Montana Attorney General Opinion 16-46

Opinion No. 46. Elections-Special Election, Expenses of --County Commissioners -Budget. HELD: Expenses incurred inci- dent to an election held under Chap- ter 24, Laws of the Extraordinary Session, 1933-34, are mandatory ex- penditures required by law and the county commissioners should proceed under section 6 of Chapter 148, Laws of 1929, where such expense has not been budgeted. February 19, 1935. Mr. George F. Higgins County Attorney Missoula, Montana This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 1, requesting an opinion from this office concern- ing the payment of the costs incurred in a special election held in your county. In your letter you state that in Feb- ruary, 1934, Missoula County filed an application to the proper governmen- tal agency for a loan of sufficient money with which to construct a county jail. The application was sub- sequently approved by the Federal government and an election was called and held, at which the propo- sition was defeated by the voters. No estimate of the expense of calling and holding the election was ever placed in the budget, and the expense claims are now coming to the board for pay- ment. While it is true that the application for a loan was filed in the month of February, and that the 1934-35 budget was not definitely settled until Au- gust, 1934, we do not think that the 44 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL costs of such an election necessarily were an expense that could have been foreseen at the time of the adop- tion of the budget. We have nothing before us to show that the application had been approved prior to that time, and until the application had been ap- proved the county commissioners would not be in a position to know. whether or not it would be necessary to hold such an election. However, we do not believe that this fact is controlling in the mat- ter, as it is our opinion that the costs of such an election are "mandatory expenditures required by law," as provided for in Section 6 of Chapter 148, Laws of Montana, 1929. (Protest of Kansas City Southern Railway Company, 11 Pac. (2d) 500; Johnson v. Yuba County, 37 Pac. 528; Board of Commissioners of Montezuma County v. Frederick, 115 Pac. 514; Honey v. Jewell County Commission- ers, 70 Pac. 333; Washington County Commissioners v. Nesbit, 53 Pac. 882; Ladd v. Holmes, 66 Pac. 714.) The commissioners were authorized to proceed as they did by Chapter 24, Laws of the Extraordinary Session, 1933-34, which is an emergency act, and Section 7 of which provides: "All of the laws of this state governing the issuance and sale of bonds by counties, cities, towns, school dis- tricts, and other subdivisions of the state authorized to issue bonds under this Act, the levying of taxes for the payment of principal and interest thereof and the payment and redemp- tion thereof, insofar as the same are applicable and not in conflict with any of the provisions of this Act, shall ap- ply to and govern all bonds issued under the provisions of this Act." See also Shekelton v. Toole County, 97 Mont. 213, 33 Pac. (2d) 531. Section 5 of the same act requires the submission of such qestions to the electors (see also Article XUI of Sec- tion 5 of the Constitution of the State of Montana), and it is our opinion that the lawful costs incurred inci- dentally thereto are "mandatory ex- penditures required by law" and the county commissioners should proceed under Section 6 of Chapter 148, Laws of Montana, 1929. (See also opinion rendered by this office on November 8, 1934, to Deputy County Attorney John D. Gillan of Helena).