Did the Arkansas AG approve the revised Fort Smith / Sebastian County interlocal agreement to consolidate 911 dispatch operations after the parties added the missing property-disposal language?
Subject
AG Tim Griffin approved the revised "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, after the parties cured the property-disposal-on-termination defect identified in Opinion 2024-085. This is the companion opinion that follows up on the rejection three weeks earlier and demonstrates how a properly drafted single-sentence fix turns a rejected ICA into an approved one.
Plain-English summary
Three weeks before this opinion, AG Tim Griffin rejected the Fort Smith / Sebastian County interlocal agreement to consolidate 911 dispatch operations because it didn't specify how property would be disposed of upon termination. Section 25-20-104 of the Interlocal Cooperation Act lists property-disposal-on-termination as a required term, and missing required terms means the AG can't approve.
The parties revised the agreement. They added one 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 sentence resolved the issue.
This opinion (2024-091) approves the revised agreement. The AG also incorporates by reference the legal framework from Opinion 2024-085, which means future practitioners reading 2024-091 should also pull up 2024-085 to see the full § 25-20-104 checklist and the discussion of why a "Mutual Aid/Interlocal Agreement" is reviewed only on its interlocal aspects.
The opinion repeats two important boundaries from the prior rejection:
- The AG approves only as an interlocal agreement. A "mutual aid agreement" component still requires Arkansas 911 Board approval under § 12-10-304(a)(2). The AG's approval here does not substitute for, or grant, that 911 Board approval.
- The AG's review under § 25-20-104 is form-and-law. Substantive concerns about the wisdom of consolidating dispatch operations, the financing structure, or operational arrangements are outside the AG's review.
The agreement is now effective for purposes of § 25-20-104, assuming the parties' governing bodies have taken the required ordinance or resolution action under § 25-20-104(b).
What this means for you
Cities and counties drafting ICA fixes after AG rejection
This opinion is the model for how to handle an AG rejection efficiently. The whole cycle (rejection on November 14, approval on December 2) took just under three weeks. Practical steps:
- Read the rejection letter carefully. § 25-20-104(f)(2) requires the AG to explain in writing what's missing. That explanation is your fix specification.
- Make the minimum change needed. Don't reopen the broader negotiation. Add the missing required term and resubmit. Fort Smith / Sebastian County added 31 words to one section; that was enough.
- Resubmit promptly. The AG's office has been turning these around within a few weeks of receipt. Don't sit on the revised agreement.
- Re-pass through governing bodies if your jurisdiction's procedure requires it. Many cities and counties require formal ratification of any change to the agreement. Check before assuming the governing body's prior approval covers the revised text.
City attorneys and county attorneys drafting interlocal agreements from scratch
Don't repeat the Fort Smith / Sebastian County mistake. Run through the § 25-20-104(c) and (d) required-terms checklist before submitting:
- For agreements creating a separate entity: organization/composition/powers; duration; purposes; financing/budgeting; termination AND property disposal on termination; other necessary matters.
- For agreements not creating a separate entity: same as above plus an administrator/joint board provision and acquiring/holding/disposing of property.
Property disposal on termination is a frequent miss because parties think the title-and-ownership clause covers it. The AG's view is that title and disposal-upon-termination are different questions. Address both explicitly.
911 directors and public-safety officials watching this consolidation
The AG approval clears the interlocal-cooperation hurdle. The Arkansas 911 Board still has to approve the mutual-aid components under § 12-10-304(a)(2). Don't begin operations of the consolidated PSAP based on the AG approval alone; confirm the 911 Board has also acted.
Operational counsel for the joint dispatch authority
Now that the agreement is approved, two operational details are worth your attention:
- The property-disposal rule that earned approval: on termination, property goes back to the entity in which it is titled. Track titles carefully going forward. If joint property is acquired (e.g., new shared equipment purchased with combined funds), the title decision matters; you may want to amend the agreement or adopt an internal procurement policy to clarify what entity will hold title to jointly funded acquisitions.
- AG approval is not perpetual. If the parties amend the agreement materially in the future, a new AG submission may be required. Minor procedural tweaks usually don't require resubmission, but substantive changes to the terms listed in § 25-20-104(c) or (d) likely do.
Citizens following the Fort Smith / Sebastian County dispatch consolidation
This approval clears a key legal step toward operating a single, consolidated 911 / dispatch center for Fort Smith and unincorporated Sebastian County. The expected practical effects: faster response coordination across city/county lines, consolidated facilities and staffing, and (typically) shared cost savings between the city and county budgets.
