":~ Sh~ ~

555,"=:=:=
555m"

~5~55miilmlilahlme@h'~
'
'I

IW sat

'~g~
!5!1!!m

Nl

!!II==.'.'m''-,":-~mr s9!»=WLm!I '!NI!s5!==Mll

fiSllhre
5l w 9 m I 9 4
!9

9

~

Ul 1! 5j I I ):
I

/)/IIIIII Ill

jjp&

CORPORATION OF
PARKS

&

HE

CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM

RECREATION COMMITTEF.

me ting of the Parks & Pecreation Cornmittcc was held in the
Corsmittee Room at City Hall on January 10th, 1989 at 3945 p.m.

A

In attendance were Alderman John Kervluk

,illa')...

nd

Alderman George Laking.

Also 'n attendance was K. Janna Taylor, Parks & Recreation Di.rector.
1989 Fees
Charges
Item No. 1
The committee reviewed the attached report from the
T h e r e Ira s g e n e r a 1 d I s u s s i o n
Rec re at i on Manag e r .
around the necessity of maintaining or lorrering the
subsidy on the facilities. The Parlcs & Recreation
Director indicated that in order to maintain the
goal of existing subsidies anrl hopefully lowering
them by IX; that it would be necessary to adopt the
proposed increases as outll.ned in Schedule "A".
&

rc

Recommendation:

4 itilll'':;,

f

m %1% 4 4
~

That the committee approve the proposed increases in
Schedule "A" and that this be broc!ght to Council for

adoption.

(%444ll. '.yyy+++F~

iI(!55! 5 III I!'!''iq+ggggj~y
I ~ !I!» Ie1 D

Item No.

4'cr

Carried

Kilmer House

2

The attached report was reviewed by the Parks
Recreation Committee. Discussion by commmittee
members was around the issue of whether. the Kilmer
House was suitable for a community recreation
facility or woulc', it be more appropriate to sell the
&

lltlI
l 5',I I I'I 5ilcl "1

house.

Recommendations:
That tha City of Port Coquitlam sell the
Kilmer House with a heritage house designation.
That the City of. Port Couqitlam explore the
feasibility of building a fine arts centre.

Carried

ADJOURNMENT9

Jl! ti 8 iIll;,
'
I illi

'II
II
I

I

'lg

I

I

7

p~".11— r..~z-,

1

~ lr

!Nsr

!
I

IILW

I

+

Pl/rw..J

".

I

I

I!

I

'JAN!0 1999(!Q

55,

I)(~l(-)il
II'I,I.I

i

lllkl

i

llIIW,

~

,18'8l

I!511 II5 I,'9

sm w 'mll

Nii ll
l,5.
'4!,'i

]

I

e

'lm9mmww'msm!mmmmws~

!

i &!I

I9sr

iL

9I,,

I,,

Ili... e%V
e.m,

4
!

9919!

II I

Sg

mrLim554

'-'-

Imr s mls
119411m!
I

-

m

'

!I I!I! 5'

rm.! I IIIII59!.Pm94illllll1114! 5 9s
9411E' =.—
le s
Kllj!

4 5!

I

lg„
r" 5519 Im»earn
Ill Iliirm
~mlULI Q,gg ~~=a
. =9 ~r-M444S4aaaa a94J5heS
I

1~

N~~

THE CORPORATIOH OF THE CITY OF PORT COQOITLAM

! 939

c!
CO!'.!!I TSS OP COU!;CIL

".r.. l:irh, City Administraror

'"O I

Janna
SUDJ:"CTI

1939 Peas

aylor, Pari s 3 Recreation Director
6

Char«»es

Recommendationr
That the proposed rates in Schedule "A" be adopted for
1939.
Dac!Iground «Cour;eats I

If the Council adopts the proposed rates, as outlined in Schedule
the subsidy rate" in our facilities will be reduced sli
htly.
As Council is !rare, the Parhs I! Recreatioh
has been
attemptin- to reduce the subsidy rates on allDeoartment
our facilities. This
reduction is being accomplished in several ways;
a yearly 'crease
in admission and rental rates,
a more efficient
r:.aintenance program, concession operating
revenues
,

and program

revenues.

.,eterminin

rata" and armis sions
al -rays a difficult job due to
the fact that we need to co opere is
Irith
other municipalities and
sometir4es these comparisons beccme dif ficult
because:rc are not
access rily comparing apple s to apples Another
difficulty is that
of determin! ng accurately Ir hat revenue s;re will generate;
again
there are oo many variables number of people attending, Ireather,
and ;rhat is our competition froc ot!rer communities.
At tached to this report are trro
I ror! the Recreation !!an" et
Irhich supply further information reports
as
to
what
communitius are
char-'n- as Irell as an c-planation as to th other
justification
or
incr.ase

.
I

Janna Taylor,~
Parlia O Recreation Director

JAN10 198k'

4

I

C

a

C

s

t'I
~

f&&&'

— -

--

—

—

8

&lellril I'll z z,'„",==-..„.'...li l-';"-,",','ji') /( gf/ g
'

/III Ilies Igg[/(g~gi~~~,,

"',gg IIIIUILIE IIII&

i

~

'g J,'g,,l'[hl %li

+'ll'g j ) g,"::
4&&J +[a„';,i

'j[ggggg jjl

.=„'iiigj~&elllll
&IIIIIII) $

i

'

i&l

l„.

",—,

Laiiliil~m i''

H'

J

I

'p

/

i&i

Wl lml IRS
lSI IIHi I
I

I

Oh5%
%Wee

»Pg Ili
I

~
I

mi

i

li':I''IT

s» ie r
a

II

II

i

71 ~,m ~~ma aa

'eli'-".=':-aii" isis i a~llLjJ(
j

"

iiiii

»al

I

I

l851111 fa

iil~iimll ~aggiaal i)

Id ILI&~ll
"

.wa

aaRRli'& il'C" ".

&'»''"""
~

~

fiji "'-""i "='

i

i

N

'

*

" " '

'

gl1%WRIIKesillI

)i 'IRIIF(

I

II

.\'.CP

I

.A,A

~ +~ ~ll ~A IRCii~llllPi g
I

i@Ill

'~' '""'' iijii ij'live Ihhllh
"="'=."=:.'==." ="I/lliii"
i':.'l.::=:;.'=:=!SllmSSiiiii'

=
l0-",", ="--''.,':,+ii
lllla II J'ipyii j,",,

ii

THE CORPORIITION OF THE CITY OF PORT COOUITLAM

1983 01 10

Taylor, Parks 6 Recreation Director

EPIORA.'IDUH TO:

R. Janna

IgtIORA:IDUII PROII:

Larry J. I.'heeler, Pecreation IIana er

FP.:

1989 Proposed Admission Rates

6

Rental Charges

P.ecommendation:

It is recommended that this report be accepted as information to be

considered during discussions related to the 1989 Proposed Admission
Rates 6 Rental Charges .
*

s «*

* .. s * * s *

s

*

s

Purpose/Problem:
The purpose of this report is to provide information or
consideration by the Parks Recreation Committee during discussions
zelated to the 1909 Proposed Admission Pates
and Rental Charges.
History/Dackground
The Parks 6 F.ecreation Committee asked the departnent to analyze the
implications of a 5/ uz 10K increase in admission rates.
request came as a result of a statcnent made in the fees andhischarges
proposal "that f cs and charges increases have -cnerally been kept
below". Thzs statement referenced the entire f ees and
to 10
charges document in general terms.
more specific terms relative to pool admission
although
the proposed increase varies foz each target group rates;
(sons being we11
over 10X), the overall proposed increase at Hyde Creek is
approzinately 6.55 and at the outdoor pools 5E.
&

Im III'III
~

I

"

';-

",:I.'n

f%t

lm'lI)li,J ''.

'r

l%!Ilk 9
Illlll f !
iii iiimiJU

!%IIII

JINN

IO

IRRq

illa'&N~I

'wl

,j&

[la

I I III

I

ill 'I

I4FIIIs

XIII

~i.~~

ii
s

4~

II

Although the fees and charges documert and
the bud et are not
u aneously, any increase or
decrease
in tl.e admission
rates does effect the subsidy rate. Over the
last
or
y ra es
pool have been
iu 1935 to an estimatedthe56%indoor
(from 61%
in 1988) . The 1909 declining
bud et ro os
z
.facilit -teo the department 's
objective of ppeventually reachingThis
a
subsidy
level under 50Xsi
what many indoor p ool
o
faacilities in other communities
have

ery:.

