given that adoption of the proposed bylaw would block a loop hole so that trees could not be removed from a property prior to redevelopment

·            

the removal of significant trees and whether large trees were being replaced with similar sized trees

Mr. Wolfe then spoke about the removal of dead trees in Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) where there were no power lines close by, and stated that the removal of dead trees from these areas should not be allowed.  He suggested that more damage could be done to the characteristic of an ESA by removing a tree as it was difficult to maintain an ESA when trees were cut down and material removed.

Alex Bovey, 10011 Rosedene Crescent expressed his opinions about the proposed bylaw, and a copy of his submission is attached as Schedule G and forms part of these minutes. 

It was moved and seconded

That the Order of the Agenda be varied to deal with Item No. 7 at this time.

CARRIED

7.

TREE PROTECTION BYLAW

(Report:  Mar. 27/06, File No.:  12-8060-20-8057) (REDMS No. 1791944, 1794164, 1781683, 1774114, 1775441, 1783074, 1783122)

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Tree Protection Bylaw No. 8057 be introduced and given first, second and third readings; and

(2)

That staff report to Council through Committee six months after implementation on the status of the bylaw.

The question on the motion was not called, as Committee members voiced their support or opposition to the proposed bylaw.  Concern was voiced that while adoption of the bylaw would help ensure that the urban forest biodiversity had been maintained, the bylaw did not protect significant trees which comprised part of a hedge. 

However, support was given to the bylaw because the bylaw would (i) allow a homeowner to remove one tree a year without paying a permit fee, (ii) allow neighbouring residents to sit in sunshine; (iii) ensure that the liveability of Richmond was maintained; (iv) not discriminate between homeowners and developers; (v) prevent homeowners from clear cutting their development properties and prevent developers from clear cutting properties which had been consolidated for development.

During the discussion, agreement was expressed to a suggestion made that the bylaw be monitored to ensure that there was a wide representation of trees throughout the City.  Also addressed was the question of how the public would be educated about the need for trees.  As well, the suggestion was made during discussion that the bylaw should include requirements that utility companies have a tree inspector examine trees before they were removed.  Staff were also asked to examine the feasibility of allowing an exemption for seniors as the opinion was expressed that the $50 permit fee could be a hardship.

Concern was expressed about the need to protect landmark and significant trees, and as a result, the following amendment was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That Tree Protection Bylaw No. 8057 be amended by increasing the minimum diameter breast height (dbh) from 20 centimetres to 50 centimetres.

DEFEATED

OPPOSED:  Mayor Brodie

Cllr. Chen

E. Halsey-Brandt

S. Halsey-Brandt

Steves

A motion was introduced to delete section 3.2.1(a) from Bylaw 8057, however there was no seconder.

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

(Cllr. Sue Halsey-Brandt left the meeting – 8:09 p.m.)

COUNCILLOR ROB HOWARD

3.

“GREAT PLACES”

(Motion:  Mar. 30/06, File No.:   7400-01)

Cllr. Howard reviewed his proposal with the Committee.

(Cllr. Sue Halsey-Brandt returned to the meeting – 8:10 p.m.)

It was moved and seconded

(1)

WHEREAS

(a)

Richmond has several major initiatives underway, including the Canada Line, Garden City Lands, and the Oval and its waterfront park and the surrounding neighbourhood;

(b)

Our Town Centre is experiencing rapid change as a result of these initiatives and a strong provincial economy, which is fueling construction projects; and

(c)

This provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to shape our streetscapes.

(2)

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED

That staff bring forward a discussion paper for a “GREAT PLACES” contest to be held annually in the City.

The question on the motion was not called, as discussion ensued on such issues as (i) whether the proposal was premature; (ii) whether the contest would be an annual event; and (iii) the wording of the proposed resolution.

(Cllr. Dang left the meeting at 8:15 p.m., during the above discussion.)

With reference to the proposed wording, the suggestion was made that clause (a) of Part 1 should be deleted in its entirety, and that in clause (b), the word “Town” should be replaced with the word “City”.

