Photo: Luc Rempel

Salmon Arm city council were unable to come to a decision about whether or not city projects should trigger frontage upgrades.

At the Feb. 10 Salmon Arm city council meeting, staff brought forward a recommendation for an amendment to the subdivision development services bylaw.

The recommended bylaw change would exempt city properties from the requirements of the subdivision development services bylaw in order to avoid potential frontage upgrades impacting the budgets of approved capital work projects.

“Staff believe it is not in the best interest of the taxpayer for the city to complete frontage upgrades outside the priorities established for the community due to the application of a building permit for institutional infrastructure,” said Robert Niewenhuizen, director of engineering and public works.

Niewenhuizen said often frontage upgrades triggered by capital projects are already planned and budgeted as separate projects, so mixing them into existing projects can add an unnecessary complication.

“I guess it's just a perfect example of some of the times that staff's hands are tied by bylaws or by our rules,” said Coun. Kevin Flynn. “And you're just trying to get a little more flexibility in this rule to actually do the work when it should happen in our overall planning.”

However, some councillors felt deferring frontage improvements should remain a council decision.

Coun. Tim Lavery said he felt council still needs "some control" over the matter.

“I get the intent, and I trust staff to bring things forward, but I'm not sure if I can support this at this stage,” said Coun. Tim Lavery. “Unless there is some language about a reference to council… prior to exemption.”

Coin. Sylvia Lindgren felt the same way.

“I think it's important that regardless of how good staff is at doing this, that council has some influence,” she said. “Because we're here at the table representing the views of the people that elected us.”

Other councillors felt avoiding delays on important city projects was an important consideration.

“I think as a council, as a staff, as a community, we have some very ambitious plans in place,” said Coun. Louise Wallace Richmond. “I think there's an expectation that we've made commitments to get things done.

“We've got budgets in place and when delays like this happen, and there's a way to avoid them. …I actually think we should try it this way and see how it works.”

She added that council could always reverse this bylaw amendment in the future if they decided they did not like how it was working.

Flynn said he felt that cutting some bureaucracy in the municipality is a good idea.

“I think we get looked at extremely interestingly by our taxpayers, if we're having to apply to ourselves for a variance,” he said. “To take one piece of bureaucracy out, I think most people would be in favour of that.”

Lavery requested a list of upcoming projects that would be impacted by this bylaw amendment, and suggested deferring the motion to make the amendment until the list was provided to council.

The motion to defer the existing motion was passed with Coun. Debbie Cannon and Flynn voting in opposition.