July 2, 2024 - Minutes
|
General Purposes Committee
|
Date: |
Tuesday, July 2, 2024 |
|
Place: |
Anderson Room |
|
Present: |
Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie, Chair
|
|
Call to Order: |
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. |
|
|
|
MINUTES |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on June 17, 2024, be adopted as circulated. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
PRESENTATION |
|
|
1. |
Yannick Simovich, Board Chair, Tourism Richmond, and Nancy Small, CEO, Tourism Richmond, with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation (Copy on File, City Clerk’s Office) provided an update on the tourism industry in Richmond, and Tourism Richmond’s plans and initiatives. The following was highlighted: |
|
|
|
|
§ |
at the BC Tourism Awards, Tourism Richmond was recognized as the premier non-Profit, stakeholder-driven destination marketing organization (DMO) of the year in BC; |
|
|
|
§ |
in partnership with the City of Richmond and the Hotel Association, Tourism Richmond recently introduced two destination enhancement programs, a free shuttle from central Richmond to Steveston Village and a Bike Valet in Steveston; |
|
|
|
§ |
Tourism Richmond is working closely with its partners and the Regenerative Tourism Advisory Committee on a Regenerative Tourism initiative which is a concept of developing travel experiences that ensure employees, businesses, communities and eco systems can flourish; |
|
|
|
§ |
Tourism Richmond hosted in partnership with the Hotel Association, a successful Lunar New Year event in February for a group of American journalists; |
|
|
|
§ |
the Seattle Times recently did an article that featured Richmond as having the best dim sum in North America; and |
|
|
|
§ |
an Artificial Intelligence (AI) trip planning tool called ASK LULU has recently been launched by Tourism Richmond. |
|
|
|
In response to queries from the Committee, the delegation noted that: |
|
|
|
|
§ |
Tourism Richmond can access demographics on visitors to Richmond who have been in the city for 24 hours or more, through a measuring tool. This information helps determine where marketing will occur; |
|
|
|
§ |
tourists visit Richmond because of its cultural diversity, culinary scene, Steveston Village, shopping, accessibility, and convenience; |
|
|
|
§ |
mainly tourists are coming to Richmond from other parts of BC, and from Alberta, Ontario and the Pacific Northwest; and |
|
|
|
§ |
hotel occupancy rate during the first quarter of 2024 was 78-79 percent. |
|
|
|
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION |
|
|
2. |
DEVELOPMENT OF A RICHMOND TOURISM MASTER PLAN (File Ref. No. 08-4150-01) (REDMS No. 7706191) |
|
|
|
In response to queries from Committee, staff advised that (i) they are anticipating that the final report will be complete in the fourth quarter of 2025, a draft will come forward to Council prior to that, (ii) there will be a robust consultation and engagement period for the development of the plan through engagement of groups across the community, (iii) as part of the development of the tourism master plan, staff will look to bring in partners such as Destination BC, (iv) data from 2019 shows there were approximately eight million visitors spending approximately two billion direct dollars in Richmond. Tourism Richmond will be updating these figures in the next few months, (v) Tourism Richmond will be providing funding for the full cost of the master plan, and (vi) Tourism Richmond is funded through the Municipal and Regional District Tax (MRDT). Staff will provide information to Committee on the how much funding Tourism Richmond received in 2023. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the approach to developing a Richmond Tourism Master Plan, including the guiding principles, as outlined in the staff report titled, “Development of a Richmond Tourism Master Plan,” dated June 10, 2024, from the Director, Business Services, be endorsed. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
DEPUTY CAO’S OFFICE |
|
|
3. |
HUGH BOYD COMMUNITY FACILITY AND FIELDHOUSE – PROGRAM, SITE SELECTION, FORM AND CONCEPT DESIGN |
|
|
|
Staff advised that the one percent public art contribution is $130,000 rather than the $190,000 that is noted in the report. |
|
|
|
In response to queries from Committee, staff advised that (i) the new field house will be approximately 10,500 sq ft, plus an additional 1000 sq ft of outdoor viewing space, (ii) the cost of demolishing the current field house is approximately $120,000, and the cost to renovate and maintain it is approximately $350,000, (iii) staff conducted a building assessment and recommended demolition of the current building, as it was found that it is in poor condition, (iv) the Building Committee supported a permanent wall to maximize the use of the space and allow for flexibility and cohabitation with two programs occurring at the same time, (v) at a later date, staff will bring forward for Council consideration an operating model and OBI report, (vi) staff anticipate that the operation of the facility will include the City’s current model of partnering with an association or user group, (vii) several facility location options were accessed for suitability, the two options being presented to Council are supported by the Building Committee and meet the program intent, (viii) the facility will target the passive house standard which is the most robust energy approach, and (ix) the facility will have a servery as a food prep space to support the community programming and events taking place in the multipurpose spaces. |
|
|
|
|
Committee requested a floor plan of the Hugh Boyd Community Centre. |
|
|
|
|
There was agreement to deal with Parts (1) (2) (3) and (4) separately. |
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
(1A) |
