The situation in Plainview regarding a pickup used by the 64th District Attorney's Office raises an interesting question. Apparently Hale County paid to purchase a vehicle (not sure out of which department's budget) and then "allocated" it for use of the District Attorney (who also serves another county). Now the Hale County Commissioners have determined (in the middle of a budget year) to "reclaim" their vehicle. Do the capital assets of a multicounty special district belong to a particular county? The Attorney General's conclusion in this instance could be very important to a lot of us.

It would appear that the question of whether a vehicle assigned to a department can be yanked in the middle of the budget year by the commissioners court is a resolved issue. See Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. JC-0214 (2000). If Tarrant County can't do it (despite a bull pen staffed by legends such as Ann Diamond and Ray Rike), I can't imagine that the AG would give his blessing to the Hale County Commissioners Court on essentially the same question. The more complex issue in a multi-county entity setting is who gets the property (or the proceeds from its sale) once the office to which it was assigned is through with it. Prudence would probably indicate that this question is one to be resolved (for prospective cases) on the front-end by interlocal agreement between the counties comprising the entity. My guess, shooting from the hip, is -- in the absence of such a contract -- the entity that paid for the property gets it back when it's no longer needed. JC-0214 seems to indicate that the determination of when property is or is not needed rests with the elected official or entity to which the property is assigned.

Martin, ultimately it does not sound like it is an asset of the special district. It sounds like it was purchased by the county and is only provided for use of the district.

[This message was edited by A. Diamond on 10-06-04 at .]