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 requested approval of an agreement among Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County. The parties would share the cost of a public-safety study by the Research Foundation of the City University of New York and the costs associated with their participation in Group Violence Intervention. The opinion says the Sixth Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney's Office would implement that intervention for two years. The two cities could each contribute an additional $400,000 per staff position in designated areas.

The Attorney General concluded that his approval was unnecessary. Under A.C.A. § 25-20-104, the Interlocal Cooperation Act applies to an agreement between public agencies “for joint cooperative action.” Cities and counties are public agencies. But this particular agreement concerned monetary payments and did not require the parties to “do anything other than pay money.” The opinion therefore found no joint cooperative action under the Act and no AG approval requirement for this agreement.

The cited prior opinions provide the legal context, including one that treated an agreement “in the nature of a contract for services” as outside the Act. This opinion did not review every cost-sharing arrangement or decide whether a different agreement with other obligations would fall outside the Act.

What this means for you

If you draft an agreement for public agencies

Read what each party actually promises to do. The conclusion here depended on the Attorney General's finding that the parties' agreement required only monetary payments. This opinion gives you a useful comparison when a proposed agreement involves cost sharing, but its result depends on that agreement's own terms.

If you are considering this Little Rock area agreement

The Attorney General said the Interlocal Cooperation Act did not require his approval for the submitted agreement. His response addressed that approval question; it did not assess the merits of the study or Group Violence Intervention.

Common questions

Q: Why didn't this agreement need the Attorney General's approval? A: The Attorney General found that this agreement, although between public agencies, required the parties to do nothing other than pay money. He concluded it did not involve “joint cooperative action” within A.C.A. § 25-20-104.

Q: Does every agreement to share the cost of a study avoid AG review? A: This opinion decides only the submitted agreement. Whether another agreement calls for joint cooperative action depends on what its parties agree to do.

Q: Were the cities and county outside the Act because they are not public agencies? A: No. The opinion expressly says Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County are public agencies. The missing element was joint cooperative action in this agreement.

Q: Did the Attorney General approve the public-safety program? A: The opinion says only that approval of this agreement was not required under the Interlocal Cooperation Act. It does not evaluate the program itself.

Background and statutory framework

Footnote 1 identifies the Interlocal Cooperation Act as A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524. The opinion quotes § 25-20-104(b)'s “joint cooperative action” language and explains that cities and counties qualify as public agencies under § 25-20-103(1). It cites earlier Arkansas AG opinions when distinguishing monetary commitments from a joint or cooperative undertaking. The decisive point was that this agreement did not require the parties to “do anything other than pay money.”

Citations and references

• A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524, opinion footnote 1.
• A.C.A. §§ 25-20-103(1) and 25-20-104, opinion footnotes 2–4.
• Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2012-127 and Op. 93-408, opinion footnote 5.

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

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.1

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.”2 The City of Little Rock, the City of North Little Rock,

1
A.C.A. §§ 25-20-101 to -524.
2
Id. § 25-20-104(b).

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201

Sherri Latimer
Senior Deputy City Attorney
Opinion No. 2025-118
Page 2

and Pulaski County are “public agencies” under the Interlocal Cooperation Act. 3 But the Agreement, which concerns monetary payments, does not involve “joint cooperative action” as contemplated by the Act.4 That is, the agreement does not require the Parties to “do anything other than pay money.”5 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

3
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. 4 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.
5
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”).