ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

GREG ABBOTT 

March 12,2004 

The Honorable Tempie T. Francis 

Motley County Attorney 

P. 0. Box 7 

Matador, Texas 79244 

Opinion No. GA-O 162 

Re: Whether, if a county commissioners court 

invalidly set the county sheriff’s salary at an 

amount higher than the increased proposed salary 

listed in the published notice, the county may pay 

the sheriff only the salary he received in the 

previous budget year (RQ-0108-GA) 

Dear Ms. Francis: 

You ask whether, if the Motley County Commissioners Court (the “Commissioners Court”) 

invalidly set the county sheriffs salary at an amount higher than the increased proposed salary listed 

in the published notice, the county may pay the sheriff only the salary he received in the previous 

budget year. ’ 

You state that, in the 2002-2003 fiscal year, the Motley County Sheriff (the “Sheriff’) 

received an annual county salary of $2 1,440. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2. On August 7, 

2003, the Commissioners Court published notice of a proposed increase in the county sheriffs salary 

in the local newspaper, the Motley County Tribune, in accordance with section 152.0 13 of the Local 

Government Code. See id.2 The notice indicated that the county proposed increasing the Sheriffs 

salary for the 2003-2004 fiscal year to $24,000. See id. When the Commissioners Court adopted 

the budget, the budget included an annual salary of $25,826 for the Sheriff. See id. 

In a letter to this office, the Sheriff indicates that the Commissioners Court actually approved 

this higher salary ($25,836) “before the notice was published” at a budget workshop held on July 3 1. 

Sheriffs Letter, supra note 2, at 1. The Sheriff further states that the County Judge “incorrectly tiled 

and posted an amount lower than that which the Commissioners had voted on.” Id. The increase 

‘See Letter from Honorable Tempie T. Francis, Motley County Attorney, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Texas 

Attorney General, at 1 (Sept. 10, 2003) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Request Letter]; see also Letter 

from Honorable Tempie T. Francis, Motley County Attorney, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General, at 

1 (Oct. 13,2003) (on file with Opinion Committee). 

2See also Letter from Honorable James B. “Jim” Meador, Motley County Sheriff, to Nancy S. Fuller, Chair, 

Opinion Committee, Offke of the Attorney General, at l-2 (Oct. 10,2003) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter 

Sheriffs Letter]. 
The Honorable Tempie T. Francis - Page 2 (GA-0162) 

in the Sheriffs salary was not discussed at the budget hearing on August 26, 2003, at which the 

budget was finally adopted. See id. at 2. 

Section 152.013(a) of the Local Government Code requires a county commissioners court 

to set elected county officers’ salaries “at a regular meeting of the court during the regular budget 

hearing and adoption proceedings.” TEX. Lot. GOV’T CODE ANN. 5 152.013(a) (Vernon 1999). 

Subsection (b) requires a commissioners court to publish special notice of proposed salary increases: 

Before the 10th day before the date of the meeting, the 

commissioners court must publish in a newspaper of general 

circulation in the county a notice of: 

(1) any salaries, expenses, or allowances that 

are proposed to be increased; and 

(2) the amount of the proposed increases. 

Id. 8 152.013(b). 

Elected county officers’ salaries may be changed “only once a year.” Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. 

No. JC-0147 (1999) at 1. Based on section 152.013(a)% plain language, this office “has repeatedly 

concluded” that a county commissioners court may consider and adopt elected county officers’ 

salaries only during “the regular, annual budget hearing and adoption proceedings.” Tex. Att’y Gen. 

LO-95-018, at 2; see, e.g., Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JM-839 (1988) at 6, JM-326 (1985) at 4, H-l 1 

(1973) at 4. A county commissioners court may not change elected county officers’ salaries “at any 

other time.” Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-95-018, at 2. 

This office also has determined that the required notice, posted under section 152.013(b), 

must inform the public of the “maximum potential salary increases for elected county. . . officials.” 

Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0255 (2000) at 5. The section thereby “provides a mechanism for the 

public to scrutinize proposed salary increases for elected county and precinct officers” by requiring 

notice “of the potential amount of salary increases rather than just the mere fact that the 

commissioners court is considering increasing the salaries.” Id. at 3. Salary increases above the 

published proposals are invalid because the public had insufficient notice. See id. at 5. 

Because a commissioners court may not adopt salaries at a meeting outside of the “regular, 

annual budget hearing and adoption proceedings,” a commissioners court that failed to publish 

proper notice has “no legal mechanism” by which to remedy an error after the budget has been 

finally adopted. Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-95-01 8, at 2. “As a result, county officers’ salaries . . . must 

remain at last year’s level until the next budget cycle.” Id. 

Accordingly, the salary adopted in the budget, $25,826, is invalid. The public had not 

received proper notice, as required by section 152.013(b), of that increase. The fact that the 

Commissioners Court had approved that amount in its budget workshop did not suffice because the 

notice listed $24,000 as the proposed increased salary. 
The Honorable Tempie T. Francis - Page 3 (GA-0162) 

Moreover, the Sheriff may not receive the amount that was published in the notice, $24,000. 

A commissioners court may act only by adopting an official order. See Garcia v. Duval County, 354 

S.W.2d 237,239 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1962, writ ref d n.r.e.). Here, the Commissioners 

Court did not vote, at its “regular meeting . . . during the regular budget hearing and adoption 

proceedings,” to provide the Sheriff with a salary of $24,000. TEX. Lot. GOV’T CODE ANN. 

5 152.013(a) (V emon 1999). Thus, the Sheriff may receive a salary only equal to the amount he 

received in the prior fiscal year, $2 1,440. 

You also ask how the Commissioners Court may now increase the sheriffs salary, to either 

the published amount, $24,000, or the adopted amount, $25,826. In accordance with our prior 

opinions, we conclude that the Commissioners Court may not increase the Sheriffs salary until the 

next budget is properly adopted. See Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-95-01 8, at 2. 
The Honorable Tempie T. Francis - Page 4 (GA-0162) 

SUMMARY 

The Motley County Commissioners Court, which adopted a 

budget including a salary for the County Sheriff higher than that 

posted in the notice required by section 152.013(b) of the Local 

Government Code, may pay the Sheriff only the salary he received in 

the prior budget year. See TEX. Lot. GOV’T CODE ANN. 8 152.013(b) 

(Vernon 1999). Because of the improper notice, the amount in the 

adopted budget is invalid. Additionally, the County may not pay the 

Sheriff the increased proposed salary listed in the published notice 

because the Commissioners Court did not vote, at its “regular meeting 

. . . during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings,” 

to provide the Sheriff with that salary. Id. 4 152.013(a). The 

Commissioners Court may not increase the Sheriffs salary until the 

next budget is properly adopted. 

Very truly yours, 

eneral of Texas 

BARRY R. MCBEE 

First Assistant Attorney General 

DON R. WILLETT 

Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel 

NANCY S. FULLER 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Kymberly K. Oltrogge 

Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee