Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, GA-1040

Background

Texas Attorney General GA-1040 addresses county appraisal district budgets and excess funds under Tax Code §6.06 and §6.06(j).
Questions from Rep. Guillen focus on spending excess funds as a one-time merit payment or funding a Capital Improvement Fund.
Section 6.06(a) requires a proposed budget detailing positions, salaries, benefits, capital expenditures, and taxing-unit shares; amendments allowed under §6.06(b)-(d).
Section 6.06(j) requires excess funds to be credited to taxing units for the following year, and the opinion analyzes what counts as “spent or obligated to be spent”—funds committed to obligations count.
Comptroller guidelines and agency deference influence interpretation of §6.06(j); Article III, §53 discussed for prospective salary changes; §6.10 provides disapproval mechanisms for proposed amendments.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What counts as 'spent or obligated to be spent' under §6.06(j)	Guillen argues about funds spent or obligated by appraisal boards for year-end needs.	Abbott's office adopts the definition that committed funds meet 'obligated' under §6.06(j).	Obligated includes funds committed to meet or secure an obligation.
Do non-taxing-unit funds count as excess funds under §6.06(j)	(Guillen) Funds received from outside taxing units should be considered excess and refundable.	Only payments by taxing units are excess funds under §6.06(j).	No; only payments made or due by participating taxing units count as excess funds.
May excess funds be automatically redirected to a Capital Improvement Fund in future budgets	Excess funds may be diverted to institutional reserve accounts for future use.	Excess funds must be returned or credited; budget amendments allowed to address future needs.	Excess funds must be returned/credited; future-budget amendments allowed under 6.06(a)-(d) and can add new line items via 6.06(c).
Constitutionality of a one-time, across-the-board merit payment under Art. III, §53	Question whether retrospective extra compensation would violate Art. III, §53.	Prospective salary adjustments authorized by proper budget amendments are permissible.	Prospective payments likely constitutional if authorized properly; not retroactive compensation.
Can taxing units disapprove budget amendments under §6.10	Taxing units should be able to veto district board amendments.	§6.10 governs disapproval of actions other than budget adoption; amendments disprovable.	Taxing units may disapprove budget amendments under §6.10.

Key Cases Cited

Barrington v. Cokinos, 338 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. 1960) (courts review legality of governmental actions under jurisdictional limits)
Pruett v. Harris Cnty. Bail Bond Bd., 249 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. 2008) (courts defer to agency construction of statutes when reasonable)
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Brite, 215 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. 2007) (expressio unius excludes other non-stated sources)
TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. 2011) (statutory language should be read with careful attention to omitted words)