This council is brutal. They suck.

They issue permits for single family homes that end up with fully roughed in”mortgage helper suites”. That will be completed after the occupancy permit is issued. The building inspectors already ignore the obvious illegal suites. Good luck trying to tap into the suite rental world.
It might be easier to charge a fee for illegal grow ops.

I wonder what prominent citizens turned the thumbscrews so tight as to get this result?

Hey, did you hear that? It almost sounds like something actually happening in the councillors’ brains!

It’s just a scam Give more. Council comes up with all these cash grabbing ideas that piss everyone off, then decide to not implement one or two just to make the taxpayers think they aren’t really doing that bad of a job. Of course those of us non sheeple know better.

Anyone renting a basement suite would not be living “high of the hog”. I am glad this secondary service fee was not introduced, because these renters would be stuck with paying that fee through increased monthly rent rates. As I have stated before; that increase in rent would have put some of them out on the street.

I can’t believe how out of touch this mayor and council has been on so many issues!

Get rid of that DAMM business liscence if have only one or 2 rental units!!!!!!!!

“Staff advised the bylaw could be charged for the services used, which, is estimated to be an extra 35%–40% of the water and sewer service to a residence “

That sure sounds like a bunch of BS.

1. what is the total cost of water and sewer service to the City?

2. How much are they collecting at this time to cover water and sewer services?

3. If they are getting enough to cover the cost, and they were to get an additional $400 to $500 per year, then they will have to reduce the rate for those who do not have secondary suites.

“Councillor Everitt said he too shared the safety concerns that are an issue with illegal suites.”

That too is mainly a bunch of BS.

There may be a few “illegal” suites which have safety issues. In my experience there are very few. Whether there is rent paid to use a second kitchen and associated rooms or an extended family uses the same facility configuration does not make one use any less or more safe than another one.

There are plenty of additions or changes to houses that accommodate a second “family” or granny suite that are well in keeping with the BC Building Code. They may not meet zoning, but zoning is not about safety. Zoning is about land use density.

With the changes in the definition of “family” over the last 3 to 4 decades, one has to look at other methods of restricting densities. One of the tools used in other communities is to restrict the number of vehicles which can be associated with a dwelling unit. With those communities who do that, 4 vehicles is common restriction.

skakun calls this “a bit of a cash grab” LOL It wasn’t a bit but a BIG cash grab.

mayor greene and council are becoming experts at sticking it to us through massive cash grabs masked as user fees.

The question is who thought of this silly idea and how much staff time and our hard earned tax dollars were wasted coming up with the crazy idea?

To suggest those in a basement suite use more services than another house without a suite is silly. As an example, there are two seniors that live next door to me and they have a student in what i assume is an illegal suite. They also have a one car and the student uses the bus. I am sure that my husband and I along with our three kids use up a whole lot more water and with our three vehicles we no doubt use more services than the neighbor so there goes the logic being put forth to justify this cash grab.

Now if all homes had water meters then you could reasonably measure and determine if the occupants in one house are using more services than another but until then it is just more spin coming from city hall to justify them trying to get the hands on more of our hard earned money.

The reality of the use of water and sewer services is that the average household population has reduced from over 3 per household to something in the mid 2 per household over the last 2 to 3 decades.

The total city residential water use depends on the number of people in the city. That has not changed over the last 30 years. I do not care where they live. It is the total number that matters.

The same with residential sewer use.

The thing that has changed is the distance in piping required to service those housing units which have fewer average people living in them. The efficiency has dropped. Thus the cost per person has risen.

The other thing that has risen as a result of more patches of grass surrounding all those detached SF dwellings. If people continued to water their lawns at the same rate as in past decades, then the total landscaping watering requirements has risen.

I also noticed that the City has installed automatic sprinkler systems for public boulevards, etc. Those did not exist in the 1970s. So that public use of water has increased.

Can we get someone who understands these things explain the real change in this community to both senior administrators who really do not seem to have a clue, as well as to Councillors who are really out of their depth and the Mayor who may know a lot about scented candles, but that is it.

So, if we want to reduce the cost of providing water and sewer services per person and per residence we should be encouraging the increase in the number of people per house from 2.5 to 3.5 and even 4.5 …….

The situation we actually have is that those people who live in houses which have 5 people living in them are subsidizing those houses which have 1 or 2 people living in them.

So, instead of penalizing those who have more people living in a house we should be penalizing those who have fewer people living in a house.

” There may be a few “illegal” suites which have safety issues. “

Have to respectfully disagree with you there Gus.
In the past I have worked in a lot of different homes around town, new construction and renovations.
In my opinion, the greatest ‘danger’ with (many) illegal suites is the lack of proper fire and smoke seperation between the basement and main floor living areas, and between individual suites within a single large basement (ie, sepearate outdoor entrances but common demising wall or walls)
Those dwellings containing suites all with a common forced air heating system add an additional level of risk, when it comes to the spread of fire and smoke.
In addition, many basements have only one point of escape, with windows often too small for many people to escape through.

The above problems present the potential for loss of life. The City should pay more attention to this issue.

metalman.

Gus, you are an architect. You must know that there must be a fire seperation between adjacent tenancies. This is done for safety.

