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 and Poinsett counties submitted a library-services agreement for the AG's approval under the Interlocal Cooperation Act. The AG disapproved it because it omitted required terms about who would administer the joint undertaking, the legal entity's organization and powers if one was created or renewed, property arrangements if none was created, and disposition of property when the agreement ends. The document did state its duration, financing, and termination method; the AG said its purpose could be inferred from the recitals.

The opinion's footnotes add relevant history. The AG had approved earlier agreements in 2009 and 2014 for the Crowley Ridge Regional Library. The 2014 renewal expired December 31, 2018. The AG said he had no information on whether that library continued to operate after expiration or whether it was the same entity as the "Crowley's Ridge Regional Library" named in the newly submitted agreement. Those uncertainties reinforced the need to define the undertaking's organization and responsibility in the submitted text.

A separate footnote explains the review route. The submitted agreement cited both the Interlocal Cooperation Act and A.C.A. § 14-14-910. Under the latter statute, AG review is required only when the state or a state agency is a party. Under the Interlocal Cooperation Act, every agreement requires AG review. Because no state party was involved, the AG reviewed this submission under the Interlocal Cooperation Act.

What this means for you

County and library officials

A renewed agreement needs more than a duration, budget, and termination clause. State clearly whether it creates or renews a separate legal entity and what that entity's organization, composition, nature, and delegated powers are. If there is no separate entity, designate an administrator or joint board and explain how property will be acquired, held, and disposed of. In either case, state how property is disposed of when the agreement terminates.

The opinion does not establish what operations continued after the 2018 expiration or decide who owned particular library assets. It identifies those matters as unknown. A revised submission should address the entity identity and the statutory terms the AG found missing.

Residents and public-library users

The AG's decision concerns approval of the proposed interlocal agreement. He did not report whether library service stopped, continued, or changed after the previous approval expired. The disapproval means this submitted agreement did not meet the Interlocal Cooperation Act's requirements.

Common questions

What was missing from the new agreement?
It neither made the named regional library responsible for the joint undertaking nor designated an administrator or joint board. It omitted the entity's organization and powers if a separate entity was being created or renewed, the property-handling method required if there was no separate entity, and the method for disposing of property on termination.

Had earlier agreements been approved?
Yes. PDF footnote 2 cites AG Opinions 2009-061 and 2014-017. Footnote 11 says the 2009 agreement created the Crowley Ridge Regional Library as a separate legal entity, the 2014 agreement renewed it, and the renewal expired December 31, 2018.

Did the AG confirm the present library is the same entity?
No. Footnote 11 says the requester supplied no information on whether the earlier library continued to operate or whether it was the same entity as the "Crowley's Ridge Regional Library" in the new submission.

Why did the AG review an agreement between two counties?
The submission invoked the Interlocal Cooperation Act, which requires AG review of all agreements made under it. PDF footnote 1 contrasts A.C.A. § 14-14-910, which requires AG review only when the state or a state agency is a party.

Legal basis in the opinion

A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c), quoted by the AG, requires an interlocal agreement to state "[t]he methods for accomplishing complete or partial termination of the agreement and for disposing of property upon termination." Under § 25-20-104(d), an agreement without a separate legal entity must specify an administrator or joint board and how real and personal property is acquired, held, and disposed of. The AG found the submitted text lacked these required provisions.

Source

• Official Arkansas Attorney General opinion search: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/ (Opinion No. 2024-059, May 20, 2024; official three-page PDF, including footnotes 1, 2, and 11)

Original opinion text

TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

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,1 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.”2

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.”3 Before an interlocal agreement can go into effect, it must first be submitted to the Attorney General for review.4 In reviewing the agreement, I determine whether it is in proper form and consistent with state law.5 If it is, I am required to approve it.6 But if the

1
A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524. In addition to citing the Interlocal Cooperation Act, your proposed agreement cites A.C.A. § 14-14-910 as authority for entering this agreement. Interlocal agreements entered under A.C.A.
§ 14-14-910 must be submitted to the Attorney General for review and approval only if a state or state agency is a party to the agreement. By contrast, all agreements entered under the Interlocal Cooperation Act require the Attorney General’s review and approval. Because neither the state nor a state agency is a party to this agreement, my review is conducted under A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524. 2 This office issued its approval of previous interlocal cooperation agreements between Poinsett County and Craighead County for the operation of the Crowley Ridge Regional Library in 2014 and 2009. See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2014-017, 2009-061. 3 A.C.A. § 25-20-102.
4
Id. § 25-20-104(f)(1).
5
Id.
6
A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f)(2).

323 CENTER STREET, SU ITE 200
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Vanessa Adams, Library Director
Craighead County Jonesboro Public Library
Opinion No. 2024-059
Page 2

agreement is deficient in form or substance, I must explain in writing why the agreement fails to meet the requirements of the law.7

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.8

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.9

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.10 But while the agreement references the Crowley’s Ridge Regional Library, which is presumably an independent legal entity,11 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

7
Id.
8
A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c).
9
A.C.A. § 25-20-104(d).
10
While the agreement does not clearly state a purpose, one can surmise from the recitals that its purpose is to “benefit and enhance rural library services to benefit citizens in each county.” 11 Attorney General Opinion No. 2009-061 approved an interlocal agreement that, among other things, created the Crowley Ridge Regional Library as a separate legal entity. Attorney General Opinion No. 2014-017 approved the renewal of that agreement. The term of that renewed agreement expired on December 31, 2018, but you have provided no information on whether the Crowley Ridge Regional Library continued to operate after the last agreement approved by my office ended or whether the Crowley Ridge Regional Library is even the same entity as the Crowley’s Ridge Regional Library referenced in the agreement you have submitted for my review. Vanessa Adams, Library Director Craighead County Jonesboro Public Library Opinion No. 2024-059 Page 3

undertaking.12 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),13 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).14 Finally, the agreement fails to set forth the methods for disposing of property upon termination of the agreement.15

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

12
See A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c)(2), (d)(1).
13
See A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c)(2).
14
See A.C.A. § 25-20-104(d)(2).
15
See A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c)(5).