[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