Can a Texas county commissioners court rescind the county budget after it's approved and adopt a new one that strips an elected officer's salary increase?

Plain-English summary

Zavala County approved its 2024-2025 budget at the end of a September 4, 2024 hearing. At that hearing, the commissioners court accepted a salary grievance committee recommendation to raise certain elected officers' pay. Two weeks later, on September 18, the court voted to rescind the approved budget and adopt a "new" budget that stripped out those salary increases. The county attorney asked the Attorney General whether that move was legal.

The AG's answers, working through the Local Government Code:

Can a commissioners court rescind a finally approved budget and adopt a different one? No. Counties and commissioners courts only have the powers the Constitution or Legislature give them. State law lets a court amend a final budget in two narrow situations: an emergency expenditure for "grave public necessity," and a non-emergency transfer of money from one budgeted item to another. Wholly rescinding the budget and replacing it is neither. There is no statute that authorizes it.

Can the court cut an elected officer's salary after the budget is approved? No. Section 152.013(a) says the court "shall set" an elected officer's salary at a regular meeting "during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings." Once those proceedings are complete and the budget is approved, the court cannot reduce that officer's salary for that budget year.

Did the commissioners commit a crime by doing it anyway? The AG would not say. Section 111.012 makes it a misdemeanor for a county officer to "refuse to comply" with the budget subchapter, and commissioners are county officers. But whether a particular commissioner "refused to comply" turns on intent and facts, which the AG does not decide in the opinion process. The AG did note that ignoring the county attorney's written legal advice could be introduced as evidence in a prosecution, and that whether to prosecute is the prosecutor's call.

Who files the approved budget, and could the auditor be liable for not filing it? The commissioners court files the budget with the county clerk, not the county auditor. So it is unclear how an auditor would violate the subchapter by failing to file it.

What this means for you

If you serve on a commissioners court

Treat budget approval as a hard line. Once the budget is finally adopted, you do not have a do-over: you cannot rescind the whole thing and pass a replacement. Your only post-adoption moves are the two amendments the Code allows, an emergency expenditure under section 111.010(c) or a transfer between budgeted items under section 111.010(d). Neither lets you reopen elected-officer salaries.

If the concern is that a salary grievance recommendation was accepted on a mistaken understanding, the time to address that is during the budget hearing and adoption proceedings, before the budget is approved. After approval, the salary for that year is locked under section 152.013(a).

If you are an elected county officer whose pay was set in the budget

Once the budget is approved, the court cannot reduce your salary for that budget year. The opinion lines up with a long string of prior AG opinions reading section 152.013(a) the same way. If a court tries to cut your approved salary mid-year by rescinding and readopting the budget, this opinion describes that as outside the court's authority.

If you are a county attorney advising the court

Two practical notes. First, your written legal advice carries weight beyond persuasion: the AG observed that a court's decision to ignore its attorney's opinion "may potentially be introduced as evidence to support the prosecution of a criminal offense." Second, the AG expressly declined to say whether any commissioner committed an offense under section 111.012, because that depends on intent and facts. So advise on the rule, and leave the prosecution decision to the prosecutor's discretion.

If you are a county auditor

The duty to file the approved budget with the county clerk sits with the commissioners court under section 111.009(a)(1), not with you. The AG found it "unclear how a county auditor would run afoul" of the budget subchapter by refusing or failing to file the approved budget.

Common questions

Q: Can a Texas commissioners court undo its own budget after it's approved?
A: Not by wholly rescinding and replacing it. The Code authorizes only two post-approval amendments, an emergency expenditure (§ 111.010(c)) and a transfer between budgeted items (§ 111.010(d)). There is no authority to scrap the approved budget and adopt a different one.

Q: Can the court lower an elected official's salary after the budget passes?
A: No. Section 152.013(a) requires the court to set elected-officer salaries during the budget hearing and adoption proceedings. After the budget is approved, it cannot reduce that officer's salary for the year.

Q: Is it a crime for commissioners to rescind and readopt the budget?
A: The AG did not decide that. Section 111.012 makes "refus[ing] to comply" with the budget subchapter a misdemeanor, and commissioners are county officers, but whether a given commissioner refused to comply requires proof of intent and is a fact question outside the opinion process.