attained.

trend is similar
the outdoor pools, with
subsidy rates
declinin from 02.. Un for
1985 to an estimated 76X in the
1988. however,
outdoor pool returns are directly r e 1 a t e-"
to t h e reather therefore
t e 1989 budget proposes a subsidy oof 78X.
the
..
- is maintains rhe
deepartruent
's
artrue
objective of zadually reducing Th
the subsidy rate cnd
therefore our reliance on
rhe taz base.
In summary, each budget is built with th
o b'jective of improving
performance over the previous
year.
The

Alternatives:
This is an information report anrl therefore
contains
alternatives. It iss anticipated
a
that the information no

facilitate further discussion.

provided will

Discussion/Justification
Indoor Pool Admission

subsidy rate in 1988 is estimated at 5UX.
u ger. allows for a subsidy
of 55%, an inprovement of 1%
T re proposed increase in
admission rates varies iran 9X to 2CX
depending on the target "roup.
This wa s done to maintain some
evel of similarity in fee structures
ui th other pools in the
azea. Horr vor, Irhen revidrred as a rrhole
the proposed i~crease
averages 6.5%.
The

~

e I93o 'rage increase for uni.on
ac lztr
cre staff int naive. staff equals 5+X.

Aquatic

In broad
this means tLat the proposed admission fee
increases Izeeps ti'.e bud-ct
1,. ahead of
subsi.'erms,
inflation Thiss 1X equals approzi...ately
tl.e reduction heing proposed
for the
~

il,lll

f

il

IQllf

,IINllll
I
~ I l% I I UU I

fltS!fll fi
SSll I I Ill

Ill l!'I!

IIII

!

I

l

'I

JASON

(f

to 1989

I

I

~]

1~11fJIL'

'!

"4l
Ii I!i!ga

ili ill lllf

i

R I ~ ISIS SZ
me mUUU ~
I

U

~CWH~~
-""fa
'ifiifiiae
g/

UUI UIUU

!
U

Rll f1&a

ij,

m;';=-'"

N~f~

=5& e=:= !UUA LlWINRI

'

"i 'wai=:='UUU fmmrsii aim~i ''")fS == ==ill—.;" =.:..jll

fEL'Ifff Ilk

reduction of 1% in the proposed admission
charges rrould allo'i
to reduce the prop used ailulc. ratr bv
'ppro.-.imately
0.05 (to
$ 2,80) a.d the teen r atc 'oy
4.05 (to 81.45). This would
our proposed revenue adicissions
reduce
by approximately 9450.00 and
'rould itcrease our
by approxinately 1% .
In summary,
ever;r 1% reduction in bsidy
L
t..e
proposed
admi sion fees qual.", approximately average inr ruase in
a 1Z increase in the
subsidy rate and vice versa,
It is also important to note that the comparative
information
from other comnunitiies, supplied
fees and charges
report, summarizes admission rates inforthe1988
Theref'ore, it. can be anticipated that some or 1988/1989.
of these rates may
be
oing up in January or September/09.
putt ocr ?ool gdnissions
The subsidy rate in 1988 i s estimated
at 76% Th e proposed
1989 bu
bud get allows for a su!rsidy of 78%.
This proposed rate is
an improvement of 1% over 1987.
A

us

~

Note:
In 1988, we enjoyed an
operating season. Sr.. rainy
periods which allowed »sideal
to save on staff costs and
lots of
hot, sunny days which attracted customers.
Therefore, the budget is always prepared with
a

moderate summer

in ieinrl.

ie proposed increase in arl~ission
rates varie» frore 0% to 11Z
depending on the target group.
The range in fee structures
been proposed to stay in line with
surrounding conuuni ties. has
However, when zevierred as a whole the
propo- d i ncrease
propose
avera es 5%.
1

This proposed admission increase
our rates even:rith
inflation. !re aze also projectingbeeps
a
small
(+7%) additional
incr ase i.. admission revenues a . a
suit
of
innovat'va
pro ramming.
".

It is also inportant to note that the compara tive infc

treat
fron other communities. sup»lied in the
fees and charges ion
report, summarizes admission
=ates for 1938
F 11 83/Ni
39. m)
T rcrefore, it can bo
anticipaced
that cone of these rates
may be
oing up i January or Septer bcr,
1909.
i

JAN

1111 li'
11 11 11

I

989

I1
I
I

J.elll 1 III I)a
I

f11'iire ~

iii

&a&

1I

g1

)
g

—

W

~

'l~l: sI ~ggg gg $ 1( I'1 &11&I@~
I

=.e!!S!1i~P(&Na

)p t.-!!!''„'„",',
"
ea rc

-.

II

]f]lllllg

f011111
-".. '",. a !g!gINg
i
msm
ai

',I,eaie

e

i rer i

i

ms es i r ra

em m

s.

ik Ig

~: I

'1
I

III~111

~'P 0

"-'"'"--

11

++ ig g
N &»

IINRII 8! ~ ss" eepmeN

'PIRlg/

/ Ig

g'+'15-

gWRQQM~

l-i l I rllsj

g

N!IL

all s liam as i
.„;;II;4L»
sess ~mes~'
I

1,1

IIIII!III1 fgSI 111

8 eII" III

facility Cental Pates:
The rn azks
zk

g Pecreation Counittee
neubers should be uade scare
that uanr comnunit.
y o rgani sat ons r.ave been f
rental rates could be increased by
o renamed that
to

up

10..

Suuzrazy/Conclusion:
The proposed

fees and
rges schedule uas developec af ter
thoroughly zeseazching cha
si
uilar
schedules in surrounding
communities. It has been designed
to start addressing sane of the
discrepancies that nou ex ist uhile still
fair nd reasonable.
It has also beau designed to minimize the being
effects of inflation
to continue to reduce ouz reliance on
and
the tar base.

Director 's Concurzence

IC.

Janna Taylor

r,()
~V&
JAN 10 1989

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT GOIIOITIAM

1988 12 1&

Janna Taylor, Parks

Recreation Director

MEMQRANDUN TQ:

K.

MEMORANDUM FROM:

Larry J. Mheelez, Recreation Manager

RE:

&

1989 Proposed Admission Rates & Rental Charges

~,,','iF

Recommendation:
bd

It is recommended that the attached proposed schedule of admission
rates and rental charges (Schedule A) be adopted and that a full
review and revision of the existing fees and charges policy be
conducted for presentation to Council in early 1989.
Purpose/Problem

purpose of this report is to provide information and a
recommendation for consideration by the Parks & Recreation Committee
regarding a proposed schedule of admission rates and rental charges
for 1989.
History/Bacl:ground
The schedule of admission rates and rental charges ha in the past
been reviewed and revised on an annual basis. My understanding is
that the rates h"ve been typically been adjusted by an amount
roughly eoual to inflation. In 1987, the rates were frozen at 1986
levels. For 1989, the pt'nposed increases are not being related to
inflation. This is to permit larger increases in areas where we
have typically been lag ing behind.
However, in all cases,
ircreases h;.ve been limited to a maximum of appzoximatei.y IQX.
Attached (Schedule B) is a copy of the fees and charges policy
adopted in 1988. The attached proposed scheduled of Admission Rates
and Rents). Charges is consisteut with the terms of this policy.
The

