MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, October 1^st, 2007, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

PRESENTATION / DELEGATION

2.

Larry Berg, President, Peter Dhillon, Director, and Anne Murray, Vice President, Community & Environmental Affairs, Vancouver International Airport Authority, to provide an update on airport issues and developments.

Mr. Peter Dhillon, Director and the City’s representative on the Board of the Vancouver International Airport Authority, introduced Larry Berg and Anne Murray to the Committee.  Mr. Dhillon spoke briefly about his responsibilities in being the City’s representative on the Board, and he indicated that he was available to answer any questions which Committee might have. 

Mr. Dhillon indicated that 2007 was a milestone for the airport as this year marked the fifteenth anniversary of the Airport Authority becoming a community-based organization.  He advised that since that initiative, the airport had increased from serving 10 million passengers to 17.4 million.

With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation (a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk’s Office), Mr. Berg and Ms. Murray reported to the Committee on:

§            

Airport Authority Turns 15

§            

Passenger Numbers (in millions)

§            

Take-offs & Landings (in thousands)

§            

Economic Impact

§            

Low Cost, High Value

§            

Air Policy Developments

§            

Construction Update

§            

International Terminal Expansion

§            

Construction Timeline

§            

New Face of YVR

§            

Environment

§            

Noise Management

§            

Air Quality

§            

Master Plan – Your Airport 2007

§            

2006 Annual Report

During the presentation, information was provided by Ms. Murray about a pilot project being initiated which would allow delegations to speak to the next three YVR Aeronautical Noise Management Committee meetings, commencing on December 3^rd, 2007.  She explained that the results of the pilot project would be reviewed after its conclusion in June, 2008.  Ms. Murray added that delegation guidelines would be available on the YVR website within the next two weeks.

The Chair referred to the recent airplane crash into a Richmond high-rise apartment building, and he requested that Mr. Berg provide any information which was available on this matter to the Committee.  However, in response, Mr. Berg advised that he could not comment on this matter as it was now the subject of a Transport Canada Safety Board investigation.  With reference to the possibility of changing established flight paths, Mr. Berg suggested that this would not be possible because the flight paths were aligned with the airport runways. 

Reference was then made to a recent incident at the Airport which resulted in the death of a passenger.  Mr. Berg stated that he would not describe the event as a security issue, but rather an issue of a passenger who was disruptive which resulted in the RCMP taking steps which the officers felt to be necessary at the time.  He further advised that a number of procedures relating to that incident were being examined, and that staff were hopeful that by the end of 2007, a comprehensive review of these procedures would be completed.

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

§            

economic impact and the percentage of jobs at the Airport which were held by Richmond residents

§            

the hours of operation at the Airport and who was responsible for making the decision on the hours that the Airport would operate; who was responsible for allowing night time flights at the Airport, and the rationale for approving such flights; whether the Airport had the authority to prevent aircraft from taking off after certain hours

§            

the size of the aircraft which landed and took off from YVR and whether any consideration had been given to relocating some of the smaller aircraft to regional airports such as Boundary Bay and Abbotsford; when YVR was going to arrange a meeting with the owners of the Boundary Bay and Abbotsford airports about diverting small aircraft to those airports; with regard to the feasibility of diverting aircraft to regional airports, at what level, if any, did YVR tie in with these other airports, and who would be responsible for relocating air traffic around the Lower Mainland to other areas; how would the City go about, and the process to be followed, which would result in the Boundary Bay and Abbotsford Airports working together to maximize the use of their respective airports

§            

the difficulties experienced by YVR in managing the mix of large and small aircraft which land and take off from the airport

§            

delegations to the upcoming meeting of the YVR Aeronautical Noise Management Committee and how their concerns would be addressed; the timing of the evaluation of the pilot project once the project had been concluded

§            

how the airport managed wildlife and bird control

§            

whether the pilot of the aircraft which had crashed into a local high-rise building had been in the proper flight path

§            

the height restrictions imposed on the City because of the location of the airport and the problems this limitation created for developers, and the process to be followed to change this height restriction

§            

whether there was any restriction on the maximum age for a person to have a pilot’s licence

