It was moved and seconded

That the agenda for the July 4^th, 2006 meeting of the General Purposes Committee be adopted, and that the following matters be added as additional items:

(1)

Execution of Department of Canadian Heritage Contribution Agreement - BC Packers On-Line Project; and

(2)

A referral to staff regarding Insurance provisions.

CARRIED

MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, June 19^th, 2006, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS

2.

RICHMOND 2006-2031 FLOOD PROTECTION MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

(Report:  June 28/06, File No.:  11-6045-11-01) (REDMS No. 1988761, 113899)

The Manager, Policy Planning, Terry Crowe, accompanied by the Director, Engineering, Robert Gonzalez, introduced Tom Becker and Wendy Yau, of UMA Engineering Ltd.  Mr. Crowe then provided a brief overview of the proposed flood protection management strategy.  Information was provided by Mr. Gonzalez that the proposed Interim Floodplain Bylaw, to be submitted to Council in October of this year, would address building elevations.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on:

·            

whether any consideration had been given to widening the dykes located north and south of the Hamilton area, and the impact if these dykes were widened with respect to additional land required to accommodate the extra width

·            

whether the current dyke standards would be sufficient to prevent future flooding

·            

the rationale for requiring a mid-island dyke and the development of the model now being considered, which was based on the construction of a mid-island dyke; and why consideration was not being given to widening and increasing the height of the current dykes rather than erecting a mid-island dyke

·            

the impact of global warming on the City’s dykes, especially in East Richmond, and the model which had been developed, which assumed that the sea level would increase 0.35 metres over the next 100 years

·            

the tone of the report and the implication that the ‘City was safe’ if flooding should occur

·            

the amount of City funding being put towards dyke repair and maintenance, and the projects to be initiated to complete structural upgrades at specific locations along the dyke system

·            

the Highway 99/Knight Street barrier and the type of structure being considered; where the barrier would be erected, cost assessments, and how the barrier could be funded

·            

the fact that the proposed strategy was predicated on the provision of senior government funding; the amount of funding required, and whether the senior levels of government would approve funding for the project

·            

studies being undertaken by other organizations, such as the Fraser Basin Council, and the need for the City to be aware as these future studies were presented to the City

·            

the need for additional pump stations, etc., as the number of urban areas increased in the City

·            

the City’s perimeter dykes, the recommended increase in dyke elevations; dredging and whether the recommendations reflected cost efficient strategies which included dredging

·            

the exposure of the City to liability issues as a result of changing provincial dyking processes

·            

the structure of the proposed Interim Floodplain Bylaw

·            

the rationale for requiring the construction of a mid-island dyke in Richmond, when other municipalities, such as Delta, were not being directed to construct a similar dyke.

During the discussion, information was provided that when the City’s dyke system had first been constructed, consideration had been given to erecting a second dyke one-half mile out from Lulu Island.  The comment was made that thirty years from now, the City should be considering the construction of a dyke one to two miles out from the island and reclamation of the land between the new dyke and the current dyke for agricultural purposes.

It was moved and seconded

That, (as per Attachment 8 to the report dated June 29, 2006, from the Manager, Policy Planning and the Director, Engineering, entitled: “Richmond 2006-2031 Flood Protection Management Strategy”):

(1)

the proposed “Richmond 2006 - 2031 Flood Protection Management Strategy” be received;

(2)

The “Richmond 2006 - 2031 Flood Protection Management Strategy” be referred to the appropriate Provincial Ministries (Environment, Transportation) and stakeholders (e.g., City of New Westminster, Fraser River Port Authority, Fraser Basin Council), for comments and approvals;

(3)

Staff pursue cost sharing for the Strategy Implementation Program with senior governments and stakeholders;

(4)

Staff begin more detailed discussions with the BC Ministry of Transportation to clarify the scope of work required to construct the proposed mid-island barrier along the Highway 99 / Knight Street Corridor;

(5)

Flood covenants, including indemnity clauses, be required for all discretionary development applications (e.g., subdivision, rezoning, development permits);

(6)

Staff prepare an Interim Floodplain Bylaw and report back to Council in October 2006; and

(7)

Funding of $10,000, from the 2006 General Contingency Account, be approved for legal services, to prepare an Interim Floodplain Bylaw.

CARRIED

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

3.

UPDATE: 1996 CITY-GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT (GVRD) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)

(Report:  June 28/06, File No.:   01-0157-20-LRST1) (REDMS No. 1953166)

It was moved and seconded

That the report entitled: Update: 1996 City-Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), from the Manager, Policy Planning, dated June 27, 2006, be received for information.

The question on the motion was not called, as the Chair spoke briefly about the Liveable Region Strategic Plan and the resolution of the City’s objections to that Plan.

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

BUSINESS & FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

4.

2005 SURPLUS APPROPRIATION

(Report:  June 15/06, File No.:  03-0970-01) (REDMS No. 1960526, 1785557, 1795141, 1809298, 1785849, 1923903)

The General Manager, Business & Financial Services, Andrew Nazareth, in response to a question, provided an explanation as to why more funds were placed in the revolving fund reserve account rather than the Capital Building & Infrastructure reserve account.  He indicated that the revolving fund provided more flexibility in the future as opposed to locking the money into a designated reserve fund; that the revolving fund would still be part of the budget process and that any expenditures would still require the approval of Council.

