City land department manager Randi Buchner discusses plans for the department over the next two-year budget during a special session of council on Wednesday afternoon.--News Photo Collin Gallant
@@CollinGallant
Medicine Hat will see slower than average population growth compared to the rest of Alberta for the foreseeable future, which administrators say could necessitate a shift for the city’s land office, potentially switching it from bringing new land to market to readying redevelopment projects for the private sector.
That could also once again set the stage to discuss large parcel sales to private sector, but councillors told a budget session Tuesday that “balance is needed” in the land department’s mission.
“It’s not mean to be pessimistic, but it’s to have an eyes-wide open approach to land development,” said land office manager Randi Buchner during a special council session discussing the 2025-26 city budget.
New provincial population forecasts and internal city studies show the city may only grow to just 72,000 by 2046 – that is 9,000 fewer predicted 10 years ago by the same point in time.
That has implications for new residential construction – which is already underserved – but also commercial (oversupplied at present) and industrial subdivisions.
“Our decisions and forward strategy need to be informed by their numbers as we’re looking at residential, commercial and industrial land development and how it proceeds,” said Buchner, who plans to bring a new strategy for council approval in the spring of 2025.
Coun. Darren Hirsch said the department has often been criticized by the private sector for skewing the local market with an oversized position.
“There are people who say to me, let them do residential,” he told council, wondering aloud if the department is capable of bringing a new large subdivision to market.
“The challenge is finding a sweet spot between not dominating the market, but working complimentary to developers … we need to decide what land we want to keep, and what we don’t for our material needs.”
Ten years ago the land department responded to criticism that it dominated the market with new price-updating policy and a goal of controlling no more than half the lots on the market.
Over time, with fewer lots coming on, even slower sales have reduced the city position on lots to just 20 per cent today.
Coun. Robert Dumanowski said with only 72 lots in the city portfolio at present, the department is already operating differently from when it brought several hundred lots onto the market annually in early 2000s.
He said council should resist a sell-off of publicly owned land in the name of economic development.
“My worry is that in a depressed market, when we’re desperate to get numbers on a chart, we’re reducing prices and calling that a strategy,” Dumanowski told council.
“Nobody argues it’s a balancing act, but for me, if we have to hold we hold … but also, not afraid to be strategic in our risk taking.”
Couns. Allison Knodel and Ramona Robins both said neither of the two extremes – a pure profit motivation or using the land bank for social enterprise, such as low-cost housing development – seemed prudent.
A provincial projection released last summer could see growth in the Hat hover around 0.5 per cent annually for the next 15 years.
That raises questions about the work plan in the department, the need to set aside new housing plans and public involvement.
“Are we a competitor, or are we there to support (the private sector), that’s something that we have to address in the land strategy,” said Buchner of a scheduled report due in the spring of 2025.
Traditionally, the city has earned its largest profits on developing bare land into serviced lots, resulting in $27 million paid to the city since 2008.
The proposed 2025-26 budget forecasts gross profit of $4 million over the next two years, but no new projects.
“Our proposed budget this year is statutes quo,” said Buchner. “A reset in strategy is well underway towards being part of a sustainable future.”
Given this analysis, what should citizens start demanding from Council? The Hat’s growth projections from the past 20 years have been dismal. As Edmonton and Calgary are adding the equivalent of one Medicine Hat every 3 to 4 years something is not working.
I realize that the Hat is never going to be the Head Office choice for any outside corporation but does MLA Danielle Smith see this, too? Or is she saying nonsense like MH can become a tech hub? Let’s be clear, it doesn’t matter how low property taxes and energy costs go — without a major research University, no Canadian city will ever become a tech hub. So, is she lying or clueless?
MH has lots going for it — but it needs provincial and federal support to attract those outside investors.
In the meantime — without that what should Hatters be asking council for?
No more greenfield development — the city has enough serviced land that is under utilized. Dear taxpayer, do you understand that every new subdivision is a direct cost to you? Sure, the developer (and subsequent home buyers) pay some part of bringing roads, water, sewers, power, natural gas, traffic controls, etc. to a new subdivision, but you pay part of that too. Instead of allowing new development, the city should be incentivizing the redevelopment of existing land like NE/NW Crescent Heights, SW Hill, Crestwood, Norwood, Southview, Southridge … even the Flats. All of those properties have existing services that do not cost the city (and you, the taxpayer) once red cent to re-develop. There are schools, parks, shopping, rinks, pools, etc that have the capacity for more residents. You want to help smaller, neighborhood businesses? Add more residential development.
Airport — I know this won’t be popular, but Council should consider directly supporting the Airport and, perhaps, the airlines. The recent announcement from WestJet of a bigger plane, but one flight in/one flight out is not going to entice businesses. YXH should be the first choice regional air hub for all of South Eastern Alberta and South Western Saskatchewan. The economics of frequent, reliable and lower-cost rail and/or bus transportation between MH and Calgary/Edmonton/Lethbridge will never be a thing, so instead of sitting around waiting for the Feds or Province to do something, Council should figure out how to get scheduled flights and people in the region onto those flights.
Health-care professionals — MH is a great place to raise a family, but not anyone’s first choice in Alberta. MH is a good place for old people. Old people need health care. Core services like adequate health care will attract old people. Adding economic development (a.k.a., jobs) and core services will attract younger people.
Medicine Hat College needs to get out of Brooks and focus on attracting students with reasonable tuition and high quality learning. I get it, Brooks needs post-secondary access. But in trying to attract talent to MHC, if prospective instructors have to consider having to drive to Brooks campus a day or two per week — they will choose to go anywhere else. So, MHC’s recruitment pool is limited to local talent — which might be fine sometimes, but given the population numbers and growth prospects, is very likely less than adequate now and going forward. With its reasonable tuition and cost of living, MHC needs to tool it’s offerings as a launch pad for credentials that lead to jobs and as the transfer point to finish a University degree. Like Augustana in Camrose that became part of UofA, MHC should position itself as a future UofC South Campus.
Medicine Hat has so much going for it. It is not big city, but has lots of city amenities and services. Although at 2.5 hours from Calgary it is a bit far, there are many similarly situated small cities that can make that distance work. Energy, water, taxes, quality of life, natural environment, recreation, rail/air transport — all pluses.
Council can’t wait until the province and feds figure this out and offer to help. It needs to work on making a dynamic, connected, educated and lower cost alternative for companies looking to expand and retirees to spend their summers.
Given this analysis, what should citizens start demanding from Council? The Hat’s growth projections from the past 20 years have been dismal. As Edmonton and Calgary are adding the equivalent of one Medicine Hat every 3 to 4 years something is not working.
I realize that the Hat is never going to be the Head Office choice for any outside corporation but does MLA Danielle Smith see this, too? Or is she saying nonsense like MH can become a tech hub? Let’s be clear, it doesn’t matter how low property taxes and energy costs go — without a major research University, no Canadian city will ever become a tech hub. So, is she lying or clueless?
MH has lots going for it — but it needs provincial and federal support to attract those outside investors.
In the meantime — without that what should Hatters be asking council for?
Medicine Hat has so much going for it. It is not big city, but has lots of city amenities and services. Although at 2.5 hours from Calgary it is a bit far, there are many similarly situated small cities that can make that distance work. Energy, water, taxes, quality of life, natural environment, recreation, rail/air transport — all pluses.
Council can’t wait until the province and feds figure this out and offer to help. It needs to work on making a dynamic, connected, educated and lower cost alternative for companies looking to expand and retirees to spend their summers.