Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, GA-1006

In 2011 the Texas Legislature enacted two bills amending TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 502.010 during the same session: House Bill 2357 (reenacting the statute and adding reimbursement to “the county”) and Senate Bill 1386 (adding new circumstances, fixing the additional fee at $20, and expanding who may be reimbursed).
The attorney general was asked (by David Slayton, Administrative Director, Office of Court Administration) to reconcile the two enactments and answer seven questions about the statute’s meaning and application.
The Code Construction Act requires harmonization of contemporaneous amendments and treats reenacted text under art. III, § 36 as not automatically prevailing over other changes made in the same session.
The opinion concludes the bills can be harmonized: the Senate bill’s changes (fee amount, new triggering circumstances, and additional reimbursable officials) are effective alongside the House bill’s reenactment where the House bill did not make contrary changes.
The opinion resolves who may impose, collect, and waive the fee by reference to the commissioners court’s role as the county’s governing body; the statute itself is permissive and silent as to specific county officers.

Issue	Slayton (requester) argument	State/AG argument	Held
Whether additional fee amount is specified	Unclear after two bills; may be unspecified	Senate bill sets fee at $20 and is harmonizable with House reenactment	Fee is $20 per § 502.010(f) as amended by the Senate bill
When fee may be assessed	Question whether limited to past-due fines	Senate bill authorizes fee after due date for fines/fees/taxes	Fee may be assessed any time after the fine/fee/tax is due
Who decides whether county imposes fee	Who within county sets policy?	Commissioners court is county’s governing body and controls county business	Commissioners court may decide whether to impose the fee
Who assesses/collects and may waive fee	Which officer collects and whether waiver allowed	Statute silent; subsection (f-1) suggests assessor-collector or other department; commissioners court may authorize waivers	Commissioners court may designate who collects and may authorize waivers in particular circumstances (subject to constitutional limits)
Whether fee can be imposed for failure to appear absent conviction	Concern fee requires conviction	Senate bill explicitly authorizes fee for failure to appear in pending criminal proceedings without requiring conviction	Fee may be imposed when a defendant fails to appear even if not convicted

Hirsch v. State, 282 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2009) (explaining reenactment under art. III, § 36 and harmonization of contemporaneous amendments)
Comm'rs Ct. of Titus Cnty. v. Agan, 940 S.W.2d 77 (Tex. 1997) (commissioners court is county’s principal governing body with jurisdiction over county business)
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (equal protection requires similarly situated persons be treated alike; selective waiver policies may raise constitutional concerns)