By KEVIN BERGER, Local Journalism Initiative
RM of Corman Park councillors voted during their October 20 meeting to pass all three readings on two bylaws granting tax exemptions to major commercial projects within the municipality.
The first of the two bylaws, 40-26, covers the tax exemption granted to Brandt Properties Inc.
According to an administration report, Brandt Properties originally submitted a request in October 2024 for a five-year tax abatement covering 100% of their taxes for a new Peterbilt facility located on Lot 2 and 3, Block 3, SE 19-37-5 w3rd.
At the time, they proposed to build a new 75,000 square-foot facility with an estimated value of $15 million to $20 million and employing 80 to 100 staff.
Council passed a resolution to consider a three-year tax exemption under the RM’s Tax Exemption Policy FI-002 and for administration to bring back a tax abatement bylaw once the building permit had been issued.
That permit was issued on February 19, 2025. The applicant is now listed as building the project at Lot 2A, Block 1, SE 19-37-5 w3rd, but the administration report does not specify if Brandt is planning to build the same size of facility or employ as many people.
In any case, the three-year exemption under the bylaw will be offered on a sliding scale: 75% in the first year, 50% in the second and 25% in the third.
The second bylaw, 38-26, covers a one-year 100% tax exemption being offered to Venture Construction Inc.
In this case, Venture Construction applied for a tax exemption under Corman Park’s newly updated Tax Exemption Policy FI-0012, which was approved in January 2026.
Under that policy, projects with a building permit value of $1 to $5 million that employ at least five full-time employees are eligible for a one-year tax exemption of 100%.
Venture Construction’s building permit value for a project located at Parcel D, NW 33-38-5 w3rd is estimated at $2.75 million and will employ 50 full-time employees, so it meets the criteria.
Division 2 Councillor John Saleski asked why Venture Construction’s tax exemption differed from the one offered to Brandt Properties.
Administration noted it was because Brandt Properties originally applied for a tax exemption at a time when the RM didn’t have a relevant policy.
As such, their tax exemption is based on the RM’s old policy, wherein tax exemptions were offered on a sliding scale.
Incidentally, both exemptions are authorized under Section 295 of the Municipalities Act, which provides authority for a municipality to exempt any land or improvement from taxation to help encourage economic development.