was like >> in the day
» 1968 >> and I came home
but not
» it's hard but it's doable like I've been working
avoid >> not a bad thing but it was a lot of
money And the great thing about the way um
trade does it is they definitely don't put any scores up.
» There are no scores. >> So you can navigate through
counselors,
» it's time. Well, I'm just waiting for two of them
to come and sit down.
Okay, welcome everybody. Welcome the people in the gallery and welcome to the
regular meeting of Tuesday, July the 7th. I'd like to call the meeting to
order and uh sorry for the couple minutes we had to get uh caught up on
world world cup for a few minutes. So we're two minutes late
» um starting. We would like to acknowledge the land on which we gather
is a traditional territory of the Taha, the Silks and the Snyags people and is
home to the Matei and many diverse Aboriginal persons. We honor their
connection to the land and rivers and respect the importance of the
environment to our strength as a community. I have one late item here for
um introduction and that is regarding um development
cost >> cost charges. So we see here it is
connection fees and development cost charges. um the RFP has been circulated
to all of you and if um if it's that's acceptable then um kind of a mover to
accept the late item move by councelor Paige seconded by councelor Woodward all
those in favor and that carries so that will be discussed at the end of the
evening and so then could I have an adoption of the agenda as amended
moved by councelor Tate second by councelor Lockenberg all those in favor
and that carries if we could have an adoption of minutes of the previous
meeting of June the 9th. Is there a move or moved by councelor Payne? Seconded by
councelor Woodward. Any errors or omissions? Councelor Payne.
» No. >> Oh, I was ready.
» You were already jumping on to the next one.
» Jumping on. >> I've never seen hands up so fast in this
room. This is >> it happened today.
» This is great. Okay. So, all those in favor of the meetings then and thank
you. Item number six, requests. So, we have some requests of some proposed
resolutions to go forward to the Federation of Canadian uh municipalities
to make sure that they get it on their docket for their upcoming meeting in
July. So, council's being asked to consider endorsing two resolutions for
it for a submission to the um FCM, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
before the July 13th submission deadline. The proposed resolutions
request that FCM undertake research and development recommendations on federal
policy matters related to one innovative financial twos and speculative
residential estate real estate investment and two systemic algorithmic
risks associated with online platforms. Endorsement by council would authorize
the city to submit the resolutions for consideration through FCM's national
resolution process. >> Moved by councelor Woodward.
Seconded by councelor Paige and um I think we can do both these
together. Is everybody happy with that if we do them together? Okay. Any need
for any conversation counselors?
Seeing none that's been moved and second. All those in favor
and that carries. There we go. So, those will be off and we'll be
sure that councelor Paige will no doubt be knowing letting them know that those
are coming to make sure it gets on their their docket for July or at the latest
their September um meeting. Thank you for your work on that
counselor um page. So, item number seven, building bylaw amendment. So, uh,
staff are proposing amendments to the city of Nelson building bylaw 3456 2019
to adopt higher performance requirements for part 9 buildings, generally low-rise
residential and small buildings under the BC energy step code and the BC zero
carbon step code um, ZCSC. Recommended phased approach for part 9
is effective December 31st, 2026, energy step code 4 and zerocarbon EL3,
effective December 31st, 2028, zero carbon EL4.
Step four remains in place. So the request is for council to give
first three readings. bylaw amend um building bylaw amendment energy step
code 4 and zerocarbon EL3 bylaw 3654 2026 and building bylaw amendment
zerocarbon EL4 step four remaining bylaw number 3664
2026 councilors there's been a we had a last
last meeting was it just last meeting two weeks ago
» June 9th >> June 9th so a month ago so we had a
presentation regarding um step code uh from the planning department and they're
here if we need a summary of that or if people feel that they want to move ahead
with something else. I see councelor Lock and
are you moving something? >> No, I can ask a question.
» Yeah. So, um do we have any further um questions or do we feel that we need a
quick review or is everybody okay with us questions?
Uh just question I guess. >> Okay. So we're gonna start with uh
councelor logberg then we'll move to councelor panero.
» Um thank you mayor. So I guess my question will give you the opportunity
to go into a bit of detail for the public to explain what these things are.
So um I'm going to frame it this way. Um why should we not go to EL4? So
emissions level four given that 2030 it's mandatory and why are we going to
EL3? So I'll I'm setting it up so you can give the rationale.
» Sure. When we first went out to talk to the building community, that was kind of
our idea to look at can the building community support um just kind of
holding it step four um because in just a few short months probably in six
months um I could expect that the uh BC building code will change and that part
buildings which are small simple or simple buildings like single family are
going to move to step four. So that will be the provincial minimum. Um and we
were considering going to a mission level four when we went out to the
building community and while they were supportive, we did hear from that
community that they didn't fully understand it in some cases. So that is
why we are recommending a staggered approach to the um zero carbon. So we're
going to do emission level three and give folks a couple years to transition
to a mission level four. I think that gives industry time to prepare and
transition and get more experience. people can still always go beyond the
minimums. That would just be the minimum from the city. So that was kind of our
thinking once we understood that not every builder in the city had a full
understanding of those requirements. We went out to them.
» And can I have a followup to his question? So when when do you foresee so
you see you see um the step code within the next six months. When do you see
EL4? When is that going to be the build when
will that do you foresee be a building code requirement provinially?
» Yeah. So I don't they don't they haven't put out a timeline for when you would
have to move along the zerocarbon step code. Right now it's minimum is emission
level one which is just reporting and then we know by 2030 that is going to be
the provincial standard which is emission level four.
» Okay. So, and I think it's up to communities to decide how they want to
get there. That's kind of my interpretation.
» Uh, councelor Panero, then councelor P. So, I just got this email the other day
and I think we all did from the chamber and they brought up a bunch of points
and basically I don't want to misquote or anything but paraphrasing
one of the points uh was that they feel that moving this forward out of step
with the provincial guidelines would somehow put the building community under
pressure and we wouldn't be able to adapt and therefore we would for any
sort of construction construction or development, we would have to go outside
of the community for those jobs. And what I see in the report is that you
have actually consulted with the building community. And I'm wondering
uh where the disconnect there is and and if and if we have consulted with the
building community which apparently we have are you confident that that we have
the capacity here to absorb any of those changes and and move forward so that we
are you know maximizing uh productivity in our community and and
people the opportunity to to work uh in field and not have to bring people in.
Is that something that having spoken to those people that you're confident that
we have that breadth of knowledge here? >> Yeah. No, unfortunately I did not get
that email from the chamber, but I am happy to follow up with Tom and just get
some more details on that after the meeting. I do actually feel for part
nine buildings, which is what the amendments are for today, um the data is
showing us that these that our builders can achieve these quite easily. that is
the minimum is step four in our community. We've been kind of achieving
it now for quite a few years. And um in terms of emission level, I think it was
12 out of 13 projects. Um we're hitting emission level three or higher. So I do
think that we have the skill set here locally. Um I wonder if maybe they're
referring to part three buildings, which are the bigger, more complex buildings,
and maybe they're not clear on the amendments today. I think those ones
would need special consideration and and I can reach out to the chamber to see if
maybe that's where the misunderstanding is.
» It's quite a long letter and there's a few things but generally I I think I'm
not exaggerating. I think most of them are sort of like that like there things
that are addressed. I just don't know to what depth or to what you know level
they're seem to be unhappy something but not sure.
seen them on that. It would be good to know.
