Does the Arkansas Attorney General have authority to review and approve an interlocal agreement between a city and a county that only divides funding for district court operations?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2025. Ask about yours and see what current Arkansas law means for your facts, with citations you can check.
Subject
Whether Arkansas's Attorney General could review a city-county agreement allocating district court and probation-related expenses under either of two interlocal agreement statutes.
Plain-English summary
Pope County and the City of Russellville sent the AG an unsigned agreement dividing the funding of district court clerks, district court operating expenses, and probation fees. The document called itself an “interlocal agreement” and mentioned both the Interlocal Cooperation Act and the county interlocal statute. The AG concluded he lacked authority to review or approve it under either statute.
The Interlocal Cooperation Act concerns agreements between public agencies “for joint cooperative action.” The city and county are public agencies, but the AG found that this agreement required them to do nothing other than pay money. It therefore did not satisfy the Act's joint-action requirement.
The county interlocal statute, A.C.A. § 14-14-910, requires AG review only when the state or a state agency is a party. Neither was a party to this city-county agreement. The AG gave no opinion on the agreement's validity or on whether either government should enter it.
What this means for you
City and county lawyers submitting an agreement
Check what the document actually requires the parties to do before requesting review under the Interlocal Cooperation Act. The AG treated a money-payment arrangement as outside that Act even though the document was titled “interlocal agreement.” Under § 14-14-910, identify whether the state or a state agency is a party. This opinion addresses the AG's review authority for the submitted agreement, not the legality of its funding terms.
Local officials considering a court-funding arrangement
An AG refusal to review an agreement for lack of authority leaves its legal effect unanswered. The opinion does not approve, reject, validate, or invalidate the proposed terms. It supplies the two statutory reasons the AG could not provide the requested review.
Common questions
Why didn't the title “interlocal agreement” trigger review?
The AG looked at the agreement's obligations. He found that it concerned money payments and did not require the parties to “do anything other than pay money.” He therefore found no “joint cooperative action” under the Interlocal Cooperation Act.
Are a city and county “public agencies” under the Act?
Yes. The opinion says both Pope County and Russellville are public agencies. That alone was insufficient because the submitted agreement did not involve joint cooperative action.
When does § 14-14-910 require AG review?
The opinion says a county interlocal agreement must be submitted for AG review and approval under that provision only if “a state or state agency” is a party. No such party joined this agreement.
Did the AG say whether the agreement could be signed or enforced?
No. He decided only that he lacked authority to review it under the two statutes presented.
Background and statutory framework
A.C.A. § 25-20-104(b) describes an agreement between two or more public agencies for joint cooperative action. The AG relied on earlier opinions interpreting that phrase and concluded the proposed arrangement did not meet it because the city and county would only pay money. The opinion also cites an earlier view that a contract for services is outside the Act's joint-undertaking category.
A.C.A. § 14-14-910(e) supplies a separate review path for county interlocal agreements involving the state or a state agency. It did not apply here because the agreement joined a city and a county, with no state-level party.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2025. Check current law and the actual duties in an agreement before seeking review under either statute.
Citations
- A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524 (Interlocal Cooperation Act)
- A.C.A. § 25-20-104(b) (public agencies and joint cooperative action)
- A.C.A. § 14-14-910(e) (state-party condition for county interlocal review)
- Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2012-127 (money-payment distinction cited by the AG)
- Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 93-408 (contract-for-services distinction cited by the AG)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2025-001
January 27, 2025
Clayton E. McCall
McCall Law Firm, PLLC
1020 West Main
Russellville, Arkansas 72801
Dear Mr. McCall:
You have requested my review and approval of an interlocal agreement between Pope County, Arkansas, and the City of Russellville, Arkansas, entitled “Interlocal Agreement … on the Compensation of the Pope County District Court Clerks, Pope County District Court Operating Expenses, Probation Clerks Operating Expenses.”1 The agreement would divide between the city and the county the funding of certain district court clerks, the district court operating expenses, and the payment of probation fees.
RESPONSE
After reviewing the submitted interlocal agreement, I have determined that I lack the authority to review the agreement under either the Interlocal Cooperation Act2 or as a county interlocal agreement under A.C.A § 14-14-910.
DISCUSSION
This Agreement is labeled as an “interlocal agreement.” It also mentions both A.C.A. § 14-14-910 and A.C.A. § 25-20-104.
Under A.C.A. § 25-20-104, an interlocal agreement is one between “two … or more public agencies … for joint cooperative action.”3 Both the City of Russellville and Pope County are
1
You submitted an unsigned copy of the agreement to this Office.
2
A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524.
3
Id. § 25-20-104(b).
Clayton E. McCall
McCall Law Firm, PLLC
Opinion No. 2025-001
Page 2
“public agencies” under the Interlocal Cooperation Act.4 But the submitted agreement, which concerns money payments, is not one for “joint cooperative action” under the Act.5 That is, the agreement does not require the parties to “do anything other than pay money.” 6 Thus, I do not have the authority to review this agreement under the Interlocal Cooperation Act.
Under A.C.A. § 14-14-910,7 a “county interlocal agreement” must be submitted to the Attorney General for review and approval only if “a state or state agency” is a party to the agreement.8 Because neither a state nor a state agency is a party to this agreement, I also do not have the authority to review this agreement under A.C.A. § 14-14-910.
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General
4
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. 5 See A.C.A. 25-20-104(a); see also Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-077, 2012-137, 2012-127, 2008-029, 93-408.
6
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2012-127; see also A.C.A. 25-20-104(a); Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 93-408 (opining that an agreement “in the nature of a contract for services” is not “an agreement for a joint or cooperative undertaking within the meaning of the Interlocal Cooperation Act”). 7 See A.C.A. §§ 14-14-910(a), -910(b)(1), -910(e).
8
Id. § 14-14-910(e); see also Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2024-059 n.1.
What does Arkansas law say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2025. Ezel checks the current Arkansas statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace