Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of the CPC Closure Nichols Applied - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of the CPC Closure

Nichols Applied Management Inc.

Management and Economic Consultants

February 14, 2017

• Nichols Applied Management Inc.
• Established in 1973
• Experts in socio-economic impact assessments,

growth analysis, and municipal finance.

• Previous closure experience includes:
• Agrium Phosphate Mine – Kapuskasing, Ontario
• Vale Nickel Mine and Smelter – Thompson,

Manitoba

• Luscar Cheviot Mine – Hinton, Alberta
• Shell Waterton Complex – Pincher Creek, Alberta

Introduction

• Identify the current contribution of the

CPC to the Town;

• Quantify the loss to the Town if the

CPC relocates:

• Population
• Economic activity (GDP, jobs, income)
• Housing
• Education
• Municipal fiscal effects
• Social infrastructure

Study Approach

• Employee survey to understand demographics and

propensity to relocate

• 2 scenarios:

1) 29 relocate, 26 commute, 140 remain:

Population impact of 100 people

2) All those not involved in agriculture relocate:

Population impact of 420 people

Key Findings

• Historic population growth (1991 to 2016) of 0.42%
• Largely on the strength of in-migration
• Vegreville’s population is older than the provincial average.

Key Findings

8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 69 70 to 74 75 to 79 80 to 84 85+ Percent of Population

Female | Male | Alberta

• Both scenarios will reduce the permanent

population of the Town in the long run.

• When combined with the demographics of the

community, the impact is negative growth in the long run (scenario 2).

Key Findings

4,900 5,000 5,100 5,200 5,300 5,400 5,500 5,600 5,700 5,800 5,900 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 Population

No Change | Closure | Severe Scenario

• The CPC currently spends roughly $13.4

million per year to operate – mostly on wages/salaries.

• Economic Impact, loss of:
• $12.7 million in GDP
• $11.6 million in labour income
• 240 jobs
• Scenario 1: large increase in unemployment

(15%)

Key Findings

• Housing impacts:
• Drop in prices due to sale of homes
• Scenario 1: 10%
• Scenario 2: 25% to 30%
• Financial implications to the

municipality.

Key Findings

• Municipal Fiscal Impacts
• Assessment and Taxation
• Grants
• Property Taxes:
• Scenario 1: Reduction in revenues of

$384,000 or increase mill rates by roughly 5%

• Scenario 2: Reduction in revenues of $1.15

million or increase mill rates by roughly 16.45%

• Grants:
• Scenario 1: Net reduction of $22,000
• Scenario 2: Net reduction of $94,000

Key Findings

• Education
• Scenario 1: 40 students, funding of

$275,000

• Scenario 2: 130 students, funding of

$900,000

• Impact of funding loss is unclear, depends
• n school boards.

Key Findings

• Social Infrastructure
• Didn’t find any one industry/service likely

to be severely diminished

• Discussion with FCSS representatives
• Primary concerns relate to quality of life and

family cohesion

• Less time for activities, family
• Possible increase in before and after school

care programming

• Loss of volunteers in the community

Key Findings