» It would be good to know. I you know based on the engagement that we did with
our local building community and we did talk both about part three and about
part 9. There wasn't hesitation in either of those from our building
community. But part three buildings are a little bit different in that um the
bigger buildings often have consultants and builders from outside of Nelson um
because we don't always have the capacity. they don't always like because
people bid on those projects from all over the place. Uh but for part nine for
single family duplex that sort of thing I really do believe we have the capacity
here in the city of Nelson. So >> councelor Payne and then councelor.
» So I just want to um say out loud what I've heard and read in the report. So we
have around 10 to 12 contractors who are building at that level. um approximately
10 to 15 homes per year and many already are
meeting or exceeding uh step four and I'm sure also EL4.
So, I'm I'm really concerned that we're holding that I know we're not holding
that community back, but how do we incentivize
the other contractors to take advantage of the education that's been widely
available for free and free much of it is free and widely available for um well
for step code since 2017 when it was introduced.
because I I think there's significant advantages in in going to EL4
and I I personally find um would say that that education piece of saying okay
everybody we'd like to you to learn EL3 and then two years from now we'd like
you to learn something do new to add on to it wouldn't it just be less painful
to just go to four learn what you need for four and obvious Obviously three is
going to be included in that. But I don't think these are hugely
significant. I'm not a builder. Did build had a good experience inter okay
not good experience. Let's just say building your own house is not ever a
good experience. If it is, tell me. Um but yeah, I think we're and in addition
to that, so are we serving our contractor community by not setting the
bar high, which is what we've always done in a leadership role, especially
around climate. And as we look around us today, we see what James Hansen, the
NASA scientist, called the storms of our grandchildren. They're here now. So,
we're doing a disservice to homeowners building their homes if we're not going
to the the highest possible level because those homes
will need to be standing and withstanding
climate that we don't really understand right now. So, I strongly encourage us
in addition to step four to go to um EL4. the it's been I know it wasn't
clearly demonstrated because there just hasn't been enough data yet but I have
been on a number of webinars through the community energy association that talked
about the the cost increases are not significant
but the investment now leads to a huge payback over the life of those homes
when we insulate and do all the other um energy efficiency plus zerocarbon
um methods that we we can take advantage
of. So that would be my recommendation. I I don't know in any job that I've been
at if they said we want you to learn this new process here knowing that in
two years you're going to be learning something new like here's the accounting
system. could you learn this one now and then two years from now we're going to
give you more? Why don't we just go to the new accounting system, figure that
one out and keep going, especially if it offers benefits greater than what we're
working with now.
» Not a question. Sorry. I just wanted to make sure that I had summarized what I
what I had heard. Is there anything in what I said that wasn't um included in
in your report other than you know Gian Hansen in terms of our grandchild?
» No, I think that does summarize summarize the report. Um
we just wanted to make sure that all the builders were coming along. So that is
why we recommended a gradual step. Um, I think we have a really great building
community here and if we move to the regulations up to EL4, I'm sure that
they could achieve it. But I did and there is lots of opportunities for
education and I think they're very dialed on the building science aspect.
Um, the zero carbon is really working with your energy advisor on the
mechanical systems and I don't know if Mike wants to speak to that too, but
it's just a different sort of investment in your education. Um, and that's why we
thought a staggered approach would even be better for our community based on the
engagement that we did. But of course, council could go beyond that. Um, so,
» but are we asking them to do that education twice as a small business
owner? Do I want to invest in my employees to spend whatever number of
hours it is now and then to do the whole thing all over again? Because those
hours are out of productivity when I do that. um from a business perspective I
would want them to get the highest level of information. Now in
» the step code and the zero carbon I think are intentionally stepped so that
you learn that um energy efficiency or you learn that zerocarbon step and then
you move on to the next and lots of communities have jumped. They have
skipped a bunch of steps and gone forward but it really was designed so
that people could get that experience learn that system and then move on. it
is intentionally designed that way but many communities have skipped also. So I
think both approaches um have worked in other communities and could potentially
work here. It was just our recommendation based on our engagement.
» Council Edward, I would um just to speak to the chambers's letter and and build
on what councelor P is saying that it's important to separate the step code
versus the zero carbon step code. I think the chamber's letter was really
about the step code, not the zero carbon step code. Like when you I they do
mention electrification at one point, but then you can but it's kind of
conflated with electrification in general that it would require more
infrastructure, that kind of thing. A lot of houses and I think you even said
this are built full electrified. That's we do it all the time. So many houses
are built probably every developer or every contractor has built in effect for
house. So they know how to do it. It's not that complicated. The letter does
speak to step code being more complicated because you're talking about
the building envelope and that kind of thing for sure. I get that. And so in
terms of the energy step code, I definitely appreciate the stepped
approach. With the zerocarbon step code, it doesn't make as much sense. I think
it does add complexity to counselor Payne's point. Like for example, a mixed
fuel heat pump is more complicated than just a regular electric heat pump. Um,
as a fully electric home, we have a heat pump and we have baseboard heating too.
We'd never use the baseboard heating like the the heat pump is totally
sufficient for creating a lowcost and really effective um home heating
solution. The one where I can imagine an argument for not going directly to EL4,
but it's it is a bit of a stretch. It's more of a culture shift around maybe
cooking like people like gas stoves for cooking.
But the I think the health impacts that are now known, especially over the last
year or two with indoor gas stoves, is pretty significant. The amount of indoor
pollution and the health impacts of that those it's it's being phased out, I
think, pretty quickly. We just didn't know before. It was nice to have that
quick instant heat. It's a nice cooking environment. Totally. But nobody knew
about the health effects of indoor fuel or indoor gas stoves. Now we do. So now
induction stoves are are amazing alternatives and are super efficient and
instant heat too. So I understand the chamber's point on the step code taking
it a little bit more stepped on the zerocarbon step code. I think I think it
just makes sense to go to Y4. It's just for everybody ease better for the
contractors and just they got to get there anyways.
» Forward
» ran out of electric
again. >> So, I just wanted to ask you both. Um,
» it's okay. if council decided to go EL4 um
other than maybe some worries that you've mentioned about the ability for
contractors to match the moment um would there be do you do you think
there could be some kind of like situation where a developer might be
like you know what I'm not going to develop this building Nelson because
they have EL4 or is that a a false
Um I would say that's a false worry. Um yeah, it's important to note uh earlier
that you can still meet EL4 with gas cooking. You can still meet EL4 with
dual fuel gas systems. So it all comes down to how that building's being
modeled by your energy advisor. So I don't see it as a big
» just a supplemental bar. >> Yeah.
» Thank you. So, so what I how I understand this is that you actually get
your building when you're in the design phase and you're doing you're doing this
work in the design phase, you're not actually adding some kind of massive
cost because you design it in. You're you're you're building from the start
out with that in mind. That's right. There's not all of a sudden at the end
of the build there's some 10 or 20% increase. You've actually planned it all
out and you've had your energy advisor and your plans to start with. Is that
correct? >> We don't accept a building permit
without a pre-construction compliance report that's produced by an energy
advisor. So, it's all laid out from the start. The cost should be well aware
from this time. >> Thank you.
» And mid construction lowered, >> right?
» Yeah. The energy adviser is involved normally at three points the project. Uh
it's the pre-construction compliance report. Uh they it's it's optional. they
can come and do a mid construction. It's called a blower door test where they
test for an air leakage in the home. Uh that that's a requirement that must be
met met to meet levels of step code. And then they're uh brought in at the end of
the project to do another blower door test. And they ensure that the building
is built in the exact way that it was modeled. So insulation, mechanical
systems, air tightness, um they're all as it was modeled. windows, you know,
everything's involved. Um, and us as building officials, we're also
cross-referencing that um, pre-construction compliance report as
the project is is progressing. >> Thank you for
question, and this is a little bit of a thought experiment. There are some
municipalities that are talking about like Vancouver, right, about stepping
back on stepping back. um what what is the like risk proincially in terms of
some kind of uh oversight or overregulation or is it possible for
them to undo what we have done in our own bylaws? I'm just curious.