Q: Does ignoring the county attorney's advice matter?
A: It can. The opinion notes that a court's decision to disregard its attorney's legal opinion may be introduced as evidence supporting a criminal prosecution. The decision whether to prosecute belongs to the prosecutor.

Q: Who is supposed to file the approved budget with the county clerk?
A: The commissioners court. Section 111.009(a)(1) places that duty on the court, not the county auditor.

Background and statutory framework

Chapters 111 and 152 of the Local Government Code set up two related processes: adopting the county budget and setting elected county officers' salaries.

The budget process (Chapter 111, subchapter A). The county judge prepares a proposed budget (§ 111.003(a)) and files it with the county clerk no later than August 15, where it is open for public inspection (§ 111.006). The commissioners court holds a public hearing within 25 days of filing (§ 111.007), with newspaper notice (§ 111.0075(a)). At the conclusion of the hearing the court must take action (§ 111.008(a)), which can include adopting the final budget, amending the proposed budget, or scheduling a later adoption hearing. The court "may make any changes . . . that it considers warranted by the law and required by the interest of the taxpayers" (§ 111.008(b)). On final approval, the court files the budget with the county clerk and posts it online if the county has a website (§ 111.009(a)(1)-(2)). A county officer who "refuses to comply" with the subchapter commits a misdemeanor (§ 111.012). Subchapter A applies only to counties with a population of 225,000 or less (§ 111.001).

Salary setting (Chapter 152). The commissioners court gives written notice to each elected officer of the salary to be included in the budget (§ 152.013(c)). An aggrieved officer may request a hearing before the salary grievance committee "before the approval of the county's annual budget" (§ 152.016(a)). The committee may recommend an increase (§ 152.016(c)). The court "shall set" the elected officer's salary "at a regular meeting . . . during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings" (§ 152.013(a)).

The AG's reasoning is textual. Counties have only delegated powers (City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne). The Code lists exactly two ways to amend a final budget (emergency expenditure and item-to-item transfer); wholesale rescission and replacement is not among them, so it is not authorized. And the word "shall" in section 152.013(a) imposes a duty (Gov't Code § 311.016(2)) tied to a specific time, the budget hearing and adoption proceedings, which means a salary change cannot happen after the budget is approved. On the criminal-liability and "who must file" questions, the AG applied its standard rule that it does not resolve fact questions or decide whether someone committed an offense, and read section 111.009(a)(1) to place the filing duty on the court rather than the auditor.

Citations and references

Local Government Code:
- Tex. Loc. Gov't Code ch. 111 — county budget process, including amendment limits (§ 111.010), the misdemeanor offense (§ 111.012), and the filing duty (§ 111.009)
- Tex. Loc. Gov't Code ch. 152 — setting county officer salaries, including the timing rule (§ 152.013(a)) and grievance committee (§ 152.016)

Key cases:
- City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2003) — counties exercise only delegated powers
- GEO Grp., Inc. v. Hegar, 709 S.W.3d 585 (Tex. 2025) — plain-meaning statutory construction

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/ken-paxton/kp-0512
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2026/kp-0512.pdf

Original opinion text

February 2, 2026

The Honorable Eduardo Serna
Zavala County Attorney
200 East Uvalde Street, Suite 2
Crystal City, Texas 78839

Opinion No. KP-0512
Re: Whether a commissioners court can rescind and readopt a different county budget after the annual budget was approved (RQ-0586-KP)

Dear Mr. Serna:

Prompted by Zavala County's budget process for fiscal year 2024–2025, you ask a series of questions about a county commissioners court's budget authority. You explain that the "County Judge . . . filed [a] proposed budget on August 15, 2024," and the commissioners court held a public hearing regarding that proposed budget on September 4, 2024. Exhibit 1 at 1. At the conclusion of the hearing, you say the commissioners court both accepted a recommendation from the salary grievance committee to grant a compensation increase for certain elected officers and approved a final budget. See id.; Exhibit 2 at 2. At least one commissioner subsequently learned of facts that led him to conclude that the commissioners court did not have to accept the salary grievance committee's recommendation, and, in response, he requested a legal opinion from you regarding this discovery's effect on the budget. Exhibit 1 at 3, 6. In a letter dated September 16, 2024, you advised the commissioner that the commissioners court could not rescind the approved budget and "re-adopt" a new budget in order to "take up the salaries" and that "the window to act on the budget" had closed. Id. at 1, 3. Nevertheless, the commissioners court took action on September 18, 2024, "to rescind the [a]pproved [b]udget . . . and adopt[] a 'new' budget, stripping the salary increases." Exhibit 2 at 2.