§            

who the City would complain to about inappropriate routes for flight paths over the City; why aircraft were flying directly over the City on a regular basis; who was responsible for establishing flight paths and aircraft altitudes

§            

the process which was followed to deal with complaints from Richmond residents about airport noise and other issues

§            

the deterrents which were in place to discourage the pilots of small aircraft from using YVR

§            

whether any notification was provided by NAV Canada when the flight paths were changed over the City

§            

how the public would be advised that delegations would be permitted at the next three YVR Aeronautical Noise Management Committee meetings

§            

the concerns of Richmond residents about low flying aircraft and whether this situation would ever improve; whether small aircraft should be allowed to fly over the City

§            

the purpose of the  “Fly Quiet” awards program initiated by YVR

§            

whether the rental agreement between YVR and the Federal Government was now in line with the Montreal and Toronto airports

§            

the rationale for the decrease in the amount of air cargo traffic going to and from the airport

§            

whether translation services were provided at the airport

During the discussion, the request was made that information be provided by YVR to the City regarding those organizations and their responsibilities with respect to the operation of the airport, both federally and locally.

Following the conclusion of the discussion, the following referral motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the matter of airport noise, flight paths and regional aircraft movement be referred to staff to contact:

(1)

NAV Canada to arrange a meeting with representatives of that organization to discuss these issues, and to report to Council through Committee on the outcome; and

(2)

the proprietors of the Boundary Bay and Abbotsford airports regarding issues relating to regional aircraft movements.

CARRIED

DELEGATIONS

3.

(1)

Doug Louth, regarding the decision of YVR to allow delegations to the Aeronautical Noise Management Committee, effective December 3^rd, 2007; and how the delegations to the committee would be structured.  (File No.:  0153-01)

Mr. Doug Louth addressed Committee about the YVR Aeronautical Noise Management Committee and the need to form a citizens committee.  A copy of Mr. Louth’s submission is attached as Schedule A and forms part of these minutes.

(Cllr. Barnes left the meeting at 5:36 p.m., and returned at 5:38 p.m., during the above presentation.)

Discussion then took place briefly with Mr. Louth about the lack of homeowner representation on the YVR Aeronautical Noise Management Committee.  Mr. Louth referred to the upcoming December 3^rd, 2007 meeting of the YVR Aeronautical Noise Management Committee, and voiced the opinion that if a barrage of people attended this and future meetings, that public delegations would most likely be disallowed.  He reiterated that a citizens committee was needed to provide homeowners living under the flight paths with a format to voice their concerns, and in turn, the citizens committee could attend the ANMC meetings to raise these issues with the YVR.  

Mr. Louth, with reference to the Cathay Pacific night flights which had been approved by YVR, suggested that these flights had been allowed because the ‘cash register’ was the bottom line issue.

(2)

Neil Filipek, regarding the decision of YVR to allow delegations to the Aeronautical Noise Management Committee, effective December 3^rd, 2007; and how the delegations to the committee would be structured.  (File No.:  0153-04-01)

Mr. Neil Filipek circulated material to Committee members relating to the “Ground Run-up Enclosure (GRE) at the Portland, Oregon International Airport”.  A copy of this material, along with Mr. Filipek’s submission is attached as Schedule B and forms part of these minutes.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and Mr. Filipek on:

§            

the altitude of float planes flying over residential areas

§            

the information required by the Ministry of Transportation when an individual reported an airplane noise violation

§            

whether the City of Portland Citizen Noise Advisory Committee was similar to the citizens committee being proposed by Mr. Louth

§            

whether there was any other international airport which had functioned with a 24 hour per day operation

§            

the efforts being taken to mitigate the noise caused by larger aircraft

§            

the rationale as to why Cathy Pacific required night flying.

(3)

Howard Jampolsky, 5531 Cantrell Road, regarding:

(a)

VFR (Visual Flight Rules) aircraft routing over Richmond for flights departing and landing at Vancouver International Airport;

(b)

Airport noise related issues; and

(c)

Aviation safety issues relating to air operations in and around Richmond.  (File No.:  0153-01)

Mr. Howard Jampolsky spoke about the problems caused by small aircraft landing and departing from the Vancouver International Airport.  A copy of his submission is attached as Schedule C and forms part of these minutes.

