Does an Arkansas town selling its water system have to follow both the water-system-specific statutes and the general municipal property sale rules, including competitive bidding?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2018. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Arkansas law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Representative Trevor Drown laid out a concrete scenario for the Attorney General. An incorporated Arkansas town owned and operated a water system. The town was considering selling the entire system as a single unit, with a fair market value above $20,000. The town's research turned up two statutes that seemed to apply: Ark. Code Ann. section 14-199-302, specific to municipal sales of waterworks and other public utilities, and section 14-54-302, the general municipal property-sales statute. Drown asked which one controlled.
Attorney General Leslie Rutledge concluded that both did. Section 14-199-302 et seq. addresses preconditions specific to water-system sales: the council must resolve by majority vote that a sale is in the town's best interest under section 14-199-302(a), and within a year a petition signed by a majority in value of the town's real property owners must be filed supporting the sale and stating a minimum price under section 14-199-302(b)(1). Sections 14-199-303, 14-199-304, and 14-199-305 then address payment, transfer, and use of proceeds. None of those provisions speaks to how the sale itself is conducted.
Section 14-54-302, by its plain terms, applies to "any real estate or personal property owned or controlled by the municipality." It requires competitive bidding for sales over $20,000 under section 14-54-302(d), majority vote of the governing body under section 14-54-302(b), an exception from competitive bidding for property worth $20,000 or less under section 14-54-302(c), alternative dispositions for obsolete property under subsection (e), and recordkeeping under subsection (f). The water-system statute does not exempt water systems from these procedures, and the AG saw no conflict between the two.
The AG applied a familiar canon of construction: where specific provisions conflict with general ones, the specific controls (Thomas v. Easley). But that canon only kicks in when there is a conflict. Here there was none. Section 14-199-302 et seq. did not "provide that competitive bidding is not required"; it simply did not say anything about how the sale should be carried out. The general sales procedure in section 14-54-302 filled that gap.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2018. 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.
Background and statutory framework
Section 14-54-302 is a general municipal-disposition statute. Subsection (a)(1) applies to "any real estate or personal property owned or controlled by the municipality." Subsection (b) requires a majority vote of the governing body for sale execution. Subsection (c) exempts property worth $20,000 or less from competitive bidding. Subsection (d) requires competitive bidding for sales of property worth more than $20,000. Subsection (e) provides alternative means of disposition for obsolete property. Subsection (f) addresses recordkeeping.
Section 14-199-302 et seq. is a specific water-system-and-public-utility-sale statute. Section 14-199-302 sets two preconditions to authorizing such a sale: a majority resolution by the municipal council that the sale is in the municipality's best interest, and a petition by a majority in value of the real property owners stating a minimum price within a year. The statute then addresses how the buyer pays (section 14-199-303), how the utility is transferred (section 14-199-304), and how the proceeds are used and disbursed (section 14-199-305). The statute is silent on the conduct of the sale itself.
The interpretive canon that does the work is articulated in Thomas v. Easley: when specific expressions conflict with general expressions, the specific governs. The AG read both statutes carefully and found no conflict. The specific water statute was procedurally narrow (preconditions and post-sale mechanics); the general statute was procedurally broad (how the sale is conducted). They occupied different procedural lanes.
Why both statutes applied
The AG framed the analysis as a two-step test. First, does section 14-54-302 apply to water-system sales? Yes, by its terms ("any real estate or personal property"). The water statute does not contain a carve-out. Second, do the two statutes conflict? No. Section 14-199-302 et seq. does not say competitive bidding is not required; it simply does not address how the sale is conducted. A statute that is silent on a procedure does not conflict with another statute that imposes that procedure.
The AG noted one detail that fits this reading: the section 14-199-302(b)(1) petition has to state a minimum price. A minimum price is consistent with a competitive-bidding procedure. The petition fixes a floor; the bidding produces a price at or above the floor.
The AG noted other points where section 14-54-302 covers ground that the water statute does not: the section 14-54-302(b) majority vote of the governing body for sale execution (versus section 14-199-302(a)'s vote to authorize the sale), the small-property exception in subsection (c), the obsolete-property dispositions in subsection (e), and the recordkeeping in subsection (f). None of those topics is addressed in the water-sale statute, so there is no conflict.
Common questions
Did the AG say a town must run a competitive bidding process to sell its water system?
Yes, if the system is worth more than $20,000. The town must satisfy both the section 14-199-302 preconditions (council resolution, ratepayer petition with a minimum price) and the section 14-54-302(d) competitive-bidding requirement.
What if the system was worth less than $20,000?
Section 14-54-302(c) exempts sales of property worth $20,000 or less from the competitive-bidding requirement. A small-system sale would still need to satisfy the section 14-199-302 preconditions, but the town could dispose of the system without bids.
Why did the petition need to state a minimum price if competitive bidding was also required?
The minimum price functions as a price floor, not as a sale price. The AG read the petition's minimum-price requirement as compatible with a competitive process: the bidders must offer at least the petition's stated floor, and the bidding lets the market determine the actual sale price.
Could the town avoid the section 14-54-302 procedure by relying on the more specific water statute?
