Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interlocal Cooperation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Citizens committee recommends inventory of interlocal agreements; staff to study options and return in ~90 days
Summary
A citizens review-committee memo urged Topeka to compile and review interlocal agreements and service contracts with other governments to identify cost-saving shared services; the committee directed staff to study the list and return recommendations by November after department-level review.
The Policy and Finance Committee on July 10 heard a report from the citizens government review committee recommending that the city compile a master inventory of interlocal agreements and service contracts and explore opportunities for shared services or revenue savings.
Jim, the review committee chair, told the committee that while formal interlocal cooperation under the Interlocal Cooperation Act exists, much of Topeka’s cooperation historically occurs through service contracts. He said the most recent formal interlocal agreement on file with Shawnee County dated to 2004 and that many listed agreements were older and might have expired. Jim recommended that the city review both Interlocal Cooperation Act agreements and other statutory service-authority agreements to identify opportunities.
Committee members discussed whether the city could renegotiate or reopen agreements with Shawnee County; staff said that would depend on each agreement’s terms and whether they had already expired or been replaced. Deputy City Manager Braxton Copeland said department heads need to be involved and requested roughly 90 days to consult departments and return recommendations. The committee agreed to ask staff to report back, targeting a November follow-up and noting examples such as mutual-aid arrangements in fire services and state-level registries used during COVID for water-utility operators.
The review chair suggested staff contact other cities (he named Overland Park) for models of active interlocal programs. No formal interlocal agreement was adopted during the meeting; the committee’s direction was to task staff with a review and potential recommendations.
