[10:19] was like >> in the day

[10:21] » 1968 >> and I came home

[10:25] but not

[10:30] » it's hard but it's doable like I've been working

[10:34] avoid >> not a bad thing but it was a lot of

[10:38] money And the great thing about the way um

[10:42] trade does it is they definitely don't put any scores up.

[10:46] » There are no scores. >> So you can navigate through

[12:03] counselors,

[12:06] » it's time. Well, I'm just waiting for two of them

[12:09] to come and sit down.

[12:19] Okay, welcome everybody. Welcome the people in the gallery and welcome to the

[12:23] regular meeting of Tuesday, July the 7th. I'd like to call the meeting to

[12:28] order and uh sorry for the couple minutes we had to get uh caught up on

[12:33] world world cup for a few minutes. So we're two minutes late

[12:37] » um starting. We would like to acknowledge the land on which we gather

[12:41] is a traditional territory of the Taha, the Silks and the Snyags people and is

[12:44] home to the Matei and many diverse Aboriginal persons. We honor their

[12:48] connection to the land and rivers and respect the importance of the

[12:51] environment to our strength as a community. I have one late item here for

[12:57] um introduction and that is regarding um development

[13:03] cost >> cost charges. So we see here it is

[13:06] connection fees and development cost charges. um the RFP has been circulated

[13:10] to all of you and if um if it's that's acceptable then um kind of a mover to

[13:18] accept the late item move by councelor Paige seconded by councelor Woodward all

[13:22] those in favor and that carries so that will be discussed at the end of the

[13:26] evening and so then could I have an adoption of the agenda as amended

[13:31] moved by councelor Tate second by councelor Lockenberg all those in favor

[13:36] and that carries if we could have an adoption of minutes of the previous

[13:40] meeting of June the 9th. Is there a move or moved by councelor Payne? Seconded by

[13:45] councelor Woodward. Any errors or omissions? Councelor Payne.

[13:49] » No. >> Oh, I was ready.

[13:50] » You were already jumping on to the next one.

[13:52] » Jumping on. >> I've never seen hands up so fast in this

[13:54] room. This is >> it happened today.

[13:57] » This is great. Okay. So, all those in favor of the meetings then and thank

[14:02] you. Item number six, requests. So, we have some requests of some proposed

[14:09] resolutions to go forward to the Federation of Canadian uh municipalities

[14:13] to make sure that they get it on their docket for their upcoming meeting in

[14:17] July. So, council's being asked to consider endorsing two resolutions for

[14:21] it for a submission to the um FCM, Federation of Canadian Municipalities

[14:26] before the July 13th submission deadline. The proposed resolutions

[14:29] request that FCM undertake research and development recommendations on federal

[14:34] policy matters related to one innovative financial twos and speculative

[14:38] residential estate real estate investment and two systemic algorithmic

[14:43] risks associated with online platforms. Endorsement by council would authorize

[14:47] the city to submit the resolutions for consideration through FCM's national

[14:51] resolution process. >> Moved by councelor Woodward.

[14:58] Seconded by councelor Paige and um I think we can do both these

[15:03] together. Is everybody happy with that if we do them together? Okay. Any need

[15:07] for any conversation counselors?

[15:14] Seeing none that's been moved and second. All those in favor

[15:20] and that carries. There we go. So, those will be off and we'll be

[15:26] sure that councelor Paige will no doubt be knowing letting them know that those

[15:30] are coming to make sure it gets on their their docket for July or at the latest

[15:36] their September um meeting. Thank you for your work on that

[15:42] counselor um page. So, item number seven, building bylaw amendment. So, uh,

[15:49] staff are proposing amendments to the city of Nelson building bylaw 3456 2019

[15:55] to adopt higher performance requirements for part 9 buildings, generally low-rise

[16:00] residential and small buildings under the BC energy step code and the BC zero

[16:04] carbon step code um, ZCSC. Recommended phased approach for part 9

[16:10] is effective December 31st, 2026, energy step code 4 and zerocarbon EL3,

[16:17] effective December 31st, 2028, zero carbon EL4.

[16:22] Step four remains in place. So the request is for council to give

[16:28] first three readings. bylaw amend um building bylaw amendment energy step

[16:32] code 4 and zerocarbon EL3 bylaw 3654 2026 and building bylaw amendment

[16:39] zerocarbon EL4 step four remaining bylaw number 3664

[16:45] 2026 councilors there's been a we had a last

[16:51] last meeting was it just last meeting two weeks ago

[16:54] » June 9th >> June 9th so a month ago so we had a

[16:58] presentation regarding um step code uh from the planning department and they're

[17:05] here if we need a summary of that or if people feel that they want to move ahead

[17:10] with something else. I see councelor Lock and

[17:14] are you moving something? >> No, I can ask a question.

[17:18] » Yeah. So, um do we have any further um questions or do we feel that we need a

[17:23] quick review or is everybody okay with us questions?

[17:28] Uh just question I guess. >> Okay. So we're gonna start with uh

[17:31] councelor logberg then we'll move to councelor panero.

[17:35] » Um thank you mayor. So I guess my question will give you the opportunity

[17:40] to go into a bit of detail for the public to explain what these things are.

[17:44] So um I'm going to frame it this way. Um why should we not go to EL4? So

[17:51] emissions level four given that 2030 it's mandatory and why are we going to

[17:57] EL3? So I'll I'm setting it up so you can give the rationale.

[18:02] » Sure. When we first went out to talk to the building community, that was kind of

[18:06] our idea to look at can the building community support um just kind of

[18:11] holding it step four um because in just a few short months probably in six

[18:17] months um I could expect that the uh BC building code will change and that part

[18:23] buildings which are small simple or simple buildings like single family are

[18:28] going to move to step four. So that will be the provincial minimum. Um and we

[18:32] were considering going to a mission level four when we went out to the

[18:36] building community and while they were supportive, we did hear from that

[18:40] community that they didn't fully understand it in some cases. So that is

[18:44] why we are recommending a staggered approach to the um zero carbon. So we're

[18:50] going to do emission level three and give folks a couple years to transition

[18:54] to a mission level four. I think that gives industry time to prepare and

[18:58] transition and get more experience. people can still always go beyond the

[19:02] minimums. That would just be the minimum from the city. So that was kind of our

[19:06] thinking once we understood that not every builder in the city had a full

[19:11] understanding of those requirements. We went out to them.

[19:15] » And can I have a followup to his question? So when when do you foresee so

[19:21] you see you see um the step code within the next six months. When do you see

[19:27] EL4? When is that going to be the build when

[19:30] will that do you foresee be a building code requirement provinially?

[19:37] » Yeah. So I don't they don't they haven't put out a timeline for when you would

[19:41] have to move along the zerocarbon step code. Right now it's minimum is emission

[19:47] level one which is just reporting and then we know by 2030 that is going to be

[19:52] the provincial standard which is emission level four.

[19:56] » Okay. So, and I think it's up to communities to decide how they want to

[19:59] get there. That's kind of my interpretation.

[20:03] » Uh, councelor Panero, then councelor P. So, I just got this email the other day

[20:10] and I think we all did from the chamber and they brought up a bunch of points

[20:14] and basically I don't want to misquote or anything but paraphrasing

[20:19] one of the points uh was that they feel that moving this forward out of step

[20:25] with the provincial guidelines would somehow put the building community under

[20:31] pressure and we wouldn't be able to adapt and therefore we would for any

[20:35] sort of construction construction or development, we would have to go outside

[20:38] of the community for those jobs. And what I see in the report is that you

[20:44] have actually consulted with the building community. And I'm wondering

[20:50] uh where the disconnect there is and and if and if we have consulted with the

[20:55] building community which apparently we have are you confident that that we have

[21:01] the capacity here to absorb any of those changes and and move forward so that we

[21:07] are you know maximizing uh productivity in our community and and

[21:13] people the opportunity to to work uh in field and not have to bring people in.

[21:18] Is that something that having spoken to those people that you're confident that

[21:22] we have that breadth of knowledge here? >> Yeah. No, unfortunately I did not get

[21:27] that email from the chamber, but I am happy to follow up with Tom and just get

[21:32] some more details on that after the meeting. I do actually feel for part

[21:35] nine buildings, which is what the amendments are for today, um the data is

[21:41] showing us that these that our builders can achieve these quite easily. that is

[21:46] the minimum is step four in our community. We've been kind of achieving

[21:49] it now for quite a few years. And um in terms of emission level, I think it was

[21:54] 12 out of 13 projects. Um we're hitting emission level three or higher. So I do

[21:59] think that we have the skill set here locally. Um I wonder if maybe they're

[22:04] referring to part three buildings, which are the bigger, more complex buildings,

[22:08] and maybe they're not clear on the amendments today. I think those ones

[22:13] would need special consideration and and I can reach out to the chamber to see if

[22:17] maybe that's where the misunderstanding is.

[22:20] » It's quite a long letter and there's a few things but generally I I think I'm

[22:25] not exaggerating. I think most of them are sort of like that like there things

[22:29] that are addressed. I just don't know to what depth or to what you know level

[22:34] they're seem to be unhappy something but not sure.

[22:42] seen them on that. It would be good to know.

[22:46] » It would be good to know. I you know based on the engagement that we did with

[22:49] our local building community and we did talk both about part three and about

[22:53] part 9. There wasn't hesitation in either of those from our building

[22:57] community. But part three buildings are a little bit different in that um the

[23:01] bigger buildings often have consultants and builders from outside of Nelson um

[23:05] because we don't always have the capacity. they don't always like because

[23:09] people bid on those projects from all over the place. Uh but for part nine for

[23:13] single family duplex that sort of thing I really do believe we have the capacity

[23:16] here in the city of Nelson. So >> councelor Payne and then councelor.