(Cllr. Dang returned at 8:19 p.m.)

The question on the motion, amended to (i) delete clause (a) of Part 1 in its entirety, and (ii) in clause (b), substitute the word “Town” with the word “City”, was then called, and it was CARRIED.

CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

4.

RICHMOND FIRE RESCUE – CODE OF CONDUCT

(Oral Report)  (File No.:  5140-00)

See Page 3 of these minutes for action taken on this matter.

5.

APPOINTMENT OF FINANCIAL OFFICER, ACTING FINANCIAL OFFICER AND CHANGE TO THE CITY BANKING RESOLUTION

(Report:  Mar. 29/06, File No.:  03-0960-01/2006-Vol 01) (REDMS No. 1795131)

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Part (1) of resolution (R05/13-15), relating to the appointment of Acting Financial Officers, be rescinded.

(2)

That:

(a)

Mr. Andrew Nazareth, General Manager, Finance, be appointed Financial Officer for the purposes of carrying out the statutory duties prescribed in section 149 of the Community Charter;

(b)

Mr. Jerry Chong, Manager, Budgets and Accounting, be appointed as Acting Financial Officer in the absence of Andrew Nazareth; and

(c)

Mr. Jeff Day, General Manager, Engineering and Public Works, be appointed as Acting Financial Officer in the absence of both Andrew Nazareth and Jerry Chong.

(3)

That effective April 12, 2005, the banking resolution (R05/12-33), adopted by Council on June 27, 2005, be rescinded, and replaced with the following:

1.

That Mr. Andrew Nazareth (General Manager, Finance), or in his absence, Mr. Jerry Chong (Manager, Budgets and Accounting), or in the absence of both, Ms. Sandra Chai (Supervisor, Treasury Services), or in the absence of all three, Ms. Ivy Wong (Revenue Manager), are authorized on behalf of the City of Richmond (“the City”) in all dealings with  Scotiabank:

(a)

to negotiate with, deposit with, or transfer to the City’s account, all or any cheques and other orders for the payment of money to the City, and to endorse such cheques and orders for the payment of money to the City, either in writing or by rubber stamp;

(b)

to receive a statement of the account of the City, together with all relative vouchers and all unpaid bills to be collected by the City, and all items returned unpaid and charged to the account of the City, and to sign and deliver the form of verification, settlement of balance and release;

(c)

to obtain delivery, under the signed authorization of any two individuals named above, of all or any stocks, bonds and other securities held in safekeeping or otherwise for the account of the City; and

(d)

to give instructions to Scotiabank and its subsidiaries in assisting with the management of the City’s investments, as authorized by any one individual named above.

2.

That all cheques be signed on behalf of the City by:  (i) Mayor Malcolm Brodie, or in his absence the Acting Mayor as determined by Council resolution, and (ii) counter-signed Mr. Andrew Nazareth (General Manager, Finance), or in his absence, Mr. Jerry Chong (Manager, Budgets and Accounting), or in the absence of both, Ms. Sandra Chai (Supervisor, Treasury Services), or in the absence of all three, Ms. Ivy Wong (Revenue Manager), and (iii) instead of signing such cheques manually, use of a mechanical or other device for the purpose of affixing a facsimile of their signatures to such cheques is permitted.

3.

Scotiabank is authorized to honour, pay and charge to the account of the City, all City cheques bearing a facsimile or facsimiles of the signature of the above-noted persons on the understanding that each cheque will be binding on the City to the same extent as though they had been manually signed; and

4.

That this resolution:

(a)

remain in force and effect until written notice to the contrary has been given in writing to, and acknowledged in writing by, the Manager of the No. 3 Road Branch of Scotiabank  in Richmond; and

(b)

be certified by the Corporate Officer and provided to the Scotiabank, together with specimens of facsimiles of the signatures having authority to sign cheques on behalf of the City.

CARRIED

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

6.

USE OF PUBLIC STREETS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY BYLAW – PERMITTING OF NEWSPAPER DISTRIBUTION BOXES

(Report:  Jan. 16/06, File No.:  12-8060-20-7954) (REDMS No. 1636403, 1621350)

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the Council Policy of 1985 concerning newspaper vending boxes be rescinded, and;

(2)

That “Use of Public Streets and Other City Property Bylaw No. 7954”, be given first, second and third reading.

The question on the motion was not called, as discussion ensued among Committee members about allowing the newspaper advertising boxes, and whether a requirement could be made to advise the owners of these boxes that if they were not in compliance by July 1^st, that the newspaper boxes belonging to that individual would be removed.  The suggestion was also made that the proposed location fee should be $100 per box. 

Questions were raised about the cost of cleaning No. 3 Road, and the comment was made that the location fee should be high enough to cover the deal with the litter problem.  A suggestion was made that the fee should be $500 to $1,000 per box.

Copies of a recycling bin were circulated to Committee members and the suggestion was made that the installation of recycling bins adjacent to the newspaper advertising boxes to help maintain clean sidewalks.

Discussion continued on the issue of increasing the location fee for newspaper boxes, with staff indicating that the City was not permitted to charge a fee which was to high to justify the City’s recovery for administration costs.  Further advice was given that the fee must be related to the service being provided; however, the comment was made that it would be possible to factor in the cost of the recycling bins, as well as administrative costs, staffing, etc.

Discussion also took place on the amount charged by other municipalities and organizations (i.e. TransLink), and whether, because the newspaper boxes provided the opportunity for advertising, consideration should be given to charging for third party advertising.  Also addressed was the litter on No. 3 Road resulting from discarded newspapers, especially around bus shelters, cleanup costs, and whether the City was collecting sufficient revenue to ensure cleanup.

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

It was moved and seconded

That the report (dated January 16^th, 2006, from the Manager, Community Bylaws), regarding Use Of Public Streets And Other City Property Bylaw – Permitting Of Newspaper Distribution Boxes, be referred to staff to:

·           I

undertake a comparative analysis of the fees to be charged;

·            

examine the possibility of recycling bins and other amenities which could be provided by newspaper advertising box distributors

Prior to the question on the motion being called, staff were also requested to:

·            

provide a pro-rated charge for what it is now and what it would be if a recycling bin was installed, and

·            

report on issues surrounding debris removal, including the frequency of removal.

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

7.

TREE PROTECTION BYLAW

(Report:  Mar. 27/06, File No.:  12-8060-20-8057) (REDMS No. 1791944, 1794164, 1781683, 1774114, 1775441, 1783074, 1783122)

See Page 10 of these minutes for action taken on this matter.

8.

ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COUNCIL LIAISON TO THE THREE OVAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES 

Councillor Chen referred to the three Oval Advisory Committees, and questioned her responsibilities as the Council Liaison to these committees.  Discussion ensued among Committee members on this matter, during which advice was given that a policy was already in place which dictated when Council Liaisons would attend committee meetings.

It was moved and seconded

That staff be requested to bring forward a report which would define the role and responsibilities of the Council Liaison to the three Oval Advisory Committees.

DEFEATED

OPPOSED:  Mayor Brodie

Cllr. Dang

E. Halsey-Brandt

S. Halsey-Brandt

Howard

McNulty

Steves

9.

YOUTH GAMBLING 

Councillor McNulty referred to a press release from Richmond Addiction Services (RAS) about an increase in youth gambling and whether the Great Canadian Casino was a reason for the increase, and commented on the number of poker programs which were now aired on television.  He asked that staff provide guidance about the preparation of a letter to the Attorney General and to the CRTC about the gambling-related programs which were currently being aired on television and available to youth.  A brief discussion ensued, as a result of which, staff were requested to circulate to the Committee, copies of the press release issued by RAS.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (8:46 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 3^rd, 2006.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Chair

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