Fort St. John city staff will look at ways to strengthen the municipality’s approach to properties that repeatedly generate nuisance complaints and calls for service.
Council approved two notices of motion at its Monday, Aug. 24, regular meeting, directing staff to review the city’s Nuisance Abatement and Cost Recovery Bylaw and explore options for a new Good Neighbour Bylaw.
Councillor Trevor Bolin brought forward both proposals, which were first introduced at the Aug. 10 council meeting.
Under the proposed changes to the nuisance bylaw, staff will look at updating enforcement and cost-recovery provisions to better reflect the current cost of providing municipal services.
The review will also consider a process for billing property owners when recurring nuisance incidents place repeated demands on city resources.
That could include calls involving municipal bylaw services, the RCMP, fire department and provincial agencies.
Staff have also been asked to examine payment options, including a proposed 60-day payment period, as well as available collection mechanisms.
Bolin previously said the existing bylaw needs to account for the rising cost of responding to serious incidents.
“The notice of motion will be to bring that bylaw up to current costs…it is now severely more expensive when we dispatch police to shootings and resources to house [those who] continue to steal people’s stuff,” he said during the Aug. 10 meeting.
The second notice of motion asks staff to review Good Neighbour Bylaw models used in other communities, including Williams Lake, and return to council with options for Fort St. John.
The proposed bylaw would focus on residential and commercial properties that generate repeated nuisance complaints and service calls, with potential cost-recovery and fee mechanisms.
Bolin has previously proposed a three-strike approach, with a $1,200 fine applied to a property after three substantiated complaints.
“I think at some point in time, you’ve got to be liable for how you decide to live in Fort St. John, and I think this is a way we can start to look at that,” he said.
At the Aug. 24 meeting, council also asked staff to provide recommendations on implementation, financial impacts and enforcement considerations.
The proposals will return to council for consideration at a future meeting once staff have completed their review.