[23:23] » So I just want to um say out loud what I've heard and read in the report. So we

[23:28] have around 10 to 12 contractors who are building at that level. um approximately

[23:35] 10 to 15 homes per year and many already are

[23:42] meeting or exceeding uh step four and I'm sure also EL4.

[23:50] So, I'm I'm really concerned that we're holding that I know we're not holding

[23:56] that community back, but how do we incentivize

[24:00] the other contractors to take advantage of the education that's been widely

[24:06] available for free and free much of it is free and widely available for um well

[24:14] for step code since 2017 when it was introduced.

[24:19] because I I think there's significant advantages in in going to EL4

[24:26] and I I personally find um would say that that education piece of saying okay

[24:34] everybody we'd like to you to learn EL3 and then two years from now we'd like

[24:38] you to learn something do new to add on to it wouldn't it just be less painful

[24:43] to just go to four learn what you need for four and obvious Obviously three is

[24:49] going to be included in that. But I don't think these are hugely

[24:54] significant. I'm not a builder. Did build had a good experience inter okay

[24:58] not good experience. Let's just say building your own house is not ever a

[25:02] good experience. If it is, tell me. Um but yeah, I think we're and in addition

[25:08] to that, so are we serving our contractor community by not setting the

[25:13] bar high, which is what we've always done in a leadership role, especially

[25:17] around climate. And as we look around us today, we see what James Hansen, the

[25:23] NASA scientist, called the storms of our grandchildren. They're here now. So,

[25:30] we're doing a disservice to homeowners building their homes if we're not going

[25:39] to the the highest possible level because those homes

[25:44] will need to be standing and withstanding

[25:48] climate that we don't really understand right now. So, I strongly encourage us

[25:57] in addition to step four to go to um EL4. the it's been I know it wasn't

[26:05] clearly demonstrated because there just hasn't been enough data yet but I have

[26:10] been on a number of webinars through the community energy association that talked

[26:15] about the the cost increases are not significant

[26:20] but the investment now leads to a huge payback over the life of those homes

[26:28] when we insulate and do all the other um energy efficiency plus zerocarbon

[26:37] um methods that we we can take advantage

[26:42] of. So that would be my recommendation. I I don't know in any job that I've been

[26:47] at if they said we want you to learn this new process here knowing that in

[26:52] two years you're going to be learning something new like here's the accounting

[26:55] system. could you learn this one now and then two years from now we're going to

[27:00] give you more? Why don't we just go to the new accounting system, figure that

[27:05] one out and keep going, especially if it offers benefits greater than what we're

[27:10] working with now.

[27:13] » Not a question. Sorry. I just wanted to make sure that I had summarized what I

[27:18] what I had heard. Is there anything in what I said that wasn't um included in

[27:24] in your report other than you know Gian Hansen in terms of our grandchild?

[27:28] » No, I think that does summarize summarize the report. Um

[27:35] we just wanted to make sure that all the builders were coming along. So that is

[27:39] why we recommended a gradual step. Um, I think we have a really great building

[27:44] community here and if we move to the regulations up to EL4, I'm sure that

[27:48] they could achieve it. But I did and there is lots of opportunities for

[27:53] education and I think they're very dialed on the building science aspect.

[27:58] Um, the zero carbon is really working with your energy advisor on the

[28:02] mechanical systems and I don't know if Mike wants to speak to that too, but

[28:05] it's just a different sort of investment in your education. Um, and that's why we

[28:10] thought a staggered approach would even be better for our community based on the

[28:14] engagement that we did. But of course, council could go beyond that. Um, so,

[28:18] » but are we asking them to do that education twice as a small business

[28:22] owner? Do I want to invest in my employees to spend whatever number of

[28:26] hours it is now and then to do the whole thing all over again? Because those

[28:30] hours are out of productivity when I do that. um from a business perspective I

[28:36] would want them to get the highest level of information. Now in

[28:42] » the step code and the zero carbon I think are intentionally stepped so that

[28:45] you learn that um energy efficiency or you learn that zerocarbon step and then

[28:50] you move on to the next and lots of communities have jumped. They have

[28:54] skipped a bunch of steps and gone forward but it really was designed so

[28:57] that people could get that experience learn that system and then move on. it

[29:01] is intentionally designed that way but many communities have skipped also. So I

[29:05] think both approaches um have worked in other communities and could potentially

[29:09] work here. It was just our recommendation based on our engagement.

[29:13] » Council Edward, I would um just to speak to the chambers's letter and and build

[29:18] on what councelor P is saying that it's important to separate the step code

[29:23] versus the zero carbon step code. I think the chamber's letter was really

[29:27] about the step code, not the zero carbon step code. Like when you I they do

[29:32] mention electrification at one point, but then you can but it's kind of

[29:35] conflated with electrification in general that it would require more

[29:40] infrastructure, that kind of thing. A lot of houses and I think you even said

[29:44] this are built full electrified. That's we do it all the time. So many houses

[29:51] are built probably every developer or every contractor has built in effect for

[29:58] house. So they know how to do it. It's not that complicated. The letter does

[30:02] speak to step code being more complicated because you're talking about

[30:06] the building envelope and that kind of thing for sure. I get that. And so in

[30:11] terms of the energy step code, I definitely appreciate the stepped

[30:14] approach. With the zerocarbon step code, it doesn't make as much sense. I think

[30:18] it does add complexity to counselor Payne's point. Like for example, a mixed

[30:24] fuel heat pump is more complicated than just a regular electric heat pump. Um,

[30:32] as a fully electric home, we have a heat pump and we have baseboard heating too.

[30:39] We'd never use the baseboard heating like the the heat pump is totally

[30:44] sufficient for creating a lowcost and really effective um home heating

[30:51] solution. The one where I can imagine an argument for not going directly to EL4,

[31:00] but it's it is a bit of a stretch. It's more of a culture shift around maybe

[31:04] cooking like people like gas stoves for cooking.

[31:09] But the I think the health impacts that are now known, especially over the last

[31:14] year or two with indoor gas stoves, is pretty significant. The amount of indoor

[31:20] pollution and the health impacts of that those it's it's being phased out, I

[31:25] think, pretty quickly. We just didn't know before. It was nice to have that

[31:27] quick instant heat. It's a nice cooking environment. Totally. But nobody knew

[31:32] about the health effects of indoor fuel or indoor gas stoves. Now we do. So now

[31:40] induction stoves are are amazing alternatives and are super efficient and

[31:45] instant heat too. So I understand the chamber's point on the step code taking

[31:52] it a little bit more stepped on the zerocarbon step code. I think I think it

[31:56] just makes sense to go to Y4. It's just for everybody ease better for the

[32:00] contractors and just they got to get there anyways.

[32:05] » Forward

[32:11] » ran out of electric

[32:16] again. >> So, I just wanted to ask you both. Um,

[32:20] » it's okay. if council decided to go EL4 um

[32:26] other than maybe some worries that you've mentioned about the ability for

[32:31] contractors to match the moment um would there be do you do you think

[32:37] there could be some kind of like situation where a developer might be

[32:41] like you know what I'm not going to develop this building Nelson because

[32:45] they have EL4 or is that a a false

[32:52] Um I would say that's a false worry. Um yeah, it's important to note uh earlier

[32:59] that you can still meet EL4 with gas cooking. You can still meet EL4 with

[33:03] dual fuel gas systems. So it all comes down to how that building's being

[33:08] modeled by your energy advisor. So I don't see it as a big

[33:13] » just a supplemental bar. >> Yeah.

[33:15] » Thank you. So, so what I how I understand this is that you actually get

[33:21] your building when you're in the design phase and you're doing you're doing this

[33:25] work in the design phase, you're not actually adding some kind of massive

[33:28] cost because you design it in. You're you're you're building from the start

[33:33] out with that in mind. That's right. There's not all of a sudden at the end

[33:38] of the build there's some 10 or 20% increase. You've actually planned it all

[33:42] out and you've had your energy advisor and your plans to start with. Is that

[33:46] correct? >> We don't accept a building permit

[33:48] without a pre-construction compliance report that's produced by an energy

[33:52] advisor. So, it's all laid out from the start. The cost should be well aware

[33:58] from this time. >> Thank you.

[34:00] » And mid construction lowered, >> right?

[34:03] » Yeah. The energy adviser is involved normally at three points the project. Uh

[34:08] it's the pre-construction compliance report. Uh they it's it's optional. they

[34:13] can come and do a mid construction. It's called a blower door test where they

[34:16] test for an air leakage in the home. Uh that that's a requirement that must be

[34:21] met met to meet levels of step code. And then they're uh brought in at the end of

[34:26] the project to do another blower door test. And they ensure that the building

[34:30] is built in the exact way that it was modeled. So insulation, mechanical

[34:36] systems, air tightness, um they're all as it was modeled. windows, you know,

[34:42] everything's involved. Um, and us as building officials, we're also

[34:48] cross-referencing that um, pre-construction compliance report as

[34:52] the project is is progressing. >> Thank you for

[34:58] question, and this is a little bit of a thought experiment. There are some

[35:01] municipalities that are talking about like Vancouver, right, about stepping

[35:05] back on stepping back. um what what is the like risk proincially in terms of

[35:11] some kind of uh oversight or overregulation or is it possible for

[35:17] them to undo what we have done in our own bylaws? I'm just curious.

