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?
Subject
Whether the Arkansas Attorney General has authority to review a city-county interlocal agreement that allocates funding for district court clerks, court operating expenses, and probation clerks.
Plain-English summary
Russellville attorney Clayton McCall sent the AG a draft "interlocal agreement" between Pope County and the City of Russellville covering how to split the cost of district court clerks, district court operations, and probation clerks. McCall asked the AG to review and approve it.
AG Tim Griffin declined, not on the merits but on jurisdiction. The opinion explains that the AG has two narrow review authorities for these kinds of documents and neither applies to this one.
The first authority comes from the Interlocal Cooperation Act, which covers agreements "for joint cooperative action" between two or more public agencies. Both the City of Russellville and Pope County qualify as public agencies. The problem is the statute's "joint cooperative action" requirement. The AG cited a line of his predecessors' opinions reading that phrase to mean something more than "pay each other money." When the agreement does not require the parties to do anything other than pay money, it is not a "joint cooperative action" and the Act does not apply. This agreement only divided up payment obligations, so it does not fit.
The second authority comes from § 14-14-910, which requires AG review of "county interlocal agreements," but only when "a state or state agency" is a party. Neither Pope County nor the City of Russellville is a state agency. So the second hook also does not work.
The bottom line for the parties: the agreement may still be perfectly valid; it just does not get the AG sign-off some officials look for. If you want AG review, you need a different kind of agreement structure.
What this means for you
If you are a city attorney or county attorney drafting an interlocal agreement
Decide upfront whether you want AG review and structure the agreement accordingly. The AG will sign off on agreements involving real "joint cooperative action," meaning the parties are doing something together (jointly running a service, building a facility, sharing personnel under shared management) rather than just allocating dollar payments. If you only need a cost-split agreement, you do not need the AG; you can finalize it locally. If you need AG review for political or audit cover, draft the agreement to involve actual joint operation of the activity.
The county-interlocal-agreement statute at § 14-14-910 is a different track. AG review there is mandatory only when a state agency is a party. City-county-only agreements do not trigger it.
If you are on a quorum court or city council voting on this kind of agreement
The AG's no-jurisdiction conclusion does not invalidate your agreement. You can still pass and execute a money-only cost-split agreement; it just is not subject to AG review. Make sure your local counsel confirms the agreement complies with general municipal and county financing law (appropriations process, lawful purpose for the expenditure, etc.). The agreement still has to clear those substantive requirements; it just clears them at the local level.
If you are a district court clerk or probation clerk affected by the funding split
The funding decision is a city-county political decision, not an AG one. Watch the local appropriations process, comment at quorum court and city council meetings if the split affects your office's resourcing, and consult counsel for your office (county or city, depending on which side employs you) about any operational concerns.
If you are a journalist or citizen tracking interlocal cooperation
This opinion narrows the AG's role in interlocal cooperation. When you see a press release that "the parties are seeking AG approval" of a cost-split agreement, expect the AG to decline review unless the agreement involves true joint operation. AG review is not the validation channel for ordinary city-county money agreements.
Common questions
Q: Does this mean the agreement is invalid?
A: No. The AG only said he lacks authority to review and approve it. Valid local cost-split agreements are common and do not need AG review.
Q: When does the AG review interlocal agreements?
A: Two situations. First, agreements between two or more public agencies for "joint cooperative action," meaning the parties are jointly doing something operational, not just paying each other money. Second, county interlocal agreements where a state agency is a party.
Q: What's the difference between a "joint cooperative action" agreement and a "money-only" agreement?
A: Joint cooperative action: the parties operate something together (jointly fund and operate a facility, jointly run a program, share personnel under shared management). Money-only: the parties just allocate who pays what. The AG opinion treats this Russellville/Pope County agreement as the latter.
Q: Why does AG review matter for some agreements?
A: Some statutes condition the validity or enforceability of certain interlocal agreements on AG review. Where AG review is required by statute, the parties cannot skip it. Where review is not required, the parties can finalize without AG involvement.
Q: We have a city-county agreement that involves real joint operation. Do we need AG review?
A: Read § 25-20-104 and the line of AG opinions cited in 2025-001. If your agreement requires the parties to do something other than pay money, it likely qualifies as joint cooperative action and AG review may be applicable. Your city or county attorney should confirm.
Background and statutory framework
Interlocal cooperation in Arkansas runs on two parallel tracks. The Interlocal Cooperation Act (A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524) authorizes "public agencies" (cities, counties, school districts, the state itself, and other political subdivisions) to enter agreements for "joint cooperative action" under § 25-20-104. The statutory definition of "joint cooperative action" is the gating language; the AG's office has consistently read it to require actual joint operation, not just a payment allocation. The supporting opinions cited in 2025-001 (2016-077, 2012-137, 2012-127, 2008-029, 93-408) all decline review of money-only agreements on this ground.
The county-interlocal track at § 14-14-910 is narrower. It addresses interlocal agreements specifically entered into by counties, and § 14-14-910(e) makes AG review mandatory only when a state or state agency is a party.
The Russellville/Pope County agreement: a contract for compensation of district court clerks (whom the city and county jointly fund under Arkansas's hybrid district court funding system), district court operating expenses, and probation clerks. Because the agreement only allocates money payments and because no state agency is a party, both review tracks are closed.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-20-104 (interlocal agreements for joint cooperative action)
- A.C.A. § 14-14-910 (county interlocal agreements)
Prior AG opinions on "joint cooperative action":
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2024-059, 2023-105, 2016-077, 2012-137, 2012-127, 2008-029, 2002-345, 93-408
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.