How can two New York towns in different counties combine their police departments into one shared service?

Plain-English summary

The Town of Inlet (Hamilton County) and the Town of Webb (Herkimer County) wanted to consolidate their police departments. They sit on the edge of the Adirondack Park, share patrol territory in practice, and would save money and improve coverage by running a single force. The Inlet town attorney asked whether Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 authorized the consolidation. The AG said it did not, but General Municipal Law § 119-o, part of article 5-G, did.

Three statutes were on the table. The first was Municipal Home Rule Law § 10, which gives local governments broad authority to adopt local laws on their property, affairs, and government. The second was General Municipal Law article 5-G, the state's general intermunicipal cooperation framework, whose centerpiece § 119-o lets municipal corporations enter into agreements "for the performance among themselves or one for the other of their respective functions, powers and duties on a cooperative or contract basis or for the provision of a joint service." The third was General Municipal Law § 121-a, a specific statute authorizing a joint town-and-village police department, but only for a town and an incorporated village wholly within that town in the same county.

The AG started with what would not work. Section 121-a only authorizes joint town-and-village police departments within the same county, so it could not be the basis for an inter-county town consolidation. Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 did not work either, even though its grant of local-law authority is broad. The AG noted that Home Rule has historically been read to let each local government regulate "matters of local concern within their [individual] borders." More importantly, the Legislature had directly addressed how municipalities can pool police services through articles 5-G and 121-a. Reading the general Home Rule authority to provide an independent path for inter-county consolidation would be inappropriate where the Legislature had laid out a specific scheme.

That left article 5-G, which fit cleanly. Section 119-n defines "joint service" as the joint provision of any function or service each municipality could provide separately, and § 119-o(1) lets municipalities enter agreements to do so. The 1960 legislative history described article 5-G as "an alternative procedure which may be utilized in place of any detailed statute authorizing cooperation among municipalities," and as a tool to give "local governments significant tools to provide the necessary services efficiently and economically." Earlier AG and State Comptroller opinions had already approved police-services agreements between a city and a town, a village and another municipality, two villages, two non-contiguous villages, and counties and villages. So article 5-G was a worn path for police cooperation, and the AG concluded it covered the Inlet/Webb proposal.

In short, two towns in different counties could not consolidate their police departments under the general Home Rule statute, and § 121-a did not reach them, but the broad intermunicipal cooperation power in General Municipal Law § 119-o did. Inlet and Webb were already pursuing an article 5-G agreement, and the AG confirmed that was the correct tool.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. 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.

Common questions

Why doesn't broad Home Rule authority cover this?
The AG's reasoning was about specific-versus-general. Home Rule lets a local government adopt local laws on its own affairs, but adopting a single local law in Inlet does not legally bind Webb, and vice versa. Joint provision of a service across two governments needs a joint agreement, which is what article 5-G authorizes. The Legislature spoke directly to police-service consolidation in § 121-a (for same-county town-village pairings) and to municipal cooperation generally in article 5-G, leaving little room to read Home Rule as a third, parallel authority.

Does the inter-county fact matter?
For § 121-a, yes, that section only covers a town and a village wholly within it, in the same county. Article 5-G has no county limitation, so the inter-county fact was not a barrier under that statute.

What does an article 5-G police agreement typically include?
The opinion does not lay out a checklist, but earlier AG and Comptroller opinions on police-services cooperation contemplate items such as service area, command and supervision, sharing of costs and revenues, indemnification, civil service and collective bargaining handling, and term and termination. The article 5-G framework is intentionally flexible to let local governments work out those details.

Can towns and counties share police services together?
Earlier informal AG and Comptroller opinions had approved cooperation between counties and municipalities within them, and between non-contiguous villages, all under article 5-G. The Inlet/Webb question was specifically about two towns in different counties, but article 5-G's reach is broader.

Does this opinion authorize firing or transferring officers?
The opinion is about statutory authority for the consolidation, not about the personnel mechanics. Anyone implementing such an agreement in 2006 would have needed to attend to Civil Service Law, Taylor Law obligations, and any local pension and benefit issues.