» Um
I think that we can always go beyond the provincial minimums. Um we can't go
below them if the province for some reason pauses step code or
um the government shifts and they get rid of it, then then council could
always amend our bylaws at that time. I think I mentioned this at the last
meeting, too. The step code um is being um looked at across the province, and
they're actually going to be um implementing it into a harmonized
building code across the country. And so, it's going to be adopted, a version
of it anyway, um nationally. So I think yeah I mean I guess I can't say for sure
what will happen at the provincial level but they could change it in theory but I
think it is kind of becoming a standard that everybody is accepting at the same
time. >> Yeah. Thanks. It's interesting um
because I've had lots of conversations about this. I'm sure you guys have all
had lots of conversations about this and I just keep coming back to thinking like
it is quite incremental. It's not like every single house is going to have a
heat pump, >> right? That's not how this works. and it
just feels like the next right thing to do, you know, when you we're just like
this one little city council and like what can we just do that's the next most
right thing and it I I really keep landing there just in terms of those
little pieces that we can do to make that little difference and just show a
bit of leadership as well which we don't ever want to be the most high and the
best of everything but because we have um really competent building community
and um you know, not a lot of building in a year. It does feel like a really
clever way to to make an impact. I like it.
» Yeah. And and I'd be in support of going to the EL4 for the new builds as well.
» Okay. So, council, anybody else got any questions for staff while they're here?
Can I just ask to me the the risk is more on the home
owner because we don't have fixed price builders.
» Yeah. >> Um you get build what the uh how many
hours the person puts into the thing and if the you know they didn't do the you
know the the uh they didn't build it exactly to the modeling. I haven't seen
a builder that says, "Oh, okay. Well, sorry. We'll fix that for nothing." So,
how do we educate homeowner? Because they're the ones
footing the bill if the thing doesn't get quite built to meet the standards,
etc., you know, to me, that's where more the
work has to be done is with those homeowners because they're mostly
customuilt. they're um you know, you're on the you know, most people don't have
a fixed price contract. They they pay for whatever the cost it is of those
builders building this thing. So to me, that's where the bigger risk is. The
homeowner is educated enough to ensure that um whatever their contract ensures
that you know that if the builder didn't get it right the first time, they're not
now on the hook of rework and all that stuff.
» You having to pull out the drywall to put in a new
» vapor barrier or whatever. That's why you have the mid lower door before
drywall. >> Before and after. Yep. Anyway, that
that's my experience is that, you know, because that's just the nature of our
custombuilt um individual unsophisticated homeowners
that are kind of hoping everything goes well.
Any home builder out there that can say, "Oh, Gez, yeah, I just came in right on
budget and under budget by I'm not sure, Lesly, if yours yours did, but yeah,
» I stopped adding it up." >> Right? So, that to me is the biggest
risk. So I think that's where the work needs to be done is is how do we educate
and and maybe support the homeowner kind of contract. How do they make sure that
you know these you know these additional every time you make it more complicated
more um difficult to meet things the risk is on the homeowner not builder.
I would say step code is pretty well understood. Um I know people can make
mistakes for sure. I think it's I think our building community though has been
doing it now for quite a few years like over six years and I think they're
getting better at it. I think yeah there's always a risk to that. So I
think um I don't know if the city but maybe there's some guides the step code
has put out related to that and so maybe we can look that up and put that on our
website because we do have a let's talk page about that. Um, as far as admission
level um, requirements, I think you really just have to follow what's in
those plans. Whatever your energy advisor has kind of laid out for
mechanical systems, I think you need to meet those all those step code is a
different >> but again you need to understand which
one you know what is the right mechanical system because there's a
variety right >> just it's it's just challenging as
» any of us that have built have recognized the challenge of these things
» but the design team is the important component. It's not just a contractor
and a homeowner. gets the design team. >> Yep. And if those two don't make it get
it right, then it's a homeowner pay. >> So I guess that's listening to that. My
question is, so I hire the contractor, I have the the
energy efficiency person, and it gets all said and done, and my house isn't
step code 4 or EL4, do I not get an occupancy permit?
» Uh, no. You Well, we haven't had that happen. Um, but you do need to meet the
minimums. So, what whatever we decide as as our minimums, they need to be met.
Um, >> okay. So, so basically, if I if at the
end of the day and I thought everybody's worked together and done everything
right and
the proverbial fly in the ointment and my last blower door test comes back and
there's something wrong and I have not met the standard, I do not get an
occupancy permit. I just need to get that clear in my head. So, that would be
great. Okay. Thanks. >> That because that uh well one it will be
in our bylaw >> but very soon it'll be part of the BC
building code >> right
» so anything that doesn't meet the BC building code
wouldn't be able to kind of close your permit so with all building code related
» and so those deficiencies isn't the contractor responsible for them
» yeah but they charge
Depends on your contract. Yes. >> Okay. I'm gonna go.
» Depends on your contract. >> I think I've heard from him. I think I
Okay, I've heard from everybody. So, I'm going to go Woodward Panero page.
» Thank you, Mayor. I just I was just looking at our Nelson Max document and
looking at aspiration to infrastructure and buildings in Nelson are zero carbon
and resilient. Um, you know, this was a two-year, we took two years to build
this document two years ago with deep input by the community and um, as
councelor Tate said, I think, you know, this is one of those moments where we
could be guided by our guiding documents. So, I feel like and the
number one strategy here is new buildings are net zero ready and have
lower embodied carbon and are resilient against climate change.
like this has been you know this is a very important piece of documentation
for the city so that
» okay council >> I don't have any issue with what staff
has put forward as a phased approach it's only it's two years and
I think the point of consulting with the community
there really isn't a point especially the community that actually builds
houses. And I would say to Kevin's point, like homeowners are, you know,
they need to be educated and what have you. A lot of I'm assuming a lot of
education from a from the homeowner perspective comes from the building
community. When you hire somebody to build your house, they're going to tell
you what you need to do. And if that community needs
I I don't know what they said, but if they need a couple years to to get on
the pace, we're already like this is we're we're still going ahead. We're
still ahead of the way ahead of the curve. We're already ahead of the curve
and this is a little bit more ahead of the curve, but it's still, I think,
respects the feedback and the wishes of a very important sector of the community
that actually builds these houses. And we don't I I I think we don't want to
leave those people behind. I'm sure they will scramble and they'll figure it out.
That's true. Also, at what you know, like I don't I don't
quite understand the point of of ignoring them if we're going to consult
them. And so I would just I'm happy with what you guys have put forward. Um, I
feel like we're we are um ahead of the game like demonstratively and and I
don't see why we need to tip people over and and cause any sort of discomfort for
our building community if they're already on board. And I seem to be like
we have a great knowledgeable building community. They're on board with all of
this. We're going to get to the target by 2028. And why is that?
I I think we have to I I personally feel like the point of consulting with
experts is that we listen to have to say.
» Councelor Paige, >> thanks. Yeah, we've been working on this
continuum and making some adjust adjustments. Based on what I'm hearing,
uh what I'm thinking about is going to E4
mostly seems to cut out cooking appliances. That's majority of what I've
understood is between your water heater and your furnace and building heat that
like you're going to reach those targets for E4 for zero carbon for cutting up
cooking appliances. And so does that does that mean as a builder you can't
necessarily plum it in for gas and put electric? Like how does that does the
homeowner lose all opportunity in an L4 home to have a gas hook up or
could they just put a gas hook up and installed?