Common questions
Q: Why does the AG opinion say it "incorporates by reference" the prior opinion?
Because the legal framework (the § 25-20-104 checklist, the public-agency definitions, the AG's review scope) was already explained at length in Opinion 2024-085. Rather than repeat the analysis, the AG just points back to it. Anyone researching this approval should read 2024-085 first.
Q: What changed between the rejected and approved versions of the agreement?
A single 31-word sentence added 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."
Q: What is the RVCC?
The opinion doesn't spell out the acronym, but in context it's the joint dispatch organization created by the agreement. The Fort Smith / Sebastian County agreement establishes a "Regional Voice Communications Center" or similar named entity (the agreement labels the consolidated PSAP and dispatch operations).
Q: Does this AG approval mean the agreement is in force?
Approval clears one of the two prerequisites under § 25-20-104. The other is governing-body action by ordinance or resolution under § 25-20-104(b). Assuming both Fort Smith's city council and Sebastian County's quorum court have already passed those resolutions, the agreement is now operative as an interlocal agreement.
Q: Does AG approval substitute for 911 Board approval of the mutual-aid components?
No. The AG was emphatic in both 2024-085 and 2024-091 that he reviews only the interlocal agreement. Mutual-aid components require Arkansas 911 Board approval under § 12-10-304(a)(2). The two reviews are independent.
Q: Can the parties later amend the agreement without going back to the AG?
Material amendments to required terms (financing, termination, property disposal, administration, etc.) probably require resubmission. Cosmetic or procedural tweaks usually don't. When in doubt, ask. The AG's review is fast and cheap insurance against challenges later.
Q: Are AG opinions on interlocal agreements binding precedent?
AG opinions are persuasive but not binding on courts. The approval here is binding for purposes of § 25-20-104(f)(1) (the agreement is now effective), but the legal interpretation in the opinion is just the AG's view. Other parties drafting similar agreements should still independently confirm that their agreement satisfies § 25-20-104.
Background and statutory framework
Interlocal Cooperation Act (§§ 25-20-101 to -524). Authorizes Arkansas public agencies to enter cooperative agreements. § 25-20-104 sets out the required terms for interlocal agreements and the AG-review process. See Opinion 2024-085 for a detailed walk-through of the required terms and the AG's role.
Sequential AG opinions on the same agreement. This is unusual but not unique: the AG sometimes rejects an interlocal agreement on a curable defect and then approves a revised version. The same checklist applies in both reviews, and the second opinion typically adopts the first opinion's analysis by reference rather than restating it.
The fix. The added sentence specifies that property used by the joint authority is disposed of by returning it to the titled entity. That's a clean, minimum-friction disposal rule and likely what most parties to a joint-operation agreement would want by default. It also aligns with the underlying property-rights framework (title controls, with no novel transfer of ownership through participation in the agreement).
The unreviewed mutual-aid component. A.C.A. § 12-10-304(a)(2) requires Arkansas 911 Board approval for any mutual-aid agreement that designates another political subdivision's public-safety answering point. The AG's approval under § 25-20-104 has no bearing on this separate review.
Citations
- A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524 (Interlocal Cooperation Act)
- A.C.A. § 25-20-104 (interlocal-agreement requirements and AG review; see Opinion 2024-085 for detailed citations to subsections (b), (c), (c)(5), (d), (f)(1), (f)(2))
- A.C.A. § 12-10-304(a)(2) (Arkansas 911 Board review of mutual-aid agreements)
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Op. 2024-085 (prior rejection of unrevised agreement; legal framework incorporated by reference)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2024-091
December 2, 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."
In Attorney General Opinion No. 2024-085, I reviewed a prior version of your proposed interlocal
agreement. I did not approve that agreement because "it fail[ed] to specify how to dispose of
property upon partial or complete termination." You have now revised the agreement and
submitted it. Because Attorney General Opinion 2024-085 provides the law that governs my
review of interlocal agreements, I rely on that same law here and incorporate it by reference.
The only difference between the two submissions is the following addition to Section 8 of the
Agreement: "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."
Having reviewed the submitted Agreement, I find that it meets the requirements under A.C.A.
§ 25-20-104, regardless of whether it creates a separate entity. Thus, I approve the Agreement as
submitted.
As noted in Opinion No. 2024-085, I will reiterate here that this Agreement is labeled as both a "mutual aid
agreement" and an "interlocal agreement." I have authority to review the latter but not the former. Therefore, this
opinion does not substitute for any required review under A.C.A. § 12-10-304(a)(2). I am therefore reviewing this
agreement only as an interlocal agreement.
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General