MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Community Safety Committee held on Tuesday, June 11^th, 2002 and on Wednesday, June 12^th, 2002, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

2.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Wednesday, August 28^th, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room.

It was moved and seconded

That staff bring forward to the next meeting of the Committee, those bylaws which deal with dogs, to allow the Committee to address matters relating to (i) barking dogs; (ii) when the appropriate time would be to bring dogs in for the evening; and (iii) the fines imposed when dogs were impounded by the SPCA.

CARRIED

COMMUNITY SAFETY DIVISION

3.

APPOINTMENT OF BYLAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
(Report:  June 13/02, File No.:  0172-03) (REDMS No. 731236)

It was moved and seconded

That Sophia Malawiya, Sheila Miles and Amen Sharma be appointed as Bylaw Enforcement Officers in accordance with Section 36 of the Police Act, and that such appointment be for the term of their employment as Bylaw Enforcement Officers with the City.

CARRIED

4.

APPOINTMENT TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS FOR SOUTHWEST BRITISH COLUMBIA (E-COMM)
(Report:  June 28/02, File No.:  5125-1`7-01; 5125-17-02; 5130-01) (REDMS No. 777002)

It was moved and seconded

That a member of Council be appointed as the City of Richmond's designated representative for the Board of Directors of Emergency Communications for Southwest British Columbia (E-Comm).

The question on the motion was not called, as discussion ensued on who should be appointed as the City's representative. 

As a result of the discussion, the motion was WITHDRAWN.

It was moved and seconded

That Mr. Chuck Gale be appointed as the City of Richmond's designated representative for the Board of Directors of Emergency Communications for Southwest British Columbia (E-Comm).

CARRIED

5.

COMMUNITY SAFETY BUILDING PROGRAM COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSES
(Report:  June 28/02, File No.:  2275-20-267; 2050-20-F1; 2050-20-F3; 2050-20-F3) (REDMS No. 777187)

Fire Chief Jim Hancock reviewed the staff report with the Committee.  In response to questions about the feasibility of including sufficient space to accommodate a community police station as well as community centre space and public washrooms, the following information was provided:

the purchase of the land would allow the construction of the new fire hall in a manner which would be conducive to the use of the park

the budget for the construction of the building did not include public washrooms but it could be possible to accommodate such washrooms in the future

the design of the new fire hall included a modest space allowance with a view to accommodating a community police station.

With reference to the inclusion of a community police station in the new Hamilton Fire Hall, further advice was given that every effort would be made to include such a facility in the first design plans for the fire hall.  Mr. Gale advised that the Committee would be provided with information on the implications on the cost of including a community police station and public washrooms in the new hall.  He suggested that because of the type of soil in Hamilton which resulted in higher construction costs, it might be more cost effective to include the requested amenities now rather than in the future. 

(Cllrs. Steves and Greenhill entered the meeting at 4:10 p.m.)

Discussion continued briefly, during which the comment was made that the City should endeavour to meet the desires of the community, if necessary, through the re-allocation of funds from other budgets, as this could prove to be less costly than waiting until sometime in the future.

(Mayor Brodie entered the meeting at 4:12 p.m.)

It was moved and seconded

( 1 )

That the public input from the Community Open Houses held at Hamilton and Bridgeport Fire Halls, and the Main Fire Hall be received for information, and

( 2 )

That staff proceed with the replacement of Hamilton Fire Hall on the one-acre site located at 22451 Westminster Highway.

CARRIED

6.

INTERNAL FINANCING OPTIONS COMMUNITY SAFETY BUILDINGS
(Report:  June 27/02, File No.:  5175-01) (REDMS No. 774897)

The General Manager, Community Safety, accompanied by the General Manager, Finance & Corporate Services, Jim Bruce, and the Manager, Budgets & Accounting, reviewed the report and proposed recommendation with the Committee.  Mr. Gale advised during his review that the proposed $41 Million estimate was based on 2000 dollars.