» Um in in for part nine, yeah, >> it's a bit different for part three. For
part nine, you can still have gas cooking. It can still be modeled in and
you can even still have a dual fuel heat pump where there is natural gas paired
uh with an electric um cooling system, commercial heating system. So you can
still have natural gas to emission level for homes. It's just a a further
restriction on the greenhouse gas emissions associated with that building.
Uh the mechanical systems have to be more efficient.
» Yeah. So you can still have those things and people can still have natural gas to
the property >> and likely still will. Yeah.
» Yeah. Okay. So there's that flexibility and then the supplemental.
» How many homes have been giving EL4? Where are we landing on? And I I'll just
say I'm sympathetic to the idea that we kind of train once versus like every two
years. It's not the change that that that amount of shift and change is also
adds to this regulatory fatigue that people feel and then the building code
captures it all anyway. But I am curious how many people how
many of our new builds are close to G4 already.
» We we have that data. We have that. >> Yeah. And it's a law.
» Yeah. It's a better system. system
» and we're finding you know people are modeling
EL1 EL2 and at the end of the project they're coming out at EL3 and E4
quite often >> have you had any feedback from Maple
regions done this already gone to EL4 is that true
» or there most coastal regions have gone there
already. >> Uh yeah.
Uh Whistler have gone there already and they're in a colder climate zone. Um
Nelson would be the first of the interior areas.
» I was thinking there were words kind of slightly separate but not really.
» Interestingly enough, Nelson is in climate zone five
» and a lot of climate zone 5 has actually gone to emission level four. A lot of
that actually also includes the island. So we do know that it is possible here.
Um and I looked at the stats. I couldn't find the completed projects. I can send
that afterwards. But um we had uh 11 project projects or 40% of our projects
were hitting emission level four um in their proposed um reports. So
» I would almost my last comment is I'd almost just if there was any hesitation
about talking I just the whole thing 200 seven I probably also want to get a
little more but I think there's some sense around
the table maybe going further.
» Yeah I would go further. I would just go straight to E4. Um, now and to councelor
Pierro's point again, I think that there's some con except between the step
code and zerocarbon step code. I think the building community's concern
isn't the zerocarbon step code so much because they do largely build for at
least 40% said already do it. 40% of buildings I bet you 100% of contractors
do it because it's really it's not that complicated. It's just a house that's
generally electric. Heating water that's electric. A lot of our houses going back
to the 2010s are like that. So, it's it's not complicated. I don't think the
building community is what we're is concerned about that. It's the step code
part that's that they would be. So, the feedback I'm sure if you did separate
them out, they wouldn't have problems with EL4.
the and again even the chambers letter if you parsed it didn't sound like the
issue was EL4 was referencing the step code in terms of their concern um I
think E4 in general again I think counselor Payne's original point is kind
of bang on it's just simpler like let's let's let's just go straight to it let's
not complicate the process too much by stepping through EL3
Um and and I think in general too the reason why we should keep the pace up is
because we've set those targets like and those targets were way behind on
» already all of us all of society. It's so even just trying to find parody with
other interior municipalities is not something we should be achieving or
aiming for. We've we've got to got to keep the momentum up. And so in this
case, I I think it's one, it's simpler. Two, I don't think the build the the
contractors, the building community would have an issue particularly with
this one. I think there's some on the margins around,
you know, an attachment to gas. And and to your point, I guess I
had thought that gas was only for like, you know, your gas fireplace or your
exterior gas, but you're right, it's the stove as well, so even that isn't an
issue. Um, so
» yeah, >> not a not a lot of reason to not just go
to raise the eel. >> Okay, council, I'm gonna I'm going to be
very um generous here this evening on this discussion because I'm hearing lots
of things and I know I know where this discussion is going, but uh I'm going to
be letting somebody else uh lead lead this one. I've been quite busy already
today. So, councelor Woodward and then councelor Panero for last and then we
are going to make some decisions. Okay, >> my my just my quick question is it's
never going to be cheaper to do this work now. It's only going to get more
expensive to do the work. So, if we just set the set the precedent now and people
who are building now and in the next few years, it's like it'll be far more
expensive in 10 years or five years. So, >> entrepreneurial.
» Okay, super quick. If that's true, then I have no problem with that at all.
the thing like everything you said makes sense to me. I'm just a bit hung up on
when we consulted with people like council doctor can say that he
doesn't think that the building community has an issue with that but
what did the building community have an issue with because they had an issue
with something that made them want to phase this in slower and and I'm just
curious what that was because if it isn't if it isn't that like you said
then let's go like I'm completely into it. It's just that one like these people
do this for a living and I think that needs to be respected. So what did they
have a problem with specifically and if it wasn't Yel for then then we're good.
I think >> I think um actually it was kind of a bit
different than what the chambers letter and again I have not seen the chamber
but just from what I gleaned here um our building community from the builders
that we spoke with were uh both um okay with moving forward with the step code
and I think they really understand the step code. They were also okay with
moving forward u with zerocarbon. However, when we were talking to them,
it was pretty clear that some of them had less understanding of the zerocarbon
step code and there was some questions around it and they didn't understand.
I've gone all electric, I'm still not hitting EL4 or I put in a dual fuel
system, I am hitting EL4. Like there were some questions and I can't use
certain mechanical equipment anymore. So then we brought in um a part three and a
part nine energy advisor and they did a presentation and people were able to
answer their question. So the reason we um implemented a phased approach wasn't
because the builders were concerned. It was more just we could see that not
everybody had the same level of understanding on zero carbon they all
you know generally supported it. So I don't know that that helps clarify but I
just wanted to give a phased approach just to give them time to catch up.
Okay, counselors, there are five resolutions before us
and
are we then proposing that we only pass three in for bylaw 3664 and amend it to
say December 2026.
That would be the privilege of the table. I think that um do we have to do
we have to can we just eliminate some of these or can we just I'm just looking at
it >> or just make a new one.
» One of them is to do that we're doing but in 2028.
» Yes. But there's a big change to the um 16.3 to 16.5. There's
it repeals. So, building bylaw amendment number
34564
» or whatever. Yeah. 3654. Um,
» deletes the section 16.2 to 16.5 and then replaces it.
So, >> why don't we just do first two readings?
» We could do that. And then um third reading is given as
amended. >> Yeah.
» Or we can just >> Yeah.
» The only change is to 16.2 where you change emission level
» three to emission level four in 16.2 or you could do first two ratings.
» Isn't it just easiest to do if that's the
» I've got no recommendations on the table yet. So I am curious as to why I'm
hearing this that that there is a thought around the table to go to step
code step code step 4 and zerocarbon E4 in 2026. Can that not can that not just
be the resolution that's passed >> 16.2 just needs to change that we have
the bylaw. >> It's a bylaw.
» It's a bylaw. We have to change the bylaw.
» Wasn't this changing the bylaw? >> Are these resolutions changing?
» I get what you're saying. So, adopt one just as is and adopt
resolution two as amended. It's you.
» Why don't Well, we could you could just um
adopt Well, it's amended as >> this is a description of bylaws, not the
actual >> No. Well, the bylaw is on the back. You
just attach to this. >> So it's the bylaw that needs to change
in resolution. >> Yeah.
» One and two is E4. >> Why don't we we just do one and two. We
can bring it back on the 21st and do third reading and I think we'll be
basically on the same timeline. >> This is this isn't happening.
