By KEVIN BERGER, Local Journalism Initiative
Amidst the ongoing dispute over the proposed Solair development within the RM of Corman Park, three City of Martensville councillors have been appointed to a dispute resolution committee that will attempt to find a solution to the issues surrounding the development.
Mayor Kent Muench and Councillors Spencer Nikkel and Brad Blixt were appointed to the joint committee via a motion passed at the special council meeting on Tuesday, April 21.
They will represent the municipality in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions of the P4G (Saskatoon North Partnership for Growth) Planning District Agreement and have the authority to negotiate on the city’s behalf, subject to final ratification by council where required.
The controversy over the Solair development goes back to 2019, when a developer called Arbutus Properties Ltd. proposed building a “solar-powered neighbourhood” in the southeast corner of Saskatoon. That proposal was ultimately rejected by the City of Saskatoon. Then, in October 2024, Arbutus Properties presented a new Solair concept plan before the P4G District Planning Commission.
This 157-acre (or 63.9 hectare) project, which would be located outside of Saskatoon city limits and within the RM of Corman Park, proposes to house 4,000 people in 1,700 dwelling units.
Arbutus proposed the Solair concept plan be adopted as part of the P4G District Community Plan (DOCP). However, the Cities of Martensville and Saskatoon each provided a notice of dispute to the plan. (Warman and Osler, who are partners in the P4G, did not.)
“I would suggest that even though this application is not in the vicinity of Martensville, there were certainly some concerns around the application of the language that is contained … within the OCP that is covering that entire area,” said City Manager Tanya Garost.
“I think Martensville … would have a similar concern as Saskatoon should this application be presented outside of our border.”
The administrations of all three municipalities did attempt to sit down in December and work out a resolution, but despite some constructive discussions that improved mutual understanding, the dispute remained unresolved.
As per the P4G Planning District Agreement, the matter is now being brought to a combined committee of representatives from all three municipalities, which will be led by a mediator that has yet to be appointed.
Muench asked Garost what kind of time commitment this committee would entail.
She indicated this would involve at least one meeting in the next few months, whereupon the mediator would make some recommendations.
If those recommendations are not accepted, then the final decision must be made by the province, and all three municipalities will be forced to abide by that decision, Garost indicated.
When asked if this dispute resolution process had ever occured before in Saskatchewan, Garost replied no, adding, “I think we are breaking ground on this one.”
P4G Withdrawal
Though it isn’t yet a done deal, the RM of Corman Park is also strongly considering withdrawing from P4G over concerns relating to local autonomy and issues like the Solair dispute.
During a special planning committee meeting on April 21, councillors voted 7-2 to recommend that the RM of Corman Park explore a unilateral withdrawal from the P4G.
To be clear, because this was a committee meeting, this is just a recommendation and a final decision will not be made until the council meeting on June 23, 2026.
In an interview on Monday, April 27, Corman Park Reeve Joe Hargrave downplayed the gravity of the vote, noting that there is still plenty of time for council to consider its options as it receives additional information from administration.
“Until it goes before council in June, it’s just sort of up for discussion,” said Hargrave. “There’s still time for change in that vote. We’ll see how it is once additional information is given to council.”
As noted in an administation report, the Saskatoon North P4G was initiated in 2014 among five municipalities — Corman Park, Saskatoon, Warman, Martensville and Osler — in order to co-ordinate regional growth infrastructure planning.
Administration acknowledged that P4G has helped to improve dialogue and coordination among partner municipalities, but at the same time, several challenges have arisen that are increasingly impacting the efficiency of developmental approvals and the ability of member municipalities to respond to growth opportunities.
For instance, there is ongoing tension between the urban municipalities trying to prevent “leapfrog development” that could hinder urban expansion and the rural municipalities wanting greater flexibility to meet market demand.
Another issue relates to the interpretation of what is happening in Future Urban Growth Areas (FUGA), which has led to a perception among developers that these lands are basically “frozen.”
To be clear, the P4G agreement does allow for a member municipality to withdraw from the Planning District provided they give other members a minimum of 90s days’ written notice and pay off any outstanding financial debts. The matter then goes to mediation and could ultimately be decided by the Saskatchewan Municipal Board.
“If the vote should come to totally withdraw from P4G, it’s not instantaneous,” noted Hargrave. “It would take well over a year to be able to withdraw from it. It’s not like you vote in June and the next day you’re done.”
Administration’s recommendation at the April 21 meeting had been to conduct a “negotiated withdrawal” from the P4G, working collaboratively with each administration to define where growth is expected to occur for each member municipality.
“This option maintains regional collaboration where it is most critical while restoring certainty and autonomy for the RM,” administration noted.
However, council instead favoured a unilateral withdrawal, which would leave future growth and development coordination to occur through annexation processes and individual negotiations.
Administration acknowledged this option would provide the most flexibility to the RM to advance development independent of infrastructure timelines and respond to growth opportunities.
However, administration also warned a unilateral withdrawal could also mean more disputes over land use and servicing expectations, as well as a possible freeze on development within the P4G District.