Did the Arkansas AG approve the Fifth Restatement of the Pulaski Area GIS interlocal agreement adding Sherwood as a party?

Plain-English summary

Central Arkansas Water's chief legal counsel asked the AG to approve the Fifth Restatement and Amendment of the Pulaski Area Geographic Information System Interlocal Agreement. The agreement creates a multi-jurisdiction partnership to operate the Pulaski Area GIS, providing geographic information services to the participating governments and utilities. The original 1997 agreement had been approved by Op. 97-366; a 2005 amendment was approved by Op. 2005-106. The Fifth Restatement added the City of Sherwood as a new party.

The AG approved the agreement as submitted. The reasoning was procedural and straightforward.

The Interlocal Cooperation Act (Ark. Code Ann. §§ 25-20-101 to -108) authorizes joint enterprises between or among "public agencies." Each party to the new agreement (the cities of Little Rock, North Little Rock, Jacksonville, and Sherwood; Pulaski County acting through its public works department; Central Arkansas Water; and Little Rock Wastewater Utility) qualified as a public agency under § 25-20-103(1). The AG cited Op. 2002-345 for the general framework on what counts as a "political subdivision" and therefore a "public agency."

Section 25-20-104(c) sets six required terms for any interlocal agreement: duration, organization-and-powers of any separate legal entity created, purposes, financing-and-budget, termination methods, and any other necessary and proper matters. Section 25-20-104(d) adds two more requirements when the agreement does not establish a separate legal entity: provisions for an administrator or joint board, and provisions for acquiring/holding/disposing of property. The AG reviewed the agreement against those checklists and found it complete.

The AG also flagged the recurring principle that an amendment adding a new public-agency party is a new interlocal agreement that needs fresh AG approval under § 25-20-104(f). Cities and utilities cannot quietly bring a new partner into an existing interlocal arrangement without going back to the AG.

This is the AG's interlocal-agreement-approval function under the Interlocal Cooperation Act, which is largely procedural and structural rather than substantive. The AG reviews whether the agreement meets the statutory requirements; the AG does not pass on the policy wisdom of the partnership or its terms.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

The Interlocal Cooperation Act (§§ 25-20-101 to -108) is Arkansas's general authorization for two or more public agencies to combine resources for a joint undertaking. The mechanism predates the Water Authority Act and has been used for everything from shared police dispatch to multi-county solid waste authorities. The Pulaski Area GIS is one of many shared-service partnerships in the state.

A "public agency" under § 25-20-103(1) is broadly defined. Op. 2002-345 surveyed the categories of entities that qualify. Municipalities, counties, school districts, and special-purpose districts are paradigmatic public agencies. A consolidated waterworks authority like Central Arkansas Water and a wastewater utility like Little Rock Wastewater Utility also fit.

Section 25-20-104(c) sets the mandatory content of an interlocal agreement:

• Duration
• The precise organization, composition, and nature of any separate legal or administrative entity created by the agreement, plus delegated powers
• Purposes
• Manner of financing and budgeting
• Permissible methods of partial or complete termination
• Other necessary and proper matters

Section 25-20-104(d) adds two requirements when the agreement does not create a separate legal entity:

• Provisions for an administrator or joint board to run the joint undertaking
• Provisions for acquiring, holding, and disposing of real and personal property

The AG's approval under § 25-20-104(f) is a pre-execution checkpoint. Cities and other public agencies submit the draft agreement; the AG reviews against the statutory criteria; the AG approves or returns it for revision.

The Pulaski Area GIS history shown by the opinion stretches back to a 1997 original agreement, with periodic amendments. Each amendment that brought in a new party required fresh AG approval, which is why Op. 97-366, Op. 2005-106, and now Op. 2015-039 form a chain of approvals on the same underlying joint enterprise.

Common questions

What does the Pulaski Area GIS do?
The agreement, as quoted in the opinion, establishes the Pulaski Area GIS "to be a leader in providing high quality geographic information services which meet customer and management needs." Practically, that typically means shared mapping, address databases, infrastructure layers, and other geospatial data services used by the participating governments and utilities.

Why does adding Sherwood require AG approval?
Under the AG's reading, "each amendment to an interlocal agreement for the purpose of adding a public agency party is a new agreement subject to the approval requirement of A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f)." The original parties cannot bring Sherwood in by their own agreement alone; the new arrangement needs fresh AG approval.

Does AG approval mean the agreement is operationally sound?
No. The AG's approval is procedural and structural: did the agreement include the statutorily required terms, and are all the parties public agencies? The AG does not evaluate the budget, the GIS technology choices, or the governance arrangements on the merits.

Could the parties have skipped AG approval?
No. The Interlocal Cooperation Act conditions the legal enforceability of an interlocal agreement on AG approval. An unapproved agreement does not satisfy the Act.

What if Sherwood wanted to leave?
The agreement would need to contain provisions for partial or complete termination under § 25-20-104(c). The opinion does not detail what those provisions look like, but they exist (the AG confirmed all required terms were present).

Does this opinion bind future Pulaski Area GIS amendments?
Each subsequent amendment that brings in a new public-agency party would need its own approval. Amendments that change other terms (without adding parties) might also need approval under the broader text of § 25-20-104(f), though the AG opinion does not directly address that scenario.

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2015-039
May 18, 2015

STATE OF ARKANSAS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE

C. Tad Bohannon, Chief Legal Counsel
Central Arkansas Water
221 East Capitol Avenue
Post Office Box 1789
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

Dear Mr. Bohannon:

You have requested my approval under the Interlocal Cooperation Act (the "Act") of the proposed "Pulaski Area Geographic Information System Interlocal Agreement (Fifth Restatement & Amendment)" (the "Agreement") among the cities of Little Rock, North Little Rock, Jacksonville, and Sherwood; Pulaski County for the benefit of its public works department; Central Arkansas Water; and Little Rock Wastewater Utility. The Agreement amends and restates (to add the City of Sherwood as a party) an agreement approved by this office in 1997 and 2005. It establishes the Pulaski Area Geographic Information System "to be a leader in providing high quality geographic information services which meet customer and management needs."

The Act provides for my approval of any interlocal agreement to undertake a joint enterprise between or among "public agencies." Each party to the Agreement appears to be a "public agency" within the definition of that term in A.C.A. § 25-20-103(1). See generally Op. Att'y Gen. 2002-345 (discussing types of entities that are "political subdivisions" and therefore "public agencies" for purposes of the Act). As noted, the Agreement is an amendment and restatement entered into for the purpose of adding the City of Sherwood as a party. In my view, each amendment to an interlocal agreement for the purpose of adding a public agency party is a new agreement subject to the approval requirement of A.C.A. § 25-20-104(f).

The Act requires an agreement for joint or cooperative action to specify:

1. Its duration;
2. The precise organization, composition, and nature of any separate legal or administrative entity created thereby, together with the powers delegated to it, provided that the entity may be legally created;
3. Its purposes;
4. The manner of financing the joint or cooperative undertaking and of establishing and maintaining a budget therefor;
5. The permissible methods to be employed in accomplishing the partial or complete termination; and
6. Any other necessary and proper matters.

In the event the agreement does not establish a separate legal entity to conduct the joint or cooperative undertaking, the agreement must specify:

1. Provisions for an administrator or a joint board responsible for administering the joint or cooperative undertaking; and
2. The manner of acquiring, holding, and disposing of real and personal property used in the joint or cooperative undertaking.

Having reviewed the Agreement, I find that it meets the requirements set forth above. Accordingly, I approve the Agreement as submitted.

Assistant Attorney General J.M. Barker prepared this opinion, which I approve.

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General
LR/JMB:cyh