Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />For agreements that create a ''joint powers entity" <br /> <br />I. Consider incorporating the joint powers entity. M.S. 465.717, subd. 2. which was passed in <br />2000, authorizes any joint powers entity to incorporate itself as a Chapter 317 A non-profit <br />corporation. On its face, this would seem to eliminate the member cities' vicarious liability <br />exposure. since M.S. 317 AA07 specifies that members of a non-profit corporation are not <br />liable for the corporation's acts or liabilities. <br /> <br />\Ve'd caution though that there's been little experience with incorporating joint powers <br />entities in this way. We don't know for sure ,,'hat a court might actually do with regard to <br />liability of an incorporatedjoinl powers entity - e.g., whether and how governmental <br />immunities and defenses would be available. etc. There may also be some disadvantages to <br />being a non-profit corporation. such as additional reporting and filing requirements, and so <br />on. Incorporating a joint powers entity as a non-profit corporation is stepping into ne\\' and <br />untested legal ground, and cities considering it should weigh the potential advantages and <br />disadvantages carefully with their legal counsel. <br /> <br />2. Consider carrying higher liability coverage limits. Obviously, the higher the joint powers <br />entity's coverage limits, the more likely it is to be adequate. But regardless of what the <br />coverage limit is. you can never be absolutely assured that it will be adequate. Even with a <br />coverage limit equal to the number of members times $1.000.000, there's still the risk of <br />claims that the statutory limits don't apply to. And with larger joint powers entities - those <br />with ten or twenty or thirty members - carrying a coverage limit that high may not be <br />practical or economical. <br /> <br />For all cities <br /> <br />· Support a legislatirefix. The League will be pursuing legislation to address this problem. <br />City officials need to be talking with legislators about the problems and inequities the court's <br />ruling creates. A key point to discuss with legislators is the disincentivc fix inter-local <br />cooperation which this court ruling creates. <br /> <br />A fin:lI comment <br /> <br />The federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals' nJling in Reimer r. Crookston creates potential <br />problems for cities. Given the potential seriousness of those problems. cities should consider <br />adopting the strategies outlined above. <br /> <br />Howeycr, it's important also to keep in mind that this ruling is not necessarily the final word on <br />the issue. Two points to be aware of: <br /> <br />· We have petitioned the Eighth Circuit COllrl to reconsider its ruling, in light of the ruling's <br />potentially far-reaching consequences. We don't yet know when the court will decide if <br />they'lI rehear the case. <br /> <br />4 <br />