Squamish council has rejected a proposed 10-year financial arrangement with Woodfibre LNG that would have provided the District with at least $142 million in payments and municipal property taxes.
Council voted 5–2 at a special meeting on Sept. 22 to decline the arrangement. Mayor Armand Hurford and councillors Jenna Stoner, Lauren Greenlaw, Andrew Hamilton and Chris Pettingill supported rejecting it. Councillors Eric Andersen and John French opposed the rejection motion.
The proposal combined $117 million in scheduled community enhancement payments with a revitalization tax exemption. Under the exemption, Woodfibre LNG’s municipal property taxes would have been limited to $2.5 million in 2027, with that amount rising annually by the consumer price index beginning in 2028. The exemption would not have applied to school taxes and other agencies’ levies.
Stoner moved the motion to reject the deal. She acknowledged the work District and Woodfibre LNG staff had put into negotiating it, and the awkward timing of the decision during an election period. But after reviewing the proposal and public feedback, she concluded that the terms fell short.
“I don’t think it’s a good enough deal for our community,” Stoner said.
Her central objection was that the $117 million in community enhancement payments would not increase with inflation. Staff said the payments were front-loaded to preserve their value. Stoner countered that Squamish did not have enough projects ready to build immediately, leaving the District exposed to rising costs when those projects moved ahead.
She also questioned making a 10-year commitment while major needs, including recreation, library, arts and municipal facilities, remained to be planned and funded. Stoner raised a further concern about how the payment agreement, rather than ordinary taxes, might be treated if the company failed to pay.
Greenlaw seconded the rejection motion. She said the arrangement would separate Woodfibre LNG’s contribution from the assessed value of its property and the scale of its project. In her view, regular taxation would retain protections and allow future councils to decide how to distribute the tax burden as circumstances changed.
Greenlaw shared Stoner’s concern about payments that were not indexed to inflation. She also questioned whether a council nearing the end of its term should commit future councils to the arrangement. Woodfibre LNG could make contributions beyond its taxes if it wished, she said, without the District adopting the proposed exemption and payment agreement.
Hamilton framed the decision around uncertainty. The District does not know exactly what its capital projects will cost over the next decade, he said. Fixing Woodfibre LNG’s contribution would give the company certainty, but it would not make the community’s future expenses certain. If those costs rose, other taxpayers would have to carry more of the difference.
“Everybody shares the burden. Everybody shares the uncertainty,” Hamilton said.
Pettingill argued that regular taxation offered a clearer public process. Council reviews its budget and tax rates each year, allowing residents to see and respond to decisions about community needs and the burden assigned to different property classes. He said many residents had engaged thoughtfully with the proposal, regardless of their views on the LNG project itself, and that the complexity of the negotiated arrangement left questions unanswered.
Pettingill also questioned the purpose of a revitalization tax exemption for a project already moving ahead. He emphasized that rejection would not mean Woodfibre LNG paid no municipal property tax: the company would instead be taxed under the regular system. A future council could consider another lawful arrangement.
Andersen opposed rejecting the proposal. He said he lacked confidence that a new council would reach a substantially different outcome and cautioned against relying on ordinary property taxation for a predictable revenue stream. Assessments, provincial rules and disputes could all change what the District collected over time.
Andersen also defended using a revitalization tax exemption for the former industrial site. He pointed to its remediation needs and said council should consider how its decisions about major industry tax rates might affect other industrial properties and future investment in Squamish. He urged councillors to think about the District’s long-term working relationship with Woodfibre LNG.
French also voted against rejecting the proposal. He said his question was how much Woodfibre LNG should contribute. He said he had heard strong objections from residents and former Squamish mayors, and that his decision had not been easy. Still, he concluded that District and company negotiators had brought back an offer he could support.
French said he did not expect the parties to return to the negotiating table over this proposal. In his view, council had to decide between the offer before it and the uncertainties of regular taxation, rather than assume a better negotiated offer would follow.
Hurford supported rejecting the arrangement. He said the public discussion had been valuable because residents could assess an actual proposal rather than speculate about what a deal might contain. But he concluded that the benefit to Squamish was insufficient for the certainty the arrangement would give Woodfibre LNG.
Hurford said the decision did not prevent a future council from considering another agreement. For now, the proposed arrangement would not move ahead.
District staff had described predictable revenue as its principal benefit, but they also acknowledged the principal trade-off: ordinary taxation could bring in more over the decade than the proposed arrangement, or less.
