Service Costs in New Brunswick Local Service Districts (LSDs) — Text of the Comptroller’s Report May 2008

Last Updat­ed on 2026-04-08

Last Updat­ed on 2026-04-08

The Finn Report (also known as Build­ing Stronger Local Gov­ern­ments and Regions: An Action Plan for the Future of Local Gov­er­nance in New Brunswick) was released in Decem­ber 2008 and con­tained a num­ber of rec­om­men­da­tions regard­ing local gov­er­nance in New Brunswick. The Report was pro­duced by the Local Gov­er­nance Com­mis­sion that had been estab­lished in Sep­tem­ber 2007 by Pre­mier Bernard Lord and was head­ed up by Jean-Guy Finn. The Gra­ham admin­is­tra­tion (which held office when the Report was released) failed to act on the Report but a num­ber of those rec­om­men­da­tions were even­tu­al­ly adopt­ed by the Alward gov­ern­ment in 2011.

With respect to Local Ser­vice Dis­tricts (LSDs), the Finn Report relied heav­i­ly on the find­ings of the 2008 Review of Local Ser­vice Dis­trict costs car­ried out by the Office of the Comp­trol­ler (Review of Provin­cial­ly Pro­vid­ed Ser­vices in Local Ser­vice Dis­tricts May 2008). The main find­ing in the Comp­trol­ler’s Report (which was actu­al­ly an update of a sim­i­lar report done in 2002) was that the costs of ser­vices sup­plied to LSDs by the Province were sig­nif­i­cant­ly greater than rev­enues avail­able from prop­er­ty tax­es col­lect­ed from LSD res­i­dents and busi­ness­es. That is, the analy­sis sug­gests strong­ly that the Province is fund­ing ser­vice deliv­ery in LSDs by using oth­er rev­enue sources  avail­able to it (e.g., income tax rev­enue, or prop­er­ty tax rev­enue from non-LSD res­i­dents), as well as prop­er­ty tax rev­enue col­lect­ed in LSDs.

The reforms put in place in 2011 will result in trans­fer of var­i­ous ser­vice deliv­ery respon­si­bil­i­ties from the Province to Region­al Ser­vice Com­mis­sions and/or local munic­i­pal­i­ties. In oth­er words, many (if not all) of the ‘Provin­cial’ ser­vices deliv­ered to LSDs and rur­al com­mu­ni­ties will, over time, become ‘local’ ser­vices rather than the respon­si­bil­i­ty of the Province. It is hard not to con­clude that a moti­va­tion for these reforms was a desire on the part of the Province to see that these ‘local’ ser­vice costs were paid for by local prop­er­ty tax­es, rather than income and oth­er tax rev­enues. The Comp­trol­ler’s Report is thus impor­tant, as cal­cu­la­tions in the Report appear to sup­port the idea that prop­er­ty tax­es are not cov­er­ing the costs of ser­vice deliv­ery in LSDs. A major source of the short­fall in rev­enue appears to result from the fact that the $0.65 assess­ment (per $100 of prop­er­ty val­ue) for provin­cial­ly-sup­plied ser­vices has not increased for sev­er­al decades.

The Comp­trol­ler’s Report is not avail­able direct­ly from the Gov­ern­ment of New Brunswick web­site. I obtained a copy and have con­vert­ed it into a web doc­u­ment, as shown below. This involved strip­ping away much of the for­mat­ting of the orig­i­nal report, but some re-for­mat­ting has been done to add clar­i­ty. I believe the text and data have been repro­duced accu­rate­ly, but, if any errors are found, please advise me.

[Note — this is the sec­ond post on LSD ser­vice costs and gov­er­nance. I sug­gest read­ing the first post in this series pri­or to this one. Addi­tion­al posts on this top­ic will fol­low.]

 


Review of Provincially Provided Local Services in Local Service Districts

Office of the Comptroller (Audit and Consulting Services, Province of New Brunswick) — May 2008

Exec­u­tive Sum­ma­ry

The Office of the Comp­trol­ler was request­ed by the Com­mis­sion­er on the Future of Local Gov­er­nance to con­duct a review of  provin­cial­ly  pro­vid­ed  ser­vices in unin­cor­po­rat­ed areas (Local Ser­vice Dis­tricts or LSDs).  A sim­i­lar review was com­plet­ed for 2000-01 .

The objec­tives of the review were:

- to deter­mine the cost of provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed local ser­vices such as road main­te­nance and construction/upgrading pro­vid­ed by the Depart­ment of Trans­porta­tion,  RCMP  polic­ing ser­vices  admin­is­tered by the Depart­ment of Pub­lic Safe­ty; and admin­is­tra­tion and dog con­trol ser­vices pro­vid­ed by  the Depart­ment  of Local Gov­ern­ment; and

- to deter­mine the short­fall between the cost of pro­vid­ing these ser­vices and the amount col­lect­ed from the cur­rent spe­cial provin­cial prop­er­ty tax levy of $0.65 per $100 of assess­ment on res­i­den­tial own­er-occu­pied prop­er­ties in LSDs.

Cur­rent­ly, exist­ing finan­cial infor­ma­tion sys­tems and cost­ing method­olo­gies do not cap­ture costs spe­cif­ic to LSDs. As a result, a  num­ber of assump­tions were used to allo­cate total pro­gram costs to LSDs.

The review found that total cost of provin­cial ser­vices pro­vid­ed to LSDs in 2006-07 was :

- $98.7 mil­lion (includ­ing road construction/upgrading costs), an increase of $15.6 mil­lion or 19% from 2000-01. The $15.6 mil­lion increase in cost of provin­cial ser­vices was off­set by a $10.6 mil­lion rise in tax rev­enue.

- $76.1 mil­lion (exclud­ing road construction/upgrading costs), an increase of $7.4 mil­lion or 11% from 2000-01. The $7.4 mil­lion increase in cost of provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed ser­vices was more than off­set by a $10.6 mil­lion rise in tax rev­enue.

Prop­er­ty tax rev­enues from apply­ing the spe­cial provin­cial levy of $0.65 per $100 of assess­ment to res­i­den­tial own­er-occu­pied prop­er­ties in LSDs was $43.3 mil­lion, an increase of $10.6 mil­lion or 32% from 2000-01. The increase in tax rev­enue was attrib­uted to a $1.6 bil­lion increase in the res­i­den­tial own­er-occu­pied tax base for the same peri­od. The spe­cial provin­cial tax levy of $0.65 per $100 did not change and has not increased since 1984.

The short­fall between the cost of provin­cial  ser­vices and prop­er­ty tax rev­enue was :

- $55.4 mil­lion (includ­ing road construction/upgrading costs), an increase of $5.0 mil­lion or 10% from 2000-01 .  The study not­ed  that the Province recov­ered  44% of cost of ser­vices pro­vid­ed to LSDs in 2006-07 . This marked an increase from 39% in 2000-01.

- $32.8 mil­lion (exclud­ing road construction/upgrading costs), a  decrease of $3.2 mil­lion or 9% from  2000-01 . The study  not­ed  that the  Province recov­ered  57% of the cost of ser­vices pro­vid­ed to LSDs in 2006-07. This marked an increase from 48% from 2000-01.

