Can a Texas county treasurer charge the county judge a copy fee for records the judge needs to build the county budget?

Texas AG Opinion JM-1056: Can a County Treasurer Charge the Judge for Budget Records?

Plain-English summary

Every year the county judge in a smaller Texas county has to put together the county budget, and to do that the judge needs numbers: what the county owes, how much cash is in each fund, what came in last year, what is expected next year, and what tax rate it will take to cover the proposed spending. A lot of that data sits in the county treasurer's office. The Marion County Attorney asked a small but real question that comes up between county officials: when the judge needs copies of the treasurer's records to build the budget, can the treasurer charge the judge the usual copy fee?

The Attorney General said no. The reasoning is a matter of fitting a few statutes together. The budget law gives the county judge the authority, in preparing the budget, to require any county officer to furnish the information the judge needs to do it right. The treasurer is a county officer, and the budget records are exactly that kind of information. Separately, there is a fee schedule that lets the treasurer collect listed fees "for services rendered to any person." The phrase "any person" is broad, and at first glance it might seem to cover the judge. But the AG concluded those fees do not apply here, because handing the judge budget records is not the treasurer "rendering a service" to the judge at all. When the treasurer provides that information, he is carrying out his own legal duty in the budget process, not performing a billable service for someone else.

The AG leaned on an older opinion that made the same point in a different setting. There, a county clerk was required by law to send certified copies of certain probate orders to the state treasurer, and the question was whether the clerk could charge the treasurer for them. The answer was no, because mailing the required copy was not a "service rendered" to the state official; it was an act the clerk did in furtherance of his own legal duties. The same logic controls here. The treasurer furnishing budget records to the judge is discharging a duty, not selling a service.

There was an added wrinkle specific to Marion County. It is a "salary" county, meaning its officers, including the treasurer, are paid a salary and do not depend on collected fees for their pay. Texas law prohibits a county from paying a fee for a service rendered by a salaried county officer, which reinforced the conclusion that no fee should change hands between these two salaried officials for the budget records.

The opinion closed with a couple of practical notes about how officials should treat each other. The judge should be allowed access to the treasurer's office during ordinary working hours, in a way that is convenient to both and not disruptive to the office routine, with reasonableness as the standard. And if one county official genuinely suspects another of misconduct in office, the right move is to take it up with the district or county attorney, not to weaponize records requests. It is not appropriate for one county official to use his office to demand records for the purpose of harassing or intimidating another.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

The Local Government Code budget provisions (chapter 111) and treasurer's fee provisions (sections 118.141 and 118.145) cited here have been amended since 1989, and population thresholds and figures have changed. Anyone dealing with a present-day dispute over inter-office records charges or county budget preparation should consult the current Local Government Code rather than rely on the 1989 sections named here.

Who this opinion affected (as of 1989)

County treasurers: The opinion told them they cannot bill the county judge for copies of records the judge needs to prepare the budget, because furnishing that information is part of the treasurer's own statutory duty, not a fee-generating service.

County judges in smaller counties: The opinion confirmed their right to obtain budget information from other county officers without paying for it, while reminding them to seek access reasonably and during working hours.

County commissioners and other officers: The opinion set a general principle for inter-office cooperation, that furnishing information required by law to another official is a duty rather than a billable service, and that records access should not be used to harass a colleague.

Common questions

Can a county treasurer charge the county judge for copies of budget records?
No. The Attorney General concluded that furnishing records the judge needs to prepare the county budget is the treasurer discharging his own statutory duty, not rendering a billable service, so no fee applies.

Doesn't the treasurer's fee schedule say fees apply to "any person"?
Yes, but the AG held that phrase does not reach the county judge in this situation, because the treasurer is not "rendering a service" to the judge; he is carrying out his own legal duty in the budget process.

Does it matter that the county pays its officers a salary?
Yes, it reinforced the result. In a salary county, Texas law prohibits the county from paying a fee for a service rendered by a salaried county officer, so no fee should pass between the two salaried officials for the budget records.

What if an official really needs records to investigate suspected misconduct?
The opinion said suspected misconduct should be handled in consultation with the district or county attorney. Records access should not be used to harass or intimidate another county official.

Background and statutory framework

The Marion County Attorney asked whether a county treasurer may charge a county judge for copies of records on file in the treasurer's office, in the context of information the judge needs to prepare the county budget. Subtitle B of title 4 of the Local Government Code concerns county finances. Local Gov't Code §§ 111.001-130.007. Chapter 111 deals with county budgets, and subchapter A (sections 111.001-111.012) regulates budget preparation in counties with a population of 225,000 or less. Marion County, per the 1980 census, had a population of 10,360. See Gov't Code § 311.005(3). Section 111.005 provides that in preparing the budget, the county judge may require any county officer to furnish information necessary for the judge to properly prepare the budget. Section 111.004 requires the judge to itemize the budget for comparison with the prior year's expenditures and to include a complete financial statement showing the county's outstanding obligations, cash on hand in each fund, funds received in the preceding year, funds available in the ensuing year, estimated revenues, and the estimated tax rate needed to cover the proposed budget. The corresponding provisions for county auditors in counties exceeding 225,000 are in sections 111.036 and 111.034.

