Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interlocal Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses limits of interlocal agreement, bylaws and who approves purchases
Summary
Members debated whether the 911 board can bind municipalities for shared costs under the interlocal agreement or must recommend changes to the city and county; Chair will draft bylaws to align purchasing rules and bring them to the March meeting.
The Chair opened a discussion requested by Judge Hodes about the interlocal agreement that created the board and governs payment responsibilities. The Chair said the interlocal agreement is between the City of Fort Smith and Sebastian County and that any formal change to the agreement must be approved by those two entities; this board can suggest changes but cannot unilaterally alter the interlocal contract.
The Chair noted the agreement sets a payment split of 69.7% for Fort Smith and 30.3% for Sebastian County and that Sebastian County may pass its share through to other municipalities at the judge’s discretion. Committee members asked whether the board can enter agreements directly with smaller cities or whether separate interlocal agreements are required.
Several members argued the board should have clearer procurement and budget authority — including the ability to approve purchases and to incorporate reimbursable consolidation expenses into the board budget — rather than having the Chair repeatedly seek city or county approval for each purchase. The Chair said he is drafting a set of bylaws to clarify procedures, purchasing rules and the board’s internal processes and will share a draft at the March meeting for members to tweak.
No change to the interlocal agreement was adopted during the meeting; members asked for a clear written proposal and recommended the Chair present a draft budget that shows how reimbursable consolidation expenses will appear in the board’s accounting.
