Intergovernmental Agreements
Scott A. Robbins
Kennedy, Kennedy, Robbins & Yarbro, LC
In the provision of water and wastewater services, it is often true that it is more cost
effective for two or more municipalities or districts to enter into an intergovernmental
agreement to provide services. This is especially true with wastewater services where the
EPA and the Missouri DNR are promoting “regionalization” to limit the number of discharge
points for effluent.
An intergovernmental agreement must be in writing to be valid. Pursuant to Section
432.070 RSMo., contracts of municipalities, districts and other political subdivisions are
required to be:
• in writing;
• include the consideration (which must be in the future);
• dated when made; and
• signed by the parties' authorized representatives.
The statute further requires that the statutory authority for the agreement be included in the
terms of the agreement. Moynihan v. City of Manchester, 265 S.W.3d 350 (Mo. Ct. App.
E.D. 2008); ORF Const., Inc. v. Black Jack Fire Protection Dist., 239 S.W.3d 685 (Mo. Ct.
App. E.D. 2007). If an agreement is not in writing, it is void and unenforceable. If this result
is reached, several defenses, including the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, or part
performance are inapplicable. Burger v. City of Springfield, 323 S.W.2d 777 (Mo. 1959);
Gill Const., Inc. v. 18th & Vine Authority, 157 S.W.3d 699, 708 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2004),
as modified, (Feb. 1, 2005).
Authority for intergovernmental agreements is found in Article VI, Section 16 of the
Missouri Constitution, which provides that an agreement may be for “the planning,
development, construction, acquisition or operation of any public improvement or facility,
or for a common service.” Additional authority is found in Sections 70.010-70.320 RSMo.
Section 70.010 RSMo., provides that two or more contiguous counties, not to
exceed ten, may enter into an intergovernmental agreement. Where 12 counties had
entered into an agreement, the agreement to be invalid and void. St. Charles County v. “A
Joint Board or Commission” and North East Community Action Corporation, 184 S.W.3d
161 (Mo.App. E.D. 2006).
Section 70.210 RSMo., defines the terms “Governing Body”, “Municipality” and
“Political subdivision”. Water and Sewer Districts are included within these terms. Section
247.050 RSMo., specifically allows a water district to enter into a contract. Sections
247.085, 247.172 and 247.215 RSMo., allow a district to partner with a municipality, district
or other water company, to provide for water services. Section 250.220 RSMo., provides
for an intergovernmental agreement between two entities for wastewater services.
Section 70.220 RSMo., provides the scope of the intergovernmental agreement. The
scope matches the language is Article VI, Section 16, but contains the caveat that the
“subject and purposes of any such contract or cooperative action made and entered into
by such municipality or political subdivision shall be within the scope of the powers of such
municipality or political subdivision.” In other words, a water district cannot enter into an
agreement to provide a city with fire protection or law enforcement services, as these are
not allowed under Chapter 247 RSMo.
The intergovernmental agreement must be signed by the appropriate
representatives of the governing body of both public entities. Section 70.230 RSMo.,
provides that the agreement must be approved by resolution or ordinance and shown in
the minutes. Section 70.300 RSMo., requires the approval of the agreement to be a
majority vote of the members of the governing body. This seems to require a minimum of
three votes when dealing with a five person board, and would preclude approval by a
majority of a quorum, if the quorum was only three board members.
Section 70.260 RSMo., provides some of the provisions which may be included with
in the intergovernmental agreement.
The balance of the written materials presented focus on news articles and examples
of intergovernmental agreements.