In response to questions, the following information was provided:

staff were not recommending that funding be obtained from the Municipal Finance Authority because of the $35 Million in interest which would have been paid by the time the money was repaid to the MFA

annual tax increases, as proposed, would provide the City with funds for other projects in the future

revenue which the City might receive as a result of the expansion of gaming had not been factored into the proposed scenarios.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on the various funding options put forward by staff, during which the proposed annual tax increases were reviewed, as well as the anticipated increased based on the current Five Year Capital Plan, and the combined impact to Richmond taxpayers of such increases. 

Reference was made to the City-owned property on River Road and discussion ensued on (i) possible opportunities for development of that land, (ii) the length of time required to develop and sell the property and the impact which this timing could have on continuing with the project, (iii) the amount of revenue which could be expected if the property was sold as is or developed prior to being sold, and (iv) the approach being taken by staff in recommending a tax increase rather than developing the land as the City did with its Odlinwood property to finance the construction of the new City Hall facility. 

Discussion continued on the proposed financing options, during which the comment was made that adoption of the recommendation would not preclude the City from developing their lands as a funding source for the project.  A further comment was made that the proposed tax increase could be considered to be a last resort and implemented only if necessary. 

Advice was given that adoption of the recommendation would allow staff to proceed with the development of construction plans for the Hamilton and Bridgeport fire halls and the new headquarters building, and that in the event a decision was made to proceed with the sale of City-owned property, the revenue realized from that sale or sales could be used to offset the property tax increase.  

Discussion ensued on the need for a more detailed financial plan, during which the suggestion was made that the City should be considering the development of the 29 acre River Road property.  Discussion then took place on the comments of the consultant about the net revenue which the City could expect to realize from the sale of this property. 

Also discussed were such issues as (i) possible uses for the River Road site and whether high density housing would be possible rather than a business park use, (ii) the length of time which would pass before the City could expect to recover its costs from the development of the property and to generate revenue for the construction of the Community Safety buildings and the impact which this could have on the timing of construction of the buildings; (iii) whether the City had sufficient resources available to begin construction of the fire halls by using the reserve funds while waiting for development of the City's properties; (iv) supporting the proposed property tax increase when other creative ways had not been examined which could be used to finance the project; and (v) whether there were any plans being prepared for the redevelopment of the existing RCMP building. 

Also discussed were possible combinations of development of City-owned property, i.e. leasing portions of properties, etc., as a means of generating additional revenue, and whether the consultant on the River Road property had offered comments on these other properties.  Other issues which were discussed were (i) the feasibility of using the proposed tax increase as a last resort after all other potential revenue generators, including the development and/or sale of City-owned property had been pursued; (ii) the need to make a decision on a funding source; and (iii) the timing of a further report to Committee on a business plan for the development and/or sale of City-owned properties as a revenue source for the Community Safety buildings. 

It was moved and seconded

( 1 )

That Community Safety Committee approve Scenario 2e for the internal financing of the Community Safety Buildings, and

( 2 )

That a referendum on financing options not be undertaken as part of the Communications  strategy for the Community Safety Buildings.

The question on the motion was not called, as Committee members commented on whether they could support the proposed property tax increase.  Comments were expressed during the discussion about the need to examine the possible development and/or sale of City-owned properties which could result in the generation of revenue for the project, thereby reducing the need for a property tax increase, and the suggestion was made that the recommendation should be amended to reflect that desire.  However, some Committee members were also in favour of referring the matter to staff for the preparation of an overall business strategy for the development and/or sale of City-owned property.

As a result of the discussion, the motion was WITHDRAWN.

It was moved and seconded

That approval be given for the financing of the Community Safety buildings on the following basis:

(a)

that the first source of revenue be through the sale and/or development of City-owned property; or

(b)

other funding sources; and

that property taxes only be used to make up any deficiencies in revenue from (a) and (b) above.

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

It was moved and seconded

That the report (dated June 27^th, 2002, from the General Manager, Community Safety), regarding Community Safety Buildings Internal Finance Options, be referred to staff to re-work the figures provided to the Committee to take into consideration the creative use of land development.