We iden­ti­fied a num­ber of con­sid­er­a­tions based on the prin­ci­ples  of fair­ness and equi­ty as it relates to tax­a­tion at the munic­i­pal and LSD lev­el. Cost of ser­vice rates estab­lished by updat­ed cost­ing mod­els dif­fered from rates cur­rent­ly charged to  munic­i­pal­i­ties.  Also a num­ber of con­sid­er­a­tions were iden­ti­fied  that will require pol­i­cy deci­sions that could have a direct impact in deter­min­ing finan­cial respon­si­bil­i­ty for exist­ing  ser­vices pro­vid­ed to LSDs. It will be up to the province to deter­mine whether spe­cif­ic ser­vices are con­sid­ered a provin­cial ser­vice, and  fund­ed  by  the  province, or should be fund­ed by LSDs.

In the end, the study pro­vides an indi­ca­tion that a sig­nif­i­cant short­fall exists (56% if provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed ser­vices include road construction/upgrading costs or 43% if provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed ser­vices exclude road construction/upgrading costs). The deter­mi­na­tion of the results or the extent of the short­fall are based on the best infor­ma­tion avail­able and the rea­son­able­ness  of the results were dis­cussed  with gov­ern­ment offi­cials. We do cau­tion that the results pre­sent­ed  would like­ly dif­fer if bet­ter  cost­ing infor­ma­tion exist­ed spe­cif­ic to LSDs or gov­ern­ment pol­i­cy deci­sions were made that altered finan­cial respon­si­bil­i­ty  for cur­rent provin­cial ser­vices.

1.0 Intro­duc­tion

In response to a rec­om­men­da­tion of the Task Force on Self-Suf­fi­cien­cy, a com­pre­hen­sive review of local gov­er­nance in the province is being under­tak­en by the recent­ly appoint­ed Com­mis­sion­er on the Future of Local Gov­er­nance. As part of his man­date, the Com­mis­sion­er has been asked to review the cost of provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed local ser­vices in unin­cor­po­rat­ed areas Local Ser­vice Dis­tricts of the Province. At the request of the Com­mis­sion­er, the Office of the Comp­trol­ler (OOC) com­plet­ed this study to deter­mine the cost of ser­vices pro­vid­ed.

There are three main cat­e­gories of ser­vices pro­vid­ed to Local Ser­vice Dis­tricts (LSDs):

- Provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed local ser­vices include trans­porta­tion, police, gen­er­al admin­is­tra­tion and dog con­trol. They are pro­vid­ed direct­ly by the Province. The Depart­ment of Trans­porta­tion (DOT) pro­vides local road con­struc­tion and main­te­nance. The Depart­ment of Pub­lic Safe­ty (PS) arranges for RCMP pro­tec­tion to LSDs and the Depart­ment of Local Gov­ern­ment (LG) pro­vides admin­is­tra­tive ser­vices through its staff in the region­al offices and pays for dog con­trol ser­vices . Provin­cial recov­ery of these local ser­vices is reflect­ed in the cur­rent spe­cial provin­cial prop­er­ty tax levy of $0.65 per $100 of assess­ment on res­i­den­tial own­er-occu­pied prop­er­ties;

- Des­ig­nat­ed ser­vices include land use plan­ning, sol­id waste col­lec­tion and fire pro­tec­tion . These ser­vices are avail­able in all LSDs, the costs for which is recov­ered from all prop­er­ties through a local tax rate. Although library ser­vices are avail­able to res­i­dents of LSDs there is no direct cost recov­ery allot­ted for these ser­vices; and

- Elec­tive ser­vices include street lights, recre­ation and com­mu­ni­ty ser­vices. These ser­vices are avail­able at the request of the LSD and are pro­vid­ed by the Province. The cost of elec­tive ser­vices is recov­ered through the local tax rate.

2.0 Review Objec­tives

The objec­tives of the review were:

- To deter­mine the cost of provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed local ser­vices (i.e. trans­porta­tion, polic­ing, admin­is­tra­tion and dog con­trol) to LSDs; and

- To deter­mine the short­fall between the cost of pro­vid­ing these ser­vices and the amount col­lect­ed under the cur­rent spe­cial provin­cial levy of $0.65 per $100 of assess­ment on res­i­den­tial own-occu­pied prop­er­ties.

(For the pur­pose of this study, unin­cor­po­rat­ed areas of the province include LSDs and LSD com­po­nents of rur­al com­mu­ni­ties. They were col­lec­tive­ly referred to as “Local Ser­vice Dis­tricts”.)

3.0 Approach

The OOC com­plet­ed a sim­i­lar study in 2002 for the 2000-01 fis­cal year in which the pri­ma­ry focus was deter­min­ing the cost of road main­te­nance ser­vices and construction/ upgrad­ing ser­vices pro­vid­ed by DOT and polic­ing (RCMP) ser­vices admin­is­tered by Pub­lic Safe­ty (PS). The approach of the cur­rent study was to pro­vide updat­ed cost­ing infor­ma­tion to the Com­mis­sion­er for these provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed local ser­vices.

In gen­er­al, the cost­ing mod­els used in the 2002 study were updat­ed with finan­cial infor­ma­tion from the fis­cal year 2006/07. When we ini­ti­at­ed our review this was the last fis­cal year with com­plete finan­cial infor­ma­tion avail­able. How­ev­er for some com­po­nents of the DOT trans­porta­tion mod­els, mul­ti-year finan­cial infor­ma­tion was used.

We inter­viewed man­age­ment and staff in PS, DOT, Finance, Ser­vice New Brunswick and LG. We obtained doc­u­men­ta­tion from DOT and PS on the cost­ing mod­els used for their respec­tive ser­vices, road main­te­nance and polic­ing. We obtained the nec­es­sary finan­cial infom1ation to update the cost­ing mod­els from PS and DOT. Infor­ma­tion was also obtained cen­tral­ly from Ora­cle FIS to update the cost­ing mod­els. We reviewed the finan­cial infor­ma­tion and key assump­tions used in the cost­ing mod­els with man­age­ment and staff from PS and DOT and made adjust­ments as required. Lines of inquiry are iden­ti­fied in Appen­dix I.

The RCMP pro­vid­ed finan­cial infor­ma­tion which was used in our analy­sis.

Key find­ings were dis­cussed with DOT, Finance and PS offi­cials and feed­back was obtained pri­or to release of this report.

3.1 Review Lim­i­ta­tions

Over­all costs for DOT’s main­te­nance and construction/upgrading pro­grams, and PS’s RCMP polic­ing ser­vices were avail­able. How­ev­er, these costs were not cap­tured at the LSD lev­el. There were no sys­tems or method­olo­gies in place to iden­ti­fy costs at the LSD lev­el. As a result, we allo­cat­ed a por­tion of the over­all cost to LSDs based on a num­ber of assump­tions. More for­mal­ized cost­ing systems/methodologies would be required to deter­mine costs for LSD tax­a­tion pur­pos­es.

Our review focused on the cost of provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed local ser­vices based on the exist­ing lev­el of ser­vices cur­rent­ly pro­vid­ed to LSDs. It was beyond the scope of our review to assess the ade­qua­cy of these ser­vices or deter­mine if these ser­vices var­ied sub­stan­tial­ly from those pro­vid­ed to munic­i­pal­i­ties.

