My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-22-1993 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1993
>
11-22-1993 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/23/2024 3:59:41 PM
Creation date
1/23/2024 3:57:09 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
243
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />Mayor and City Council <br />Ron Moorse, City Administrator ^ <br />November 22, 1993 <br />SUBJECT: Police Department Revenues and Expenditures <br />At a recent Budget Work Session, Councilmember Hurr asked whether <br />Lhe Police Department revenues had been reduced by more than the <br />$16,000 reduction related to the Spring Park proposal. <br />Councilmembei Hurr indicated that if the revenues were lower than <br />the original projection the expenditures should also be reduced. <br />The process of determining Police Department expenditures and <br />revenues begins on the expenditure side after the Police Department <br />budget is developed. The expenditure numbers are input into a cost <br />allocation formula to determine each city's share of the <br />expenditures. The share of the expenditures paid by the three <br />contract cities then becomes the revenue generated by the police <br />services. <br />The initial Police revenue projection was a 4% increase over 1993. <br />This was a high estimate and was the same estimate as was provided <br />to the contract cities as a preliminary revenue number. When the <br />proposed budget was completed the actual increase in the Police <br />expenditures was reduced to 2.2%. This reduction in expenditures <br />was translated into a similar reduction in revenues through the <br />cost allocation formula. The initially projected 4% expenditure <br />increase would have put the expenditure amount at $1,188,621. The <br />2.22% increase put the expenditure amount at $1,168,261.00. This <br />amount was further reduced by the $16,000 revenue reduction related <br />to the Spring Park proposal.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.