Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's offer to offer the city's services at bargain rates to its neighbors in the suburbs has drawn a decidedly mixed response from North community leaders.

Some municipalities place an absolute priority on autonomy and have no desire to deal with Pittsburgh. Others are eager to negotiate shared services with the city in any cost-effective agreement.

Last month, Mr. Ravenstahl pitched an array of city services to representatives of more than 50 municipalities in Allegheny County at a conference on the South Side.

The mayor said the city was seeking to make deals on break-even prices for such services as trash-hauling, animal control, building inspection, computer, ambulance, firefighting, personnel, police and public works. He also offered bulk purchasing on goods and supplies and even electricity, and the sale of city water.

Proximity was a significant factor for municipalities considering the proposal, with those communities ringing the city showing the most interest.

Joanna Doven, a spokeswoman for the mayor, said Ravenstahl's office is excited by the response it has received from municipalities across the county.

Edward Warchol, the Aspinwall municipal manager, attended the June 10 presentation and was able to speak with directors heading many of the city's services. He gave the city credit for its presentation.

"Every municipality is in a mode to look and see anywhere where you can save money, and I think that's the essence of it all," he said. "But I realize the city has to be profitable also."

Mr. Warchol said Aspinwall is already in an agreement to share water services with the city, and is considering similar agreements with animal control and bulk energy purchases. Ms. Doven said the city's offer to purchase energy jointly with municipalities has produced the most interest in the weeks following the mayor's presentation.

Mary Ellen Ramage, the manager of Etna, said sharing services with the city is the right step for boroughs to regionalize without losing their sense of community, as opposed to a large scale city-county merger which is also under discussion.

"The small local governments are where the residents can touch base with a real person, and it's critical for them to have that capability," Mrs. Ramage said.

Others are more hesitant -- and skeptical -- about cooperation with the city, and the quality of services it could offer.

Mary Bernhard has served on West View council for more than 30 years and she is the council's president. She doesn't believe sharing services with the city would be beneficial for smaller communities.

"How can I be sure that the city of Pittsburgh maintenance man is going to come out and do my work?" Mrs. Bernhard said. "I want my guy to do my work and keep my borough nice."

Mrs. Bernhard added that she sees the mayor's proposal as an attempt to have municipalities "bail the city out" of a bad financial situation. She was quick to mention that her opinion on sharing services with the city is not necessarily the opinion of West View council.

West View relies on the North Hills Council of Governments for some shared services, such as cooperative purchasing and equipment sharing. The North Hills COG is one of eight in the county that allow municipalities to share environmental services and purchase in bulk. There are 20 boroughs and townships in the North Hills COG, including Etna, Fox Chapel, Millvale and Shaler.

Wayne Roller, the executive director of the COG, said that cooperation between these communities can benefit all.

"That's what COGs were made for," he said. "The municipalities cooperate and create efficiencies that are not pre-existing."

Mrs. Ramage said Etna saved $25,000 when it first agreed to contract garbage collection through the organization, enough to offer a recycling program for the first time, even though it was not required to.

Mr. Roller and the other COG directors were not able to attend the mayor's conference, but he said he is "happy to see any unit of government catch on," and that he doesn't see increased cooperation between the city and municipalities as any threat to COGs.

Mr. Warchol said the water agreement between Aspinwall and the city works well because the water and sewer authority is so close to Aspinwall. The city has a water pipeline through Aspinwall serving other portions of the city, and it now provides water for Aspinwall under an agreement signed in August 2007.

Shaler is not one of the "ring" municipalities that border the city, but Manager Tom Rogers said his township is working to share animal services, garbage collection and bulk water purchasing with the city. He also mentioned that the countywide 911 program has been a success.

Because they are not next door neighbors, shared personnel and public safety programs for communities like Shaler could be limited.

"There is going to be increased attention given to merging because of the cost of public safety, but I'm not sure that's the way to go for us," Mr. Rogers said, adding that Shaler would be more likely to merge its police force with an adjacent municipality, such as Hampton.

The city's wide-ranging proposal is a difficult project because of the huge variations between municipalities within the county. Each individual community has different demographics and different priorities.

"When I speak to other municipal managers, the problems we deal with every day are from one end of the spectrum to the other," Mrs. Ramage said. "It makes it difficult to see the other side."

Still, the one consensus among these managers is that the state of the economy will force municipalities to consider sharing services that are cost-effective. Mr. Warchol said that trend could quell the sense of parochialism that has limited city-county cooperation.

"I think you need to look beyond autonomy," Mr. Warchol said. "If your municipality is doing well, you're going to want to stay with that type of [autonomous] program, but I honestly believe every municipality is going to have to look at where they can save costs."