DAN MORALES

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

## QBffice

of tfp 2Wmwp Qkneral &dateof 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 ofthe “amount budgeted for expenses of the county auditor’s office” for the purposes ofthe Local Government Code section 111.013, limiting increases in the budget ofthe 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 225,000people 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 ofthe commissioners court1 You have asked whether the salary ofthe 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,ODlchooing to operate under Local Govemmeot Code section 111, subchapter C, Local G&t Code 5 111.074.

p. 607Honorable 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-sin 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-sappointing 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 111.013were aware ofthe 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 111.013provides 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 1ofthat draft provided the following:

Subchapter A, Chapter 111, Local Government Code, is amended by adding section 111.013to read as follows:

p. 608Honorable 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 111.013of 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 ofLocal Government Code section 111.013. 

### SUMMaRY Load Govemment Code section 111.013provides that an increase from one fiscal year to the neat in the amount budgeted for the expenses ofthe 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 ofTexas

p. 609Honorable 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