4.0 Con­clu­sion

We deter­mined that the cost of provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed local ser­vices (i.e. trans­porta­tion, polic­ing, admin­is­tra­tion and dog con­trol) to LSDs was:

- $98.7 mil­lion (includ­ing road construction/upgrading costs) as shown in Fig­ure 4.1. The over­all cost of provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed local ser­vices increased by $15.6 mil­lion or 19% from 2000-01 . This was most­ly attrib­ut­able to the increase in costs relat­ed to DOT’s construction/upgrading activ­i­ties and to PS’s polic­ing ser­vices activ­i­ties.

- $76.1 mil­lion (exclud­ing road constructjon/upgrading costs) as shown in Fig­ure 4.2. The over­all cost of provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed local ser­vices increased by $7.4 mil­lion or 11% from 2000-01. This was most­ly attrib­ut­able to the increase in costs relat­ed to PS’s polic­ing ser­vices activ­i­ties.

We deter­mined prop­er­ty tax rev­enues col­lect­ed by apply­ing the spe­cial provin­cial levy of $0.65 per $100 of assess­ment to res­i­den­tial own­er-occu­pied prop­er­ties in LSDs was $43.3 mil­lion as shown in Fig­ure 4.1 and Fig­ure 4.2. This was an increase of $10.6 mil­lion or 32% from 2000-01. The increase in tax rev­enue was attrib­uted to a $1.6 bil­lion increase in the res­i­den­tial own­er-occu­pied tax base for the same peri­od. The spe­cial provin­cial tax levy of $0.65 per $100 did not change and has not increased since 1984.

We deter­mined the short­fall between the cost for provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed local ser­vices and prop­er­ty tax rev­enue of $43.3 mil­lion was:

- $55.4 mil­lion (includ­ing road construction/upgrading costs) as shown in Fig­ure 4.1. The over­all increase in the short­fall from 2000-01 was $5.0 mil­lion, even though costs increased by $15.6 mil­lion for the same time peri­od. The rise in costs was off­set by an increase in tax rev­enue of $10.6 mil­lion. Our study indi­cates that the province is recov­er­ing 44% of the cost of pro­vid­ing ser­vices to LSDs. This marks an increase from 39% iden­ti­fied in a sim­i­lar study com­plet­ed in 2002.

- $32.8 mil­lion (exclud­ing road construction/upgrading costs) as shown in Fig­ure 4.2. The over­all decrease in the short­fall from 2000–0l was $3.2 mil­lion, even though costs had increased by $7.4 mil­lion for the same time peri­od. The rise in costs was more than off­set by the increase in tax rev­enue of $10.6 mil­lion. Our study indi­cates that the province is recov­er­ing 57% of the cost of pro­vid­ing ser­vices to LSDs. This marks an increase from 48% iden­ti­fied in a sim­i­lar study com­plet­ed in 2002.

Fig­ure 4.1: Sum­ma­ry of Over­all Cost (Includ­ing Construction/Upgrading)/Shortfall Relat­ed to Provin­cial­ly Pro­vid­ed Local Ser­vices in LSDs.

 

2006-07

 

2000-01

 

Increase

 
 

$ mil­lions

% of total

cost

$ mil­lions

% of total

cost

$ mil­lions

% Increase

TOTAL COST

$98.7

$83.1

$15.6

 
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE

$43.3

44%

$32.7

39%

$10.6

32%

SHORTFALL

$55.4

56%

$50.4

61%

$5.0

10%

(Note 1 — Com­par­a­tive fig­ures for 2000-01 obtained from Review of the Pro­vi­sion of Gov­ern­ment Ser­vices to Local Ser­vice Dis­tricts and Prop­er­ty Tax­a­tion Lev­els, Octo­ber 2002,Office of the Comp­trol­ler. 2000-01 Total Cost fig­ure was reduced by $4.3 mil­lion (refer to Fig­ure 5.1.1))

Fig­ure 4.2: Sum­ma­ry of Over­all Cost (Exclud­ing Construction/Upgrading)/Shortfall Relat­ed to Provin­cial­ly Pro­vid­ed Local Ser­vices in LSDs

 

2006-07

 

2000-01

 

Increase/

(Decrease)

 
 

$ mil­lions

% of total

cost

$ mil­lions

% of total

cost

$ mil­lions

% Increase/

Decrease

TOTAL COST

$76.1

$68.7

$7.4

PROPERTY TAX REVENUE

$43.3

57%

$32.7

32.7%

$10.6

32%

SHORTFALL

$32.8

43%

$36.0

52%

($3.2)

-9%

(Note 2 — Com­par­a­tive fig­ures for 2000-01 obtained from Review of the Pro­vi­sion of Gov­ern­ment Ser­vices to Local Ser­vice Dis­tricts and Prop­er­ty Tax­a­tion Lev­els, Octo­ber 2002,Office of the Comp­trol­ler. 2000-01 Total Cost fig­ure was reduced by $1.6 mil­lion (refer to Fig­ure 5.1.2)
5.0 Find­ings

5.1 Cost of Provin­cial­ly Pro­vid­ed Local Ser­vices

In terms of our first objec­tive, we deter­mined that the cost of provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed local servjces (i.e. trans­porta­tion, polic­ing, admin­is­tra­tion and dog con­trol) to LSDs was:

- $98.7 mil­lion (includ­ing road construction/upgrading costs. The over­all cost of provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed local ser­vices has increased $15.6 mil­lion from 2000-01 , which rep­re­sents an increase of 19% (Fig­ure 5.1.1). The break­down between the var­i­ous cost com­po­nents is detailed in Fig­ure 5.1.1.

- $76.1 mil­lion (exclud­ing road construction/upgrading costs). The over­all cost of provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed local ser­vices has increased $7.4 mil­lion from 2000-01, which rep­re­sents an increase of 11% (Fig­ure 5.1.2). The break­down between the var­i­ous cost com­po­nents is detailed in Fig­ure 5.1.2.

Road construction/upgrading had the largest increase in costs of 57%. This is reflec­tive of the sig­nif­i­cant increase in over­all costs in the Per­ma­nent High­way Pro­gram and Rur­al Road Ini­tia­tive intro­duced in 2005-06. The 3 year aver­age of costs from 2000-01 to 2002-03 was $50.6 mil­lion. The 5 year aver­age of costs for the sub­se­quent peri­od 2003-04 to 2007-08 has increased to $69.8 mil­lion.

Polic­ing ser­vices costs have increased by 37% since 2000-01. This is reflec­tive of annu­al salary adjust­ments made to the RCMP con­tract, along with increas­es in RCMP resources since 2000-01.

Road main­te­nance costs have not changed sig­nif­i­cant­ly since 2000-01. The over­all cost for sum­mer and win­ter main­te­nance have been rel­a­tive­ly sta­ble from 2000-01 to 2006-07, rang­ing from $82 mil­lion to $84.5 mil­lion with the excep­tion of 2002-03 which was $90.4 mil­lion.

Admin­is­tra­tion and dog con­trol costs have not increased sig­nif­i­cant­ly from 2000-01. The num­ber of LG region­al offices has been reduced by 3 since 2000-01, which would have off­set any increas­es in salary and over­head costs for the same time peri­od.

Each cost com­po­nent will be addressed in detail in the fol­low­ing sec­tions.