Background and statutory framework

The New York Constitution's home rule article (Art. IX) and Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 give local governments broad authority to adopt and amend local laws. They have historically been understood to authorize a local government to regulate matters within its own borders, not to set up legal arrangements that bind another local government.

General Municipal Law article 5-G was enacted in 1960 to give municipalities a flexible cooperation tool. Section 119-o lets two or more municipal corporations enter agreements for the performance of their respective functions on a cooperative or contract basis or for joint provision of a service. Section 119-n defines "joint service" broadly. The contemporaneous legislative history described article 5-G as a workaround for the lack of detailed cooperation statutes and as a way to make services more efficient and economical.

Section 121-a is a focused statute that specifically authorizes joint town-and-village police departments. It applies only when the town or towns and the village or villages are in the same county and the villages sit wholly within the towns. Inlet and Webb did not fit § 121-a, so the question came down to whether Home Rule Law § 10 or article 5-G supplied the authority.

The AG's 2006 opinion treated article 5-G as the right home for the proposed consolidation. That outcome is consistent with how New York's intermunicipal shared services have evolved since then: shared-services agreements under article 5-G have become the standard vehicle for joint police, fire, EMS, code enforcement, courts, and assessment functions.

Citations

• Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 (broad local-law authority); § 10(1)(i), § 10(1)(ii)(a)(1) (specific topics including departmental structure and officer powers and duties).
• General Municipal Law Article 5-G: § 119-n(a) (municipal corporation defined to include towns); § 119-n(c) (joint service definition); § 119-o(1) (authority to enter cooperation agreements); § 121-a (joint town-village police department in same county).
• N.Y. Const. Art. IX § 2(c), § 2(c)(i), § 2(c)(ii), § 3(d)(2) (home rule).
• Op. Att'y Gen. (Inf.) Nos. 97-13, 95-43, 92-17, 82-25, 81-62 (police-services intermunicipal cooperation precedents).
• Op. St. Comptr. Nos. 2000-24, 86-60, 83-239, 80-284 (Comptroller precedents on shared police services).
• Letter from Milton Alpert, counsel, New York State Office for Local Government, in Bill Jacket for ch. 102 (1960), at 6 (legislative history of article 5-G).
• Mary E. Mohnach, Intermunicipal Agreements: The Metamorphosis of Home Rule, 17 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 161, 167 (1999) (Home Rule scope discussion).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_2006-11_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

Municipal Home Rule Law §§ 10, 10(1)(I), 10(1)(ii)(a)(1); General Municipal Law Art. 5-G, §§ 119-n(a), 119-n(c), 119-o, 119-o(1), 121-a; N. Y. Const. Art. IX §§ 2(c), 2(c)(I), 2(c)(ii), 3(d)(2)

General Municipal Law article 5-G, not Municipal Home Rule Law §10, authorizes the consolidation of the police services of two towns in contiguous counties.

November 1, 2006

Christopher J. Kalil
Town Attorney
Town of Inlet
Kalil & Eisenhut, LLC
1602 Sunset Avenue
Utica, New York 13502

Informal Opinion No. 2006-11

Dear Mr. Kalil:

You have requested an opinion regarding whether Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 authorizes two towns to consolidate their police departments. You have explained that the Town of Inlet, in Hamilton County, and the Town of Webb, in Herkimer County, are interested in such a consolidation. For the reasons explained below, we are of the opinion that while Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 does not grant the necessary authority, section 119-o of the General Municipal Law allows the towns to carry out this consolidation.

Statutory Background

Three statutory provisions are relevant to our analysis: Section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, and article 5-G and section 121-a of the General Municipal Law. We briefly describe each one in turn.

First, section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law derives from article IX of the Constitution. Article IX grants local governments, including towns, broad powers to adopt local laws. See N.Y. Const. Art. IX, §§ 2(c), 3(d)(2). These powers include the authority to adopt and amend local laws relating to the local government's property, affairs, and government, as well as the power to adopt and amend local laws relating to enumerated topics (e.g., the powers and duties of its officers and employees). Id. § 2(c)(i), (ii)(1). Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 essentially duplicates this authority. See Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(i); id. § 10(1)(ii)(a)(1) (authorizing local legislation relating to the powers and duties of a local government's officers and employees, including the creation or discontinuance of departments of its government and the prescription or modification of its officers' and employees' powers and duties).

