MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, December 18, 2006, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

BUSINESS & FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

2.

RICHMOND FILM STRATEGY

(Report:  Dec. 18/06, File No.:  12-8060-20-8172) (REDMS No. 2055035, 2045758, 2031021, 2021845)

(Councillor Chen entered the meeting – 4:01 p.m.)

The Manager, Business Liaison, Amarjeet Rattan, briefly reviewed his report with the Committee.

Discussion then took place among Committee members and staff on the proposed strategy, and in particular on:

·            

the proposed film application fee of $200 and whether this rate was high when compared to other jurisdictions

·            

whether the police costs per hour shown were the costs charged by the Richmond Detachment for any special event attended by police officers

·            

whether City staff had contacted other organizations, including the School Board, about the structures which might be available to film productions

·            

the proposed fulltime film coordinator, and the responsibilities of the person in that position; whether the revenue generated from the film application fee would finance the film coordinator position

·            

the rationale for using the 2007 and 2008 general contingency account to cover the initial marketing and business expenses required for the Film Coordination Office

·            

the rationale for the Film Coordinator model chosen, and whether this position would evolve into a separate entity; the models used by other jurisdictions

·            

whether aircraft noise would be an issue with film production companies

·            

the amount of revenue generated by film activity, and what the City may or may not have lost by not having a Film Coordination office

·            

the fees proposed to be charged to film companies at the City’s various facilities and parks, and whether an additional charge should be added to cover the inconvenience caused to the public when filming occurred at City Hall

·            

the need to be aggressive in marketing the film strategy, especially with the City becoming an Olympic venue, and to work with Tourism Richmond and other organizations to promote filming opportunities

·            

the need to implement the strategy as quickly as possible and to work with the Economic Development Division on this matter

·            

how the film strategy would financially benefit those businesses which were already located in Richmond

·            

the proposal that the Film Coordination Office encourage Richmond property owners to register their locations with the BC Film Commission

·            

the amount of the deposit to be paid a film company to cover security for damages

·            

the importance of the City not being dependent on the film industry to generate a certain amount of revenue.

During the discussion, Committee members expressed their support for the proposed initiative, with comments being made that the strategy was long overdue.

It was moved and seconded

That:

(1)

the Richmond Film Strategy, including the creation of a full time Film Coordinator position (as described in the report dated December 18^th, 2006, from the Manager, Business Liaison), be adopted.

(2)

That Filming Application and Fees Bylaw No. 8172 be introduced and given first, second and third readings.

CARRIED

PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

3.

PURCHASE OF A SAILING VESSEL

(Report:  January 12, 2007, File No.:  02-0600-01; xr: 11-7000-01/2007-Vol 01) (REDMS No. 2061790)

Reference was made to an email circulated to all members of the Committee from Cllr. Steves regarding the feasibility of using the BC Packers legacy trust fund for the project.  In response to questions, information was provided by the Manager of Heritage & Cultural Services, Jane Fernyhough, and Britannia Site Supervisor Bryan Klassen:

·            

that the legacy trust fund currently had a balance of $205,419; that the funds would be used to develop a BC Packers Legacy Centre, to tell the story of BC Packers, to be located either at Britannia or another location mutually agreed upon by BC Packers and the City; and that the contents and materials would be mutually agreed upon by the City and BC Packers

·            

that the City’s Law Department had advised that if the legacy centre was telling the story of BC Packers and that it was mutually agreed upon, then there was nothing to say that the proposed centre could not be a ship rather than a building.

Discussion continued, with the Chair referring to the proposed stationary display of the ‘Brora Thor’ as a museum, and questioning why a fulltime staff person would be required to charge an admission fee to a single vessel at the Britannia dock.  The comment was made that such a person could be utilized to charge an admission fee to the entire Britannia site, which would allow the public to view all of the vessels at the dock once the Britannia project had been completed, or alternatively, volunteers could be used to oversee visits by the public to the vessels at the dock.

Advice was given in response that at the present time, there was no admission fee to the Britannia Heritage Shipyard and that a mechanism would have to be put in place for such a charge.  Further advice was given that it was felt that a fulltime staff person would be the best option as this person could also be responsible for organizing tours of the vessel and keeping track of visitors on the dock, as well as marketing, administering and conducting school programs.  Further information was provided that at the present time, the public was not allowed on the dock at the Britannia shipyard without an escort and to allow public onto the dock would require a change in procedure.

Questions were raised about including the cost of the vessel, as well as the potential cost of renovations, in the 2007 budget, when fundraising could be undertaken to generate the revenue needed to complete the renovations.  In response, information was provided that staff felt that it was important to show the entire cost related to the acquisition of the ‘Brora Thor’ and renovation expenses.