Fig­ure 5.1.1 Com­par­i­son of Cost of Provin­cial­ly Pro­vid­ed Local Ser­vices (Includ­ing Road Construction/Upgrading) in LSDs (2006–07 and 2000-01).

 

2006-07

 

2000-01

 

Increase/

(Decrease)

% Increase/

Decrease

 

$ mil­lions

 

$ mil­lions

 

$ mil­lions

 
Dept. of Trans­porta­tion    

Road Main­te­nance

$45.4

 

$46.1

 

($0.7)

-1%

Construction/Upgrading

$22.6

 

$14.4

 

$8.2

57%

Total

$68.0

 

$60.5

 

$7.5

12%

       
Dept. of Pub­lic Safe­ty      

Polic­ing Ser­vices

$29.1

 

$21.3

 

$7.5

37%

       
Dept. of Local Gov­ern­ment      

Admin­is­tra­tion

$1.2

 

$1.1

 

$0.1

9%

Dog Con­trol

$0.4

 

$0.2

 

$0.2

100%

Total

$1.6

 

$1.3

 

$0.3

23%

       

TOTAL

$98.7

 

$83.1

 

$15.6

19%

1. Com­par­a­tive fig­ures for. 2000-01 obtained from Review of the Pro­vi­sion of Gov­ern­ment Ser­vices to Local Ser­vice Dis­tricts and Prop­er­ty Tax­a­tion Lev­els, Octo­ber 2002,Office of the Comp­trol­ler
2. Com­par­a­tive fig­ure for 2000-01 was reduced by $1.6 mil­lion to reflect change made in 2006- 07 mod­el (i.e. to apply a fac­tor of 1.5 to the cost per km for pri­ma­ry (region­al) local as com­pared to oth­er local high­ways).
3. Com­par­a­tive fig­ure for 2000-01 was reduced by $2.7 mil­lion to reflect change made in 2006-07 mod­el (i.e. to reflect change in allo­ca­tion of costs between pri­ma­ry (region­al) local and oth­er local high­ways from 17/83 to 30/70 split).

Fig­ure 5.1.2 Com­par­i­son of Cost of Provin­cial­ly Pro­vid­ed Local Ser­vices (Exclud­ing Road Construction/Upgrading) in LSDs (2006–07 and 2000-01).

 

2006-07

 

2000-01

 

Increase/

(Decrease)

% Increase/

Decrease

 

$ mil­lions

 

$ mil­lions

 

$ mil­lions

 
Dept. of Trans­porta­tion    

Road Main­te­nance

$45.4

 

$46.1

 

($0.7)

-1%

       
Dept. of Pub­lic Safe­ty      

Polic­ing Ser­vices

$29.1

 

$21.3

 

$7.5

37%

       
Dept. of Local Gov­ern­ment      

Admin­is­tra­tion

$1.2

 

$1.1

 

$0.1

9%

Dog Con­trol

$0.4

 

$0.2

 

$0.2

100%

Total

$1.6

 

$1.3

 

$0.3

23%

       

TOTAL

$76.1

 

$68.7

 

$7.4

11%

1. Com­par­a­tive fig­ures for 2000-01 obtained from Review of the Pro­vi­sion of Gov­ern­ment Ser­vices to Local Ser­vice Dis­tricts and Prop­er­ty Tax­a­tion Lev­els, Octo­ber 2002,- Office of the Comp­trol­ler.
2 Com­par­a­tive fig­ure for 2000-01 was reduced by $1.6 mil­lion to reflect change made in 2006-07 mod­el (i.e. to apply a fac­tor of 1.5 to the cost per km for pri­ma­ry (region­al) local as com­pared to oth­er local high­ways).

5.1.1 Depart­ment of Trans­porta­tion Costs

Road Main­te­nance

Gen­er­al

In car­ry­ing out our review, we referred to a sim­i­lar study com­plet­ed in 2002. As part of the 2002 study, the cost­ing mod­el pre­pared by DOT for Main­te­nance Costs Out­side Munic­i­pal­i­ties for the fis­cal year 1997/98 was used. This was the last year in which the mod­el had been updat­ed by DOT.

The mod­el allo­cat­ed the cost of road main­te­nance to three clas­si­fi­ca­tions of provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed high­ways: arte­r­i­al, col­lec­tor and local. For the pur­pose of this review, we focused on costs of road main­te­nance relat­ed to provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed local high­ways. The mod­el was updat­ed joint­ly by the OOC and DOT for the 2002 study. DOT has not updat­ed the mod­el since the 2002 study was com­plet­ed.

We reviewed the 2002 cost­ing mod­el and key assump­tions with man­age­ment and staff from DOT. The mod­el was updat­ed for the fis­cal year 2006-07 with finan­cial infor­ma­tion obtained from Ora­cle FIS (FIS) and DOT’s Online FIS report­ing sys­tem (OFIS) for sum­mer main­te­nance costs and over­heads.

For win­ter main­te­nance costs, the 2002 mod­el was updat­ed using a three-year aver­age (rep­re­sent­ed by fis­cal years 2004/05, 2005106 and 2006/07) of actu­al costs to reflect the fluc­tu­a­tion in win­ter main­te­nance costs due to win­ter con­di­tions that can vary sig­nif­i­cant­ly from year to year.

Cost of Road Main­te­nance in LSDs

We were unable to deter­mine the cost of road main­te­nance in indi­vid­ual LSDs. DOT does not track road main­te­nance costs at that lev­el of detail. Since road main­te­nance costs were not avail­able for indi­vid­ual LSDs, we used the cost­ing mod­el to devel­op a per km rate to apply to high­way kilo­me­tres in LSDs.

For the pur­pose of this review, we applied the same basic fund­ing prin­ci­ple that cur­rent­ly exists between DOT and the munic­i­pal­i­ties to allo­cate road main­te­nance costs to LSDs.

For provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed high­ways with­in munic­i­pal­i­ties that are clas­si­fied as arte­r­i­al and col­lec­tor, DOT is respon­si­ble for fund­ing all sum­mer and win­ter road main­te­nance costs. As a result, for the pur­pose of our study, we have not includ­ed the cost of main­te­nance of provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed arte­r­i­al and col­lec­tor high­ways in LSDs.

For provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed local high­ways with­in munic­i­pal­i­ties, which are des­ig­nat­ed as “region­al’ in nature, DOT shares the cost with munic­i­pal­i­ties based on 50% of the pre-set per kilo­me­tre rate. This clas­si­fi­ca­tion does not cur­rent­ly exist for LSDs. We looked to the Fian­der-Good Study (refer to the dis­cus­sion below) to approx­i­mate pri­ma­ry local “region­al” high­way kilo­me­tres in LSDs. We applied the per­cent­age (17%) of pri­ma­ry local “region­al” high­way kilo­me­tres estab­lished by the Fian­der-Good study to cur­rent local high­way kilo­me­tres. As a result, we iden­ti­fied 2,050 kms of pri­ma­ry local “region­al” high­ways in LSDs.

