Judges and court administrators asked the City Board on Tuesday to use funds the city no longer pays for judges’ salaries to raise pay for longtime court employees and to support planning for a new court building. The request followed passage of state legislation that shifted judges’ salaries from municipal to state responsibility.
Why it matters: court staff said low pay hampers retention and certification completion, increasing turnover and delaying case processing. The three municipal court divisions—criminal, traffic and environmental/small claims—said those operational impacts affect public safety and court efficiency.
Third Division court administrator Amy Sinks said staff have gone many years without meaningful raises and described employees with long tenure still earning near entry wages. “We need to do a better job of rewarding loyalty, dedication and hard work,” Sinks said, asking the board to reallocate about $22,000 already budgeted in 2025 toward staff pay in 2026.
Judge Jill Camps, Little Rock Criminal Court, asked that funds the city historically used for judge pay be reallocated for court employees: “We are asking that we pay our employees. They are loyal. They work hard, and we are asking that we be able to pay them for the work that they do.”
Traffic Court administrator Herb Wright described retention difficulties that prevent staff certification: “For the clerk position alone … it takes three years to get that certification. I have five clerk windows. Not one of those positions are certified because I cannot retain employees.”
Court leaders said the city receives significant monthly revenue tied to fines and costs; Traffic Court estimated about $90,000 monthly flowing to the general fund. They distinguished those discretionary fines from court costs that are restricted or forwarded to state accounts.
On facilities, judges and administrators told the board their courthouse does not reflect the city’s needs. The group said city staff have identified solutions and that construction costs exceed amounts currently budgeted; officials are examining financing options, including pledge-revenue or franchise-fee bonds to cover a projected multi‑million-dollar shortfall.
The courts requested no new judge salaries from the city; instead, they requested the City Board repurpose the funds it would have paid and to prioritize pay equity across the three court divisions. No formal motion or vote was recorded during the presentation.
Looking ahead: court leaders said they will provide detail on proposed salary bands, anticipated recruitment/retention impacts and design/price estimates for a replacement courthouse if the board asks for that information.