A vote to sell one acre of land at the City Yards to be used for a permanent shelter passed 5-4. (Susan McNeil/paNOW)
Homeless shelter

Option to sell city land for shelter gets 5-4 vote to proceed

Jun 9, 2025 | 7:58 PM

After three hours of discussion and some legal advice following an accidentally mis-recorded vote, Prince Albert city council voted in favour of selling one acre of land to Saskatchewan Housing for a permanent homeless shelter.

Mayor Bill Powalinsky and councillors Tony Parenteau, Dawn Kilmer, Blake Edwards and Darren Solomon all voted in favour, while Stephen Ring, Tony Head, Bryce Laewetz and Daniel Brown were opposed.

The process has not been easy and is still not firmly decided, explained Powalinsky.

“It’s never a simple matter, and it’s always very challenging when people’s issues are very close to home, I think,” he said.

“Either which way we would have gone, it would have been a move ahead. So we have taken another big step and I’m, you know, I’m optimistically positive we are going to arrive at an outcome.”

Monday’s vote must be repeated at a regular council meeting as this was an executive committee meeting. After that, Sask Housing must agree to buy the land, it has to be subdivided, utilities must be installed and then a development permit brought forward.

A draft of the sale agreement will be presented to council at the June 23 meeting.

Powalinsky told council that there was not a lot of time left to make a decision, despite the recent extension of the lease for the temporary shelter for another two years.

“We really don’t have an extension. This is mission critical,” he said. “Every potential location has resulted in a very strong push back.”

The province sent the city a letter in April 2024, telling them it was imperative they choose a permanent location. The Prince Albert YWCA spent years before that looking for a spot but met with the same resistance and finally said they would no longer operate the shelter several months ago.

The Prince Albert Grand Council agreed to be the operator but has not been involved overtly in the discussion over where the shelter should go long term.

A legal precedent set in Ontario several years ago prevents municipalities from removing encampments if there is no shelter alternative.

Councillor Blake Edwards said his support is contingent on having the contract include a requirement to have addiction counsellors, mental health services, methadone and security available for up to 500 metres or even one kilometre from the location.

He also said that the province should be paying for the installation of all of the city utilities as housing, mental health and addictions are all their responsibility.

“I don’t believe our residents should pay a nickel. The province should pay for it,” he said.

Tony Head, who is the Ward 3 councillor and whose ward will house the shelter if it moves forward, spoke against the decision and wanted to bring back a list of specific locations and re-do the community consultation meetings that were done this past winter.

He got a lot of feedback from his residents and said they feel like their voices were not heard.

“I don’t feel like it’s too late yet and that’s why I’m going to oppose this motion. It’s imperative that we get a shelter, but at what cost?” he asked.

Two councillors, Ring and Brown, said they don’t want a shelter in the city at all.

None of the councillors thought that having a shelter that houses 45 people will adequately resolve the issue of the approximately 230 people currently homeless in the city.

Nor will it resolve the issue of property thefts around the city.

“There are things I’m seeing on my block and I’m nowhere near the shelter,” said Parenteau. He has had tents set up in his yard and has had multiple thefts as well but many thieves are not homeless.

“We need to separate between what’s happening on the street and the shelter.”

City solicitor Mitch Holash was called into action during Mondsy afternoon’s meeting after Solomon’s vote recorded as opposed when he actually voted in favour. Because the vote was five to four, it resulted in the motion being defeated when it should not have been.

He then asked to have the vote re-considered and it passed.

susan.mcneil@pattisonmedia.com

On BlueSky: @susanmcneil.bsky.social

View Comments