2015-02-09_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourCity of Saint John
Committee of the Whole Open Session
Monday, February 9, 2015
6:00pm
Ludlow Room, 8 1 Floor City Hall
1.1 Development Incentive Program Options
1.1.1 Presentation: Development Incentives Workshop
1.2 Fundy Regional Service Commission: Request to Address Council
1.2.1 Fundy Regional Service Commission: Request to Develop a Single Police Service Delivery Model
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
COMMITTEE of the WHOLE open
February 9, 2015
His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: Development Incentive Program Options
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
City of Saint John
Development incentives are most effective where they are used to support key
community planning outcomes and stimulate innovative private sector investment
in otherwise challenging environments. It is evident from the research,
development incentives should stimulate specific types of development in targeted
areas that contribute to key community growth outcomes.
Development incentives programs of various forms have been provided in Saint
John for decades with significant funding awarded for development projects
throughout the city. A summary of programs, which ran from 1980s onwards are
included in Appendix B of this report.
This report, while responding to a specific developer - driven proposal, provides a
broader context for Council in considering future directions for development
incentives. Options are provided for Council to evaluate the need for and design
of a potential future incentives program for development in Saint John.
A Council workshop is proposed to enable focused Council discussion and
direction on intended outcomes for development incentives. Subsequent to the
workshop, staff will return to Council with policy and program options for
consideration. If Council wishes to advance delivery of a program in 2015, the
City Manager will include an envelope in the capital budget to support delivery of
an incentives program.
Committee of the Whole -2-
February 9, 2015
BACKGROUND:
On April 28, 2014 Common Council resolved "that the letter from North Star
Holdings re: Developer Incentive be referred to the City Manager to return back
to Council in two months with a staff recommendation." The series of letters
received since April 8, 2014 from North Star are provided in Appendix A.
Staff provided Council with an update at their July 7, 2014 meeting advising that
due to other commitments; specifically the adoption of the Zoning By -law and the
launch of the draft service model for the One Stop Development Shop, a staff
report addressing the matter would be available at the conclusion of these
milestones. During the fall adoption of the Zoning By -law, the issue of
development incentives was raised by Council on several occasions and as such,
provide further context for this report.
The purpose of the report is to:
provide background information for Council with respect to previous
incentive programs in Saint John and what best practices exist in other
Canadian jurisdictions; and
2. guide Council debate around the need and potential design of an effective
development incentives program.
ANALYSIS:
Development incentives are most effective where they are used to support key
communily planning outcomes and stimulate innovative private sector investment
in otherwise challenging environments. It is evident from the research,
development incentives should stimulate specific types of development in targeted
areas that contribute to key community growth outcomes.
Past City of Saint John Development Incentive Programs
Development incentives programs of various forms have been provided in Saint
John for decades with significant funding awarded for development projects
throughout the city. A summary of programs, which ran from the 1980s onwards
are included in Appendix B of this report.
The primary objectives of the development incentive programs offered by the
City were to (1) increase Saint John's share of the regional housing market and to
(2) increase serviced development on water and sewer services. These programs,
while popular with local developers, were not linked to community growth
objectives and have not proven to be effective in increasing the regional market
Committee of the Whole -3-
February 9, 2015
share for residential development in Saint John, which is driven by many factors
including consumer preference.
With the exception of the Heritage grants program, unfortunately, program results
were not measured regularly to ensure outcomes were being met and the
significant municipal investments yielded sufficient return for the City.
Past programs offered by the City of Saint John included:
• Heritage Conservation Grants program: offered since the 1980s and
targets heritage conservation in Saint John's eleven municipal heritage
districts;
• Housing Infill Development Program: offered from 1986 until the
late I990s and provided grants for development on vacant lots in Uptown
and urban neighbourhoods;
• Upper Floors Program available in the late 1990s and again in 2008 was
available to encourage re -use of vacant uppers floors in the Uptown for
commercial or residential use;
• Residential Infrastructure Development Assistance Program: available
from mid 1990s until 2011 and targeted to new suburban residential
development requiring extension to water and sewer infrastructure.
• Commercial Infrastructure Assistance Program: available from 2005 until
2010 to offset costs of infrastructure installation for major commercial
projects.
• Business Park Improvement Program: available from 1999 until 2000 and
offset costs of infrastructure installation for major business parks.
In 2010 the City retained a consultant to conduct an evaluation of past programs
in consultation with key stakeholders. The findings of the City's "Review of
Development Financial Incentives" were presented to Council in 2011, resulting
in the last of the suburban development incentives programs being terminated.
One of the longest running programs, the Residential Infrastructure Assistance
(RIA) program, targeted support to serviced suburban development, subsidizing
the costs to extend water and sewer service to new suburban subdivisions. The
program ran counter to smart growth objectives emerging from P1anSJ aimed at
intensifying urban and suburban neighbourhoods where infrastructure exists.
Subsequently, in 2011 the program was terminated. Council determined that the
best use of limited capital budget resources was to focus on enhancements to city
infrastructure such as parks and streetscapes as a stimulus for private sector
reinvestment.
The City continues to provide a form of development incentive through its
Heritage grants program which funds a total of $90,000 in grants annually to
support heritage conservation efforts in Saint John's heritage districts. Recent
reforms to the heritage grants program approved by Council in 2014 have
Committee of the Whole -4-
February 9, 2015
improved access to heritage grants and the program continues to be successful
with high utilization rates. Saint John's heritage districts represent some of the
highest residential property assessments in the City and the grants program
provide a high return on municipal investment (1:3 ratio) leveraging significant
investment by property owners in these areas.
Best practices across Canada
Looking across Canada, development incentive programs are used strategically to
target community planning and growth outcomes that require innovative forms of
development that cannot be achieved by market forces alone. A cursory best
practice survey of sixteen municipalities including peer cities in New Brunswick
is included in Appendix C of this report.
Key trends across Canada include:
Municipal support across Canadian municipalities tends to be in the form
of indirect development support rather than direct funding to development
incentive programs. Examples of this include prioritizing investments in
neighbourhood planning and red tape reduction programs as well as
investment in community improvements to remove barriers and create the
conditions for private sector investment;
Where development incentive programs exist, they are targeted to
stimulate innovative development which promotes smart growth objectives
set out in a City's Municipal Plan. For example, some municipalities
target incentives to development projects such as urban housing infill or
fagade improvements to stimulate downtown and urban revitalization
efforts which can be higher risk for investors. These programs can be
offered on a short term basis to enable industry to adapt to new planning
directions. It is common for incentive programs to be linked to
Neighbourhood Plans, for example, Ontario planning legislation requires a
"Community Improvement Plan ", which is the equivalent of
Neighbourhood Plan, to be in place before incentive programs can be
implemented.
Best practice programs do not fund "growth related infrastructure" such
as water and sewer infrastructure required for new suburban development
as has been past practice in Saint John; in many other jurisdictions these
are the developer's sole responsibility. Increasingly, municipalities are
implementing development charges to recover the costs of the downstream
infrastructure such as new pumping stations, transit or road improvements.
• Where development incentives exist, a suite of program tools are available
aimed at supporting various community investors including property
Committee of the Whole -5-
February 9, 2015
owners, homeowners, builders, developers and businesses. The incentive
tools available are many and range from grants, rebates of development
charges or planning and building application fees, or tax -based options
such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Direct grants would require a
funding envelope to be included in the capital budget, whereas incentive
tools like waiver of permit fees and tax based tools would impact
operating revenues available to the City in the short term, but potentially
provide a long term gain in terms of future tax -based growth.
The City of Hamilton offers an interesting case study for development incentives.
The City offers a broad suite of programs and a unique model for stimulating
urban development within the context of an integrated "Planning & Economic
Development Department ". Although much larger than Saint John, Hamilton is a
useful comparator. An older waterfront industrial city located in southern Ontario,
it has weathered economic declines over the years, driven in large part by the
steady loss of historically highly productive industrial manufacturing and
associated fabrication employers.
To address these challenges which impacted the inner core areas, the City of
Hamilton undertook a community improvement /neighbourhood plan for the inner
city and central waterfront area. A key component to the plan included a program
of incentives that would work to stimulate the development of these particular
lands. These were meant to work hand in hand with urban - focused policies and
strategic community improvements to stimulate significant reinvestment in the
central waterfront of Hamilton. The plan supports development incentive
programs which target urban renewal using a variety of tools and programs
including tax increment grants, facade grants, downtown residential development
grants, heritage grants, brownfield redevelopment grants and waiver of permit
fees. Hamilton's approach to the use of development incentives to achieve
community growth and development goals is progressive and been recognized
with several awards and is worthwhile exploring further should Council wish to
advance a program in Saint John. More information on their services and
programs can be found at the following link:
httD://www.investinhamilton.ca/incentives/
Some municipalities are utilizing tax based tools such as Tax Increment Financing
(TIF) to stimulate urban development by providing short term tax relief without
the requirement for the city to provide an upfront commitment of funding. This
type of incentive is emerging as a tool in many other municipalities in Canada and
has proven to be effective in stimulating a broad range of urban development
and/or re- development. Saint John, Fredericton and Moncton have been
advocating for such urban based tools as part of the Provincial local governance
reform and legislative modernization initiatives.
This tool essentially allows for a freeze of the municipal property tax assessments
at pre - development levels and a phased approach to increasing tax assessments
that occur as a result of new development over a period of time. As an example,
Committee of the Whole -6-
February 9, 2015
if the program is offered over a ten year period, property tax assessment increases
would be phased in with no increase in the first year and 10% increases over
subsequent years until full assessment is achieved.
