Attorney General Opinions

AG Opinions: From county jail location to sales tax differences

AG OPINION NO. 2014-073

The Attorney General reviewed the various laws authoring regional jails and noted that regional jails may be formed under ACA 12-50-101 through 110 to conduct cooperative endeavors for constructing, financing, acquiring and operating jail facilities. Also, the AG noted that a regional jail can be funded by use of interlocal agreements under ACA 25-20-101 or ACA 14-14-910 and also under the Public Facilities Act ACA 14-137-101, et seq, the “Public Facilities Finance Act,” ACA 23-3-1201 through 1226 (See also: AG Opinion No. 2004-302).

ACA 14-19-108 provides for each county to locate their county jail and county courthouse at the county seat unless the quorum court determines by a majority vote or by a referral to a vote of the people to locate the county jail at some other location. The AG determined that regional jails are distinct from county jails, and these more specific and recent laws are not inconsistent with the 1838 law. It remains that a county is to locate the county jail, as opposed to a regional jail, within the county seat unless a majority of the quorum court or people vote to locate elsewhere. [Amendment 55, §1 of the Arkansas Constitution explicitly provides: “A county may, for any public purpose, contract, cooperate, or join with any other county, or with any political subdivisions of the United States, or any other states or their political subdivisions, or with the United States.” For further information see: “Intergovernmental Cooperation a Necessary Tool for Efficiency,” AAC County Lines, Spring 2014 edition.]

AG OPINION NO. 2014-067

The AG explained that the property tax exemption provided under the “Regional Intermodal Facilities Act,” ACA 14-143121, is limited to the Regional Mobility Authority. The AG made clear that the property tax exemption under the law does not extend to private entity or entity leasing the facilities. The “Regional Intermodal Facilities Act” authorizes multiple cities and/or counties to establish an authority for acquiring, constructing, maintaining and operating regional intermodal authority. The AG also explained that the “Regional Intermodal Facilities Act” provides a tax exemption for property taxes only to the authority and no other tax-exempt status.

AG OPINION NO. 2014-082

The AG reviewed the laws on the authority of the chief executive to designate an agency to operate a 911 public safety communications center under ACA 12-10-304. The agencies that may be designated are limited under the law to offices of emergency services, law enforcement and fire departments. The authority of the county judge to designate an agency to operate a 911 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) is subject to concurrence by the agency official to accept responsibility. The AG determined that the authority to divest the agency or transfer the responsibility for operating a 911 public safety communications center does not require the agency relinquishing the operation to concur. The AG noted that the authority vested under law to designate an operating agency includes the authority to remove the operation from the current agency and to designate another accepting agency. It also was noted that a decision to transfer a 911 PSAP includes a variety of considerations and circumstances. The AG also explained that access terminals and information of the Arkansas Crime Information Center (ACIC) is limited to law enforcement agencies and in compliance with ACA 12-12-211.

AG OPINION NO. 2014-077

The AG explained the difference between a dedicated sales tax of a city or county and a general sales tax. The voters may adopt a dedicated sales tax for a city or county by virtue of the law, the ballot and ordinance deployed in order to dedicate a city sales tax or county sales tax. In contrast, a general sales tax of a city or county under the law may be appropriated for use as each successive city council and quorum court directs by its respective appropriation ordinances. A unilateral resolution adopted by a city council cannot bind a future city council or quorum court on the manner to appropriate its respective general funds. The AG also noted that a unilateral resolution does not constitute a mutual agreement between two or more parties or an interlocal agreement between political subdivisions as set forth by law. The AG also reiterated the determinations of previous opinions (AG Opinion Nos. 2010-154 and 2006-005) that under ACA 16-17-115(a) a county is generally obligated to pay only half of the salaries of the local district court judge and chief clerk (salaries are exclusive of benefits such as APERS and health insurance); and that section 115(b)(1)(A) affirmatively provides that a city or town in which the court is located is generally obligated to pay the other half of those salaries and all of the operating expenses. However, the AG noted that there are cities and counties that have exceptions to the general rule by virtue of expressed provisions under ACA 16-17-108 or by virtue of mutual agreements. The AG also explained that, in respect to state district pilot courts, the state pays half the state district court judges salary and benefits, and the local governments reimburse the state for half of the state judges base salary established as of 2009 on either an agreed proportionate share or as per ACA 16-17-1106. The AG noted that operational expenses are generally the obligation of the city or town where the court is located unless mutually agreed otherwise in like manner as district courts generally.

AG Opinions

Mark Whitmore AAC Chief Counsel