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

§            

the use of the north runway and night time air traffic

§            

whether a citizens airport advisory committee was needed in the City

§            

the minimum altitude which should be maintained by small aircraft flying over the City

§            

the types of aircraft which fly out of Boundary Bay Airport and YVR

§            

the collection of landing fees.

Mr. Wolfe Strecko, representing the Hamilton Community Association, advised that the Hamilton community was located directly under the flight path for the approach to the north runway, and noted that many noise violations occurred.  He also talked about the loudness of the older passenger and cargo planes which flew over the community, during which he voiced the opinion that the airport was not acting as a champion in making changes in response to complaints made by local residents.

With reference to an award made by the YVR to the ‘most friendly pilot’, Mr. Strecko suggested that a ‘shame’ list should be published of the worst flights and airline carriers to put pressure on those companies, because that information was difficult to obtain.

The discussion concluded with the following referral motion being introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the establishment of a citizens airport advisory committee be referred to staff for the preparation of the appropriate terms of reference.

The question on the motion was not called, as discussion ensued on: 

(1)

who would serve on this committee;

(2)

what would come out of this committee which would be different from the YVR Aeronautical Noise Management Committee;

(3)

the need to review delegation procedures at the upcoming YVR Aeronautical Noise Management Committee;

(4)

the need to include individuals who were not Richmond residents on the proposed committee (the suggestion was made that adjacent municipalities which were affected by airport noise should be contacted); and

(5)

the need to examine as part of the terms of reference, whether this committee should (i) be a City advisory committee, and (ii) have a budget. 

During the discussion, while support was given for the formation of the committee, comments were made about the need to review the terms of reference before final agreement was given to the establishment of the committee.

As a result of the discussion, it was agreed that the main motion would be amended to add the following, ‘That staff monitor the delegation procedures and follow up at the December meeting of the YVR Aeronautical Noise Management Committee.’

The question on the amended motion, which now reads as follows:

“(1)

That the establishment of a citizens airport advisory committee be referred to staff for the preparation of the appropriate terms of reference.

(2)

That staff monitor the delegation procedures and follow up at the December meeting of the YVR Aeronautical Noise Management Committee,”

was then called, and it was CARRIED.

BUSINESS & FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

4.

BUSINESS LICENCE BYLAW NO. 7360, AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 8302 – REVISED FEE SCHEDULES

(Report:  Oct. 9/07, File No.:  12-8060-20-8302) (REDMS No. 2288499, 2289644)

It was moved and seconded

That Business Licence Bylaw No. 7360, Amendment Bylaw No. 8302, which creates revised fee schedules, be introduced and given first, second and third readings.

CARRIED

5.

Sister City Program Report 1: Review and Update
(Report:  November 2, 2007, File No.:  01-0100-20-SCITI-01; xr 01-0135-04-01) (REDMS No. 2298339, 2298571)

6.

Sister City Program Report 2: Expansion - China
(Report:  November 2, 2007, File No.:  01-0135-04-04; xr: 01-0135-04-04) (REDMS No.2297982, 2298557)

The Chair advised that the two reports and accompanying recommendations relating to the Sister City Program would be considered as one item.

Cathy Volkering Carlile, General Manager, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department, accompanied by Alison McNeil, Senior Manager – Policy Development & Corporate Programs, and Anne Stevens, Manager Community Recreation & Cultural Services, reviewed the process which had been followed with respect to the preparation of the two reports now being considered.

(Cllr. Chen left the meeting at 6:11 p.m., and returned at 6:13 p.m., during the above review.)

Ms. McNeil then provided an explanation on the differences between the recommendations being made by staff as compared to the Sister City Committee.

Ms. Sylvia Gwozd, Chair, Sister City Committee, accompanied by James Hsieh, Vice Chair, Relations in China, and Jim Kojima, Vice Chair, Relations in Japan, spoke about the mandate of the Committee to foster and build relations with people in other countries and other cities, businesses, etc.  She also thanked Council for its ongoing support and recognized the efforts of City staff for developing a program which would be viable for the long term.  Ms. Gwozd further advised that the Committee had been recognized as one of the ten most active sister city committees in Canada, and had recently been acknowledged in the UBCM/Province of British Columbia publication, ‘BC-Asia Twinning Toolkit’.

