Does the Arkansas AG have to review and approve a contract between two cities for one to provide police services to the other, or can the city councils just authorize it themselves?
Subject
Whether the AG's review under the Interlocal Cooperation Act (A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -108) applies to a proposed agreement under which the City of Greers Ferry would extend law enforcement services into the geographical boundary of the City of Higden in exchange for $667 per month, or whether the agreement is a contract that does not require AG review.
Plain-English summary
Two small Arkansas cities, Greers Ferry and Higden, drafted an agreement under which Greers Ferry's police department would extend its law enforcement services into Higden's city limits in exchange for $667 a month. The Greers Ferry city attorney sent the agreement to the AG for review and approval, citing the Interlocal Cooperation Act.
The AG declined to review it, saying the AG's signoff is not required for this kind of agreement.
The Interlocal Cooperation Act distinguishes between two structures:
- Interlocal cooperation agreements under § 25-20-104(f): Two or more public agencies undertake "joint cooperative action," and the AG must review the agreement for proper form and compliance with state law before it takes effect.
- Intergovernmental contracts under § 25-20-108(a): One public agency contracts with another to perform a governmental service the contracting agency is authorized by law to perform alone. These contracts only need authorization by each party's governing body, no AG review.
The Greers Ferry-Higden police services agreement falls in the second bucket. Higden is paying Greers Ferry to deliver a service (law enforcement) that Greers Ferry is already authorized to provide on its own. There is no joint operation, no shared facility, no pooled fund. It is a service contract dressed in an "interlocal agreement" title.
The AG's office has consistently maintained that distinction. AG approval is needed for true cooperation arrangements (joint action that creates a new jurisdictional or operational entity) but not for ordinary intergovernmental service contracts.
What this means for you
If you are a city attorney drafting an intergovernmental agreement
Before sending it to the AG, ask whether the agreement creates joint cooperative action (a shared agency, a pooled fund, common facilities, mutually exercised authority) or just a contract for one agency to provide a service to another. If it is the latter, AG review is unnecessary and the AG will simply decline to review. Save the time and have the city councils authorize the contract under § 25-20-108(a).
If you are a small city looking to contract for law enforcement, fire, or other services
A.C.A. § 25-20-108(a) is the authority to lean on. Your city council and the providing agency's governing body authorize the contract; no further state-level approval is required. Past AG opinions cited in this one (Ops. 2016-077, 2013-062, 2012-130, 2005-240) confirm the same approach.
If you are a county or special district contracting with a city for a service
The same § 25-20-108(a) framework applies. Counties, school districts, fire districts, and other public agencies are all "public agencies" under the Interlocal Cooperation Act and can enter into service contracts with each other without AG review.
If you are creating a true interlocal cooperation entity (a regional planning commission, a joint utility, a multi-agency task force)
Then you do need AG approval. The agreement must be in proper form and compliant with state law before it takes effect. The distinction between joint action and ordinary contracting is what triggers (or doesn't trigger) the AG's role.
Common questions
Q: How do I tell if my agreement needs AG approval or just council authorization?
Look at the structure. If the agreement creates a new operational entity, pools resources jointly, or sets up shared decision-making over a continuing function, it is "joint cooperative action" and the AG reviews. If one agency is performing a service the other agency could perform alone (and is just being paid for it), it is a contract under § 25-20-108(a) and the AG does not review.
Q: Will the AG just refuse to review or will the AG affirmatively reject the agreement?
In this case, the AG concluded that "review and approval … is unnecessary," which is closer to declining jurisdiction than rejecting on the merits. The AG did not opine on whether the substantive terms of the Greers Ferry-Higden agreement are lawful; that is for the city councils and any reviewing court.
Q: What if the agreement is mislabeled "interlocal agreement" but is really a contract?
The label does not control. The substance does. The AG looks past the title to the operational structure. So even if you call it an "interlocal cooperation agreement," if it operates as a contract for one agency to deliver services to another, AG review is not required.
Q: Can a city contract with a county or with a different state's agency for police services?
The Interlocal Cooperation Act applies to public agencies of Arkansas. Cross-state agreements (with police agencies in another state) raise separate questions about state authority that are outside this opinion. Arkansas-to-Arkansas city-to-city or city-to-county agreements are squarely within § 25-20-108(a).
Q: What does the contract have to include?
Per § 25-20-108(a), the contract "shall set forth fully the purpose, powers, rights, objectives, and responsibilities of the contracting parties." Even though AG approval is not required, the council-authorization route still requires a sufficiently detailed contract.
Background and statutory framework
A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f). Within the Interlocal Cooperation Act, requires the AG to review interlocal agreements between or among public agencies undertaking joint cooperative action, to ensure the agreements are in proper form and compliant with state law.
A.C.A. § 25-20-108(a). Authorizes any public agency to "contract with any one (1) or more other public agencies to perform any governmental service, activity, or undertaking which each of the public agencies entering into the contract is authorized by law to perform alone." Requires only that the contract be authorized by the governing body of each party. The contract must "set forth fully the purpose, powers, rights, objectives, and responsibilities of the contracting parties."
The repeated AG position. Prior AG opinions (2016-077, 2013-062, 2012-130, 2005-240) have all reiterated the joint-action versus service-contract distinction and confirmed that AG approval is not required for the latter.
Citations
- A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -108 (Interlocal Cooperation Act)
- A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f) (AG review)
- A.C.A. § 25-20-108(a) (intergovernmental contracts)
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2016-077, 2013-062, 2012-130, 2005-240
Source
Official summary
Request for review and approval of a document titled, "Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Greers Ferry, Arkansas and the City of Higden, Arkansas for Police Services."
Brief Response: The Agreement is contractual in nature, as it provides that the City of Higden will pay the City of Greers Ferry to provide Higden with law enforcement services. This is the sort of agreement described in A.C.A. § 25-20-108(a), which requires that the contract only "be authorized by the governing body of each party to the contract," not by the Attorney General's Office. Accordingly, my review and approval of the proposed Agreement is unnecessary.
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2025-008
February 12, 2025
Blake Spears
Greers Ferry City Attorney
8739 Edgemont Road
Greers Ferry, Arkansas 72067
Dear Mr. Spears:
I am writing in response to your request, submitted under the Interlocal Cooperation Act, for my review and approval of a document titled, "Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Greers Ferry[,] Arkansas and the City of Higden, Arkansas for Police Services" (the "Agreement"). The Agreement states that the City of Greers Ferry agrees to extend its "law enforcement services into the geographical boundary of Higden," and in consideration for these services, the City of Higden "shall pay Greers Ferry $667.00 per month."
You seek my approval of this Agreement under the Interlocal Cooperation Act, which requires me to review interlocal agreements between or among public agencies to undertake "joint cooperative action" to ensure that the agreements are in proper form and compliant with state law. It is my opinion, however, that the Act does not apply to the Agreement, so my approval is not required.
As this office has repeatedly noted, the Attorney General is not required to approve contractual agreements between or among public agencies. Rather, public agencies are generally authorized by statute to enter into contracts with one another without my approval.
The Agreement you have asked me to review is contractual in nature, as it provides that the City of Higden will pay the City of Greers Ferry to provide Higden with law enforcement services. This is the sort of agreement described in A.C.A. § 25-20-108(a), which requires that the contract only "be authorized by the governing body of each party to the contract," not by the Attorney General's Office. Accordingly, it is my opinion that my review and approval of the proposed Agreement is unnecessary.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General