» Yeah. For another six. It doesn't we have time. It's happening in five
months. So >> So why don't we just do one and two?
they can change the bylaw, bring it back as as the actual bylaw that you want to
pass and there's no urgency to change that on the fly to me.
» I'm I'm I'm still really confused. So, you have to tell me again this because
» because number two is reading it for a third time and usually when we read a
third time, >> we're just doing we're just doing one
and two and then >> What's one and two?
» No, one and three. We're going to do anything
» first and second time by title only, >> right?
» For for for the first resolution >> and then we're not doing anymore.
And then we're going to bring it back to another the next regular meeting in
August for third reading as amended to change
it from uh step >> E
» E3 to E4 and then it'll be adopted in September.
» And I think we can still do five tonight if we want to.
» Oh, and we can do five. Yes. Sorry. Yes.
» Okay. So, as long as everybody's got that, I guess somebody can uh move
recommendation number one. >> So, should we move to strike two, three,
and four, or do we just vote them down or do you just not?
» Okay. Moved by councelor Lochenberg, seconded by councelor Woodward.
So, councelor Lockenberg, do you have that up there so you can read it out to
the public?
that the Corporation of the City of Nelson building amendment um energy step
code step 4 plus zerocarbon EL3 bylaw number 3654 2026 be introduced and read
a first and second time by title. >> Okay, counselors that's been moved and
seconded. All those in favor and that carries. Anybody Anybody
opposed? I just wanted to hear EL4. It makes me
nervous. >> Well, that's why I don't understand. I'm
still trying to figure out why I can't say E4. You guys can't change that.
» Why are you saying E4? If we're changing the Bible, it feels like
» Commission 4 E4. >> My understanding is because in that
resolutions, it's referencing the bylaw as written. Yeah.
» And so, we have to speak to the bylaws written. They'll bring it back amended.
So when they bring it back, it'll be EL4 >> and it'll be third reading.
» And if you want to pass a resolution that says, you know, um, please bring
back, you know, the bylaw amended to adopt E4.
» Okay, before we get >> the date we want EL4 is
» okay. Um, so this is number one's been moved and seconded. We have to do this.
» Can I have the vote? So I we voted. You didn't want to go down as recorded the
post. You're okay. >> Not opposed. I just
» So that's all in favor. So that carries. >> So you passed this two readings of the
bylaw as current. Now you can pass the resolution to say please amend this
bylaw to have EL4
supposed to come in December 2026. December
31st, 2026. >> You want to pass that resolution that
directs us to bring this back that way. >> Okay, I'll I'll move that.
» Can I move that? >> Okay, I'll move that.
» You okay with that? You've got what we need, sir?
» Yeah. >> I'll
» Okay. So, recommendation to bring back amended version that says EL4 December
31, 2026. So five months. Okay. By Woodward, seconded by Payne.
Any discussion?
Now we're all quiet. Let's see if we all raise up our hands again.
» Okay. >> All All those in favor
that carries. >> And I'll move five.
» And you're going to move number five. Okay. Number five. Tate seconder
Woodward Tate, please. >> Council direct staff to return in 2027
with recommendations regarding future energy step code and zero requirement
step code requirements for part three buildings.
» Okay, that's moved and seconded. Anybody need uh further on that? So part three
buildings are the big buildings versus the small buildings.
Okay, all those in favor and that carries.
Okay, thank you very much counselors. Thank you staff
for bringing that forward and moving us along.
Thank you.
Next up, we have some further recommendations
from staff. We have 8A the cube 2.0 lease terms. Staff are seeking council's
approval to amend its previous direction regarding the lease term for the cube
2.0 zero project at 82010 street. While council has already approved the site
location, directed staff to finalize the land agreement, approve a 10-year
nominal rent period in principal, and agree to providing letters of support
for grant applications. Staff now recommend authorizing a 25-year initial
ground lease with one 25-year renewal option. The longer lease term better
reflects the construction of a permanent facility on city-owned land, supports
funding and financial requirements, and provides long-term certainty certainty
while preserving council's previous direction that the first 10 years of the
lease be provided at nominal rent. So, there's quite a lot of information there
and there is a recommendation moved by councelor Paige. Is there a
second? Council Woodward. Councelor Page. Council amended its previous
direction regarding Q 2.0 project at 820 10th Street by authorizing the city to
enter into a ground lease with the complete climate association for an
initial term of 25 years with one option to renew for further 25 years with the
first 10 years of the initial term to remain at a nominal rent as previously
approved by council and further that all the resolution previously adopted by
council respecting Q 2.0 project, including the approval of site location,
staff's authority to finalize the site details and document them in a land
agreement, and the city's commitment to provide letters of support for grant
applications remain unchanged. >> Okay, that's been counc um I just have a
question about uh communication. Public notice will be
provided for property disposition.
Um when I looked up property like property disposition
is that different because when I looked that up it said legal financial and tax
processes of selling transferring or disposing. So disposition and disposal
are they >> help me understand that
» any time we lease land for longer than a five years is considered a disposition.
So the municipality does not have um rights to that land for a long period of
time. We have to let the community know that we're going to do that.
» Okay. So we still own it. >> No,
» but we just Yeah. That's what >> we sort of giving up our rights to use
it as long. That's what I want to clar. Thank you. Figured it was something like
that. >> Okay. Any other comments, questions, or
concerns? Seeing none, all those in favor?
And that carries. Okay. Moving on to 8B.
Um, development variance permit application for 820 Victoria Street to
bury requirements for interior lot line setpack and sading exemptions. And staff
is back at the table. So, development services has received an application to
bury zoning bylaw number 3652 2026 as follows. Section 10.12R3
interior side lot line setback to reduce the minimum required setback from the
interior side property line from 1.0 m to 0.52 m and section two section five
and number two section 5.10 sighting exemptions to reduce the
allowable distance between roof eaves and a property line from 0.9 m to 0.7 m.
council is being requested to consider and approve the proposed variances.
» Um yeah, so I can just provide a little bit of context on this property. Uh so
the property is located in the lower Uhill neighborhood. Uh the existing home
is estimated to have been built around 1905 during an earlier period of
development in the neighborhood and this was before modern zoning and subdivision
standards were established. Uh many uh blocks in lower Uphill and Nelson
reflect the development patterns of this period where buildings were typically
located closer together and closer to property lines than what would be
typically permitted under today's zoning regulations. Uh these historic
conditions contribute to the established character of the neighborhood, but they
can also create challenges for older homes when they're renovated or expanded
due to our current regulations. uh in this house, in this case, the existing
house was built uh close to the interior property line and at a slight angle. So,
it results in a building setback that does not comply with our current zoning.
Um our staff have reviewed the application and it complies with all the
other zoning regulations. Um the building footprint will also not be
increased. They're using the existing footprint to build upward on the home.
Uh the variances are needed because we approved our new variance criteria and
it exceeds that 20% threshold at which a variance can still be considered minor.
Um and also the local government act dictates that you can't increase a
nonconformity. So the variance would help to bring it into uh conformity.