Section 118.141 provides that the county treasurer, or another officer who receives revenue in place of the treasurer, may collect a schedule of listed fees "for services rendered to any person." Although "any person" is very broad, the opinion did not believe those fees apply to records required by the county judge. When copies of records are furnished in discharge of the treasurer's duty to furnish information necessary for the judge to prepare the budget, the treasurer does not render services to the judge; instead, the treasurer merely discharges a statutory duty of his own. See Attorney General Opinion M-170 (1967); see also Local Gov't Code § 111.012 (a treasurer who refuses to furnish such information commits an offense punishable by fine and confinement), § 83.002 (treasurer's bond).

Attorney General Opinion M-170 (1967) had considered a statute requiring county clerks to collect fees "for services rendered by them to all persons, firms, corporations, legal entities, governmental agencies and/or governmental representatives." The question was whether a county clerk could collect a fee from the state treasurer for certified copies of orders the clerk was required by the Probate Code to send. Advising that the state treasurer was not required to pay, the opinion observed that mailing the certified copy "is not a 'service rendered' to that state official, but is an act done by the county clerk or recorder in furtherance of his own legal duties." Id. at 4.

The opinion concluded that sections 111.004, 111.005, and 118.141 are in harmony when properly construed, and that a county judge may not be charged by a county treasurer for copies of budget records. See Attorney General Opinions M-142 (1967), JM-779 (1987) (recordation of abstracts), JM-392 (1985) (filing fee); see generally 35 D. Brooks, Texas Practice §§ 15.1-.15 (1989). A footnote observed that section 118.145 directs fees collected under section 118.141 to the general fund to the credit of the treasurer's fees-of-office account, but that Marion County is a salary county rather than a fee county, so all county officers, including the treasurer, are paid a salary and do not depend on collected fees. See Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 61; Local Gov't Code § 154.004 (county prohibited from paying a fee for a service rendered by a salaried county officer). Another footnote noted that section 118.141 was enacted as part of the 1987 non-substantive revision, Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 51, at 1308, and derived from former article 3943f, V.T.C.S., enacted in 1985, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 145, § 6, at 671.

Finally, the opinion noted that the county judge should be permitted access to the treasurer's office during ordinary working hours in a manner convenient to both parties and not disruptive of the office routine, the standard being one of reasonableness. If one county official suspects another of misconduct in office, the matter should be handled in consultation with the district or county attorney, and absent such circumstances it is not appropriate for one county official to use his office to acquire records to harass or intimidate another.

Citations

Statutory and constitutional authority:

• Local Gov't Code §§ 111.001-130.007 (county finances); §§ 111.004, 111.005, 111.012, 111.034, 111.036 (county budget)
• Local Gov't Code §§ 118.141, 118.145 (treasurer's fees)
• Local Gov't Code § 83.002 (treasurer's bond); § 154.004 (no fee for salaried county officer's service)
• Gov't Code § 311.005, § 311.005(3) (definitions)
• Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 61 (salary counties)
• V.T.C.S. art. 3943f (former; source of § 118.141), Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 145, § 6, at 671
• Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 51, at 1308

Attorney General materials referenced:

• M-170 (1967); M-142 (1967); JM-779 (1987); JM-392 (1985)

Reference works:

• 35 D. Brooks, Texas Practice §§ 15.1-.15 (1989)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-1056
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1989/jm1056.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor OCR errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

June 12, 1989

Honorable Tony Hileman
Marion County Attorney
105 Austin Street
Jefferson, Texas 75657

Opinion No. JM-1056

Re: Whether a county treasurer may charge a county judge for copies of records maintained by the county treasurer (RQ-1614)

Dear Mr. Hileman:

You ask: "Can a County Treasurer charge a County Judge for copies of records on file in the County Treasurer's Office?" We understand your inquiry to concern information sought by the county judge in connection with preparation of the county budget.

Subtitle B of title 4 of the Local Government Code concerns county finances. Local Gov't Code §§ 111.001-130.007. Chapter 111 deals with county budgets, and subchapter A (sections 111.001-111.012) regulates the preparation of budgets in counties with a population of 225,000 or less. See Local Gov't Code § 111.001. Marion County, according to the 1980 census, has a population of 10,360. See Gov't Code § 311.005(3) (definition of population).

