My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-06-1998 Council Packet Special Meeting
Orono
>
City Council
>
1998
>
01-06-1998 Council Packet Special Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2024 2:31:14 PM
Creation date
6/5/2024 2:30:34 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
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
r <br />M ta^rtant element in user fees is the ability to provide a specifie benefit to a speeifie person or <br />level rf “volved in the police services agreement can make decisions about the <br />s '!! “"““"‘‘y based on service need and the level of cost desired It <br />in iZe of service allocation among various areas within the same city <br />in large ^ because the mechamsms are not in place to measure the amount of service received and <br />account for revenues based on neighborhoods or other sub areas of the city. <br />Although the ^location of police service costs may be based on market value if the two cities were <br />’■^Sarding merger would involve an analysis of all costs of all services <br />^r^ties for efficienciw and service delivery, analysis of outstanding financial obligations and <br />projected future costs of infrastructure replacement etc. The allocation of police costs wlu\d be one <br />that the overall benefits of a merger would <br />be greater than the cost before a merger would proceed. In other merger situations if one of the <br />cities 1^ a disproportionate share of outstanding liabilities, special taxing districts have been set un <br />to avoid one city having to take on the burden of another city’s liabilities. ^ <br />Prior to a merger of the nvo cities, it would be very difficult to convince Orono property owners <br />g iierally use a relatively low amount of police service, that the city should substantial!v <br />Summary <br />Park and Minnetonka Beach are currently sharing in a very <br />r? ** ®<'P»«®® “™ces. I. appears that Uil cuS <br />®®?‘® ®‘®«ly matches the service need and/or service desires of the <br />pa^tag cities, f the ctties wre to move away from the cunent method of allocating costs it <br />pp^ that a cost allocation method based on calls for service or similar service need based formula <br />ihe cities. Because the level of servi^sir™ by <br />Spnng Park is so high, the cost allocation method may still need to include some foim of <br />L de!i^r^ 'f'“y ®f Long Lake detetmines that a higher level of service <br />desired, it appears that some sort of supplemental cost allocation method would be needed <br />Next Steps <br />'“y ®f Long Lake regarding the information <br />loT.!^’ “* f'gardmg the alternative cost allocation methods. The cfties need to work <br />0^ a consensus on a cost allocation method. If the cities are able to move towald c^„ <br />pr^ess Beach should be involved in the <br />A-6 <br />■ ■■ ■■■
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.