[35:22] » Um

[35:25] I think that we can always go beyond the provincial minimums. Um we can't go

[35:31] below them if the province for some reason pauses step code or

[35:37] um the government shifts and they get rid of it, then then council could

[35:41] always amend our bylaws at that time. I think I mentioned this at the last

[35:45] meeting, too. The step code um is being um looked at across the province, and

[35:51] they're actually going to be um implementing it into a harmonized

[35:55] building code across the country. And so, it's going to be adopted, a version

[35:59] of it anyway, um nationally. So I think yeah I mean I guess I can't say for sure

[36:05] what will happen at the provincial level but they could change it in theory but I

[36:08] think it is kind of becoming a standard that everybody is accepting at the same

[36:12] time. >> Yeah. Thanks. It's interesting um

[36:15] because I've had lots of conversations about this. I'm sure you guys have all

[36:18] had lots of conversations about this and I just keep coming back to thinking like

[36:22] it is quite incremental. It's not like every single house is going to have a

[36:26] heat pump, >> right? That's not how this works. and it

[36:30] just feels like the next right thing to do, you know, when you we're just like

[36:34] this one little city council and like what can we just do that's the next most

[36:39] right thing and it I I really keep landing there just in terms of those

[36:42] little pieces that we can do to make that little difference and just show a

[36:47] bit of leadership as well which we don't ever want to be the most high and the

[36:51] best of everything but because we have um really competent building community

[36:58] and um you know, not a lot of building in a year. It does feel like a really

[37:04] clever way to to make an impact. I like it.

[37:08] » Yeah. And and I'd be in support of going to the EL4 for the new builds as well.

[37:16] » Okay. So, council, anybody else got any questions for staff while they're here?

[37:20] Can I just ask to me the the risk is more on the home

[37:25] owner because we don't have fixed price builders.

[37:29] » Yeah. >> Um you get build what the uh how many

[37:35] hours the person puts into the thing and if the you know they didn't do the you

[37:40] know the the uh they didn't build it exactly to the modeling. I haven't seen

[37:46] a builder that says, "Oh, okay. Well, sorry. We'll fix that for nothing." So,

[37:51] how do we educate homeowner? Because they're the ones

[37:55] footing the bill if the thing doesn't get quite built to meet the standards,

[38:01] etc., you know, to me, that's where more the

[38:05] work has to be done is with those homeowners because they're mostly

[38:09] customuilt. they're um you know, you're on the you know, most people don't have

[38:14] a fixed price contract. They they pay for whatever the cost it is of those

[38:20] builders building this thing. So to me, that's where the bigger risk is. The

[38:25] homeowner is educated enough to ensure that um whatever their contract ensures

[38:32] that you know that if the builder didn't get it right the first time, they're not

[38:37] now on the hook of rework and all that stuff.

[38:40] » You having to pull out the drywall to put in a new

[38:43] » vapor barrier or whatever. That's why you have the mid lower door before

[38:46] drywall. >> Before and after. Yep. Anyway, that

[38:49] that's my experience is that, you know, because that's just the nature of our

[38:55] custombuilt um individual unsophisticated homeowners

[38:59] that are kind of hoping everything goes well.

[39:03] Any home builder out there that can say, "Oh, Gez, yeah, I just came in right on

[39:08] budget and under budget by I'm not sure, Lesly, if yours yours did, but yeah,

[39:13] » I stopped adding it up." >> Right? So, that to me is the biggest

[39:16] risk. So I think that's where the work needs to be done is is how do we educate

[39:21] and and maybe support the homeowner kind of contract. How do they make sure that

[39:28] you know these you know these additional every time you make it more complicated

[39:33] more um difficult to meet things the risk is on the homeowner not builder.

[39:44] I would say step code is pretty well understood. Um I know people can make

[39:49] mistakes for sure. I think it's I think our building community though has been

[39:52] doing it now for quite a few years like over six years and I think they're

[39:55] getting better at it. I think yeah there's always a risk to that. So I

[39:58] think um I don't know if the city but maybe there's some guides the step code

[40:02] has put out related to that and so maybe we can look that up and put that on our

[40:06] website because we do have a let's talk page about that. Um, as far as admission

[40:10] level um, requirements, I think you really just have to follow what's in

[40:14] those plans. Whatever your energy advisor has kind of laid out for

[40:18] mechanical systems, I think you need to meet those all those step code is a

[40:21] different >> but again you need to understand which

[40:24] one you know what is the right mechanical system because there's a

[40:28] variety right >> just it's it's just challenging as

[40:33] » any of us that have built have recognized the challenge of these things

[40:37] » but the design team is the important component. It's not just a contractor

[40:42] and a homeowner. gets the design team. >> Yep. And if those two don't make it get

[40:48] it right, then it's a homeowner pay. >> So I guess that's listening to that. My

[40:56] question is, so I hire the contractor, I have the the

[41:02] energy efficiency person, and it gets all said and done, and my house isn't

[41:10] step code 4 or EL4, do I not get an occupancy permit?

[41:15] » Uh, no. You Well, we haven't had that happen. Um, but you do need to meet the

[41:22] minimums. So, what whatever we decide as as our minimums, they need to be met.

[41:28] Um, >> okay. So, so basically, if I if at the

[41:31] end of the day and I thought everybody's worked together and done everything

[41:35] right and

[41:38] the proverbial fly in the ointment and my last blower door test comes back and

[41:45] there's something wrong and I have not met the standard, I do not get an

[41:48] occupancy permit. I just need to get that clear in my head. So, that would be

[41:51] great. Okay. Thanks. >> That because that uh well one it will be

[41:55] in our bylaw >> but very soon it'll be part of the BC

[42:00] building code >> right

[42:01] » so anything that doesn't meet the BC building code

[42:05] wouldn't be able to kind of close your permit so with all building code related

[42:11] » and so those deficiencies isn't the contractor responsible for them

[42:16] » yeah but they charge

[42:24] Depends on your contract. Yes. >> Okay. I'm gonna go.

[42:26] » Depends on your contract. >> I think I've heard from him. I think I

[42:30] Okay, I've heard from everybody. So, I'm going to go Woodward Panero page.

[42:35] » Thank you, Mayor. I just I was just looking at our Nelson Max document and

[42:40] looking at aspiration to infrastructure and buildings in Nelson are zero carbon

[42:44] and resilient. Um, you know, this was a two-year, we took two years to build

[42:49] this document two years ago with deep input by the community and um, as

[42:55] councelor Tate said, I think, you know, this is one of those moments where we

[43:00] could be guided by our guiding documents. So, I feel like and the

[43:05] number one strategy here is new buildings are net zero ready and have

[43:08] lower embodied carbon and are resilient against climate change.

[43:13] like this has been you know this is a very important piece of documentation

[43:18] for the city so that

[43:21] » okay council >> I don't have any issue with what staff

[43:26] has put forward as a phased approach it's only it's two years and

[43:35] I think the point of consulting with the community

[43:39] there really isn't a point especially the community that actually builds

[43:45] houses. And I would say to Kevin's point, like homeowners are, you know,

[43:51] they need to be educated and what have you. A lot of I'm assuming a lot of

[43:54] education from a from the homeowner perspective comes from the building

[43:58] community. When you hire somebody to build your house, they're going to tell

[44:02] you what you need to do. And if that community needs

[44:07] I I don't know what they said, but if they need a couple years to to get on

[44:12] the pace, we're already like this is we're we're still going ahead. We're

[44:18] still ahead of the way ahead of the curve. We're already ahead of the curve

[44:20] and this is a little bit more ahead of the curve, but it's still, I think,

[44:25] respects the feedback and the wishes of a very important sector of the community

[44:30] that actually builds these houses. And we don't I I I think we don't want to

[44:36] leave those people behind. I'm sure they will scramble and they'll figure it out.

[44:42] That's true. Also, at what you know, like I don't I don't

[44:48] quite understand the point of of ignoring them if we're going to consult

[44:53] them. And so I would just I'm happy with what you guys have put forward. Um, I

[45:00] feel like we're we are um ahead of the game like demonstratively and and I

[45:06] don't see why we need to tip people over and and cause any sort of discomfort for

[45:11] our building community if they're already on board. And I seem to be like

[45:15] we have a great knowledgeable building community. They're on board with all of

[45:18] this. We're going to get to the target by 2028. And why is that?

[45:27] I I think we have to I I personally feel like the point of consulting with

[45:33] experts is that we listen to have to say.

[45:36] » Councelor Paige, >> thanks. Yeah, we've been working on this

[45:41] continuum and making some adjust adjustments. Based on what I'm hearing,

[45:46] uh what I'm thinking about is going to E4

[45:51] mostly seems to cut out cooking appliances. That's majority of what I've

[45:55] understood is between your water heater and your furnace and building heat that

[46:01] like you're going to reach those targets for E4 for zero carbon for cutting up

[46:07] cooking appliances. And so does that does that mean as a builder you can't

[46:11] necessarily plum it in for gas and put electric? Like how does that does the

[46:15] homeowner lose all opportunity in an L4 home to have a gas hook up or

[46:21] could they just put a gas hook up and installed?

[46:24] » Um in in for part nine, yeah, >> it's a bit different for part three. For

[46:28] part nine, you can still have gas cooking. It can still be modeled in and

[46:33] you can even still have a dual fuel heat pump where there is natural gas paired

[46:39] uh with an electric um cooling system, commercial heating system. So you can

[46:44] still have natural gas to emission level for homes. It's just a a further

[46:50] restriction on the greenhouse gas emissions associated with that building.

[46:54] Uh the mechanical systems have to be more efficient.

[46:58] » Yeah. So you can still have those things and people can still have natural gas to

[47:01] the property >> and likely still will. Yeah.

[47:03] » Yeah. Okay. So there's that flexibility and then the supplemental.

