# The Attorney General of Texas
September 14, 1982 MARK WHITE Attorney General

Supreme Cowl Building P. 0. Box 12646 Austin. TX. 7671% 2546 5121475-2501 Telex 910/674-1367 Telecopier 51214750266

1607 Main St., Suite 14W Dellas, TX. 75201.4709 214i7428944

4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 El Paso, TX. 799052793 915/5333464

1220 Dallas Ave., Suite 202 Houston, TX. 77002-6966 713/6-

806 Broadway, Suite 312 Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 8061747.5238

4309 N. Tenth, Suite q McAkn, TX. 76501-1665 512/682-4547

200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 San Antonio, TX. 76205.2797 51212254191

An Equal OppOrtUnitYI Affirmative Action Employer Ms. Joyce Tompkins Fort Bend CountyAuditor P. 0. Drawer 549 Richmond,Texas 77469 OpinionNo.MW-516
Re: Transfer of county assets from one department to another and failure to followprocedure for setting salaries
DearMs. Tompkins:
You first ask about the authority of the Fort Bend County CommissionersCourt to transferto the sheriffan automobilepurchased frommoney in the Road and Bridge Fund, PrecinctNo. 4. The "Road and Bridge Fund" is one of the four county funds established "for the four (4) constitutional purposes," by article VIII, section 9 of the Texas Constitution. (It is tobe distinguished from the special road and bridge tax fund authorizedby articleVIII, section 9, and from the farm-to-market and flood control tax fund authorized by section l-a of article VIII. See V.T.C.S. 2353b). In earlier times the money in such a fund couldnotbe used for any other purpose or transferred to any other fund. See V.T.C.S., art. 1630b; Carroll V. Williams, 202 S.W. 504 (Tex.1918). However, a 1967 constitutionalamendmenthas been interpretedto allow the transferof money from the Road and Bridge Fund into the General Fund of the County and its expenditure for other purposes. Lewis V. Nacogdoches County, 461 S.W.Zd 514 (Tex. Civ. App. - Tyler 1970. no writ). Se.2 Attorney GeneralOpinions H-530 (1975);H-194 (1974). In our opiniz there is nothing in the law toprevent the commissionerscourt of Fort Bend County from transferring to the sheriff's department an automobileoriginallypurchased from theRoad and Bridge Fund.
Your second question concerns the proper salary for county officersduring themonths of January and February 1981.
A county budget was adopted on January 5, 1981 pursuant to article 689a-11, V.T.C.S., which provided salary increases for county officers. Section 2(a) of article 3912k.V.T.C.S., states:

The salaries, expenses, and other allowances of elected county and precinct officers shall be set each year during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings on giving notice as provided by thisAct. (Emphasisadded).

p. 1868Ms. Joyce Tompkins - Page 2 (MW-516)

Section 6 of the act states that the commissioners court shall not exercise the authority provided by section 2 except at a regular meeting of the court after 10 days published notice of "the intended salaries,expenses, and allowances to be raised and the amount of the proposed raises." Although a notice pursuant to article 689-lla had been given, the required article 3912k notice had not been published at the time the budget was adopted. Thereafter, an article 3912k notice was belatedly published and the commissionerscourt adopted an order increasingthe salariesat a publichearing on January 26, 1981. After being advised by the district attorney that the foregoing procedurewas not in accordancewith law, all elected county officials availed themselves of the grievance procedure allowedby section 2(d) of article 3912k, and were awarded increased salaries for the year, effectiveMarch 1, 1981.
In our opinion, the adoption of the budget by the commissioners court on January 5, 1981,was ineffective to increase the salariesof county officials above the salaries set for them in 1980. A special notice is required by article 3912k if salaries are to be raised. While the commissioners court might have properly set salaries of county and precinct officers at a regular budget hearing without having given an article 3912k notice, it could do so on~lyif no such salarieswere raisedbeyond their levels for thepreceedingyear. We think the effect of the article 3912k requirement was to invalidate the raises budgeted at the January 5, 1981budget hearing, but not the salaries set for county and precinct officers in their entirety.
In our opinion, the 1981 salaries for the county and precinct officers of Fort Bend County remained at their 1980 levels until the recommendationsof,the grievance committee became effective on March 1, 1981. It follows that for themonths of January and February 1981, the proper salaries of such officers are determined by ascertaining their salaries immediatelyprior to the new year. SUMMARY The CommissionersCourt of Fort Bend Countywas authorized to transfer to the sheriff'sdepartment an automobileoriginallypurchasedwith funds from the Road and Bridge Fund. Where the notice requirementsof article 3912kwere notmet. salary raises incorporated in the budget for county officerswere invalid.

MARK WHITE Attorney General of Texas

p. 1869Ms. Joyce Tompkins - Page 3 @W-516)

JOHNW. FAINTER,JR. FirstAssistantAttorney General
RICHARD E. GRAY III ExecutiveAssistantAttorney General Preparedby Bruce Youngblood AssistantAttorneyGeneral
APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE
SusanL. Garrison,Chairman Jon Bible Rick Gilpin PatriciaHinojosa Jim Moellinger BruceYoungblood

p. 1870