Does Act 1256 of 1995 (the uniform court costs and filing fees act) tell an Arkansas city how to pay its city attorney?

Plain-English summary

Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr. asked AG Dustin McDaniel a question on behalf of the Mayor and City Council of Ashdown, Arkansas. The question was whether Act 1256 of 1995 provides any direction to a first-class city about how to compensate the city attorney.

The strict answer: no. Act 1256 of 1995 created the uniform system of filing fees and court costs in Arkansas. It does not directly address city attorney compensation.

The longer answer is more useful. Act 1256 created a "city administration of justice fund" in cities that operated former "police, city, or municipal" courts (now "district" courts). The fund is funded by uniform court costs and filing fees and is used to defray administration-of-justice expenses. Under A.C.A. § 16-10-308(b), cities must continue to finance:

1. The municipal court judge and clerk retirement fund.
2. The police and fire pension fund.
3. The intoxication detection equipment fund.
4. All municipal-level programs and agencies funded in whole or in part by court costs and filing fees at the time of Act 1256's passage in 1995.
5. All county-level programs and agencies funded in whole or in part by court costs and filing fees that were collected by the district court.

Item 4 is the relevant piece for the city attorney question. When Act 1256 was enacted, city attorneys were authorized by state law (then A.C.A. § 21-6-410, now A.C.A. § 14-43-410(a)) to collect the fees usually allowed prosecuting attorneys when prosecuting violations of city ordinances or state laws within city limits. These fees were paid out of court costs in the criminal case. The AG reasoned that to the extent a city attorney's pre-1995 compensation included these fees, Act 1256's mandate to continue funding municipal-level programs and agencies funded by court costs could provide some direction.

But the AG could not say more without specific facts. Whether any particular city attorney's compensation included these fees, and how Act 1256 affects that compensation, depends on local facts that the AG cannot determine. The question really has to be resolved at the local level by officials who can assess the city's specific funding history and current arrangements.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Does Act 1256 of 1995 set Arkansas city attorney salaries?
No. Act 1256 is about uniform court costs and filing fees, not city attorney compensation. The Act does require cities to keep funding certain pre-1995 programs that were paid for out of court costs, which may or may not include city attorney pay depending on local history.

Can an Arkansas city attorney be paid out of court costs?
Possibly. A.C.A. § 14-43-410(a) authorizes cities to provide by ordinance that the city attorney receive (as part of compensation) the same fees prosecuting attorneys get when the city attorney handles prosecutions of city ordinances or state laws committed in the city. If a city set up that arrangement before 1995, Act 1256 may require it to continue.

What is the "city administration of justice fund"?
A.C.A. § 16-10-308 created this fund in cities operating former police, city, or municipal (now district) courts. The fund holds court costs and filing fees and is used to defray the city's administration-of-justice costs.

What are "uniform filing fees and court costs"?
Act 1256 of 1995 standardized the fees that can be charged for filing actions and the court costs that can be assessed in criminal and civil cases. Under A.C.A. § 16-10-305(d) and § 21-6-403(f), no city, town, county, district court, or circuit court can charge additional fees beyond those authorized by Act 1256 unless specifically provided by state law.

How is the rest of the fund's money used?
Cities must continue minimum funding levels for specific programs (court judge retirement, police/fire pension, intoxication detection equipment) and for pre-1995 municipal and county programs funded by court costs. Each city can retain an amount equal to its 1994 court-cost collection, adjusted for CPI. The remainder must go to the State Administration of Justice Fund.

Who decides whether a specific Arkansas city attorney's compensation includes court-cost fees?
The local city, working through its city council and city attorney. The AG cannot determine the funding details of a particular city's compensation arrangement without specific facts.

Background and statutory framework

Act 1256 of 1995 is a substantial piece of court-finance legislation. Its core provisions are codified at:

• A.C.A. §§ 16-10-301 et seq. (Repl. 2010 and Supp. 2013): the main court-costs and filing-fees scheme.
• A.C.A. § 16-10-305: lists court costs for criminal cases.
• A.C.A. § 16-10-305(d): prohibits cities, counties, and courts from charging additional fees unless authorized by state law.
• A.C.A. § 16-10-307: county administration of justice fund.
• A.C.A. § 16-10-308: city administration of justice fund.
• A.C.A. § 16-17-705: district court provisions.
• A.C.A. § 21-6-403: uniform filing fee for circuit court actions.

The city attorney compensation authority is at A.C.A. § 14-43-410(a) (Repl. 2013): "Any city ... may provide by ordinance that the city attorney of the city shall receive as part of his or her compensation, for all prosecutions tried by the city attorney for violations of ordinances of the city and for all prosecutions tried by the city attorney for violations of state laws committed within the corporate limits of the cities, the same fees as are allowed prosecuting attorneys in this state in all criminal cases."

Before Act 1256, the equivalent authority was at the now-repealed A.C.A. § 21-6-410 (Acts 1991, No. 904, § 15 and Acts 1989, No. 796, § 1).

The mechanism connecting Act 1256 to city attorney pay is the continuity requirement at A.C.A. § 16-10-308(b)(4): cities must continue funding "[a]ll municipal-level programs and agencies funded in whole or in part by court costs and filing fees assessed and collected by the district court, notwithstanding the repeal by this act of laws authorizing the collection of court costs and filing fees." If a city's pre-1995 city attorney compensation included court-cost-funded prosecution fees, that funding stream falls within Act 1256's continuity mandate.