For road­ways that are con­sid­ered munic­i­pal in nature, the munic­i­pal­i­ty is respon­si­ble for fund­ing road main­te­nance. This munic­i­pal clas­si­fi­ca­tion does not cur­rent­ly exist in LSDs . We looked to the Fian­der-Good Study to approx­i­mate “munic­i­pal” street kilo­me­tres in LSDs . We applied the per­cent­age (83%) of oth­er local high­way kilo­me­tres estab­lished by the Fian­der-Good study to cur­rent local high­way kilo­me­tres. As a result we iden­ti­fied 10,251 kms of oth­er local high­ways in LSDs. We assumed that Fian­der-Good clas­si­fi­ca­tion of oth­er local high­ways in LSDs is sim­i­lar in nature to a munic­i­pal street.

_______________________________________________________________
Fian­der-Good Study

In 1994, Fian­der-Good Asso­ciates Ltd. was request­ed by DOT to com­plete a study to review and estab­lish cri­te­ria to devel­op a func­tion­al clas­si­fi­ca­tion sys­tem of the provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed high­way sys­tem. The study exam­ined the exist­ing sys­tem and pro­posed a revised clas­si­fi­ca­tion of arte­r­i­al col­lec­tor and local high­ways. The study result­ed minor changes in arte­r­i­al and col­lec­tor high­way clas­si­fi­ca­tions.

The study fur­ther broke down provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed local high­ways by their func­tion­al­i­ty into two sub­cat­e­gories:

- pri­ma­ry local “region­al” high­ways which were still part of the inte­grat­ed provin­cial high­way sys­tem, and
- oth­er local high­ways which essen­tial­ly pro­vid­ed trans­porta­tion ser­vices for a local area and were not used exten­sive­ly as col­lec­tors to the provin­cial sys­tem.

DOT imple­ment­ed the new clas­si­fi­ca­tion sys­tem for cities and towns. This result­ed in these munic­i­pal­i­ties tak­ing over the main­te­nance for oth­er local road­ways now con­sid­ered munic­i­pal streets. The study rec­om­men­da­tions were not imple­ment­ed for vil­lages.
_______________________________________________________________

The total cost was allo­cat­ed among the two clas­si­fi­ca­tions of provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed local high­ways in LSD’s: pri­ma­ry “region­al” local and oth­er local high­ways. It was deter­mined through dis­cus­sions with DOT that the main­te­nance cost per kilo­me­tre for pri­ma­ry “region­al” local high­ways would be approx­i­mate­ly 50% high­er than for oth­er local high­ways. DOT indi­cat­ed that pri­ma­ry local “region­al” high­ways receive a high­er lev­el of ser­vice than oth­er local high­ways. This results in a com­bined rate (both sum­mer and win­ter main­te­nance) of $5,780 per kilo­me­tre for pri­ma­ry local “region­al” high­ways and $3,854 per kilo­me­tre for oth­er local high­ways as shown in fig­ure 5.1.3. The aver­age per kilo­me­tre rate for local­ly des­ig­nat­ed high­ways is $4,175.

The total cost (includes summer/winter main­te­nance, traf­fic engi­neer­ing, and allo­ca­tion of dis­trict admin­is­tra­tion, build­ing main­te­nance and DOT over­head) for provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed high­ways was $88.9 mil­lion (includ­ing arte­r­i­al, col­lec­tor and local high­ways). The por­tion of that cost allo­cat­ed (based on the updat­ed mod­el) to provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed local high­ways in LSDs was $51.3 mil­lion. Once we applied cost shar­ing ratios sim­i­lar to munic­i­pal­i­ties, the LSD’s por­tion of road main­te­nance cost was $45.4 mil­lion as shown in Fig­ure 5.1.3.

Fig­ure 5.1.3; Road Main­te­nance Cost for Local­ly Des­ig­nat­ed High­ways in LSDs

Local High­ways

Kms

Weight

Cost per Km

Total Cost (Mil­lions)

Cost Shar­ing Ratio

LSD Por­tion (Mil­lions)

Pri­ma­ry Local

      

“Region­al”

2,050

1.5

$5,780

$11.8

50/50 PNB/LSD

$5.9

Oth­er Local

10,251

1

$3,854

$39.5

100% LSD

$39.5

       

TOTAL

12,301

 

$4,175

$51.3

 

$45.4

Notes:
1. Kilo­me­tres were obtained from DOT’s Asset Man­age­ment Sys­tem. We applied the ratio of 17/83 estab­lished in the Fian­der-Good Study to allo­cate local high­ways to Pri­ma­ry Local (Region­al) and Oth­er Local.
2. The cost per kilo­me­tre rep­re­sents a com­bined annu­al­ized rate. It was derived from the total main­te­nance costs (sum­mer and win­ter main­te­nance and addi­tion­al allo­cat­ed amounts) divid­ed by the total num­ber of DOT main­te­nance kilo­me­tres .

Cost per km has been adjust­ed to reflect the fol­low­ing:
• Over­all road main­te­nance costs were increased by $3 .8 mil­lion to include Head Office overhead,(payroll bur­den, CPP, super­an­nu­a­tion, IT sup­port and rental costs).
• Over­all road main­te­nance costs were reduced by $1.2 mil­lion to reflect the cost of vil­lage roads main­tained by DOT and charged back to the vil­lages. These costs were includ­ed in the reg­u­lar main­te­nance tasks and rev­enue record­ed for the recov­ery from the munic­i­pal­i­ties.

Road Construction/Upgrading

Gen­er­al

As a start­ing point we referred to the OOC 2002 study. In 2002, the OOC com­piled finan­cial infor­ma­tion pro­vid­ed by DOT to pre­pare a cost­ing mod­el, because one did not exist for construction/ upgrad­ing.

We reviewed the 2002 mod­el and key assump­tions with man­age­ment and staff from DOT. The 2002 mod­el was updat­ed witb finan­cial infor­ma­tion obtained from FIS and OFIS . For the updat­ed 2006/07 mod­el, a 5‑year aver­age was uti­lized to reduce the impact of sig­nif­i­cant fluc­tu­a­tions in expen­di­ture lev­els from year to year. We have cal­cu­lat­ed cap­i­tal costs based on actu­al costs for the fis­cal years 2003/04 to 2006-07 and bud­get­ed costs for 2007/08.

The over­all actu­al cost (exclud­ing Munic­i­pal Des­ig­nat­ed High­way Pro­gram 1) for road construction/upgrading for all 3 clas­si­fi­ca­tions of provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed high­ways were as fol­lows:

- 2003–2004: $53.0 mil­lion,
- 2004–2005: $67.4 mil­lion}
- 2005–2006: $83.1 mil­lion,
- 2006–2007: $86.2 mil­lion, and
- 2007–2008 (bud­get­ed): $59.5 mil­lion.

We allo­cat­ed the cost of construction/upgrading to the three clas­si­fi­ca­tions of provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed high­ways: arte­r­i­al, col­lec­tor and local. For the pur­pose of this review, we focused on costs relat­ed to provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed
local high­ways in LSDs.

We did not include the cost of the Per­ma­nent Bridge pro­gram in our construction/upgrading costs. DOT cur­rent­ly funds the construction/ upgrad­ing of these struc­tures, includ­ing those locat­ed in munic­i­pal­i­ties.

Cost of Construction/Upgrading Provin­cial­ly Des­ig­nat­ed High­ways in LSDs

We were unable to deter­mine the cost of road construction/upgrading in indi­vid­ual LSDs. DOT does not track its cap­i­tal costs at that lev­el of detail. As a result, we adopt­ed a provin­cial approach in apply­ing the cost of cap­i­tal expen­di­tures and iden­ti­fied the total road construction/upgrading costs relat­ed to provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed local high­ways locat­ed in LSDs.

