When a county judge signs an Act 9 industrial bond and a Payment in Lieu of Taxes agreement with a developer, is he exercising executive authority or judicial authority? And does the quorum court have any role?
Plain-English summary
Little River County is negotiating to develop a solar farm. The financing structure includes Act 9 industrial-development bonds and a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement that would abate up to 65% of the developer's property taxes. State Representative DeAnn Vaught asked the AG three questions about who controls these instruments at the county level.
Attorney General Tim Griffin's three answers track Arkansas's distinctive county-court structure:
Question 1: When the county judge signs an Act 9 bond or PILOT, is he acting executively or judicially?
Judicially. The county judge is the sole member of the county court, the judicial branch of county government. A.C.A. § 14-164-208(a)(2) states Act 9 bonds may be issued "upon the entry of an order of the county court of the county," and § 14-164-209 confirms issuance is "by an order of the county court." For PILOTs, § 14-14-1105(b)(1) gives the county court "exclusive jurisdiction in all matters" relating to county-government real and personal ad valorem taxes, and § 14-14-1105(b)(4) covers "county financial activities, trade and commerce, or the development of natural resources." The county judge signs as the county court, not as the executive.
Question 2: Can the county judge enter into an Act 9 bond or PILOT without an ordinance from the quorum court?
Yes. Both § 14-164-208(a)(2) and § 14-164-209 require an order from the county court, not the quorum court. The quorum court is the legislative branch of the county; it doesn't participate in county-court orders.
Question 3: Can the quorum court overrule the county judge's signature on an Act 9 bond or PILOT?
No. Under § 14-14-502(c), the quorum court cannot "exercise any power" belonging to the county court without the county court's express permission. The Arkansas Constitution and Amendment 55 limit quorum-court legislative authority to matters that don't conflict with the constitution or other laws. Acts 9 bonds and PILOTs are squarely within the county court's exclusive jurisdiction.
But aggrieved taxpayers can appeal a county court's order to the circuit court under Article 7, Section 33 of the Arkansas Constitution and A.C.A. § 16-13-201(b)(1). That's the check on the county judge's authority: judicial review, not legislative override.
What this means for you
If you're a county judge negotiating an Act 9 bond or PILOT
You sign as the county court. Practical implications:
- Issue a county-court order, not an executive memorandum. The order is the operative document. It should include findings of fact, the bond terms or PILOT terms, and your signature as county judge presiding over county court.
- You don't need quorum-court approval. Don't condition the deal on a quorum-court ordinance you can't compel.
- You shouldn't accept quorum-court overrides. If the quorum court tries to enact an ordinance overriding your county-court order, that ordinance is invalid under § 14-14-502(c).
- Be aware of taxpayer appeals. An interested taxpayer can appeal your order to circuit court. Build the record carefully.
If you're on a quorum court reviewing a proposed bond or PILOT
You don't have a vote, but you have a voice. Practically:
- The county judge should keep the quorum court informed about pending bonds and PILOTs, especially if they affect long-term county finances.
- The quorum court can pass a non-binding resolution expressing support or concern. That doesn't override the county-court order, but it creates political pressure.
- Quorum-court members who are also taxpayers can appeal a county-court order to circuit court if they believe the order exceeds the county court's authority.
If you're a developer relying on an Act 9 bond or PILOT
Two structural points:
- Get the county-court order first. It's the operative document. Make sure it's signed by the county judge in the appropriate capacity.
- Build in appeal protection. A taxpayer's appeal to circuit court can delay the deal. Talk to bond counsel about indemnification and timing.
If you're a county attorney
This opinion confirms long-standing Arkansas county-government structure. The county judge wears two hats: executive (administering county business) and judicial (presiding over the county court). Act 9 bonds and PILOTs are in the judicial bucket. Don't conflate them with executive functions like appointing department heads or executing routine contracts.
If you're a taxpayer concerned about a PILOT
Your remedy is appeal to circuit court, not lobbying the quorum court. Article 7, Section 33 of the Arkansas Constitution and § 16-13-201(b)(1) give circuit courts appellate jurisdiction over county-court orders. The standard of review is typically de novo on the law and clear-error on findings.
Common questions
Q: What's an Act 9 bond?
A: An Act 9 bond is a county-issued industrial-development bond authorized by A.C.A. §§ 14-164-201 et seq. The bond proceeds finance a project (factory, solar farm, etc.); the developer leases the project from the county and pays "lease payments" that service the debt. The county isn't on the hook for repayment; the bond is secured by the developer's lease payments.
Q: What's a PILOT?
A: Payment in Lieu of Taxes. Under § 14-164-701, counties can negotiate with industrial developers to accept payments in lieu of full ad valorem taxes. This abates a portion (here, up to 65%) of property tax in exchange for a fixed payment that's typically lower. PILOTs are common incentive tools.
Q: Why is the county judge a "sole member of the county court"?
A: Arkansas's constitutional structure makes the county judge both the chief administrator of the county (executive role) and the judge of the county court (judicial role). Article 7, Section 28 of the Arkansas Constitution.
Q: Can the quorum court refuse to fund a PILOT-authorized project?
A: The PILOT itself doesn't require quorum-court funding; it abates tax. But if the project requires county infrastructure (roads, water, sewer), the quorum court controls those appropriations. So the quorum court can affect the project indirectly through related budget decisions, even though it cannot override the PILOT order.
Q: What happens if a county judge enters into a PILOT in violation of state law?
A: An interested taxpayer can appeal to circuit court. The court can void the order. Bond counsel typically requires opinions confirming compliance before bond issuance, so the practical risk is at the order-signing stage.
Background and statutory framework
Arkansas counties have three branches: the county judge (executive), the quorum court (legislative), and the county court (judicial, with the county judge as sole member). This trifurcated structure traces to Article 7 of the Arkansas Constitution.
