MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, January 17, 2011, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

1.

2011 CITY GRANT PROGRAM

(File Ref. No.: ) (REDMS No. 3121142)

Lesley Sherlock, Social Planner was available to answer questions.  Members of Committee commended all City staff who assisted in reviewing the applications for the 2011 City Grant Program for the excellent job they had done.

A discussion then took place about various applicants and the rationale for the level of funding that had been proposed for each applicant.  Ms. Sherlock mentioned that St. Albans Church was the only applicant that had received a grant increase for 2011.

Discussion also took place about:

§                 

the feasibility of adjusting the grants to incorporate a cost of living allowance increase;

§                 

concerns related to the application process.  It was noted that the applications were generally well received and completed, however some groups had expressed concerns and encountered difficulties completing the applications and providing the required information; and

§                 

whether Richmond Addiction Services Society (RAS) was assisting those with addictions to gambling.  It was noted that RAS was currently developing a five year strategy.

De Whalen, Richmond Women’s Resource Centre Association, advised that City Grant funding is used to pay for the lease for the Caring Place Office and the Hot Ink Program, a teen writing program for girls.  Ms. Whalen also spoke about the Grandmother’s Support Program and advised that the Women’s Centre is just short of receiving 5000 visits a year. 

De Whalen, speaking for the Richmond Poverty Response Committee, addressed the issue of affordable housing and advised that the Poverty Response Committee was interested in starting a housing rental stock inventory program in Richmond, and were seeking assistance to conduct a workshop for landlords and tenants regarding secondary suites and affordable housing.

Alan Lau, Canadian Low Income Affordable Seniors Housing Society, advised that the Society had over 5000 members, and did not receive any government funding except for a $1000 grant from the City of Richmond in 2010.  He noted that the Society charged a one time entry fee of twenty dollars for a lifetime membership.  He further noted that members enjoyed benefits that included cash savings from merchants of up to 30%.  He concluded by stating that all members of this Society were low income, and requested Council to give consideration to granting funding for the Society.

Christine Dixon, Coordinator, Super Saturday Program, Canadian Mental Health Association, Vancouver - Burnaby Branch, and Susan Rechel, Program Manager, Richmond Mental Health and Addiction Services spoke about the Super Saturday Club Kids Program, which is a recreation based program for children of parents with serious mental illness.

In answer to queries, the delegation provided the following advice: (i) in addition to the 12 kids who are currently in the program, there are 13 kids on the waiting list; (ii) the program has been running for 10 years and the service is provided in Richmond; (iii) the program is committed to kids between the ages of 8 and 17; (iv) the Association is seeking one time funding in order to continue the program; and (v) the Association has applied for other grants as well. 

Esther Ho, Integration Youth Services Society, expressed concern that the Society had not received City Grant funding for the previous two years.  She advised that the Society provided services for new immigrant youth and their families.  Ms. Ho spoke about the programs offered by the Society including the Mustard Seed Theatre for Young Actors, Youth Drug Fee Project, and the Personal Growth Program.  Ms. Ho also advised that the services offered by the Society were different than those offered by Richmond Youth Services. 

Suzanne Haines, General Manager, Gateway Theatre, spoke about the production “Forbidden Phoenix” and advised that the Theatre had been working on this production for eight years and had received City funding previously.  Ms. Haines also spoke about the funding cuts to gaming and the BC Arts Council. 

Gina McIntyre, Richmond Hospice Association, advised that the Association’s funding from Vancouver Coastal Health had been cut and the Society was facing a $50,000 shortfall.  She stated that the Association would have to reduce office and volunteer hours at the hospice. 

Wong Yee, Cinevolution Media Arts Society, thanked the Committee for its support and extended an invitiation to a multi-media performance to take place at the Richmond Olympic Oval on February 12, 2011. 

Upon the conclusion of presentations by delegations, a discussion ensued about the following:

§                 

the need to investigate the treatment of the cost of living allowance prior to next year’s grant application process;

§                 

having RAS submit an updated report related to their activities.  Staff advised that RAS submitted a report with every grant application, and that the report that was attached to RAS’ 2011 Grant Application would be made available to members of Council prior to the next Regular Council meeting, scheduled to be held on Monday, February 14, 2011; and

§                 

the feasibility of adding $1850 to the remaining amount of $5,150 of the proposed 2011 Grant Budget for a total of $7,000, which would be equally split up between the following seven applicants:

§                 

Canadian Low Income Affordable Seniors Housing Society;

§                 

Filipinos in Richmond Support Team;

§                 

Steveston Community Society;

§                 

Richmond Chinese Community Society;

§                 

Richmond City Centre Community Association;

§                 

Integration Youth Services Society; and

§                 

KidSport Richmond. 