The Chair then addressed the issue of not including funding for the Britannia shipyard in the 2007 capital budget.  In reply, information was provided that a request for funding had been submitted, however, the request did not ‘make the cut’.  Advice was given that the request would be considered as part of the 2008 budget process, and that it would be possible to revise the 2007 capital plan should funding arise.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on:

·            

the second offer which had been received by the owner of the ‘Brora Thor’

·            

the construction of the ‘Brora Thor’, with information being provided that the builder was well known for his construction of wooden hulled vessels which lasted for generations

·            

the lack of assurance from the Richmond School Board that it would be interested in participating in school programs on the ‘Brora Thor’; whether the City was relying on the School Board for fees from school programs relating to the ‘Brora Thor’ to help cover the cost of maintaining the vessel; the number of school tours which presently took place at Britannia

·            

whether there was any guarantee that the City would be able to recover the cost of purchasing and renovating the ‘Brora Thor’ through programming; and whether there was any financial viability in using the ‘Brora Thor’ for charters and rentals, given the cost of acquiring the vessel

·            

the work which was required at the Britannia Heritage Shipyard, and the amount of funding required to complete this work

·            

how the ‘Brora Thor’ would be incorporated into the Britannia business plan

·            

whether there would be any time to compare the ‘Brora Thor’ to other sailing vessels which might be available for purchase and which could fit into the Britannia waterfront

·            

the options provided by staff in their report

·            

the source of funding available for the purchase of the vessel; the possible use of surplus funds to acquire the ‘Brora Thor’ and whether the purchase could be delayed for any length of time.

Mr. Graham Turnbull, a member of the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Advisory Board, advised that the Board was currently in the middle of a three phase project to ready the Britannia site for public viewing.  He voiced concern that funding for the second phase which was to continue with the restoration of the historic zone, had not been included in the City’s 2007 capital program, and that Council was now considering the acquisition of the ‘Brora Thor’ when the development of the Britannia Heritage Shipyard had not yet been completed.  Mr. Turnbull added that the Board would like to continue with the completion of the Britannia site.

Mr. Turnbull further advised that because the dock was not approved for public assembly, the “Music on the Dock” program had been cancelled.  Discussion then ensued among Committee members, staff and Mr. Turnbull on this issue and how the problem had arisen. 

During the discussion, reference was made to the lack of funding in the 2007 capital budget for the Britannia site, and advice was given that staff were already reviewing this issue and would be reporting to Committee on the matter.  Further advice was given that staff would also review the zoning of the Britannia property to determine if any changes had occurred which would impact the zoning of the dock area for public assembly.

Mr. Matthew McBride, a resident of Steveston, provided his credentials in support his expertise in the area of tall ships.  He talked about the success of the 2002 Tall Ships Festival which he felt introduced many people to the beauty of the City, and suggested that the acquisition of the ‘Brora Thor’ could provide a permanent attraction at the Britannia Heritage Shipyard, and could be used by the film industry.

Mr. McBride then spoke about the open design of the ‘Brora Thor’, which could make it accessible to the disabled, and which he felt would be suitable because of the design of the mast and rigging, for excellent camera shots.  He also suggested that the vessel could take on the role of floating ambassador to the Gulf of Georgia Cannery and the Britannia Heritage Shipyard, and that use of the vessel for sail training could attract the American Sail Training Association and possible future tall ship events.  

Mr. McBride stated that the ‘Brora Thor’ would have very little environmental impact at Britannia and could attract new residents to the City.  In concluding his presentation, Mr. McBride urged Committee to reflect on the importance of the City’s maritime heritage and to consider the acquisition of the ‘Brora Thor’ as the first of many ships to be acquired by the City.

In response to questions, Mr. McBride advised that the society he was creating would be non-profit and would be used to develop and conduct sail training programs.  He added the society would work with the City to operate the ‘Brora Thor’, which he felt should be moored at Britannia.

In response to questions about whether it was necessary to be at sea to operate a successful sail training program, advice was given that half of the sail training programs reviewed by Mr. McBride did not contain an ‘at sea’ component.

Mr. Peter Mitchell, 6271 Nanika Crescent, advised that he had been involved with the 2002 Tall Ships Festival, as well as with three maritime festivals, and various other events held in the City.  He referred to classroom instruction and commented that the Britannia Heritage Shipyard project reminded him of a multi-million dollar building without a garage, and that when the complex was finally completed, consideration would have to be given to acquiring the vessels which should be part of the vision for the shipyard.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that he would like to see the ‘Brora Thor’ docked at Britannia, however he was aware that the cost of acquiring the vessel, along with renovation and on-going operating and maintenance expenses must be considered.  He referred to the proposal to initiate a sail training program on the ‘Brora Thor’, and questioned whether renovations to the vessel could be completed to a different level (which could result in a reduction in costs) if the ship was not occupied overnight. 