[47:08] » How many homes have been giving EL4? Where are we landing on? And I I'll just

[47:15] say I'm sympathetic to the idea that we kind of train once versus like every two

[47:21] years. It's not the change that that that amount of shift and change is also

[47:25] adds to this regulatory fatigue that people feel and then the building code

[47:30] captures it all anyway. But I am curious how many people how

[47:35] many of our new builds are close to G4 already.

[47:38] » We we have that data. We have that. >> Yeah. And it's a law.

[47:45] » Yeah. It's a better system. system

[47:52] » and we're finding you know people are modeling

[47:55] EL1 EL2 and at the end of the project they're coming out at EL3 and E4

[48:04] quite often >> have you had any feedback from Maple

[48:08] regions done this already gone to EL4 is that true

[48:14] » or there most coastal regions have gone there

[48:18] already. >> Uh yeah.

[48:22] Uh Whistler have gone there already and they're in a colder climate zone. Um

[48:28] Nelson would be the first of the interior areas.

[48:31] » I was thinking there were words kind of slightly separate but not really.

[48:35] » Interestingly enough, Nelson is in climate zone five

[48:39] » and a lot of climate zone 5 has actually gone to emission level four. A lot of

[48:44] that actually also includes the island. So we do know that it is possible here.

[48:49] Um and I looked at the stats. I couldn't find the completed projects. I can send

[48:52] that afterwards. But um we had uh 11 project projects or 40% of our projects

[48:59] were hitting emission level four um in their proposed um reports. So

[49:10] » I would almost my last comment is I'd almost just if there was any hesitation

[49:14] about talking I just the whole thing 200 seven I probably also want to get a

[49:21] little more but I think there's some sense around

[49:25] the table maybe going further.

[49:30] » Yeah I would go further. I would just go straight to E4. Um, now and to councelor

[49:36] Pierro's point again, I think that there's some con except between the step

[49:41] code and zerocarbon step code. I think the building community's concern

[49:46] isn't the zerocarbon step code so much because they do largely build for at

[49:50] least 40% said already do it. 40% of buildings I bet you 100% of contractors

[49:55] do it because it's really it's not that complicated. It's just a house that's

[50:02] generally electric. Heating water that's electric. A lot of our houses going back

[50:07] to the 2010s are like that. So, it's it's not complicated. I don't think the

[50:12] building community is what we're is concerned about that. It's the step code

[50:17] part that's that they would be. So, the feedback I'm sure if you did separate

[50:21] them out, they wouldn't have problems with EL4.

[50:24] the and again even the chambers letter if you parsed it didn't sound like the

[50:30] issue was EL4 was referencing the step code in terms of their concern um I

[50:37] think E4 in general again I think counselor Payne's original point is kind

[50:42] of bang on it's just simpler like let's let's let's just go straight to it let's

[50:48] not complicate the process too much by stepping through EL3

[50:54] Um and and I think in general too the reason why we should keep the pace up is

[51:00] because we've set those targets like and those targets were way behind on

[51:07] » already all of us all of society. It's so even just trying to find parody with

[51:12] other interior municipalities is not something we should be achieving or

[51:17] aiming for. We've we've got to got to keep the momentum up. And so in this

[51:24] case, I I think it's one, it's simpler. Two, I don't think the build the the

[51:30] contractors, the building community would have an issue particularly with

[51:33] this one. I think there's some on the margins around,

[51:37] you know, an attachment to gas. And and to your point, I guess I

[51:42] had thought that gas was only for like, you know, your gas fireplace or your

[51:47] exterior gas, but you're right, it's the stove as well, so even that isn't an

[51:52] issue. Um, so

[51:54] » yeah, >> not a not a lot of reason to not just go

[51:58] to raise the eel. >> Okay, council, I'm gonna I'm going to be

[52:02] very um generous here this evening on this discussion because I'm hearing lots

[52:06] of things and I know I know where this discussion is going, but uh I'm going to

[52:10] be letting somebody else uh lead lead this one. I've been quite busy already

[52:14] today. So, councelor Woodward and then councelor Panero for last and then we

[52:18] are going to make some decisions. Okay, >> my my just my quick question is it's

[52:22] never going to be cheaper to do this work now. It's only going to get more

[52:27] expensive to do the work. So, if we just set the set the precedent now and people

[52:32] who are building now and in the next few years, it's like it'll be far more

[52:37] expensive in 10 years or five years. So, >> entrepreneurial.

[52:43] » Okay, super quick. If that's true, then I have no problem with that at all.

[52:50] the thing like everything you said makes sense to me. I'm just a bit hung up on

[52:56] when we consulted with people like council doctor can say that he

[53:04] doesn't think that the building community has an issue with that but

[53:07] what did the building community have an issue with because they had an issue

[53:10] with something that made them want to phase this in slower and and I'm just

[53:15] curious what that was because if it isn't if it isn't that like you said

[53:19] then let's go like I'm completely into it. It's just that one like these people

[53:25] do this for a living and I think that needs to be respected. So what did they

[53:29] have a problem with specifically and if it wasn't Yel for then then we're good.

[53:34] I think >> I think um actually it was kind of a bit

[53:37] different than what the chambers letter and again I have not seen the chamber

[53:41] but just from what I gleaned here um our building community from the builders

[53:45] that we spoke with were uh both um okay with moving forward with the step code

[53:50] and I think they really understand the step code. They were also okay with

[53:54] moving forward u with zerocarbon. However, when we were talking to them,

[53:59] it was pretty clear that some of them had less understanding of the zerocarbon

[54:03] step code and there was some questions around it and they didn't understand.

[54:07] I've gone all electric, I'm still not hitting EL4 or I put in a dual fuel

[54:12] system, I am hitting EL4. Like there were some questions and I can't use

[54:16] certain mechanical equipment anymore. So then we brought in um a part three and a

[54:21] part nine energy advisor and they did a presentation and people were able to

[54:25] answer their question. So the reason we um implemented a phased approach wasn't

[54:29] because the builders were concerned. It was more just we could see that not

[54:33] everybody had the same level of understanding on zero carbon they all

[54:38] you know generally supported it. So I don't know that that helps clarify but I

[54:42] just wanted to give a phased approach just to give them time to catch up.

[54:47] Okay, counselors, there are five resolutions before us

[54:54] and

[55:02] are we then proposing that we only pass three in for bylaw 3664 and amend it to

[55:10] say December 2026.

[55:15] That would be the privilege of the table. I think that um do we have to do

[55:20] we have to can we just eliminate some of these or can we just I'm just looking at

[55:24] it >> or just make a new one.

[55:26] » One of them is to do that we're doing but in 2028.

[55:30] » Yes. But there's a big change to the um 16.3 to 16.5. There's

[55:38] it repeals. So, building bylaw amendment number

[55:44] 34564

[55:47] » or whatever. Yeah. 3654. Um,

[55:53] » deletes the section 16.2 to 16.5 and then replaces it.

[55:59] So, >> why don't we just do first two readings?

[56:02] » We could do that. And then um third reading is given as

[56:09] amended. >> Yeah.

[56:11] » Or we can just >> Yeah.

[56:14] » The only change is to 16.2 where you change emission level

[56:19] » three to emission level four in 16.2 or you could do first two ratings.

[56:25] » Isn't it just easiest to do if that's the

[56:27] » I've got no recommendations on the table yet. So I am curious as to why I'm

[56:32] hearing this that that there is a thought around the table to go to step

[56:38] code step code step 4 and zerocarbon E4 in 2026. Can that not can that not just

[56:49] be the resolution that's passed >> 16.2 just needs to change that we have

[56:55] the bylaw. >> It's a bylaw.

[56:56] » It's a bylaw. We have to change the bylaw.

[57:01] » Wasn't this changing the bylaw? >> Are these resolutions changing?

[57:04] » I get what you're saying. So, adopt one just as is and adopt

[57:09] resolution two as amended. It's you.

[57:14] » Why don't Well, we could you could just um

[57:19] adopt Well, it's amended as >> this is a description of bylaws, not the

[57:24] actual >> No. Well, the bylaw is on the back. You

[57:27] just attach to this. >> So it's the bylaw that needs to change

[57:31] in resolution. >> Yeah.

[57:36] » One and two is E4. >> Why don't we we just do one and two. We

[57:40] can bring it back on the 21st and do third reading and I think we'll be

[57:45] basically on the same timeline. >> This is this isn't happening.

[57:50] » Yeah. For another six. It doesn't we have time. It's happening in five

[57:53] months. So >> So why don't we just do one and two?

[57:56] they can change the bylaw, bring it back as as the actual bylaw that you want to

[58:01] pass and there's no urgency to change that on the fly to me.

[58:08] » I'm I'm I'm still really confused. So, you have to tell me again this because

[58:12] » because number two is reading it for a third time and usually when we read a

[58:17] third time, >> we're just doing we're just doing one

[58:19] and two and then >> What's one and two?

[58:21] » No, one and three. We're going to do anything

[58:23] » first and second time by title only, >> right?

[58:26] » For for for the first resolution >> and then we're not doing anymore.

[58:33] And then we're going to bring it back to another the next regular meeting in

[58:37] August for third reading as amended to change

[58:42] it from uh step >> E

[58:46] » E3 to E4 and then it'll be adopted in September.

[58:52] » And I think we can still do five tonight if we want to.

[58:55] » Oh, and we can do five. Yes. Sorry. Yes.

[59:00] » Okay. So, as long as everybody's got that, I guess somebody can uh move

[59:03] recommendation number one. >> So, should we move to strike two, three,

[59:08] and four, or do we just vote them down or do you just not?