No. The specific-versus-general canon applies only when there is a conflict. The AG read no conflict here, so both statutes applied in full. Practitioners sometimes reflexively invoke the canon to displace a general statute, but the canon does not work that way unless the specific statute actually contradicts the general one.
What about section 14-54-302(e), the obsolete-property disposition path?
Subsection (e) provides alternatives for property that is obsolete. The AG noted that section 14-199-302 et seq. does not address obsolete property dispositions and so does not conflict. Whether a particular sale qualifies for the obsolete-property path under subsection (e) would be a separate fact-specific question.
Citations
Ark. Code Ann. sections 14-54-302, 14-54-302(a)(1), 14-54-302(b), 14-54-302(c), 14-54-302(d), 14-54-302(e), 14-54-302(f), 14-199-301 et seq., 14-199-302, 14-199-302(a), 14-199-302(b)(1), 14-199-303, 14-199-304, 14-199-305; Thomas v. Easley, 277 Ark. 222, 640 S.W.2d 797 (1982).
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2018-058
August 29, 2018
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
The Honorable R. Trevor Drown
State Representative
P. O. Box 1182
Dover, AR 72837-1182
Dear Representative Drown:
This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding the sale of a municipal water system. In this regard, you have provided the following factual scenario:
An Arkansas incorporated town (the "Town") that owns and operates a water system (the "System") is exploring whether it is in the best interest of the Town to sell the System (including the right to operate the System). The System will be sold as one unit (i.e., the entire System will be sold), and for purposes hereof, it is assumed that the fair market value of the System is in excess of $20,000.
In its research regarding the procedures for sale of the System, the Town noted the requirements of Ark. Code Ann. § 14-199-302, which pertains specifically to a municipal corporation selling a water system, as well as the requirements of Ark. Code Ann. § 14-54-302 (generally pertaining to the purchase, lease, sale and disposal of municipal property). The Town is seeking guidance regarding which statutory scheme controls for purposes of the sale of the System.
In light of the foregoing, you have posed the following question:
Does Ark. Code Ann. § 14-199-301 et seq., as a specific statute, control the procedures and requirements for the sale of the System, or is the Town required to comply with the procedures set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 14-199-301 et seq. and with the procedures set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 14-54-302 (particularly Ark. Code Ann. § 14-54-302(d))?
RESPONSE
It is my opinion, based on the standard rules of statutory construction, that the sale of a town's water system is governed by both Ark. Code Ann. § 14-199-301 et seq. and Ark. Code Ann. § 14-54-302.
DISCUSSION
As you have noted, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 14-199-302 through -305 specifically address a town's sale of its waterworks system or other municipally owned public utility. Ark. Code Ann. § 14-54-302, by contrast, addresses sales of "any real estate or personal property owned or controlled by the municipality," and, inter alia, requires competitive bidding in sales of items of "[m]unicipal real estate or personal property" worth more than $20,000. Your question asks whether this competitive-bidding requirement, as well as section 14-54-302's other sales procedures, applies to sales of municipal water systems in light of the more specific statutes regarding those sales.
Section 14-54-302 does not except sales of municipal water systems from its requirements. By its terms, it applies to "any real estate or personal property owned or controlled by the municipality[.]" However, were there a conflict between section 14-54-302 and section 14-199-302 et seq., the latter statutes, which specifically address water system sales, would control: "[i]n statutory construction where specific expressions conflict with general expressions, the greater effect is given to the more specific expression."
In sum, if section 14-54-302 does not conflict with section 14-199-302 et seq., both section 14-54-302 and section 14-199-302 et seq. govern water sales. If section 14-54-302 does conflict with section 14-199-302 et seq., then only the latter statutes govern water sales.
Unlike section 14-54-302, section 14-199-302 et seq. do not affirmatively require competitive bidding in water system sales. But their merely not affirmatively requiring competitive bidding is insufficient to create a conflict with section 14-54-302. To conflict with section 14-54-302, section 14-199-302 et seq. would have to provide that competitive bidding is not required. They do not do so. Section 14-199-302 et seq. says nothing about the conduct of water-system sales themselves. Section 14-199-302 provides essentially two preconditions to the sale of a municipal water system or other public utility: 1) the municipality's council must resolve by majority vote that a sale would be in the municipality's best interest; and 2) a petition, signed by a majority in value of the municipality's real property owners, must be filed with the council within one year thereafter supporting the sale and stating a minimum price. These preconditions to authorizing a water system sale do not address how the sale is to be conducted; and the requirement of a stated minimum price is consistent with a competitive-bidding procedure. Sections 14-199-303, 14-199-304, and 14-199-305, respectively, address the method of payment for a public utility, the method of transfer of the utility to the buyer, and the use and disbursement of sale proceeds. Individually and in their totality, these provisions leave open the question of how a public-utility sale is conducted, speaking only to pre-sale procedures and sale consummation. They do not, therefore, explicitly or implicitly conflict with section 14-54-302's requirement of competitive bidding, or any other provision of section 14-54-302. As there is no conflict, and as section 14-54-302 applies by its terms to all sales of municipal property, there is no reason to conclude that § 14-54-302 does not apply to municipalities' sales of their water systems.
It is therefore my opinion that both Ark. Code Ann. §§ 14-54-302 and 14-199-302 et seq. govern municipal sales of water systems.
Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2018 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Arkansas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.