AL IIS

JAN

19B9

~'kljJIRi

IsssIINJ

~~~15lflgs 1li/g Ig iI'--'I"!! gm
pe
".,jiiiiiii
AHI ~

mi

~

%~""WAIiiis~~gfi.= '-""'-—= ="==NiIII- — ""'-i~'~if"'s--t'"
-—
-'-=...'".

)ggjAmj:i!!ii~q~~..'===

,'='..=me I!mzes~,'::,IHHHiiiliHHjjm&~j[I'l

gl

Il

f/

Alternatives
The Pari:s

F.ecreation Committee may choose

to adopt, amend or
reject the proposed schedule of admission rates
and rental charges,
G

prior to submitting a recommendation to City Council.

Intergovernmental Involvement
The proposed schedule of admission rates snd rental charges was
prepared after having researched oinilar schedules in Port .'toody,
Coquitlam, .'isple Ridge, Burnaby and i!ew 4'estminster (Schedule C,D,

and D).

Discussion/Justification:
The Parks g Recreation Committee should be aware of
following
points of consideration when reviewing this proposed the
schedule:
Although several areas are la giug well behind the market
place, increases will be introduced radually to
and
minimize the impact on i: he users. (In most cases try
this increase

has been kept to 1GX or less).

proposed schedule of admi.ssions and rental charges is
consistent with our efforts to reduce our reliance
on the tax
The

base.

The proposed schedule recognizes differing
levels
available at different comparable facilitiesservice
(i.e.
although
our
service ai: Hyde Creek Pool is very good, it is recognized that
swinners with nore for the additional opportunities).

In the past indoor swimming and skating admissions have always
been h e sane . This year it is bein„ proposed that some
swinmin admissions be incre ased. Iiowever, it is not desirable
to incr ease public skating a dmission rates. As a result this
changes our tie!:sting system
Therefore it is recommended
the pro posed indoor swimming admission be modified effectivethat
July 1, 1939.

JAN IO 1989

IH, 8!I,

'IHS

t

iiim&

l

IL I

I ~ I I 1 Q ii

i I, Ill&1arl

I!Iil'III.

's «iu =.==
~

IIII 5 ill!, Pm

W

IMMY s~sm«.

IRK+ ii~ mamslllgllg

I

igg

g~g~gSIIISGIP~ -

-== .11m!

R=-:-:-==zlHRWW

~'~ IN%

g~ z::.':.'~

~" Ill jll15+~-~,'~~ $
iI!

!

giii i! ==! =—; ~ ~~lll

M

eeeeeLgggg~se~g
v

~

F

The discount foz 10 tickets is
being -educed from
rounded to the nearest
25d) . Ouz objective is to 20K to 15X

eventually

reduce this rate to 10K.

Although the p ez centage increases in
areas are not that
great, (approximately 10K), the impactmost
is
areas where the highest dollar values are the greatest in the
these areas are the ones that need the mostinvolved. Typically,
attention.
However, the Parks & Recreation
s age implementation (JanuaryCommittee may want t o propose a
I, 1989 and July I, 1989) to
help sof ten the impact.
The proposed schedule of fees
and charges should allow us to
ensure that participants
aze
still
"value for
recreation dollar" while increasing receiving
our share of "user their
revenues".
During the review process it became
very apparent that the
fees and char es policy
I
tself
needs
purpose of reviewing this policy wouldto bebe toreviewed. The
establish a
consistent basis on which
and rental schedules can be
develop d that is related admission
to operating costs and recovery
objectives.

',

~"n"'e

Summary/Conclusion:

',„

attached fees and
scheoule oas developec after
thoroughly researching charges
similar
schedules in surzo
communities. It has been designed
to stazt addressing som of the
discrepancies that now exist while still
bei
f i
d
The
ee 1989 Sc h edule is designed
to
ensure
that
participants
feel that they are receiving a good value
will
ue f or tth eir recreation still
dollar.
The

'AN
;i ';,

Report Whiter
Larry J.,:Wheeler

Coeedurrence
~Deuter's
K. Janna Taylor

I

)

I

'4':i':."

'~'; ..

Ml

4RWIB
~ Wl ~, I I

sm ee

Il

)lLIIII

I

Q

10 l009

i'.

L

nfl'Sll I(
tllI II f15
I

~

I

8 I h '1g I

t:
~ iec
ai

I

P

IIiiii 1 l'
'11 Ill N

Ii

~~

I'i,seiilll

~

lhl'IIL 5

II'gag(gggiii,!!! ..Rllllme

~':--'11111.-"=:"=='=':== =mi:=:~

8 ~ eel i

, WI ~ Is%
ae

'=e mme

-'- — ===

I&llgg

BACKGROUND TNFORNATZON

Schedule B

