Interlocal Agreements An Option for Cooperative Service Delivery

By Alex Welsch
ASSOCIATE RESEARCH DIRECTOR

At a basic level, interlocal agreements allow county leaders to assemble resources regionally while sharing both risks and benefits. With a focus on smaller scale initiatives, this Research News highlights several cases of county governments using interlocal agreements in both cutting-edge and more traditional applications.

A large number of agreements can be in place simultaneously. For example, in 2004, Pinellas County, Fla. counted 366 existing or proposed agreements between the county government, local cities, and/or districts. 

Economic development and technology

Wireless Washtenaw illustrates an agreement that was critical to implementing a technology-based economic development project in Washtenaw County, Mich. The county uses a master participation agreement (MPA) whereby local governments and others agree to provide access and rights of way to rooftops or other facilities. The county can, in turn, use the rights of way in its own agreement with a provider of wireless Internet services. Participants from urban, suburban and rural communities generally receive no compensation, but are entitled to the benefits of the wireless network. The MPA is structured to assemble the disparate resources required for the system to achieve economic development and other community objectives. Network coverage currently spans 100 square miles.

Public safety and emergency response

Interlocal agreements also have been central in developing regional emergency services. Jefferson County, Wash. uses an interlocal agreement to manage access to an emergency communications dispatch center for local public safety, fire and emergency medical providers within Jefferson County. The initiative, named “Jeffcom,” uses an allocation formula based on usage to calculate required payments for services. Jeffcom illustrates the case of a county assuming a central role in providing services to local cities and districts. However, an intergovernmental administrative board and several technical advisory committees are structured to assure diverse views in management.

Mutual aid in traditional fire and emergency services has a long history, but agreements are periodically updated. In a King County, Wash. mutual aid agreement, parties agree to respond to emergency requests and determine whether equipment and personnel resources can be rendered to the emergency site. If so, resources are dispatched, without compensation.

The local fire department, with “command control” of the situation, assumes liability or claims that may arise from command decisions. However, all parties agree to insure their equipment and personnel, covering their operation. The King County agreement also permits cooperation on purchasing equipment. Any party to the agreement may seek bids, so long as the supplier honors the same bid for other parties to the mutual aid agreement.

The concern for effective emergency and disaster response has been especially strong since Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. The Capital Area Shelter Hub Plan developed by the city of Austin, and Travis and Williamson counties in Texas shows that interlocal agreements can play a key role in response strategies. The plan is an organizing document for disaster relief services, and it spells out city, county and other governments’ roles in providing shelter for hurricane evacuees. The Austin-Travis County Health and Human Services Department, for example, has responsibility for special medical needs shelters. 

Interlocal agreements — between outlying coastal communities and the shelter-hub — are required in pre-arranging shelter spaces for special-needs evacuees. The plan recognizes the need for flexibility in different emergency situations, but is firm on the need for formal pre-disaster agreements.

Parks and Recreation

A case from Clark County, Wash. shows that cooperative arrangements can result in a substantial merging of services in county parks and recreation programs. Clark County and the city of Vancouver have combined parks administration and management for the city and unincorporated areas of Clark County. An agreement, which has been in place since 1997 but was recently amended and renewed, describes a gradual convergence of many city and county goals.

In the earlier agreement, the city had administrative authority for all capital projects. However, when residents in urbanizing, unincorporated areas voted for more comprehensive parks development, the county role became more prominent in the combined department. Coordinated collection of a parks impact fee and a real estate excise tax supports the agreement as well as progress on a recently approved comprehensive plan for city-county parks.

Health care

Another interlocal agreement on hospital services facilitates cooperation across two districts. The City of San Antonio and Bexar County recently won an award for cooperation from the Texas Association of Counties and the Texas Municipal League. The award commended consolidation of the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District and the Bexar County Hospital District. An interlocal agreement covered joint prenatal care in community-based clinics, collaboration on joint grant applications for breast and cervical cancer screening, and shared electronic information processing for patient appointments. Health districts were an important consideration of the area Citizens’ Commission on City/County Service Integration, which issued a report in 2004 (see link below).

Interlocal agreements are not particularly new, but their potential as a tool for government innovation has received considerable attention in recent years. Leading administrators and scholars have both commented on strategies for structuring agreements. According to one report, careful crafting of agreements includes attention to governance and operating structures, financing mechanisms, personnel commitments, duration and reporting. A specific duration or a sunset clause for renewal may be particularly important, since problems, roles and rules change over time.

Some of the examples above also suggest that interlocal agreements can be combined effectively with more comprehensive plans. When multiple jurisdictions are involved, the plans outline a comprehensive but flexible strategy, while the agreements provide for the specific commitments needed for success.

(Research news was written by Alex Welsch, associate research director, awelsch@naco.org.)