For the pur­pose of this review, we applied the same basic fund­ing prin­ci­ple that cur­rent­ly exists between DOT and munic­i­pal­i­ties to deter­mine road construction/upgrading costs in LSDs. For all provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed high­ways with­in munic­i­pal­i­ties, DOT is gen­er­al­ly respon­si­ble for fund­ing construction/upgrading. For construction/upgrading of road­ways that are con­sid­ered munic­i­pal in nature, the munic­i­pal­i­ty is respon­si­ble for fund­ing.

In deter­min­ing road construction/upgrading costs in LSDs we have exclud­ed the cost of arte­r­i­al and col­lec­tor high­ways. Based on the munic­i­pal mod­el, DOT is respon­si­ble for fund­ing construction/ upgrad­ing on these road­ways.

For provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed local high­ways with­in LSDs that are not con­sid­ered pri­ma­ry local “region­al” in nature (i.e. oth­er local), we have assigned the fund­ing respon­si­bil­i­ty for construction/upgrading to LSDs in deter­min­ing the over­all cost. As men­tioned under Road Main­te­nance, this assumes that the provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed high­ways iden­ti­fied in the Fian­der-Good study as oth­er local high­ways are sim­i­lar in nature to a munic­i­pal street.

In deter­min­ing road construction/upgrading costs in LSDs, we had to allo­cate the cost of provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed local high­ways in LSDs between the pri­ma­ry “region­al” local and oth­er local clas­si­fi­ca­tion. Based on dis­cus­sions with DOT, pri­ma­ry “region­al” locals would account for approx­i­mate­ly 30% of the total construction/upgrading costs of local high­ways with­in LSD’s. Although pri­ma­ry “region­al” local high­ways rep­re­sent only 17% of the total kilo­me­tres, their pro­por­tion­ate­ly high­er allo­ca­tion is due to their region­al func­tion and high­er traf­fic vol­umes. The remain­ing 70% of cost is allo­cat­ed to oth­er locals high­ways as seen in fig­ure 5.1.4.

The 5‑year aver­age of cap­i­tal costs for construction/upgrading of provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed high­ways with­in LSDs was $69.8 mil­lion (includ­ing arte­r­i­al, col­lec­tor and local high­ways). Once we applied cost shar­ing ratios sim­i­lar to munic­i­pal­i­ties, the 5‑year aver­age cost relat­ed to oth­er local provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed high­ways in LSDs was $22.6 mil­lion as shown in Fig­ure 5.1.4.

Fig­ure 5.1.4: Cap­i­tal Costs for Local­ly Des­ig­nat­ed High­ways in LSDs

Local High­ways

% Break­down of Local High­way

Road Con­struc­tion / Upgrad­ing Costs (Mil­lions)

Cost Shar­ing Ratio

LSD Por­tion (Mil­lions)

Pri­ma­ry Local

    

“Region­al”

30%

$9.7

100% PNB

-

Oth­er Local

70%

$22.6

100% LSD

$22.6

     

TOTAL

100%

$32.3

 

$22.6

Cap­i­tal costs have been increased to reflect the fol­low­ing:
- Over­head of $0.5 mil­lion relat­ing to pay­roll bur­den, CPP, super­an­nu­a­tion
- Over­head of $0.1 mil­lion relat­ing to High­way Con­struc­tion ordi­nary account
- Over­head of $0.4 mil­lion relat­ing to Dis­trict Admin­is­tra­tion

Oth­er Con­sid­er­a­tions

Costs relat­ed to provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed local high­ways in LSDs for road main­te­nance and road construction/upgrading could be affect­ed by the fol­low­ing cir­cum­stances.

All finan­cial infor­ma­tion used to update the mode] was based on actu­al or bud­get­ed costs. The deter­mi­na­tion of whether actu­al costs were ade­quate to main­tain the provin­cial high­way sys­tem was beyond the scope of this report.

The finan­cial data used in the analy­ses does not dif­fer­en­ti­ate between fixed costs, step-vari­able costs and vari­able costs. Con­sid­er­a­tion would have to be giv­en to the exis­tence of fixed costs pri­or to any bud­getary deci­sions being tak­en.

The cur­rent clas­si­fi­ca­tion of provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed high­ways in LSDs used in this study is not based on the func­tion­al­i­ty of the road­way. We used the Fian­der-Good study results to approx­i­mate “region­al” and “munic­i­pal” kilo­me­tres in LSDs. Our cal­cu­la­tions were based on this study com­plet­ed over 10 years ago and which has not been updat­ed . There have been sig­nif­i­cant changes made to the nation­al high­way sys­tem in that time peri­od. If a sim­i­lar study was com­plet­ed today, the func­tion­al clas­si­fi­ca­tion results may dif­fer.

The Fian­der-Good study iden­ti­fied cri­te­ria for pri­ma­ry local “region­al” high­ways. The remain­ing provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed local high­ways were clas­si­fied as “oth­er local”. It was not­ed after the com­ple­tion of the study that fur­ther work would be required to sub­di­vide oth­er local road­ways into cat­e­gories which would define their func­tion at a local and region­al lev­el (i.e. iden­ti­fy­ing munic­i­pal type streets in LSDs) and to deter­mine finan­cial respon­si­bil­i­ty.

Munic­i­pal­i­ties may choose to con­tract out to DOT to per­form main­te­nance on some munic­i­pal roads . Sim­i­lar­ly, some munic­i­pal­i­ties will per­form main­te­nance on provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed high­ways with­in their bound­aries and are reim­bursed by DOT. The cur­rent rate charged (or col­lect­ed) by DOT to per­form (sub­con­tract) the main­te­nance is $2,540 per lane kilo­me­tre or $5,080 per kilo­me­tre, assum­ing an aver­age of 2 lanes. DOT uses the same rate regard­less if it is an arte­r­i­al, col­lec­tor or local high­way. This rate dif­fers from the rates estab­lished in the cost­ing mod­el.

The Fian­der-Good Study iden­ti­fied provin­cial­ly des­ig­nat­ed high­ways with­in munic­i­pal­i­ties that should be con­sid­ered munic­i­pal streets. The province imple­ment­ed the study rec­om­men­da­tions for all munic­i­pal­i­ties except vil­lages.

5.1.2 Pub­lic Safe­ty Costs

Gen­er­al

The Depart­ment of Pub­lic Safe­ty entered into a twen­ty year agree­ment, referred to as the “Provin­cial Police Ser­vice Agree­ment’ (PPSA) with the RCMP in 1992 to pro­vide polic­ing ser­vices with­in New Brunswick. Polic­ing ser­vices pro­vid­ed under the PPSA are cost shared with the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment with the province being respon­si­ble for 70% of the costs.

RCMP ser­vices are pro­vid­ed to 58 small munic­i­pal­i­ties (pop­u­la­tions under 5,000 and referred to as the “umbrel­la agree­ment”) and 269 LSDs . In addi­tion, there are 19 munic­i­pal­i­ties with extend­ed agree­ments, and 10 First Nations cov­ered under the PPSA.