Key Questions for Council
In considering options for development incentives, there are several key questions
for Council to consider:
• Does Council wish to create anew development incentives program?
• Recognizing that funding is limited, what community planning outcomes
are most important?
• What areas of the City should the program target?
• What type of incentive tool is preferred? Waiver of permit fees, direct
grants or tax abatement?
• What role should the economic development agencies play in the delivery
of development incentives?
A Council workshop is proposed to enable Council to discuss these key questions,
informed by best practice research and direction provided by staff in subsequent
sections of this report. This early input and direction on outcomes will enable
staff to come back with a recommended policy direction and options for design of
proposed development incentive programs.
Designing Development Incentive Program Options
A review of municipal development incentive programs in other provinces
demonstrates that, much like our existing Heritage Grant Program, development
incentive programs using public tax dollars are designed very carefully with the
intent to achieve clearly articulated community outcomes for growth and
development that are often innovative and targeted to areas facing reinvestment
challenges that the market will not pursue without support. Examples of this
include designing development incentive programs to stimulate investment in
providing urban infill and affordable housing, leadership in urban design and
sustainable buildings, heritage conservation, and brownfield re- development in
inner -city neighbourhoods.
Committee of the Whole -7-
February 9, 2015
Going forward, should Council wish to offer development incentives, they should
be strategically directed to support P1anSJ goals for sustainable growth. New
programs should be carefully designed to ensure they do not serve as a general
subsidy for development, but instead stimulate the right type of development in
targeted areas that benefit the community as a whole.
The request from North Star Holdings Ltd. (included in Appendix A) proposes to
reinstate the past practice of subsidizing suburban residential subdivisions in Saint
John. This type of development, while important for our community should not
be dependent on financial subsidy. Past programs have not proven effective in
increasing the market share for residential development in Saint John. Based on
research contained in Appendix C, no other municipality was found to be funding
suburban development programs. Incentives should be carefully designed to
simulate innovative forms of development, provide the best return on investment
for the City and contribute to advancing the community's vision as set out in
P1anSJ. Rather than providing direct development incentives, the proposed
approach for this type of development format is to provide support through other
means such the One Stop Development Shop program which will ensure that the
City's development standards and processes are predictable and efficient and
create a positive climate for investment in Saint John.
Steps to explore a new Development Incentive Program:
1. Identify the Community Outcomes for Growth & Development:
The first step toward designing and implementing a development incentive
program is to identify the type of development that best serves the interests of our
community and of those types, which ones will give the most return for the City's
investment.
Urban focused incentives provide the greatest return for the community as they
stimulate development that does not require new infrastructure, instead taking
advantage of existing investments in municipal services and infrastructure. In
urban areas, revitalizing efforts can be hampered by the risks posed by condition
of building stock, high vacancies and remediation costs of brownfield sites, which
can be barriers to private sector reinvestment.
Through this lens, there are many types of development that Council could
consider focusing on stimulating that would support urban renewal, such as:
■ Increasing levels of support to heritage grants that retain historic character
of our city's built heritage which supports the City's heritage conservation
program.
■ Increasing density in core neighbourhoods through re- investment in
existing buildings and/or vacant lots; this supports transit systems and
Committee of the Whole - 8 -
February 9, 2015
increases utilization of existing municipal infrastructure which achieves
P1anSJ directions for sustainable growth.
Re- investing in waterfront brownfield sites, revitalizing vacant lands that
bolster the assessment base and increase community access to the
waterfront.
■ Supporting new projects in core neighbourhoods that propose leadership in
LEED certified and other sustainable building designs; or
■ Supporting new projects in core neighbourhoods that will provide a
broader range of housing opportunities or mixed use development to
promote more complete communities.
A focused program to stimulate redevelopment of vacant lots or underutilized
buildings in the urban core would also support Council's efforts on the Dangerous
& Vacant Building Program. Such a program could focus on achieving re-
occupation of vacant buildings. The last resort to address these buildings, once
they have become hazardous, is demolition. When demolition is required, it can
be challenging to stimulate new development on these vacant lots that are very
often found in our urban neighbourhoods. Focusing on developing an incentive
program that would target vacant lot re- development in core neighbourhoods
would support a number of positive community outcomes around urban renewal.
It would complement the existing Heritage Grant Program, support the next phase
of investment once a property has been demolished, support urban intensification,
and increase utilization of our existing services and infrastructure.
Looking at urban infill through another lens, stimulating new construction on
otherwise vacant or underutilized waterfront property, that in many cases is
contaminated based on historic industrial uses, is another urban - focused option
that could be considered. Such a program could support new projects for sites
such as Long Wharf in the heart of our central waterfront. With a focus on
supporting the redevelopment of `brownfields' there are many successful
programs across the county in which staff can look to for guidance in terms of
developing a range of potential options for a successful suite of development
incentives.
2. Identify Target Locations for Incentives:
In order to effectively design an incentive program, the target location is a key
consideration. It is important to consider where new development will have the
most positive impact for the community as a whole.
Looking specifically at urban neighbourhoods, Council could target an emerging
area of interest, a priority neighbourhood, an inner -city neighbourhood, or the
Uptown core as examples. Options for consideration include targeting urban areas
that can support further intensification as directed in P1anSJ such as:
Committee of the Whole -9-
February 9, 2015
■ Heritage Conservation Areas: existing heritage grants programs could be
bolstered with additional funding provided to support heritage
conservation in the City's municipal heritage districts.
■ Uptown Primary Centre: includes the core business improvement area
and Central waterfront lands and is designated of regional centre for mixed
use growth in PlanSJ.
■ Central Peninsula: this is the area defined as "urban" in in True Growth
2.0, and includes the Uptown Primary Centre and surrounding urban
neighbourhood intensification areas within the central peninsula. This
area is also targeted in ZoneSJ for non - monetary incentives such as
parking exemptions.
■ Specific Urban Neighbourhood Intensification areas which reflect the
City's "priority neighourhoods ":
• Southern Peninsula
• Waterloo Village
• Old North End
• Crescent Valley
• Lower West Side
By focusing a development incentive program to an urban core
neighbourhood such as the Central Peninsula, Council can support new
development that can take advantage of the existing investments in services
that have been made in these neighbourhoods. This includes water and sewer
infrastructure, park improvements to King's Square and Queen's Square, and
major upgrades to our public streetscapes including Prince William, Water
Street and King Street. This means stimulating new development with no
additional investments in new services or infrastructure. Further, in areas
such as this, additional residents mean additional shoppers for local
businesses, additional riders for the existing transit system, and potential new
property owners for heritage buildings. By supporting higher- density urban
development in a neighbourhood such as this, the community gains with
these additional spin -off benefits.
3. Decide on the right suite of options:
Development incentive programs are commonly designed with a suite of
options that work together to support the desired type of investment in the
identified area for various community investors including homeowners,
developers, businesses, and property owners. The most important factor is
that the program ultimately stimulates the right kind of investment in the right
location for the benefit of the community.
Committee of the Whole _10-
February 9, 2015
As an example, if Council decides that waterfront re- investment in the
Central Peninsula should be our community's priority, then utilizing the
extensive experience of other municipalities who have active and successful
brownfield re- development programs is a worthy option to pursue. These
programs often include a suite of complementary tools available at different
stages of a project, such as a grant toward a property study, shared costs for
detailed clean -up studies, waiving of permit fees, reduction or elimination of
development charges, shared -cost for site remediation and shared learning
from successful clean -ups, and /or grants for permit fees, such as what
Council approved for the YMCA this past year.
4. Ensure that programs are designed to be efficient to administer with
clear performance measures to ensure program outcomes are met.
A major criticism highlighted in the City's "Review of Development Financial
Incentives" report completed in 2010 is that past programs were not evaluated
for effectiveness and the benefits and return on investment for the City were
not apparent. These programs required significant resources to administer with
time demands for city staff to review project invoicing to determine eligible
expenses and also proved to be onerous for developers to satisfy the
requirements. Often payments carried over many years making the budget
requirements uncertain. Overall, these programs were not successful in
achieving timely development in return for municipal investment.
MOVING FORWARD:
Staff has provided a variety of options for Council to consider in terms of
evaluating the need for and design of a potential future incentives program for
development in Saint John. A Council workshop is being proposed to enable
focused Council discussion and direction on intended outcomes. If Council
wishes to advance delivery of a program in 2015, the City manager will include
an envelope in the capital budget to support delivery of an incentives program.
Subsequent to the workshop, staff will return to Council with policy and program
options for consideration. It is important to note that the legislative authority
must be available to enable Council to move forward with particular programs.
The preferred direction from staff for 2015 is to stay the course with the One Stop
Development shop program and for Council to continue to focus its limited
municipal resources on key quality of life investments to create the conditions for
private investment. These strategic initiatives which include the advancement of
the One Stop Development Shop to streamline the development approvals
process, and continued investment in its successful heritage conservation grants
program and in community infrastructure and services such as roads, recreation
and clean, safe drinking water, can be powerful tools to improve the attractiveness
of the city for investment.
Committee of the Whole -
February 9, 2015
The heritage incentives program in particular, provides significant return on
investment for the city, continuing or boosting this program, offers real benefit to
the City in terms of private sector investment aligned with both municipal
planning and heritage conservation goals.
ALTERNATIVE:
As an alternative, Council may consider deferring the development incentives
program until it can be delivered as part of a future Neighbourhood Plan (target
timeframe is 2016 when the One Stop shop program is complete). The
Neighbourhood Planning program will provide an opportunity for incentives to be
reviewed with consultation with key stakeholders, and designed to achieve
specific growth outcomes for targeted neighbourhoods.
