When an Arkansas district court is funded by both a county and the cities within its jurisdiction, who maintains the court automation fund and who controls how it is spent?

Plain-English summary

Prosecuting Attorney Tom Tatum II asked the AG to sort out a money trail in Yell County. The county operates two district courts (one north, one south). Yell County and the cities within each court's jurisdiction share the cost of operating the courts. Each unit (county and cities) collects fines and court costs on its own cases, including a $5 monthly installment fee for defendants paying fines on a payment plan. Half of that fee goes to the State; the other half feeds a "district court automation fund" earmarked for court technology. The county and each city were each maintaining a separate automation fund. The prosecutor wanted to know whether that was right.

AG Leslie Rutledge gave three answers:

1. Only the cities maintain the automation fund when a district court is funded by both the county and one or more cities. Section 16-13-704(b)(3)(C), which lets the county hold the funds, applies only when the court is "funded solely by the county." That was not Yell County's situation. So subsection (b)(3)(B) applied and the city treasurer of the city where the court sits held the fund. Yell County was not authorized to maintain a § 16-13-704(b)(3)(B) automation fund.
2. District judges direct how the fund is spent. Subsection (b)(3)(D)(i) required expenditures to be approved by a district judge. Even though the mayor ordinarily has the authority to approve city expenditures under § 14-58-303 and § 14-14-305, that general authority gave way to the specific district-judge approval the statute required for this fund.
3. City council appropriation is required. Same subsection (b)(3)(D)(i) required expenditures to be "authorized and paid, under state laws governing the appropriation and payment of . . . municipal expenditures, by the governing body or, if applicable, governing bodies that contribute to the expenses of a district court." Appropriations are approved by majority of the city council under § 14-55-204. Because the fund was a city fund (per Question 1), the quorum court had no appropriation role.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. 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.

Background and statutory framework

The $5 monthly installment fee

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704 authorized circuit and district courts to allow defendants to pay fines on an installment basis. Section (b)(1) imposed a $5 installment fee per month on each defendant on a payment plan, and the fee accrued each month a payment was not made. The fee was a substantial revenue source for district court technology and statewide judicial automation.

The two-way revenue split

Half of the $5 fee was remitted monthly to the Department of Finance and Administration for deposit in the State Treasury. The other half stayed local, with two configurations under subsection (b)(3):

• Subsection (b)(3)(B): joint-funded district court. The half-fee was remitted to the city treasurer of the city where the court sat, into a "district court automation fund" used "solely for district court-related technology."
• Subsection (b)(3)(C): solely county-funded district court. The half-fee went to the county treasurer instead, into a comparable county automation fund, again restricted to district court-related technology.

The statute treated these as mutually exclusive. A given court's automation fund was either at the city level or at the county level, depending on the funding structure of the underlying court.

Why Yell County could not also hold the funds

The prosecutor described both Yell County district courts as funded by both the county and the cities. That meant subsection (b)(3)(C)'s "solely by the county" precondition was not met. The default rule in (b)(3)(B) applied. The AG saw no statutory route for the county to maintain a parallel "district court automation fund" alongside the city's. The county had been operating one in addition to the city ones; that was not authorized.

District judges, not mayors, direct the spending

Subsection (b)(3)(D)(i) required:

Expenditures from the district court automation fund shall be approved by a district judge and shall be authorized and paid, under state laws governing the appropriation and payment of county or municipal expenditures, by the governing body or, if applicable, governing bodies that contribute to the expenses of a district court.

The mayor's general authority under § 14-58-303 to "make purchases . . . and necessary contracts" for the city and under § 14-14-305 to approve claims for payment was a general rule. The district-judge approval requirement was a specific rule for this fund. The AG followed the canon that specific overrides general. The district judge stepped into the mayor's normal role for this particular fund.

Why the city council still had a role

The district judge approved the use of fund moneys, but the city council had to first appropriate them. Appropriation is the prerequisite to spending, and Ark. Code Ann. § 14-55-204 required a majority of the city council to pass appropriations. Because the fund was held by the city treasurer (per Question 1), the city council was the body whose appropriation controlled. The quorum court had no role in appropriating the automation funds in Yell County's situation. The AG framed this carefully: city council "approval" did not mean veto power over which technology to buy; it meant the council had to have appropriated the funds before any spending could happen. The choice of what to buy stayed with the district judge.

Common questions

Q: A city and the county both contribute to operating a district court. Who holds the automation fund money?
A: The city treasurer of the city where the court sits, under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704(b)(3)(B). The county does not maintain a parallel fund unless the court is "funded solely by the county" under subsection (b)(3)(C).

Q: Who decides how to spend the automation fund?
A: The district judge approves expenditures. The mayor's general authority over city spending is displaced for this specific fund.

Q: Does the city council have to approve every purchase?
A: The city council has to appropriate the funds (a general budget-line approval). The district judge approves specific expenditures from that appropriation.

Q: What if the same court is funded by multiple cities and the county?
A: The statute says "the city treasurer of the city in which the district court is located" gets the funds. If the court has multiple contributing cities, the city where the court sits holds the fund. Other contributing cities are still "governing bodies that contribute to the expenses of a district court," so the AG's reading of (b)(3)(D)(i) about appropriations may bring them into the picture too (though the AG did not specifically resolve that scenario here).

