Unbelievable.

"Council would need to consider that the foregone revenue would need to be recovered from other property owners within the municipality"

And there's the rub. Using tax incentives to attract investment to the community that isn't currently here, isn't much of an issue (except perceived fairness perhaps), because the money hasn't been budgeted for already. In this situation, they'll have to either cut services somewhere, increase their (our) debt to cover it off, or have someone else pay for it.

Does the City honestly beleive that Canfor can't afford to pay the City of PG $215K or that this would have ANY bearing on whether they would rebuild their plant? $215K out of Canfor's operating budget would be like comapring the emissions from one wood stove to the stuff coming out of the pulpmill stacks. Oops, perhaps that's a bad example . . . LOL :)

Well said NMG! lol Yes they aren't going to get their $215K this fiscal yr are they? lol there is nothing to tax! lol Quite the pickle!

Just put my tax increase ($600+) toward a free ride for Canfor. I don't really expect the streets to be fixed and other services maintained. Put my 4% for potholes into Canfor also because it's not being used. I'm hoping for a clean sweep by dumping all of the present council come November.

The assessment for the property as shown on the City's PGmap site is about $1.2 million for land and $3.2 million for improvements.

As was mentioned, you can kiss much of the improvement assessment good bye for the next tax year. So, whatever the total tax was, 3/4 of it will be lost until a new "improvement" is made to the property.

Let us say that Canfor will build an $80 million plant. Or even some other company comes in to build that size of plant, ti would seem to me that the assessment will reflect exactly that cost, or at least the cost of the building which might be in the $15 million range.

So, once a new plant is built, we will not only revert back to getting the old level of tax from the facility, but it looks like that will likely increase at least four fold if not substantially more.

It looks to me that there is a lot of room to negotatiate and a lot more money at stake for both Canfor, or another developer and the City.

Am I missing something here? Or is the report to the Council missing something?

Why not write off the property taxes for those who lost their jobs..

Tax incentive? Sounds like a knee jerk reaction from a council desperately trying to please the masses. Don't they realize that P.G. is a small city, and not the federal gov't trying to woo some big corp. into coming going or staying? 215K is a lot of money for a 'podunk' outfit like the C.P.G. And don't be looking forward to a lot of change even if most or all of the incumbents are re-elected, change comes slow in political circles, the status quo will remain, to some extent. Also, any newbies will be treading softly and carefully until they get their bearings.
Let us remember that they are basically volunteers, well paid volunteers.
metalman.

It makes sense to provide incentives to companies who move here and provide jobs. It makes sense to do the same when a company is about to move out.

Why does that make sense? Because we have had more than two decades of no real growth and this City is not capable of managing a no growth situation, thus the lack of services - roads, snow clearng, weeding, sidewalk maintenance, and so on. The only hope we have of getting some improvements is to start growing again or, at the least, maintainng status quo.

The City is not a charity.

I don't think you're missing anything, Owl. The issue, still, though, is over what's fair.

If, and we don't know this, but I would assume such would be the case, the mill was insured for current replacement value, (as most insurers of such facilities insist they be, including coverage for the potential necessity of re-locating if it couldn't be rebuilt where it was due to zoning changes, etc.),Canfor is going to get a new, updated plant at no further cost to itself. Now it may be able to negotiate with its insurers, and get a cash payout in lieu of re-building. Particularly if the fire's cause was accidental, and the overall cost to the insurer of a cash payout is less than replacement.

But assuming Canfor rebuilds, surely such a plant would be capable of paying property taxes on the new improvements, which, as you say, will only be the buildings and not the new equipment within them? A modern plant is going to have a great many more efficiencies in it than the previous one did, I would think.

Property tax is a business expense, and will be a deduction from gross revenue same as all the other expenses in computing the net income on which income tax will be charged.

So whether it's taken by the City in property taxes, or by the Province and the Feds in income tax, Canfor is still going to be paying taxes.

The only difference being that in the case of the latter two levels of government the plant must be operating profitably to be taxed, whereas in the City's case the tax is on the property and improvements alone, regardless of whether the plant is profitable, or even operating.

This, perhaps, is the area where the "fairness" comes in. If you give Canfor a break in this area, in light of their current situation, then why not a break for all the other businesses who have to pay full property tax on any of the building or other taxable improvements they make to their businesses? Ones that they have to pay out of their own pockets?

One could also look at the location at this time. College Heights could have been affected by this fire. To re-build in the same location could be a future disadvantage to the City. Time for an industrial area outside of the bowl?

Industries share of the City budget is 17%. Thats a nice break as it is. Comercial section contribute 25% and the residential share is 53%.

