Laserfiche WebLink
�-�`-`�,a_ <br /> ii� <br /> u�.�.�.�-4.��.. <br /> � � T � n T <br /> LONG LAKE <br /> February 4, 2010 <br /> Mayor Jim White & Orono City Council <br /> City of Orono <br /> 27�0 Kelley Parkway <br /> Orono, MN 553�6 <br /> RE: Agreement and Contract for L�w Enforcement (Second Draft) <br /> Mayor White: <br /> The City of Long Lake received this proposal from the City of Orono on December 15, 2009 <br /> and, since then, has had several Long Lake City Council discussions regarding it. The purpose of <br /> this letter is to document City of Long Lalce objections to the proposal as currently drafted, offer <br /> counterproposal points, and communicate a suggested timetable for resolving this issue. <br /> Backaround <br /> The aareement that all parties (the contract cities of Long Lake, Minnetonl:a Beach, and Spring <br /> Park) are currently operating under is the Law Enforcement Agreement that was signed in late <br /> 2003 and initially effective for a 2004-2006 initial three year term. Clearly the intent of this <br /> document was to have the agreement be renewable by a budget ratification process that would <br /> extend into future three year rolling budget periods. It appears that the 2009 (Year One Budget) <br /> budget was ratified by acceptance of all parties. However, the 2010 (Year Two Budget) budget <br /> was clearly not ratified by all parties prior to October 1, 2009. Therefore, if the 2011 (Year Three <br /> Budget) budget is not ratified by all parties by October 1, 2010; the term of the agreement would <br /> not be extended beyond 2011. The City of Long Lake has benefitted from the high level of <br /> service provided tc its taxpayers by the Orono Palice Department. The current second draft <br /> proposal suggests that the cost to the City of Long Lake for delivering police protection service <br /> for the 2010 to 2012 three year period would rise 17.5% from the 2009 (2012 $355,000 versus <br /> 2009 $302,177) cost level. <br /> Snecific Second Draft Proposal Objections and Counterproposal Points <br /> • Identifying a minimum full time officer department size of eighteen. The customers and the <br /> department should not be constrained by absolutes. Perhaps language referring to a <br /> department size commensurate with activity level would suffice. <br /> • A service district approach is operationally more effective and efficient than an ill defined <br /> basic level of service by jurisdictional boundaries. The transition from the additional <br /> staffing/supplemental officer concept referred to in the current agreement will financially <br /> affect contract cities differently. This is not addressed in the second draft proposal. <br /> 450 Virginia Avenue•P.O.Box 606• Long Lake.Minnesota 55356 •952-473-6961 • 952-476-9622(fax) •l�ttp://www.ci.long-lake.mn.us <br />