Ms. Gwozd then commented on the future direction of the Committee’s efforts in China, noting that this was a country with many large and complex cities.  She then reviewed the process which resulted in the Sister City Committee recommendation that four friendship relationships be entered into with Xiamen, Yangzhou, Yantai and Qingdao.  Ms. Gwozd also spoke about the definition of friendship and sister city relationships, and she described what each relationship would entail.  She noted during her comments that the Sister City Committee and staff had a difference of opinion regarding the meaning of friendship city and sister city relationships.

Ms. Gwozd, in referring to the four cities which were being recommended for friendship relationships, advised that Qingdao was not interested in entering into a long term sister city relationship with Richmond but would be interested in pursuing an ‘Olympic’ relationship leading up to the 2010 Olympic Winter Games.  In concluding her presentation, Ms. Gwozd requested that all references to term limitations be deleted from the staff recommendations.

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

§            

the rationale for the Sister City Committee recommending that four friendship city relationships be developed

§            

whether the City would be faced with the decision of entering into formal sister city relationships as the next step up from the friendship city relationships

§            

the impact to the City if four friendship city relationships were approved, i.e. financially and staff resources; the impact to the City’s current Sister City relationships, if any, if the four friendship city relationships were approved

§            

the availability of funding to the Sister City Committee to support four friendship city relationships, both from senior levels of government and through sponsorships with private companies

§            

the impact to the City of having connections with cities in China, and the opportunities which would be available to interact with those cities in friendship

§            

the definitions for sister city and friendship city relationships, and the budget which would be required to support four friendship city relationships; the different levels of activities which would take place based on whether the relationship was a sister city or friendship city relationship and the cost of these activities

§            

the proposal that the Sister City Committee develop a three year activity plan for each recommended city, complete with budgets; the amount of budget which was being recommended for the three year plan; whether the proposed budget was ‘leading’ the sister city program

§            

the feasibility of school exchanges within the four cities in China

§            

whether the reports focused too much on business and economics rather than education and culture

§            

the process which would be followed by the Sister City Committee if Council approved the Sister City Committee recommendations.

During the discussion, advice was given that a friendship city relationship would allow the Committee to take the strengths and benefits from each of the cities and to work with those cities until an overall benefit had been established.  Ms. Gwozd then provided information to Committee on the friendship city relations which had been established with the City of Edmonton, Alberta and cities in China.  She noted that Edmonton had recently made the decision to suspend its Sister City program as that city had found it to be more beneficial to have friendship city relationships than sister city relationships.

Also during the discussion, reference was made to a number of matters about which the Sister City Committee had concerns, such as (i) trip approval and the need to be more sensitive when making the decision on who could participate in a particular trip; and (ii) the term of appointments to the Sister City Committee and the need for continuity.

Ms. Gwozd stated during the discussion that the focus of the Sister City Committee would be on the future direction in China, and that the Committee would be sensitive and aware of what was happening in that country.  She added that she felt that the Committee had the experience to deal with the many groups and delegations which would be coming to Richmond, and she asked that Council trust the collective wisdom of a large committee.

(Cllr. Steves left the meeting at 6:56 p.m., and returned at 7:00 p.m., during the above discussion.)

During the discussion, Mr. Mel Goodwin, Past Chair of the Sister City Committee, reviewed the history of the development of sister city committees and talked about the length of time required to achieve the benefits which resulted from Richmond establishing a sister city relationship with Wakayama, Japan.

In response to a final question about whether the proposed budget of $150,000 spread over three years would provide sufficient funding for the proposed friendship city relationships, Ms. Gwozd advised that the Sister City Committee did not want to establish a relationship with a city if there was no funding to support that relationship.

Discussion then took place among Committee members and staff on the proposed recommendations, during which Ms. McNeil spoke further on the definition of sister city and friendship city relationships.  She also commented on the proposal that four cities be selected for friendship city status, stating that staff were of the opinion, based on past history, that the successful management of the four relationships would be difficult to achieve, especially when relying on funding from private sponsorships.  Ms. McNeil suggested that the program should begin with one city and that discussions be entered into with that city to determine what terms would be included in an agreement.