[59:15] » Okay. Moved by councelor Lochenberg, seconded by councelor Woodward.

[59:20] So, councelor Lockenberg, do you have that up there so you can read it out to

[59:24] the public?

[59:27] that the Corporation of the City of Nelson building amendment um energy step

[59:32] code step 4 plus zerocarbon EL3 bylaw number 3654 2026 be introduced and read

[59:40] a first and second time by title. >> Okay, counselors that's been moved and

[59:45] seconded. All those in favor and that carries. Anybody Anybody

[59:52] opposed? I just wanted to hear EL4. It makes me

[59:57] nervous. >> Well, that's why I don't understand. I'm

[1:00:00] still trying to figure out why I can't say E4. You guys can't change that.

[1:00:03] » Why are you saying E4? If we're changing the Bible, it feels like

[1:00:07] » Commission 4 E4. >> My understanding is because in that

[1:00:11] resolutions, it's referencing the bylaw as written. Yeah.

[1:00:15] » And so, we have to speak to the bylaws written. They'll bring it back amended.

[1:00:20] So when they bring it back, it'll be EL4 >> and it'll be third reading.

[1:00:23] » And if you want to pass a resolution that says, you know, um, please bring

[1:00:28] back, you know, the bylaw amended to adopt E4.

[1:00:38] » Okay, before we get >> the date we want EL4 is

[1:00:42] » okay. Um, so this is number one's been moved and seconded. We have to do this.

[1:00:48] » Can I have the vote? So I we voted. You didn't want to go down as recorded the

[1:00:52] post. You're okay. >> Not opposed. I just

[1:00:54] » So that's all in favor. So that carries. >> So you passed this two readings of the

[1:01:02] bylaw as current. Now you can pass the resolution to say please amend this

[1:01:07] bylaw to have EL4

[1:01:12] supposed to come in December 2026. December

[1:01:19] 31st, 2026. >> You want to pass that resolution that

[1:01:25] directs us to bring this back that way. >> Okay, I'll I'll move that.

[1:01:29] » Can I move that? >> Okay, I'll move that.

[1:01:31] » You okay with that? You've got what we need, sir?

[1:01:34] » Yeah. >> I'll

[1:01:39] » Okay. So, recommendation to bring back amended version that says EL4 December

[1:01:44] 31, 2026. So five months. Okay. By Woodward, seconded by Payne.

[1:01:56] Any discussion?

[1:02:01] Now we're all quiet. Let's see if we all raise up our hands again.

[1:02:06] » Okay. >> All All those in favor

[1:02:10] that carries. >> And I'll move five.

[1:02:12] » And you're going to move number five. Okay. Number five. Tate seconder

[1:02:18] Woodward Tate, please. >> Council direct staff to return in 2027

[1:02:23] with recommendations regarding future energy step code and zero requirement

[1:02:26] step code requirements for part three buildings.

[1:02:29] » Okay, that's moved and seconded. Anybody need uh further on that? So part three

[1:02:33] buildings are the big buildings versus the small buildings.

[1:02:38] Okay, all those in favor and that carries.

[1:02:44] Okay, thank you very much counselors. Thank you staff

[1:02:48] for bringing that forward and moving us along.

[1:02:53] Thank you.

[1:02:57] Next up, we have some further recommendations

[1:03:01] from staff. We have 8A the cube 2.0 lease terms. Staff are seeking council's

[1:03:07] approval to amend its previous direction regarding the lease term for the cube

[1:03:11] 2.0 zero project at 82010 street. While council has already approved the site

[1:03:16] location, directed staff to finalize the land agreement, approve a 10-year

[1:03:20] nominal rent period in principal, and agree to providing letters of support

[1:03:24] for grant applications. Staff now recommend authorizing a 25-year initial

[1:03:29] ground lease with one 25-year renewal option. The longer lease term better

[1:03:34] reflects the construction of a permanent facility on city-owned land, supports

[1:03:38] funding and financial requirements, and provides long-term certainty certainty

[1:03:42] while preserving council's previous direction that the first 10 years of the

[1:03:46] lease be provided at nominal rent. So, there's quite a lot of information there

[1:03:52] and there is a recommendation moved by councelor Paige. Is there a

[1:03:57] second? Council Woodward. Councelor Page. Council amended its previous

[1:04:01] direction regarding Q 2.0 project at 820 10th Street by authorizing the city to

[1:04:07] enter into a ground lease with the complete climate association for an

[1:04:09] initial term of 25 years with one option to renew for further 25 years with the

[1:04:14] first 10 years of the initial term to remain at a nominal rent as previously

[1:04:19] approved by council and further that all the resolution previously adopted by

[1:04:23] council respecting Q 2.0 project, including the approval of site location,

[1:04:27] staff's authority to finalize the site details and document them in a land

[1:04:31] agreement, and the city's commitment to provide letters of support for grant

[1:04:35] applications remain unchanged. >> Okay, that's been counc um I just have a

[1:04:42] question about uh communication. Public notice will be

[1:04:47] provided for property disposition.

[1:04:53] Um when I looked up property like property disposition

[1:04:58] is that different because when I looked that up it said legal financial and tax

[1:05:02] processes of selling transferring or disposing. So disposition and disposal

[1:05:06] are they >> help me understand that

[1:05:10] » any time we lease land for longer than a five years is considered a disposition.

[1:05:17] So the municipality does not have um rights to that land for a long period of

[1:05:23] time. We have to let the community know that we're going to do that.

[1:05:26] » Okay. So we still own it. >> No,

[1:05:29] » but we just Yeah. That's what >> we sort of giving up our rights to use

[1:05:33] it as long. That's what I want to clar. Thank you. Figured it was something like

[1:05:38] that. >> Okay. Any other comments, questions, or

[1:05:42] concerns? Seeing none, all those in favor?

[1:05:47] And that carries. Okay. Moving on to 8B.

[1:05:53] Um, development variance permit application for 820 Victoria Street to

[1:05:57] bury requirements for interior lot line setpack and sading exemptions. And staff

[1:06:02] is back at the table. So, development services has received an application to

[1:06:07] bury zoning bylaw number 3652 2026 as follows. Section 10.12R3

[1:06:14] interior side lot line setback to reduce the minimum required setback from the

[1:06:18] interior side property line from 1.0 m to 0.52 m and section two section five

[1:06:29] and number two section 5.10 sighting exemptions to reduce the

[1:06:33] allowable distance between roof eaves and a property line from 0.9 m to 0.7 m.

[1:06:40] council is being requested to consider and approve the proposed variances.

[1:06:46] » Um yeah, so I can just provide a little bit of context on this property. Uh so

[1:06:51] the property is located in the lower Uhill neighborhood. Uh the existing home

[1:06:55] is estimated to have been built around 1905 during an earlier period of

[1:07:00] development in the neighborhood and this was before modern zoning and subdivision

[1:07:04] standards were established. Uh many uh blocks in lower Uphill and Nelson

[1:07:09] reflect the development patterns of this period where buildings were typically

[1:07:13] located closer together and closer to property lines than what would be

[1:07:18] typically permitted under today's zoning regulations. Uh these historic

[1:07:22] conditions contribute to the established character of the neighborhood, but they

[1:07:26] can also create challenges for older homes when they're renovated or expanded

[1:07:30] due to our current regulations. uh in this house, in this case, the existing

[1:07:35] house was built uh close to the interior property line and at a slight angle. So,

[1:07:40] it results in a building setback that does not comply with our current zoning.

[1:07:45] Um our staff have reviewed the application and it complies with all the

[1:07:49] other zoning regulations. Um the building footprint will also not be

[1:07:54] increased. They're using the existing footprint to build upward on the home.

[1:07:58] Uh the variances are needed because we approved our new variance criteria and

[1:08:03] it exceeds that 20% threshold at which a variance can still be considered minor.

[1:08:08] Um and also the local government act dictates that you can't increase a

[1:08:13] nonconformity. So the variance would help to bring it into uh conformity.

[1:08:18] And um their variances would also help retain an existing home in the uphill

[1:08:23] neighborhood. Um and staff have concerns that uh requiring the applicant to

[1:08:28] adhere to the setback could create undesirable outcomes for the streetscape

[1:08:32] by creating an asymmetrical uh facade um or resulting in an

[1:08:37] unfavorable demolition on the block. Uh we circulated uh notice to the neighbors

[1:08:43] and we received uh four comments in favor and one comment in concern as well

[1:08:48] as our other city staff and departments and no concerns were noted. So I'll take

[1:08:52] any questions. Council Tate, >> I have a question about when the houses

[1:08:58] um get approved to be closer together than would be our typical setbacks. Do

[1:09:02] they have to have different or higher standard of fire separation on the

[1:09:07] outside? >> Uh yeah, so they do have to meet the um

[1:09:10] BC building code. So the main requirement that they have to adhere to

[1:09:14] is related to the fenestrations or openings on the side of the building

[1:09:18] wall. So typically they have very limited uh windows to prevent fire

[1:09:22] spread or no windows to prevent fire spread. And then in addition um there

[1:09:26] are certain standards in the building code that pertain to the roof eaves. Um

[1:09:32] and uh building staff and fire staff looked at the proposal and they're

[1:09:38] satisfied with the requirements as presented.

[1:09:41] » So it's not higher than a regular the regular building code. It's just like

[1:09:44] the building code is good. It's solid. We're okay. the closer you get to the

[1:09:48] property line, the more restrictions you have.

[1:09:51] » Sometimes, I'm not sure in this case, but sometimes they'll have to put

[1:09:55] non-combustible siding, >> right?

[1:09:57] » So, the building code kind of addresses those concerns when they get close to

[1:10:00] the property line. >> Thank you,

[1:10:03] » Card. >> Thank you, Mayor.