Mr. Mitchell also commented that the scale of the ship had to be considered and the attraction of the vessel to the public.  He referred to visits of larger, more impressive tall ships to the City, to the one-time cost incurred for a week’s stay at the end of which the vessel then sailed away, and he commented that the annual maintenance costs to keep the ‘Brora Thor’ docked at Britannia should also be considered as this cost would be considerably more than the cost of a one-time event.

Mr. Mitchell then commented on the involvement of the Rotary Club of Steveston with the past three maritime festivals which took place in Steveston, and stated that this annual event was now basically self-sustaining with support from the Fraser Port Authority.  He advised that attendance at the event had increased each year but now seemed to have plateaued, and the Rotary Club of Steveston had recently made the decision to return to holding the fish boat festivals at the docks, with Britannia conducting their own festival, as it was difficult to manage two events which were only three weeks apart.  

Mr. Mitchell, as a Director of the City Centre Community Association, referred to recent newspaper articles which suggested that the City might not be able to provide the parkland and facilities which the City Centre deserved, and therefore these buildings should be constructed in Steveston.  He stated that the City Centre Community Association had the smallest facility in the City with the largest population growth of any other area, and the idea that a facility in Steveston or any other area would be an adequate substitute for facilities in the City Centre or City Centre residents was totally unacceptable.  He advised that consideration should be given to making the City Centre area more accessible to rapid transit, noting that it would be many years before rapid transit was available to Steveston.  Mr. Mitchell also commented on the amount of revenue surplus which had been amassed over the past few years and suggested that it was time that the City began redirecting this surplus revenue to undertake improvements to the City Centre.

Elaine Graham, a Richmond resident, advised that she was speaking in favour with prejudice of wooden boats as she owned a wooden boat and that she was aware of the cost of owning, insuring and maintaining a boat.  She stated that after reviewing the staff report, she had a number of questions that she wished to bring to the Committee’s attention so that the Committee could make a more informed decision:

·            

the staff report spoke about increasing filming opportunities, however, the Britannia Heritage Shipyard was already used for film productions, and she felt that the purchase of the ‘Brora Thor’ would only add to that opportunity

·            

with regard to berthing of the ‘Brora Thor’, would the vessel, if it or any other vessel, was acquired be berthed at Britannia or in Steveston, and did the purchase price include delivery

·            

with regard to proposed cost reducing programs, it was essential to determine if there would be any demand for a particular program, and whether any consideration had been given to the Sea Cadets and Sea Scouts as potential interest groups.

Ms. Graham referred to the revenue estimated within the operating costs, and asked a number of questions relating to admission fees based on 2,000 visitors at $5.00: how was this figure determined – would the cost be per person across the board, or divided into different categories such as adults, youth, children, seniors; and would Britannia Heritage Shipyard members receive a reduced admission fee.

With reference to the expenses component of the proposed operating costs, and to the item – ‘Crew – 2 fulltime and 2 seasonal’, Ms. Graham questioned whether the two seasonal crew might be deckhands, and whether the cost for the Captain, Engineer and Cook for 30 days at a cost of $750 per day, would be through a contract and included benefits, such as employment insurance, Workers’ Compensation Board or a medical services plan.  She also questioned what the qualifications would be for the crew members.

Ms. Graham referred to the listing of ‘Insurance and Licence’ and questioned the intent of ‘Licence’.  She then raised a number of issues on which she would like to receive information:

·            

bunks would be required for the passengers if the ‘Brora Thor’ was to go to sea under sail overnight from Thursday to Saturday, which the vessel did not have sufficient room at the present time

·            

state rooms or bunks would be required for the crew

·            

would the dining room and classroom be dual purpose

·            

would there be sufficient washroom facilities for the forty or more people which could be on board the ‘Brora Thor’ at any one time, and where would the discharge station be located on the vessel

·            

would there be on-board generators on the ship; and how many life boats and personal floatation devices would be provided

·            

the number of hours on the diesel engine; the type and grade of diesel fuel being used in the engine; the cost to run the engine per hour (the fuel consumption based on gallons per hour)

·            

the fire suppression equipment which would be on board

·            

the number and location of any bilge pumps on board the vessel

·            

the number of sinks the ‘Brora Thor’, or any other vessel, had on board

·            

the number of sails and their present condition; the number of masts and their condition; did the vessel have a bow thruster

·            

would refrigeration and freezer equipment be placed on board

·            

would the ship require a first aid attendant or first aid supplies, and would the attendant require a WCB level 2 or 3 first aid ticket; and

·            

would the ship require a GPS navigation system.

In concluding her presentation, Ms. Graham stated that all of the questions which she had raised must be addressed for any vessel which was acquired by the City now or in the future.  She indicated that she was in favour of the City acquiring a boat but any acquisition must be with ‘eyes wide open’.

