Federal grant funding for our prosecutor's victim-services and administrative staff just expired. Are the counties in our judicial district legally required to keep paying these positions?

Plain-English summary

Prosecuting Attorney Jana Bradford reported that grant funding for administrative and victim-services staff had expired. One county had agreed to continue funding its share for 2026; three had declined or had not yet appropriated funds. She asked whether the counties must pay for those positions as “existing support staff.”

The AG said “existing” refers to the positions at the time of the county's 1999 appropriation, not simply positions staffed before the grant ended in 2025. If a position existed at the 1999 reference point, the quorum court must appropriate salaries and benefits at levels sufficient for operation and at least equal to the amounts appropriated by ordinance in effect January 1, 1999. If it was added later, funding for it is discretionary under A.C.A. § 16-21-156(2).

The AG did not decide when Bradford's particular positions were created. He called that a factual question outside the scope of the opinion. He also did not say that grant money offsets or suspends a county's appropriation duty for a position that meets the 1999 test.

What this means for you

If you prepare a prosecutor's office funding request

Identify whether each requested support-staff position existed at the relevant county's 1999 appropriation. The opinion assigns mandatory funding only to qualifying existing positions; later additions require quorum-court approval. The grant's expiration explains the request but does not, by itself, decide which category any position occupies.

If you sit on a quorum court

Check the ordinance in effect January 1, 1999, and whether the position was already part of the prosecutor's support staff. For qualifying positions, the opinion states a mandatory salary-and-benefit appropriation at sufficient operating levels, with the 1999 amount as a floor. For later positions, the opinion leaves an appropriation to the quorum court's discretion.

Common questions

Does “existing support staff” mean staff employed when a grant ends?

No. The AG used the county's 1999 appropriation as the reference point. Employment before the grant's September 2025 expiration was not enough to establish mandatory county funding.

Did the AG decide whether the victim-services positions qualify?

No. He said whether those specific positions existed at the 1999 reference point is a question of fact that he could not resolve in an AG opinion.

Can a county decline funding if a qualifying position has another funding source?

The opinion does not analyze offsets or replacement funding. It states the statutory appropriation duty for positions that meet the 1999 test and does not make that duty conditional on a grant's status.

Are later-added positions forbidden from receiving county funds?

No. The AG said the quorum court may approve funding for additional personnel and expenses under A.C.A. § 16-21-156(2); it is discretionary rather than mandatory under the existing-support-staff rule.

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 16-21-146 requires annual appropriations for the prosecutor's office and allows additional funds the quorum court deems necessary. A.C.A. § 16-21-156 requires funding for qualifying existing support staff tied to the ordinance in effect January 1, 1999, and leaves additional personnel to quorum-court approval. The AG applied those provisions conditionally because the formation dates of the requested positions were not established.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• A.C.A. § 16-21-146, annual prosecutor's office appropriation
• A.C.A. § 16-21-156: 1999 baseline and discretionary funding

Related AG opinion:

• Op. 95-292 (broad quorum-court discretion in prosecutor funding)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2025-116

December 5, 2025

Ms. Jana Bradford
Prosecuting Attorney
Ninth-West Judicial District
316 North First Street
Glenwood, Arkansas 71943

Dear Ms. Bradford:

I am writing in response to your request for my opinion on whether a quorum court must appropriate county funds for the salaries and benefits of existing support staff positions within the prosecuting attorney’s office under A.C.A. §§ 16-21-146(a) and 16-21-156(1).

You report that grant funding, which your office has traditionally relied upon for covering significant portions of the salaries and benefits for your “administrative and victim services support staff,” expired on September 30, 2025. You were able to secure funding from counties for the remainder of 2025. But for 2026, only “[o]ne county has agreed to continue funding its portion of these positions for 2026,” while “the remaining three have declined or not yet appropriated funds to do so.”

You also note that “Arkansas law imposes duties on prosecuting attorneys to provide victim and witness services.” Because the current support staff were in place before the loss of grant funding, you contend that these positions qualify as “existing support staff” under A.C.A. § 16-21-156 and therefore must “be funded by the counties through annual appropriation.”

RESPONSE

In my opinion, the administrative and victim services positions do not qualify as “existing support staff” under A.C.A. § 16-21-156 unless they existed at the time of the county’s 1999 appropriation. If those positions existed then, they qualify as “existing support staff” under A.C.A. § 16-21-156, and the county quorum court must appropriate salaries and benefits for the positions at levels sufficient for the office’s operation. If the positions did not exist then, the quorum court retains discretion under A.C.A. § 16-21-156(2) to appropriate funds for the positions.

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201

Ms. Jana Bradford
Prosecuting Attorney, Ninth-West Judicial District
Opinion No. 2025-116
Page 2

DISCUSSION

Arkansas law requires each quorum court to annually appropriate “sufficient amounts to cover the salaries and expenses of the prosecuting attorney’s office.”1 Quorum courts may also appropriate any additional funds “as they deem necessary for the efficient operation” of that office. 2 That annual appropriation must include—“at sufficient levels for operation”—the cost of the “salaries and benefits of existing support staff” that are not “less than the amounts appropriated by ordinance in effect January 1, 1999.”3 Additionally, counties must pay “any and all other line item appropriations as approved in the 1999 county budget except for deputy prosecuting attorneys’ salaries and benefits.”4 For any “additional personnel and expenses,” the county only pays if approved by the quorum court.5

Thus, if certain support staff positions existed at the time of the county’s 1999 appropriation, the county must appropriate salaries and benefits at levels not less than those in effect on January 1, 1999.6 If, however, the support staff positions did not exist at the time of the 1999 appropriation but were later added by the prosecutor’s office, funding is discretionary and subject to quorum court approval.7

Whether the administrative and victim services positions qualify as “existing support staff” under A.C.A. § 16-21-156 is a question of fact outside the scope of an Attorney General opinion.8 In my opinion, if those positions were added after 1999, they do not qualify as “existing support staff” under A.C.A. § 16-21-156(1), and the quorum court has discretion under A.C.A. § 16-21-156(2) to decide whether to appropriate funds for the salaries and benefits of those positions at the prosecuting attorney’s office. But if the administrative and victim services positions existed at the time of the county’s 1999 appropriation, the county must fund those positions “at sufficient levels for operation, but not less than the amounts appropriated by ordinance in effect January 1, 1999.”

1
A.C.A. § 16-21-146(a).
2
Id. § 16-21-146(b); see also Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 95-292 (noting that “the quorum court is given a substantial amount of discretion in this matter”). 3 Id. § 16-21-156.
4
Id. § 16-21-156(1).
5
Id. § 16-21-156(2).
6
Id. § 16-21-156 (tying “existing staff” payments to levels appropriated in 1999).
7
Id. § 16-21-156(2).
8
The phrase “support staff” is undefined. Based on the information submitted, you indicate that the prosecuting office has classified these positions as “support staff.” I lack the facts to definitively conclude whether the “administrative and victim services support staff” are indeed “support staff” under A.C.A. § 16-21-156.

Ms. Jana Bradford
Prosecuting Attorney, Ninth-West Judicial District
Opinion No. 2025-116
Page 3

Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General