It was moved and seconded

That as per the staff report from the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, dated January 14, 2011, the 2011 City Grants be allocated as follows (see Attachment 2):

(1)

The organizations in the Health, Social and Safety Services category be awarded the recommended grant amounts and cheques disbursed for a total of $440,850;

(2)

The organizations in the Cultural and Community Events category be awarded the recommended grant amounts and cheques disbursed for a total of $86,500;

(3)

The following seven organizations each be awarded an additional grant amount of $1000: (i) Canadian Low Income Affordable Seniors Housing Society; (ii) Filipinos in Richmond Support Team; (iii) Steveston Community Society; (iv) Richmond Chinese Community Society; (v) Richmond City Centre Community Association; (vi) Integration Youth Services Society; and (vii) KidSport Richmond, and that staff advise Council regarding a funding source for the additional $1850 that would be required in addition to award the additional grants; and

(4)

Staff report back on treatment of the cost of living allowance prior to next year’s grant application process.

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

It was moved and seconded

That Part (3) of the motion be amended such that the Council Contingency Fund be the source of funding for the $1850 required to award the additional grants.

CARRIED

The question on the main motion was not called as an additional amendment was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That all 2011 grant recipients be awarded a cost of living allowance adjustment funded from the Council Contingency Fund.

The question on the amendment motion was not called as the following was introduced as an addition to the amendment:

It was moved and seconded

That a general review of the City Grant Program be undertaken including a review of the funding sources and application.

The question on the amendment motion was not called as discussion continued about the sources of funding, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), and about having staff report back on details related to casino funding.  Concerns were also expressed regarding the provincial and federal funding cuts and the impact on the City and community organizations.  It was noted that many programs should be supported by the provincial and federal governments and not the City. 

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

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

It was moved and seconded

That Part (3) of the motion be amended to add  the Gateway Theatre Society and the Richmond Hospice Association to the list of organizations to be awarded an additional grant amount of $1000, plus a cost of living allowance adjustment funded from the Council Contingency Fund.

CARRIED

The question on the main motion, which now read as follows:

That as per the staff report from the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, dated January 14, 2011, the 2011 City Grants be allocated as follows (see Attachment 2):

(1)

The organizations in the Health, Social and Safety Services category be awarded the recommended grant amounts and cheques disbursed for a total of $440,850;

(2)

The organizations in the Cultural and Community Events category be awarded the recommended grant amounts and cheques disbursed for a total of $86,500;

(3)

The following nine organizations each be awarded an additional grant amount of $1000 from the Council Contingency Fund: (i) Canadian Low Income Affordable Seniors Housing Society; (ii) Filipinos in Richmond Support Team; (iii) Steveston Community Society; (iv) Richmond Chinese Community Society; (v) Richmond City Centre Community Association; (vi) Integration Youth Services Society; (vii) KidSport Richmond; (viii) Gateway Theatre Society; and (ix) Richmond Hospice Association;

(4)

Staff report back on treatment of the cost of living allowance prior to next year’s grant application process;

(5)

All 2011 grant recipients be awarded a cost of living allowance adjustment funded from the Council Contingency Fund; and

(6)

A general review of the City Grant Program be undertaken including a review of the funding sources and application.

Prior to the question on the main motion being called, staff were requested to provide information on the following prior to the next Regular Council meeting scheduled to be held on Monday, February 14, 2011:

§                 

the Richmond Gateway Theatre Society Endowment Fund; and

§                 

the most updated report related to Richmond Addiction Services (RAS) and its activities.

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

There was agreement to vary the agenda to consider Agenda Item No. 3 prior to Item No. 2.

BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

3.

SOCIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP ASSISTANCE FUND

(File Ref. No.:  03-0900-01) (REDMS No. 3135382)

In answer to queries by members of Committee, Andrew Nazareth, General Manager, Business and Financial Services accompanied by Venus Ngan, Manager, Treasury Services, advised that a review of the cash flow projections for the Richmond Centre for Disability (RCD) indicated that staff’s recommendation to deduct the amount of $25,000 from Richmond Centre for Disability’s 2011 annual operating funding from the City to repay the outstanding Social Financial Hardship Assistance Fund loan balance would not be a hardship for the RCD.  It was also noted that the Executive Director for the RCD advised City staff that the RCD was prepared deal with the staff recommendation. 

Ella Huang, Executive Director, RCD, accompanied by Vince Miele, Board Chair, advised that the RCD held an emergency Board meeting to discuss re-payment of the Social Financial Hardship Assistance Fund, and that although the RCD was prepared to deal with the staff recommendation to retain $25,000 from the RCD’s 2011 Operating Funding from the City, the Board was in favour of a deferral of repayment of the loan for up to six months. 

