Does a Texas county have to share its optional child-safety vehicle registration fee with cities?

Plain-English summary

Texas counties can tack a small fee onto vehicle registration to fund child safety. Section 502.403 of the Transportation Code, the "Optional County Fee for Child Safety," lets a commissioners court add a fee of up to $1.50 per vehicle registered in the county. The question the Ellis County and District Attorney brought to the AG was simple but had real money behind it: when the fee comes in, who gets to keep it?

The statute sets up a split. Subsection (e) lets the county skim off two things first: up to 10 percent for administrative costs, and an amount proportional to the share of county residents who live in unincorporated areas (the people not served by any city). Whatever is left, the county "shall send" to the municipalities in the county, divided by population. Subsection (f) tells cities how to spend their share, and subsection (g) tells the county it may use its revenue only for purposes allowed under the child-safety provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Some counties had read subsection (g) as permission to keep everything, on the theory that if the county can spend the money on child safety, it never has to hand any over. The AG rejected that. Subsection (e) uses "shall," which creates a mandatory duty, and the subsections have to be read together rather than one swallowing the other. Read as a whole, subsection (g) governs only how the county spends the slice it is allowed to keep after the subsection (e) handoff. So a county cannot pocket the entire fee; it has to pass the remainder to its cities.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. Section 502.403 of the Transportation Code, the dollar cap, and the population thresholds may have been amended since 2016, so confirm the current statute before relying on these specifics.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

Counties that imposed the fee (as the opinion described it): The opinion told them they could retain an administrative-cost deduction of up to 10 percent and an amount proportional to the unincorporated-area population, but had a mandatory duty under subsection (e) to send the remainder to the municipalities. It read subsection (g) as limiting only how the county spends its retained share, not as a basis for keeping all the revenue.

Municipalities in the county (as the opinion described it): The opinion described the cities as entitled to the remainder of the fee revenue, distributed according to their population, with subsection (f) governing how they spend it.

County and district attorneys advising on the fee (as the opinion described it): The opinion resolved the reading some counties had urged, concluding that "shall" in subsection (e) imposed a duty and that the subsections had to be construed together.

Common questions

Can a Texas county keep all of the child-safety vehicle fee it collects?
No. The AG concluded the county must send the remainder to its municipalities after taking the allowed deductions, because subsection (e) uses "shall," which imposes a mandatory duty.

What can the county keep?
The AG read the statute to let the county retain up to 10 percent for administrative costs plus an amount proportional to the percentage of county residents living in unincorporated areas.

How is the rest divided among cities?
The AG noted the remainder goes to the municipalities in the county according to their population.

Doesn't subsection (g) let the county spend the money itself?
The AG explained subsection (g) limits how the county may use the revenue it keeps after the subsection (e) disbursement; it does not let the county avoid sending the remainder to the cities.

How much is the fee?
The AG noted a commissioners court may impose an additional fee of not more than $1.50 for registering a vehicle in the county.

Background and statutory framework

Section 502.403 of the Transportation Code authorizes a commissioners court to impose an optional child-safety fee of up to $1.50 per vehicle registration. Subsection (e) permits the county to deduct up to 10 percent for administrative costs and an amount proportional to the unincorporated-area population, then requires the county to send the remainder to the municipalities by population. Subsection (f) directs how cities spend their share (cities over 850,000 deposit it to a child safety trust fund under Section 106.001 of the Local Government Code; smaller cities follow Article 102.014(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), and subsection (g) limits the county's use of its share to purposes permitted by Article 102.014(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Tex. Transp. Code § 502.403).

The AG resolved the dispute by reading the subsections together. Because subsection (e) says the county "shall send the remainder," it imposes a duty (Tex. Gov't Code § 311.016), and a court should not give one provision a meaning inconsistent with the others (Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486). Read as a whole, subsection (g) governs only the spending of revenue the county keeps after the subsection (e) handoff, so the county cannot retain all of the fee.

