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

Subject

Attorney General Tim Griffin refused to approve a proposed interlocal agreement between the City of Fort Smith and Sebastian County for a consolidated public safety answering point and dispatch center. The agreement did not specify how to dispose of property if either party partially or completely terminated it.

Plain-English summary

Fort Smith and Sebastian County proposed to combine their public safety answering points and dispatch centers in one facility. Their lawyer submitted an agreement titled “Mutual Aid/Interlocal Agreement for the Establishment of Consolidated Public Safety Answering Point and Dispatch Center” for the Attorney General's review.

The AG reviewed the document as an interlocal agreement. Arkansas law requires such agreements to say how to dispose of property upon partial or complete termination. The submitted agreement said that property used for the center would remain titled to the city or county and described how future assets could be acquired and held. It did not say what would happen to the property when a party terminated the agreement. The AG therefore refused approval and said the agreement was not in effect.

The document's “mutual aid” label raised a separate approval issue. The AG said he lacked authority to review or approve mutual aid agreements under A.C.A. § 12-10-304(a)(2). The Arkansas 911 Board must approve a mutual aid agreement that designates another political subdivision's public safety answering point. His review of the interlocal agreement did not satisfy that requirement.

What this means for you

City and county officials preparing a joint dispatch agreement

State what happens to property if the agreement ends in whole or in part. A clause saying which government holds title during the arrangement did not meet the termination requirement in this opinion. Check the other applicable terms in A.C.A. § 25-20-104 before submitting the agreement to the AG. The opinion says an interlocal agreement must receive AG review and approval before it becomes effective.

Counsel handling a 911 mutual aid arrangement

Identify which approval your document requires. The AG reviewed this combined document only as an interlocal agreement and expressly said that review did not satisfy the Arkansas 911 Board approval requirement for a mutual aid agreement. The opinion quotes A.C.A. § 12-10-304(a)(2) on designating another political subdivision's public safety answering point.

Common questions

Why wasn't the agreement's property ownership clause enough?

It identified who held title to existing and future property. The AG said it did not specify how that property would be disposed of if a party partially or completely terminated the agreement. A.C.A. § 25-20-104 requires the latter term.

Was the proposed agreement already in effect?

No. The AG concluded: “I cannot approve the submitted agreement, and under § 25-20-104, the agreement is not in effect.”

Did the AG decide whether the agreement needed a separate legal entity?

No. He described requirements for agreements with and without one, then explained that the missing property disposal term prevented approval either way.

Did the AG approve the mutual aid part of the document?

No. He said the Arkansas 911 Board, not the Attorney General, must review and approve mutual aid agreements, and that his interlocal review did not meet the Board approval requirement.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion quotes the Interlocal Cooperation Act's description of an agreement between “two … or more public agencies … for joint cooperative action.” It found Fort Smith and Sebastian County to be public agencies and the proposed agreement to appear to involve joint cooperative action.

A.C.A. § 25-20-104 requires specified terms for interlocal agreements, including duration, purposes, financing, termination, and property disposal. When the parties do not create a separate legal entity, the agreement must also provide for an administrator or joint board and address acquiring, holding, and disposing of property used for the joint undertaking. The AG must approve a compliant agreement or reject it with a written explanation. The failure identified here was the lack of a property disposal term upon termination.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2024. Check current Arkansas law and the text of any agreement before relying on its requirements for a new arrangement.

Citations

• A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524 (Interlocal Cooperation Act)
• A.C.A. § 25-20-104 (interlocal agreement requirements and AG review)
• A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c)(5) (property disposal upon termination)
• A.C.A. § 25-20-104(d) (additional terms without a separate legal entity)
• A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f)(1) (AG approval)
• A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f)(2) (approval or written rejection)
• A.C.A. § 12-10-304(a)(2) (Arkansas 911 Board approval for specified mutual aid agreements)

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,1 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.”2 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 2019.3

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).4 Instead, the Arkansas 911

1
A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524.
2
You submitted a letter and the agreement to this Office.
3
A.C.A. § 12-10-301 to -330.
4
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2012-127, 2008-125, 97-227.

Colby T. Roe
Daily & Woods, PLLC
Opinion No. 2024-085
Page 2

Board—not the Attorney General—must review and approve mutual aid agreements.5 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.”6 Both the City of Fort Smith and Sebastian County are “public agencies” under the Interlocal Cooperation Act.7 This agreement also appears to be one “for joint cooperative action.”8

Before an interlocal agreement is effective,9 it must first be reviewed and approved by the Attorney General.10 In reviewing the agreement, this office determines whether it is in proper form and consistent with state law.11

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

5
A.C.A. § 12-10-304(a)(2) (providing that a mutual aid agreement that designates another political subdivision’s public safety answering point must receive “approval from the Arkansas 911 Board”). 6 Id. § 25-20-104(b).
7
See id. §§ 25-20-104(b), 25-20-103(1). “Public agency” includes a “[p]olitical subdivision of this state.” Id. § 25- 20-103(1)(B). And cities and counties are political subdivisions of this state. See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2023- 105, 2002-345. 8 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-077, 2012-127, 2008-029, 2006-042, 2005-173, 2004-194.
9
A.C.A. § 25-20-104(b) (“Appropriate 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”). 10 Id. § 25-20-104(f)(1).
11
Id.

Colby T. Roe
Daily & Woods, PLLC
Opinion No. 2024-085
Page 3

6. Any other necessary and proper matters.12

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.13

If the applicable required terms are specified in the agreement, I must approve it, and the agreement becomes effective.14 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.15

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,16 it does not specify how to dispose of the property when a party partially or completely terminates the agreement.17

Accordingly, I cannot approve the submitted agreement, and under § 25-20-104, the agreement is not in effect.18

Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

12
A.C.A. 25-20-104(c).
13
Id. § 25-20-104(d).
14
Id. § 25-20-104(f)(2).
15
Id.
16
The submitted agreement provides: “Any property … of the City or County utilized to implement and/or operate the RVCC shall remain the property of the City or County. Future property and additional assets may be acquired by the RVCC, provided that the City’s purchasing and procurement policies have been met. Said future property or assets shall be held in the name of the City and the County.” 17 See A.C.A. § 25-20-104(c)(5).
18
Id. § 25-20-104(f)(1).