-.

.

December 18, 1947

Hon. T. 8. Warden, Member Opinion NO. V-460 State Board of Control Austin, Texas Re: The legality of the construction of cottages , duplexes and small apartments for employees of the Rusk State Hospital, from funds appropriated
Dear Sir: for “employees’ dormitory and equipment

.”
Wequote your request for an opinion, dated November 5, as follows:

“In Senate Bill No. 374, 50th Legislature of Texas, Regular Session, at Item 54 for the Rusk State Hospital, an appropriation of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00) is made for
‘Employees *Dormitory and Equipment 1

.

“Considering the present cost of construction, it would be impossible to construct afireproof dormitory for such sumof money. Also, the present need for housing facilities for employees at the Rusk State Hospital is so urgent that delay in construction of facilities of some sort may result in handicapping eleemosynary service at such institution.

“In view of the above factors, we urgently request an opinion of your department to the question whether the amount of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00) provided for in said item 54maybe spent for the construction of cottages, duplexes and small apartments and thereby provide more and better accommodations for the employees of the Rusk State Hospital .nEon. T. a. Warden, Page 2, V-460

Since your particular appropriation is unquestionably specific as to purpose, as required by Art. VIII, Sec. 6of the Constitution, being for an “ez21oyees’ dormitory and equipment”, the sole question is whether your propsal to construct cottages, duplexes, or small apartments for e@oyees would comewith12 the definition of a “dormitory”

.Webster’s NewInternational Dictionary, Second Rditior, defines a “dormitory” as foliows:

“A sleeping room, or abuilding containing aseries of sleeping room; a sleeping apartment oapable of containing zany beds, esp. one connected with a college, boarding school, monastery, etc.” Wefind no definitive statenents in the Texas cases, but the foregoing definition was adopted in Russell v. Trustees of Purdue University, 168R. E. 529, 201 Ind. 367.

It will be seen from this definition that the principal purpose of the housing unit or accommodation should be to provide sleeping facilities. Other than that, there is a rather large latitude.

Weinterpret the language “e;coloyees’ dormitory” as authorizing only the construction of an employees 1apartment building or a dormitory or like structure. So long as it is a unit, and so long as the structure or buildicg is constructed to accommodate employees for living pu:?oses, it would appear to come within the definition of a ‘ldoraitory’l. The construction of several disjohe? or separate cottages, duplexes or mall apartments in separate structures would appear to be adeparture from the specific appropriation. Wethink the Legislature has indicated its intent that the housing accomodation be a single unit rather than several smalier housing units. SuMedARY Anappropriation for an “employees’ domitory and equipment” does not grant authority to build several cottages, duplexes, or small apartments, in separate structures; but such funds might be used20s. '2. a. 'Jarden, ?age 3, V-469
only to construct an m?logeesP apartment house, dormitory or like structure. Yours very truly

BY

APPROVED

2JC:jmz:jrb