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A: Letter from North Star Holdings re: Developer Incentives
Appendix B: Summary of Previous Development Financial Incentives offered
by the City
Appendix C: Survey of Canadian Municipalities Offering Development
Incentives
RECOMMENDATION:
That COW directs the City Manager to:
1. Report back to Council with a recommended policy framework for a new
development incentives program that aligns with the following principles
or others as determined by Council:
a. The program supports directions set by True Growth 2.0 Economic
Plan and P1anSJ that encourage sustainable growth through
intensification of urban neighbourhoods.
b. The incentive program be sustainable and act as a catalyst for
innovative, urban development that is challenging for the market to
provide; it should not be a subsidy for market driven development.
c. The program is designed as a pilot to target urban development in an
identified area as defined by Council.
Committee of the Whole - 12 -
February 9, 2015
d. The programs have clear performance measures and the administration
costs be reasonable and not create additional service delivery
implications for the City to absorb.
2. Include a funding envelope in the capital budget to support a proposed
development incentive program.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacey Forfar, MBA, MCIP, RPP
Deputy Commissioner, Community Planning and Enrichment Services
Jacqueline Hamilton, MURP, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner, Growth and Community Development Services
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
Committee of the Whole - 13 -
February 9, 2015
Appendix A:
Letter from North Star Holdings re: Developer Incentives
North Star lioldiings Ltd
BOX 4453
Rothesay. New Brunswick E20 SX2
April 8, 2014
Mayor and Council
City of WntJohn
Thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts concerning the housing market as it
relates to the growth of SaintJohn in the next five years.
Currently Saint John Is experiencing a drop in new construction permits from an already low
level. The local economic climate is greatly responsible for this trend. On the positive side,
the potential for a huge upswing in housing starts by 2016, In anticipation of approaching
projects and because of projects which may have already started, Is reasonable to predict.
Saint John must be prepared to take advantage of this probable upswing, and this is not the
current case from the point of view of residential growth.
Saint John will not attract residential developers under current market conditions, and If the
economy in Saint john grows the housing boom will occur in Rothesay and Qulspamsis. Single
family lots In Rothesay and Quispamsis sell between $49,900 and $64,900 in subdivisions with
services (in Rothesay) and roads only (in Quispamsis). Similar lots In Saint John average
$37,900 and require full servicing. We have developed more residential land In SalntJohn over
the last ten years than anyone else. However, lot values prevent us from doing more without
financial Incentives.
Our company has 15 single family detached lots and 190 multl residential lots currently
developed In Saint John. This was possible due to the previous Infrastructure grants made
available to developers. We will build on all this land as demand allows. We have raw land in
SaintJohn fear over 200 single family lots and hundreds of multi residential units. This land will
not be developed In the near future due to the current market.
We are aware of the fiscal restraints under which SaintJohn Is currently operating. Theratre,
we have devised a plan which will put no burden on City finances and will In fact promote
growth and tax revenues, with the developer paying the up front cost.
45
-2-
Vacant land in East Saint John Is currently assessed at $33,400 which generates $596.19 tax
revenue to the City. This land has been approved for 52 lots, which at $200,000 minimum
assessment after a home is constructed generates $3,560 per lot.
Current annual revenue is $596.11.
Revenue when 52 homes constructed is $185,120 /year
We propose a $6,000 per unit payment to the developer not the bonder, over a Rve year
period from the time an occupancy permit Is issued. Giving the incentive to the developer
creates more available lots which provides approximately $600 per lot per year revenue to the
City in extra revenue until the market for a single home appears. Giving the Incentive to a
builder simply gives extra profit to a builder who probably has the home presold. We point
this out even though our main buslness Is building.
Year
Revenue
Rebate
Net
1
$3,560
$2,000
$1,560
2
$3,560
$1,000
$2,560
3
$3,560
$1,000
$2,560
4
$3,560
$1,000
$2,560
5
$3,564
$1,000
S2 -560
Net gain times 52 units for flve years
$613,600
We propose a $4,000 per unit rebate 1br multi residential units over three years which will
stimulate high density and iM"ill construction, under the same format as above, This is badly
needed if Plan SJ Is to have any hope of success,
We feel Council must give this situation immediate consideration so the private sector and the
City can be prepared far the coming economic upswing.
Sincerely
R.E. (Bob) Darling
bob @darlingconstruction.com
506.647.8881 (Cell)
E,M
North Star Moldings Ltd.
Sox 4531
Rothesay, NB
E2E 5X2
Telephone: (508) 847 -8881
bob @darlingconstruction.com
November 24, 2014
Mayor and Council
City of Saint john
On April 6/14 1 presented an incentive program for Council's consideration. Council voted to
forward this suggestion to the City Manager and stressed that it be addressed within a months.
Councillor Lowe voted against this. He called me three days later from Florida, where he was
vacationing, to explain that he voted against the motion because he thought it should have been
addressed immediately.
To date, Council has ignored my suggestion and it has been 7'¢a months with no reply. I brought
this to your attention previously and one councillor was quoted in the paper as saying the idea may
have merit but there is no money.
I ask Council to please read my proposal. There is no up front money required and the incentive will
come from a small portion of after development tax dollars. In other words, my incentive program
generates its own funding with a large percentage of surplus tax dollars to the City. These tax
dollars will not go to the City without an incentive program, so it is a win/win situation.
Do you really think a fine -Stop Development Shop will give Saint john the appearance of being
open for business when the City's largest residential developer cannot get Council's attention?
Sincerely
R. E. (Bob) Darling
44
Committee of the Whole - 14 -
February 9, 2015
Appendix B:
Summary of Previous Development Financial Incentives
Offered by the City of Saint John
Heritage Grants Program (1980s- present)
The Heritage Grants program was established in the 1980s to encourage heritage
conservation of character defining elements for built heritage in accordance with
the City's Heritage Bylaw. The funding is available to property owners in
municipal heritage districts, which are located primarily in the Uptown and
Central Peninsula, with eligible projects including exterior conservation projects.
The program provides the following categories of grants:
• Conservation plan Grants to offset the costs of retaining a design
professional to provide expertise to prepare a heritage conservation plan
with support of up to 50% to a maximum of $1500.
• Conservation Grants of 25 to 45% up to a maximum of $7500 to support
large conservation projects for properties that have a heritage conservation
plan in place.
Heritage Maintenance Grants of up to 25% to a maximum of $750 for
projects without a heritage conservation plan in place; also available for
storefront signage.
The program was revised in 2014 to improve the efficiency of approvals and
access for heritage funding. Since 1999 more than 1.5 million dollars has been
invested by the City in heritage conservation projects.
Residential Subdivision Cost Sharing (prior to 1978 and 1984 -2011)
Subdivision cost sharing, a long- standing provision of the Subdivision By -law
rather than a separate program, provided developers with a rebate of the full value
of piping materials within serviced residential (and later, business park)
subdivisions. The developers themselves were responsible for the cost of
excavation, installation and backfilling. Assistance was restricted to areas of the
City designated as Stage One for servicing under the former Municipal Plan.
As a result of the recommendations of the 2010 Development Incentives Review
Report concerning development financial incentives, the Subdivision By -law was
amended in 2011 to remove the cost sharing provisions.
Greater Residential Incentive Program (GRIP) (1985 -1991)
The GRIP program provided a grant for every new residential lot developed in the
City, based on a percentage of the increase in assessment resulting from the
Committee of the Whole -15 -
February 9, 2015
creation and development of the lot. The average grant amount was $6,000 per
lot. There was also an option under this program whereby the developer could
direct a portion of the grant to the homebuyer.
The program was a response to a desire for the City to increase its share of new
housing starts in the metropolitan area, and was terminated in 1991.
Housing through Infill Development (HID) Program (1985 -1993)
The HID program was established in 1985 to encourage the development of infill
housing on vacant lots in the core area of the City. It was initially restricted to the
Central Peninsula, but was later expanded to cover the Old North End and the
Lower West Side as well. The program provided a grant equal to 15 percent of the
increase in assessment resulting from the development.
By 1993, most of the available infill lots in these areas had been developed and
the program was ended.
Upper Floors Program (early 1990s)
The Upper Floors Program provided a grant to assist in the preparation of
feasibility studies related to the redevelopment of upper floors of buildings in the
Uptown area for residential and/or office /commercial uses. Unfortunately there
was not very much interest in such a program during that period, and it was
discontinued after a few years.
Housing Incentive Program (HIP) (1996 -2000)
The HIP program was created in 1996 to encourage development of residential
construction on the significant number of vacant lots that were remaining in
recently- approved subdivisions and other areas. The program provided a grant
based on a percentage of the value of construction and included an option to direct
$2,000 of the grant to the purchaser of the dwelling unit. All types of residential
construction were eligible (i.e. singles, semis, townhouses and apartments).
During the course of the program, a total of 112 grant applications were approved.
As the inventory of vacant lots in subdivisions had substantially filled up by 2000,
it was determined that the program had run its course. After consultation with the
development community, it was replaced the next year by the Residential
Infrastructure Assistance (RIA) program.
Business Park Development Incentive Program (1999 -2011)
The Business Park Development Incentive Program was established in 1999 to
provide assistance for the development of large -scale (over 30 acres) business
Committee of the Whole - 16 -
February 9, 2015
parks in specific locations. The assistance was limited to a maximum payment of
$500,000 per project to be used for installation of new public infrastructure (i.e.
roads and pipes.) The program provided assistance to proposed business park
developments in the Somerset Street area and Commerce Drive.