Subi ect

—

pacilitv Rentals

POliCV On Feea 8 CharcleS
1983

IIIII

General Pr incioles of Charci~n
For many years there was
acceptance of the view that
public park and recreat1onw1despread
should be free, or almost
free to all potential users.serv1ces
The rationale for thi
r
haas been that recreation, like education
is
a
basic
human
need
and should be available to
But as recreation facilities
have become more elaborate all
and expensive an d as th e type of
activities offered have become
more divvers ifi d, a syst: em of
imposing charges to support these
services is more important.
Wh11e the collection of a fee
service has become more an"
more accep able, most agencies for
are
the opinion that basic
serv1ces should still be free to th of
e pu bli c.
One wr1ter says the
following about f ees and charges."

e,

1 assume we all believe that
there is considerable
1nd1v1dual and public benefit from
in quality
leisure experi.ence. Hope f ully, any involvement
service
we
prov1d
e can
be construed as

a
experience; c:onsequently, it would
that we shouldquality
be interested in as much participation
as possible. Since a fee is undoubtedly a
deterrant
exercis1ng one! s prerogative
participate, it would toseem
logical that a no-f ee policy to
is the desirable level of
charge. Some may argue that anyone
can afford a small fee
the quest1on i,s at what level does the
f ee deprive
even one ind1vidual from participating small
Economists
that ( in very simple terms demand decreases as pricetell us
increases'.
A no-fee policy is considered
ideal. However, it 1s not
practical if. we wish to continue
provide our present standard
of service to the commun1ty. Billto Young,
Parks 8 Recreation
Director of Saanich, says this about fees and
charge s:
That f ees and charges be
established as a result of
economic necessity and thatonly
establishing
and charges
for facilities and activit1es be done in afees
manner to enable
and encourage

seem

)

levels

max1mum

participat1on at the bradest economic

JAN 10 1989

I

iI
,ilI I'
'
I

s I

ll11115

's Illa
L

cl

lc

I.
iipi
ILIi45

1lllllll,g
LIlllM im
I

(jose

5 IIII
(pl%i~i

Criteria for Cha reign

The

question to
addressed now is not whether
er too cchar
instead, when to bech
e but
arge,
c arge.
The following points will
d1rection required.
provide the
Like edu tic n, health or safety,
recreation 1s a basic human
need and should
be available to all.
concept of public recreation as a mun
1 c 1 pal government
function justifying
support iss b ase d on
the provision of
basic services wh1ch tax
can be enjoyed b y thee majority
ma or
of the
Each f1nancial policy should be
ev ewe 1 n tterms of its
rev1ewed
di scriminatory effect on all segment
s o f th e population.
The kinds of services entailing
ee or
o charge
h
rev1ewed periodically in terms ofa fee
should be
aai ms, o bjject1ves
The

NI

1!hI s I I mIN

ilail

Fb,'he

Iiii'

range planning or the department.

IIITIIII
B I

8

I
I

I

5.

C hildren, senior citizens
and others with little
discretionary power
relating
to the paymen
pa
t off fees for
recreation services, should have
an
opporturiity
participate at little or no charge in certain to
basic
activities.

6.

for leadership supp
sup 11 es equipment and
facilitiessubsidy
would seriously limit the
e scope of recreation

Complete

services regardless of the size of the

mI

I

Ei'jJI

budget.

Rate Structure for Room Rentals

5 III II

lls

and Iong

A
B
C
D

Charges Waived
Nominal Rental Charge
Basic Charge
Commercial

Nil

50m

of Basic

150S of Basic

llllllU5
lIIRIRI
/NllilR
~l Wll

58

IIliljlJI
I i flklltl
151J

8 III

esllsl

III IB'IRI

j)
I

JAN t 0 &ggg

J
L

j

l

i I

,1

I

c,
( .)

'0

0
0

0

0
I

0

+

0

0

x

0 C

C

0
I

'0

0
0

0
I

0

A

0
0I4
I

SI

I

0

P!I„"III,".,S."I 1*,'I

10

000

0IC
0

Rlllll% Fj AI~tz
xi Iiiir ii1I'E'-;:.'.g„„-"'"l
/II
AA

Il

0

0

0
I

0

0

C

0

SI

0
0

I

IS

'0
0

0

jfff!'!I~i:;~"'-'I!

0

0

0

0
0

'I
8

fgll 4I

'(

4
0

0

NIJ Ill%i

a

I

III l j INIR
8 IC

I

I

ii Ni

I~/

'II
I

I CC

5

'J

Ill)l