The question on the motion was not called, as discussion ensued on the proposed property tax increase scenario, and the impact which the length of time needed to realize the revenue from the development of City-owned property could have on the timing of the construction of the Community Safety buildings.  The timing of the subsequent report to Committee was also discussed, with concern being expressed about the impact which such a delay could have on the project, especially when the amendment to the previous motion ensured that any property tax increase would be a last resort.

The question on the motion was then called, and it was DEFEATED with Cllrs. Barnes, S. Halsey-Brandt, Howard, McNulty and Steves opposed.

The question on the main motion was not called, as discussion continued on the proposed financing for the project and available cash flow.  Also discussed was whether (i) the revenue generated from the development of City-owned property would be available in Years 4, 5 and 6 of the financing term to offset the proposed property tax increase for those years, and (ii) Council would have the power to make a final decision on any proposed property tax increase.

The question on the motion was then called, and it was CARRIED with Mayor Brodie opposed.

(Cllr. Sue Halsey-Brandt left the meeting at 6:10 p.m., and did not return.)

7.

COMMUNITY SAFETY VILLAGE
(Report:  June 26/02, File No.:   5175-01) (REDMS No. 726266)

Fire Chief Jim Hancock, accompanied by the Chair of the Community Safety Team, Gail Tremeer, advised in response to questions, that future costs of the miniature village, complete with classrooms, could be substantial, however staff were exploring partnerships and contributions from the community; there could also be future staffing implications from Fire-Rescue, the RCMP or the Parks and Recreation Department.

(Mayor Brodie left the meeting at 6:13 p.m. and did not return.)

Discussion ensued on the proposal, during which support was offered for the concept, especially as a public/private partnership, and the suggestion was made that Tourism Richmond and the Richmond Chamber of Commerce be involved.  However, concern was expressed about the possible duplication of other programs and the potential cost to Richmond taxpayers.  In response to questions, advice was given that staff hoped to report to the Committee in 2003 on the proposal.

(Cllr. Evelina Halsey-Brandt left the meeting at 6:25 p.m. and did not return.)

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

It was moved and seconded

( 1 )

That the concept of a Community Safety Village be approved in principle, on the understanding that there be no future cost to the taxpayer; and

( 2 )

That staff report on the costs and feasibility of implementing this project.

CARRIED

The Committee meeting recessed (6:27 p.m.) and reconvened at 6:45 p.m., with the Chair (Cllr. Barnes) and Cllrs. McNulty, Howard and Steves present.  Also present was Cllr. Greenhill.

8.

SERVICE LEVEL REVIEW FIRE-RESCUE
(Report:  June 17/02, File No.:  0340-20-CSAF3) (REDMS No. 733553) (Postponed from the cancelled June 27^th, 2002 meeting.)

Deputy Fire Chiefs Dave Scorgie and Reg Smith, accompanied by Fire Chief Jim Hancock, provided a review of the services provided by the Fire-Rescue Department.  A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is attached as Schedule A and forms part of these minutes.  As a result of the discussion which ensued, staff were asked to review the following matters:

educational opportunities in conjunction with the School District

Adopt-a-School initiative

the use of a trailer at schools to educate students about the dangers of fire (provide a connection to the Home Safe Program)

the establishment of a maintenance training program (connect to the previous Fire-Rescue report regarding the Provincial insurance program issue).

The General Manager, Community Safety, Chuck Gale, responded to questions from the Committee on the status of the proposal between the City and YVR to establish a facility on Sea Island to provide live fire training to Richmond firefighters, the Sea Island Fire Hall project and ARFF agreement.  As a result of the discussion, the following motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the General Manager, Community Safety, Mr. Chuck Gale, be directed to report to the Committee with an outline of the status of negotiations with YVR on the provision of live fire training at a facility on Sea Island and the status of the YVR negotiations for a new ARFF agreement.

CARRIED

It was moved and seconded

That the report (dated June 17^th, 2002 from Fire Chief Jim Hancock), regarding Service Level Reviews for Fire-Rescue, be received for information.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (7:48 p.m.).

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Community Safety Committee of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Tuesday, July 9^th, 2002.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Linda Barnes
Chair

Fran J. Ashton
Executive Assistant