This program was cancelled in March 2011 as a result of the recommendations of
the Development Incentives Review Report.
Residential Infrastructure Assistance (RIA) Program (1990s- 2011/14)
The RIA Program was established in the 1990s and replaced the HIP program
with a program that targeted development of sites with unusual challenges, such
as physical constraints or servicing capacity issues. The RIA program provided
additional assistance, beyond normal subdivision cost sharing, to developers
dealing with extraordinary costs related to:
• removal of rock or organic matter necessary to service a development;
• provision of or upgrade to a sewage pumping station;
• the extension or upgrading of services outside the limits of a proposed
subdivision.
The program was restricted to developments of six lots or more involving
extensions of municipal services. Funding support was initially restricted to a
maximum of $10,000 (including normal subdivision cost sharing) per lot created,
but was reduced to a maximum of $6,000 later.
This program was cancelled in March 2011 as a result of the recommendations in
the Development Incentives Review Report, although existing approved
applications remained eligible for the grant until March of 2014. Since 1999 a
total of 58 applications for assistance were approved representing more than 10
million dollars in municipal funding.
Commercial Incentive Program (2005 -2011)
The Commercial Incentive Program was established in 2005 to provide
commercial developments with a value of over $5 million to offset the cost of
new public infrastructure in the form of
rebates of the value of the piping materials used to extend municipal water
and/or sewer services;
• road improvements including street widening and traffic lights.
The program provided a maximum amount of City assistance of $150,000 per
development. Only one commercial development received assistance under this
program. This program was cancelled in March 2011 as a result of the
recommendations in the Development Incentives Review Report.
Committee of the Whole - 17 -
February 9, 2015
Appendix C:
Survey of Canadian Municipalities Offering Development Incentives
M &C- 2014 -108
January 12, 2015
Downtown Re- Investment Programs
Leasehold Downtown Interest Development
Tax Fayade Cost Charge
Municipalities Increment Improvement Improvement Residential Free /Low Heritage & Fee
/ Renovation Development Interest Grants
Reduction/
Grants Grants Grants Grants Loans
Exemption
.
11 quil W. ... - ��M
•
Kitchener, ON
ow Other Incentive Programs
Brownfield
Leed Economic Non -Urban Residential/
Redevelop Development Development Commercial Incentives
ment
Grants Grants Program
Grant
Sudbury, ON
Medicine Hat, AB
Saskatoon, SK
Brandon, MB
Kamloops, BC
Charlottetown, PE
Municipality's with Limited Incentive Programs
Fredericton, NB
Halifax, NS
how to design
DEVELOPMENT W.
INCENTIVES
council workshop • february 9, 2015
:,nda 4:W
.past programs
2. best practices
3. steps in design
4. key questions
5. moving forward
heritage grants
housing infill grants
upper floors grants
residential infrastructure grants
business park grants
commercial infrastructure grants
subdivision cost - sharing
past programs
4c-
Z,lz
Zq SA.?,
Pil.
Z-4 -Rl tam
J—j
'ov
o r
g mr
v
I J-:161. 1:1 - mil I
JEI" boifl OWN Ali ftg
-77W'"T
4-1
� I 9 4,lij
v
ng snare
)use
�lopm r�
.�
I
2001-2011 applications
f
Tl
I' 6
the past practice o
�l�Ir�Y.l��r�1►`�[�
ainflohn shou
DRUG
not be dependent
on financial subsidy and in any
case has not proven effective
Cr r^%A /fh
ro10!2 toA
i nfra ctrl
Intl i ro
6. V ♦ ♦ v. .
. r.%04vrV
.. ... %040%0%01 %Avv.M.. r
best practices
eTrn%with
6 V ♦♦ v.1
rolatorA i nfra ctrl Intl i ro
1 promote smart growth
best practices
Rein, A mr-Im
l�*- Economic ,
Prosperity
QL
Ca
Cory
MOVING 104WARD I AW Df l AVANT
0
I rl
hl
b
a.
40
EW MUNICIPAL PLAN
IS MOVING FORWARD.
NOUS ALLONS DE UAVANT AVEC PLANSI,
NOTRE NOUVEAU PUN MUNICIPAL.
(1) promote smart growth
(2) indirect support
best practices
(1) promote smart growth
(2) indirect support
(3) various investor support
best practices
•
tax increment grants
fapde grants
downtown residential development grants
0-
'�_= heritage grants •
-r
.",,,.ownfield redevelo metes. rants
r•, y
IP
`� - '' - -. -'� ' -', aF• ' � -?wyr �' ,; .!may! �*- ' �- � `. �� �- e -,.ora "!;
101
e:r
us
j{1 t ' 4 ..„il -.7, . i�,i' , j » ' ,•.�,:.'', / _.,,p+:."aMl
i� • 'M'i Bl
_fin i 1 I,�� / � ,... �► � r'�..L,,, �. _ � �'. ^_rl v "•.�„� � • ,.4
Aik /rrs'� Via; - t� C 1 • �! "! ■ � �p n* .. . � � � •+ -Ti' - • � •�'��yR� � *i
N � 1 �°.7' 1• hj� f�' �.0
If
Si
arm#
development incentives
effective where'they'sup'port key
community planning outcomes
in challenging urban environments
in designing an
incentive program
: �key community
for
growth and development
Urba evelopment provides 4x
the return on investment.
,, r
I i
login
I
l �
dLj
1
1
t
w
LIM
-ij
lik
-I MI.
Q further promote built heritage
Q increase core neighbourhood density
ID revitalize waterfront lands
Q support green building design
Q promote broader housing opportunities
support mixed -use neighbourhoods
� • - arget
� reas for incentives
N
* A \
a= decide
4=J su Itf
0
10
i N
launch another ii
w
N-9j
program
we need to take a closer look at tax
increment financing ... funding for
projects by borrowing against future
increase in property -tax revenues
Enterprise Saint John
Urban Development Goal Working Group
True Growth 2.0 April 11, 2013
N
w
A
a
a
3
CD
w
MMS V
i
O
J
CD
CD 7) -{ CD X
CL � CL
8 ✓ CD p O
(D ' =3 CD
E57 =3 <. Z
(D 0 g J 3 >
rML
(L)
4=)
(A
ensure efficient
measures
key
questions
council roundtable
discussion
how do you think the
city should q�,:3port
future development.?
i
4=J
0
what are your most
important community
growth outcomes?
0
4=)
N
LIRA
what specific
at, do
yon think should
be targeted?
0
N
=3
AA
how d o
Vol .. think we
Should proceed
with incentives?
that's all folks
Ahu 9 thanks to
everyone who took part in this
workshop
Growth & Community Development Services
Community Planning & Development
FRSC
FUNDY REGIONAL
SERVICE COMMISSION
February 5, 2015
Mayor and Council
City of Saint John
P.O. Box 1971
Saint John, NB
E21, 4L1
Dear Mayor and Council:
CSRF
COMMISSION DE SERVICES
REGIONAUX DEFUNDY
The following motion was made at the Board of Fundy Regional Service Commission on
February 4, 2014.
"To receive the report prepared by BGT Consulting on the Policing Model, post it on our
website, have the authors give presentations to each Municipal Council and the RAC Board with
the results of the discussion being brought back to the April board meeting ".
The Fundy Regional Service Commission is requesting that representatives from BGT
Consulting along with our Executive Director, Jack Keir address the Saint John Common
Council at the February 16, 2015 council meeting.
The Board is looking for direction from each of the councils to commit the required funds with
the full understanding that the outcome will bring change to our communities.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Grace Losier
Chairperson
Place 4001 400, rue Main Street I Suite / Bureau 10101 Saint John I NB Canada I E2K 4N5 I www.frsc.ca
t1
Request to Develop a Single
Police Service Delivery Model
FUNDY REGIONAL SERVICE COMMISSION
F R§C
CS F
FUNOY GIONAL CQMIMISSION DE SERVICES
SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAUX DE FUNDY
January 21, 2015
it
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ............................................................................................. ..............................i
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ ..............................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ ..............................2
3.0 A SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL FOR POLICING ......................................... ..............................3
3.1 Background .............................................................................................. ............................... 3
3.2 Saint John Police Force as Single Service Provider .................... ............................... 4
4.0 MOVING FORWARD ......................................................................................... ..............................9
4.1 Understanding the Desired Outcomes ............................................ .............................10
4.2 Engaging the Stakeholders ................................................................. .............................11
4.3 Undertaking a Comprehensive Study ............................................. .............................12
4.4 The Process in Summary ..................................................................... .............................13
5.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. .............................14
APPENDIXA .............................................................................................................. .............................15
APPENDIXB .............................................................................................................. .............................21
REFERENCES............................................................................................................ .............................28
it
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since the early 1990's there have been three studies - Grant (1992), Cormier (1997) and
Finn (2008) - that have recommended the regionalization of policing services within the
Province of New Brunswick. In the late 1990's, as a result of changes to the Police Act,
there were a number of communities who disbanded their police forces and opted for a
service delivered by the RCMP.
Through co- operation and collaboration there are examples where the three police forces
serving the Fundy Region share, contract for or have integrated services, resulting in
efficiences and cost - savings. Otherwise, there has been minimal change in how police
services are delivered in the region over the past fifteen years. The success of the co-
operation and collaboration among the three forces may signal an opportunity for a
broader view of service delivery options.
