My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2014-03-20 Proposed JPA - Anoka County, Fire Protection Council
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
2014
>
2014-03-20 Proposed JPA - Anoka County, Fire Protection Council
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2014 3:02:46 PM
Creation date
3/21/2014 3:02:45 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />b.Expiration / Reauthorization Of Joint Powers Entity - Article III, Term <br /> <br />i.Please consider using a twilight date by which the joint powers entity will expire <br /> <br />unless reauthorized. The expiration date could be set out five, ten or twenty- <br />years. The reason to consider an expiration date is not to close the entity but to <br />require the member Cities and Fire Departments to reexamine their needs on a <br />periodic basis. Periodic review could be a helpful means to ease the growing <br />pains sometimes associated with this type of entity. As the population of Cities <br />change, the needs of communities shift, or as other unforeseen circumstances <br />arise, using a long-term expiration date mandates periodic review of the <br />operation of the entity and the needs of its member Cities. <br /> <br />c.Best Practices when drafting a Joint Power Agreement <br /> <br />i.Purpose of the JPA. Generally, it is a best practice to define the scope of a joint <br /> <br />powers entity to a specific purpose or scope of purpose. Article II, Purpose is a <br />broad statement which could allow the scope of this new joint powers entity to <br />grow well beyond its initial purpose. Two considerations: There is a political <br />consideration here because creation of this entity includes a delegation of <br />responsibilities entrusted to elected officials and City Councils. Careful <br />consideration should be given before constructing a joint powers entity with an <br />open-ended purpose. Also, an undefined scope could lead to legal liability of <br />both the joint powers entity and individual member Cities. One of the benefits <br />of a joint powers entity is to insulate the individual member Cities for the <br />actions of the joint powers entity. Using a specifically stated purpose helps to <br />draw the boundaries for potential legal liability. <br /> <br />Likewise, Article IV, Delegation of Authority, delegates sweeping authorities to <br />the joint powers entity normally the responsibility of only a City or a City <br />Council. Careful consideration should be given to the reason why a City may <br />wish to delegate “all authority necessary and convenient” to accomplish the <br />goals of the entity. Cities and/or City Councils may wish to reserve some manner <br />of authority. For example, Cities could reserve decisions about large capital <br />expenditures for City Council review. However, some of these types of operating <br />restrictions could also be defined in the entity’s Bylaws. <br /> <br />ii.Bylaws. The Bylaws of a joint powers entity are as important as the joint powers <br /> <br />agreement. No Bylaws were attached to the proposed JPA sent for review. <br />Please consider adopting Bylaws that are very similar to the Bylaws of the Joint <br />Law Enforcement Council. Having similar governance structures will make it <br />easier for City staff and elected officials to learn the rules and operations of the <br />various joint powers entities that they must manage and track. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.