There are 11 munic­i­pal­i­ties and the Codi­ac Region, which have direct con­tracts with the RCMP under the Munic­i­pal Polic­ing Agree­ment (MPA). An addi­tion­al four First Nations com­mu­ni­ties are policed by the RCMP under the First Nations Com­mu­ni­ty Polic­ing Fed­er­al Agree­ment (FNCP).

As part of the 2002 study, we obtained the cost­ing mod­el orig­i­nal­ly pre­pared by PS in 1993 to deter­mine the per capi­ta rate charged to small munic­i­pal­i­ties who received ser­vices under the PPSA. The orig­i­nal cost­ing mod­el includ­ed the total costs of the RCMP con­tract under the PPSA (exclud­ing extend­ed agree­ments) with adjust­ments made for rev­enues gen­er­at­ed from enforce­ment activ­i­ties, and provin­cial por­tion of RCMP ser­vices. The mod­el for the 2002 study was updat­ed joint­ly by the OOC and Pub­lic Safe­ty (PS).

The mod­el allo­cat­ed the cost of polic­ing ser­vices based on the pro­por­tion of the pop­u­la­tion of the small munic­i­pal­i­ties to the total pop­u­la­tion being served under the umbrel­la con­tract, which also includ­ed LSDs. For the pur­pose of this review, we were inter­est­ed in the cost of polic­ing ser­vices relat­ed to LSDs.

We reviewed the 2002 cost­ing mod­el and key assump­tions with man­age­ment and staff from PS. We also obtained back­ground infor­ma­tion from the RCMP to assess the key assump­tions and update the cost­ing mod­el. The mod­el was updat­ed with finan­cial infor­ma­tion obtained from FIS for the fis­cal year 2006-07, as well as with finan­cial infor­ma­tion obtained from the RCMP.

There were no over­head costs allo­cat­ed from PS. PS is not involved in the direct deliv­ery of polic­ing ser­vices, unlike DOT who is direct­ly respon­si­ble for pro­vid­ing sum­mer and win­ter main­te­nance . The over­head cost attached to PS would be insignif­i­cant to over­all polic­ing ser­vices costs.

Cost of Polic­ing Ser­vices in LSDs

We were unable to deter­mine the actu­al cos1 of polic­ing ser­vices in indi­vid­ual LSDs. PS and the RCMP do not track its polic­ing ser­vices costs at that lev­el of detail. Since polic­ing ser­vices costs were not avail­able for indi­vid­ual LSDs, we adopt­ed a provin­cial approach in apply­ing the cost­ing mod­el and iden­ti­fied the over­all cost of pro­vid­ing polic­ing ser­vices to the pop­u­la­tion ser­viced under the PPSA (exclud­ing munic­i­pal­i­ties with extend­ed con­tracts and First Nations com­mu­ni­ties). We then pro­rat­ed the cost of ser­vices between small munic­i­pal­i­ties and LSDs.

As shown in Fig­ure 5.1.5, based on the updat­ed cost­ing mod­el, the total cost of pro­vid­ing polic­ing ser­vices to LSDs was $29.1 mil­lion.

Fig­ure 5.1.5: Pub­lic Safe­ty: RCMP Polic­ing Ser­vices Costs in LSDs

 

$ (Mil­lions)

$ (Mil­lions)

 

Total

Allo­cat­ed

   

Total Provin­cial Por­tion (70%) of RCMP Polic­ing Ser­vices for FY 2006-07

$57.4

$47.8

   

Break­down

  

RCMP Detach­ment Polic­ing

$38.7

$38.7

   

Allo­ca­tion to Detach­ment Polic­ing for:

  

High­way Patrol

$6.7

$2.4

Sup­port Ser­vices

$7.1

$4.4

Tele­com and CROPS Sup­port

$4.9

$2.3

Total Allo­ca­tion to Detach­ment Polic­ing

$18.7

$47.8

   

Total before adjust­ments

$57.4

$47.8

   

Adjust­ments

  

Extend­ed Con­tract Billings

 

($9.4)

Rev­enues

 

($2.1)

First Nations Polic­ing

 

($1.3)

  

($12.8)

Total Cost of RCMP Polic­ing Ser­vices (Small Munic­i­pal­i­ties and LSDs)

 

$35.0

   

Pop­u­la­tion (Small Munic­i­pal­i­ties and LSDs)

 

324,654

RCMP Costs Per Capi­ta

 

$108

LSD Pop­u­la­tion

 

270,067

   

LSD Polic­ing Costs (Mil­lions)

 

$29.1

1 High­way Patrol (HP) costs are con­sid­ered provin­cial in nature, in that they are respon­si­ble for patrolling the Nation­al High­way Sys­tem in NB. How­ev­er, based on infor­ma­tion pro­vid­ed by the RCMP, it was rec­og­nized that the HP also sup­ports detach­ment polic­ing. We esti­mat­ed approx­i­mate­ly 1/3 of the HP resources were used to sup­ple­ment detach­ment polic­ing.
2 Sup­port Ser­vices (Dog Sec­tion, Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Oper­a­tions , Major Crime Unit, Traf­fic Ser­vices and Crime Stop­pers) have com­po­nents that sup­port detach­ment polic­ing as well as a provin­cial com­po­nent. Based on the indi­vid­ual ser­vices involved, a por­tion of the resources were allo­cat­ed to detach­ment polic­ing.
3 Tele­com and CROPS (Crim­i­nal Oper­a­tions) sup­port costs have been allo­cat­ed based on the num­ber of reg­u­lar mem­bers in each ser­vice area.
4 Munic­i­pal­i­ties that have extend­ed con­tracts are billed based on an annu­al per offi­cer rate of $94,700 (aver­age rate for 2006-07).
5 Par­tic­i­pat­ing munic­i­pal­i­ties share rev­enues gen­er­at­ed from court and vol­un­tary fines. An adjust­ment was made to reflect an esti­mate of rev­enues that would be gen­er­at­ed if small munic­i­pal­i­ties and LSDs were par­tic­i­pat­ing in the rev­enue shar­ing.
6 Four out of the 14 First Nations com­mu­ni­ties have First Nation Com­mu­ni­ty Polic­ing agree­ments for RCMP polic­ing ser­vices and their costs have been exclud­ed from the analy­ses. The remain­ing com­mu­ni­ties are policed from RCMP detach­ments, which are includ­ed in the Umbrel­la Agree­ment. An adjust­ment was made to reflect the lev­el of activ­i­ty relat­ed to First Nation’s com­mu­ni­ties.
7 Munic­i­pal­i­ties under the umbrel­la agree­ment were charged a per capi­ta rate based on the 2001 cen­sus results from Sta­tis­tics Cana­da there­fore the 200l cen­sus results were used for the LSDs.

Oth­er Con­sid­er­a­tions

Costs relat­ed to RCMP polic­ing ser­vices in LSDs could be affect­ed by the fol­low­ing cir­cum­stances.

Sup­port Ser­vices (Crim­i­nal Intel­li­gence, Com­mer­cial Crime, Dog Sec­tion, Ident Oper­a­tions , Air Ser­vices, Major Crime Unit, and Crime Stop­pers) and Tele­com Ser­vices were $7.1 and $4.9 mil­lion for 2006-07 (Fig­ure 5.1.5.). For the pur­pose of our study, $4.4 mil­lion of Sup­port Ser­vices and $2.3 mil­lion of Tele­com Ser­vices were allo­cat­ed to detach­ment polic­ing based on the num­ber of offi­cers these ser­vices sup­port­ed. How­ev­er, a pol­i­cy deci­sion may be required by the gov­ern­ment to deter­mine whether these ser­vices should be con­sid­ered a provin­cial ser­vice and fund­ed ful­ly by the province, or should be allo­cat­ed to detach­ment polic­ing.