The Fundy Regional Service Commission (FRSC) approved the following resolution at its
meeting on May 27, 2014:
"To have the Executive Director thoroughly investigate the cost to have
policing services provided by the Saint john Police Force for the Fundy Regional
Services Commission region as a whole as well as individual communities
without incurring additional costs (... for the research and report) and bring a
report back to the Board for review."
Initial steps, including the approval of a Terms of Reference for the proposed study and the
distribution of a questionnaire to the various stakeholders was completed by early August,
2014. Responses received coupled with comments from members of the Commission
indicated limited support for the initiative. While the essence of the Commission's
resolution - to review alternative service delivery models for policing - is very valid,
selecting only one of the providers to develop and propose a model was counter to the
recommendation of the Grant Report that:
"no government should act on my recommendations on (general policing
arrangements in New Brunswick) without first engaging in detailed
consultation with the affected parties." 1
Further, there are a number of inherent risks in allowing only one provider to present
options for service delivery, including the requirement for that provider to invest time and
resources towards an initiative with uncertain outcomes.
1 Policing Arrangements in New Brunswick: 2000 and Beyond. Professor Alan Grant, March 1992, page 2
it
There are a number of recent studies concerning the rising costs of policing - a trend
deemed by some to be unsustainable and one that is expected to continue to impact all
communities. Governments at all levels are dealing with this concern - both in Canada and
internationally - and have recognized the need to review and consider alternative service
delivery models.
In this context, the FRSC 's initiative is a valid opportunity to evaluate the alternative police
service delivery models in the Fundy Region - one that warrants continued leadership,
conversation, discussion and study. Experience shows that changing the model is largely a
political decision. However, many other regions across Canada have undertaken similar
studies using an industry standard methodology and subject matter expertise that
incorporates consultation, consensus building, stakeholder participation, an in depth
review and evaluation of existing services and development of options for alternative
service delivery models. It has been estimated this would require an investment of
$100,000.
The review should provide the region and municipalities, districts and the province with a
comprehensive and thorough analysis of the issues such that the respective councils will be
fully apprised of the background to policing strategies, the current and prospective
processes of management and administration, and the important role of oversight to
ensure effective and efficient community based policing combined with intelligence -led
policing principles in any future model.
Finally, the outcome of the review should not presume nor preclude a change in the
policing agency of choice in the region. Rather the review should firstly define the plan
considering the legislative, governance and personnel issues, and secondly, delineate
criteria and processes to ensure the policing service fully meets the service and governance
expectations of the region, and provides evidence of advantages and challenges of each
option. As well, a review must examine the legislative requirements and processes for
change and the potential range of police service delivery models that are available to the
Fundy Region.
it
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Fundy Regional Service Commission (FRSC) approved the following resolution at its
meeting on May 27, 2014:
" To have the Executive Director thoroughly investigate the cost to have
policing services provided by the SaintJohn Police Force for the Fundy Regional
Services Commission region as a whole as well as individual communities
without incurring additional costs (... for the research and report) and bring a
report back to the Board for review."
Subsequently, at its meeting on June 03, 2014, the Saint John Board of Police
Commissioners considered the Commission's recommendation and authorized the
Chief of Police to work with the staff of the Commission to develop a Terms of
Reference (TOR) for the review and report. The TOR were approved at the Board's
meeting on July 02, 2014. (Appendix A). A budget of $10,000 was allocated by the
FRSC.
BGT Consultants Inc. was engaged to provide information for future discussions on
alternative police service delivery models. In order to gather information on the
current policing environment within each community, a questionaire was developed
and delivered to various stakeholders in the Fundy Region. (Appendix B) . BGT
analyzed the questionnaire responses - to ensure the quality of the information was
sufficient to assist the Saint John Police Force (SJPF) to develop a policing model.
BGT also prepared a comment on the process of having the Saint John Police Force
offer their services to other communities within the region.
The purpose of this report is to:
1. Review the responses received to the questionaire and discuss the potential
for a single service delivery model for policing services.
2. Provide an overview of the approach utilized within the policing sector when
considering regionalization of services.
3. Recommend a path forward for considering alternative models for delivery
of policing services within the region.
It is not the purpose (nor the intent) of this report to propose or to advocate for a specific
service delivery model for policing within the Fundy Region.
Page 1
it
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Representatives of BGT met with the Executive Director of the FRSC and the Chief of the
Saint John Police Force to discuss and better understand the intent and purpose of the
resolution passed by the FRSC on May 27th, 2014. Further, the participants reviewed and
discussed the Terms of Reference: Policing Services Report prepared by the FRSC and the
SJPF, as well as the responses to the questionnaire distributed in August 2014.
BGT also had discussions with individuals who have been actively involved with the review
of regionalization opportunities in British Columbia and who have been involved in similar
studies in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. This included the 2011 study on
policing in Moncton and the processes leading to the regionalization of services in the
Halifax Regional Municipality.
BGT reviewed the 1992 Grant Report on policing arrangements in New Brunswick and the
2010 Finn Report on the organization of local government in New Brunswick, as well as the
relevant sections of the New Brunswick Police Act. A number of other relevant studies on
regionalization of municipal police service delivery in Canada and in the United States were
reviewed.
The economic realities of operating a modern police force are a continual source of review
and study. BGT accessed and reviewed a number of these studies including a March 2014
report on the economics of policing prepared by the Collaborative Centre for Justice and
Safety at the University of Regina.
Page 2
3.0 A SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL FOR POLICING
3.1 BACKGROUND
Since the 1990's there have been at least two studies in New Brunswick that have
considered the structure and operation of policing:
1. In March 1992, Professor Alan Grant issued the report Policing Arrangements in New
Brunswick: 2000 and Beyond. The report contained fifty -one (51) recommendations
organized into three phases: planning, legislation, and implementation. Professor
Grant proposed one regionalized police grouping could be Saint John, Rothesay
Regional, Grand Bay and Mispec, or about 240 regional police positions.2
2. In November 2008, Jean Guy Finn released the report Building Stronger Local
Governments and Regions. The report included the following recommendation:
"It is recommended that policing become a mandated service (planned,
organized and delivered on a regional basis) once the plan has been
developed through the regional service district. It is further recommended
that this plan be developed building upon the main recommendation
contained in the Grant Report. It is also recommended that an integrated
regional approach to policing services be implemented within two years of
the establishment of the regional service district. At that point and time,
present inter - municipal police commissions, where they exist, should be
dissolved. "3
While the Grant and Finn reports focused provincially, in February 1997 the report - A
Community of Communities - Local Government Options for Greater SaintJohn - was
released. Its purpose "was to study local government in the greater SaintJohn area and look
at the feasibility of consolidating through amalgamation, annexation or formalized
regionalization of services. "4 The report made a number of recommendations related to the
delivery and governance of protective services including the establishment of a Protective
Services Commission responsible for all fire, police and related services within the region.
The Province of New Brunswick, through its Police Act, outlines the police service delivery
options available to a community. These include:
Z Policing Arrangements in New Brunswick: 2000 and Beyond. Professor Alan Grant, March 1992, page 128
3 Building Stronger Local Governments and Regions; An Action Plan for the Future of Local Governments. Jean Guy Finn, Commissioner,
November 2008, page 107
4 A Community of Communities: Local Government Options for the Greater SaintJohn Area. E. F. (Skip) Cormier, Commissioner. February
1997, page 32
Page 3
• the establishment of a municipal police force (s. 4.1)
• an agreement with another municipality for the employment of its police force (s. 4)
• an agreement with the Government of Canada for the policing of the municipality by
the RCMP (s. 4a)
• with the Lieutenant - Governor in council for the policing of the municipality by the
RCMP (s. 4a)
• a regional police authority (s.17.01)
In the mid- 1990's, the province introduced new Policing Standards that required police
forces to meet minimum requirements in many operating and functional areas. This
resulted in many municipalities choosing to disband their forces and to contract with the
RCMP. There are currently nine municipal and regional police forces in the province.
In the Fundy Region, there have been some positive changes in how police services are
delivered, developed through co- operation and collaboration, resulting in improved quality
and efficiency while reducing costs to the partners. Some of the changes and initiatives
include: contracted Public Safety Communication Services (PSCC); provincially funded
Regional Integrated Intelligence Units (RIIU); contracted Emergency Tactical Services
(ETS); and shared Integrated Street Crime Enforcement Unit (SCU).
While the changes and initiatives have been minimal in comparison to the
recommendations to move to a fully operational regional service delivery model, there is
an opportunity to utilize these success stories as a basis for discussions around a more
robust regional /consolidated service delivery model.
3.2 SAINT JOHN POLICE FORCE AS SINGLE SERVICE PROVIDER
The current proposal, as outlined in the Terms of Reference, is for the Saint John Police
Force to develop a model that would have it provide policing services to the entire Fundy
Region or to individual communities who choose to change from their current police
service. In October 2010 the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners approved a
Regionalization Policy. The details of this policy statement are outlined in Section 2 of the
Terms of Reference.
It is assumed that the rising costs of protective services was one of the key factors in the
decision to explore options for the delivery of policing services. This concern is supported
by a recent Canadian study The Economics of Canadian Policing prepared by the
Collaborative Centre for Justice and Safety (CCJS) in which the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities call the rising costs of policing "unsustainable ". 5 However, the CCJS report
s The Economics of Canadian Policing Five Years into the Great Recession. R. Ruddell & Nicholas A. Jones; Collaborative Centre for Justice
and Safety, University of Regina, March, 2014 page 1
Page 4
also points out that funding for Canadian policing is more stable than many other English
speaking nations including the United States and United Kingdom.
