Markets 
The reeve of the regional municipality (RM) of Corman Park, Sask., says his council is considering leaving a Saskatoon-area regional planning district after years of the other municipalities having more say than his.
The planning district, called the Saskatoon North Partnership for Growth (P4G), was formed in 2014 and comprises Saskatoon, Martensville, Warman, Olser and Corman Park. It was created with the intention of developing the region, supporting sustainable land use and strategizing for decades of growth.
But for Reeve Joe Hargrave, the partnership has revealed several challenges that are slowing down development approvals, with the RM’s council feeling as if they lack the powers their counterparts have.
“We have lots on the go in the RM and we feel that we deserve just a little more attention and a little bit more cooperation,” said Hargrave in an interview with Global News.
Hargrave says his council is finding it difficult to move forward with developments in the RM, as the other P4G members must review its plans, stalling developments for an additional 60 to 90 days.
“We don’t want one of the other entities, one of the other municipalities, telling us what we can and can’t do for our own ratepayers,” said Hargrave.
Corman Park’s planning committee considered Tuesday a report from the RM’s administration on the status of its participation in P4G and the potential options and implications for withdrawal.
Get daily National news
Get daily Canada news delivered to your inbox so you’ll never miss the day’s top stories.
“The report did also note the importance of collaboration with our regional partners, but I think it’s also that the RM is really looking to be able to have that control and autonomy on its growth,” said Doug Ramage, director of planning and development at Corman Park.
The City of Saskatoon’s planning and development department told Global News in a statement that all development applications submitted by Corman Park have been approved by its council.
“We continue to work collaboratively with all P4G partners and enjoy a good working relationship with the RM of Corman Park,” said Angela Gardiner, general manager of utilities and environment at the City of Saskatoon, in an emailed statement.
“As one of the fastest growing cities in Canada, Saskatoon’s interest is to protect its long-term development path to meet the need for future growth through efficient and well-organized development,” Gardiner’s statement continued.
Hargrave points to a contentious solar community project known as Solair as an example of development pushback between Saskatoon and the RM, after the project was disputed by the city last fall.
Saskatoon’s planning and development department says the city pushed back on this project as it viewed the project as not following the policies of the P4G and that the project would create land-use and infrastructure conflicts that could cost taxpayers down the line.
While Hargrave says this development dispute was not the catalyst for exploring a P4G exit, and is currently in arbitration between the RM and the city, it does play a role.
“We should have the final say on it as to what we want to do,” said Hargrave.
“If we can provide it with water and wastewater and work with the developers, we should be able to do that community.”
Warman Mayor Gary Philipchuk said in a statement that he finds it “disappointing” that P4G is heading in this direction.
“As for the City of Warman, we will commit to continuing to work positively with Corman Park as they surround our city and we have had a synergetic relationship,” Philipchuk added.
Martensville councillor Spencer Nikkel agrees, saying he would rather improve the existing partnerships rather than starting from square one to tackle regional challenges.
“Continued growth will depend on maintaining and strengthening relationships with all of our regional partners to support shared success,” said Nikkel in an emailed statement.
Administration presented four options for the path forward with the P4G to the planning committee Tuesday, ranging from staying within the current planning district framework to fully withdrawing.
The planning committee voted 7-2 to receive additional information on what a unilateral withdrawal from P4G would entail, including its implications for annexation, costs, and engagement with partners. Council is expecting this information for further discussion and direction on June 9.
Hargrave says the most optimal solution for him would be for the RM to stay in the P4G, but with a changed relationship where everyone can work together and yield the same power.
“Where there’s a will, there’s a way. If people really want to work at it and we could make changes, we could make things work,” said Hargrave.
Read the full article here
