City Council - June 24, 2024 - Minutes - City of Richmond, BC

R 24 /12-10 It was moved and seconded ( 1 ) That Contract 8225Q – Bike Reuse Pilot Program as detailed in the staff report titled “Award of Contract 8225Q – Bike Reuse Pilot Program” dated May 14, 2024 from the Director, Public Works Operations be awarded for an initial one-year term effective August 1, 2024 to Pedal Foundation for an estimated total value of $82,269; and (2) That one-time funding of $91,000 from the General Solid Waste and Recycling Provision for the Bike Reuse Pilot expenditures be approved and that the Consolidated 5 Year Financial Plan (2024-2028) be amended accordingly. The question on the main motion was not called as discussion ensued regarding a forthcoming staff memorandum providing information regarding other bike reuse programs. Staff noted that the City of Vancouver and Metro Vancouver have received inconsistent levels of service from volunteer-run organizations, resulting in operational challenges. In response to a query from Council, staff advised that the Richmond School District has expressed interest in collaborating with the City on bike reuse programs, however these programs would not be able to handle the volume of bikes received by the Recycling Depot. Discussion ensued regarding (i) the prohibition of scavenging, (ii) the consideration of other options such as thrift stores and bike stores in Richmond, and (iii) the high volume of bikes received by the Recycling Depot. As a result of the discussion, the following referral motion was introduced: R 24 /12-11 It was moved and seconded That the Award of Contract 8225Q – Bike Reuse Pilot Program be referred back to staff for further review. The question on the referral motion was not called as discussion ensued regarding (i) similar bike reuse programs in place in the City of Vancouver and Metro Vancouver and (ii) assessing the pilot program after one year. The question on the referral motion was then called and it was DEFEATED with Mayor Brodie and Cllrs. Heed, Hobbs, Loo, and Wolfe opposed. The question on the main motion was not called as there was agreement to deal with Parts (1) and (2) separately. The question on Part (1) of Resolution R24/12-10 was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. Day and McNulty opposed. The question on Part (2) of Resolution R24/12-10 was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. Day and McNulty opposed.

非商业公共资料研究与事实报道；仅展示核对事实所需的已评估摘录及本站中文说明。版权归原作者或发布机构；不表示来源机构认可本站。原文、来源及使用条款见链接。 来源使用条款 ↗