Laserfiche WebLink
LRRWMO Memo <br />February 10, 2014 <br />Page 3 <br />1) The Member Cities would attempt to negotiate an allocation of costs among themselves. <br />2) If the negotiation were not successful, the Commission would set the cost allocation in the <br />resolution ordering the improvement. <br />3) Any party aggrieved to that cost allocation might appeal the decision to formal arbitration. <br />4) However, it does not seem to be that the arbitration would be binding since if an allocation <br />is not agreed to, improvements are to be paid for through Minnesota Statutes, Section <br />103B.251 (although I see no reason why the Member Cities could not agree to binding <br />arbitration if they wished to do so, in which case the decision of the arbitration board would <br />be assumed to be consented to by all of the Member Cities). <br />I believe that this interpretation of the agreement reconciles all of its provisions. However, I was <br />not legal counsel to the Commission at the time this agreement was adopted, and it may be that the <br />Member Cities had some other intent. In any case, based on my interpretation of the agreement, I <br />have proposed modifications to several sections to make it more clear that agreement by the <br />Member Cities, at some point in the process, must be secured; and if this does not occur, it will be <br />necessary for the Commission to pay for capital projects by some means other than charges to its <br />Member Cities. <br />Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions or comments on this memorandum or the <br />proposed amendments to the joint powers agreement. <br />CLL:peb <br />439470v1 LW105 -1 <br />