Why did the Arkansas AG reject the Fort Smith / Sebastian County interlocal agreement to combine 911 dispatch operations?

Subject

AG Tim Griffin reviewed the proposed "Mutual Aid/Interlocal Agreement for the Establishment of Consolidated Public Safety Answering Point and Dispatch Center" between the City of Fort Smith and Sebastian County and rejected it because the agreement did not specify how the parties would dispose of property upon partial or complete termination, a required term under the Interlocal Cooperation Act. The opinion also clarifies the scope of AG review authority over agreements that are simultaneously labeled "mutual aid" and "interlocal."

Plain-English summary

Fort Smith and Sebastian County wanted to combine their 911 dispatch operations into one consolidated dispatch center. Their attorney sent the AG the agreement for review under the Interlocal Cooperation Act, which requires AG approval before an interlocal agreement takes effect.

The AG rejected the agreement, but only on a single fixable defect.

The Interlocal Cooperation Act requires every interlocal agreement to specify certain terms. Two of those terms are different depending on whether the agreement creates a separate legal entity:

• If it creates a separate entity: the agreement must specify (1) the entity's organization and powers, (2) duration, (3) purposes, (4) financing and budgeting, (5) partial or complete termination AND how property is disposed of upon termination, and (6) any other necessary matters.
• If it doesn't create a separate entity: the agreement must specify the same plus (1) provisions for an administrator or joint board, and (2) the manner of acquiring, holding, and disposing of real and personal property.

The Fort Smith / Sebastian County agreement specified who held title to property the city or county brought to the dispatch center but didn't say what happens to that property if the agreement terminates. That's a required term, and missing it is fatal under § 25-20-104(f)(1).

A separate point in the opinion: the agreement was labeled both a "mutual aid agreement" and an "interlocal agreement." The AG explained that he has authority to review interlocal agreements but not mutual aid agreements. Mutual aid agreements that designate another political subdivision's public-safety answering point require approval from the Arkansas 911 Board, not the AG. The AG therefore reviewed the document only as an interlocal agreement, expressly disclaiming any AG review of the mutual-aid components.

The opinion is a clean tutorial on Arkansas's interlocal-review process. The fix is straightforward: add a sentence specifying property disposal upon termination and resubmit. The parties did exactly that, and Opinion 2024-091 (issued three weeks later) approved the revised agreement.

What this means for you

Cities and counties drafting interlocal agreements

This opinion is a checklist before you submit. Run through the § 25-20-104(c) and (d) terms in order:

1. Organization, composition, nature, and powers of any separate legal entity (if you're creating one).
2. Duration of the agreement, with a specific term or renewal mechanism.
3. Purposes the agreement is intended to serve, stated plainly.
4. Financing and budgeting, who pays what, how budget is set, who approves it.
5. Partial or complete termination, including how to dispose of property upon termination. This is the one Fort Smith and Sebastian County missed. Specify it explicitly. Don't assume it's covered by the title-and-ownership clause.
6. Any other necessary and proper matters.

If your agreement does NOT create a separate entity, also specify:
- An administrator or joint board responsible for administering the cooperative undertaking.
- The manner of acquiring, holding, and disposing of real and personal property used in the joint or cooperative undertaking.

The AG's office reviews the form and consistency with state law. They aren't deciding whether the substantive deal is wise. But they will reject for missing required terms.

Counsel for 911 / dispatch consolidations

The AG distinguished interlocal agreements from mutual aid agreements, which is important for dispatch consolidations because the underlying activity (one PSAP serving multiple jurisdictions) often involves both. Two practical takeaways:

1. The AG reviews only the interlocal aspects. If you also need 911-Board approval for mutual-aid components under § 12-10-304(a)(2), that's a separate, parallel process. The AG won't do it for you.
2. Don't double-label the agreement carelessly. Calling a single document a "Mutual Aid/Interlocal Agreement" creates exactly the AG's pause: he'll review only the interlocal piece and explicitly disclaim review of the mutual-aid piece, leaving you to also process it through the 911 Board. Some practitioners separate the two functions into two documents (or two distinct sections within one document) to make the review tracks cleaner.

City attorneys and county quorum-court attorneys

Two procedural points:

1. The agreement isn't in effect until AG approval. § 25-20-104(b) requires action by ordinance or resolution by each governing body before the agreement enters force, and § 25-20-104(f)(1) requires AG approval. Don't operate under an unapproved agreement.
2. AG rejection is informational, not punitive. The AG must explain in writing why the agreement fails the requirements (§ 25-20-104(f)(2)). Use that explanation as a roadmap to fix and resubmit. Fort Smith / Sebastian County did this in three weeks.

Arkansas 911 Board members

Mutual-aid agreements between political subdivisions designating another's PSAP require your approval. The AG opinion confirms this: "the Arkansas 911 Board—not the Attorney General—must review and approve mutual aid agreements." Be prepared to receive a separate filing from cities or counties pursuing dispatch consolidations.

