By KEVIN BERGER, Local Journalism Initiative
The RM of Corman Park has opted to delay a potential withdrawal from the Saskatoon North Partnership for Growth (P4G) for half a year as it tries to negotiate a solution to its concerns around development delays and local autonomy.
During the planning committee meeting on June 9, the committee voted to recommend to council that the RM and partnering municipalities enter into discussions to negotiate a revised governance and operating framework for P4G prior to any decisions being made regarding withdrawal.
The committee further recommended that administration set up meetings between Corman Park councillors and the other partners in P4G (Saskatoon, Warman, Martensville and Osler) and that the results of those negotiations, including recommendations and options for council consideration, be reported back to council in six months.
The recommendation will come forward to the regular council meeting on Tuesday, June 23, where it will likely be adopted as part of the consent agenda.
The Saskatoon North Partnership for Growth was initiated in 2014 to co-ordinate regional growth and infrastructure planning. The goal was to establish a long-term framework that would support sustainable growth, minimize conflict between the five municipalities, and ensure co-ordinated land-use planning.
It was eventually established on Jan. 1, 2022 through a Ministerial Order. The Planning District is governed by a P4G agreement and a District Planning Commission (DPC) was created to provide advice and recommendations on planning matters.
Unfortunately, P4G has also been viewed as a barrier to development in the RM due to a variety of issues, which were summed up thusly by Director of Planning and Development Doug Ramage at the June 9 meeting:
“The central issue … is that lands within the RM are increasingly being viewed through a future urban growth lens, even when there is no clear servicing timeline, no clear annexation timeline and no clear transition framework. This creates uncertainty, and uncertainty affects investment. It affects landowners, it affects developers and it affects the RM’s autonomy, jurisdiction, and ability to plan for its own future within the region as a partner.”
He acknowledged that the success of the municipalities in P4G are connected, adding that growth in one municipality can create opportunity across the region and co-ordinated planning is important for managing that growth responsibly.
But at the same time, he said, strong partnerships are built on clarity and mutual respect, not uncertainty and each partner protecting its own interests.
“The RM is not simply an area between cities; it is a major contributor to the regional economy, the regional tax base, the long-term growth potential of the Saskatoon region and the economic engine of the province,” he said.
“The RM needs a planning framework that recognizes its role. The RM needs the ability to support rural, interim employment, commercial and industrial development where appropriate, especially where those developments can proceed without immediate reliance on urban servicing.”
Withdrawal options
During the April 21 planning committee meeting, administration was directed to prepare a report on potential options for withdrawal from the P4G, as well as the factors that must be considered with these options to the June 9 committee meeting.
The two options were to establish a negotiated transition framework or to provide a formal withdrawal notice. Both of them move the RM towards withdrawal from P4G, but the distinction lies in “how strongly and how quickly the RM feels it needs to create the necessary trigger for change.”
He said, “This decision is more than only deciding on a withdrawal from a planning district. It is about defining how the RM participates in the region going forward as a constructive regional partner, with its own jurisdiction, its own growth responsibilities, its own economic development mandate and how it contributes to the long-term success of the region. And the RM can still act as a partner while still making it clear that the current framework needs to change.”
The report from administration states that a negotiation transition framework would be less focused on whether withdrawal would occur, and would instead focus more on how future growth co-ordination would function after withdrawal.
From a governance perspective, the framework was the lower-risk option and most likely to preserve the RM’s ongoing partnerships.
However, the effectiveness of such a framework also depends on the willingness of other municipalities to negotiate meaningful change. If the response is to defend the existing framework, delay difficult decisions, or avoid meaningful changes, then Option 1 could result in the status quo.
A formal withdrawal would send a clear signal that the RM does not believe the current framework is sustainable, and unresolved issues can only be addressed through withdrawal.
A notice may create the necessary trigger to allow the RM to align planning, servicing and economic development around a clearer growth strategy; without a trigger, there is a risk that the same issues remain unresolved.
The second option was also likely to be more expensive in terms of various legal costs and technical consulting. Administration estimated a negotiated withdrawal to cost between $350,000 to $550,000, while a unilateral withdrawal would run between $550,000 to $800,000, especially if it results in lengthy mediation and potential annexation challenges.
Administration did not indicate which option it would prefer, though it was suggested that if council believed there was a realistic opportunity to negotiate meaningful change, then Option 1 would provide that path.
Non-council input
Prior to any decision being made at the June 9 committee meeting, a presentation was made by City of Martensville Councilor Spencer Nikkel and City of Warman Mayor Gary Philipchuk, who are the chair and vice chair respectively of the P4G Regional Oversight Committee (ROC).
Nikkel pointed out that the P4G region is the primary economic engine of the province, and much of its industrial growth (which shows no sign of slowing down) happens in the RM.
As such, “it’s more important than ever to ensure we continue to co-ordinate growth where it makes sense for each partner.”
Nikkel acknowledged that the current District Planning Commission (DPC) structure was not sufficiently meeting the needs of their ratepayers.
“We fully respect your right to make the decision you feel is in the best interests of your ratepayers, and I will say that it’s clear, at least to me, that we cannot continue the status quo based on the concerns at this table and also from the urban communities,” he said.
“However, I would urge you to think beyond the current issues with DPC and consider the broader and long-term value of the Partnership For Growth.”
Division 4 Councillor David Greenwood challenged the pair over the Solair development, which is located near Saskatoon but within the RM of Corman Park. That development has been stalled by opposition from Martensville and Saskatoon, and despite meetings between the various administrations to work out the issues around Solair, the three municipalities are now involved in an arbitration process.
Nikkel responded that he believed they needed to look at how the servicing would work with urban-density residential developments in the RM, adding that they want to make sure these costs aren’t being offloaded on to the urban municipalities.
Former Saskatoon mayor Don Atchison was also present at the June 9 meeting and was asked by Division 6 Councillor Steven Balzer to give his input as one of the architects of P4G.
Atchison said part of the reason for forming P4G was to avoid animosity between Corman Park and the City of Saskatoon. “It sounds to me today, sitting here and listening to some of your councillors, that there is frustration with the way things are going,” he said.
He also noted that, while P4G was meant to bring some certainty about what the future would bring, the P4G agreement was also meant to be a living document that was open to change.
Council discussion
At the June 9 committee meeting, reeve Joe Hargrave put forward the recommendation to continue negotiating for change within the P4G framework and to hold off on any potential withdrawal for the next six months.
He said this is a significant decision that would have major impacts on their neighbours, and echoed what Atchison said about the original intention behind P4G to be more of a fluid arrangement.
He acknowledged that it was “too bad” the RM hadn’t forced any changes before now, but now was not the time to give up.
“I don’t think we have to negotiate a withdrawal. I think we have to negotiate a new P4G model,” he said, noting that his discussions with the various partners led him to believe they agree that change is necessary.
Division 8 Councillor Wendy Trask, who sits on the Regional Oversight Committee, said there have been too many years of planning to go into P4G to pull out now.
Noting that he will “never be a fan of staying in the Partnership For Growth,” Division 3 Councillor Lyndon Haduik pointed out the City of Saskatoon’s absence from the meeting, adding, “This tells me that they are not interested and we are weak.”
Greenwood said he agreed with Haduik’s point about Saskatoon’s absence from the meeting, adding that showing up in person shows integrity and commitment.
With that in mind, he indicated he would support Hargave’s motion, adding that he hoped a better arrangement could be negotiated.
“A lot of money … and a lot of time has gone into P4G. Six more months won’t kill us and I would recommend to other councillors to support this,” he said.