(Cllr. E. Halsey-Brandt left the meeting at 7:29 p.m., and returned at 7:30 p.m., during the above discussion.)

Also addressed during the discussion were the following matters:

§            

the provision of funding for the Sister City Committee’s three year activity program

§            

the availability of staff resources to assist with the management of the program

§            

the purpose of the proposed planning and budgeting workshop

§            

the proposed program objectives, as well as the new policies and procedures

§            

the rationale for requiring a decision to be made this evening

§            

the proposed terms of reference for, and the composition of, the Sister City Committee

§            

the process which had been initiated five years ago to build relationships with China; what would be required to develop a full sister city relationship and how that relationship would be developed

§            

whether the allocation of $50,000 per year would be adequate to support the Sister City program

§            

the need for a ‘gift’ protocol to ensure that the gifts given to visiting delegations were appropriate

§            

whether Committee members were supportive of only one or four friendship city relationships, and whether Committee preferred to have sister city or friendship city relationships

§            

the feasibility of developing a program based on a budget of $225,000 spread over three years; the length of time which would be required to develop the program for three years and for one year at a time

§            

the need to have the budget requests reviewed as part of the additional levels and draft operating budget.

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

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the renewed objectives and new policies and procedures for the City of Richmond’s Sister City Program, be approved (as outlined in the report dated November 2, 2007 from the Senior Manager, Policy Development and Corporate Programs).

(2)

That based on these renewed Program objectives and new policies and procedures, that the updated Terms of Reference for the Sister City Committee (as outlined in the report dated November 2, 2007 from the Senior Manager, Policy Development and Corporate Programs), be approved, provided that the voting membership shall be comprised of 13 citizens and 1 voting Board of Education of School District No. 38 (Richmond) representative, to which Council may add up to 5 non-voting program organizations.

(3)

That a new Sister City Committee annual operating fund of $10,000 be approved, starting in 2008 and a Sister City Program three-year fund of up to $225,000 for 2008-2010 (as outlined in the report dated November 2, 2007 from the Senior Manager, Policy Development and Corporate Programs), conditional on approval of additional levels funding in the 2008 operating budget.

(4)

That staff be directed to conduct a facilitated Planning and Budgeting Workshop with the Sister City Committee to develop three-year Activity Plans for each Sister and Friendship City relationship and an accompanying budget showing allocations of Program funding.

(5)

That three-year Activity Plans be presented to Council for final approval by the end of the first quarter of 2008 and thereafter in accordance with the new Program policies and procedures and updated Sister City Committee Terms of Reference.

(6)

That approval be given for an annual increment for staff in the amount of $37,000 (as outlined in the report dated November 2, 2007 from the Senior Manager, Policy Development and Corporate Programs).

(7)

That the Sister City Committee report (dated September 2007) on the June 2007 visit to Pierrefonds, Quebec and the July 2007 visit to China (attached to the report dated November 2^nd, 2007, from the Chief Administrative Officer),  be received for information.

(8)

That the City of Richmond pursue Friendship City relationships with four cities in China, including Qingdao (as described in the Sister City Committee report).

(9)

That for each city selected through the above process, an invitation be sent to the proposed friendship city and if a positive response is received, that a formal agreement (accompanied by a three year Activity Plan) be developed as specified in the new program policies and procedures.

(10)

That the City of Richmond pursue a special ‘Olympic Twin’ relationship with the City of Qingdao, China (as described in the Sister City Committee report), and that an agreement and two year Activity Plan be developed.

The question on the motion was not called, as the request was made that Parts (3) and (6) of the motion be dealt with separately. 

The Chair advised however that Parts (3) and (6) should not be dealt with separately because they was integral to the overall resolution.  Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt called a Point of Order, stating that she wished to have a ruling as to whether the motion could be separated out.  Mayor Brodie stated that the ruling on the matter had been made.

The question on the motion was then called, and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. Evelina Halsey-Brandt and Harold Steves opposed. 

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (8:28 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, November 5^th, 2007.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Chair

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