Q: Can a county that has been holding its own automation fund just keep doing it?
A: Under this opinion, no. The county is not statutorily authorized to maintain a (b)(3)(B) fund when the court is jointly funded. The county should not be receiving installment-fee proceeds for this fund. Whether funds already in a county account need to be transferred is a separate operational question for the county to work out with the cities.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704 (Supp. 2015), authorizing installment payments and the automation fund
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704(b)(1), monthly installment fee
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704(b)(2)(A), state remittance
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704(b)(3)(B), city-treasurer route for joint-funded courts
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704(b)(3)(C), county-treasurer route for solely-county-funded courts
• Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704(b)(3)(D)(i), district-judge approval and appropriation requirement
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-58-303 (Supp. 2015), mayoral spending authority (general)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-305 (Repl. 1998), mayoral claim-approval authority
• Ark. Code Ann. § 14-55-204 (Repl. 1998), majority vote required for appropriations

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2016-048
August 3, 2016

The Honorable Tom Tatum II
Prosecuting Attorney
Fifteenth Judicial District
P.O. Box 1599
Danville, AR 72833

Dear Mr. Tatum:

You have requested my opinion on several questions concerning the "district court automation fund" established under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704(b)(3) (Supp. 2015). As background for your questions, you state:

Yell County operates two district courts, one in the north half of the county and one in the south. Yell County shares the cost of operation of the courts with the cities that lie within the jurisdictional boundaries of each court. Each city as well as the county collects the fines and costs associated with their individual cases. Therefore, Yell County has an automation fund as well as each city.

With this background in mind, you ask:

1. Is it permissible for [the] county and cities to maintain District Court Automation Funds?
2. Who determines how these funds are used?
3. Does their spending require approval of the Quorum Court or City Council?

RESPONSE

It is my opinion in response to your first question that the fund entitled "the district court automation fund" under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704(b)(3) cannot be maintained by both the county and the cities. Rather, because the district courts in Yell County are reportedly funded by both Yell County and the cities, these automation funds must be maintained by the cities in which the courts are located.

It is my opinion in response to your second question that the district court judges determine how the automation funds collected under this statute are used. In response to your third question, city council "approval" is required in the sense that expenditures from a district court automation fund must be preceded by an appropriation adopted by the city council.

DISCUSSION

Question 1: Is it permissible for counties and cities to maintain district court automation funds?

The "automation funds" at issue contains moneys collected pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704, which requires the assessment and collection of a monthly "installment fee" of $5.00 on persons paying fines in circuit and district court on an installment basis. One-half of this fee is remitted monthly to the Department of Finance and Administration for deposit in a State Treasury fund. With regard to the fee collected in district court, the other half goes to the city treasurer of the city in which the court is located, or to the county treasurer if the court is funded solely by the county:

(B) The other half of the installment fee collected in district court shall be remitted by the tenth day of each month to the city treasurer of the city in which the district court is located to be deposited in a fund entitled the district court automation fund to be used solely for district court-related technology.

(C) In any district court which is funded solely by the county, the other half of this fee shall be remitted by the tenth day of each month to the county treasurer of the county in which the district court is located to be deposited in the district court automation fund to be used solely for district court-related technology.

You have stated that the district courts in Yell County are funded by both the county and the cities in which the courts are located. Consequently, because the courts are not "funded solely by the county," the above subsection 16-13-704(b)(3)(C) does not apply. Subsection 16-13-704(b)(3)(B) applies instead, and requires that one-half of the $5.00 installment fee "be remitted . . . to the city treasurer of the city in which the district court is located to be deposited in . . . the district court automation fund."

It is therefore my opinion in response to your specific question that Yell County is not authorized to maintain the fund under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-704(b)(3)(B) entitled "the district court automation fund."

Question 2: Who determines how these funds are used?

The judges of the district courts determine how these automation funds are used. This follows, in my opinion, from the requirement that expenditures from the automation fund be approved by the district judge:

(i). Expenditures from the district court automation fund shall be approved by a district judge and shall be authorized and paid, under state laws governing the appropriation and payment of county or municipal expenditures, by the governing body or, if applicable, governing bodies that contribute to the expenses of a district court.

Ordinarily, the mayor possesses authority to spend appropriated city treasury funds, or approve claims for payment out of such funds. But the mayor's general authority in this respect cannot be squared with the above specific requirement regarding expenditures from the district court automation fund. The district judge must approve such expenditures; and I believe it necessarily follows that the district judge is substituted for the mayor in connection with expenditures from this particular fund.

Question 3: Does their spending require approval of the quorum court or city council?

The expenditure of automation funds collected in a Yell County district court must be preceded by an appropriation of the city council of the city in which the court is located. This is clear under subsection 16-13-704(b)(3)(D)(i), supra, wherein it states: "Expenditures . . . shall be authorized and paid, under state laws governing the appropriation and payment of . . . municipal expenditures, by the governing body or, if applicable, governing bodies that contribute to the expenses of a district court." City council "approval" is therefore required, in the sense that there must be an appropriation before the funds can be spent; and appropriations require the approval of the city council.

Because the automation funds are not maintained by Yell County (see response to Question 1 above), they are not appropriated by the Yell County Quorum Court.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General