Council Update: Missing Middle, Pensions

Missing Middle Housing and the Building Code
A motion of mine was back before Council around eliminating barriers to Missing Middle Housing. The situation I’m trying to change is our restrictive rules around stairways that make it hard to build small-scale multi-unit buildings, housing’s so-called Missing Middle. HRM has rezoned a lot of land in Halifax and Dartmouth to allow for small-scale infill projects, but we won’t get the most out of those changes if the non-zoning barriers that are baked into the building code aren’t also dealt with. So what’s up the problem with stairways anyway?

When it comes to stairway requirements, Canada is very much an outlier. Our national building code requires two sets of stairs for every building of more than two storeys, making our code the most restrictive in the entire world. Most places don’t require a second set of stairs until six stories. Canada is all alone in being this strict about point access buildings (buildings with one set of stairs). The US is also fairly restrictive with a three storey limit for point access buildings written into their national code. It’s noteworthy though that in the US there is increasingly more and more variation at the state and city level.

Being so much more restrictive than the other 8 billion or so people on Earth might be worth it if we had better outcomes than the rest of the world when it comes to fires, but we don’t. Canada is very much in the middle of the pack when it comes to fire deaths with many countries that allow for point access buildings boasting better outcomes than us. That’s understandable because there are a lot of variables at play when it comes to fire safety. It’s complicated, involving many factors, of which, how many stairways a building has is just one. If fire safety is derived from a lot of different approaches, this begs the question: is what we gain with the strictest stairway requirements in the world worth the resulting trade-offs? Just what are we giving up?

Tradeoff #1
The requirement for two stairways for anything more than two stories means that the only kind of multi-unit building that is usually viable to build are wide rectangular boxes. Developers are pushed into this format because stairways take up a lot of space and once two are required, you also need a hallway to link them together. The best way to minimize the additional cost of stairs and hallways and make up for all that lost space is to spread the burden out over as many units as possible. The result: a typical North American box with units accessed off the centre hallway.

Unfortunately, the scale required to offset stairs and hallways makes it hard to fit multi-unit buildings into existing neighbourhoods. Building at this scale inevitably means consolidating multiple lots, which is slow, uncertain, and expensive. The end result is cheaper smaller scale infill projects that better fit existing neighbourhoods never make much sense. The so-called Missing Middle of housing supply in Canada is missing because the building code and economics have joined together to make it nearly impossible to actually build. Developers have a mostly binary choice of build single-unit homes or townhouses, or build a wide/long multi-unit building. There is little room for nuance in between those two choices. The true Middle is rarely viable.

Tradeoff #2
The other big downside of Canada’s strict stairway requirements is the housing that we do build is less flexible. Since bedrooms require windows, it becomes really tricky to build multi-unit buildings that deviate from one or two bedroom layouts because of the hallway cutting down the middle of the typical apartment building. It’s only on the ends of our boxy building template where there are potentially units with windows on two walls where it becomes easier to have more than two bedrooms. Families with multiple kids, and multi-generational households have many fewer options in our rental market and the building code’s requirements around stairs is one of the reasons for that. If, however, there is just one stairway needed, the space for a hallway goes away and there are suddenly a lot more ways to configure units. Point access buildings are more flexible and potentially more adaptable to bigger households and folks with more unique needs.

To see what the art of the possible could be, check out this point access building in Toronto that was approved through the alternative compliance route. Every apartment is a 2 or 3 bedroom unit! No studios or 1 bedrooms in the project and the three storey building is built to a scale that fits its residential side street.

Some other examples from alternative compliance applications from elsewhere of what a bit more flexibility could routinely allow.

So there are lots of good reasons to consider relaxing Canada’s restrictive rules, but what’s the trade-off? How do we ensure that we’re still as safe as possible from fire?

The first thing to note is what building code reform isn’t about. No one is suggesting building high-rises with only one-stairway. Reform is all about small-scale multi-unit buildings with limits on the number of units that can connect to a stairway and how far away the stairway can be from each unit. No one is talking about building big buildings with 100s of units with just one stairway.

The second thing to note is that we’re already making trade-offs on fire safety all the time. For example, it would be safer for everyone if sprinklers were required in single-family homes. We don’t require sprinklers though because the professionals have judged that the improvement in fire safety aren’t worth the extra costs and impacts on housing. We balance risk all the time and these value decisions are already embedded in the building code. We shouldn’t be afraid to have a conversation around stairways and to consider whether our current approach is grounded in actual evidence and whether it’s still relevant 80 years later.

So how could we mitigate the decrease in fire safety in easing the two stairways over two stories requirement? Well luckily the rest of the world provides a lot of guidance. In places that have allowed for a relaxation of rules around point access buildings or have approved them through alternative compliance, there are common approaches to compensate for any decrease in fire safety. These generally include:

• Pressurizing/ventilating stairways to keep smoke out in the event of fire
• Limiting the number of units that can access a stairway and their distance from the stairway
• Requiring stairways to be slightly wider than normal to limit congestion from people going up and down at the same time
• Build with non-combustible materials
• Include sprinklers
• More rigorous fire inspections and fire fighting capabilities

The ways to manage risk in point access buildings is increasingly being refined with a recognized suite of tools to mitigate risk! We absolutely don’t need to reinvent the wheel.

It is true that developers can pursue alternative compliance designs right now and alternative compliance has been used to approve some point access buildings elsewhere in Canada. The problem with the alternative compliance approach is it’s so uncertain. A developer could propose to build a point access building in Halifax right now, but they would have to prove through a one-off process that their design is safe. That involves more work and planning and all the risk of an outcome that could just arbitrarily end in “no” and all of that for a small-scale building that’s probably close to the line of profitably to begin with. That’s not very appealing and it’s not surprising that folks mostly just build to the letter of the code instead. Building to the code is the path of least resistance with the most certainty.

The better approach to alternative compliance is to change the building code itself and a growing number of places in North America have gone this route. Large cities in the US often have much more autonomy to vary from their state’s codes and some have used it to be more permissive around point access buildings. Seattle and Honolulu allow for point access buildings of six stories while New York City allows them up to four stories. Over the last two years, there has been growing interest in reform at the state level with Texas, Colorado, Montana, Tennessee and New Hampshire all adjusting their codes to allow point access buildings. There will likely be more adopters in 2026, including additional major American cities such as Los Angeles, and Nashville. States like Minnesota, Hawaii, and Maine are also all now examining the issue and are considering changes to their state codes.

Closer to home, British Colombia is the change leader in Canada. BC amended their Provincial code in 2024 to allow point access buildings of up to six stories. Over the Rockies, Edmonton is still stuck with Canada’s default two storey limit, but the city is working to make alternative compliance applications more predictable and attractive by publishing a guide. Edmonton is trying to make alternative compliance a warm invitation with less uncertainty and risk!

Given the change that is occurring elsewhere in Canada and in the US, now is an excellent time to look at this issue here in HRM. Taking action on point access buildings would put Nova Scotia on the leading edge of change, but we most definitely wouldn’t be alone. There is increasing recognition in the US and Canada that our current rules are too strict and no longer make sense given how fire safety has changed over the last 80 years.

So what happens next? The staff information report before Council didn’t go far enough in positioning HRM to advocate for change in my opinion. HRM can’t change the Provincial building code, but we aren’t passive observers. We’re responsible for land-use planning, we’re responsible for building inspections, and we’re responsible for fire-fighting. We don’t control the building code, but all of the related issues are very much in our wheelhouse. We should advocate for change. With that in mind, I worked with staff to prepare a motion to redirect:

Regional Council directs the CAO to

(1) Undertake engagement with the development community around building code barriers to missing middle housing, including single-point buildings
(2) Return to Council with the results of that consultation and with a jurisdictional scan of building codes and approaches to alternative compliance across Canada regarding small scale single-point buildings
(3) Depending on the outcomes of engagement and the jurisdictional review, provide recommendations regarding guidelines for alternative compliance and/or a strategy to engage with the Province around building code changes

Council approved my motion unanimously. I’m hopeful that work by HRM could lead to change in our Province’s code or, failing that, at least create an Edmonton style guide to make alternative compliance more predictable and appealing. We’ll see what comes back.

Pensions:
A rare moment at Council as staff were before us with a recommendation on the municipal pension plan. A rare moment because the pension plan is managed arms-length by a committee consisting of representatives from both union and management and, as a result, the pension plan doesn’t normally come to Council. So what’s going on?

Contributions to the HRM Pension Plan are shared 50/50 between employer and employee. Contribution rates are currently very high, totaling 12% of an each employee’s salary for both HRM and the employee for a total of 24%. Basically, an HRM employee pays 12% of their pay into the pension plan and HRM matches that payment. The pension plan was badly underfunded years back (hence the high 12% contribution rates), but the good news is that improving results and high contributions means that the plan has now reached the point of being fully funded. Good news for management and employee alike!

Since the Plan is fully funded, HRM wants to reduce the contribution rate by 2%. This has been debated at the Pension Committee, but unanimous agreement to reduce the rate hasn’t been achieved as two of HRM’s five unions, NSGEU and CUPE, have rejected reducing the rate. The HRM pension plan is structured so that any fundamental changes require the near unanimous consent of all participants. If either management or two of HRM’s unions object, any fundamental change is vetoed. With NSGEU and CUPE rejecting the proposed contribution reduction, HRM isn’t able to fundamentally change the plan.

There are dueling opinions as to whether reducing the contribution rate is a fundamental change or not and that dispute will now go off to arbitration, which could take a year or two to resolve. The wild card in the mix is that federal tax law limits pension contributions to 9% of an employee’s salary. The Minister of National Revenue has the ability to allow for higher contributions in situations where a plan isn’t adequately funded and CRA has had a waiver in place for HRM to allow a contribution rate of over 9% for many years. Now that HRM’s plan is fully funded, CRA will likely eventually remove the waiver, but there is latitude as to when that might happen.

So, HRM management recommended to Council that we write CRA to recommend that the Minister not renew the waiver when it comes up for renewal on December 31, 2026. What it amounts to is a way to bypass the current pension logjam. If the Minister doesn’t renew the waiver, contributions will decline to 9% in 2027, which would be a reduction of 3% instead of the 2% suggested at the Pension Committee. Council unanimously approved writing CRA.

I know there is a bunch of union/management politics wrapped up in this, but I fundamentally don’t see how it’s at all justifiable to both charge more in taxes and to deduct more from employee’s cheques to contribute to a pension plan that is now fully funded, and to do that with a contribution rate that exceeds what is normally legally allowed. Hopefully the Pension Committee can take another look at the situation. Keeping contribution rates artificially high doesn’t serve anyone.

Council also asked for a staff report on combining the HRM pension plan with the bigger Nova Scotia Public Service Superannuation Plan. The Nova Scotia Plan serves Provincial employees, and the Province’s other municipalities, and universities. Combining with the Provincial plan wasn’t in the report, but rather arose from the discussion around the room. The suggestion is that combining the two plans might be beneficial to both (bigger pool of funds) and that this would be a good time to look at the idea given that both plans are fully funded. This felt like quite a leap to make in the moment though. I felt that more discussion with the Pension Committee would be warranted before looking at such a significant change so I voted against, but it passed 15-1. A staff report will return in future on a possible pension plan merger.

Other:

• Received updates on the Housing Accelerator Fund and the 2026 Assessment data
• Finalized changes to the alarm bylaw to change to a flat fee for false alarms
• Completed changes to residential parking permits that will see permits vary in cost based on vehicle weight
• Adopted a comprehensive litter strategy and added an enforcement officer to the budget adjustment list (will consider that later during budget deliberations)
• Renamed a portion of Mansion Avenue in Spryfield
• Deferred consideration of a commercial development in Hammonds Plains until the Rockcliffe Extension is complete
• Directed staff to consider a possible further extension of water service in Fall River to Phase 5 of the Regional Plan
• Entered into a new contract with Eastlink for wireless service to HRM
• Deferred the LakeWatchers Report until our next Council meeting (we were pressed for time)
• Deferred first reading of changes to the taxi bylaw and at the Mayor’s request, directed staff to prepare an alternative option that wouldn’t further regulate ride share companies like Uber (argument on that to come next Council meeting or the one after that)
• Approved event grant funding (from the hotel levy) for 2026 U Sports Men’s University Cup and for the 2026 ICF Junior and U23 Canoe Spring World Championships on Banook
• Requested a staff report on potentially allowing more than one short-term rental on properties where bylaw’s currently only allow for one by a discretionary process, such as a development agreement. This came from Councillor Purdy and I’m very skeptical that it is a good idea in Dartmouth Centre. We’ll see what the report says