Why did the Arkansas AG reject Craighead and Poinsett counties' renewed interlocal library agreement, and what has to change for it to be approved?
Plain-English summary
Craighead County and Poinsett County submitted a renewed interlocal agreement for shared library services through Crowley's Ridge Regional Library. The AG turned it down. The agreement covered duration, financing, and termination procedure, but it left out items the Interlocal Cooperation Act treats as mandatory: it did not say whether Crowley's Ridge Regional Library was a separate legal entity, did not designate an administrator or joint board, did not lay out the regional library's organization or powers, did not address property acquisition and disposition, and did not explain how property would be disposed of on termination.
The previous agreement approved in 2014 had expired at the end of 2018. The submission also did not clarify whether the entity in the new agreement ("Crowley's Ridge Regional Library") was the same as the one created in 2009 ("Crowley Ridge Regional Library").
What this means for you
Library administrators and county attorneys
If you are running or rewriting a regional library compact, treat A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c) and (d) as a checklist, not a guideline. The AG looked at this agreement and listed exactly what was missing: administrator or joint board, organization and powers of the library entity, property handling provisions, and termination property disposition. Adding clear language on each of those points is the path to approval. While you are at it, document whether the regional library is a separate legal entity (typically yes, for these arrangements), confirm the entity name is consistent across documents, and re-establish operational continuity if the prior agreement lapsed.
County officials
Library service compacts that lapse can leave gaps in funding authority, employment status of library staff, and ownership of bookmobiles, branch buildings, and collections. Get the new agreement approved before the old one expires, not several years after. The AG also noted that an agreement under A.C.A. § 14-14-910 only needs Attorney General review when the state is a party. Pure inter-county agreements still go through the Interlocal Cooperation Act.
Citizens of Craighead and Poinsett counties
Library service in Crowley's Ridge area depends on a renewed compact. A disapproved agreement does not stop existing operations immediately, but it does create legal uncertainty about who controls assets, who employs staff, and who is responsible for funding obligations until a corrected agreement is approved.
Common questions
What was wrong with the agreement?
The AG found four specific gaps under the Interlocal Cooperation Act:
1. No administrator or joint board named to run the joint undertaking
2. Nothing about Crowley's Ridge Regional Library's organization, composition, nature, or delegated powers (if it is in fact a separate legal entity)
3. No method for acquiring, holding, and disposing of property used in the undertaking (if no separate entity exists)
4. Nothing about how property gets distributed if the agreement ends
Is "Crowley's Ridge Regional Library" the same entity as "Crowley Ridge Regional Library"?
The opinion flags this as unclear. The 2009 agreement created "Crowley Ridge Regional Library." The submitted agreement references "Crowley's Ridge Regional Library." Counties should confirm and use a consistent name.
What happens to the regional library now?
The library presumably continues to operate, but legally there is no approved interlocal foundation in place. Counties should redraft and resubmit. Operational and financial decisions made in the meantime may be exposed to challenge until that happens.
Why does the agreement need an administrator if a separate entity exists?
The Act treats the two cases differently. If the agreement creates a separate legal entity, that entity needs defined organization and delegated powers. If no separate entity exists, the agreement must name an administrator or joint board. The submitted document was not clear which path it was on, so it failed both checks.
Background and statutory framework
A.C.A. § 25-20-102 states the policy: "to permit local governmental units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other localities."
A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c) lists the six items every interlocal agreement must include: duration, the legal nature and powers of any entity created, purposes, financing and budget, termination procedure, and any other necessary matters.
A.C.A. § 25-20-104(d) adds two more items if no separate entity is created: a designated administrator or joint board, and the manner of acquiring, holding, and disposing of property.
A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f) requires the Attorney General to review interlocal agreements and approve them only if they are in proper form and consistent with state law. If they fall short, the AG must explain in writing why.
A.C.A. § 14-14-910 is a parallel authority for county-level cooperative agreements. AG review is required only when the state or a state agency is a party. Pure inter-county agreements come up through the Interlocal Cooperation Act.
Citations
- A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524 (Interlocal Cooperation Act)
- A.C.A. § 25-20-102 (purpose)
- A.C.A. § 14-14-910 (county-level cooperative agreements; AG review only when state is a party)
- A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c) (six required items)
- A.C.A. § 25-20-104(d) (two additional items if no separate entity)
- A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f) (AG review requirement)
- Prior approvals: Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2014-017, 2009-061
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2024-059
May 20, 2024
Ms. Vanessa Adams, Library Director
Craighead County Jonesboro Public Library
315 West Oak Avenue
Jonesboro, Arkansas 72401
Dear Ms. Adams:
I am writing in response to your request, made in accordance with the Interlocal Cooperation Act, for my review and approval of the renewal of an interlocal agreement between Craighead County, Arkansas, and Poinsett County, Arkansas, entitled "Interlocal Agreement for Library Services Between the Counties of Poinsett and Craighead, State of Arkansas."
The purpose of the Interlocal Cooperation Act is "to permit local governmental units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other localities." Before an interlocal agreement can go into effect, it must first be submitted to the Attorney General for review. In reviewing the agreement, I determine whether it is in proper form and consistent with state law. If it is, I am required to approve it. But if the agreement is deficient in form or substance, I must explain in writing why the agreement fails to meet the requirements of the law.
The Interlocal Cooperation Act requires that interlocal agreements for joint or cooperative action specify the following items:
(1) The duration of the agreement;
(2) The precise organization, composition, and nature of any separate legal entity created, together with the powers delegated to it;
(3) The purposes of the agreement;
(4) The manner of financing the joint or cooperative undertaking and of establishing and maintaining a budget for it;
(5) The methods for accomplishing complete or partial termination of the agreement and for disposing of property upon termination; and
(6) Any other necessary and proper matters.
Additionally, if the agreement does not establish a separate legal entity to conduct the joint or cooperative undertaking, it must contain the following items:
(1) Provisions for an administrator or joint board responsible for administering the joint or cooperative undertaking;
(2) The manner of acquiring, holding, and disposing of real and personal property used in the joint or cooperative undertaking.
Having reviewed the proposed agreement, I have concluded that it does not meet all of these statutory requirements. The agreement sets forth its duration, manner of financing, and methods by which it may be terminated, and it arguably includes a purpose. But while the agreement references the Crowley's Ridge Regional Library, which is presumably an independent legal entity, it neither deems the Crowley's Ridge Regional Library responsible for conducting the joint or cooperative undertaking, nor does it provide for an administrator or joint board responsible for administering the joint or cooperative undertaking. Likewise, the proposed agreement does not include the precise organization, composition, nature, and powers of the Crowley's Ridge Regional Library (in the event it is a separate legal entity created or renewed by the agreement), nor does it include the manner of acquiring, holding, and disposing of real and personal property used in the undertaking (in the event there is no separate legal entity created to conduct the undertaking). Finally, the agreement fails to set forth the methods for disposing of property upon termination of the agreement.
Accordingly, it is my opinion that the agreement does not meet the requirements of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, and, therefore, I do not approve the interlocal agreement submitted.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General