A discussion took place about:

§                 

the RCD revenues and the anticipated increase of overhead expenses due to factors such as the HST;

§                 

the inconsistent timing, and delays in receiving funding from the federal government, and the related impact on the RCD;

§                 

how the RCD would address its cash-flow challenges, including seeking new ways to generate revenues; and

§                 

the feasibility of deferring the repayment of the loan.

It was moved and seconded

That the Richmond Centre for Disability’s loan repayment be addressed in accordance with Option 2 as outlined in the staff report dated January 31, 2011 from the General Manager, Business and Financial Services, that is that the due date for the outstanding Social Financial Hardship Assistance Fund loan balance in the amount of $25,000 be extended with 3% interest compounded monthly, from January 29, 2011 to the earlier of (i) the time at which the outstanding grant amount from the federal government is received, or (ii) six months from the original due date of January 29, 2011. 

The question on the motion was not called as discussion took place about the precedent that deferring the re-payment of RCD’s loan may set for other organizations who may find themselves in similar position as the RCD in the future.  Comments were made about the costs associated with advertising requirements (as set out in the Community Charter) for the deferral of re-payment of the loan.  It was noted that staff would try to reduce the advertising costs. 

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

LAW AND COMMUNITY SAFETY DEPARTMENT

2.

Noise and Sound Regulation

(File Ref. No.:  ) (REDMS No. 3138850)

Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt submitted a series of letters (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 1) that were circulated to all members of Committee.

Wayne G. Mercer, Manager, Community Bylaws introduced Don Howieson of Young Anderson Barristers and Solicitors and Mark Bliss, Acoustics Consultant, BKL Consultants Ltd.  Mr. Mercer added that both Mr. Howieson and Mr. Bliss had assisted City staff in addressing the complex legal and technical issues in preparing a draft bylaw that would (i) address the issues stressed by council;  and (ii) ensure that a fair and consistent approach was undertaken.

Mr. Bliss then provided a sound demonstration of various decibel levels, showing the difference between dBA and dBC noise frequencies in zone limits ranging from 45 to 55 and then to 65.  He highlighted (i) the difference in sound levels between measurements if taken indoors versus outdoors, noting that indoor sound levels are up to 15 decibels louder than outdoors; and (ii) the difference between dBA and dBC measurements, noting that dBA was the most commonly used measurement of sound, and that dBC measured sound at lower frequencies such as bass sounds.

A discussion then took place about the following:

§                 

different ways to quantify sound levels.  It was noted that humans are less sensitive to low frequency sounds;

§                 

the feasibility of including a dBC rating in the ‘Summary of Permitted Sound Levels by Zone’( Schedule B to the report) and elsewhere in the bylaw.  It was noted that the ratings shown in Schedule B were modelled after those found in the City of Vancouver’s noise bylaw;

§                 

grandfathering of the current bylaw.  It was noted that since there are health issues related to noise, and the Noise Regulation Bylaw is a Public Health Protection Bylaw, there would not be any grandfathering upon a new bylaw coming into effect, and everyone would be required to comply with the new bylaw;

§                 

exemptions to the Noise Regulation Bylaw that are permitted by the General Manager, Engineering and Public Works, and the related appeal process;

§                 

the feasibility of introducing an appeal process for those who are not in support of an exemption that has been granted under the proposed Noise Regulation Bylaw;

§                 

the importance of taking outdoor measurements away from building facades and other sound reflecting surfaces;

§                 

the difference in taking outdoor and indoor measurements.  It was noted that outdoor measurements are more precise and are preferred even if the point of reception is indoors;

§                 

giving consideration to changing the current time of 2:00 a.m. for a prohibition of amplified noise to an earlier time;

§                 

the feasibility of changing the map attached to the proposed Noise Regulation Bylaw as Schedule “A” - Noise Zone Map, to a different format.  It was noted that a chart rather than a map would be simpler to follow and to maintain from an administrative viewpoint;

§                 

how the City of Vancouver addresses entertainment noise; 

§                 

how sounds of barking and howling dogs are dealt with.  It was noted that complainants are requested to keep a log regarding the disturbances, and that information on how to manage a barking dog is provided to dog owners;

§                 

Section 4.1.1 (e) of the proposed Noise Regulation Bylaw as it pertains to works and activities of the School Board.  It was noted that exemptions for School Board activities would only be permissible if the activities are taking place on school property.  The suggestion was made this should be clarified in more detail in the proposed bylaw; and

§                 

the concept of forming a task force of residents from both the Caithcart and Andrews Road areas. 