The Act 9 bond statutes (§§ 14-164-201 to -224) and the PILOT statutes (§§ 14-164-701 et seq.) place the operative authority with the county court. The county court has "exclusive jurisdiction" over county financial activities, trade and commerce, natural resource development, and ad valorem taxes (§ 14-14-1105(b)). The quorum court's legislative authority extends to "the affairs of the county" only insofar as it does not conflict with the constitution or other laws (§ 14-14-801(a); Amendment 55, § 1(a)).
The Arkansas Supreme Court in Pulaski County v. Jacuzzi Brothers Division, 332 Ark. 91 (1998), confirmed that counties can use Act 9 bonds and PILOTs to "retain and expand existing, and locate new, industrial facilities." This is the controlling case on the substantive scope of the authority.
§ 14-14-502(c) is the firewall preventing the legislative branch from exercising judicial powers. It's a separation-of-powers principle within county government, mirroring the broader state-level separation in Article 4.
Citations and references
Statutes and constitutional provisions:
- A.C.A. §§ 14-164-201 et seq., 14-164-701 et seq.
- A.C.A. §§ 14-14-502, 14-14-801, 14-14-1105
- A.C.A. § 16-13-201
- Ark. Const. amend. 55, § 1; art. 7, §§ 28, 33
Cases:
- Pulaski Cnty. v. Jacuzzi Bros. Div., 332 Ark. 91, 964 S.W.2d 788 (1998)
Companion AG opinions:
- Op. 2007-009 (county court is judicial branch presided over by county judge)
- Op. 2023-080 (county judge as sole county-court member)
- Op. 1997-181 (same)
Related opinion this opinion follows up on:
- Op. 2025-027 (initial Little River County solar-farm Act 9 bond and PILOT inquiry)
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2025-058
December 4, 2025
The Honorable DeAnn Vaught
State Representative
266 Dairy Road
Horatio, Arkansas 71842
Dear Representative Vaught:
I am writing in response to your request for a follow-up opinion related to Attorney General Opinion No. 2025-027. You report that "Little River County is in negotiations to develop a solar farm with plans to issue Act 9 bonds to finance the transaction." Consideration for the transaction would include a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement, "whereby up to sixty-five percent (65%) of the developer's property taxes would be abated."
Against this background, you ask the following questions:
- When the county judge enacts an Act 9 bond and/or PILOT agreement with a company or other entity, is he acting in his executive capacity or his judicial capacity?
Brief response: When issuing an Act 9 bond or entering into a PILOT agreement with a company or other entity, the county judge acts in a judicial capacity as the sole member of the county court.
- Can the county judge enter into an Act 9 bond and/or PILOT agreement without an ordinance or resolution from the quorum court?
Brief response: Yes. As the legislative branch of the county, the quorum court plays no role in issuing an Act 9 bond or entering a PILOT agreement.
- Can a quorum court overrule a county judge's signature on an Act 9 bond and/or PILOT agreement?
Brief response: No. Under A.C.A. § 14-14-502(c), the quorum court cannot "exercise any power" belonging to the county court without the county court's express permission.
DISCUSSION
I have not reviewed any of the documents in question, and I do not possess all of the facts surrounding this issue. Therefore, since I am not a factfinder when issuing opinions, I will provide an outline of the relevant law.
Question 1: When the county judge enacts an Act 9 Bond and/or PILOT agreement with a company or other entity, is he acting in his executive capacity or his judicial capacity?
When issuing an Act 9 bond or entering into a PILOT agreement, the county judge acts in a judicial capacity as the sole member of the county court, the judicial branch of county government. For Act 9 bonds, A.C.A. § 14-164-208(a)(2) states that they "may be issued by a county upon the entry of an order of the county court of the county." Similarly, A.C.A. § 14-164-209 provides that "issuance of [Act 9] bonds shall be by an order of the county court." As the sole member of the county court, the county judge exercises a judicial power in issuing Act 9 bonds.
In relation to PILOT agreements, the county court has "exclusive jurisdiction in all matters" concerning "all real and personal ad valorem taxes collected by a county government." The county court also has "exclusive jurisdiction in all matters" concerning "county financial activities, trade and commerce, or the development of natural resources, which are not otherwise transferred to the county judge to be administered in his or her executive capacity."
Finally, the Arkansas Supreme Court has explained that A.C.A. § 14-164-701 authorizes counties to use PILOT agreements to "retain and expand existing, and locate new, industrial facilities."
In sum, the county judge, acting as the sole member of the county court, uses judicial authority to issue Act 9 bonds or enter into PILOT agreements.
Question 2: Can the county judge enter into an Act 9 Bond and/or PILOT agreement without an ordinance or resolution from the quorum court?
Yes. As the legislative branch of the county, the quorum court plays no role in issuing an Act 9 bond or entering a PILOT agreement. As noted above, both A.C.A. §§ 14-164-208(a)(2) and 14-164-209 require an order from the county court. Neither statute requires an ordinance or a resolution from the quorum court.
Question 3: Can a quorum court overrule a county judge's signature on an Act 9 Bond and/or PILOT agreement?
No. State law authorizes a quorum court to legislate on "the affairs of the county" only if that legislation does not conflict with the constitution or other laws. As noted above, A.C.A. §§ 14-164-208(a)(2) and 14-164-209 direct that the county court, the judicial branch of county government, is responsible for issuing Act 9 bonds or entering into PILOT agreements. And under A.C.A. § 14-14-502(c), the quorum court cannot "exercise any power" belonging to the county court without the county court's express permission.
But an interested taxpayer of the county could appeal the county court's order to issue an Act 9 bond or enter into a PILOT agreement to the circuit court.
Assistant Attorney General Jodie Keener prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General