Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 11

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-952

Intergovernmental agreements and contracts

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. If authorized by their legislative or other governing bodies, two or more public agencies or public procurement units by direct contract or agreement may contract for services or jointly exercise any powers common to the contracting parties and may enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action or may form a separate legal entity, including a nonprofit corporation, to contract for or perform some or all of the services specified in the contract or agreement or exercise those powers jointly held by the contracting parties.

B. Any such contract or agreement shall specify the following:

1. Its duration.

2. Its purpose or purposes.

3. The manner of financing the joint or cooperative undertaking and of establishing and maintaining a budget for the undertaking.

4. The permissible method or methods to be employed in accomplishing the partial or complete termination of the agreement and for disposing of property on such partial or complete termination.

5. If a separate legal entity is formed pursuant to subsection A, the precise organization, composition, title and nature of the entity.

6. Any other necessary and proper matters.

C. No agreement made pursuant to this article shall relieve any public agency of any obligation or responsibility imposed on it by law.

D. Except as provided in subsection E, every agreement or contract involving any public agency or public procurement unit of this state made pursuant to this article, before its execution, shall be submitted to the attorney for each such public agency or public procurement unit, who shall determine whether the agreement is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted under the laws of this state to such public agency or public procurement unit.

E. A federal department or agency or public agency of another state that is a party to an agreement or contract made pursuant to this article is not required to submit the agreement or contract to the attorney for the department or agency unless required under federal law or the law of the other state.

F. Appropriate action by ordinance or resolution or otherwise pursuant to the laws applicable to the governing bodies of the participating agencies approving or extending the duration of the agreement or contract shall be necessary before any such agreement, contract or extension may be filed or become effective.

G. An agreement or contract may be extended as many times as is desirable, but each extension may not exceed the duration of the previous agreement.

H. Payment for services under this section shall not be made unless pursuant to a fully approved written contract.

I. A person who authorizes payment of any monies in violation of this section is liable for the monies paid plus twenty percent of such amount and legal interest from the date of payment.

J. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, public agencies may enter into a contract or agreement pursuant to this section with the superior court, justice courts and municipal courts for related services and facilities of such courts for a term not to exceed ten years, with the approval of such contract or agreement by the presiding judge of the superior court in the county in which the court or courts that provide the facilities or services are located.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: McKee v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McKee v. State (2016) arizctapp · cites it 17× “Compliance with A.R.S. § 11-952 ¶ 9 Appellant argues the IGA between the City of Prescott and the State Forestry Division was not effective because it was not approved in compliance with A.”
Callan v. Bernini (2006) arizctapp · cites it 8× “That section provides: An employee of a public agency, as defined in § 11-951, who works under the jurisdiction or control of or within the jurisdictional boundaries of another public agency pursuant to a specific intergovernmental agreement or contract entered into between the…”
Sanchez v. City of Tucson (1998) ariz · cites it 4× “We believe such an approach overlooks the factual realities such as those presented in this case and unduly restricts the class of those having "legal control" only to those who are expressly granted control by statutory or intergovernmental contractual provisions.”
Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County (1983) arizctapp · cites it 2× “4 Finally, A.R.S. § 11-952 lends further guidance to the parties.”
Power Road-Williams Field LLC v. Gilbert (2014) azd · cites it 2× “22-1 at 28), failed to follow statutory procedures (Doc. 22-1 at 32), and failed to enter into an IGA (Doc.”
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Apache Junction (2000) arizctapp · cites it 2× “¶ 3 The day after the Ordinance was adopted, the City and the District entered into an intergovernmental agreement, pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-952. The agreement provides, inter alia, that funds raised by the City pursuant to the Ordinance would be “transferred” to the District for…”
Johnson v. Mohave County (2003) arizctapp “In relevant part, § 11-952(A) provides: "If authorized by their legislative or other governing bodies, two or more public agencies by direct contract or agreement may contract for services or jointly exercise any powers common to the contracting parties and may enter into…”
Fund Manager v. Corbin (1989) arizctapp “The attorney general in his discretion may bring an action in the name of the state to enjoin the illegal payment of public monies, including violations of § 11-952 and title 41, chapter 23 [the procurement code], or if the monies have been paid, to recover such monies plus…”
City of South Tucson v. Industrial Commission (1988) arizctapp · cites it 2× “See generally A.R.S. §§ 11-952, 31-252, 41-1624.01. The City, in its contractual capacity as “contractor,” agreed, among other things, to supervise the work of inmates, to pay $.”
Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System v. Superior Court (1986) arizctapp “The attorney general in his discretion may bring an action in the name of the state to enjoin the illegal payment of public monies, including violations of § 11-952 and title 41, chapter 23, or if the monies have been paid, to recover such monies plus twenty percent of such…”
Naddy v. Hon Adleman (2024) arizctapp · cites it 17× “” A.R.S. § 11-952(A); see also A.R.S. § 11-951 (Counties and towns are public agencies.”
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Round Valley Unified School District No. 10 (1990) arizctapp “There is nothing in law, nor in common sense, to require rural areas to duplicate facilities so that school buildings remain uninfected by other citizen uses.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-952(A) — 4 cases
Johnson v. Mohave County (2003) arizctapp “In relevant part, § 11-952(A) provides: "If authorized by their legislative or other governing bodies, two or more public agencies by direct contract or agreement may contract for services or jointly exercise any powers common to the contracting parties and may enter into…”
Callan v. Bernini (2006) arizctapp “That section provides: An employee of a public agency, as defined in § 11-951, who works under the jurisdiction or control of or within the jurisdictional boundaries of another public agency pursuant to a specific intergovernmental agreement or contract entered into between the…”
Naddy v. Hon Adleman (2024) arizctapp “” A.R.S. § 11-952(A); see also A.R.S. § 11-951 (Counties and towns are public agencies.”
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber (2006) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-952(C) — 2 cases
Callan v. Bernini (2006) arizctapp “That section provides: An employee of a public agency, as defined in § 11-951, who works under the jurisdiction or control of or within the jurisdictional boundaries of another public agency pursuant to a specific intergovernmental agreement or contract entered into between the…”
Callan, Miranda, Azuelo... v. Pimber (2006) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-952(F) — 1 case
McKee v. State (2016) arizctapp “Compliance with A.R.S. § 11-952 ¶ 9 Appellant argues the IGA between the City of Prescott and the State Forestry Division was not effective because it was not approved in compliance with A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-952(G) — 1 case
McKee v. State (2016) arizctapp “Compliance with A.R.S. § 11-952 ¶ 9 Appellant argues the IGA between the City of Prescott and the State Forestry Division was not effective because it was not approved in compliance with A.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.