The 2025-2029 Financial plan is moving closer to approval as city council voted to proceed during its regular council meeting.
Draft 2 of the 2025 financial plan as presented and directs staff to implement the following council strategies in the development of Draft 3 of the 2025 financial plan:
- a six per cent increase in property tax revenue
- electrical utility rate increases of:
- six per cent residential usage,
- nine per cent residential fixed,
- 0 per cent commercial usage and,
- 18 per cent commercial fixed
-10 per cent utility rate increase for both water and wastewater
- balancing any shortfall within the financial plan with current year contributions to reserves
- stabilization and possible reduction of fee for service requests
Councillor Deborah Lafleur added they should be clear this is just a draft and things could still change as they move ahead, which Mayor Everett Baker agreed. All approved the draft.
Homeless shelter seeking extension
Grand Forks Council directed staff to start the consultation process regarding the BC Housing shelter Temporary Use Permit (TUP,) which starts a process of consultation to determine approval.
Tyler Baker, director of development for the Interior with BC Housing, and BC Housing development department member Stephanie McLiesh asked for a three-year extension for the existing Temporary Use Permit at the 78th Avenue location to allow shelter services to continue while they look for a new permanent site.
TUPs may be renewed once. As their expiring term was already a renewal, another term must go through the full application process, which will include notifying and soliciting feedback from neighbouring properties.
It's the application and notification process that Council directed staff to begin this week, but any decision to actually approve the TUP will occur at a future meeting after the notification and feedback process has completed.
The current permit expires in March of this year.
“We are continuing to work with city staff to find new locations and work collaboratively to evaluate the sites,” Baker said. “We’ve looked at several, but are still looking for a permanent site to date.”
If they do find a suitable site within those three years, Baker said the city can release the permit as soon as they can move into the new site.
Occupancy in the shelter has ebbed and flowed since 2020, but it’s always remained high, with 81 per cent capacity in 2020-21, 70 per cent in 2021-22, back to 81 per cent in 2022-23 and 89 per cent in 2023-24. This is according to the shelter’s own fiscal year assessments.
Over the past year, the 15 beds in the shelter have seen about 82 people needing the shelter’s services.
Baker said Boundary Family Services has helped about 52 per cent of those people access supports like food security, outreach, extreme weather clothing and shelter accessibility. By its assessments, about 25 per cent of current shelter guests could be suitable for second-stage housing, which is temporary supportive housing.
The majority of people using the shelter are Grand Forks residents.
The shelter is not just to put a roof over people’s heads for a short time, Baker explained. He added the shelter tries to create a pathway for qualified people to move up into social housing or housing with supports and even rent supplements when there is space available.
McLiesh pointed out of the estimated 4,477 residents in Grand Forks, as per 2023 Census data for B.C., 26 per cent are renters (2021 Census.) For Grand Forks, BC Housing is funding 17 shelter beds, 17 senior housing homes with supports, 16 homes with supports for those experiencing family violence, 28 independent senior social housing homes, 77 family and social housing homes, 46 rent supplements supporting those living in private rental market units, including 34 senior household recipients.
Population-wise, Grand Forks experienced the greatest increase in homelessness between 2019 and 2021, with 151 people counted, which translated to a 189 per cent increase. While Baker said this is just an estimate and the figures are likely out of date, the recent Housing Assessment showed there is a need for more permanent homes for the city’s population.
Councillor David Mark had a few questions pertaining to types of housing, pointing out many are likely in need of just less expensive housing, such as an apartment for under $1,000 monthly. He asked how many of the shelter’s clients are in that situation, to which Baker said about 25 per cent are in that situation. On how many are employed, or at least applied for a job in the past 30 days, Baker couldn’t say, explaining the shelter does offer life skills training, which brings them stable housing so they can get a job to support themselves.
“I think our community does a lot to help people get employed,” Mark said. “We’ve got places like Community Futures if they need to have a shower before an interview, they can go to the pool. There are a lot of options for people. No matter where you are in the process, connecting with money is going to be important.”
Mark also touched on the types of structures BC Housing can build. Baker said they and the shelter do with other nonprofits to help build homes and make more supportive housing available. What they want to see is more partnership between the city, BC Housing and nonprofits to put more supportive housing in place.