"Given funding shortfalls police leaders are being forced to rethink the
manner in which services are delivered, who will deliver them and how to
best manage cuts to police budgets without threatening core policing
services." 6
As the first step in developing the single police service delivery model as outlined in the
FRSC resolution of May 27th, 2014, and to better understand and evaluate the current
environment, a questionnaire (Appendix B) was prepared and distributed in August, 2014.
(It was anticipated further information gathering and meetings with stakeholders would be
required). Response to the questionnaire by late September was requested.
Questionnaire responses were received from the Kennebecasis Joint Board of Police
Commissioners and from a representative of the RCMP for those municipalities and Local
Service Districts it serves. It should be noted that no direct input was received from the
representatives of the communities served by the RCMP; follow -up discussions would be
required with them.
The information provided was a reasonable start in the information gathering process.
However, in a number of cases, the quality (level of detail) of information is inadequate and
would require expansion, clarification and a detailed analysis of the data provided.
From the responses received, and from the public comments attributed to members of the
FRSC, there is questionable commitment to the concept of an alternative service delivery
model for the region. The chairman of the Kennebecasis Board stated in his letter
accompanying their response:
"It should become somewhat clear that there is no interest to alter our
current policing arrangement in favour of a service offered by the Saint
John Police Force":
Regionalization of policing services in the Greater Vancouver region has been a subject of
discussion, review, and study for many years. It is the last remaining major metropolitan
area in Canada without a regionalized police service. In a discussion paper prepared for the
Chief Constable of the Vancouver Police Service in February 2008, the following three
questions were deemed to be important concerning the region's current policing
arrangements:?
6 lbid, page 2
7 Options for Service Delivery in Greater Vancouver Region: A Discussion Paper of the Issues Surrounding the Regionalization of Police
Services. Planning, Research and Audit Section, Vancouver Police Department. February 2008, page 9
Page 5
• Do the current arrangements facilitate the delivery of effective and efficient police
services?
• Do the current arrangements provide police services with the optimal ability to
prevent and respond to crime?
• Would the adoption of a different police service model, including creation of a new
regional police service, address the significant issues and challenges that currently
surround police service delivery?
While the questions are for the Vancouver context, in today's environment of rising costs
and questions about sustainability of police services (along with other government
services) they are valid to any region evaluating or considering alternative service delivery
models.
It is suggested that these questions are worthy of further review and consideration by the
FRSC. However, requesting only the Saint John Police Force, to prepare a model, without
considering other options, will not provide satisfactory responses. Simply changing the
service provider to a portion of the region - i.e. from the RCMP to the SJPF - will not
effectively address the questions nor the opportunities recommended by the Grant and
Finn reports.
The potential of the Saint John Police Force to offer services to other individual
communities within the region, while possible, may not be practical nor economically
viable, depending upon the location of that community. For example, for the SJPF to travel
through the Town of Grand Bay - Westfield- served by the RCMP- to provide service to a
resident of the Kingston Peninsula, is not considered to be practical delivery approach.
Further, the Force could expend significant time and effort developing a model that
ultimately cannot be effectively and efficiently implemented without the agreement of a
key community - in this example, the Town of Grand Bay - Westfield.
The request to have the SJPF identify a lone service delivery model for the Fundy Region
has inherent risks. These include risks associated with not undertaking nor following a
best practice process for the development of a police service delivery model that would
negatively impact the outcome. This is further illustrated in TABLE 1.
Page 6
TABLE 1 Example of Risks Associated with a Review of a Service Delivery Model
POTENTIAL RISK
Probabili
Can it be Controlled?
High
Medium
Low
Yes
No
1. Commitment
• Do the stakeholders see the need
to change
x
x
• No political support
x
x
• No or little support from Police
Commissions
X
x
• No engagement with the public
x
x
• No consultation with respective
unions
X
x
• No consultation with senior
management
X
x
• No consultation with
employees/members
x
x
2. Union Contracts
• No parity in salaries
x
x
• Differences in pension plans
x
x
3. Infrastructure
• Radios stem compatibility
x
x
• Computer system compatibility
x
x
• Communications centres
x
x
• Policies, procedures and
processes
x
x
4. Organizational culture
x
5. Resources
• Start -up funds - accurately
defined
X
x
• Unrealistic budget reduction
targets
X
x
• Unrealistic staffing reduction
targets
X
X
Finally, the current proposal to have the Saint John Police Force develop a regional or local
service delivery model for providing its services, does not consider the magnitude of the
time and effort required, nor does it allocate adequate funding. For example in 2007 the
Halifax Regional Municipality expended over $120,000 for a review of its police service
delivery options. In 2011, the City of Moncton incurred similar costs when considering
alternatives to the RCMP delivery model.
Page 7
Based on similar projects conducted by experienced consultants in a variety of jurisdictions
across Canada, it is estimated a comprehensive study for the Fundy Region would cost in
the range of $100,000.00. This an estimate that would be affected by factors such as the
required breadth /inclusiveness of the stakeholder input, travel to and within the region
and the proposed complexity of tasks not limited to data analysis. This is significantly
greater than the budget of $10,000 allocated by the FRSC.
Intergovernmental cooperation in municipal policing is probably more difficult to achieve
than it is in any other areas of municipal services. Cooperative agreements in solid waste
disposal, recreation, water services, major facility operation and other services are
common throughout the province.
The decision of the FRSC to consider other service delivery models for policing is valid and
timely, particularly with questions of sustainability and the national and international focus
on the consideration and implementation of alternative models. For the reasons noted
above, BGT suggests that the Commission should discontinue with the current approach to
structuring the police service delivery model in the region. However, the opportunity for
further conversation, discussion and study of alternative service delivery models should
continue but in a more systematic and holistic manner.
Page 8
1KOWUUI MM"];,, " "W-11
As the Economics in Policing report indicates the cost of policing is unsustainable. This is
an issue across Canada and internationally, regardless of the community, the size of the
police force or who the service provider is. While reports indicate crime levels are on the
decline in Canada, police forces continue to face new and evolving challenges in providing a
policing service expected by communities. Budget pressures combined with community
expectations will necessitate new and innovative approaches to service delivery: the public
do not want a reduction in their core services.
"One of the challenges confronting Canadian police leaders is that while
their services have had a role in decreasing crime, their costs have increased
substantially. Statistics Canada (2013a) reported that between 1998 and
2012 the national volume and severity of crime, as measured by the Crime
Severity Index (CSI), decreased from 118.8 to 75. During that time frame, the
per capita cost of policing increased from $226 to $320 in constant2002
dollars, although if calculated using current dollars, that range changes
from $206 to $389."8
Public Safety Canada (2012) identified the following challenges associated with Canadian
policing costs:9
• Increasing demands on police combined with decreasing crime rates.
• Escalating policing costs that are increasingly unsustainable in the current fiscal
environment.
• Limited clarity on how police funding is spent and its efficiency and
effectiveness.
• A need for coordination, focus and leadership.
Former Public Safety Minister Toews, speaking at the Economics of Policing Summit in
January 2013, observed that:
'Police services face two options — they can do nothing and eventually be forced to cut
drastically, as we have seen in some countries, or they can be proactive, get ahead of
the curve, and have greaterflexibility in designing and implementing both incremental
and meaningful structural reforms. It is critical that all levels ofgovernment and the
entire policing community be engaged in innovation and reform efforts, so that we can
turn a fiscal challenge into an opportunity to sustain our police services and better
serve Canadians. "10
$ Economics of Canadian Policing, page 36
e lbid, page 6
io The Economics of Canadian Policing, page 2
Page 9
The development of a comprehensive modern policing service delivery model is a highly
complex and challenging undertaking. History shows that changing a police service
delivery model is largely a political decision; however, the design of the model requires
subject matter expertise. As such, it is critical that the political leadership of all key
stakeholders are supportive of the undertaking before proceeding.
Evidence based research has demonstrated that where transparency, openness, and
inclusiveness are at the foundation of a desired change, the desired result has the greatest
chance for success and implementation. The Grant Report advises "no government should
act on my recommendations on (general policing arrangements in New Brunswick) without
first engaging in detailed consultation with the affected parties." 11
4.1 UNDERSTANDING THE DESIRED OUTCOMES
The experience of consultants and others who have participated in similar initiatives,
recommend that, before proceeding, the Commission should have a clear vision of the
opportunity and what the members expect as outcomes. This has been best accomplished
by a facilitated discussion amongst the members (and others as deemed appropriate.) A
background paper for review by the participants prior to the session is often provided.
As a minimum the parties must be desirous to deliver a comprehensive and modern
policing service to the participating communities:
• that is connected to all the communities equally.
• that is more than a law enforcement model of service delivery.
• that contributes to vibrant and sustainable communities.
• that contributes to safe and secure communities.
• that is sensitive to economic and fiscal realities of the partners.
• that identifies opportunities for the delivery of effective and efficient police services.
• that incorporates a study structure for an open and inclusive process for all key
stakeholders to be consulted.
It is recognized from situations where regionalization or consolidation were achieved that
there are benefits for the new organization and the members:
• Improvement in the uniformity and consistency of police enforcement.
• Improvement in the sharing of timely and accurate Intelligence on all crimes
incidents.
• Improvements in the coordination of police enforcement services.
11 Policing Arrangements in New Brunswick, page 2
Page 10
• Improvement in the distribution and deployment of police resources based on need.
• Improvement in training and technical police practices.
• Improved strategic and management /supervision practices.
• Reduced costs and unnecessary duplication.