And um their variances would also help retain an existing home in the uphill
neighborhood. Um and staff have concerns that uh requiring the applicant to
adhere to the setback could create undesirable outcomes for the streetscape
by creating an asymmetrical uh facade um or resulting in an
unfavorable demolition on the block. Uh we circulated uh notice to the neighbors
and we received uh four comments in favor and one comment in concern as well
as our other city staff and departments and no concerns were noted. So I'll take
any questions. Council Tate, >> I have a question about when the houses
um get approved to be closer together than would be our typical setbacks. Do
they have to have different or higher standard of fire separation on the
outside? >> Uh yeah, so they do have to meet the um
BC building code. So the main requirement that they have to adhere to
is related to the fenestrations or openings on the side of the building
wall. So typically they have very limited uh windows to prevent fire
spread or no windows to prevent fire spread. And then in addition um there
are certain standards in the building code that pertain to the roof eaves. Um
and uh building staff and fire staff looked at the proposal and they're
satisfied with the requirements as presented.
» So it's not higher than a regular the regular building code. It's just like
the building code is good. It's solid. We're okay. the closer you get to the
property line, the more restrictions you have.
» Sometimes, I'm not sure in this case, but sometimes they'll have to put
non-combustible siding, >> right?
» So, the building code kind of addresses those concerns when they get close to
the property line. >> Thank you,
» Card. >> Thank you, Mayor.
» Um, I know there are I'm just looking at this. I flew up this picture here and
the >> the closeness of the buildings. I know
there's a there's quite a few an uphill like this and I guess number one as
councelor Tate said I was I'm always concerned about fire how would you do
this but I was also wondering about repair and if it's so tight like how do
you get in there to repair? What does the building code say about these kind
of situations? because it would almost seem like you'd have to go in from the
inside out to repair because you couldn't actually you might be able to
just fit in here but there are some that are like three or four inches away from
the next movement. >> Yeah. Um that is a fair complaint.
Typically um when a building sits in a really close threshold to the property
line um there isn't any requirement to establish like an easement. So, an
easement is a legal agreement that allows people to maintain their property
by accessing by another property. Um, in this case, because the building is fully
located on that, even though it's really close to the property line, there is no
easement registered. Um, but the neighbors do have quite a good
relationship with their their neighbor and they've uh been very collaborative
and sort of communicating the construction in a way that works with
everybody. So typically we kind of rely on just goodwill and good neighbor civil
partnership for things like that. But in certain situations there are legal
agreements that maintain legal access to that part of the building.
» Okay. >> Yeah.
» Thank you. >> I just have a question um as sort of a
followup to what um councelor Pete was asking around um fire and such and and
building code. When they do this extension, the
extension has to comply with the building code. They don't have to bring
the house up to code cuz that would never happen. I I mean I I own one of
these. Like that would be >> Yeah, that's
» they just tear it down instead of >> Yeah. No, that that's correct. So, we
don't retroactively apply building code um or uh zoning bylaw. Um it would be
unreasonable to kind of retroactively apply those requirements. So, just the
new construction. >> Just the new construction. I just want
to be really clear about that because when she was asking about its proximity
and stuff and like it has to meet the building code, it's like no, the the new
has to meet the building code, >> not not the not the old. I just
» if you went to put new siding where the existing sighting is, the new sighting
would have to meet the building code of the reduced setback.
» I don't know. You are always allowed under local act repair and maintain.
Okay. I would have to check with the building official too far into the
building code. >> Actually not allowed to.
» Yeah. >> But um but I could ask them and I could
follow up an email just if you wanted to know. But I think there might be a
repair and maintain that you can do >> new have to be the building.
» So So in that example like >> if the proposal had a new window and
you'd be like we need to make sure it's the
» depending you may or may not be allowed window.
» That's right. >> Yeah. Exactly. Like typically um when
you're that close to the property line, you either have to have a very reduced
size or only a certain percentage of windows can cover that side of the
property or you have to have fire shutters or something like that. So
yeah, >> I just wanted clarity on that cuz I was
sort of thinking, okay, that's uh yeah, the new the new will be up building
code. Anyways, so uh councelor Paige has a question.
I'm curious about the the one concern that we did get around the blocking and
I have been hearing as we've been seeing more of these buildings show up and take
form that very tall blocking. There were some good examples provided. I think
other residents have pointed them out to me as well and there's some stuff going
on in Uphill. uh how can we start to address the massing of those those third
and second stories uh the way those roofs are being peaked because this is
all this will also be quite well as but address that concern specifically and is
there need for change in our approach. Um so typically our zoning bylaws are
what would help to regulate um the massing uh in this particular instance
the historic sighting of the house typically it would be set back kind of
in that invisible box that the zoning creates um in a way that it doesn't
impact sort of the neighboring properties. But in this instance it's
just too close to the property line. Um if we were concerned with um sort of
massing and shadow casting and things like that, we could certainly uh look at
our OCP design guidelines and zoning to evaluate if any changes need to be made
there. But those are typically the avenues through which those things are
addressed. So and single family homes like this one, there's no design
guidelines. You kind of just need the rules in the zoning bylaw. um only big
buildings um that you see downtown. Um we like look more closely at the design
of them. Um and sometimes we do also like Sarah was mentioning for variances.
Um >> what are you guys hearing about that
concern? Like that can't be the first time you heard of the public say that
buildings too tall and too blocky small neighborhoods. I have heard that in the
past and we have ever since we've had a zoning bylaw. Um it has been 10 meters
in height was allowed in the R1 overall density which and now we've changed it
to smallcale residential. I think uh now our land is becoming more valuable and
so people are kind of building up and so I think you are seeing those taller
homes. I think Nelson benefits from a very eclectic building stock. So right
next to it is a house that is going to be the exact same height as this one.
So, I think it's kind of a mix and I think you'll see like a tall house um in
an area where there's shorter houses and I think those ones stand out a little
bit more, but I think housing stock is always kind of evolving and over time
you'll see some of that older housing stock be replaced or modifications made.
But I do I do occasionally hear that point and and I kind of mentioned that
the rules have been substantially similar for many many years. Um the
other thing to note um in our most recent iteration of the zoning bylaw, so
we actually modified the way that we calculate building height um as you may
remember because we were finding that the way we're calculating building
height actually um was more beneficial to sort of those flat more modern style
roofs. So now the way we calculate um makes it easier for people to have that
pitched roof which can be more consistent with the character especially
that we see in lower uphill where there's quite a lot of those open cable
form roofs as well. So yeah. >> Okay. Thanks.
» Any other questions? >> Okay.
So I I'll move one mayor.
» Okay. two.
» Uh, yes, please. >> Okay, I'll move one.
» Is there a seconder? >> Second.
» Seconded by councelor Tate. >> Uh, so this is uh section 10.
» Oh, I think it starts above that and there is only one. If you go back only
one, sorry, that's one. Sorry. Um that the application for the
development variance permit be approved to vary the requirements of zoning bylaw
3652 2026 allowing for a new roof and rear second story edition on following
properties collectively known as 820 Victoria Street. Uh can we read all that
for the record? The lot nine. >> Oh no, we can probably pass those
things. Okay, >> that's all the pin the P ID numbers and
such. And as follow, do you want me to read this as follows then? Zoning B
» number 3652 2026. This is number one section 10
12 R3 interior side lot line setback to reduce the minimum required setback from
the interior side property line from 1 uh meter to 0.52
m. And this is number two section 51 section.10
uh sitting exemptions to reduce the allowable distance between roof eaves
and property lines from 0.9 m to 0.7 m. >> Okay. So that's been moved and seconded.
All seeing no further questions. All those in favor and that carries. Thank
you counselors. Moving on. Thank you staff.
Moving on to the thing I usually make the breakfast of information items
including correspondence and meetings of committees and commissions. And the
first one I have up in my pile is the um information items from council's
committees and commissions. There are seven of them. We have minutes from the
cultural development committee, Nelson Public Library, Nelson, two from Nelson
Public Library, three from the Greater Nelson Economic Development um group,
two coordinating meetings, and an advisory meeting, and we have the Nelson
Housing Committee. Um they're all for to be received for information. Is there
anyone that wishes to draw one out for further discussion?
Seeing no hands shooting up. Is there a mover of items 1 through 7 for
information
by councelor Woodward. Is there a seconder?
» Seconded by councelor Tate. So items 1 through 7 have been moved for um receipt
for information. Uh all those in favor
post and that carries. Thank you.
Next up, we have information items um proposed by staff and we have three of
them here. We have development services, we have finance, and we have um
corporate services. Is there anything that anybody wishes to pull out?
Councelor Payne? >> Um I think we need to pull out the
development services monthly
build report. >> Okay.
So, we will pull that out. And is there someone that would like to move item two
and three? >> We can move two and three.
» Okay. Moved by councelor Tate, seconded by councelor Woodward. All those in
favor of receiving for information two and three. And that carries. So here we
are back at number one. Councelor Payne, you have a question.
» Yeah, I I actually emailed earlier today to uh director of development services.
Did I get that title right? um about the numbers and she
acknowledged that there was a a typo on there. Um an email did go out to all of
council, but I don't know what the procedure is. Do we withdraw that report
until we have the correct report or >> we can just we'll amend the or just note
that it will be amended with the >> correct.
» Okay, that was basically building. >> Did I get that? That's
» right. an extra zero. So, where'd you put the
extra? >> Oh,
» on the millions. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I was like,
» that got my attention. >> Yeah.
» I'm like, woohoo.
» So, you want to just give the update so >> Yeah.
» We get it on record. >> Uh the update. Yes.
» So, the correct numbers and then that everybody will hear it.
» The update. Just one second here. Um but basically an extra zero got added to the
multi-unit residential building permit numbers and so it said 75 million
instead of seven um 7.5 million. Um and then so I made so I did send council an
email to that effect letting them know. Then I've noticed so we draw that rep
report from a third party and their numbers aren't kind of adding up
necessarily. So, I need to work with um city reporter to get that sorted out.
So, some of the building permit numbers are kind of not accurate. So, I'll be
working with them on that. And then I did provide council. The unit count
though um is actually correct. Um
» total for this period is got too many zeros as well.
» Yeah. So, we'll be reviewing that report. We'll take it off maybe and then
have it amended or we might have to make our own report if that one's not working
from the city report.
» So just to make the correction there. So that line that says total for this
period is actually 8 million.
» Yes. >> It's just it's just for people that
might be looking and listening. >> What are you building?
» And then and then >> where are you putting it
» your year today I imagine has a significant change.
I I have a question that riffs off of that really nicely from our um from some
other curiosities I've had. So I notice on the BC provincial government website,
you can Google like list of municipalities in BC by revenue, list of
municipalities in BC by VCC's and building permit information. And so I
was like, woo. Um and sometimes our cool little municipality has zeros. And is
that a reporting thing? Is it because we might not like align with that? I maybe
I'll send it out and you guys could talk about it at another report. I'm like,
how come we're zeros here? I don't think we're zero. I think we're rad.
» Okay, I'll pass it around. >> I'll send you the link and I'll look
into it. Um, it might I'm not sure if it might be voluntary to provide that
information. >> There could be a threshold and because
we're small, we don't meet the threshold.
» This is my question. >> I think it's a th I think it's a
threshold thing. >> From your I don't think we're zero.
Looking at government reports, I would say we're not meeting the threshold.
» Our planned acquisition >> open.
» Okay. Noting that those corrections um will be made if somebody would like to
move the development services report as amended. Councelor Payne, is there a
seconder? Councelor Lochenberg. All those in favor of the report as that
carries. Thank you for that. >> Can I just ask one question out of the
payables? Um, I think it was 179,000. Does that mean the elevator's finished
or is there a No, because it didn't seem to be fully operational. I wanted to try
it today. I thought, "Oh, we spent a lot of money on the elevator. Let's check it
out." >> So, one is done.
» Yeah. >> Okay. The one is actually completed.
» And they're working on the other one now.
» So, that would be a draw. >> Yeah.
» Yeah. No, I I thought it was higher in the um budgeting and I went, "Whoa, did
we save some money there?" But then I saw only multiples. So,
» all good. We'll get there. >> Yes.
» Um, >> um, just now that they're fixed, um,
» one's fixed, >> one fixed,
» one's fixed, and then the other one will be fixed. Uh, what's the lifespan now on
those fixed elevators? I >> think those ones have been in there
since the building was built. So, 50 years ago or whatever.
» So, we get another 50 years. >> No, maybe they aren't 30.
» Maybe we don't use them that much. start walking more
» just just as a >> they are a nice ride. Has anybody been
in the new one now? >> Yeah, that's why I went today. I went I
want to see what I feel like. >> I don't I don't get in and feel like
this could be my last elevator ride. >> Okay,
» I'm holding my phone. No, I don't know. >> Yeah, that's what I always think. I'm in
here. Do I have a phone? >> Okay,
» that sensation anymore. >> That was my question.
» Um so, uh we have one more. We have the um late item. And so the late item is
connection fees and development. >> So I have correspondence. I know it's it
doesn't have its own little thing. So I never know when to jump in with that.
» Oh, I I had correspondence like she passed that as number two. Like she
passed two and three together. >> Two and three.
Oh, sorry. Under reports. >> Yeah, under reports. We passed them.
» Just a just a quick thing. I saw the response to the lakeside washrooms,
but my question was I thought we had allocated some money in the budget to do
an upgrade on those. Not this year. >> We had um
» it was a request then that we didn't actually
» we went to the regional district and asked them if they would help fund that
and they didn't put that in their budget. That's the bad news. The good
news is uh CBT has come out with a some new grants. One's called uh the shore
grant um which seems to be a good fit for this. Uh there's planning money
available. So we're going to do some to understand um
» I think I I did read that in the response letter.
» Right. So >> I it was mainly the budget question that
I was because I did see that we were going for some CBT money but so some
there is some action. >> Yeah. So, we'll do the uh we'll apply
for that grant. Hopefully do the planning. We have to understand, make
sure the structure and everything is fine before we put a bunch of money into
it. So, that's where we're at. >> And then the other one was about the
escooter letter. I didn't see a response to that, but it didn't make sense to me
that a safety officer told him that he needed
a license for his escooter because those things are driving all over the place.
You have pilot. You have to be approved as a pilot community to legally have
scooters in your town. >> And we are not scooters.
» Individuals can't own e scooters. >> Well, they can
» you just can't >> they just can't ride them.
» What's wrong? >> Probably on a public road, right?
» So, >> you can ride in your driveway.
» Are we driveway >> and you can't ride them?
» Are we ticketing those individuals? Some of whom I know. Some are getting tickets
like the individual was told. >> Okay. So that is that's what I wanted to
verify that is correct information. >> That's correct. Yeah.
» So do we want to become a pilot community? Is that anything we should
look at because it is a >> conveyance and especially for like the
individuals I know that own them are down like they're going um what am I
trying to say horizontally. They're not necessarily going uphill on those
things. Can you imagine coming down on one? I'm scared on my ebike and I got my
hands on the brakes the whole time. Um, yeah, it's interesting. So, which
department do we feed that into when we have the next opportunity to do so?
» Sarah, some info, some >> So, it would come, you pull it out.
» You can pull it out. I'm just thinking no. And then we'll bring it back to
council at the next regular meeting. So in August for you can make a decision.
