Does the Arkansas Attorney General have to approve a Memorandum of Agreement between Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County to share costs for a public-safety study and Group Violence Intervention?
Plain-English summary
Little Rock's Senior Deputy City Attorney sent the AG a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the City of Little Rock, the City of North Little Rock, and Pulaski County for AG approval. The MOA established shared financial responsibility for two things: a study by the Research Foundation of the City University of New York (CUNY) assessing public-safety concerns, and the costs of participating in Group Violence Intervention (GVI) for two years. The Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for the Sixth Judicial District would implement GVI. The two cities could each contribute an additional $400,000 per staff position to support GVI in designated areas.
The City Attorney sought AG approval under the Interlocal Cooperation Act, A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524. The AG declined to approve, but for a clean technical reason: the Act doesn't apply.
Under A.C.A. § 25-20-104, an "interlocal agreement" is one between two or more public agencies "for joint cooperative action." The cities and the county are public agencies. But the MOA, in the AG's view, doesn't involve "joint cooperative action" because the parties aren't committing to do anything together except split the bill. Cost-sharing alone is not "joint cooperative action." When a public agency obtains a service from a third party and other agencies share the cost, that's a contract for services, not a joint cooperative undertaking.
The AG's prior opinions (cited in footnote 4) have held the same: agreements "in the nature of a contract for services" or that don't require parties to "do anything other than pay money" fall outside the Interlocal Cooperation Act.
So the AG's review-and-approve role doesn't apply, and the MOA can proceed without AG sign-off.
What this means for you
If you're a city attorney drafting an intergovernmental agreement
The Interlocal Cooperation Act has a specific scope. It applies when two or more public agencies are jointly executing a function, sharing equipment or personnel, or otherwise acting together. It does not apply when public agencies are simply pooling money to pay a third-party vendor.
Practical takeaway: if your draft agreement just splits costs for a contract or grant, you don't need AG approval. If your draft agreement creates a joint board, joint operations, or joint employment of personnel, you do. When in doubt, ask. The AG's review process is fast (this opinion came back within weeks of the request).
If you're a city council member or quorum court justice voting on an MOA
The AG's "no approval needed" finding here means the agreement is purely a contractual matter for the parties. Your local government's normal procurement and contracting rules apply. Make sure:
- The cost-sharing percentage matches your jurisdiction's expected share of benefit.
- The agreement includes termination rights, audit rights, and dispute-resolution provisions.
- The third-party service provider (here, CUNY, and separately the Prosecuting Attorney's Office for GVI implementation) is bound by appropriate confidentiality, deliverable, and milestone provisions.
If you're following the GVI rollout in Pulaski County
This MOA is the funding mechanism for a two-year GVI implementation by the Prosecuting Attorney's Office, jointly funded by Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County. The AG's opinion is procedural, it doesn't approve or disapprove the substance of GVI. It just confirms the cost-sharing arrangement isn't an "interlocal agreement" subject to AG review.
If you're a procurement officer at a municipality
This is a useful reference if you ever wonder whether a multi-jurisdictional cost-sharing arrangement needs AG sign-off. The line is "joint cooperative action," and just paying money together doesn't cross it. Conversely, true joint operations (a joint emergency-services board, a shared 911 center, a regional purchasing cooperative) generally do.
If you're a researcher studying intergovernmental cost allocation
The AG's repeated confirmation across decades (cited opinions go back to 1993) that cost-sharing alone is not joint cooperative action is worth noting. It encourages public agencies to pool resources for studies and contracts without procedural friction, but it also means there's less institutional memory of these arrangements at the state level.
Common questions
Q: What kinds of agreements do require AG approval under the Interlocal Cooperation Act?
A: Agreements that involve joint cooperative action: for example, joint operation of services, joint employment of personnel, joint exercise of any power, or creation of a separate legal or administrative entity to carry out the joint purposes. Just sharing costs for an outside service doesn't qualify.
Q: Who is a "public agency" under the Act?
A: A.C.A. § 25-20-103(1) lists political subdivisions of the state (cities, counties, school districts), state agencies, federal agencies, and several other categories. Cities and counties qualify, as the AG confirmed in this opinion citing prior Ops. 2023-105 and 2002-345.