Discussion then took place among Committee members and staff on the recommended one-time expenditures, with clarification being provided by staff on specific recommendations.  During the discussion, questions were raised about:

·            

the rationale for not including in the annual budget, funding for regular recurring items, such as the OCP review

·            

whether the OCP review could be delayed for one year

·            

whether the $50,000 being requested to commence the development of an action plan for the implementation of the recommendations resulting from the recent review of the Richmond Fire-Rescue Department, should be included in the budget.

It was moved and seconded

That the City of Richmond’s December 31, 2005 consolidated surplus be appropriated (as outlined in the report dated June 15^th, 2006, from the Director of Finance):

(1)

With the allocation of $2.0 Million for reserves to be distributed as follows:

(a)

Capital Building & Infrastructure - $0.8 Million, and

(b)

Revolving Fund - $1.2 Million; and

(2)

With the following one-time expenditures being approved:

(a)

Recreation & Culture – Childcare Provincial

Targeted Funding                                                            $ 110,000

(b)

Recreation & Culture – Public Art Coordinator                    $93,000

(c)

Major Projects – Richmond Oval Precinct Art

Plan                                                                               $1,746,250

(d)

Planning – OCP                                                                $471,000

(e)

Planning, Economic Dev., Engineering – City

Centre Area Plan & Servicing                                            $260,000

(f)

Richmond Fire Rescue – Provision for Fire

Rescue Improvement and Action Plan                               $350,000

(g)

Communications – Corporate Communications                $255,000

(h)

Recreation & Culture – Britannia – Installation

of Exhibits                                                                          $67,873

(i)

Major Projects – Olympic Business Office                         $315,000

(j)

Facilities – Facilities & Parking Upgrades                          $371,877

The question on the motion was not called, as Committee members expressed their opinions about the individual recommendations.  Questions were also raised about whether additional funds could be allocated to a reserve fund if a one time recommendation was not approved.  The request was also made that the recommendations be dealt with separately.

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

It was moved and seconded

That the not recommended item – Engineering & Public Works – “Fuelling Station”, in the amount of $225,000, be added to the list of recommended one-time expenditures, and that the revolving fund be reduced accordingly.

CARRIED

OPPOSED: Cllrs. McNulty

Steves

The question on the motion was not called, as it was agreed that the question on Part (1) of the main motion would not be called until after the components which comprised Part (2) had been dealt with.

The question on Part (2)(a) was called, and it was CARRIED.

The question on Part (2)(b) was not called, as the following amendment was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That Part (2)(b) be amended by reducing the amount of $93,000 to $50,000 on the basis that (i) the Coordinator position would be a permanent fulltime position; (ii) funding for the Coordinator position would be obtained in future from the public art developer contributions; and (iii) staff would advise Council from time to time on the status of the public art developer contributions that would be funding the position.

CARRIED

OPPOSED: Cllr. McNulty

The question on Part (2)(b), as amended, was then called, and it was CARRIED with Cllr. McNulty opposed.

The question on Part (2)(c) was called, and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. McNulty and Steves opposed.

The question on Part (2)(d) was called, and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. Dang, McNulty and Steves opposed.

The question on Part (2)(e) was called, and it was CARRIED with Cllr. McNulty opposed.

The question on Part (2)(f) was called, and it was CARRIED with Cllr. McNulty opposed.

The question on Part (2)(g) was called, and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. McNulty and Steves opposed.

The question on Part (2)(h) was called, and it was CARRIED.

The question on Part (2)(i) was called, and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. McNulty and Steves opposed.

The question on Part (2)(j) was called, and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. McNulty and Steves opposed.

The question on Parts (1)(a) and (b) was not called, as the following amendment was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That Part (1)(b) be amended by adding $43,000 to the revolving fund.

CARRIED

The question on Parts (1)(a) and (b), as amended, which would increase the total for the revolving fund to $1,018,000, and which would result in a total of $1,818,000 for the reserves, was called, and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. McNulty and Steves opposed.

5.

EXECUTION OF DEPARTMENT OF CANADIAN HERITAGE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT – BC PACKERS ON-LINE PROJECT

(Memo:  July 4/06, File No.:  11-7141-01/2006-Vol 01) (REDMS No. 1990640)

It was moved and seconded

That the Mayor and the Director, City Clerk’s Office be authorized to sign the Contribution Agreement and any subsequent reports regarding the on-line exhibit – “In Their Words:  The Story of BC Packers”.

The question on the motion was not called, as staff provided information about the status of the $240,000 contributed by BC Packers for the display of artefacts related to BC Packers.

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

6.

INSURANCE PROVISIONS

It was moved and seconded

That staff review the City’s policy on insurance provisions for community associations, special events and other similar activities, and report to Committee on:

(1)

the feasibility of a yearly policy that encompasses all community societies, and

(2)

the issues around the City providing the above coverage.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (5:58 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 Tuesday, July 4^th, 2006.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Chair

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