Dear Sir: Opinion No. Q-5319 

Re: .Amendment of County budget. 

Your letter of January 12, 1944, requesting 

th2s department on the questions stated therein reads so 

the opinion of 

fO11owS: 

"In Literti: Co&t;, whose offiders are pzld 

sala.ry basis, the following conditions prevail: 

on a 

"1. The budgeted epuropriation for the Tax 

Collecttir's office has been ‘round to be insufficient 

to meet the expense which~will'necessarlly be Incurred in 1944. At the same time, hokever, the appropriation or budget of the office of County Clerk 

for 194 is in excess of the amount that will be 

needed -- and to approximately the same extent tha.t 

there ,ls a shortage in the Tax C?llectior's office. 

%ey Commissioners' Court amend the budget, 

for Officers Salary Fund, by deducting $1,000 from 

the budget of Count:? Clerk's Office, and add a like 

amount to the budget for Tax Collector's office? 

"2. The Road & Brid Fund of Precinct No. 4 

spent in 1943 approximately 4,000 less than the 

amount of the budget for ,that year. In preparation 

of the 1944 budget it was not a.nticipated that this 

precinct fund wjuld have any balance of cash on hand 

Janu.ary 1, 1944; but because of ina'ility to obtain 

delivery of certain road materiel.3.n December 1943 

the total of the budget was unspent in thee above amount, 

and lile?wise this caused 2. cash ba.lance of $4,000.03 

on January 1, 1344. 

"P&y the Rotid 8~ Bridge Fund budget for 1944 now be amended, 

'01. increasing the sa.me b:- a sum of $4 300.00; or will it be necessa,ry to 

Hait until August, 1944 a.nd .edd. the $4 000 January 1 1344 ba.latice to the 

probable receipts of 1945, when preparing the county'budget for 1945; thu.s 

in effect making a.larger budget by $4,000 in 1945 ra.ther th~an 19447 

“3. In connection with the above, I am'cognizant 

of the fa.ct tha.t the Road and Bridge Fund of the Precincts 

are in reality a part of th% county road bridge fund, and 

.with the provision of the law which- states that balances et 
tiginorable hrph:; Cole, Fage 2 (Copy) o-5819 ~ 

the end of tine Year shall be placed back 1 

:, i, 

and bridge fund, for re-distribution on January 1st. Ther& 

fore, the $4,903 above mentioned would ha,ve the same effect 

whetner we consider 2. county-wide road & bridge fund or a 

precinct reed & bridge fund, for the fact is that there,ls ., 

2 total of $4,000 more in road & Bridge fund on January 1st 

thn had been antic:pated. 

“3 . The county hospital because of a grea~tl'-increased number of patients admitted, collected in 19 i 3, 

double the a?!ount of money that it was anticipated in the 

1943 budget that it would collect. At the same time Its 

expenses increased slightly (about 20s). Thereis every 

reason to believe that in 1944 them revenues of the hospital 

will agal-n be far in excess of the amount anticipated to be 

collected, when said 1944 budget was prepared by the Board 

of Managers in July, 1943. 

%ay the 1944 budget for the hospital, which 1s but 

a subdivision of the budget of the County General Fund, be 

increased by a.n amount equalling the amount of income over 

and above the amount estimated in the budget?, 

"The collections df the hospital are placed in the 

County General Fclnd; and in turn, the bills and accounts, 

and salaries of the hospital are paid out on claims.against 

the county We same as any other county claim. 

"There is no place in General Fund for a reduction 

In any appropriation in 1944 which would be as great as the 

revised anticipated amount of expenditure that will be 

necessary in 1944; therefore, a budget amendment In the 

expenditure section of' General F'und fo'r the hospital would 

increase the grand total of General Fund; however, as stated 

above, the revenues will be increased more than ~the proposed increased expenditure, and therefore expenditees 

under the 1944 budget for General Fund, if revised, would 

actually be less than the revenues. 

Way Commissioners' Court increase the total expenditure of the budget of General Fund, and at the same time 

provide for such increase by showing cause for, and increasing the 'receipts' section of the fund at the sa~me time?" 

Article 6898-9, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, provides 

for ti% preparation of the county budget. 

Article 68ga-lJ, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, provrdes, 

fn p2rt: 

'* + * * When the budget has been finally approved 

by the commissioners' court, the budget, as approved by 

the court shall be filed with the clerk of the County 

court, 24 ta,*s levied ofily in accordance therewith, and 

no expenditure of the-funds of the county shall there- 
'Hpnorable Murphy Cole, Page 3 o-5819 

after be made except In sttiict compliance with the budget 

as adopted by the court. Except that emergency expenditures, in case of grave public necessity, to meet unusual 

and unforeseen conditions which could not, by reasonable 

diligence, thought and attention have been included in the 

original budget, may from time to time be authori;e; ",x 

the court as amendments to the original budget. 

. _ 

Article 68ga-9, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, provides 

in part: 

'* * * The budget shall also contain a complete 

_.. financial-statement of the county, showing all outstanding obligations of the county, thee cash on hand to the 

credit of each and every fund of the county government, 

the funds received from all sources during the previous 

war, the funds available from all sources during the 

ensuing year, the estima~ted revenues available to cover 

the proposed budget and estimated rate of tax which will 

be required." 

This department has repeatedly held that the commissioners' 

court of a county is without authority to make any expenditure of county 

funds except in strict compliance with the budget, except the emergency 

expenditures in case of grave public necessity, ads outlined by Section 

11 of Article 68ga, supra. This department has also repeatedly held 

that Section 20 of Article 68ga~, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, does 

not authorize the commissioners' court to increase the budget after its 

adoption and to hold otherwise would destroy the very purpose of the Act. 

This department has consistently h~eld that the question of 

"Grave public necessity' is a fact question to be deterinined primarily 

'by the commissioners' court. In opinion No. O-2315 it was held by this 

department tlat the discretion of the commissioners' court is not absolute 

authority to expend county funds in the case of an emergency and is final, 

only when the question is debatable or where the existence of.an emergency 

is unquestionable, However, the commissioners' court has no authority to 

determine and declare that an emergency exists, and expend county funds 

therefor, where the facts clearly show the contrary. Stated a~nother way, 

the commissioners' court has no legal authority to declare an emergency 

and evade the law, where in fact, no emergency exists. 

The only way the county budget may be amended after its adopti 

is in strictcompliance with the above statutory provisions. Where the 

existence of "~grave public necessityn is debatable, the acts of ~;~~i",o;;r 

missioners' court are controlling. Therefore : as above stated, 

opinion that wh.ether or not the commissioners court of Liberty County has 

the authority to amend the county budget under the facts submitted is a 

fact question to be determined primarily by the commissioners' court. 

.~ 
H$nor?ble Murphy Cole, page 4 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By s/Ardell Williams 

Ardell Williams 

Assistant 

, 

AW:EP:wc 

APPROVED JAN 26, 1944 

s/ Grover Sellers 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Approved Opinion Committee By s/DM Chairman