February 18, 2020 - Minutes
|
General Purposes Committee
|
Date: |
Tuesday, February 18, 2020 |
|
Place: |
Anderson Room |
|
Present: |
Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie, Chair |
|
Call to Order: |
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. |
|
|
|
COUNCILLOR MICHAEL WOLFE |
|
|
|
Councillor Michael Wolfe distributed materials (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 1) and introduced the following Notice of Motion to appear for consideration on the agenda for the Monday, March 2, 2020, General Purposes Committee meeting: |
|
|
|
That Council endorse the following resolution and request that Mayor and Council send a copy of to the Prime Minister of Canada, Premier of BC, Solicitor General of BC, Richmond MPs, Richmond MLAs, and member of local governments of the UBCM: |
|
|
|
|
|
The City of Richmond calls on the Government of British Columbia and Canada to end any attempt at forced removal of non-violent Wet’suwet’en People from their traditional territories, suspend permits authorizing construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline and commence good-faith consultation with the Wet’suwet’en People. |
|
|
|
MINUTES |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on February 3, 2020, be adopted as circulated. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
DELEGATION |
|
|
1. |
Lisa MacNeil, Chair, Helen Quan, and Allen Chan, Richmond Sister City Advisory Committee, presented Committee with bookmarks from the inaugural Scenic Bookmarks series and highlighted that the bookmarks complemented the book club that took place in collaboration with the Richmond Public Library. |
|
|
|
ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION |
|
|
2. |
Phoenix Net loft options |
|
|
|
|
Staff reviewed the staff report and noted that (i) to preserve the heritage structure the building would be taken apart piece by piece, (ii) the $19.44M is for the shell of the building without heating and air conditioning, and (iii) options for cost reduction are provided in the report. |
|
|
|
|
Materials were distributed (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 2) and discussion took place on (i) increasing the size of the building with a lean-to, (ii) the potential for a museum in the proposed building, (iii) examples of other buildings that were reconstructed, (iv) function and lifespan of building, and (v) the consultation process. |
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee staff noted the following: |
|
|
|
|
§ |
demolition would consist of removing the entire building from the site; |
|
|
|
§ |
the cost for a brand new building would cost approximately the same as restoring the current one; |
|
|
|
§ |
to potentially reduce costs it would be advisable to consider programming and building construction simultaneously; |
|
|
|
§ |
it is anticipated that a minimum amount of the original structure will be salvaged; |
|
|
|
§ |
the addition of a lean-to was not included in the cost; however, it can be considered; |
|
|
|
§ |
a museum is a feasible option for this space; |
|
|
|
§ |
a reconstructed building and a brand new building would have similar lifespan and function; |
|
|
|
§ |
the $19.44M will provide a replica of the current building that is on the site; |
|
|
|
§ |
the Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (FLNRO) permit is a two year process and is based on the current footprint of the building; |
|
|
|
§ |
the Heritage Commission would be consulted at the appropriate time; |
|
|
|
§ |
the consultation process can be reviewed to include other locations; |
|
|
|
§ |
various uses for the space can be reviewed to accommodate a museum; |
|
|
|
§ |
money from the BC Packers is located in a trust account; |
|
|
|
§ |
grants are available for the programming portion of the project; however, staff would have to examine the eligibility for the construction portion; |
|
|
|
§ |
as the programming has not yet been determined a refined cost estimate would require additional work; |
|
|
|
§ |
if the project is delayed, costs could change; and |
|
|
|
§ |
refining the programming options will allow staff to determine the best use for the space. |
|
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to options to restore the building. It was then suggested that the budget be amended and increased. As a result of the discussion, the following motion was introduced: |
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That the Capital Program budget be amended from the previously approved $11.5M to $19.44M for the Phoenix Net Loft preservation project. |
|
|
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as discussion took place on delaying the project and in reply to queries from Committee staff advised that (i) timing is important as the building continues to deteriorate, (ii) it is difficult to find a contractor to take on such a difficult project, (iii) the FLNRO permit may expire and the process will have to start again, and (iv) the FLNRO permit is based on the restoration without the programming and would need to be revised once programing is determined. |
|
|
|
|
The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllr. Loo opposed. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion further took place on the consultation process, and as a result of the discussion the following referral motion was introduced: |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the consultation process be referred to staff for additional information on the various program options and the final proposal for the public consultation process, including information on the Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development permit application. |
|
|
|
The question on the referral motion was not called as discussion ensued regarding the Seine Net Loft and the First Nations Longhouse. |
|
|
|
The question on the referral motion was then called and it was CARRIED. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
That the difference of the $11.5M and the proposed $19.44M ($7.94M) to be used for the Phoenix Net Loft preservation project be withdrawn from the Capital Building and Infrastructure Reserve Fund; and |
|
|
|
(2) |
That the Consolidated 5 Year Financial Plan (2020-2024) be amended accordingly. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
|
DEPUTY CAO’S OFFICE |
|
|
3. |
Proposed sister city travel for 2020 |
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, staff noted that not much information is currently available on the design of the garden, and the Sister City can be consulted with regard to Richmond’s input on the design of the garden. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion took place on (i) reducing the amount of travel due to the climate emergency, (ii) Pierrefonds and the referendum, (iii) the Pierrefonds Garden by the Minoru Chapel, and (iv) the number of delegates to Sister Cities. |
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
That the proposed travel budget of $16,925 for 2020, as outlined in the staff report “Proposed Sister City Travel for 2020”, dated January 27, 2020, from the General Manager, Community Safety, be funded from the Council Contingency account; and |
|
|
|
(2) |
That the Sister City Advisory Committee report back to Council annually to bring forward a finalized travel itinerary and budget for any Sister City related travel between 2021 to 2023. |
|
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued regarding the reducing the number of participants to Sister Cities. As a result of the discussion, the following amendment motion was introduced: |
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That the number of participants as outlined in the staff report titled “Proposed Sister City Travel for 2020”, dated January 27, 2020, from the General Manager, Community Safety, be reduced to five, including, the Mayor or Acting Mayor, two Councillors, one City Staff member and one Sister City Advisory Committee member. |
|
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
|
Discussion further took place on the stated declaration of climate emergency and reducing the travel required. As a result of the discussion the following referral motion was introduced: |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the staff report titled “Proposed Sister City Travel for 2020”, dated January 27, 2020, from the General Manager, Community Safety, be referred back to staff to reconsider the travel component in view of the stated declaration of climate emergency. |
|
|
|
DEFEATED |
|
|
|
Discussion then took place on the Richmond Sister City Advisory Committee Policies and Procedures and examining the number of participants as delegates to Sister Cities. |
|
|
|
As a result of the discussion, the following referral motion was introduced: |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the Richmond Sister City Advisory Committee Policies and Procedures be referred back to staff to review the number of participants as delegates to Sister Cities. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
The question on the main motion, as amended, which reads as follows: |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
That the proposed travel budget of $16,925 be adjusted accordingly for five participants, including the Mayor or Acting Mayor, two Councillors, one City Staff member, and one Sister City Advisory Committee member, and the budget be funded from the Council Contingency account; and |
|
|
|
(2) |
That the Sister City Advisory Committee report back to Council annually to bring forward a finalized travel itinerary and budget for any Sister City related travel between 2021 to 2023. |
|
|
|
was then called and it was CARRIED. |
|
|
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (5:24 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, February 18, 2020. |
|
|
|
|
Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie |
Sarah Goddard |