Citations

Statutory provisions:

• Tex. Transp. Code § 502.403 (optional county fee for child safety; division of revenue between county and municipalities)
• Tex. Gov't Code § 311.016 ("shall" imposes a duty unless context requires otherwise)
• Tex. Local Gov't Code § 106.001 (child safety trust fund for larger municipalities)
• Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 102.014 (permitted uses of child-safety fee revenue)

Cases:

• Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486, 493 (Tex. 2001)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/ken-paxton/kp-0068
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2016/kp0068.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from the official PDF. Minor extraction artifacts were corrected; the linked PDF is authoritative.

KEN PAXTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

March 8, 2016

The Honorable Patrick M. Wilson Opinion No. KP-0068
Ellis County and District Attorney
109 South Jackson Re: Disposition of revenue collected
Waxahachie, Texas 75165 pursuant to section 502.403 of the
Transportation Code, authorizing an optional
county fee for child safety (RQ-0052-KP)

Dear Mr. Wilson:

You ask about the proper disposition of the revenue generated by a fee authorized by section 502.403 of the Transportation Code. [1] Section 502.403, titled "Optional County Fee for Child Safety," authorizes commissioners courts to "impose by order an additional fee of not more than $1.50 for registering a vehicle in the county." TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 502.403(a). Subsection 502.403(e) provides for how funds generated from the fee are to be divided between the county and municipalities within the county:

(e) A county imposing a fee under this section may deduct for administrative costs an amount of not more than 10 percent of the revenue it receives from the fee. The county may also deduct from the fee revenue an amount proportional to the percentage of county residents who live in unincorporated areas of the county. After making the deductions provided for by this subsection, the county shall send the remainder of the fee revenue to the municipalities in the county according to their population.

Id. § 502.403(e). Subsections (f) and (g) explain how municipalities and counties, respectively, shall spend any revenue they receive from the fee:

(f) A municipality with a population greater than 850,000 shall deposit revenue from a fee imposed under this subsection to the credit of the child safety trust fund created under Section 106.001, Local Government Code. A municipality with a population less than 850,000 shall use revenue from a fee imposed under this section in accordance with Article 102.014(g), Code of Criminal Procedure.

(g) After deducting administrative costs, a county may use revenue from a fee imposed under this section only for a purpose permitted by Article 102.014(g), Code of Criminal Procedure.

Id. § 502.403(f)-(g).

You indicate that some counties believe that subsection (g) authorizes them to avoid "sending any portion of the fee revenue to municipalities." Request Letter at 1. Subsection (e), however, states that counties "shall send the remainder of the fee revenue to municipalities," creating a mandatory duty for counties to do so. TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 502.403(e) (emphasis added); see TEX. GOV'T CODE § 311.016(2) (explaining that use of the word "Shall" imposes a duty unless the context necessarily requires a different construction). Subsection (g) must be read in conjunction with subsection (e). See Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486, 493 (Tex. 2001) ("We should not give one provision a meaning out of harmony or inconsistent with other provisions, although it might be susceptible to such a construction standing alone."). When section 502.403 is read as a whole, it is clear that subsection (g) limits the county's use of the revenue that remains after the disbursement required under subsection (e). Accordingly, a county may not retain all of the revenue generated from the fee without sending any portion to the municipalities.

SUMMARY

Section 502.403 of the Transportation Code allows a county that has imposed a fee under that section to retain a portion of the revenue from the fee for administrative costs as well as an amount proportional to the percentage of county residents who live in unincorporated areas of the county. Subsection (e) requires the county to send the remainder of the fee revenue to the municipalities in the county according to their population.

Very truly yours,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas

CHARLES E. ROY
First Assistant Attorney General

BRANTLEY STARR
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee

Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] See Letter from Honorable Patrick M. Wilson, Ellis Cty. & Dist. Att'y, to Honorable Ken Paxton, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 1 (Sept. 3, 2015), https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinion/requests-for-opinions-rqs ("Request Letter").