Against this backdrop, you first ask "[w]hether [a] commissioners court can rescind and re[-]adopt a different county budget after the annual budget [is] approved." Request Letter at 1. If the answer to this question is no, you wish to know whether "the commissioners subject[ed] themselves to legal liability under section 111.012 of the Local Government Code" by "adopt[ing] a new budget" and the County's remedy to reduce an elected officer's salary. Id. Finally, you ask "[w]ho . . . has the duty to file the approved budget under [s]ection 111.009 of the Local Government Code." Id. at 2. If the duty lies with the county auditor, you inquire whether he committed an offense "under section 111.012 . . . by refusing/failing to file the September 4th budget with the county clerk." Id.

Chapters 111 and 152 of the Local Government Code govern the process to adopt the county budget and set an elected county officer's salary, respectively.

We begin with a general overview of the process to adopt a county budget and set an elected county officer's salary. Chapter 111, subchapter A, of the Local Government Code sets out the budget adoption process relevant here. See Exhibit 1 at 1. It requires the county judge to prepare a proposed budget, TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 111.003(a), which the judge must file with the county clerk no later than August 15 and which must be made available for public inspection, id. § 111.006. The commissioners court must then hold a public hearing on the proposed budget "not later than the 25th day after the day the budget is filed." Id. § 111.007(a)–(b); see also id. § 111.0075(a) (requiring newspaper notice of the budget hearing). "At the conclusion of the public hearing, the commissioners court shall take action on the proposed budget," id. § 111.008(a), which could include adopting "the final budget at the end of the hearing[,] . . . amending the proposed budget[,] or scheduling a subsequent hearing at which to adopt the amended budget," Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0929 (2012) at 3 n.5; see also TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 111.008(b) ("The commissioners court may make any changes in the proposed budget that it considers warranted by the law and required by the interest of the taxpayers."). "On final approval of the budget by the commissioners court, the court shall[] . . . file the budget with the county clerk[] and . . . if the county maintains an Internet website," post it on the website. TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 111.009(a)(1)–(2). A county officer, employee, or official "who refuses to comply with" subchapter A commits a misdemeanor offense "punishable by a fine of not less than $100 or more than $1,000, confinement in the county jail for not less than one month or more than one year, or by both fine and confinement." Id. § 111.012.

At the same time, Chapter 152 of the Local Government Code prescribes a process for setting the salary of elected county officers. See generally id. §§ 152.011–.018. "[T]he commissioners court shall give written notice to each elected county . . . officer of the officer's salary and personal expenses to be included in the budget." Id. § 152.013(c). Should the officer be "aggrieved by the setting of the officer's salary[,]" the officer "may request a hearing before the salary grievance committee before the approval of the county's annual budget." Id. § 152.016(a). After the hearing, the grievance committee may make a recommendation to increase an officer's salary to the commissioners court. Id. § 152.016(c) (specifying the circumstances under which "the commissioners court shall include [an] increase in the budget"). "The commissioners court shall set the" elected officer's salary "at a regular meeting of the [commissioners] court during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings." Id. § 152.013(a).

A commissioners court may not wholly rescind and adopt a different county budget after the annual budget is approved.

As related to the county budget process described above, we turn first to your question concerning the rescission of the approved annual budget and adoption of "a different county budget." Request Letter at 1. As "creatures of the Texas Constitution, counties and commissioners courts are subject to the Legislature's regulation." City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22, 28 (Tex. 2003). Accordingly, a commissioners court's "power is limited to that which is expressly delegated to it by the Texas Constitution or Legislature, or necessarily implied to perform its duties." Id. at 29.

