Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-63

Opinion No. 63 County Conllnissionel'S-Claims--Road Inspection-County Budgets. HliJLD: 'l.'he claims of members of the Board of County Commissioners for sel'\;ces rendered as inspectors of the highways are properly rejected when the claims exceed the apPl'opl"iation for the purpose in the budget und where they do not urise from un emergency provided for in advance of the expen- diture in the manner set out in Chapter !-lS, Session Laws of Montana, 1929. February 6. 11:)33. You have requested my opinion on u hill of ~'ourself for $123.50 and one of )11' .• T. D. Louden for $7RS2 against Flathead County for sen-ices rendered by you and Mr. Louden respectively, as in~pedors of ·the highways in your re- specth·e districts .. In your letter of transmittal you state that the connty at-torney has ~aken the position that th,ese claims are not valid, and yon ask for an opinion of this office as to that question, Your letter does not make it quite clear whether your difficulty lies in not haYing sufficient actual funds, or whether the claims exceed the appropriation for the purpose in the hudget. If the claims exceed the appropriMion in the budgct, then we think they cunnot be allowed, The only uuthority in our sta tutes for members of the board of county cOlllmissioners to inspect highways nnd highway work is contained. in section 1632, R C, M, 1921, as nmended hy chapter 176, Laws of 1929, on page 358, Under that statute, it is our opinion thnt your claims are regula r and might have been legallyauthorizell as an ob- ligation of the county if it were not for the fact that the payment of such claims would exceed the amount pro- yided for in your official budget for this purpose for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1!)32, ApprOI}riate action to a ll'thorize such claims was necessary in ad\'ance, On page 21)4, in the last paragraph be/,-inning on that page and extending on to page 295, provision is made by which the hudget may be ex- ceeded to meet certain emergencies and one of such emergencies is "manda tory expenditures required by 1m"", 'Ve be- lieve that under this clause, claims such as \'flU and Mr. Louden ha\'e made against' the county might be Il \lowed if the ellleJ'gency were provided for in a(1vance of the expenditure in the man· ner set out in the act referred to a bon', but it does not apply to expenditures already made and we know of 110 man- ner in which you can legall~' ohtain payment for these e\aims, When work of this nature is done in g'ood faith, and there is no occasion for any different conclnsion in the matter that you present. it is unfortunate that the individual has to suffer for the henefit of his county but by the pro- visions of the budget law as it is now upon our statutes, we can discover 110 way by which you ma~' legally haye these claims allowed.