Montana Attorney General Opinion 16-215

Opinion No. 215. Counties-Highways-Bridges- Budget-Transfers-Road Fund -Bridge Fund. HELD: The budget act does not au- thorize a transfer of moneys from a road fund to a bridge fund. (Not ap- plicable to Section 4631, relating to transfers of surplus moneys.) Mr. W. M. Black County Attorney Shelby, Montana December 26, 1935. On your visit here a few days ago OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 225 you informed me substantially that the bridge formerly known as the Johnson Bridge, crossing the Marias River south of Shelby, has been re- placed by a new bridge and has been dismantled; that the county commis- sioners may desire to move the old bridge to a new location and that there is no appropriation for the pur- pose in the bridge fund of the county although the road fund has money in it which could be spared to do the work. We discussed the provisions of the first paragraph of Section 5 of Chapter 148, Session Laws of 1929, and also the provisions of Section 6 of said chapter. An opinion rendered by Attorney General Foot (Volume 14, Opinions of the Attorney General, pp. 310 and 311) contains a state- ment to the effect that Section 5 above mentioned authorizes a trans- fer of an appropriation from one fund to another in certain cases. The proviso in question reads as follows: "Transfers between the gen- eral classes provided in Section 2 hereof shall not be permitted, pro- vided and except that in the case of appropriations to be expended from county road or bridge funds, special road district funds, or any special highway fund, any transfer between or among the general classes of (1) salaries and wages, (2) maintenance and support, and (3) capital outlay, may be made." You will note that the quoted provi- sion purports to authorize, in the case of county road or bridge funds, transfers between or among certain classes, rather than between or among funds. In our opinion, the language cannot reasonably be construed to mean that a transfer of moneys from a road fund to a bridge fund is al- lowable under this section, and to that extent we are constrained to dis- agree with the above mentioned statement contained in Attorney Gen- eral Foot's opinion. We do not here refer to questions of transfer of sur- plus moneys in accordance with Sec- tion 4631, R. C. M. 1921 (see Volume 13, Opinions of Attorney General, page 257.) In our discussion, you also men- tioned circumstances which might justify the county commissioners in finding that an emergency exists and taking action under Section 6 of Chapter 148. This question of fact is determinable by the Board of County Commissioners and for your informa- tion upon the subject I enclose a copy of an opinion given to the Board of County Commissioners of Valley County on September 1'1, 1934. (Opin- ion No. 612, Vol. 15.)