THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS
March 31, 1988
Honorable Charles D. Houston Opinion No. JR-879
District Attorney
155th Judicial District Re: Authority of the county
One East Main auditor to require travel
Bellville, Texas 77418 documentation from county
commissioners and related
questions (RQ-1328)
Dear Mr. Houston:
You ask the advice of this office relative to the
authority of the county auditor to require travel
documentation from members of the commissioners court who
receive fixed monthly travel allowances pursuant to
section 152.011 of the Local Government Code (formerly
found in article 3912k, V.T.C.S.). Additional questions
submitted relate to whether the following types of travel
by members of the commissioners court are reimbursable:
1. Travel from residence to courthouse
to attend meetings.
2. Travel for the purpose of inspecting
roads and overseeing the repair and
maintenance thereof.
3. Travel for the purpose of attending
dedications and other civic ceremonies.
4. Travel for the purpose of attending
County Fairs and other public celebrations.
Section 152.011 of the Local Government Code
provides:
The commissioners court of a county shall
set the amount of the compensation, office
and travel expenses, and all other
allowances for the county and precinct
p. 4292
Honorable Charles D. Houston - Page 2 W-879)
officers and employees who are paid wholly
from county funds.
In Attorney General Opinion H-992 (1977), it was -,
stated that where the commissioners court had set a fixed
amount to be paid county and precinct officials for travel
allowance pursuant to article 3912k (now section 152.011
of the Local Government Code), the legislature apparently
did not intend that the members of the commissioners court
would be required to show that traveling expenses allowed
them had actually been incurred before payment could be
made. However, it was concluded that the allowances must
be reasonablv related to exnenses actuallv incurred.
In Attorney General Opinion J'M-148 (1984), it was
concluded that the commissioners may fix the amount of
travel expenses allowed to the members of the
commissioners court so long as the allowance is reasonably
related to official countv business.
The question of whether a commissioners court may
expend county travel funds to oppose issuance by the
Alcoholic Beverage Commission of a private club permit was
addressed in Attorney General Opinion J'M-350 (1985).
Under section 11.43 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, the
Alcoholic Beverage Commission has discretionary authority
to grant such permits. Section 11.41(b) of the code
provides that the commission or administrator may give
consideration to a recommendation made in writing by the
commissioners court of the county in which an applicant
proposes to conduct his business. While personal appear-
ances at the hearing were not a prerequisite to consider-
ation by the commission, the opinion noted that in-person
advocacy might prove to be a more effective method of
persuasion. It was concluded that if the commissioners
court deems it to be in the interest of the county to do
SOI it may expend county travel funds for opposing an
application for a private club.
A careful reading of the statute now codified as
.section 153.011 of the Local Government Code, and of the
foregoing opinions construing the predecessor statute,
former article 3912k, V.T.C.S., dictates that the commis-
sioners court may establish the amount of automobile
expenses to be allowed county and precinct officials and
that such officials are not required to furnish documenta-
tion to the county.auditor before payment of such allow-
ance is made. However, in setting the amount of travel
allowance, the commissioners court is required to follow
certain guidelines. First, the allowance must be
p. 4293
Honorable~Charles D. Houston i Page 3 (JM-879)
reasonablv related to official countv business: secondly,
the amounts must be reasowe in relation to expenses
actuallv incurred or to be incurred .
In Attorney General Opinion H-992, it was concluded
that travel between home and office is not official travel
subject to reimbursement in m circqmstances . Excep-
tional circumstances may dictate that such travel is in
the best interest of the county and falls within the
requirement that travel be reasonably related to county
business. Travel for the purpose of inspecting roads and
overseeing the maintenance thereof would be reimbursable
to the extent that such activity is reasonably related to
official county business. &BB County Road and Bridge Act,
article 6702-1, V.T.C.S., for duties of members of the
commissioners court in overseeing and maintaining roads.
Whether travel for public functions such as dedica-
tions, civic ceremonies and county fairs by members of the
commissioners court is reimbursable must turn on whether
attendance is in the interest of the county or whether it
is solely for the personal purposes of the individual
official.
In the final analysis, the allowance must be governed
by what amount the commissioners court, in good faith,
deems to be necessary for travel reasonably related to
county business. Whether attendance at a certain type of
activity by a member of the commissioners court is
reasonably related to county business is a factual
determination to be made by the commissioners court, on a
case by case basis.
SUMMARY
The county auditor may not require doc-
umentation from members of the commissioners
court who receive fixed monthly travel
allowances. Travel from a residence to the
courthouse by a member of the commissioners
court for the purpose of attending meetings
is not normallv reimbursable. Travel for
the purpose of inspecting roads and oversee-
ing the maintenance thereof is reimbursable
insofar as it is reasonably related to
county business. &G County Road and Bridge
Act, article 6702-1, V.T.C.S., for duties of
commissioners court in overseeing and
maintaining roads. Whether attendance at
P
public functions such as dedications, civic
p. 4294
Honorable Charles D. Rouston - Page 4 (JR-879)
ceremonies and county fairs is reimbursable
is a factual determination which must be
made on a case by case basis by the
commissioners court. Such travel is
reimbursable when presence by the commis-
sioner at the activity has a reasonable
relationship to county business. Amounts
must be fixed at a figure reasonably related
to expenses actually incurred.
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
MARYRELLRR
First Assistant Attorney General
Lou MCCREARY
Executive Assistant Attorney General
JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY -_
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Tom G. Davis
Assistant Attorney General
p. 4295
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion