County votes to end MN Prairie JPA

After years of frustration over unresolved differences, Steele County officials on Tuesday took the first step toward terminating a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) and dissolving Minnesota Prairie County Alliance (MN Prairie).

MN Prairie, which also serves Dodge and Waseca counties, has for more than a decade been the county’s human services provider. And officials have been at odds with the independent public entity for about that long.

County Attorney Robert Jarrett told officials during a work session that in 2016, one county administrator called the JPA an awful agreement.

“I’m gonna echo that comment. It is an awfully awful agreement,” he said. “It was not put together properly in my opinion.”

Jarrett said the agreement contains no remedies to resolve multiple policy and financial issues that Steele officials have raised.

As it was crafted in 2014, the JPA was to include about a dozen counties. As it stands now, the Joint Powers Board has six members, two from each county. The vast majority of actions, Jarrett said, require only a vote of four out of the six.

He pointed out that even though Steele County has a significantly larger population and pays more toward MN Prairie’s operating costs, all three counties have equal footing when it comes to making decisions.

Steele contributes about $6.5 million of the $12 million funded by member counties. MN Prairie’s total operating budget is around $30 million, County Administrator Renae Fry said.

Steele officials have expressed concerns over a lack of communication from MN Prairie’s CEO, especially when it comes to the budget and sharing data.

“When this board asked why there’s an essential refund of over a million dollars to the county, it’s an interesting red flag that needs to be looked into, and that was met with resistance,” Jarrett said.

The county has two options to take back its authority to provide human services. Jarrett did not recommend withdrawal, because the county would lose voting authority, among other consequences. That also requires a three-year waiting period for the request to become effective.

Termination of the JPA requires two of the three county boards to adopt a resolution in favor.

Jarrett said he and Fry have spoken with their counterparts in the other two counties, and Waseca County expressed an interest in termination. That board meets next on April 1.

The Dodge County board met Tuesday as well; there was no action related to MN Prairie on their agenda.

Officials included in their approval of the resolution a series of recommendations made by Jarrett and Fry:

· Recommend to the Joint Powers Board that they issue a public statement regarding the mutual decision to dissolve MN Prairie County Alliance.

· Recommend to the Joint Powers Board that they establish a wind down transition team, seek proposals from accounting firms to conduct a forensic audit of MN Prairie County Alliance, retain an external consultant to oversee operations, including financial, during the wind down, and take such actions as may be needed to protect the interests of the three counties during the wind down period.

· Create the Steele County Department of Human Services.

· Direct the County Administrator and County Attorney to oversee the orderly transition of human services to county operations, including, but not limited to, recommending consulting services as may be necessary to structure the new human services department, coordinating with Waseca and Dodge counties’ staff on transition matter, and developing a hiring plan so as to retain current MN Prairie staff as may be reasonable and necessary to establish and operate Steele County’s new human services department.

Fry said after the meeting that if the dissolution effort fails, Steele officials will start “breach of contract” discussions.

Max Forrester, representing unionized employees, expressed concern during the board’s regular meeting over continuity of client care as well as continued employment for MN Prairie employees. He urged officials to develop a detailed plan to accompany the resolution.

Fry explained later that the resolution is a kind of “chicken and egg” situation. Officials had to pass the resolution to begin to have the “wind down” conversation.

“This is the board telling (the other) two counties, ‘This is what Steele is doing,’” she said. “I think we’ll know more in a week or so.”

Correction: The name of Max Forrester was incorrectly spelled in the original version of this story. The Times regrets the error.