[1:10:06] » Um, I know there are I'm just looking at this. I flew up this picture here and

[1:10:11] the >> the closeness of the buildings. I know

[1:10:14] there's a there's quite a few an uphill like this and I guess number one as

[1:10:18] councelor Tate said I was I'm always concerned about fire how would you do

[1:10:22] this but I was also wondering about repair and if it's so tight like how do

[1:10:28] you get in there to repair? What does the building code say about these kind

[1:10:33] of situations? because it would almost seem like you'd have to go in from the

[1:10:37] inside out to repair because you couldn't actually you might be able to

[1:10:41] just fit in here but there are some that are like three or four inches away from

[1:10:47] the next movement. >> Yeah. Um that is a fair complaint.

[1:10:51] Typically um when a building sits in a really close threshold to the property

[1:10:57] line um there isn't any requirement to establish like an easement. So, an

[1:11:02] easement is a legal agreement that allows people to maintain their property

[1:11:06] by accessing by another property. Um, in this case, because the building is fully

[1:11:12] located on that, even though it's really close to the property line, there is no

[1:11:16] easement registered. Um, but the neighbors do have quite a good

[1:11:20] relationship with their their neighbor and they've uh been very collaborative

[1:11:25] and sort of communicating the construction in a way that works with

[1:11:27] everybody. So typically we kind of rely on just goodwill and good neighbor civil

[1:11:33] partnership for things like that. But in certain situations there are legal

[1:11:37] agreements that maintain legal access to that part of the building.

[1:11:40] » Okay. >> Yeah.

[1:11:41] » Thank you. >> I just have a question um as sort of a

[1:11:46] followup to what um councelor Pete was asking around um fire and such and and

[1:11:50] building code. When they do this extension, the

[1:11:54] extension has to comply with the building code. They don't have to bring

[1:11:57] the house up to code cuz that would never happen. I I mean I I own one of

[1:12:03] these. Like that would be >> Yeah, that's

[1:12:06] » they just tear it down instead of >> Yeah. No, that that's correct. So, we

[1:12:09] don't retroactively apply building code um or uh zoning bylaw. Um it would be

[1:12:16] unreasonable to kind of retroactively apply those requirements. So, just the

[1:12:21] new construction. >> Just the new construction. I just want

[1:12:23] to be really clear about that because when she was asking about its proximity

[1:12:26] and stuff and like it has to meet the building code, it's like no, the the new

[1:12:29] has to meet the building code, >> not not the not the old. I just

[1:12:33] » if you went to put new siding where the existing sighting is, the new sighting

[1:12:37] would have to meet the building code of the reduced setback.

[1:12:42] » I don't know. You are always allowed under local act repair and maintain.

[1:12:47] Okay. I would have to check with the building official too far into the

[1:12:51] building code. >> Actually not allowed to.

[1:12:53] » Yeah. >> But um but I could ask them and I could

[1:12:56] follow up an email just if you wanted to know. But I think there might be a

[1:12:59] repair and maintain that you can do >> new have to be the building.

[1:13:04] » So So in that example like >> if the proposal had a new window and

[1:13:08] you'd be like we need to make sure it's the

[1:13:11] » depending you may or may not be allowed window.

[1:13:14] » That's right. >> Yeah. Exactly. Like typically um when

[1:13:17] you're that close to the property line, you either have to have a very reduced

[1:13:21] size or only a certain percentage of windows can cover that side of the

[1:13:24] property or you have to have fire shutters or something like that. So

[1:13:28] yeah, >> I just wanted clarity on that cuz I was

[1:13:31] sort of thinking, okay, that's uh yeah, the new the new will be up building

[1:13:37] code. Anyways, so uh councelor Paige has a question.

[1:13:42] I'm curious about the the one concern that we did get around the blocking and

[1:13:46] I have been hearing as we've been seeing more of these buildings show up and take

[1:13:51] form that very tall blocking. There were some good examples provided. I think

[1:13:55] other residents have pointed them out to me as well and there's some stuff going

[1:13:58] on in Uphill. uh how can we start to address the massing of those those third

[1:14:06] and second stories uh the way those roofs are being peaked because this is

[1:14:11] all this will also be quite well as but address that concern specifically and is

[1:14:18] there need for change in our approach. Um so typically our zoning bylaws are

[1:14:25] what would help to regulate um the massing uh in this particular instance

[1:14:30] the historic sighting of the house typically it would be set back kind of

[1:14:35] in that invisible box that the zoning creates um in a way that it doesn't

[1:14:41] impact sort of the neighboring properties. But in this instance it's

[1:14:44] just too close to the property line. Um if we were concerned with um sort of

[1:14:51] massing and shadow casting and things like that, we could certainly uh look at

[1:14:55] our OCP design guidelines and zoning to evaluate if any changes need to be made

[1:15:00] there. But those are typically the avenues through which those things are

[1:15:03] addressed. So and single family homes like this one, there's no design

[1:15:07] guidelines. You kind of just need the rules in the zoning bylaw. um only big

[1:15:12] buildings um that you see downtown. Um we like look more closely at the design

[1:15:18] of them. Um and sometimes we do also like Sarah was mentioning for variances.

[1:15:23] Um >> what are you guys hearing about that

[1:15:27] concern? Like that can't be the first time you heard of the public say that

[1:15:33] buildings too tall and too blocky small neighborhoods. I have heard that in the

[1:15:38] past and we have ever since we've had a zoning bylaw. Um it has been 10 meters

[1:15:44] in height was allowed in the R1 overall density which and now we've changed it

[1:15:48] to smallcale residential. I think uh now our land is becoming more valuable and

[1:15:54] so people are kind of building up and so I think you are seeing those taller

[1:15:57] homes. I think Nelson benefits from a very eclectic building stock. So right

[1:16:02] next to it is a house that is going to be the exact same height as this one.

[1:16:06] So, I think it's kind of a mix and I think you'll see like a tall house um in

[1:16:10] an area where there's shorter houses and I think those ones stand out a little

[1:16:13] bit more, but I think housing stock is always kind of evolving and over time

[1:16:18] you'll see some of that older housing stock be replaced or modifications made.

[1:16:22] But I do I do occasionally hear that point and and I kind of mentioned that

[1:16:27] the rules have been substantially similar for many many years. Um the

[1:16:31] other thing to note um in our most recent iteration of the zoning bylaw, so

[1:16:36] we actually modified the way that we calculate building height um as you may

[1:16:40] remember because we were finding that the way we're calculating building

[1:16:43] height actually um was more beneficial to sort of those flat more modern style

[1:16:49] roofs. So now the way we calculate um makes it easier for people to have that

[1:16:54] pitched roof which can be more consistent with the character especially

[1:16:57] that we see in lower uphill where there's quite a lot of those open cable

[1:17:01] form roofs as well. So yeah. >> Okay. Thanks.

[1:17:10] » Any other questions? >> Okay.

[1:17:14] So I I'll move one mayor.

[1:17:19] » Okay. two.

[1:17:20] » Uh, yes, please. >> Okay, I'll move one.

[1:17:23] » Is there a seconder? >> Second.

[1:17:24] » Seconded by councelor Tate. >> Uh, so this is uh section 10.

[1:17:31] » Oh, I think it starts above that and there is only one. If you go back only

[1:17:35] one, sorry, that's one. Sorry. Um that the application for the

[1:17:39] development variance permit be approved to vary the requirements of zoning bylaw

[1:17:44] 3652 2026 allowing for a new roof and rear second story edition on following

[1:17:52] properties collectively known as 820 Victoria Street. Uh can we read all that

[1:17:58] for the record? The lot nine. >> Oh no, we can probably pass those

[1:18:03] things. Okay, >> that's all the pin the P ID numbers and

[1:18:06] such. And as follow, do you want me to read this as follows then? Zoning B

[1:18:11] » number 3652 2026. This is number one section 10

[1:18:17] 12 R3 interior side lot line setback to reduce the minimum required setback from

[1:18:23] the interior side property line from 1 uh meter to 0.52

[1:18:31] m. And this is number two section 51 section.10

[1:18:36] uh sitting exemptions to reduce the allowable distance between roof eaves

[1:18:41] and property lines from 0.9 m to 0.7 m. >> Okay. So that's been moved and seconded.

[1:18:50] All seeing no further questions. All those in favor and that carries. Thank

[1:18:55] you counselors. Moving on. Thank you staff.

[1:19:02] Moving on to the thing I usually make the breakfast of information items

[1:19:07] including correspondence and meetings of committees and commissions. And the

[1:19:10] first one I have up in my pile is the um information items from council's

[1:19:17] committees and commissions. There are seven of them. We have minutes from the

[1:19:21] cultural development committee, Nelson Public Library, Nelson, two from Nelson

[1:19:25] Public Library, three from the Greater Nelson Economic Development um group,

[1:19:30] two coordinating meetings, and an advisory meeting, and we have the Nelson

[1:19:34] Housing Committee. Um they're all for to be received for information. Is there

[1:19:40] anyone that wishes to draw one out for further discussion?

[1:19:45] Seeing no hands shooting up. Is there a mover of items 1 through 7 for

[1:19:50] information

[1:19:53] by councelor Woodward. Is there a seconder?

[1:19:55] » Seconded by councelor Tate. So items 1 through 7 have been moved for um receipt

[1:20:00] for information. Uh all those in favor

[1:20:06] post and that carries. Thank you.

[1:20:12] Next up, we have information items um proposed by staff and we have three of

[1:20:17] them here. We have development services, we have finance, and we have um

[1:20:23] corporate services. Is there anything that anybody wishes to pull out?