That the program, Site A location, two-storey form and concept design as described in the staff report titled, “Hugh Boyd Community Facility and Fieldhouse – Program, Site Selection, Form and Concept Design,” dated June 3, 2024, from the Director, Facilities and Project Development and the Director, Recreation and Sport Services, be approved; and |
|
|
|
(1B) |
That staff be directed to consider the costs and utility for a movable wall for the proposed second floor multi-use space and replacing the servery with a kitchen. |
|
|
|
CARRIED Opposed: Cllr. Wolfe |
|
|
|
|
As a result of the discussion the following referral motion was introduced: |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the proposed demolition of the existing small field house, as outlined in the report titled, “Hugh Boyd Community Facility and Fieldhouse – Program, Site Selection, Form and Concept Design,” dated June 3, 2024, from the Director, Facilities and Project Development and the Director, Recreation and Sport Services, be referred back to staff to examine the use and cost-effectiveness of keeping the existing small field house. |
|
|
|
The question on the referral motion was not called as discussion ensued with respect to demolition, retention and renovation costs associated with the current field house. |
|
|
|
The question on the referral motion was then called and it was CARRIED. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the capital budget in the amount of $19 million be approved and funded from the Growing Communities Reserve Fund ($17,712,669) and Capital Building and Infrastructure Reserve ($1,287,331) as outlined in the report titled, “Hugh Boyd Community Facility and Fieldhouse – Program, Site Selection, Form and Concept Design,” dated June 3, 2024, from the Director, Facilities and Project Development and the Director, Recreation and Sport Services; and |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the Consolidated 5 year Financial Plan (2024-2028) be amended accordingly. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
4. |
CAPITAL PROJECTS DELIVERY PERFORMANCE |
|
|
|
Staff advised that (i) a 100 percent of the approved projects that have been fully completed over the last 10 years have been on or under budget, (ii) there is extensive oversight on all projects by Quantity Surveyors, Architects, Engineers, Construction Management teams, and internal Project Management teams, (iii) Steveston Community Centre and Branch Library is at the final construction stage, on budget, and on schedule. There are 16 independent professional consulting firms involved in this project (12 core design and delivery teams and four professional consulting firms in a 100 percent oversight role), and (iv) for any significant new construction or new renovation, the City uses Multivista, a service that sets up cameras to take photos every 15 minutes of the entire construction site and creates a permanent photographic record of the entire construction process. |
|
|
|
In response to queries from Committee, staff advised that (i) capital projects brought forward to Council for funding approval have a defined program and scope, and projected costs, which include estimated future construction costs, escalation costs and added factors of safety, (ii) cost estimates provided before final approval of the budget are estimates that reflect potentially different scopes of work, (iii) cost estimates provided years before approval of the capital project can have a 20-30 percent cost escalation, and (iv) in 2016 when Phase 1 was submitted, the estimated cost of Steveston Community Centre and Branch Library was $40-50 million, changes to programming, site location, and an increase in the size of the building as well as escalation costs have increased the cost to 95 million. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the report titled “Capital Projects Delivery Performance” from the Deputy CAO, dated June 27, 2024, be received for information. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
COUNCILLOR KASH HEED |
|
|
5. |
BLUE-RIBBON OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE |
|
|
|
Councillor Heed provided an overview of his motion highlighting that (i) the objective of a Blue Ribbon Oversight Committee is to help ensure that tax payer funds are being utilized in the most accountable and transparent way, (ii) the composition of the committee would consist of professionals that are involved in the industry at the highest level and that build significant infrastructure projects in BC, and (iii) this Committee would provide oversight on infrastructure projects exceeding $50 million. |
|
|
|
Discussion ensued with respect to (i) accountability, budget adherence, and accuracy, (ii) the Blue Ribbon Committee being a useful tool in certain circumstances but not a panacea, (iii) referring the motion to staff to gain more information regarding quality, and cost effectiveness, (iii) future major capital projects cost control, (iv) the Committee not replacing current practices but enhancing what is already in place, and (v) as part of the referral, staff review what the threshold consideration for a major project was under the previous Major Projects Advisory Committee. |
|
|
|
As a result of the discussion the following referral motion was introduced: |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the proposed motion regarding the establishment of a Blue-Ribbon Oversight Committee be referred to staff to examine various options for the effective management and execution for publicly funded infrastructure projects exceeding 50 million dollars and report back. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (6:27 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, July 2, 2024. |
|
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
|
Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie |
Raman Grewal |