The rate charged to munic­i­pal­i­ties for RCMP ser­vices varies depend­ing on the nature of the agree­ment with the Province. The Province admin­is­ters the PPSA on behalf of munic­i­pal­i­ties and LSDs. Small munic­i­pal­i­ties (pop­u­la­tion under 5,000) are charged a per capi­ta rate of $96 (2006) and $100 (2007) for RCMP ser­vices. This rate is estab­lished annu­al­ly by the Province. This rate dif­fers from the rate ($108) estab­lished in the cost­ing mod­el.

Munic­i­pal­i­ties admin­is­tered under extend­ed agree­ments are charged a per offi­cer rate of $91,680 (2006) and $94,770 (2007). If the extend­ed con­tract per offi­cer rate was expressed in terms of per capi­ta for those 19 munic­i­pal­i­ties, the per capi­ta rate would on aver­age be $175 (vary­ing from a low of $100 to a high of $246 per capi­ta). The rate struc­ture for recov­er­ing RCMP costs from munic­i­pal­i­ties should be reviewed for the exist­ing con­tract, giv­en the inequities iden­ti­fied above.

5.1.3 Local Gov­ern­ment Costs

Gen­er­al

We obtained finan­cial infor­ma­tion from FIS for the fis­cal year 2006-07. LG also pro­vid­ed salary and over­head costs for 2006-07.

Admin­is­tra­tion

LG pro­vides sup­port to LSDs through 8 Local Ser­vice Man­agers (LSMs). Admin­is­tra­tive ser­vices cost for fis­cal year 2006/07 was $1.2 mil­lion. This expen­di­ture cap­tured salary costs of the LSMs, along with depart­men­tal and mis­cel­la­neous over­heads.

Dog Con­trol

LG also pays for dog con­trol ser­vices on behalf of LSDs. This expen­di­ture was $0.4 mil­lion for fis­cal year 2006/07.

 

5.2 Short­fall Between Cost of Provin­cial­ly Pro­vid­ed Local Ser­vices and Prop­er­ty Tax­a­tion Rev­enues

We deter­mined the prop­er­ty tax rev­enue col­lect­ed by apply­ing the cur­rent spe­cial levy of $0.65 per $100 of assess­ment to res­i­den­tial own­er-occu­pied prop­er­ties in LSDs was $43.3 mil­lion. This rep­re­sents a $10.6 mil­lion increase from 2000–0l, as shown in Fig­ure 5.2. 1. This can be attrib­ut­able to the sig­nif­i­cant increase of $1.6 bil­lion in the res­i­den­tial own­er-occu­pied tax base from 2000–0l , an increase of 32%. The cur­rent spe­cial provin­cial levy of $0.65 per $100 of assess­ment did not change from 2000-01 and has not increased since 1984.

In terms of our sec­ond objec­tive, we deter­mined the short­fall between the cost of provin­cial­ly pro­vid­ed local ser­vices and prop­er­ty tax rev­enue of $43.3 mil­lion was:

- $55.4 mil­lion (includ­ing road construction/upgrading costs). The short­fall rep­re­sents an over­all increase of $5.0 mil­lion from 2000-01. Even though costs increased by $15.6 mil­lion, tax rev­enue rose by $10.6 mil­lion in the same time peri­od as shown in Fig­ure 5.2. Our study indi­cates that the province is recov­er­ing 44% of the cost of pro­vid­ing ser­vices to LSDs. This marks an increase from 39% iden­ti­fied in a sim­i­lar study com­plet­ed in 2002.

- $32.8 mil­lion (exclud­ing road construction/upgrading costs). The short­fall rep­re­sents an over­all decrease of $3.2 mil­lion from 2000-01. Even though costs increased by $7.4 mil­lion, tax rev­enue rose by $10.6 mil­lion in the same time peri­od as shown in Fig­ure 5.2.2. Our study indi­cates that the province is recov­er­ing 57% of the cost of pro­vid­ing ser­vices to LSDs. This marks an increase from 48% iden­ti­fied in a sim­i­lar study com­plet­ed in 2002.

Fig­ure 5.2.1: Short­fall Between Cost of Provin­cial­ly Pro­vid­ed Local Ser­vices (Includ­ing Road Construction/Upgrading) to LSDs

 

 

2006-07

 

2000-01

  

 

 

$ (Mil­lions)

% of Total Cost

$ (Mil­lions)

% of Total Cost

Increase $ (Mil­lions)

% Increase

Total Cost

$98.7

 

$83.1

 

$15.6

19%

Prop­er­ty Tax Rev­enue

$43.3

44%

$32.7

39%

$10.6

32%

Short­fall

$55.4

56%

$50.4

61%

$5.0

10%

  

 

   

 

Res­i­den­tial Own­er-Occu­pied Tax Base

$6,656.6

 

$5,041.3

 

$1,615.3

32%

l. Spe­cial provin­cial prop­er­ty tax levy of $0.65 per $100 of assess­ment on res­i­den­tial own­er-occu­pied prop­er­ties.
2. Com­par­a­tive fig­ures for 2000-01 obtained from Review of the Pro­vi­sion of Gov­ern­ment Ser­vices to Local Ser­vice Dis­tricts and Prop­er­ty Tax­a­tion Lev­els, Octo­ber 2002, Office of the Comp­trol­ler. 2000-01. Total Cost fig­ure was reduced by $4.3 mil­lion (refer to Fig­ure 5.1.1).

 

Fig­ure 5.2.2: Short­fall Between Cost of Provin­cial­ly Pro­vid­ed Local Ser­vices (Exclud­ing Road Construction/Upgrading) to LSDs and Prop­er­ty Tax Rev­enues

 

 

2006-07

 

2000-01

  

 

 

$ (Mil­lions)

% of Total Cost

$ (Mil­lions)

% of

Total Cost

Increase/Decrease $ (Mil­lions)

% Increase/Decrease

Total Cost

$76.1

 

$68.7

 

$7.4

11%

Prop­er­ty Tax Rev­enue

$43.3

57%

$32.7

48%

$10.6

32%

Short­fall

$32.8

43%

$36.0

52%

($3.2)

-9%

  

 

   

 

Res­i­den­tial Own­er-Occu­pied Tax Base

$6,656.6

 

$5,041.3

 

$1,615.3

32%

l. Spe­cial provin­cial prop­er­ty tax levy of $0.65 per $100 of assess­ment on res­i­den­tial own­er-occu­pied prop­er­ties.
2. Com­par­a­tive fig­ures for 2000-01 obtained from Review of the Pro­vi­sion of Gov­ern­ment Ser­vices to Local Ser­vice Dis­tricts and Prop­er­ty Tax­a­tion Lev­els, Octo­ber 2002; Office of the Comp­trol­ler . 2000-01 Total Cost fig­ure was reduced by $1.6 mil­lion (refer to Fig­ure 5.1.2).

 

[Note — Appen­dices to this Report are omit­ted]