During the regular meeting, CAO Duncan Redfearn pointed out there is a legislative process and council’s role is to direct staff to follow that process, including notifying people within either 30 metres or 100 metres of the facility of the extension, but with a three-week period before the current permit expires, the process should be completed.
Both Councillors Christine Thompson and Deborah Lafleur said they would support a two-year permit, not a three-year, as it was the original request from the city and Thompson added she lived within 100 metres of the shelter.
All but Councillor Zielinski and Mark approved, with an addition of a monthly update on finding a permanent location provided to council.
Cosmetic Pesticide bylaw supported by Council
After a nearly year-long fight to get a cosmetic pesticide draft bylaw for the city, one brought forth by a citizen advocate group gained support from all of council.
Christina Abbott, who’s been spearheading a campaign for a bylaw restricting the use of cosmetic pesticides for almost a full year, was before city council again to speak about a bylaw, which she expressed her frustration with how long it was taking.
“I’m surprised at the amount of time this has taken as there are a number of B.C. city best practices you can actually look into,” she said.
Using Chat GPT to help with research, she returned with another presentation outlining the concerns councillors and city staff had regarding enforcement and other issues. She pointed out several B.C. communities that have similar bylaws that have been successful in regulation and enforcement, including Kamloops in 2010, the District of Saanich in 2010 – updated in 2020 and an enhanced pesticide use bylaw in Richmond in 2009. All three have strict regulations on pesticide use, as well as safer options and educational components for residents to refer to.
Enforcement hasn’t been a problem for these, she said, as they are written and implemented in such a way that there is high compliance among residents.
“While this will require planning and community involvement, the experiences of other B.C. municipalities demonstrate that it is feasible to implement and uphold a cosmetic pesticide use ban by combining clear regulations, education and enforcement, Grand Forks can promote a healthier environment for all residents,” Abbott said.
A collaborative effort between the city and the group organizing the bylaw campaign encouraging education and communication would be the most effective, she said, including a draft pamphlet, she brought that would be distributed to stores and bylaw enforcement to make it easier for people to understand the rules and alternatives for pesticide control.
Abbott started a pesticide ban within city limits campaign last February after an incident with a commercial farm behind her west-end home involving farm employees spraying an unknown substance on crops, which she said she was exposed to and caused her to become ill. In February 2024, she petitioned the city council to implement a pesticide ban within city limits for health, environmental and safety reasons.
Initially, the city turned down drafting a bylaw and voted for an awareness campaign, but Abbot and several supporters returned the following March to ask again for consideration, which the city granted and has been working on a draft bylaw.
The city has been collecting feedback from the public and exploring existing pesticide ban bylaws across the country. A few people came forward to describe their or loved ones’ experiences with exposure to pesticides, many of them described becoming ill and suffering long-term health problems. All of them called on city council to act on a cosmetic pesticide bylaw to protect the health of residents. Some were residents of the regional district Area D-Rural Grand Forks, which Mayor Everett Baker said he would pass the concerns along to Director Linda Kay Wiese, but stressed this was about a city bylaw.
Councillor Niel Krog had to point out that the reason it’s taken so long to get a bylaw draft on the table is because many pesticide complaints are linked to agriculture, not private homes. There would have to be exemptions for variables like fruit trees, produce gardens, noxious weeds and insects and hard landscaping, mosquito control and agriculture.
“We have to figure out what’s left and that pretty well exempts every pesticide,” he said. “If we do pass this, what would someone be restricted to?”
The only thing left is really lawns, he said and asked if there were other examples.
During the regular meeting, Mayor Baker put the fate of the bylaw on the floor for council to decide. Councillor Thompson said the bylaw as it is isn’t enforceable.
Councillor Rod Zielinski countered it’s not that it isn’t enforceable, but it would be difficult and there should be more emphasis on education. However, he would support it.
Bylaw officer Jon Wilson said he wrote and oversaw the implementation of the Kamloops bylaw. The challenge would be having enough evidence to levy charges if it came down to it, however, the spirit of it is to create education opportunities rather than punishment.
Councillor David Mark put forth a motion to support the draft bylaw as it was presented, give it the first two readings and the third will be pending ministerial review as per the community charter. He added he was impressed with the educational material already provided. All were approved, with a second motion endorsing the educational efforts of the citizen advocate group, which they also unanimously approved.
