Judges: WINSTON BRYANT, Attorney General
Filed Date: 10/25/1991
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The Honorable Charlie Cole Chaffin State Senator 12180 Interstate 30 Benton, AR 72015
Dear Senator Chaffin:
This is in response to your request for an opinion on the following question:
Can a city [of the first class] enter into a contract with a non-profit corporation whereby the city would pay the non-profit corporation to operate a recreational program?
You state that the city would have no financial interest in the business and would not be liable for any debts of the corporation, which acts as an independent contractor.
The answer to this question is, in my opinion, generally "yes." While a conclusive response would require review of all facts surrounding the transaction, including the terms of the agreement and the particular "recreational program," it is my opinion that a city may, as a general matter, contract with a private organization for the provision of recreational services.1
This conclusion follows from the fact that cities of the first class are given broad authority in connection with their "municipal affairs." See A.C.A. §
The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Deputy Attorney General Elisabeth A. Walker.
Sincerely,
WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General
WB:cyh
No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall become a stockholder in any company, association or corporation; or obtain or appropriate money for, or loan its credit to any corporation, association, institution, or individual.
A contract for the operation of a municipal recreational program would not necessarily implicate art. 12, § 5. The argument, for a challenge, would probably be premised upon the assertion that the contract lacks good and sufficient consideration and therefore evidences an attempt to accomplish indirectly what is prohibited under art. 12, § 5. This would, of course, involve a factual question.