Did the Arkansas AG approve the interlocal agreement between Washington County and twelve cities to continue and expand the regional ambulance authority?

Plain-English summary

Washington County Attorney Steven S. Zega submitted a proposed interlocal agreement, captioned "Agreement for Continuation and Expansion of Ambulance Services and for Expanded Membership in the Washington County Regional Ambulance Authority," for AG approval under the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 25-20-101 et seq.

The agreement bound Washington County and twelve cities (Elkins, Elm Springs, Farmington, Fayetteville, Goshen, Greenland, Johnson, Lincoln, Prairie Grove, Tontitown, West Fork, and Winslow) to a continued regional ambulance authority. Springdale was notably absent from the parties.

AG Leslie Rutledge reviewed the agreement under § 25-20-104 (which requires AG approval of all Interlocal Cooperation Act agreements where no state agency is a party) and approved it as submitted. The agreement was in proper form and compatible with state law.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the Interlocal Cooperation Act required of the agreement

Section 25-20-104(c) requires every interlocal agreement for joint or cooperative action to specify:

1. Its duration
2. The precise organization, composition, and nature of any separate legal or administrative entity created, with delegated powers
3. Its purpose
4. The manner of financing and budget
5. Methods for partial or complete termination and property disposition on termination
6. Any other necessary and proper matters

If no separate legal entity is created, the agreement must additionally specify:

1. Provisions for an administrator or joint board (with party representation if a board)
2. The manner of acquiring, holding, and disposing of real and personal property

The AG's review is limited to whether the agreement is in proper form and compatible with state law; it does not extend to evaluating the substantive wisdom of the cooperative arrangement.

Why the AG distinguished § 14-14-910 from § 25-20-101

The proposed agreement cited both § 25-20-101 and § 14-14-910 as authority. The AG noted in a footnote that interlocal agreements under § 14-14-910 are not required to be submitted for AG approval unless the state or a state agency is a party. Because no state actor was party to the Washington County agreement, the AG's review was based solely on § 25-20-101 et seq.

The distinction matters: county-only or county-plus-city interlocals can sometimes proceed under § 14-14-910 alone, with no AG review needed. The Washington County agreement could have proceeded that way, but counsel chose to invoke § 25-20-101 (which does require AG approval). Either path was legally available; the choice triggered AG review.

Common questions

Why was Springdale not a party?
The opinion does not say. Springdale presumably had its own ambulance arrangement or chose to remain outside the regional authority. The AG's approval did not require Springdale's participation.

What is the Washington County Regional Ambulance Authority?
A pre-existing regional ambulance entity established by the parties. The 2016 agreement provided for "Continuation and Expansion" of that authority, suggesting both renewal and additional members or scope.

Does the AG's approval mean the agreement is well-designed?
No. The AG only reviews for legal form and compatibility with state law. Substantive policy choices (rates, response times, service areas, budget allocations) are beyond the AG's review. Local officials and citizens evaluate those.

Can a city later withdraw?
That depends on the specific termination provisions in the agreement, which Section 25-20-104(c)(5) requires. The AG's approval addressed only that termination provisions exist, not their substance.

What's the difference between this and a § 14-14-910 county interlocal?
Section 14-14-910 covers cooperative agreements among counties or between a county and one of its cities, without state involvement. Section 25-20-101 et seq. is the general Interlocal Cooperation Act covering broader public-agency cooperation. AG approval is mandatory under § 25-20-104 for all § 25-20-101 agreements; under § 14-14-910 only if the state is a party.