Prior to inviting public delegations to speak to the matter, the Chair provided the following summary highlighting key points raised by members of Committee during the discussion:

§                 

the addition of a right of appeal to allow a grieved party to appeal to Council regarding an exemption that has been granted under the Noise Regulation Bylaw;

§                 

the feasibility of changing the hours that prohibit amplified noise from 2:00 a.m. to an earlier time;

§                 

changing the map attached to the proposed Noise Regulation Bylaw as Schedule “A” – Noise Zone Map, to a chart;

§                 

adding dBC measurements in the activity zone in the ‘Summary of Permitted Sound Levels by Zone’ attached as Schedule B to the proposed Noise Regulation Bylaw and throughout the bylaw and City of Richmond;

§                 

clarifying the School Board exemptions listed under Section 4.1.1 of the proposed Noise Regulation Bylaw; and

§                 

having consultation take place with residents in the Caithcart and Andrews Road areas. 

Discussion also took place about the point of reception and the rationale for measuring noise from the point of where the recipient/complainant of the noise is rather than the point at which the noise is being generated. 

Lisa Robinson, Andrews Road Resident, shared her views on the proposed Noise Regulation Bylaw and expressed the following concerns:

§                 

the ‘daytime’ hours had been extended from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. in Section 1.1.2;

§                 

the point of reception as referenced in the proposed bylaw was vague and open to an inspector’s interpretation and needs to be clearly defined.;

§                 

the dBA levels in the Noise Bylaw for the City of Victoria have been copied without taking into consideration that Victoria has a different point of reception definition than Richmond.  It was also noted that the City of Victoria does not have any Activity Zones adjacent to Quiet Zones as Richmond does;

§                 

dBA limits have increased for night time allowable levels for an Activity Zone from 45 dBA to 55 dBA;

§                 

the definition for ‘continuous sound’ has been removed in the proposed bylaw; and

§                 

there isn’t any differentiation between industrial and light industrial Activity Zones and both are permitted the same levels of noise.

Johnathon Fung, Caithcart Resident, expressed concerns about being provided with adequate information throughout the consultation process to ensure that the finalized bylaw would address the concerns of affected residents.

Mr. Fung then read from a letter written by Cindy Olsen, Caithcart Road Resident regarding the noise level generated by the Shark Club.  Ms. Olsen’s letter forms part of the series of letters attached to these minutes as Schedule 1.

Mr. Davies, a Caithcart Road Resident, expressed concerns about the proposed Noise Regulation Bylaw and the acceptable noise levels when an Intermediate Zone is adjacent to a Quiet Zone.  He spoke about the noise level that is generated by the Shark Club and the associated impact on the adjacent neighbourhood residents.  He noted that the Shark Club is not designed to absorb sound and queried why revisions have not been made to the City’s building regulations to address such issues.  He also made comments about the public consultation process and requested that affected residents be given an opportunity to provide direct input regarding the Noise Regulation Bylaw.  A detailed submission of Mr. Davies presentation is attached as Schedule 2 and forms part of these minutes.

A discussion then took place about:

§                 

the feasibility of having a bylaw that varies hours of business according to zones which would result in businesses that generate noise and are located adjacent to a Quiet Zone having to close earlier;

§                 

the City not being required to identify in the proposed Noise Regulation Bylaw which organization would be enforcing the City’s Noise Regulation Bylaw in the future;

§                 

the feasibility of having the Shark Club construct a barrier such as a wall to absorb the noise; and

§                 

addressing adjacency issues for example, when a Quiet Zone is adjacent to an Intermediate zone versus a Quiet Zone adjacent to an Active Zone.

It was moved and seconded

That the proposed Noise Regulation Bylaw public participation program described in the staff report entitled “Noise and Sound Regulation”, dated February 2, 2011, from the General Manager, Law & Community Safety, be referred back to staff to address and provide further information on:

(1)

the possibility of adding a right of appeal to allow a grieved party to appeal to Council regarding an exemption that has been granted under the Noise Regulation Bylaw;

(2)

the rationale for establishing a 2:00 a.m. prohibition for amplified music and options for an earlier time limit;

(3)

changing the map attached to the proposed Noise Regulation Bylaw as Schedule “A” - Noise Zone Map, to a chart;

(4)

including dBC measurements for Activity Zones;

(5)

the exemptions for the School Board and the City listed under Section 4.1.1 of the proposed Noise Regulation Bylaw be clarified;

(6)

consultation with residents in the Caithcart and Andrews Road areas;

(7)

the definitions of “point of reception” when measuring sound; 

(8)

the rationale as to why the daytime hours were extended from the current bylaw;

(9)

the rationale for the sound levels of continuous sounds and generally for dBA and dBC; and

(10)

a review of the zones as specified and their interaction.

Prior to the question on the motion being called, the Chair clarified that staff would be reporting back to Committee on the referral prior to undertaking the public participation process, which would include consultation with the residents in both the Caithcart and Andrews Road areas.

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

4.

MANAGER’S REPORT

None.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (7:03 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, February 7, 2011.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie

Chair

Shanan Dhaliwal

Executive Assistant

City Clerk’s Office