Now that Benton County has more than 250,000 people, do its cities have to pay 100% of the local district court costs?

Plain-English summary

After the 2020 Census put Benton County over 250,000 residents, a question arose: does Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-119, which says counties at that population must shift district court costs entirely to the cities, kick in for the four district courts in the First District? Representative Delia Haak asked the AG. Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said no.

The reason is that § 16-17-119 applies to traditional "local" district courts (the kind funded entirely by city and county governments). The First District's courts are a different category: they are "state district courts" organized under § 16-17-1101 et seq. Their judges' base salaries are paid by the state out of the Constitutional Officers Fund (§ 16-17-1104(b)), and the cost-sharing pieces that remain (the local share of judicial salaries and a per-district contribution structure) are governed by § 16-17-1106(b), not § 16-17-119.

The Arkansas Supreme Court drew the same distinction in City of Little Rock v. Nelson, 2020 Ark. 34, 592 S.W.3d 633, when it analyzed whether the City of Little Rock was responsible for funding a particular district court. The takeaway: the population trigger in § 16-17-119 does not reach state-funded district court systems.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in January 2022, based on the 2020 Census putting Benton County over 250,000 residents. The state district court statutes in § 16-17-1101 et seq. and § 16-17-119 may have been amended since. Verify the current text and any superseding court decisions before relying on the cost-allocation conclusion for current budget decisions.

What this means for you

If you set the Benton County budget

Based on this opinion, the population threshold in § 16-17-119 does not strip Benton County of its funding obligation for the First District state district courts. The cost-sharing formula in § 16-17-1106(b)(1) still applies. Counties and cities can also enter written agreements adjusting the proportional share under § 16-17-1106(b)(2).

If you are a city in the First District

You are not suddenly responsible for the entire local share of court costs because Benton County crossed 250,000. Your share is still determined by the calculation in § 16-17-1106(b)(1)(B): proportions based on what each county and city paid the corresponding pre-conversion judge in the year immediately before the state district court judgeship was created.

If you are a district court administrator

The opinion clarifies that the "state district court / local district court" distinction is the controlling line, not population. Audit the source statute under which a particular district court was created (§ 16-17-1101 et seq. for state district courts, separate provisions for local district courts) to know which funding regime applies.

If you serve a county that just crossed 250,000

If your district courts are state district courts, this opinion's logic protects continued county contribution. If your district courts are local courts, § 16-17-119 by its terms does shift the entire burden to the cities. The first thing to check is the chartering statute of the courts in your county.

Common questions

Q: What's the difference between a state district court and a local district court?
A: Per the opinion, state district courts are organized under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1101 et seq. Their judges' salaries are paid from state appropriations through the Constitutional Officers Fund. Local district courts are funded entirely by the city and county where they sit. The two systems use different funding statutes.

Q: Why did the legislature use a 250,000-resident trigger in § 16-17-119?
A: The opinion does not dig into legislative history, but the trigger appears to allocate full local-court funding to large cities (which typically have the volume and resources to bear the cost) once a county crosses that threshold. State district courts already have a state-funding component, so the same equity concern does not apply there.

Q: Can the cities and the county adjust the cost-sharing percentages by agreement?
A: Yes. Section 16-17-1106(b)(2), as cited in the opinion, allows a county and a city to enter a written agreement on their proportionate shares. That gives local jurisdictions room to renegotiate when growth shifts the balance.

Q: Does this opinion change anything about who pays the judges' base salary?
A: No. The state continues to pay the base salary and benefits of state district court judges under § 16-17-1106(a). The cost-sharing in § 16-17-1106(b) applies to the local share, which is calculated against one-half of the pre-2009 base salary as a baseline.

Background and statutory framework

In 2007, Arkansas began converting selected local district courts into state district courts to standardize judicial pay and improve docket coverage in fast-growing areas. The conversion is structural: when a state district court is created in a district, the state takes over base salary and benefits for the judge, and the cities and counties pay a calculated share of the historical base salary.

The First District (Benton County) became a state district court district under § 16-17-1110(1)(A). Once in that bucket, its funding flows through § 16-17-1106, not § 16-17-119. Section 16-17-119, by its own terms, is about "the salaries and operational expenses of district courts," and the Arkansas Supreme Court in Nelson read that statute as referring to local district courts based on the surrounding context: it underscored that the City of Little Rock was responsible for the costs of a non-state-funded district court at the time in question.

