DAN MORALES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

QBffice of tfp 2Wmwp Qkneral 

&date of Qexae 

May 13,1992 

Honorable Terry D. McRachem 

District Attorney 

Hale County Courthouse 

Plainview, Texas 79072 

opinion No. DM-118 

Re: Whether a county auditor’s salary is 

considered part of the “amount budgeted for 

expenses of the county auditor’s office” for 

the purposes of the Local Government Code 

section 111.013, limiting increases in the 

budget of the county auditor’s office 

(RC?-259) 

Dear Mr. M&a&em: 

You have requested an opinion from this office regarding the proper 

construction of Local Government Code section 111.013, relating to limitations on 

increases in the amount budgeted for expenses of the county auditor’s office or 

salaries of assistant auditors without commissioners court approval. This statute, 

effective June 15. 1991, and applicable to counties with populations of less than 

225,000 people provides the following in section 111.013: 

An increase from one fiscal year to the next in the amount 

budgeted for expenses of the county auditor’s office or the salary 

of an assistant auditor shall not exceed five (5) percent without 

approval of the commissioners court1 

You have asked whether the salary of the county auditor is to be considered part of 

“the amount budgeted for expenses of the county auditor’s office,” such that 

‘The legislatioo establishing section lll.Ol3 of the Local Gowmm ant Code also established 

identical provisions for counties with populations of more than ZZS,oaO, Local G&t Cede P 111.@44, 

and populatioas of more than l25,ODl chooing to operate under Local Govemmeot Code section 111, 

subchapter C, Local G&t Code 5 111.074. 

p. 607 
Honorable Teny D. McEachem - Page 2 ( DM- 118 1 

increase3 in the auditor’s salary from one fiscal year to the neat may not exceed five 

percent without commissioners comt appmval. We conclude that it is not. 

We note at the outset that this office has previously found that “expenses” of 

9noffi~asucedinsimilarstatutes,donotincludetbesalayoftheoffi~rorhis 

deputy. See Attorney General Opinion H-1251 (1978) (salaty of assistant county 

auditor does not come within “expenses” of county auditor for pqoses of salary 

grievance procedure, where auditor is filiug grievance); Letter Advisory No. 89 

(1975) (county attorney’s “expemes” do not encompass the entire budget of his 

office. but only his expenditure-s in performing his own duties). Moreover, we feel 

that Local Government Code section 152.031(a), regarding the compensation of the 

county auditor, clearly makes a distinction between the auditor’s salary on one hand, 

and the auditofs expenses on the other, provid& iu pertinent part, that 

the district judge-s appointing the county auditor shall set, by a 

majority vote, the auditor’s atmual salary as compensation for 

seNicesandthecnrdior’stmvel~andotht?rLocal Gov? Code 0 lS203l(a) (emphasis added). It is reasonable to believe that 

the drafters of section 111.013 were aware of the structure of section 152.031(a), and 

so did not regard the auditor’s salary as being encompassed by the term “expenses” 

in section 111.013. 

The legislative history of Local Govematent Code section 111.013 provides 

an even stronger basis for our conclusion that the auditor’s salaty is not included in 

the five percent increase in salary limitation. Section 111.013 had its genesis in 

House Bill 1846 and Senate Bill 1035 of the 72d Legislature. The House 

Engrossment of House Bill 1846 differed signikantly from the current text of 

section lll.Ol3. Section 1 of that draft provided the following: 

Subchapter A, Chapter 111, Local Government Code, is 

amended by adding section 111.013 to read as follows: 

p. 608 
Honorable Terry D. M&a&em - Page 3 (DM- 118 ) 

Q [Emphasis added.] 

However. the Senate approved a substitute version of the bill, comprising the 

language of what is now section 111.013 of the Local Govemment Code. In this 

version “all expanses and salaries of the eomtty auditor’s office” was changed to 

kqenses of the county auditor’s o&e or the salary of an assistant auditor.* It 

seems clear to us that the intended effect of the substituted language in the fiual 

draft was to free the axmty auditot% salary from the 6ve percent increase 

hlitdOlL 

Accordingly, we conclude that the salary of the county auditor is not to be 

considered part of the ezpenses of the cotmty auditor’s office subject to the five 

percent increase limitation of Local Government Code section 111.013. 

SUMMaRY 

Load Govemment Code section 111.013 provides that an 

increase from one fiscal year to the neat in the amount budgeted 

for the expenses of the county auditor% office or the salary of an 

assistant cotmty auditor may not exceed five percent without the 

approval of the annmissioners comt. The county auditor’s 

salary should not be included in the calculation of the five 

percent increase authorized by section 111.013. 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas 

p. 609 
Honorable Terry D. McEachem - Page 4 ( DM- 118 ) 

WILL PRYOR 

First Assistant Attomcy General 

MARYKELLER 

DeputyAssbtantAaomeyGener8I 

RENEAHIcKs 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

MADELEINE B. JOHNSON 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Faith S. Steinberg 

Assistant Attomcy General 

p. 610