Second, article 5-G grants municipal corporations, including towns, General Municipal Law § 119-n(a), the power to "enter into, amend, cancel and terminate agreements for the performance among themselves or one for the other of their respective functions, powers and duties on a cooperative or contract basis or for the provision of a joint service." Id. § 119-o(1). "Joint service" means the "joint provision of any municipal facility, service, activity, project or undertaking or the joint performance or exercise of any function or power which each of the municipal corporations . . . has the power by any other general or special law to provide, perform or exercise, separately." Id. § 119-n(c). Article 5-G "grants broad home rule power to municipalities . . . to determine the details of the arrangements into which they enter." Letter from Milton Alpert, counsel, New York State Office for Local Government, to Robert MacCrate, counsel to the Governor (Feb. 22, 1960), reprinted in Bill Jacket for ch. 102 (1960), at 6. It was intended to provide "an alternative procedure which may be utilized in place of any detailed statute authorizing cooperation among municipalities." Id. By virtue of the enactment of article 5-G, "local governments [were] given significant tools to provide the necessary services efficiently and economically." Id.

Finally, section 121-a of the General Municipal Law authorizes the creation of a joint town and village police department by a town or towns "in the same county" and an incorporated village or villages located wholly within such town or towns. General Municipal Law § 121-a. We agree with your conclusion that this section does not authorize the consolidation of the police departments of two towns in different counties.

Analysis

Article 5-G of the General Municipal Law provides authority for precisely the sort of consolidated effort that the towns here desire. Indeed, you have indicated that the towns are pursuing an article 5-G agreement for the joint provision of police services. We note that we have previously concluded that police services may be the subject of a municipal cooperation agreement. See Op. Att'y Gen. (Inf.) No. 97-13 (city and town); Op. Att'y Gen. (Inf.) No. 95-43 (village and another municipality); Op. Att'y Gen. (Inf.) No. 92-17 (two villages); Op. Att'y Gen. (Inf.) No. 82-25 (town and village); Op. Att'y Gen. (Inf.) No. 81-62 (county and municipalities within); see also, e.g., Op. St. Comptr. No. 2000-24 (two non-contiguous villages); Op. St. Comptr. No. 86-60 (village and town); Op. St. Comptr. No. 83-239 (same); Op. St. Comptr. No. 80-284 (county and village).

As for section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, its grant of authority is broad; it bestows upon towns substantial power to adopt local laws not inconsistent with state law. Moreover, nothing in section 10 expressly excludes the enactment of local laws that provide for consolidation of services among towns in different counties. Yet we also note that section 10 has been understood to authorize local governments to "regulate matters of local concern within their [individual] borders," resulting in "compartmentalized, individual entities . . . each exercising its own Home Rule authority" within its own borders. Mary E. Mohnach, Intermunicipal Agreements: The Metamorphosis of Home Rule, 17 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 161, 167 (1999).

Regardless of whether section 10 is given a broad or narrow construction, in our view, the more specific grants of authority set forth in the General Municipal Law weigh against reading section 10 as providing a distinct basis of authority for consolidation of the towns' police departments. Section 119-o allows municipalities to enter into agreements for joint provision of services in the absence of more specific statutory authorization. Section 121-a expressly permits consolidation of police departments, but only by certain government units within the same county. These two provisions make clear that the Legislature has considered the question of how municipalities may consolidate the delivery of police services, and has set forth a scheme for doing so. It thus seems to us inappropriate to interpret the general language in the Municipal Home Rule Law as creating an alternative mechanism for accomplishing this goal.

For the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that, while article 5-G does provide a mechanism for cooperative provision of police services under the circumstances you describe, Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 does not provide authority for the two towns to consolidate their police departments.

The Attorney General issues formal opinions only to officers and departments of state government. Thus, this is an informal opinion rendered to assist you in advising the municipality you represent.

Very truly yours,

KATHRYN SHEINGOLD
Assistant Solicitor General
In Charge of Opinions