State legislators reviewing the dispatch consolidation framework

The split between AG review (interlocal agreements) and 911-Board review (mutual-aid agreements) creates two parallel processes for what's often a single underlying transaction. If you want to streamline, consider whether the legislature wants to either (1) consolidate review authority, or (2) expressly require both approvals to proceed in tandem with a single submission package.

Citizens curious about how 911 dispatch consolidation works

A consolidated 911 / dispatch center is supposed to give Fort Smith and Sebastian County faster, more coordinated emergency response by sharing facilities and operations across jurisdictional lines. The legal scaffolding involves the Interlocal Cooperation Act and the Arkansas Public Safety Communications and Next Generation 911 Act. The AG's job is form-and-law review of the interlocal piece, not a policy judgment on whether consolidation is a good idea.

Common questions

Q: Why does the AG review interlocal agreements at all?

The Interlocal Cooperation Act requires it (§ 25-20-104(f)(1)). The Office reviews whether the agreement is in proper form and consistent with state law. The AG does not substitute its policy judgment for the cities' or counties' decisions; the review is essentially a compliance check.

Q: What if the AG rejects an interlocal agreement and the parties disagree?

§ 25-20-104(f)(2) requires the AG to explain rejections in writing. The parties can revise and resubmit. They can also litigate, though that's rare for routine ICAs.

Q: Does AG approval mean the agreement is legally bulletproof?

No. AG approval means the AG found the agreement complies with § 25-20-104's required-terms list. Other legal challenges (constitutional, statutory, contract-formation) remain available. AG approval is also persuasive but not binding on courts.

Q: What's the difference between an interlocal agreement and a mutual-aid agreement?

An interlocal agreement is a formal cooperative-action arrangement between two or more public agencies, governed by §§ 25-20-101 to -524. A mutual-aid agreement is a more limited arrangement, typically for emergency response, where one agency agrees to provide aid to another. In the public-safety context, A.C.A. § 12-10-304(a)(2) governs mutual-aid agreements for 911 dispatch and requires Arkansas 911 Board approval.

Q: Does the 60-day clock for property disposal under § 25-20-104(c)(5) apply to all property?

The statute requires the agreement to specify how property is disposed of upon termination, but doesn't dictate the answer (i.e., the agreement can specify that property reverts to the contributing entity, that it's auctioned, that it's sold and proceeds split, etc.). The Fort Smith / Sebastian County fix in 2024-091 was: "property utilized by the RVCC shall be disposed of by returning the same to the entity in which said property is titled." That's a clean, simple disposal rule.

Q: Can a city and county skip AG review and just operate the joint dispatch center?

Not legally. § 25-20-104(b) and (f)(1) are mandatory. Operating without AG approval risks invalidating actions taken under the agreement and exposes both parties to legal challenges from third parties or members of the public.

Q: Does AG review apply to interlocal agreements between two cities (no county involved)?

Yes. § 25-20-104(b) refers to "two … or more public agencies." § 25-20-103(1)(B) defines "public agency" to include "[p]olitical subdivision[s] of this state," which includes cities, counties, school districts, and other government bodies.

Background and statutory framework

Interlocal Cooperation Act (§§ 25-20-101 to -524). Authorizes Arkansas public agencies (cities, counties, school districts, special districts, and similar political subdivisions) to enter into agreements for joint cooperative action. § 25-20-103(1) defines "public agency" inclusively. § 25-20-104(b) provides that "[a]ppropriate action by ordinance, resolution, or otherwise pursuant to law of the governing bodies of the participating public agencies shall be necessary before the agreement may enter into force."

§ 25-20-104(c) lists the required terms for interlocal agreements that create a separate legal entity:

1. Organization, composition, and nature of the entity, plus delegated powers.
2. Duration.
3. Purposes.
4. Manner of financing the joint undertaking and establishing/maintaining a budget.
5. Method of partial or complete termination, including disposal of property upon termination.
6. Any other necessary and proper matters.

§ 25-20-104(d) lists additional required terms for interlocal agreements that do NOT create a separate legal entity:

1. Provisions for an administrator or joint board.
2. Manner of acquiring, holding, and disposing of real and personal property used in the joint undertaking.

§ 25-20-104(f)(1) requires AG approval before an interlocal agreement enters force. § 25-20-104(f)(2) provides that if the agreement satisfies the required terms, the AG must approve it; if not, the AG must reject and explain in writing.

Arkansas Public Safety Communications and Next Generation 911 Act (§§ 12-10-301 to -330). Governs 911 communications and dispatch operations statewide. § 12-10-304(a)(2) requires Arkansas 911 Board approval for mutual-aid agreements that designate another political subdivision's public-safety answering point. The AG has no review authority over mutual-aid agreements.

Prior interlocal-review opinions. The AG's office has issued numerous interlocal-review opinions over the years. Opinion 2024-085 cites recent ones including 2023-105, 2016-077, 2012-127, 2008-029 / 2008-125, 2006-042, 2005-173, 2004-194, 2002-345, and 97-227. These opinions consistently apply the same § 25-20-104(c) / (d) checklist and reject for missing required terms.

