December 15, 1961

Hon. William J. Burke Executive Director State Board of Control Austin, Texas

Dear Mr. Burke: OpinionNo. WW-1224

Re: Whether the removal of a portion of a non-load bearing wall for the purpose of installing a door and appropriatehardware from which the
use and benefit would be an improvement in communicationsand efficiency of the offices in question is prohibitedby Section 39 of Article V, Senate Bill 1, 57th Legislature and related question.

You have requested an opinion of this office on the following two questions:

(1) anon-load stalling Is the removal of a portion of a

bearing wall for the purpose of in-

. _ a aoor anu appropriate narciware from which the use and benefit would be
an improvement in communicationsand efficiency of the offices in question prohibitedby the language of Section 39 of ArticleV of the General AppropriationsBill?
(2) Is the Board of Control prohibited from installing necessaryhand rails on the outside steps required for the safety of occupants and personnel employedby the State in the State Office Building. Supreme Court Building, the Archives and Library Building, and the InsuranceBuildingwhen such hand rails and/or other related safetyappliances
were inadvertantlyoverlooked in the construction of the buildings?

The answer to your questions depend on an interpretationof certainportions of the GenLralHonorable William J. Burke, page 2 (WW-1224)

AppropriationsBill, Senate Bill 1, Acts of the 57th Legislature,First Called Session, 1961, which will hereinafterbe referred to as the "AppropriationsBill." Section 39 of ArticleV of saidbill reads as follows:

"BUILDINGALTERATIONS PROHIBITED. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be expended for removingwalls, partitions
or any other permanentpart of the first and second state officebuildings, the Supreme Courtbuilding, the Archives and Insurance buildings except for such renovations that may be necessary for new offices or departments moving into suchbuildings, unless otherwise authorizedand provided for elesewhere in this Act,"

The appropriations to the Board of Control are listed in Article III of the AppropriationsBill and include in Item 12 thereof, an amount for repairs and improvements to the Capitol, other State buildings, grounds, and properties in Austin, including equipment,materials and labor ($42,500for the year endingAugust 31, 1962, and $60,000 for the year ending August 31, 1963). Following the appropriation to the Board of Control in the Appropriations Bill, the following language is used which we quote in part:

"It is the intent of the Fifty-seventh Legislature that the appropriationsmade in Item 12 above shallbe expendedby the Board of Control for accomplishing the repairs and "It is the intent of the Fifty-seventh Legislature that the appropriationsmade in Item 12 above shallbe expendedby the Board of Control for accomplishing the repairs and improvements listedbelow; such listing,however, is for Informationalpurposes and shall not be construed as limiting the Board of Control to either the estimated amounts or to the listed items if unexpendedbalances permit other repairs and improvementsdeemed necessary and practical by the Board of Control.

"Informationalsublistingof Item 12 above:

II

. . .' (Emphasis supplied)

It is clear that the Board of Control is specifically given the authority to make needed repairs and improvements to all Statebuildings under Articles 670 and 673, Vernon's Civil Statutes, if there are appropriated funds available for that purpose. (SeeAttorney General's OpinionWW-259 (19571.). .

HonorableWilliam J. Burke, page 3 (WW-1224)

Your first inquiry deals with whether a portion of a non-loadbearing wall can be removed for the purposes of installinga doorway, etc., therein. You have supplied the additional information to this office that therewill be a sufficientunexpended appropriationbalance to cover the projectwhich you inquire about. In addition,you have pointed out that such a doorway installationwould enhance the efficiencyand communicationsof the office involved to a large extent.

"We recognize that the wall, as constructed at the time the building was erected and/or completed, is a seperationwall, that it is not a load bearing wall and the installationof the door would in no way effect the efficiencyand/
or strength of the building."

We are of the opinion that your first question should be answered in the negative. Section 39 of Article V of the AppropriationsBill prohibits the expending of appropriated funds for removingwalls, partitions or any other permanentparts of the namedbuildings unless otherwise authorized and provided for in theAct. The portion of the Act following Item 12 of Article III under Board of Control of the AppropriationsBill quoted above authorizes the Board to use any unexpendedbalances under Item 12 to make such other repairs or improvementsdeemed necessary and practical by the Board. We take the position that the installationof this door, from the informationwhich you supplied, falls within the meaning of ltother repairs
or improvementsdeemed practical by the Board," and since you state there are available unexpended funds under said Item 12, it appears to be within the perogative of the Board of Control to effectuate this improvement.

Further, Section 39 of ArticleV of the Appropriation Bill has reference to removingwalls, partitions and other permanent parts of the buildings. In the strict technical sense, it appears that the addition of this doorwaywould not fall within this particularprohibition since it would not be necessary to remove the entirewall, and sinceyou state that the installationof the door would in no way effect the efficiency or strength of the building. We believe this interpretation to be in linewith the wellestablishedrule that in statutory interpretation,an Act shouldbe given a fair, rational, reasonable, and sensible construction in accordant-with its language and subject matter and with a view of accomplishing the legislative intentHonorable William J. Burke, page 4 (WW-1224)

and purpose. McKinney v. City of Abilene, 250 S.W.22 224 (Civ.App.1952‘).We feel that any other interpretationwould lead to an illogical and impractical conclusion.

In answer to your second inquiry,we feel the above reasoning applieswith equal force, and that it should also be answered negatively, That is, it is our opinion that if the Board of Control finds it necessary and practical to add the named hand rails and safety devices, and if unexpended balances exist under Item 12 of Article III under the Board of Control of the AppropriationsBill, the Board has the perogative to make such additions. Hand rails and safety devices are certainly not logicallywithin the meaning of "removingof walls, partitions or any other permanent part" of the named buildings under Section 39 of ArticleV of the AppropriationsBill, yet ,arelogically "otherrepairs and improvements"f under the Board of Control's appropriation, Item 12 of Article III.

SUMMARY
(1) The removalby the Board of Control of a portion of a non-loadbearing wall for the purpose of installing a door from which
use and benefit would be an improvenent in communicationsand efficiency is not prohibited by Section 39 of ArticleV of the General AppropriationsBill.

(2) The Board of Control is not prohibited from installing the necessaryhand rails and safetydevices on the outside steps for the safety of occupants and personnel employedby the State in the named State buildings.

Very trulyyours,

WILL WILSON Aib torney Gene-ral

of Texas

EBS:dhs:kh

PatBailey AssistantHonoralbeWilliam J. Burke, page 5 (WW-1224)

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman
Riley Eugene Fletcher Elmer McVey John Leonarz Vernon Teofan

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Houghton Brownlee, Jr.