By Steve Hubrecht
District of Invermere staff expressed frustration during a discussion on the Columbia Housing Enhancement Society’s request for a fee-for-service during a recent Invermere council meeting.
The society had requested and received annual $5,000 grants-in-aid in the past from the district in years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. It had used the money to help create the Columbia House Healing Garden. That delightful green space, aside from benefitting Columbia House residents, is also open to the Invermere public at large.
This year the society requested another grant-in-aid, and Invermere council directed staff to suggest to the society that, if it planned to keep asking for grants on an annual basis for the foreseeable future, it instead submit a request for a fee-for-service.
Fees-for-service are generally given to local nonprofit groups on an ongoing basis, whereas grants-in-aid are more typically given for one-off efforts or projects. But, as part of asking for a fee-for-service, groups need to submit documentation detailing, among other things, the group, its plans, and its financial standing.
It was precisely such documentation that Invermere staff outlined as a major stumbling block in setting up a formal fee-for-service agreement with the society.
“The request (from the society) was actually very poorly worded,” Invermere chief administrative officer (CAO) Andrew Young told council, adding the district asked for clarification and additional information, but that the group has yet to submit a report that meets the district’s criteria.
Despite the district giving the society multiple samples of other fee-for-service agreements, the documents the society has submitted contain, “no business plan, let alone solid financials,” explained Young.
He added that the society, through the healing garden, certainly does provide a service that is used by local residents, but noted that it does so on land owned by Interior Health, not land owned by the district.
Young told council that in his opinion, the society should get a grant this year, but that council ought to consider telling them that future requests for fee-for-service will be withheld without sufficient supporting information.
“I think that is a message they need to hear,” said Young. “It’s been very frustrating from the perspective of staff.”
Councillor Gerry Taft noted that other volunteer groups have struggled with this very issue in the past, particularly the Groundswell Community Greenhouse and Gardens, and that it was simply a case of the nonprofit being run by a very small handful of volunteers, all of them stretched very thin with little free time, and none with expertise in preparing reports or financial documents. Taft surmised this might be the case with the Columbia Housing Enhancement Society.
“They might be lacking in details, but I don’t think there’s a problem fundamentally with allocating that money,” said Taft. “With our own district staff as busy as they are, we couldn’t match that service for that cost, so let’s cut a cheque for the nonprofit to do it.”
Councillor Greg Anderson disagreed, saying “I can’t support that…that’s like cutting a blank cheque…my conscience won’t let me do that.”
Anderson’s sentiments were echoed by councillor Kayja Becker. “This has been too open-ended. I don’t want to open that can of worms…Let’s do it the right way when it’s public funds,” she said, adding that if the money is to be given to the society this year, it should be very clear that it is a grant-in-aid, not a fee-for-service.
“They (the society) are biting at the bit, and want a decision on this soon,” said Invermere corporate officer Kindry Luyendyk.
Councillor Ute Juras chimed in that the discussion had been introduced as a late item on the agenda at a special council meeting, rather than a normally scheduled meeting, and that she hadn’t had a chance to read through all the related documents yet.
“I’m not prepared to make a decision tonight,” she said.
Young outlined that district staff also feel rushed, and are happy to hold the matter over to the next regular council meeting, which is set for Sept. 27.
He added the society has been pestering the district to make a decision quickly, saying they need the money soon to do work on the garden, and this has left staff confused as to why — if the work is pressing — the society has yet to pull together the proper documents for a fee-for-service agreement.
“There’s been some pressure that’s been applied (by the society) and it’s not been good,” said Young. “It’s a bit of a pressure tactic, and I have to say, I don’t like it.”
Council members each separately voiced their support for waiting until Sept. 27 to make a decision.
“I very much support the garden. It’s a great initiative. But if, on the 27th, we get the same letter (from the society), I will vote against giving the money,” said Anderson, saying he doesn’t see why the district should cut the Columbia Housing Enhancement Society slack, when all the other nonprofits the district has fee-for-service agreements each manage to turn in the proper documents. Council concluded the discussion by formally agreeing to table the decision until Sept. 27.
