-. 

. 

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 .” 

We quote 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 a fireproof dormitory for 

such sum of 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 

54 may be 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 .n 
Eon. T. a. Warden, Page 2, V-460 

Since your particular appropriation is unquestionably specific as to purpose, as required by Art. VIII, 

Sec. 6 of 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 come with12 the definition of a 

“dormitory”. 

Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second 

Rditior, defines a “dormitory” as foliows: 

“A sleeping room, or a building containing a series of sleeping room; a 

sleeping apartment oapable of containing 

zany beds, esp. one connected with a college, boarding school, monastery, etc.” 

We find no definitive statenents in the Texas 

cases, but the foregoing definition was adopted in Russell v. Trustees of Purdue University, 168 R. 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. 

We interpret the language “e;coloyees’ dormitory” as authorizing only the construction of an employees 1 apartment 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 a departure from 

the specific appropriation. We think the Legislature has 

indicated its intent that the housing accomodation be a 

single unit rather than several smalier housing units. 

SuMedARY 

An appropriation 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 used 
20s. '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