In the city of Quesnel industries share of the budget is around 40%.

Cheers

To build or not is a business decision. If it is to build, then where to build is a business decision.

When it comes to the effect of tax, incentive, etc. I think that it does play a part in it. One indicator of that is that such incentives exist all over the place and such incentives are often used by the plant owners in explaining why they are building here versus there.

Some of these ventures operate on very small margins. As a percentagee of the total capital cost, such incentives might not be much. However, as a percentage of variable operating costs, they can be quite meaningful. Thus, if they reduce the risk of operation, and one community reduces that risk and everything else washes out the same, then guess where they will build.

Again, a business decision.
------------------------------

As foo738 says, this unintended loss of a plant in an aging heavy industrial area shows once again thast we should have another area for such industries to be relocated to as they shut donw old plants and rebuild. After ten decades of sitting on their behinds - both regional district and the City - we are no further ahead.

While a new plant is likely to produce less polluted air emissions, per m3 of product, they may be increasing capacity and end up producing the same.

I don't know what it will take to move the behinds off their chairs and bring this City and its industries into the 21st century. Once more we have an opportunity and we will likely not take it.

Where is the province and where are the feds on this? Harris? .. Harris who? Hill? .. Hill who? .... Pat? ... hey Pat ... lands .... what about the land south of the City ... where are we with that?

BTW ... we are looking at the equation of spending $2 million to get back $20 million for some of those games we want to attract .....

Spending money on a 21st century heavy industrial park outside the air shed and adjacent to a high quality transportation system will reap the same benefits to this community.

I'd be allot more willing to support the City foregoing some dough or sharing in re-development costs IF the plant were to rebuilt in a location that provided a tangible improvement to the airshed in the City. At least then the people of the City would receive a form of return on their investment of the tax dollars.

As an aside, I just heard Kinsely on the noon news saying something about it being a 5 year proposal, so the cost would be upwards of 1M. In farness, I just caught the tail end of it so I may have missed some additional detail . . .

The thing that bothers me about this specific situation is that it is essentially a knee jerk reaction. I don't get the sense there has been any analysis done other than to say "let's get it done". Has the City examined the long-term viability of the plant? Is Canfor being an "open" partner in these discussions? If the plant is re-built and shut down 4 years from now, will we get some of that dough back? Are there other taxpayers that are going to be asking for similar breaks? Would they have a case? How would that impact overall tax revenues? Are we better off using the dough for some other purpose? There are loads of other questions that need serious consideration IMHO.

Forgive me for being cynical, but collectively our City leaders have demonstrated a severe weakness in regards to planning and delivering on a vision. Why then should we beleive that this idea, which has been hashed out in a matter of weeks, has been well thought out and is good for the City as a whole? Until I see more detail, I'm very leery.

"BTW ... we are looking at the equation of spending $2 million to get back $20 million for some of those games we want to attract .....

Spending money on a 21st century heavy industrial park outside the air shed and adjacent to a high quality transportation system will reap the same benefits to this community"

Absolutely. I'd rather see the City invest $10M in developing such an area, than $215K by forgiving property taxes for NCP in their current location.

I think the mayor and council have the right idea, but I agree completely with the lack of vision. There is a line that the mayor frequently crosses. That line is trying to tell a business how to conduct it's business. This is seen with Air Canada negotiations and now with Canfor. The City imo, should NOT be directing any of its endeavours to just one individual corporation, company or business. This is where they are failing imo. Also, if the city continues to neglect its infrastructure, very few companies are going to be willing to carry that burden via taxation. I also agree with other posters who have said that the $215K is a drop in the bucket for Canfor and I doubt would be a deal breaker for rebuilding.
I personally like the revitalisation portion of option 2. Why wait for NCP??? and why hinge it on the rebuilding of the manufacturing plant. Let's do it now for all business: be it commercial, manufacturing or retail in the downtown :)

Expand the Plywood plant in Fort Nelson, increase production and get on with making plywood.

The out lying areas of North Central BC need new industrie as much or more than Prince George. Mcbride, Mackenzie, Fort Nelson, Houston, Vanderhoof, Quesnel, etc:
Maybe we should be advocating for them, especially since they spend millions in this Burg.

Oh' sorry, I forgot that we are selfish and self centred, and cant see beyond the City limits unless we can make a buck.

"Absolutely. I'd rather see the City invest $10M in developing such an area, than $215K by forgiving property taxes for NCP in their current location." - NMG

I agree spending the $10 million would be better in this case than forgiving the $250 thousand.