Background and statutory framework

The Interlocal Cooperation Act (Ark. Code Ann. § 25-20-101 et seq.) authorizes "public agencies" (defined to include any "political subdivision" of the state, § 25-20-103(1)) to enter cooperative agreements. Section 25-20-104 sets out the form requirements and the AG approval mechanism. Op. Att'y Gen. 2011-138, 2008-125, 2007-330, and 2006-077 collectively establish the rule that § 14-14-910 county-level interlocals do not need AG review unless a state actor is involved.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-910 (county interlocal authority, no AG review unless state is party)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-20-101 et seq. (Interlocal Cooperation Act)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-20-103(1) (definition of "public agency")
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-20-104 (form requirements; AG approval requirement)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2011-138; 2008-125; 2007-330; 2006-077 (§ 14-14-910 review distinction)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2016-123
December 30, 2016
Steven S. Zega
Washington County Attorney
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
280 N. College Avenue, Suite 501
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Dear Mr. Zega:
You have requested approval, pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, 1 of a
proposed interlocal agreement captioned "Agreement for Continuation and
Expansion of Ambulance Services and for Expanded Membership in the
Washington County Regional Ambulance Authority" (hereinafter "Agreement").2
You have submitted a copy of the Agreement, under the terms of which
Washington County and the cities of Elkins, Elm Springs, Farmington,
Fayetteville, Goshen, Greenland, Johnson, Lincoln, Prairie Grove, Tontitown,
West Fork, and Winslow agree that the continued provision of an ambulance
authority or similar entity is in the best interests of the parties.
1
Ark. Code Ann.§§ 25-20-101 et seq. (Repl. 2014).
2 I note that in addition to citing Ark. Code Ann. § 25-20-101, the proposed interlocal agreement
cites Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-910 as authority for the undertaking. In this regard, please note that
interlocal agreements entered into under the authority of Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-910 are not
required to be submitted to the Attorney General for approval, unless the state or a state agency is
a party to the agreement. See Ops. Att'y Gen. 2011-138, 2008-125, 2007-330, 2006-077 (and
opinions cited therein). This is in contrast to Ark. Code Ann. § 25-20-104, which requires the
Attorney General's approval of all agreements eritered into under the provisions of the Interlocal
Cooperation Act (Ark. Code Ann. § 25-20-101 et seq.) Because neither the state nor any state
agency is a party to the agreement at issue, my review is pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.§ 25-20-101
et seq.
323 CENTER STREET, SUITE 200 ' LITTLE R.DCK, ARKANSAS 72201
TELEPHONE (501) 682-2007 · FAX (501) 682-8084
ARKANSASAG .GOV Steven S. Zega
Opinion No. 2016-123
Page 2
The Interlocal Cooperation Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 25-20-101 through -108,
provides for cooperative enterprises between or among "public agencies"-a term
defined as including any "political subdivision of this State. "3 This designation
plainly applies to all parties to the proposed agreement.
The Act requires that interlocal agreements for joint or cooperative action specify
the following:
(1) Its duration;
(2) The precise organization, compos1t10n, and nature of any
separate legal or administrative entity created thereby, together
with the powers delegated to it, provided that the entity may be
legally created;
(3) Its purpose;
( 4) The manner of financing the joint or cooperative undertaking and
of establishing and maintaining a budget therefor;
(5) The permissible methods to be employed in accomplishing the
partial or complete termination of the agreement and for
disposing of property upon the partial or complete termination;
and
(6) Any other necessary and proper matters.4
In addition, if the inter local agreement does not establish a separate legal entity to
conduct the joint or cooperative undertaking, it must specify the following items:
(1) Provisions for an administrator or a joint board responsible
for administering the joint or cooperative undertaking. In the case of
a joint board, public agencies party to the agreement shall be
represented; and
3 Ark. Code Ann. § 25-20-103( I )(8).
4 Ark. Code Ann.§ 25-20-104(c)(1) through (6). Steven S. Zega
Opinion No. 2016-123
Page 3
(2) The manner of acquiring, holding, and disposing of real and
personal property used in the joint or cooperative undertaking. 5
I am required by law to review the Agreement you have submitted for the purpose
of determining whether it is in proper form, as described above, and is otherwise
compatible with the laws of the State. 6
Having analyzed the agreement you have submitted, I find that it is in proper form
in accordance with the Interlocal Cooperation Act and that it is compatible with
the laws of this state. Accordingly, it is hereby approved as submitted.
Sincerely,
.=_~~ L . //~'fa
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General
5 Id. at § 25-20-104( d).
6 Id. at§ 25-20-104(t)(l).