[1:20:27] Councelor Payne? >> Um I think we need to pull out the

[1:20:30] development services monthly

[1:20:34] build report. >> Okay.

[1:20:38] So, we will pull that out. And is there someone that would like to move item two

[1:20:43] and three? >> We can move two and three.

[1:20:45] » Okay. Moved by councelor Tate, seconded by councelor Woodward. All those in

[1:20:49] favor of receiving for information two and three. And that carries. So here we

[1:20:54] are back at number one. Councelor Payne, you have a question.

[1:20:59] » Yeah, I I actually emailed earlier today to uh director of development services.

[1:21:04] Did I get that title right? um about the numbers and she

[1:21:10] acknowledged that there was a a typo on there. Um an email did go out to all of

[1:21:16] council, but I don't know what the procedure is. Do we withdraw that report

[1:21:21] until we have the correct report or >> we can just we'll amend the or just note

[1:21:27] that it will be amended with the >> correct.

[1:21:30] » Okay, that was basically building. >> Did I get that? That's

[1:21:35] » right. an extra zero. So, where'd you put the

[1:21:38] extra? >> Oh,

[1:21:40] » on the millions. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I was like,

[1:21:43] » that got my attention. >> Yeah.

[1:21:46] » I'm like, woohoo.

[1:21:50] » So, you want to just give the update so >> Yeah.

[1:21:53] » We get it on record. >> Uh the update. Yes.

[1:21:56] » So, the correct numbers and then that everybody will hear it.

[1:21:59] » The update. Just one second here. Um but basically an extra zero got added to the

[1:22:05] multi-unit residential building permit numbers and so it said 75 million

[1:22:09] instead of seven um 7.5 million. Um and then so I made so I did send council an

[1:22:18] email to that effect letting them know. Then I've noticed so we draw that rep

[1:22:23] report from a third party and their numbers aren't kind of adding up

[1:22:26] necessarily. So, I need to work with um city reporter to get that sorted out.

[1:22:32] So, some of the building permit numbers are kind of not accurate. So, I'll be

[1:22:36] working with them on that. And then I did provide council. The unit count

[1:22:40] though um is actually correct. Um

[1:22:48] » total for this period is got too many zeros as well.

[1:22:52] » Yeah. So, we'll be reviewing that report. We'll take it off maybe and then

[1:22:55] have it amended or we might have to make our own report if that one's not working

[1:23:00] from the city report.

[1:23:03] » So just to make the correction there. So that line that says total for this

[1:23:06] period is actually 8 million.

[1:23:10] » Yes. >> It's just it's just for people that

[1:23:12] might be looking and listening. >> What are you building?

[1:23:15] » And then and then >> where are you putting it

[1:23:18] » your year today I imagine has a significant change.

[1:23:23] I I have a question that riffs off of that really nicely from our um from some

[1:23:27] other curiosities I've had. So I notice on the BC provincial government website,

[1:23:33] you can Google like list of municipalities in BC by revenue, list of

[1:23:38] municipalities in BC by VCC's and building permit information. And so I

[1:23:43] was like, woo. Um and sometimes our cool little municipality has zeros. And is

[1:23:49] that a reporting thing? Is it because we might not like align with that? I maybe

[1:23:53] I'll send it out and you guys could talk about it at another report. I'm like,

[1:23:57] how come we're zeros here? I don't think we're zero. I think we're rad.

[1:24:01] » Okay, I'll pass it around. >> I'll send you the link and I'll look

[1:24:03] into it. Um, it might I'm not sure if it might be voluntary to provide that

[1:24:07] information. >> There could be a threshold and because

[1:24:10] we're small, we don't meet the threshold.

[1:24:12] » This is my question. >> I think it's a th I think it's a

[1:24:14] threshold thing. >> From your I don't think we're zero.

[1:24:17] Looking at government reports, I would say we're not meeting the threshold.

[1:24:20] » Our planned acquisition >> open.

[1:24:25] » Okay. Noting that those corrections um will be made if somebody would like to

[1:24:31] move the development services report as amended. Councelor Payne, is there a

[1:24:36] seconder? Councelor Lochenberg. All those in favor of the report as that

[1:24:42] carries. Thank you for that. >> Can I just ask one question out of the

[1:24:45] payables? Um, I think it was 179,000. Does that mean the elevator's finished

[1:24:51] or is there a No, because it didn't seem to be fully operational. I wanted to try

[1:24:55] it today. I thought, "Oh, we spent a lot of money on the elevator. Let's check it

[1:24:58] out." >> So, one is done.

[1:25:00] » Yeah. >> Okay. The one is actually completed.

[1:25:02] » And they're working on the other one now.

[1:25:04] » So, that would be a draw. >> Yeah.

[1:25:07] » Yeah. No, I I thought it was higher in the um budgeting and I went, "Whoa, did

[1:25:12] we save some money there?" But then I saw only multiples. So,

[1:25:15] » all good. We'll get there. >> Yes.

[1:25:17] » Um, >> um, just now that they're fixed, um,

[1:25:22] » one's fixed, >> one fixed,

[1:25:23] » one's fixed, and then the other one will be fixed. Uh, what's the lifespan now on

[1:25:27] those fixed elevators? I >> think those ones have been in there

[1:25:31] since the building was built. So, 50 years ago or whatever.

[1:25:35] » So, we get another 50 years. >> No, maybe they aren't 30.

[1:25:40] » Maybe we don't use them that much. start walking more

[1:25:43] » just just as a >> they are a nice ride. Has anybody been

[1:25:46] in the new one now? >> Yeah, that's why I went today. I went I

[1:25:49] want to see what I feel like. >> I don't I don't get in and feel like

[1:25:53] this could be my last elevator ride. >> Okay,

[1:25:57] » I'm holding my phone. No, I don't know. >> Yeah, that's what I always think. I'm in

[1:26:00] here. Do I have a phone? >> Okay,

[1:26:04] » that sensation anymore. >> That was my question.

[1:26:06] » Um so, uh we have one more. We have the um late item. And so the late item is

[1:26:12] connection fees and development. >> So I have correspondence. I know it's it

[1:26:15] doesn't have its own little thing. So I never know when to jump in with that.

[1:26:18] » Oh, I I had correspondence like she passed that as number two. Like she

[1:26:21] passed two and three together. >> Two and three.

[1:26:26] Oh, sorry. Under reports. >> Yeah, under reports. We passed them.

[1:26:30] » Just a just a quick thing. I saw the response to the lakeside washrooms,

[1:26:35] but my question was I thought we had allocated some money in the budget to do

[1:26:40] an upgrade on those. Not this year. >> We had um

[1:26:45] » it was a request then that we didn't actually

[1:26:48] » we went to the regional district and asked them if they would help fund that

[1:26:52] and they didn't put that in their budget. That's the bad news. The good

[1:26:57] news is uh CBT has come out with a some new grants. One's called uh the shore

[1:27:04] grant um which seems to be a good fit for this. Uh there's planning money

[1:27:11] available. So we're going to do some to understand um

[1:27:15] » I think I I did read that in the response letter.

[1:27:17] » Right. So >> I it was mainly the budget question that

[1:27:20] I was because I did see that we were going for some CBT money but so some

[1:27:24] there is some action. >> Yeah. So, we'll do the uh we'll apply

[1:27:27] for that grant. Hopefully do the planning. We have to understand, make

[1:27:30] sure the structure and everything is fine before we put a bunch of money into

[1:27:34] it. So, that's where we're at. >> And then the other one was about the

[1:27:37] escooter letter. I didn't see a response to that, but it didn't make sense to me

[1:27:41] that a safety officer told him that he needed

[1:27:45] a license for his escooter because those things are driving all over the place.

[1:27:51] You have pilot. You have to be approved as a pilot community to legally have

[1:27:58] scooters in your town. >> And we are not scooters.

[1:28:02] » Individuals can't own e scooters. >> Well, they can

[1:28:06] » you just can't >> they just can't ride them.

[1:28:09] » What's wrong? >> Probably on a public road, right?

[1:28:12] » So, >> you can ride in your driveway.

[1:28:14] » Are we driveway >> and you can't ride them?

[1:28:17] » Are we ticketing those individuals? Some of whom I know. Some are getting tickets

[1:28:21] like the individual was told. >> Okay. So that is that's what I wanted to

[1:28:26] verify that is correct information. >> That's correct. Yeah.

[1:28:29] » So do we want to become a pilot community? Is that anything we should

[1:28:34] look at because it is a >> conveyance and especially for like the

[1:28:39] individuals I know that own them are down like they're going um what am I

[1:28:46] trying to say horizontally. They're not necessarily going uphill on those

[1:28:50] things. Can you imagine coming down on one? I'm scared on my ebike and I got my

[1:28:54] hands on the brakes the whole time. Um, yeah, it's interesting. So, which

[1:28:59] department do we feed that into when we have the next opportunity to do so?

[1:29:07] » Sarah, some info, some >> So, it would come, you pull it out.

[1:29:12] » You can pull it out. I'm just thinking no. And then we'll bring it back to

[1:29:15] council at the next regular meeting. So in August for you can make a decision.

[1:29:20] You can read it. We haven't responded to them, but you can make a decision about

[1:29:24] whether or not >> you'd like staff to move forward

[1:29:28] to become a pilot community. >> Yeah. I mean, it'd be interesting to get

[1:29:32] the um opinion of development services as far as active transportation if

[1:29:36] that's anything that has been considered in the past. But I just wanted to while

[1:29:41] it was there in front of me understand a little better because yeah, I'm not

[1:29:45] riding one. I've tried that in at the active transportation conference and

[1:29:50] that was pretty flat and I wasn't totally comfortable with it myself.

[1:29:53] » Councelor Paige, >> uh, I don't want to convolute anything,

[1:29:58] but I'm just going to go back to something to talk about the bathrooms

[1:30:02] and then I'm going to come back to that. So, currently parks has referred off the

[1:30:08] conversation about capital investments to develop a set of principles. uh

[1:30:13] workshop is on the 22nd uh of July. It got moved around a few times, but we

[1:30:17] finally locked in a time. Uh and specifically around that contribution,

[1:30:22] it's it's great that there's other funding opportunities, but it's also a

[1:30:26] leverage point. So, I just don't want to lose that

[1:30:29] moment to ask that question and get that expectation nailed down from rural

[1:30:35] directors about what a regionally significant park is and why those

[1:30:39] contributions should be part of our principles. uh and that project is you

[1:30:43] know the the catalyst for that. Uh and then

[1:30:48] » CBT grant isn't 100% either. So >> yeah so we'll keep hammering away at

[1:30:53] that and it'll be good to know that you know on this year principles aside the

[1:30:58] the the ask will be smaller but we'll try and get to the principles.

[1:31:02] Uh and then on the other piece, I don't like I I think right now I think on our

[1:31:09] mobility side of things, I really want to see us really manifest well good

[1:31:14] training, good uh compliance around safety. I'm am very concerned about the

[1:31:20] number of severe injuries that we're seeing in other communities and and I

[1:31:25] don't want to necessarily embrace another product out there

[1:31:29] » on scooters. >> The escooters Yeah. like and I was using

[1:31:33] them at SCM too and I'm all fine. I just like it's just one other kind of

[1:31:37] distinctly different product out on the streets out on the sidewalks. Sarah

[1:31:42] seems to have a question. >> Not a question, just a comment.

[1:31:45] » Yeah, >> let's discuss it. I think it can be

[1:31:49] debated. >> Let's bring it up when it's brought

[1:31:51] forward. >> Okay, great.

[1:31:55] Okay. So, um there's been a

[1:32:02] » late item now, >> a recommendation from councelor Payne to

[1:32:07] remove um item number two from the

[1:32:12] correspondence list. >> How would you like that done? So,

[1:32:21] um, when a letter is included in the correspondence package, you as council

[1:32:26] have can pull it out and then we will place it on the next regular meeting

[1:32:31] agenda at which time we will vote on whether or not you approve of it or want

[1:32:36] us to how you want us to respond or in this case whether you want us to apply

[1:32:39] to the province as a pilot community. you will direct us and then you'll see

[1:32:45] it in the next correspondence package. So, we don't need

[1:32:49] » No, you want the direction I'm confused now. Do you want the direction now?

[1:32:52] » No, >> I don't.

[1:32:54] » I want I I don't >> Would you like What? What would you like

[1:32:57] the motion to be? >> I wouldn't like anybody to motion

[1:33:01] » at this point. Just that we're pulling it out because council has the right to

[1:33:06] pull out anything in correspondence that they try to.

[1:33:10] » Excellent. It's just that, you know, we've been trying to go back and forth

[1:33:13] to make sure that while we're directing staff to do something that we have a

[1:33:15] resolution. >> This is a little bit different to me

[1:33:17] that this is pulling something out >> and we're going to get a resolution, but

[1:33:21] we're not making we're not voting on it. Okay.

[1:33:24] » Okay. Perfect. I'm good. I'm golden. Anything else in correspondence, which

[1:33:29] we already passed once, but perhaps we need to pass the correspondence package

[1:33:33] again. Are we good? >> I hope we miss it. Maybe the next one.

[1:33:36] » I'm I'm fine with it. >> Okay, that's fine. I'm good, too, cuz we

[1:33:40] didn't pass it. So okay all golden there. So moving on to the last item

[1:33:45] which is a laid item and regarding connection fees and development cost

[1:33:51] charges. So staff have identified an opportunity to review and modernize the

[1:33:55] city's current connection fee framework. Existing fees were established more than

[1:33:58] 20 years ago and have not been comprehensively reviewed during that

[1:34:01] time. Given changes to the principal legislation, development practices, and

[1:34:06] municipal infrastructure planning, staff believes that it's timely to assess the

[1:34:10] city's current approach and ensure it remains aligned with current standards

[1:34:13] and best practices. As part of this review, staff are proposing to evaluate

[1:34:17] development cost charges, a framework commonly used by local governments

[1:34:21] throughout British Columbia. The review will help inform future council

[1:34:25] decisions regarding the city's long-term approach to development related

[1:34:28] infrastructure funding. Council is being asked to rep prioritize the development

[1:34:33] services work plan to undertake this review in 2026 and defer the planned

[1:34:38] update to the subdivision and development services bylaw.

[1:34:42] So um we have a recommendation in front of

[1:34:46] us is a mover councelor Payne seconded by councelor Woodward. Council pay uh

[1:34:52] that council direct staff to undertake a review and modernization of the city's

[1:34:56] connection fee framework including evaluation of a development cost charge

[1:35:02] known as a DCC framework and rep prioritize the 2026 development services

[1:35:08] work plan by deferring the subdivision and development services bylaw update

[1:35:15] and further that staff be authorized to reallocate existing budgeted funds as

[1:35:21] necessary to complete the review and the council with findings and

[1:35:27] recommendations for future consideration.

[1:35:32] » Perfect. Any um questions or concerns to staff while we have them here with us?

[1:35:42] Oh boy, we're all quiet. We're getting Are we setting a new record? 8:25. Uh

[1:35:47] yeah, >> not quite a new record. Anyhow, um

[1:35:50] seeing no further um discussion or concerns, I think this is a excellent

[1:35:55] plan to move forward with this at this time given the fact that the federal

[1:36:00] government is looking at um funding and resource allocation that may involve

[1:36:05] some offsets for um development cost charges or other things. We're hoping

[1:36:09] that they're going to be flexible with their with their money and not just be

[1:36:14] locked into one particular aspect. But I think that uh getting this work done

[1:36:18] will be excellent then um moving forward.

[1:36:21] » I do actually have a question. >> Okay.

[1:36:24] » Can I can I just get a little example of this? Like I'm thinking of the Trevor

[1:36:28] Street extension. So that developer paid for the whole thing,

[1:36:33] » but they will pay connection fees because it's prior to this new change.

[1:36:43] Um, and they won't pay

[1:36:49] development cost charges obviously that contribute to the rest of the community

[1:36:54] the way this does. I'm not saying that currently, but do you know what I mean?

[1:36:57] They're they're they're similar. So, for the Trevor Street development, they had

[1:37:01] to both install the road, the infrastructure.

[1:37:05] » They also had to pay connection fees. Those fees uh go into our reserves for

[1:37:10] our utilities. DCC's are going to be similar to that. Yeah, just

[1:37:15] » that's just one example of how that works.

[1:37:18] » All right. Yeah, >> I I was pretty sure, but I just wanted

[1:37:21] to clarify. Thank you. >> Okay, seeing no further questions or

[1:37:27] concerns. All those in favor and that carries. Thank you, council. Thank you,

[1:37:32] staff, for staying. Thank you for bringing forward this late item so that

[1:37:35] we can get that work plan adjusted because this this plan will take

[1:37:39] actually a little bit of time. So, this isn't going to be done in 2026. This

[1:37:42] will be going forward. Um, and the next council will be making additional

[1:37:48] decisions around DCC's, but at least that work will be there for them to look

[1:37:52] at. >> That's right. And it'll be started this

[1:37:53] year, uh, but it probably won't really be kicked off until the end of the year,

[1:37:57] early 2027. And I would anticipate about a year.

[1:38:01] » Yeah, exactly. So, just for anybody that might be wondering how fast this kicks

[1:38:07] in. So, there's going to be projects that are in the mix that aren't going to

[1:38:10] be affected by this at this time. I think that's always a key thing. People

[1:38:14] think, "Oh my god, they're adding more charges and like I'm in the middle of

[1:38:16] something." But stay in the middle of something, you're not going to be

[1:38:19] affected. >> That's right. And there will also be

[1:38:22] community engagement as well as builder developer engagement. So, there'll be

[1:38:26] lots of opportunities for people to come and chat with us.

[1:38:29] » Yeah, exactly. Thank you for that additional information. Okay, council,

[1:38:33] we've uh made it to the end of the night. It was a very busy day and we

[1:38:38] worked through dinner and uh I think we got a lot done um this evening. So I'm

[1:38:43] uh in favor of a resolution to adjourn. >> Can I have a question before that?

[1:38:48] » Sure. So I know we've gone alternate um meetings for council reports but we

[1:38:54] normally have a CIO report at each meeting. So we don't have one today.

[1:38:59] » No agenda. Okay.

[1:39:03] » Okay. But that is our normal. We do normally get a report every meeting.

[1:39:07] Okay. So, this is an anomaly. Look forward to hearing more from you in two

[1:39:11] weeks. >> Okay. So, if I could have a motion to

[1:39:15] adjourn and council, second by councelor Panero, all those in favor and that

[1:39:21] carries. >> Shoot. I did want to ask for like what

[1:39:23] was the final numbers at the FIFA event that like the staff was just

[1:39:27] unbelievable. There was the whole day. It was so cool.

[1:39:30] » Yeah. We estimated test number three. >> Yeah,

[1:39:34] » that garbage was just being picked up. >> Yeah, definitely was great.

[1:39:37] » It was so cool. >> Did such a good job.

[1:39:40] » Did such a good job. like that. >> I think probably some of the people were

Regular Council - 07 Jul 2026

Transcript