That contextual reading prevents § 16-17-119 from becoming a back-door defunder of state district courts in fast-growing counties. Without it, a county growing past 250,000 would suddenly have to stop contributing to a court system whose financing structure was deliberately designed to include a county share.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-119 (population-based local-court funding shift)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1101 et seq. (state district courts)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1101(2), (7) (definitions distinguishing local from state-funded district courts)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1104(b) (state district court judge salaries from Constitutional Officers Fund)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1106(a), (b) (state base-salary obligation and local cost-sharing)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1106(b)(1)(B) (proportional share calculation)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1106(b)(2) (county/city written cost-sharing agreements)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1107 (distinguishing state and local district court positions)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1110(1)(A) (First District composed of Benton County)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-802 (county powers, raised in question 2)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 19-5-205 (Constitutional Officers Fund)

Cases:

• City of Little Rock v. Nelson, 2020 Ark. 34, 592 S.W.3d 633 (Arkansas Supreme Court distinguishing state-funded and locally-funded district courts in due process liability analysis)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2021-095
January 13, 2022

The Honorable Delia J. Haak
State Representative
P. O. Box 479
Centerton, AR 72719-0479

Dear Representative Haak:

This is in response to your request for my opinion on the following questions concerning the district courts in the First District, which is composed of Benton County, Arkansas:

1. Since Benton County has more than 250,000 inhabitants, does Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-119 apply to prohibit Benton County from contributing to the salaries and operational expenses of the District Courts within the County?

2. If your answer to Question 1 is "yes," does any other statute, such as Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-802, or Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1106, nonetheless authorize or require Benton County to pay expenses related to the District Courts?

As background information for these questions, you note that the four district courts in the First District are "state district courts" pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1101, et seq., and that for 2020, and prior years, the cost of operating these courts has been divided between Benton County and its cities. You further note that because the 2020 census shows Benton County's population to be in excess of 250,000, the question has arisen whether the salaries of the First District's judges should be apportioned among Benton County's cities, without Benton County's participation in the apportionment.

RESPONSE

The answer to your first question is "no." A response to your second question is therefore unnecessary.

DISCUSSION

Question 1: Since Benton County has more than 250,000 inhabitants, does Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-119 apply to prohibit Benton County from contributing to the salaries and operational expenses of the District Courts within the County?

Section 16-17-119 states that "[t]he salaries and operational expenses of district courts in any county having a population of two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) inhabitants according to the most recent federal census shall be paid by the city or town in which the court is located" and that "[n]o portion of these expenses shall be paid by the county in which the court is located." Given that Benton County's population exceeds 250,000, this statute, standing alone, would seem to prevent Benton County from paying any portion of expenses of the district courts in the First District.

However, section 16-17-119 cannot be considered in isolation. Doing so fails to recognize that the First District's courts have been organized and designated as "state district courts" under a "state-funded system" that requires salaries of the district judges created thereunder to be "uniform and . . . paid with moneys appropriated from the Constitutional Officers Fund, § 19-5-205, by the General Assembly." The system imposes the following cost-sharing requirements on counties, towns, and cities in each district with a state district court:

(A) Each county and town or city in a district in which a state district court judgeship is created under this subchapter shall pay to the state an amount equal to its proportionate share of one-half (1/2) of the base salary established by law for state fiscal year 2009 for that district's state district court judge.

(B)(i) The proportionate share is calculated as follows:

(a) Determine the sum total of the base salary paid by each county and town or city in a district to that county and town or city's district court judge or city court judge for the calendar year immediately preceding the creation of the state district court judgeship; and

(b) Determine the proportion of the base salary of each county and town or city to the sum total base salary of the district.

The state-funded district courts addressed by this statute are plainly distinct from other, "local" district courts that are funded solely by city and county governments. The Arkansas Supreme Court recognized this distinction in City of Little Rock v. Nelson, in the course of deciding whether the City of Little Rock could be held liable for a due process violation by a Little Rock District Court judge. The City argued that it could not be liable because the judge was not a city employee. The Court rejected the argument, noting that the Little Rock District Court was not a state-funded district court judgeship during the relevant time period. In so concluding, the Court reasoned that the statute you have asked above, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-119, underscored its conclusion that the court at issue was a local court because "the City was responsible for funding the" associated "salaries and operational expenses."

Thus, as that case reflects, section 16-17-119 applies to district courts that are outside of the state created and funded system. But where a district court is part of that system, the cost-sharing requirements of section 16-17-1106 apply. Because the courts in the First District are part of the state created and funded system, they are governed by section 16-17-1106.

The answer to your first question is therefore "no" because section 16-17-119 does not apply to the district courts in the First District.

Question 2: If your answer to question 1 is "yes," does any other statute, such as Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-802, or Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-1106, nonetheless authorize or require Benton County to pay expenses related to the District Courts?

A response to this question is unnecessary in light of my response to Question 1.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General