• Improved career enhancement opportunities for police officers and civilian
members.
• Creating the necessary critical mass of human and other resources.
There is some concerns that have been identified with change to a regionalized service
such as:
• reduction in non - enforcement practices that were seen as a benefit to the
municipality.
• a sense of a loss of direct control and accountability (for budget as an example).
• a change in citizen's police relations /contact.
4.2 ENGAGING THE STAKEHOLDERS
If the consensus is reached to continue with a best practice process, an advisory committee
of stakeholders should be established:
• to determine the level of support, to engage in an open, honest, and transparent
process.
• to determine the level of interest and commitment to participate in a police study on
a regional /consolidated service delivery model.
• to determine a fair and equitable cost sharing formula to fund a regional policing
services study.
• to reach an agreement on a timeline to complete the consultation process.
• to report back with a recommendation.
The stakeholder committee could include:
• representatives of the municipal councils and Local Service Districts
• representative of the Boards of the SJ and Kennebecasis Police Commissions
• representative of the FRSC
• Chiefs of Police or delegated senior officer of SJ and Kennebecasis Police Forces
• representative of the RCMP (a senior commissioned officer responsible for policing
for the affected contracted communities)
• representative of the affected Police Associations
• representative of Department of Public Safety (senior level)
• representative of Department of Local Government
• specific members of the Public or Community group(s) as required
Page 11
4.3 UNDERTAKING A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY
If the recommendations is to proceed with a comprehensive study, there is a common
methodology that when used, is intended to produce a professional independent policing
study that is completed with rigor and stands up to peer review. A service delivery model
should not be examined and produced in isolation, a comprehensive review of the partner
agencies services must be part of the study to identify suitable options for the parties to
consider. As a minimum the methodology must consider the following:
• There must be a review of best practices of recent studies comparable to the Fundy
Region.
• There must be a well - designed and thought -out consultation process with all the
key stakeholders.
• There must be a comprehensive review of police operations of all the participating
police agencies.
• There must be a review of facilities, management, administrative, governance
practices and related issues.
• There must be an analysis of the financial /budgets issues /practices of the
participating agencies that impact service delivery.
• There must be an examination of issues that are specific to the participating
partners in a local context and local community issues, consideration of the broader
provincial interests and legal matters.
• There must be public consultation /access and input, conducted (surveys) that
promotes openness in the process.
• The review should detail the range of options and explain how the various policing
models could meet community, municipal, and provincial needs. There should be a
number of options presented on potential service delivery models for the parties to
consider (normally 4 -6). For example, these options could include:
➢ the status quo
➢ a regional municipal model lead by the Saint John Police Force (SJPF)
➢ a regional model lead by the RCMP
➢ a SJPF/ Kennebecasis Police shared regional model
➢ a SJPF /RCMP integrated service delivery model (similar to Halifax)
It is suggested that an initial step in the process would be the development and issuance of
a comprehensive Request for Proposals (RFP) for a consultant with extensive experience
with similar projects. The consultant should be involved in each phase of the project, with
provision and associated costing that allows the FRSC to choose to discontinue the project
Page 12
following the completion of each phase. The total consultant costs, as noted previously,
could be in the range of $100,000.
It can be expected the overall process will take an extended period and will involve an
investment of both time and money. It is anticipated based on best practices four to six
months would be a reasonable target to complete the review /study.
4.4 THE PROCESS IN SUMMARY
In summary, the process of considering alternative service delivery models for policing
within the Fundy Region should involve a number of phases, generally summarized below.
Phase
Description
1
Consensus among FRSC members on the desired and expected outcomes
2
Establishment of and report from a stakeholder committee
3
Completion of the comprehensive study and identification of a
recommended service delivery model
4
Consideration of and consensus on, consultant's recommendation by
FRSC and member communities
5
Preparation of and initiation of implementation plan
As with any initiative involving change, proceeding with the consideration of a different
police service delivery model for the region will involve challenges. For example,
resistance could come from unions, police commissions, communities, public (who are
satisfied with their current service and who are unsure how a change will affect them), and
provincial government. Issues with current union contracts and agreements for policing
with the RCMP will be raised. Other issues include:
• Political and social pressures linked to losing control or self- government as it
relates to its police service; do local councils have necessary support from the
community to regionalize the service (social license).
• Key stakeholders feel left out of the process.
• Police officers from the participating agencies fear they will suffer personal loss or
diminished opportunity.
However, approaching a difficult and often contentious opportunity in a structured and
systematic manner, will have the best potential for success.
Page 13
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
There have been a number of reviews of police service delivery models in Canada in the
past twenty years. Progress has varied across the country as has the service delivery model
selected. However, standard methodologies and approaches to studies have been
developed and have evolved, with a focus on a systematic approach incorporating
significant consultation with all stakeholders, including the public.
The cost of protective services in most jurisdictions is increasing at a greater rate, termed
unsustainable, than for other government services. This has challenged communities and
protective services to adapt and adjust their operations while maintaining core services on
a value for money basis.
The FRSC, through its decision, has identified a valid opportunity to collaboratively
consider how a critical service is provided on a regional basis and to demonstrate
leadership in addressing an issue of local, provincial and national prominence. A
systematic approach to studying and evaluating this opportunity using a phased
methodology demonstrated to be successful in other jurisdictions, would best serve the
interests of the FRSC and of the region.
The review should provide the region and municipalities, districts and the province with a
comprehensive and thorough analysis of the issues such that the respective councils will be
fully apprised of the background to policing strategies, the current and prospective
processes of management and administration, and the important role of oversight to
ensure effective and efficient community based policing combined with intelligence -led
policing principles in any future model.
Finally, the outcome of the review should not presume nor preclude a change in the
policing agency of choice in the region. Rather the review should firstly define the plan
considering the legislative, governance and personnel issues, and secondly, delineate
criteria and processes to ensure the policing service fully meets the service and governance
expectations of the region, and provides evidence of advantages and challenges of each
option. As well, a review must examine the legislative requirements and processes for
change and the potential range of police service models that are available to the Fundy
Region.
Page 14
APPENDIX A
Page 15
Terms of Reference: POLICING SERVICES REPORT
Fundy Regional Service Commission &
Saint John Board of Police Commissioners
FRSC CSRF F QMMISSICN DE SER
VICES
SERVICE COMM
REGIONAUX OE FUNIDY
This Terms of Reference (ToR) reflects the mutually agreed conditions for the preparation
and presentation of a Policing Services Report requested by the Fundy Regional Service
Commission and prepared in cooperation with the Saint John Board of Police
Commissioners by the Saint John Police Force. All parties agree to adhere to the ToR insofar
as practical, and to respect the authority and autonomy of the respective parties.
Preparation and presentation of the Policing Services Report does not commit either party
to the findings of the Report. The Report will be received and considered for whatever
value it may have; after - action based on the Report will be subject to resolutions by the
respective authorities, and other parties that may necessarily be included at that time.
1) PURPOSE
The purpose of the Report (pursuant to Terms of Reference) is to create a common basis for
discussion and decision - making with respect to policing options and costs involving the Saint
John Police Force, in the provision of policing services in the Fundy Regional Service
Commission region as a whole ...or communities individually. The Fundy Regional Service
Commission and the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners recognize that individual
local governments and police agencies within the Region retain authority to speak to
policing services options independently of the findings of the Report.
Z) AUTHORITY
a) Fundy Regional Service Commission
Correspondence from Chairperson Grace Losier respecting a Motion of the Fundy Regional
Service Commission dated May 27, 2014 to the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners,
directing...
"To have the Executive Director thoroughly investigate the cost to have policing services
provided by the City of SaintJohn Police Force for the Fundy Regional Service Commission
region as a whole as well as individual communities without incurring additional costs [..for
the research and report] and bring a report back to the Board for review."
Page 16
The Board requested that the Executive Director have discussions with Police Chief
Reid and staff to determine a plan and process to develop a report for the Board.
b) Saint John Board of Police Commissioners
At the June 03, 2014 meeting of the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners, agreed that:
Chief of Police Reid work with Mr. Keir to compile the Terms of Reference
...as requested by the Fundy Regional Services Commission.
The Saint John Board of Police Commissioners approved a comprehensive report May 07,
2013 with respect to Strengthening Regional Cooperation in Policing. The report set a
persuasive context for regional cooperation in policing, and is attached in its entirety as
Appendix B.
Specific to Saint John Police Force offer of services /support to other jurisdictions and other
police agencies, the following Three E's of Regional Cooperation in Policing are germane:
In process design, process reengineering and auditing, the 'Three E's' are
effectiveness, efficiency and economy. In simple terms efficiency is doing
things right, effectiveness is doing the right thing, and economy is doing
things at the required cost - but no more than the required cost.
As a guide to directing Saint John Police Force efforts to strengthen regional
cooperation in policing:
• Greater Effectiveness occurs if the function works best (produces
best results) when we share intelligence, tasks, and resources. The
only way to do it really well - at any cost - is to do it cooperatively.
The Fundy Integrated Intelligence Unit (FIIU) is a current example.
• Greater E icienc occurs when we pool efforts for specialist
functions that would be prohibitive to resource locally, at the
required level. To do it well and do it on our own would be
considerably more costly ...there are economies of scale.
• Greater Economy occurs when we already do the function very
well, and can extend the service or support to other police agencies
for a fee ...without incurring significant costs or risks. At the same
time, the other agencies obtain a premium service without the
start -up costs and risks. Our PSCC call- taking and dispatch service
is a current example.