The Fort Smith / Sebastian County agreement at issue in this opinion was revised after the rejection. The revision added a single sentence to Section 8: "In the event this Agreement is terminated, property utilized by the RVCC shall be disposed of by returning the same to the entity in which said property is titled." That single addition was enough to bring the agreement into compliance, and AG Opinion 2024-091 (December 2, 2024) approved the revised agreement.

Citations

• A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524 (Interlocal Cooperation Act)
• A.C.A. § 25-20-103(1), (1)(B) (definition of "public agency")
• A.C.A. § 25-20-104 (interlocal-agreement requirements and AG review)
• A.C.A. § 25-20-104(b) (governing-body action required)
• A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c) (required terms for separate-entity ICAs)
• A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c)(5) (property disposal upon termination)
• A.C.A. § 25-20-104(d) (additional required terms for non-entity ICAs)
• A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f)(1) (AG approval required before ICA enters force)
• A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f)(2) (AG must explain rejections)
• A.C.A. §§ 12-10-301 to -330 (Arkansas Public Safety Communications and Next Generation 911 Act of 2019)
• A.C.A. § 12-10-304(a)(2) (Arkansas 911 Board review of mutual-aid agreements)
• Ark. Att'y Gen. Op. 2024-091 (subsequent approval of revised agreement)
• Ark. Att'y Gen. Op. 2023-105, 2016-077, 2012-127, 2008-125, 2008-029, 2006-042, 2005-173, 2004-194, 2002-345, 97-227 (prior interlocal-review opinions)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2024-085
November 14, 2024
Colby T. Roe
Daily & Woods, PLLC
58 South Sixth Street
Post Office Box 1446
Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902
Dear Mr. Roe:
Under the Interlocal Cooperation Act, you have requested my review and approval of an interlocal
agreement between the City of Fort Smith, Arkansas, and Sebastian County, Arkansas, entitled
"Mutual Aid/Interlocal Agreement for the Establishment of Consolidated Public Safety Answering
Point and Dispatch Center." The agreement would authorize the City and County to combine their
public safety answering points and dispatch centers into one facility under the Arkansas Public
Safety Communications and Next Generation 911 Act of 2019.
RESPONSE
After reviewing the submitted interlocal agreement, I have determined that it does not meet the
requirements of A.C.A. § 25-20-104 because it fails to specify how to dispose of property upon
partial or complete termination of the agreement. Thus, I cannot approve it.
DISCUSSION
This Agreement is labeled as both a "mutual aid agreement" and an "interlocal agreement." While
I must review interlocal agreements under A.C.A. § 25-20-104, I lack authority to review or
approve mutual aid agreements under A.C.A. § 12-10-304(a)(2). Instead, the Arkansas 911
Board—not the Attorney General—must review and approve mutual aid agreements. I am
therefore reviewing this agreement only as an interlocal agreement, which does not satisfy the
requirement of approval by the Arkansas 911 Board.
An interlocal agreement is one between "two … or more public agencies … for joint cooperative
action." Both the City of Fort Smith and Sebastian County are "public agencies" under the
Interlocal Cooperation Act. This agreement also appears to be one "for joint cooperative action."
Before an interlocal agreement is effective, it must first be reviewed and approved by the Attorney
General. In reviewing the agreement, this office determines whether it is in proper form and
consistent with state law.
The Act requires that interlocal agreements specify certain terms. But the required terms differ
depending on whether the agreement creates a separate legal entity. For interlocal agreements that
create a separate legal entity, the following six terms must be specified in the agreement:
1. The precise organization, composition, and nature of any separate legal entity created,
together with the powers delegated to it;
2. The agreement's duration;
3. The agreement's purposes;
4. The manner of financing the joint or cooperative undertaking and of establishing and
maintaining a budget for it;
5. How to partially or completely terminate the agreement and how to dispose of property
upon partial or complete termination; and
6. Any other necessary and proper matters.
But for interlocal agreements that do not create a separate legal entity, the agreement would need
to—in addition to requirements two through eight above—also specify the following:
1. Provisions for an administrator or joint board responsible for administering the joint or
cooperative undertaking; and
2. The manner of acquiring, holding, and disposing of real and personal property used in the
joint or cooperative undertaking.
If the applicable required terms are specified in the agreement, I must approve it, and the agreement
becomes effective. But if they are not specified, I must reject it and explain in writing why the
agreement fails to meet the requirements of the law.
Regardless of whether the submitted agreement creates a separate entity, it fails to specify how to
dispose of property upon partial or complete termination. Although the agreement specifies who
has title to existing and future property, it does not specify how to dispose of the property when
a party partially or completely terminates the agreement.
Accordingly, I cannot approve the submitted agreement, and under § 25-20-104, the agreement is
not in effect.
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General