State law authorizes a county commissioners court to amend the final budget in two circumstances. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. KP-0052 (2015) at 2. A commissioners court may amend the budget for an emergency expenditure "in a case of grave public necessity to meet an unusual and unforeseen condition that could not have been included in the original budget through the use of reasonably diligent thought and attention." TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 111.010(c); see also Bexar Cnty. v. Hatley, 150 S.W.2d 980, 987 (Tex. 1941) (discussing the commissioners court's budgetary discretion with respect to "grave public necessity"). And a commissioners court may make a non-emergency amendment "to transfer an amount budgeted for one item to another budgeted item." TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 111.010(d). You do not suggest here that the budget was amended for an emergency expenditure or to transfer an amount budgeted for one item to another budgeted item. Instead, we understand you to ask about a commissioners court wholly rescinding and adopting "a different county budget" after final approval of the annual budget. Request Letter at 1. There is no legislative provision that authorizes a commissioners court to rescind the budget after it has been finally adopted or to adopt a new budget under the circumstances you describe. See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE §§ 111.010–.014.

[Footnote: Whether any particular document is "the budget" finally approved by a commissioners court involves questions of fact, Griffin v. Birkman, 266 S.W.3d 189, 198–99 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. denied), that we do not resolve in an Attorney General opinion, see, e.g., Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. KP-0416 (2022) at 2.]

[Footnote: Even if the budget was amended—rather than wholly rescinded and replaced—it would be impermissible to reduce the salary of an elected officer in this manner. See infra pp. 4–5. Further, the budgetary constraints discussed herein speak solely to limitations on local governments in Texas and not federal entities. See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 111.001 (specifying that subchapter A applies only to counties with a population of 225,000 or less).]

[Footnote: While not at issue here, we note that, separate from the regular budget process, commissioners courts must adopt a "special budget" upon receipt of certain revenue. E.g., id. §§ 111.0106 (addressing receipt of grant or aid money), .0107 (addressing revenue from intergovernmental contracts).]

Whether a county commissioner refuses to comply with the budget preparation provisions and thereby commits an offense involves questions of fact that we do not resolve in an Attorney General opinion.

Having answered your first question in the negative, we next consider your question regarding whether the county commissioners "subject[ed] themselves to legal liability under section 111.012 of the Local Government Code" by "adopt[ing] a new budget" on September 18, 2024, since "they were provided a legal opinion that they could not do that." Request Letter at 1. Again, section 111.012 provides that a county officer commits a misdemeanor offense when the officer "refuses to comply" with subchapter A. TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 111.012.

County commissioners are certainly county officers, see Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0994 (2013) at 1, thereby bringing them within the realm of section 111.012. Whether a county commissioner "refuses to comply" with the provisions of subchapter A requires "intent, knowledge, or recklessness" on the part of the commissioner. Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. KP-0430 (2023) at 3. But "we do not answer fact questions or determine whether a" person commits a criminal offense in an Attorney General opinion, Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. KP-0455 (2024) at 1, and cannot therefore address whether a commissioner committed an offense under section 111.012. We can, however, advise that a commissioners court's decision to ignore its attorney's legal opinion may potentially be introduced as evidence to support the prosecution of a criminal offense. Cf. Tautenhahn v. State, 334 S.W.2d 574, 584–85 (Tex. App.—Waco 1960, writ ref'd n.r.e.). It is ultimately left to the prosecutor's discretion—within the confines of the prosecutor's duties, see, e.g., TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 2A.101(a); TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 87.011(3)(B)–(C)—to evaluate the facts and evidence and determine whether to initiate criminal proceedings, see Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. KP-0430 (2023) at 3.

A commissioners court may not reduce the salary of an elected officer after the budget hearing and adoption proceedings are complete and a budget is approved.

Having answered your first question in the negative, we also consider whether a commissioners court has any means to decrease the salary of an elected county officer after the budget is approved. See Request Letter at 1 (asking about a "remedy" if there is no authority "to rescind and adopt a new budget"). This office has repeatedly construed subsection 152.013(a) to authorize a county commissioners court to change an elected officer's salary only "at a regular meeting . . . during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings." TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 152.013(a); see also, e.g., Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. KP-0416 (2022) at 1 n.2, GA-0162 (2004) at 2, JC-0147 (1999) at 1; cf., e.g., Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. H-11 (1973) at 3 (construing predecessor statute).