You can read it. We haven't responded to them, but you can make a decision about
whether or not >> you'd like staff to move forward
to become a pilot community. >> Yeah. I mean, it'd be interesting to get
the um opinion of development services as far as active transportation if
that's anything that has been considered in the past. But I just wanted to while
it was there in front of me understand a little better because yeah, I'm not
riding one. I've tried that in at the active transportation conference and
that was pretty flat and I wasn't totally comfortable with it myself.
» Councelor Paige, >> uh, I don't want to convolute anything,
but I'm just going to go back to something to talk about the bathrooms
and then I'm going to come back to that. So, currently parks has referred off the
conversation about capital investments to develop a set of principles. uh
workshop is on the 22nd uh of July. It got moved around a few times, but we
finally locked in a time. Uh and specifically around that contribution,
it's it's great that there's other funding opportunities, but it's also a
leverage point. So, I just don't want to lose that
moment to ask that question and get that expectation nailed down from rural
directors about what a regionally significant park is and why those
contributions should be part of our principles. uh and that project is you
know the the catalyst for that. Uh and then
» CBT grant isn't 100% either. So >> yeah so we'll keep hammering away at
that and it'll be good to know that you know on this year principles aside the
the the ask will be smaller but we'll try and get to the principles.
Uh and then on the other piece, I don't like I I think right now I think on our
mobility side of things, I really want to see us really manifest well good
training, good uh compliance around safety. I'm am very concerned about the
number of severe injuries that we're seeing in other communities and and I
don't want to necessarily embrace another product out there
» on scooters. >> The escooters Yeah. like and I was using
them at SCM too and I'm all fine. I just like it's just one other kind of
distinctly different product out on the streets out on the sidewalks. Sarah
seems to have a question. >> Not a question, just a comment.
» Yeah, >> let's discuss it. I think it can be
debated. >> Let's bring it up when it's brought
forward. >> Okay, great.
Okay. So, um there's been a
» late item now, >> a recommendation from councelor Payne to
remove um item number two from the
correspondence list. >> How would you like that done? So,
um, when a letter is included in the correspondence package, you as council
have can pull it out and then we will place it on the next regular meeting
agenda at which time we will vote on whether or not you approve of it or want
us to how you want us to respond or in this case whether you want us to apply
to the province as a pilot community. you will direct us and then you'll see
it in the next correspondence package. So, we don't need
» No, you want the direction I'm confused now. Do you want the direction now?
» No, >> I don't.
» I want I I don't >> Would you like What? What would you like
the motion to be? >> I wouldn't like anybody to motion
» at this point. Just that we're pulling it out because council has the right to
pull out anything in correspondence that they try to.
» Excellent. It's just that, you know, we've been trying to go back and forth
to make sure that while we're directing staff to do something that we have a
resolution. >> This is a little bit different to me
that this is pulling something out >> and we're going to get a resolution, but
we're not making we're not voting on it. Okay.
» Okay. Perfect. I'm good. I'm golden. Anything else in correspondence, which
we already passed once, but perhaps we need to pass the correspondence package
again. Are we good? >> I hope we miss it. Maybe the next one.
» I'm I'm fine with it. >> Okay, that's fine. I'm good, too, cuz we
didn't pass it. So okay all golden there. So moving on to the last item
which is a laid item and regarding connection fees and development cost
charges. So staff have identified an opportunity to review and modernize the
city's current connection fee framework. Existing fees were established more than
20 years ago and have not been comprehensively reviewed during that
time. Given changes to the principal legislation, development practices, and
municipal infrastructure planning, staff believes that it's timely to assess the
city's current approach and ensure it remains aligned with current standards
and best practices. As part of this review, staff are proposing to evaluate
development cost charges, a framework commonly used by local governments
throughout British Columbia. The review will help inform future council
decisions regarding the city's long-term approach to development related
infrastructure funding. Council is being asked to rep prioritize the development
services work plan to undertake this review in 2026 and defer the planned
update to the subdivision and development services bylaw.
So um we have a recommendation in front of
us is a mover councelor Payne seconded by councelor Woodward. Council pay uh
that council direct staff to undertake a review and modernization of the city's
connection fee framework including evaluation of a development cost charge
known as a DCC framework and rep prioritize the 2026 development services
work plan by deferring the subdivision and development services bylaw update
and further that staff be authorized to reallocate existing budgeted funds as
necessary to complete the review and the council with findings and
recommendations for future consideration.
» Perfect. Any um questions or concerns to staff while we have them here with us?
Oh boy, we're all quiet. We're getting Are we setting a new record? 8:25. Uh
yeah, >> not quite a new record. Anyhow, um
seeing no further um discussion or concerns, I think this is a excellent
plan to move forward with this at this time given the fact that the federal
government is looking at um funding and resource allocation that may involve
some offsets for um development cost charges or other things. We're hoping
that they're going to be flexible with their with their money and not just be
locked into one particular aspect. But I think that uh getting this work done
will be excellent then um moving forward.
» I do actually have a question. >> Okay.
» Can I can I just get a little example of this? Like I'm thinking of the Trevor
Street extension. So that developer paid for the whole thing,
» but they will pay connection fees because it's prior to this new change.
Um, and they won't pay
development cost charges obviously that contribute to the rest of the community
the way this does. I'm not saying that currently, but do you know what I mean?
They're they're they're similar. So, for the Trevor Street development, they had
to both install the road, the infrastructure.
» They also had to pay connection fees. Those fees uh go into our reserves for
our utilities. DCC's are going to be similar to that. Yeah, just
» that's just one example of how that works.
» All right. Yeah, >> I I was pretty sure, but I just wanted
to clarify. Thank you. >> Okay, seeing no further questions or
concerns. All those in favor and that carries. Thank you, council. Thank you,
staff, for staying. Thank you for bringing forward this late item so that
we can get that work plan adjusted because this this plan will take
actually a little bit of time. So, this isn't going to be done in 2026. This
will be going forward. Um, and the next council will be making additional
decisions around DCC's, but at least that work will be there for them to look
at. >> That's right. And it'll be started this
year, uh, but it probably won't really be kicked off until the end of the year,
early 2027. And I would anticipate about a year.
» Yeah, exactly. So, just for anybody that might be wondering how fast this kicks
in. So, there's going to be projects that are in the mix that aren't going to
be affected by this at this time. I think that's always a key thing. People
think, "Oh my god, they're adding more charges and like I'm in the middle of
something." But stay in the middle of something, you're not going to be
affected. >> That's right. And there will also be
community engagement as well as builder developer engagement. So, there'll be
lots of opportunities for people to come and chat with us.
» Yeah, exactly. Thank you for that additional information. Okay, council,
we've uh made it to the end of the night. It was a very busy day and we
worked through dinner and uh I think we got a lot done um this evening. So I'm
uh in favor of a resolution to adjourn. >> Can I have a question before that?
» Sure. So I know we've gone alternate um meetings for council reports but we
normally have a CIO report at each meeting. So we don't have one today.
» No agenda. Okay.
» Okay. But that is our normal. We do normally get a report every meeting.
Okay. So, this is an anomaly. Look forward to hearing more from you in two
weeks. >> Okay. So, if I could have a motion to
adjourn and council, second by councelor Panero, all those in favor and that
carries. >> Shoot. I did want to ask for like what
was the final numbers at the FIFA event that like the staff was just
unbelievable. There was the whole day. It was so cool.
» Yeah. We estimated test number three. >> Yeah,
» that garbage was just being picked up. >> Yeah, definitely was great.
» It was so cool. >> Did such a good job.
» Did such a good job. like that. >> I think probably some of the people were