What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)". Your task is to determine which category of substate government best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
Debbie WILLIAMS and Linda Stanley, Plaintiffs/Appellees Cross-Appellants, v. William R. BUTLER, Defendant, v. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, Third Party Defendant Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Nos. 83-2534, 83-2641.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 30, 1985.
Decided May 13, 1985.
Thomas Carpenter, Little Rock, Ark., for third party defendant appellant, cross-appellee.
Philip Kaplan, Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiffs, appellees, cross-appellants.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and HEA-NEY, BRIGHT, ROSS, McMILLIAN, ARNOLD, JOHN R. GIBSON, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges, en banc.
ORDER
The district court’s decision is affirmed by an equally divided court. Chief Judge Lay, and Judges Floyd R. Gibson, Heaney, Bright, and Arnold vote to affirm the district court’s decision. Judges Ross, McMillian, John R. Gibson, Fagg, and Bowman vote to reverse the district court’s decision. Appellee Williams’ request for attorney fees is granted, with the following modification. Because appellee did not prevail on the punitive damages issue, the cost for services rendered will be reduced ten-percent to $8,055.00. The appellee’s request for expenses in the amount of $1,068.79 is granted. Thus, the total award for fees and expenses allowed by the court is $9,123.79.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)". Which category of substate government best describes this litigant?

Choices:
legislative
executive/administrative
bureaucracy providing services
bureaucracy in charge of regulation
bureaucracy in charge of general administration
judicial
other

Answer: 6