This is a long way of saying: there is no general statutory direction on city attorney pay in Act 1256, but the act may indirectly preserve pre-existing court-cost-based funding arrangements where they existed.

Citations

• A.C.A. §§ 16-10-301 et seq. (Repl. 2010 and Supp. 2013) (uniform court costs and filing fees)
• A.C.A. § 16-10-305 (Supp. 2013) (court costs in criminal cases)
• A.C.A. § 16-10-305(d) (Supp. 2013) (prohibition on extra fees)
• A.C.A. § 16-10-307 (Supp. 2013) (county administration of justice fund)
• A.C.A. § 16-10-308 (Supp. 2013) (city administration of justice fund)
• A.C.A. § 16-17-705 (Repl. 2010) (district court provisions)
• A.C.A. § 21-6-403 (Supp. 2013) (uniform circuit court filing fee)
• A.C.A. § 14-43-410(a) (Repl. 2013) (city attorney compensation by prosecution fees)
• Acts 1995, No. 1256 (uniform filing fees and court costs)
• Acts 1991, No. 904, §§ 15, 20 (city attorney fees, costs at conclusion of criminal case)
• Acts 1989, No. 796, § 1 (city attorney fees)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DUSTIN McDANIEL
Opinion No. 2014-036
May 20, 2014

The Honorable Jimmy Hickey Jr.
State Senator
1600 Arkansas Boulevard, Suite 106
Texarkana, Arkansas 71854

Dear Senator Hickey:

You have requested my opinion, on behalf of the Mayor and City Council of the
City of Ashdown, Arkansas, on the following question concerning a city
attorney's compensation:

Does Act 1256 [of 1995] provide any guidelines, instructions,
mandates, policy or direction to a city of the First Class regarding
the compensation of the city attorney, if so, how and to what extent?

RESPONSE

Having reviewed Act 1256 of 1995, I conclude that the answer to the first part of
this question is, strictly speaking, "no," inasmuch as this act does not directly
address the matter of a city attorney's compensation. This would appear to render
moot the second part of the question. As explained further below, however, this
should not be taken to suggest that a city is necessarily prohibited from applying
any income derived from costs and fees [pursuant to Act 1256 of 1995] to a city
attorney's compensation. I note, for instance, that at the time of Act 1256's
enactment, city attorneys were authorized by state law to recover fees incurred in
prosecutions. As also explained below, this could bear on your question as to any
"direction" Act 1256 may provide regarding a city attorney's compensation. I
lack sufficient information to opine further in this respect, however. And I am
unable, in any event, to determine what compensation a particular city attorney
might be entitled to. A matter of this sort must be directed to those officials for
the city who are in a position to assess the underlying issues based upon the
particular surrounding facts and circumstances.

DISCUSSION

Act 1256 of 1995 created a system of uniform filing fees and court costs and
prohibited the assessment or collection of additional costs and fees "unless
specifically provided by state law." It also created a "county administration of
justice fund" in each county and a "city administration of justice fund" in towns
or cities operating the former "police, city, or municipal," now "district," court.
Because your question pertains to a city, I will focus on that part of Act 1256
concerning a "city administration of justice fund."

This fund is to be used to defray expenses incurred in the administration of justice
in the city. The city is required to continue to finance the following programs and
agencies funded at the time of passage of Act 1256 of 1995:

(1) The municipal court judge and clerk retirement fund for
disbursement as otherwise provided by law;
(2) The police and fire pension fund;
(3) The intoxication detection equipment fund;
(4) All municipal-level programs and agencies funded in whole or in
part by court costs and filing fees assessed and collected by the
district court, notwithstanding the repeal by this act of laws
authorizing the collection of court costs and filing fees; and
(5) All county-level programs and agencies funded in whole or in
part by court costs and filing fees assessed and collected by the
district court, notwithstanding the repeal by this act of laws
authorizing the collection of court costs and filing fees and the
disbursement of all or a part thereof to the county.

As you can see from subsection 16-10-308(b)(4), set out above, Act 1256 required
the continued funding of "municipal-level programs and agencies" funded by
court costs and filing fees at the time of the act's passage. This provision may be
relevant to your question concerning a city attorney's compensation. The
referenced "programs" and "agencies" are not specifically defined, presumably
because they may vary from city to city. But they can be identified by their source
of funding ("court costs and filing fees") and the purpose served ("administration
of justice"). I note in this regard that when Act 1256 was enacted, city attorneys
were authorized, when carrying out their prosecutorial duties, to collect the fees
usually allowed prosecuting attorneys. These fees were presumably paid out of
the court costs in the criminal case. Although it is not entirely clear, it would
reasonably seem to follow that they are among the administration of justice costs
contemplated by Act 1256. Accordingly, to the extent a city attorney's
compensation included these fees, Act 1256 may indeed provide direction
regarding the compensation of a city attorney wherein it states that cities "shall
continue to finance ... municipal-level programs and agencies funded in whole or
in part by court costs and filing fees...."

I cannot opine further in this regard. The foregoing may be of some assistance in
explaining how Act 1256 of 1995 might bear on the compensation of a city
attorney. But to the extent your question relates in some way to a particular city
attorney's compensation, resolution of the matter must occur at the local level, as
this office lacks the resources and authority to undertake the review necessary to
determine an issue of that sort.

Deputy Attorney General Elisabeth A. Walker prepared the foregoing opinion,
which I hereby approve.

DM/EAW:cyh