This would require special drywall (Type X or Type C), two layers on fire seperation walls and one layer under floor joists. It will likely require resilient channels between the floor joists and the drywall to protect the floor joists in the event of a fire. It will likely require fire dampers on the air supply and return air.

I’ve seen a lot of illegal suites. I’ve never seen one with a proper fire seperation.

There is a safety issue.

Proper apartment buildings pay through the nose for their water. Yes, the rate per litre is significantly higher for apartment buildings than it is for single family homes. Why should the rate for water be less than apartment buildings for illegal suites?

Proper apartment buildings are inspected on a regular basis by the fire department and orders are given an obeyed or they get shut down. Two were shut down last year.

Why are we choosing to subsidize sub-standard rental accommodations? Why are we choosing to subsidize poor quality accommodations?

If we are to accept the argument that this allows cheaper rental accomodation in Prince George, then where do we draw the line? Should we allow shacks to be put up like those that are common in many third world countries?

The City has an obligation to ensure that BC Building Code is met. It is presently not being met–the City is aware that it is not being met and is allowing it to continue. All apparently with the support of at least one local architect…

The Question I have, what would a Family of 6 (4 Children) pay on Service Fees ? PG you are desperate to get Money any Way you can.

Icicle, right now if you put a legal suite in during the building if a new home. All you need is a carbon monoxide detector mounted to the furnace. They run about $350. No fire dampers in the duct.

Icicle, right now if you put a legal suite in during the building if a new home. All you need is a carbon monoxide detector mounted to the furnace. They run about $350. No fire dampers in the duct.

Eight doors on a duplex?

Icicle. It is precisely due to my background that I can write what I wrote.
First thing to consider is that the BC Building Code did not include the term “secondary suite” until 1995. Thus, any building which has had a secondary suite before that is exempt from meeting the current code until a major renovation takes place. Depending on the nature of that renovation, existing conditions which do not meet the current code may have to be brought up to code.

To understand that this is an issue right across not only BC but even Canada, and how recent a clarification had to be sent out to those who deal with such a matter, read the linked information bulletin from the BC Building and Safety Standards Branch issued in March of this year.
“The interest in providing additional accommodations within homes raises many questions and can sometimes be the source of confusion between owners, builders, designers, and building officials. In part, the confusion arises because of the misunderstanding between suites and secondary suites.”
Further: “The fact that it is in a single family home and is occupied as a separate dwelling unit makes it different from other suites, and subject to specific Code relaxations designed for secondary suites.”
Why is there confusion around this issue?
From the bulletin: “The BCBC has a very specific definition of the term ‘secondary suite’, limiting its application to suites meeting several criteria within a single family home. However, local bylaws may also use the same term when regulating other matters. These local bylaws regulate matters which are beyond the scope of the BCBC, such as parking or permitted uses and total number of dwelling units on a lot within a particular zone. Restriction of additional suites, including secondary suites in residential buildings, is a local bylaw issue, not a Building Code issue.”
In my experience the part of the building code which is most frequently not met is the access to daylight which is not a safety issue. In fact, there are houses which may have a bedroom or two, or a living space such as a “living room” which have no windows, ore may have a window which is obstructed by a deck built after the house was inspected for occupancy.
BC gov info bulletin https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLS_enCA546CA546&q=B13-02+Suites+and+Secondary+Suites.pdf#

Here is an interesting appeal which makes it abundantly clear that in 2006, 11 years after the change to the BCBC regarding “secondary suites” there was still confusion around what the code actually said.
http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/bcab/bcab1600/1621.htm

Please read some of this information with care. One must understand that terms such as exit, means of egress, access to exit, etc. are very specific technical terms and generally have a different meaning than that used in layperson language.
For instance, secondary suites do not typically need a second exit if they are within one storey of the ground. Thus, if there is an attic space in a 2.5+ storey home, that attic space would require a second exit, which may be via a window rather than a door.

Feel free to ask questions. ;-)

edjoch67 … please cite the sorce of your information.

What is actually required is a smoke detector which will shut down the system when it detects smoke, presumably from a fire.

Metalman wrote: “In addition, many basements have only one point of escape”

If they are within one storey of the ground, and do not exceed 90m2 in area, that is all they require.

Icicle: “This would require special drywall (Type X or Type C), two layers on fire seperation walls and one layer under floor joists. It will likely require resilient channels between the floor joists and the drywall to protect the floor joists in the event of a fire. It will likely require fire dampers on the air supply and return air.”

The level of fire separation from floor to floor that is required is 30 minutes. One layer of drywall is all that is required and can be screwed right into the joists.

The purpose of resilient clips is to increase acoustic separation.

Fire separations are ULC tested assemblies. Some of them allow for limited, unprotected openings.

I noticed I posted a link to the BC bulletin which was not a direct link.

This one should work.
http://docsfiles.com/view.php?view=http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/pub/bulletins/B13-02%20Suites%20and%20Secondary%20Suites.pdf&keyword=secondary suites&count=

Gus…. Smoke detector or carbon monoxide or whatever you prefer it to be called…. I am a sheet metal worker that installs 50+ furnaces in homes a year. And have seen maybe 3 of the controls that do exactly what your talking about. I’m the source