10-25-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Spring Park Police Service Contract October 22, 1993 page 2 There is not a general rule about which party should assume the responsibility in these cases. The current language is favorable to Orono in that any anything excluded from coverage is the responsibility of Spring Park. Because this has been raised as an issue by Spring Park, we need to determine whether we are willing to take on additional potential liability to address the concerns raised. As the City Attorney has indicated, the probability of a gap in insurance coverage related to the provision of police services is very low. If the City accepted responsibility for all exclusions, it would increase its potential risk, bun the actual risk is low. Another alternative is for the cities to agree to pay the costs of an excluded claim or judgement in the same ratio as they share the costs of the police service. The second concern related to the contract language deals with the termination language. The current contract requires that if the contract i.s terminated with or without cause during the term of nhe agreement, by the City of Spring Park, the City of Spring Park has to pay all costs related to the termination of that contract. The fnajor cost would be unemployment compensation insurancft for any officers to be laid off. Spring Park has requested that those costs not be charged to Spring Park if the contract is terminated for cause. Orono's City Attorney has indicated this language may be acceptable if the determination of "for cause" is defined in the contract as a material breech of the contract related directly to the oerfortrance of police services and that the determination is subject to review through an arbitration process. The Spring Park City Attorney has also indicated language would be included that would provide Orono a period of time to address any material breech prior to any termination.