454 S.W.3d 727
Ark.2015Background
- Central Arkansas Water (CAW) owns Lake Maumelle and adopted a Watershed Management Plan recommending land-use controls; Pulaski County adopted a Subdivision Ordinance (including Chapter 8) to implement those controls.
- In April 2009 Pulaski County and CAW executed a Watershed Protection Agreement; CAW had earlier begun collecting a "watershed fee" from wholesale customers to fund watershed protection.
- The Agreement provided for Pulaski County to hire planning staff to implement and enforce Chapter 8 and the Stormwater Management Ordinance, with CAW initially funding certain positions and reimbursing county costs.
- The Agreement also designated CAW as a Responsible Management Entity (RME) for limited wastewater-related approvals and allowed CAW to assist in implementation and enforcement; Pulaski County retained ordinance enactment authority.
- Appellants (Sullinses and Williams) sued claiming the Agreement was an illegal exaction because it was an unlawful interlocal delegation under the Interlocal Cooperation Act; they argued Pulaski County and CAW lack the same powers required by that Act.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for appellees, ruling the Agreement is a valid administrative interlocal contract under the county Interlocal Agreement Act; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Agreement is governed by the Interlocal Cooperation Act (requires participating entities to have the same powers) | Agreement effects joint exercise of governmental powers (delegation of Pulaski County authority to CAW) and so must meet §25-20-104; it does not because CAW lacks the same powers | Agreement is an administrative-services interlocal contract governed by county Interlocal Agreement Act (§14-14-910), not the Interlocal Cooperation Act; it delegates only administrative, not legislative, functions | The Agreement is administrative in nature and governed by §14-14-910; not barred by §25-20-104; affirmed |
| Whether delegation to CAW improperly transfers legislative or policy-making authority | Sections (staffing, RME designation, CAW covenants) amount to unlawful delegation of Pulaski County’s legislative duties | Provisions are limited to implementation/enforcement and advisory/approval roles; Pulaski County retains legislative authority and hires staff; CAW reimburses costs | Court holds duties are administrative (implementation/enforcement), not legislative; delegation permissible |
| Whether §14-14-910 requires CAW independently be authorized to perform the services | CAW must itself have statutory authority to perform the services | §14-14-910 requires that any contracting party (county or other agency) be authorized to perform the administrative service; either party may be authorized | Court reads §14-14-910 to permit contracts where either party is authorized; no part of Agreement exceeds parties’ legal authority |
| Whether the Agreement creates an illegal exaction (misapplication of public funds) | Watershed fee revenues paid to CAW to fund county activities constitute illegal exaction because underlying Agreement is unlawful | Agreement is authorized under §14-14-910; expenditures are lawful administrative cooperation and not illegal exaction | Because Agreement is lawful under §14-14-910, expenditures are not an illegal exaction; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stromwall v. Van Hoose, 265 S.W.3d 93 (Ark. 2007) (expenditure authorized by statute precludes illegal-exaction claim)
- City of Ft. Smith v. McCutchen, 279 S.W.3d 78 (Ark. 2008) (distinguishing legislative zoning power from delegable administrative enforcement)
- Bolen v. Washington Cnty. Zoning Bd. of Adjustments, 384 S.W.3d 33 (Ark. App. 2011) (enactment/amendment of zoning is legislative; execution/enforcement is administrative)
- Brewer v. Carter, 231 S.W.3d 707 (Ark. 2006) (definition and scope of illegal exaction)
- Gentry v. Robinson, 361 S.W.3d 788 (Ark. 2009) (summary-judgment standard in Arkansas appellate review)