Q: If we don't need AG approval, do we need to file the agreement anywhere?
A: For Interlocal Cooperation Act agreements, yes: the Act normally requires filing with the Secretary of State and the county clerk. For agreements outside the Act (like this MOA), no centralized filing is required, though local recording requirements may apply.
Q: What happens if a city ignores the AG approval requirement when it does apply?
A: The agreement may be unenforceable. Other Arkansas opinions have addressed this. Cities should err on the side of seeking AG review when the agreement involves anything beyond pure cost-sharing.
Q: Does this opinion apply to similar regional research projects?
A: Yes. Whenever multiple jurisdictions split the cost of a third-party study, the principle from this opinion controls. Joint cost-sharing alone is a contract among the parties, not an interlocal agreement.
Q: Was AG approval substantively a high bar?
A: No. AG approval under § 25-20-104 is essentially a check that the agreement doesn't unlawfully delegate sovereign powers and falls within the Act's scope. The AG doesn't review the wisdom of the agreement.
Background and statutory framework
The Arkansas Interlocal Cooperation Act, A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524, allows public agencies to act jointly when they could each act alone. It exists to encourage shared services, regional cooperation, and pooled procurement, while ensuring that joint arrangements don't unlawfully delegate authority.
Under § 25-20-104, an "interlocal agreement" is between two or more public agencies "for joint cooperative action." The AG must review and approve such agreements before they take effect. The AG's approval check has historically been a sanity-check on scope and lawfulness; the AG doesn't second-guess substantive policy choices.
A line of AG opinions (Ops. 2016-077, 2012-137, 2012-127, 2008-029, 93-408) has held that cost-sharing arrangements alone don't qualify as "joint cooperative action." The leading formulation is Op. 2012-127: an agreement that does not require the parties to "do anything other than pay money" is not subject to the Act. Op. 93-408 added that an agreement "in the nature of a contract for services", even when multiple public agencies are pooling funds for the service: falls outside the Act.
Group Violence Intervention (GVI) is a public-safety strategy that combines focused deterrence with social-service outreach to known violent offenders. The model originated at John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY) and has been implemented in cities including Boston, Cincinnati, Oakland, and Stockton.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524: Interlocal Cooperation Act
AG opinion line on cost-sharing-versus-joint-action:
- Op. 93-408
- Op. 2008-029
- Op. 2012-127
- Op. 2012-137
- Op. 2016-077
- Op. 2002-345 (cities/counties as political subdivisions)
- Op. 2023-105 (same)
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2025-118
January 6, 2026
Sherri Latimer
Senior Deputy City Attorney
500 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Ms. Latimer:
You have requested my review of a "Memorandum of Agreement" ("Agreement") between the City of Little Rock, the City of North Little Rock, and Pulaski County ("Parties"). The Agreement establishes shared financial responsibility for a study being conducted by the Research Foundation of the City University of New York to assess current and potential public safety concerns. The Agreement provides that the Parties will equally share the research costs and the costs associated with their participation in Group Violence Intervention ("GVI"). The Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for the Sixth Judicial District will implement GVI for two years. The Cities of Little Rock and North Little Rock may also contribute an additional $400,000 per staff position to support GVI objectives in designated geographic areas. You seek my approval of the Agreement under the Interlocal Cooperation Act.
RESPONSE
After reviewing the Agreement, I have determined that the Interlocal Cooperation Act does not apply; therefore, my approval is not required.
DISCUSSION
Under A.C.A. § 25-20-104, an interlocal agreement is one between "two … or more public agencies … for joint cooperative action." The City of Little Rock, the City of North Little Rock, and Pulaski County are "public agencies" under the Interlocal Cooperation Act. But the Agreement, which concerns monetary payments, does not involve "joint cooperative action" as contemplated by the Act. That is, the agreement does not require the Parties to "do anything other than pay money." Thus, the Act does not apply to this Agreement, and my approval is not required.
Assistant Attorney General Justin Hughes prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General