In response to the questions raised by Ms. Graham, information was provided that all the equipment referred to was already in place on the ‘Brora Thor’ with the exception of the bunks, and that the vessel would be berthed at Britannia.  Further information was also provided that the Sea Dragons were also interested in using the ‘Brora Thor’.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Council endorse the concept of the acquisition of a sailing ship and a combination program of sail training, school programming, charters and rentals and at dock exhibit; and

(2)

That Council authorize staff to make a legal conditional offer, (as outlined in the report dated January 12, 2007, from the Director, Recreation & Cultural Services), to purchase the Sailing Vessel Brora Thor, to a total of $350,000, subject to:

(a)

a successful maritime survey;

(b)

a successful sea trial for the proposed uses of sail training, school programs, at dock public exhibit and rental;

(c)

confirmation from the Department of Transport Canadian Steamship Inspection of the potential to obtain appropriate certification for carrying of paying passengers for the above uses;

(d)

necessary due diligence, including but not limited to, ensuring clear title and ownership;

(3)

That Council direct staff to work with the community to develop a not-for-profit society that would manage and operate the Brora Thor.

The question on the motion was not called, as Committee members provided their comments on whether the proposal to purchase of the ‘Brora Thor’ should be supported.  Comments were made that (i) the project would be better undertaken by the private sector, possibly in a joint venture with the City; (ii) completion of the Britannia Heritage Shipyard should be a higher priority than purchasing a sailing vessel at this time; (iii) there were other priorities, such as the provision of affordable housing, which were more urgent than acquiring a sailing vessel; and (iv) this was not the appropriate time to be considering the acquisition of the ‘Brora Thor’ as Council had not yet reviewed the upcoming Waterfront Strategy document.

In support of the proposal to purchase the ‘Brora Thor’, Councillor Steves spoke about the local heritage value of this vessel; the sailing vessels which had visited Richmond over the past years and their attraction to not only Richmond but Lower Mainland residents; and the many programs which could be offered to the public if the ‘Brora Thor’ was purchased by the City.

Discussion concluded with comments being made about the provision of funding to complete the Britannia project, and it was noted that staff would be reporting to Committee with recommendations for the next phase of the project.

The question on Part 1 of the motion, which was amended as a result of the previous discussion, to read as follows,

‘That Council endorse the concept of the acquisition of a sailing ship through public or private opportunities, or a combination of the two, and a combination program of sail training, school programming, charters and rentals and at dock exhibit’,

was not called, as discussion ensued on the impact of the adoption of Part 1, and whether it would mean that staff would immediately begin searching for another sailing vessel to be acquired by the City.  Advice was given that adoption of Part 1 would allow the inclusion of the concept in the upcoming reports on the Waterfront Strategy and the Major Events Strategy.  However, to provide clarity, the wording of Part 1 was amended to read as follows:

‘That Council endorse the concept of including a sailing ship through public or private opportunities, or a combination of the two, and a combination program of sail training, school programming, charters and rentals and at dock exhibit’.

The question on Part 1 was then called, and it was CARRIED.

The question on Part 2 of the motion was called, and it was DEFEATED with Cllrs. Chen, Dang, E. Halsey-Brandt, S. Halsey-Brandt, Howard and McNulty opposed.

The question on Part 3 was not called, as it was agreed that Part 3 would be withdrawn.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT  DEPARTMENT

4.

COUNTDOWN TO 2010 COMMUNITY CELEBRATION - 3 YEARS TO THE GAMES

(Report: January 15, 2007; File No: 11-7400-20-OCCE1)  (REDMS No. 2063258)

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the City accepts the Richmond Foundation offer to partner with the City of Richmond in the establishment and production of an annual Richmond Winter Festival (as outlined in the report dated January 15^th, 2007, from the Acting Director, Richmond Olympic Business Office); and

(2)

That this event be in partnership with the Countdown to 2010 event.

CARRIED

STANDING ITEM

5.

OVAL UPDATE AND SUMMARY

(Report:  Jan 8/07, File No.:  01-370-03-01/2006-Vol 01) (REDMS No. 2062305)

It was moved and seconded

That the General Purposes Committee receive the following information:

(1)

Executive Summary of Project Status Report (November and December 2006); and

(2)

Project Cost Overview (November 30 and January 4, 2007).

The question on the motion was not called, as discussion took place briefly with the Director, Major Projects, Greg Scott, on (i) the rationale for the increase in the Construction Contingency as a result of cost reduction initiatives; (ii) the percentage of the project which had been tendered, and (iii) whether the delays in construction due to the unfavourable weather conditions and other issues, would result in a delay in completion of the Oval.

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

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:29 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, January 15, 2007.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Harold Steves, Acting Mayor
Chair

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