Council is considering having a Community Safety Officer
(CSO). Here is an email I received about the initiative. The email is in
italics and my responses are in regular format. I have not edited the email I
received. There is a formatting issue I wasn't able to resolve in the post)
Hearing and reading a
bit about this "new initiative" re Community Safety Officer
First of all, I'm dead
against it, for a few key reasons:
1. Costs to set up, and operate to be covered
by a limited local population and business base.
- i. The 2015 budget allocates a further $10,000 for this initiative.
2. Benefits to our jurisdiction and defined
boundary(ies), only have Town jurisdiction.
- i. With the CSO program the Town will have partnerships with provincial agencies to better collect monies
3. Ongoing operating, enforcement, legal, and
administrative expenses...again 5000 people carry these costs.
- i. We expect operational expenses to stay about the same. The extra initial costs are for training and certification.
4. It's downloading and duplication, locally we
pay all these CSO and related costs, in case of RCMP we have "some"
subsidy
- i. I absolutely agree that this is something downloaded by the federal government through the RCMP. The RCMP work according to priorities given to them rather than any priorities a municipality may have.
- ii. The CSO gives Kindersley more risk assessment and compliance responsiveness.
5. Start with "one", then 2, then,
what???? slippery slope, unless "STOP " is clear and emphatic....it'll
hang around and continue to resurface.
- i. I agree with this comment but the downloading of police services is so far down the road we need to respond to the local gap.
- ii. I believe we need to do more given the changes in the delivery of police services.
- iii. We are working with our relevant parties in other areas, such as health, to ensure downloading is stopped.
6. Given RCMP costs, and
"possibility" that a "town" police force (City is better)
may be viable in future years....why add CSO into local policing model
- i. A local police force is significantly more expensive then contracting with the RCMP given our size.
- ii. A better model might be the development of a provincial police force rather than local police services so costs are spread around. (Saskatchewan Provincial Police, SPP)
- iii. CSO is a step that enhances the capacity of the bylaw officer without unreasonably increasing expenses and risk.
- iv. CSO will potentially provide 5 areas where a better level of service can be provided:
- i. Bylaw enforcement
- ii. Agency collaboration for enforcement/compliance and collections of fines
- iii. Community education surrounding the assessment of risks and gaining compliance
- iv. Enforcement of provincial statutes such as traffic violations (speeding) and weights (over weight trucks degrading town infrastructure)
- v. Ongoing development and accountability.
Above all....CSO
legislation is not firmed up, its still going to be municipal in nature even
after its done, and therefore fraught with legal risks/costs.
i.
Regretfully the training for the participants is
occurring before the legislation is being finalized.
ii.
The legislation is based on the successful ‘Community
Peace Officer’ program developed and implemented in Alberta
iii.
We have neighbours in West Central SK who are also
implementing the program.
AND, when everyone
else has their "frugal" jacket on, trying to tighten up expenses and
future monetary liabilities....we should not be going here.
- i. Yes, we need to be frugal, but we also have to use the tools available to collect revenue as well. A preliminary study I saw (I don’t have it with me) saw increased revenue offset increased implementation costs.
- ii. Operating costs are expected to remain about the same.
- iii. The CSO should not be developed and implemented as a revenue stream.
Between taxes, fees,
levies, and NECESSARY future capital expenditures Town and residents are
staring at....we should NOT be looking at the CSO project.
We are competing to
attract and retain citizens, businesses, and employers.
- i. The goal of any community is to have a family friendly community safe for everyone. To accomplish this requires assessing risks and obtaining compliance.
- ii. The Anti bullying bylaw is a step in this direction as well and the CSO compliments this bylaw.
We must be wary of and
avoid initiatives, projects, and expenditures that do or will hurt our
competitive and financial position.
- i. I totally agree but do not see how the CSO will do this.
We have to grow our
population, a CSO adds no value to growth, only costs and risks.
- i. I agree we need to grow. Growth is obtained by a combination of increased economic activity and quality of life.
- ii. The CSO will be able to patrol school zones, rec areas, etc to ensure no speeding and no antisocial behaviour such as bullying occurs (can de-escalate and report to RCMP)
It does not improve
our competitive position, our ability to attract or retain residents,
employers, or companies.
- i. I think people/businesses want to know what the rules are and have them applied fairly. The CSO contributes to this
Remember it is a
limited tax base that pays, we are, in my opinion at the top end of "tax
load" vis a vis others of like size.
- i. I agree that we need to keep taxes in line with inflation.
- ii. We are looking at growing revenue through growing our community:
- i. Housing in Brookhollow Estates
- ii. New hotels
- iii. New commercial developments
- iv. There will be more announcements regarding commercial developments coming
- v. New industrial development remains to be seen given the downturn in oil prices; however, this is an opportunity to further work towards increased economic diversification.
The CSO project gets
no offset income or subsidy from Prov or Feds.
- i. Regretfully this is true; however, as soon as we hit 5,000 people our payments to the RCMP increase from 75% to 90% regardless of our city status
AND, the front costs
are one thing, the ongoing and op costs or deficits, expansion of, are another.
- i. The operating costs are not expected to vary significantly from current operating costs.
Once its in the side
door and going, it will expand, and it will depend on tax base to cover
shortfalls and deficits.
We can't afford it,
now or in near future.
- i. In communities in Alberta where it has been successfully implemented it has not run amok and has grew on proportion to population growth (Stony Plain)
In short, please tell
admin an emphatic NO, we'll pass.
How's about...get us
to City status, then look at City police "if warranted versus RCMP cost
model" and skip CSO totally.
- i. We are working to determine City Status; the City Act requires public consultation amongst other things. Personally, I am in favour of moving towards City Status.
My opinion, and that
of many I've talked to.
- i. Thank you very much for writing and please continue to write.
- ii. The other that are referred to: please write or call.
No comments:
Post a Comment