At the October 21, 2010 meeting of the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners,
"unanimously resolved to adopt the new Regionalization Policy developed during the Special
Meeting of the Board held October 21, 2010 ".
Page 17
• Recognizing the need for financial discipline, as articulated by Common Council,
and, recognizing that New Brunswickers are best served by a collaborative and
integrated policing effort, and, recognizing that the Saint John Police Force has the
potential to serve as the regional service provider of choice, the Saint John Board of
Police Commissioners authorize the SJPF (Saint John Police Force), through the
Chief, to negotiate with other jurisdictions in the region (as defined in the Finn
Report) to establish or sustain service delivery in instances where:
(a) the service is revenue - positive to the Saint John Board of Police
Commissioners, or
(b) the service is revenue - neutral to the Saint John Board of Police
Commissioners and offers significant strategic advantage to Saint John.
3) SCOPE
a) Police Service Functions
The research and report will assess and recommend based on a full suite of policing
services necessary to provide public- facing services and support services reasonably
and customarily expected in New Brunswick communities, and - as a minimum - those
services required under the New Brunswick Policing Standards.
The services will be presented as a coherent Police Service Model(s), but may also be
restated as options to provide /engage public- facing and support services piecemeal,
in order to complement and enhance performance of other police services in the
region. (The Saint John Police Force currently provides such complementary and
enhanced support services to the Kennebecasis Regional Police Force.)
To enable this scope -of -work, the process will initially be iterative ...defining and
confirming police service models - and specific public- facing and support service
options - before committing to the full research and report writing stages of the
initiative.
b) GeographX
The region subject to the research and report is the area within the jurisdiction of the
Fundy Regional Service Commission, illustrated in the map at Appendix A of this ToR.
4) TIMELINE
Nominally, this initiative commenced June 03, 2014 upon the Saint John Board of Police
Commissioners approving the request from the Fundy Regional Services Commission.
Thoughtful drafting and iterative refinement of the Terms of Reference are essential, given
that the ToR sets the framework for all that follows.
At present, it is anticipated that a draft report will be available during the fourth quarter of
2014. The term of the Project Team continues until the completed report is submitted.
Page 18
5) PROJECT TEAM
The Fundy Region Police Services Report project team will consist of Saint John Police Chief
Bill Reid, Executive Director of the Fundy Regional Service Commission, Jack Keir, and staff
members as required from the Saint John Police Force. The Province of New Brunswick
through the Departments of Local Government and Public Safety may also be called on to
add input as required.
6) PROJECT MEETINGS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
All meetings will be chaired by the Executive Director of Fundy Regional Services
Commission. Decisions will be made by consensus, after careful discussion and analysis of
the data. Meetings will be held as required to ensure timely analysis of data and to ensure
the Report is completed as quickly as practical ...given the need for it to be accurate,
thorough and complete.
%) POLICE SERVICE MODEL(S)
a) Adequate Policing
The research and the Report will profile one or more policing models appropriate to the
Fundy Regional context. The policing model(s) will, in every case, satisfy principles of
adequate policing ...notwithstanding that adequate policing is a somewhat subjective
concept.
b) Policing Models and Police Service Components
Police service costing and service description will be presented in a fashion that allows
consideration of 'All-in Policing' and `Police Service Components' (...a modular or'buffet'
approach.) Costs for the modular approach may differ from the same service components
incorporated into the All -in Policing approach.
c) Data Matrix Structure
To facilitate comparison, results will be presented in a narrative fashion (especially when the
information is subjective /qualitative) and in a data Matrix Structure (especially when the
information is objective /quantitative.)
Page 19
d) Concomitant Provision of Data
Fundy Regional Service Commission partners - and the Saint John Police Force - commit to
provide service model, costing and aggregate service demand data for purposes of this
research and Report. For greater transparency, when data is requested and not provided
the Report will indicate same.
H) RELEASE OF THE COMPLETED REPORT
Recognizing that transparency and public credibility are important values for parties to
this ToR, the parties share a commitment to make the final version of the Report public
...once it is deemed complete, and received and reviewed by the respective authorities.
The completed Report will first be approved by the Saint John Police Commission and then
presented to the Fundy Regional Service Commission so that each board member may then
take information back to their respective communities for review and discussion.
Page 20
th
FAIJ-DiNiffill M.I.
Page 21
INFORMATION GATHERING - REGIONAL POLICING INITIATIVE
1.0 Background
At its meeting on May 27, 2014, the Fundy Regional Service Commission (FRSC) approved the following resolution:
"To have the Executive Director thoroughly investigate the cost to have policing services provided by the SaintJohn
Police Force for the Fundy Regional Services Commission region as a whole as well as individual communities
without incurring additional costs (... for the research and report) and bring a report back to the Board for review."
The initial step in this process is to gather information regarding the current policing services within each of the communities
forming the FRSC. Your assistance in completing the following questionnaire is appreciated.
2.0 Community Information
The responses to the following questions will provide a profile of the community and will allow for an assessment of the
current and projected geographic, demographic and economic factors that may impact the delivery of police services.
No
Profile Component
Response
2.1
What is the total area (square kms) of the community?
How many lane kilometers of roads and streets are in the
2.2
community? How many of these would be considered
rural or secondary roads? How many would be classed as
provincial highways?
What is the population of the community based upon the
2011 census? What was the population in 2006? What is
2.3
the projected population in 2016?
Page 22
No
Profile Component
Response
2.4
What is the current demographic profile of the
community by age group?
2.5
According to the latest census how many households are
in the community? What is the household profile?
What is the composition of the
commercial /industrial /business uses in the community?
2.6
Are there a number of small operations, one large user or
a combination of both? Are they centrally located or
disbursed throughout the community?
3.0 Quality of Life
The definition of 'quality of life' within a community includes the relative sense of safety and security felt by its residents. The
factors that impact quality of life will vary between communities and can range from speeding vehicles to serious criminal
activities.
No
Profile Component
Response
What are the major quality of life issues within your
community that are impacting the sense of safety and
3.1
security for its residents?
Page 23
4.0 Current Policing Service Model
There are a variety of police service models used across North America depending upon the needs and requirements of the
community or jurisdiction. These models can have a number of components that address both the reactive and the proactive
aspects of policing, resulting in reduced calls for service, crime reduction and an enhance sense of public safety.
For example reactive policing can incorporate general patrol and traffic duties, response to emergency and non - emergency
requests for service and associated investigations by specialized units. Proactive policing may incorporate those aspects that
allow for the service provider to be aware of activity and requirements of the community, through partnerships and
relationships (community policing) and through the preparation of strategies to reduce crime.
The purpose of this section is to provide a profile of the current policing service model and associated information within the
community.
No
Profile Component
Response
4.1
What agency currently provides policing services for the
community?
Describe the current police service model- what is
4.2
included? (If possible, please provide an organization
chart)
4.3
How are the services included, delivered?
What is the deployment model for the assigned resources
- number and type of resources, hours available; hours
4.4
on call, etc.?
Page 24
No
Profile Component
Response
4.5
What are the response time /response method
parameters for emergency and non - emergency calls?
4.6
Does the service model include a specific Crime
Reduction Strategy for your community?
4.7
Does the service model include community policing
focused on your community?
4.8
What unique services -i.e. officer in area schools, bike
patrols - are provided?
Does the model include benchmarks for the associated
4.9
deliverables? If so, what are they and how are often are
they reported on?
What have been the calls for services - by type - for the
4.10
years 2011 to 2014?
What level and type of input and /or oversight does your
4.11
community have in the governance of the service
provider?
Page 25
No
Profile Component
Response
What has been the total annual costs paid for the service
each of 2011 to 2014? Are the costs incurred subsidized
4.12
by another level of government? Are there costs incurred
that are paid directly by other parties?
4.13
What are the projected total annual costs of services for
2015 to 2019?
Are there any services - facilities, administration staff,
4.14
etc. that are provided and paid for directly by the
community?
Does the community incur capital costs to support the
4.15
service provider - i.e. borrowed funds for construction of
facilities?
What is the community's experience and satisfaction with
4.16
the policing service model? Are there components or
aspects of the model, that if permitted, the community
would adjust or change?
Page 26
5.0 Other Information
No
Profile Component
Response
5.1
Is there any other information that is felt would be of
assistance in the preparation and /or discussion of an
alternative policing service model and /or police service
provider for your community?
Page 27
REFERENCES
Page 28
Carlyle, P.L. Report to Community Safety Committee, City of Richmond, B.C.: Police Service
Models, November, 2012
Cormier, E.F. A Community of Communities: Local Government Options for the Greater Saint
ohn Area. 1997
Finn, J -G. Building Stronger Local Governments and Regions: An Action Plan for the Future
of Local Governments. Fredericton, N.B. 2008
Grant, A. Policing Arrangements in New Brunswick: 2000 and Beyond, 1992
Ontario Association Chiefs of Police (OACP) A PROCESS GUIDEBOOK FOR THE REVIEW OF
POLICING OPTIONS, 2012
Perivale and Taylor Consulting City of Moncton Policing Services Study Summary, March,
2010
Polzin, M.J. & Wilson, J.M. Police Consolidation: Collaborating with Stakeholders,
Washington, D.C. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2014
Ruddell, R & Jones, N. The Economics of Canadian Policing Five Years into the Great
Recession, Collaborative Centre for Justice and Safety, University of Regina, March 2014
Vancouver Police Department. Options for Service Delivery in Greater Vancouver Region: A
Discussion Paper of the Issues Surrounding the Regionalization of Police Services, 2008
Page 29