Section 111.005 of the Local Government Code provides:

In preparing the budget, the county judge may require any county officer to furnish information necessary for the judge to properly prepare the budget.

Section 111.004 states:

(a) The county judge shall itemize the budget to allow as clear a comparison as practicable between expenditures included in the proposed budget and actual expenditures for the same or similar purposes that were made for the preceding fiscal year. The budget must show as definitely as possible each of the projects for which an appropriation is established in the budget and the estimated amount of money carried in the budget for each project.

(b) The budget must contain a complete financial statement of the county that shows:

(1) the outstanding obligations of the county;

(2) the cash on hand to the credit of each fund of the county government;

(3) the funds received from all sources during the preceding fiscal year;

(4) the funds available from all sources during the ensuing fiscal year;

(5) the estimated revenues available to cover the proposed budget; and

(6) the estimated tax rate required to cover the proposed budget.

(c) In preparing the budget, the county judge shall estimate the revenue to be derived from taxes to be levied and collected in the succeeding fiscal year and shall include that revenue in the estimate of funds available to cover the proposed budget.

The corresponding provisions governing the preparation of budgets by county auditors in counties with a population exceeding 225,000 are found in sections 111.036 and 111.034 of the Local Government Code.

You have directed our attention to section 118.141 of the Local Government Code, which lists a schedule of fees for particular services following a declaration that:

The county treasurer, or another officer who receives revenue in place of the county treasurer, may collect the following fees for services rendered to any person. (Emphasis added.)

The term "any person" is very broad, but we do not believe the fees specified by section 118.141 are applicable1 to records required by the county judge. When copies of records are furnished in discharge of the duty of the treasurer to furnish the information necessary for the judge to properly prepare the budget, the treasurer does not render services to the judge; instead, the treasurer merely discharges a statutory duty of his own. See Attorney General Opinion M-170 (1967); see also Local Gov't Code §§ 111.012 (a county treasurer who refuses to furnish such information or otherwise fails to comply with the requirements of the subchapter commits an offense punishable by both a fine and confinement in jail), 83.002 (treasurer's bond required).

In Attorney General Opinion M-170 (1967), the attorney general considered a statute that authorized and required county clerks to collect certain fees "for services rendered by them to all persons, firms, corporations, legal entities, governmental agencies and/or governmental representatives." (Emphasis added.) The question was whether a county clerk was entitled to collect a fee from the state treasurer for providing the treasurer with certified copies of orders the clerk was required by the Probate Code to send. In the course of advising the state treasurer that he was not required to pay county clerks for such copies, the opinion observed, "[T]he mailing of the certified copy to the State Treasurer is not a 'service rendered' to that state official, but is an act done by the county clerk or recorder in furtherance of his own legal duties." Id. at 4.

We are of the opinion that sections 111.004, 111.005, and 118.141 of the Local Government Code are in harmony when properly construed, and that a county judge may not be charged by a county treasurer for copies of records on file in the county treasurer's office required by the county judge in connection with preparation of the county budget.2 See Attorney General Opinion M-142 (1967); cf. Attorney General Opinions JM-779 (1987) (recordation of abstracts); JM-392 (1985) (filing fee). See generally 35 D. Brooks, Texas Practice §§ 15.1-.15 (1989).

We note that the county judge should be permitted access to the treasurer's office during ordinary working hours and in a manner that is convenient to both parties and not disruptive of the treasurer's office routine. The standard in such matters is one of reasonableness. Furthermore, if one county official suspects another of misconduct in office, the matter should be handled in consultation with the district or county attorney. Absent such circumstances, it is not appropriate for one county official to use his or her office to acquire access to records for the purpose of harassing or otherwise intimidating another county official.

1. Section 118.145 states that fees collected pursuant to section 118.141 are to be deposited in the general fund of the county to the credit of the county treasurer's fees of office account. Marion County is a "salary" county rather than a "fee" county, we are informed; all county officers, including the county treasurer, are paid a salary and are not dependent on collected fees for their compensation. See Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 61; Local Gov't Code § 154.004 (county prohibited from paying fee for service rendered by salaried county officer).

2. The Local Government Code, of which section 118.141 is a part, was enacted in 1987, as a non-substantive revision of existing laws. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 51, at 1308. Section 118.141 was derived from former article 3943f, V.T.C.S., enacted in 1985, which specified that the indicated fees could be collected from "the appropriate individuals, firms, corporations, governmental agencies, governmental representatives, or other legal entities." Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 145, § 6, at 671; see Gov't Code § 311.005 (definition of "person" except where a different definition is required by context).

SUMMARY

A county judge may not be charged by a county treasurer for copies of records on file in the county treasurer's office required by the judge in connection with preparation of the county budget.

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

MARY KELLER
First Assistant Attorney General

LOU MCCREARY
Executive Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General