Policy Revised for Permissive Tax Exemption
Prince George BC – There may be tax relief next year for some thrift stores in Prince George.At a special meeting of Prince George City Council this afternoon, Council approved a revision to the Permissive Tax Exemption Policy.
The approval was not unanimous, as Councillor Merrick wanted one line removed, saying she was “uncomfortable” with the line that reads “any commercial activity undertaken on the exempt property is not in competition with for-profit businesses”. “I think this definition is going to cause us problems because the reality is any commercial enterprise is in competition”. She said this line would allow “Any social enterprise to be challenged under this line and I don’t think it’s going to help us in any way at this point.”
She tried to amend the policy to have the line removed, but the motion was defeated.
The intent of the line is to provide more flexibility when looking at applications for permissive tax exemptions. It would mean, for instance, that the Salvation Army Thrift Store and St. Vincent DePaul Thrift Store would be able to apply for a tax exemption, something they can’t do now. But would Value Village believe it would also qualify? “For me, I see an absolute distinction between the two ( Value Village and the Salvation Army)” said Mayor Lyn Hall ” but I don’t want to lose ground on the ability to have some flexibility to take applications from the Salvation Army, St. Vincent De Paul and others.”
Staff say that while they did examine similar policies from Kelowna and Kamloops, neither of those two cities indicated the language had caused any concerns.
The change in policy won’t help those not for profit organizations which have a commercial component this year. Those applications were already received and approved last October, but it may help those submitting applications for the October 2016 deadline for consideration for the 2017 tax year.
The new policy may still be altered at some point down the road, but not before applications would be accepted for the 2017 tax year.
Comments
Guess some on council just don’t get that the norm is to just ok whatever is in front of them with little questioning.
I think it is wrong that so many in this city pay no taxes or very little.
Thing is, I give to many charities, but will soon be stopping this as I am tired of giving them double.
So, technically, the city is a not-for-profit organization, but it owns a golf course that is in competition with local businesses. Couldn’t and shouldn’t someone now challenge the city on this? They’re competing with commercial ventures, but what are they paying in taxes?
I agree with Merrick, the language is weak and could open an ugly can of worms they didn’t intend.
Comments for this article are closed.