The plain language of subsection 152.013(a) confirms that construction is sound. When construing a statute, we look first to the words chosen by the Legislature and give them their plain meaning, as informed by the context in which they appear. See GEO Grp., Inc. v. Hegar, 709 S.W.3d 585, 591 (Tex. 2025). "When the words read in context are clear, they determine intent[] . . . ." Id. (quoting Hegar v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 605 S.W.3d 35, 41 (Tex. 2020)). When terms are undefined, "we typically look first to dictionary definitions" to "determine a term's common, ordinary meaning." Fort Worth Transp. Auth. v. Rodriguez, 547 S.W.3d 830, 838 (Tex. 2018).

Subsection 152.013(a) provides that "[e]ach year the commissioners court shall set the" elected officer's salary "at a regular meeting of the [commissioners] court during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings." TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 152.013(a). The Legislature's use of "shall" generally indicates a directive that is "mandatory, creating a duty or obligation." Tex. Windstorm Ins. Ass'n v. Kelly, 680 S.W.3d 632, 639 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2023, pet. denied); see also TEX. GOV'T CODE § 311.016(2) (providing that "'[s]hall' imposes a duty" unless the context or statute provides otherwise). The verb "set" is not defined in the statute, but its common meaning is "to resolve or decide upon." THE RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1751 (2d unabridged ed. 1987). Unlike that for non-elected officers, see TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 152.011, subsection 152.013(a) specifies the commissioners court's decision about an elected officer's salary must be made at a particular time—"at a regular meeting of the [commissioners] court during the regular budget hearing and adoption proceedings." Id. § 152.013(a).

Other procedures related to setting an elected officer's salary also support this construction. See GEO Grp., 709 S.W.3d at 594 ("We do not consider statutory words and phrases in isolation."). For example, subsection 152.016(a) provides that an elected officer who "request[s] a hearing before the salary grievance committee" do so "before the approval of the county's annual budget." TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 152.016(a) (emphasis added).

In sum, once the budget hearing and adoption proceedings are complete and a budget is approved, the commissioners court may not reduce the salary of an elected officer for that budget year. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JM-0839 (1988) at 4, 7 (concluding the commissioners court did not have authority to reduce the county attorney's salary "from the amount approved at the annual budget hearing and budget adoption proceeding"); see also Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. KP-0416 (2022) at 1 n.2.

The county commissioners court—not the county auditor—is charged with filing the approved budget with the county clerk.

Moving to your last series of questions, you ask "[w]ho in particular has the duty to file the approved budget under [s]ection 111.009" and whether a county auditor "subject[s] himself to legal liability under section 111.012 . . . by refusing/failing to file the" budget approved by the county commissioners with the county clerk. Request Letter at 2. By its terms, subsection 111.009(a) provides that the commissioners court—not the county auditor—"shall[] . . . file the [approved] budget with the county clerk." TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 111.009(a)(1); accord Exhibit 1 at 1 (advising "the [commissioners] court 'shall', i.e., must, file the budget with the county clerk"). As such, it is unclear how a county auditor would run afoul of subchapter A by refusing or failing to file the approved budget with the county clerk. See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 111.012(a).

S U M M A R Y

Chapter 111, subchapter A, of the Local Government Code does not authorize a county commissioners court to wholly rescind and adopt a different budget after approval of the annual budget. Whether a county commissioner refuses to comply with subchapter A and thereby commits an offense under Local Government Code section 111.012 involves questions of fact that we do not resolve in an Attorney General opinion.

Pursuant to Local Government Code subsection 152.013(a), the commissioners court may not reduce the salary of an elected county officer once the budget hearing and adoption proceedings are complete and a budget is approved.

Local Government Code subsection 111.009(a) provides that the commissioners court—not the county auditor—shall file the approved budget with the county clerk. As such, it is unclear how a county auditor would run afoul of subchapter A by refusing or failing to file the approved budget with the county clerk.

Very truly yours,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas

BRENT WEBSTER, First Assistant Attorney General
LESLEY FRENCH, Chief of Staff
D. FORREST BRUMBAUGH, Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
JOSHUA C. FIVESON, Chair, Opinion Committee
CHRISTY DRAKE-ADAMS, Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee