Campo Joint Powers Agreement

Under the Idaho Joint Powers Act (Idaho Code § 67-2326 in section 67-2334 inclusive), members of the BMPO are authorized to enter into a joint power agreement for the purpose of jointly exercising their powers, privileges, and powers under the laws of the State of Idaho. Senator Kirk Watson, chair, was ready to directly address campo`s common powers agreement at yesterday`s meeting of the 20-member Transportation Policy Council. Travis County? No no. «In the last few weeks, we have had some good recommendations, some good proposals to amend the statutes that would protect the entities that were the original signatories of the CAMPO agreement,» Watson said. The members of the DMPO agreed to create a joint agency called the Bonneville Metropolitan Planning Organization (hereinafter referred to as «DMPO») and the enforcement of the powers came into effect on March 14, 2012. Members are also called «Policy Board». Although three of the five Travis County Court Commissioners currently sit on CAMPO`s board of directors, District Judge Sam Biscoe told his colleagues that he did not want to vote to end the Joint Powers agreement without some kind of hearing before his board of directors. He wanted a judicial vote before a campo vote. BMPO is considered a common agency of the members and a common agency of these constituent members has all the rights, powers and privileges that can be legally and explicitly delegated to the DFO and no other.

Any act, obligation, responsibility or obligation that arises or is created beyond this conferred power is considered ultra vires and does not bind any of the members. In its CAMPO certification exam, the Federal Highway Administration encouraged the planning organization to renounce its common powers agreement. After some rather delicate negotiations – intended to calm the nerves of those who had initially organized CAMPO – Watson was ready to abandon the agreement in favor of the memory of his intention in new statutes. During the discussion, Executive Director Joe Cantalupo proposed that the agreement on common powers should be really different from the statutes. And he would be right. But if there were a direct secret ballot on the ometer document, history would suggest a strong propensity to keep the APJ and reject the statutes. Where the power was in CAMPO was more important to the members than the functioning of the group. And the tension between the countryside and the city persists. DMPO may exercise any implied powers that may arise from an explicit transfer of powers and that are necessary to fully exercise and fulfill the explicit powers. While Watson saw the issue as examined and the interests of the county were protected, he agreed that he could see Biscoe`s point of view. He was, of course, the former mayor of Austin. Yes, any changes approved by the CAMPO board of directors would have to be approved by the signatories to the joint power agreement, but Watson said he understood how the district chiefs who had to approve them would see it.

CAMPO`s Joint Powers Agreement has continued to work because of the underlying fear that surrounds the balance of power in central Texas – if other MPOs upset these documents. The most important question when revising a number of CAMPO statutes was who controlled power, whether Austin or not; or a small rural town; or county vs. city. Cynthia Long, vice president of Campo, Williamson County Commissioner, acknowledged and supported biscoe, but she also said she would prefer to remove some sort of document for her Commissioners` Court…