Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Honorable Rewell Cambron County Auditor Hopkins County' Sulphur Springs, Texas Dear Sir3 Obinion Ro. O-4033 Rb: Under the fa&s submitted are the County Commissioners of Hopkins County free to spend over ana above'their budget allotment; the amouht which they'have earned'in ex- cess of~the amount it iras anticipated that they would earn? Your letter of September 9, 1942, requesting the opinion of this department on the above stated question reads as follows~ '"Iam in immediate need of.an opinion as to the limitation of expenditures under the uniform budget law. One of our road and bridge prebincts has exceeded its authorized expendi- tures bg more than $3000.00. Hotieverthe com- missioner of this precln'cthas earned over $1200..00with his equipment and It was anti- cipated that he irould-earnapproximately. $2000.00. 'Another one'of the'commissioners has $2267.40 leftln'his budget and'has earned iiithhis equipment $12271;89,'ln oomparison with a~~budgetestimate thathe~ would.earn ap- proximately~$2000.00~ The question which I would lrkb to-ask you-is thFs:-'Are these bom- q iss'lonerafree to spend over and above their budget allotment the amount which they have earned ln excess-of the amount Ft was anticipated that they would earn. If.~you-arein need of shy other information relative to thFs I shall .be glad to supply Ft. "Rext Monday September 14th is OUP Commls- sioners Court day and 1f you can possibly send me- an opinion by that date I would greatly appreciate your doFng so." _ . . -’ honorable Newell Cambron, Page 2 Article 2372c, Vernon'sAnnotated Civil Statutks, among other things, authorizes the counties of this State acting through the commissconers' courts of said counties to employ, or permit to be employed, any road, construction or other machinery or road equipment in the servic.eof sol1 eonservation ahd prevention of'soil waste through erosion, cTheneverin the judgment of the county commissioners' court, entered upon the minutes of the Court, such machinery or e'quipmentis not demanded for the service of building and tho upkeep of the roads of the county; and shall provide for compensation to the county road'fund, OP the road funds of any defined district br authorized subdivision in the county, for such employment of road equipment. In other ords, the Commissioners 1 'courts of the.various counties have the authority to cooperate wFth the land owners and tax payers of said counties Fn all judiclous'efforts for the preservation of the productiveness of the soil from avoidable waste, and loss'of productiveness of agricultural crops necessary to the public welfare, through permission to use the machinery and equipment that Mayobe made available by the county for such purposes under written contract, and the county shall receive from such land 'ownersand taxpayers compensation, upon such uniform basis as may be deemed equitable and proper, for the cooperation extended and services rendered, all such compensation or funds to the county to be paid into the road and bridge fund of the county. As we understand your request, the money referred to is money earned by the various county commissioners of our county under the above mentioned statute. In peparing ehe county budget it was estimated'that'the various tiommiss'Son- ers would earn approximately $2000.00 each by thenuse of the road machinery for'the purposes set out in Article 2372c, supra. However, two of the commissioners'earned in excess of the amount estimated, therefore, such earnings'were not anticipated or set forth In the budget and the question arises whether or'not these commissioners are free to spend over and above their budget allotment the amount whFch they have oarned in excess of the amount it was anticipated that they would earn. Article 68ga-9, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statute.s, provides the preparation of the county budget. Article for 68ga-10, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, provides that. when the county judge has completed a budget for the county that a copy of the same should be filed with the clerk of the county, available for the inspection of any taxpayer. Honorable Newell Cambron, Page 3 ., Article 689ak11, Vernon*8 Anaotated Civil Statutes, reads in part as follows: _ "* + * When the budget has been finally " approved by the obmmissFoherst court,-the budget as~approved by the'court'shall be filea'tith the clerk of the-' oouhtj"court; and taxes IevieiYonlg in'accordance therewlth,/and no bxPendrfurba of the.funds of'the county-~shallthereafter be made except Fn.strIct aompllanob~wlth the budget'~as- adopted by the court. Excebt in emergency ex- penditures,~ln case of grave public necessity, to meet unusual'and unforseen bondltions, which cou'ldnot, by reasonable diligent thought and attentFon, have been Included in the original buoget, may from time to time be aut.herized.by the court as amendmeat to the original budget. In all cases where-such amendments to the original budget'are made',a copy of the order of the 6ourt amending the budget shall be filed with the clerk of the county court, and attached to the budget originally adopted." 'This department has repeatedly ruled that the~~~Com- mlaslonersf CoUFt of a county Is without authority to make any'expenditure‘of funds bf the 'tiohntyexcept-La strict com- pllanoe withythe budgef;exoept emergency'expendlturea ia case of rave public necessity, aa~outlined by Section 11 of Article %~89a,,supra. This department has also repeatedly ruled that Section'20 of'ArtScle.68%, Veraon's Annotated Civil Statutes does not authorize the commissioners' court to 7.ntireaseths budget after'lts adoptibn and that to hold otherwise would destroy the ., very purpose of the Act. We enclose-herewlth copies of Oplnlon Hos. 0'1053 and O-1022 of this department which contain discussions of the budget law. 'Opinion No. O-1053 defines terms "grave" and "public'necessity". Opinions Pros.O-1053 and O-1022 hold that the question 'of "grave public necessLty" Is a fabt question to be determined primarily by the commlaslonera~ court. In vFew of the foregoing statutes and the facts contained in your inquiry, the above'stated question la respectfully answered Fn the negative. Honorable Newell Cambron, Page 4 You are further advi~sedthat whether or not the county budget can now.be amended in order that the above mentioned funds may be expended depends upon whether or not "grave public necessity" exists',and as above stated, the question of "grave public necessity" is a fact question to be determined primarily by the commissioners' court. Trusting that the foregoing fully answers your inquiry, we are Yours very truly ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS By /s/ Ardell Williams Ardell Williams APPROVED SEPT. ~17, 1942 Assistant /s/ Grover Sellers FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL AW:nw:jrb APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE Encl. BY BWB, Chairman