IIIii~1
la am ',IN

!I I

'0

0

0

I

I

C

SI

'0

0

Fi

C

'I IF

II II

lk lISN

IS

C

0

0

0

'11 195

I

0

'0

'

~

ii

0

IS

51

)j$

n

I I

/'yi! Ii1l
ICI

N

SSII

II i IIII
I kl P

4

C

I Ial

I

'0

IS

:;:;: .!'I'"','I;.,!:,";;:: :

I

a

00

Rll.illa''ll

I

4

A

IR

mIJIS

I

I

4

IIII)l

I

C

0

IS

(", ~&V

I

C

0
C

VI~qt

Ill!m

I

0

0'

0

00
0

I
'0
I

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF I URT COIIUITI)IM

1989 01 10

mssl

MEMORANDUII TO:

Alderman J.J. Keryluk
Alderman G.R. Laking

MEMORAMDU?I FPOMI

K.

SUDJECT:

Janna Taylor, Parks

&

Recreation Director

Kilmer I&ouse

issue of what to do with Kilmer House has
handed over to
the Parks & Recreation Committee for discussionbeen
and recommendation
back to council.
The

report done

by Toby Russell Juckwell
Partners estimates the
total cost of refurbishin
at 5227,250 (1988 dollars).
The

&

Presently the
would like to use Kilner House as theiz "home". Zt would appear
that the first decision to be made is what to do with the house.
Possible option:
a)
sell Kilmer House as is
b)
refurbish Kilmer House at a cost of 8227,250.
(please note money will also be required to be set
aside foz the outside landscapin8
c)
sell Kilmer Pouse totally refurbished
There are no doubt other possible options
care is housed in Kilmer House. Ue also have a
letter from thedayCoquitlam
Area Fine Arts Council as to how they

) )Nial

m I I PS I 8 I
I

l4'ld) Ilk
!!igl1,t

jii ii i,ll
llhl U 1I! I
I 1%4 I
mls I
sl all

t m
'

I

I

I

I

t,

%I''l,jg'4%%'l

m

,ties lo m ilail
i111114

sm

g ml

g 4185

Sl%

'i-

Coquiifarn Area Fine Aris Council
Box 217, Port Coquitlam, B.C. V3C 3V7
(604) 931-8255

December 12,1988
Mr. George Laking,

Port Coquitlam City
2272 McAllis ter,
Port Coquitlam,

Council,

VSC 2AS

Dear Mr. Latcingr

Further to my letter of November 10,1988, Beulah Paugh and
I weze
able to go and see Kilmer House and
below are the ideas and
recommendations we came up with. They
are obviously not in
detailed form at this point.
A.
B.

C.
D.

Entrance way, main floor.
cos tumes

Period furniture/old photos/qui

Roon to lef t of entrance hall. 'Main gallery for
hanging ar

work.

right of entrance hall. Secondary gallery space.
Room to rear of Room C.
Gallery shop - with archway throug
Room to

from room C.

Kitchen to remain as partly kitchen/partly office foz
recei
work.
F. Porch. Possible summer tea room.
G .
Basement. Worl. shop area foz pottery group. Rehearsal
space
for amateur dramatic group. Meeting
for C,A.F.A.C.
member groups. Storage space for samearea
member groups.
E.

H.

First floor bedzooms.

smaller

bedrooms for CAFAC office
Bedroom with sink to be connected through
next bedroom
would make fine classroom for art classes, tocostume
Two

construct
or quilting gatherings.
Storage space in existing storage area.
Apart from two areas (already mentioned) where we would like
arch
ways made to form two rooms into
one,
the
only
other
structural
consideration would be that in the rooms designated for
space, we would need substantial and attractive boarding gallery
totally
SERVING Coquitlam, Port Coquittam,

Port Moody, loco and Belcarra.
-JAN to ftI89

I

ll

'I e 14

'x.

I

9

I

I

1 ~

I

«

I

~ Sgplz CO

IBI7l At68 FlRe Af
Box 217, Port Caquitlam,

I

l.S

C

B.C. V3C 3V7
(604) 931. 8255

covering

in the
areas - both fottadditionaI
space and also towindow
block
i.s not goad for artwork. out a large amount of day
as they are and so there The windows would rema&
would be no change from
appearance. Electrical outlets
the outw
.around
correct lighting
the
house
and
for
the gallery rooms would
be taken into consideration.
also have to
Kilmer HQuse is indeed a
house, with great potential
for a centre of
the arts. loosely
hearing from you in the new kte look forward anxiously
to
year.
With all good wishes for
the Christmas season.

«

I

«

Sincerely,

: '.5 Isa

lll'I
ii m

II
« ~

i,',.'

~

II,
'«4«««

IIIILI
I I lm

"

.

tlam, Port Coquitlam, Port

Moody, loco and Belcarra.
JAN;.„-I 0-1989