The Attorney General of Texas
December 7, 1982
MARK WHITE
Attorney General
Mr. Kenneth H. Ashworth Opinion No. MN-520
Supreme Court Building Conmlissioner
P. 0. Box 12546
Austin, TX. 76711. 2546
Coordinating Board Re: Whether university con-
5121475-2501
Texas College and University System struction project is exempt
Telex 9101674-1367 P. 0. Box 12788, Capitol Station from a requirement of co-
T&co&r 51214750266 Austin, Texas 78711 ordinating Board approval
where it is constructed partly
1607 Main St.. Suite 1400
from funds appropriated by
Dallas. TX. 75201-4709 HOUSe Bill No. 1 of 2nd
2141742-6944 Called Session, Sixty-seventh
Legislature
4624 Alberta Ave., Suite 160
El Paso, TX. 79905.2793
Dear Mr. Ashworth:
915/533-3464
You have requested our opinion as to whether certain funds may be
expended for college construction without the approval of the
1220 Dallas Ave., Suite 202
Coordinating Board.
Hou.s,on, TX. 77002.6966
7131650.0666
In Attorney General Opinion MN-519 (1982), we said that approval
by the Coordinating Board is not required in order to expend any of
606 Broadway, Suite 312 the funds appropriated in House Bill No. 1, Acts 1982, Sixty-seventh
Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 Legislature, 2d Called Session, chapter 1, at 1. The pertinent
6061747-5236
portion of the appropriation provides:
4309 N. Tenth. Suite B Section 1. In addition to sums previously
McAllen, TX. 76501-1665 appropriated, the following amounts are appropri-
512/662-4547 ated to the named institutions of higher education
from the general revenue fund and other funds that
200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 may be specified for the purpose of constructing
San Antonio. TX. 76205-2797 permanent improvements, acquisition of land, and
5121225-4191 major repair and rehabilitation projects as
listed, and those projects or improvements are
An Equal Opportunity/
hereby authorized. Those institutions for which
Affirmative Action Employer new construction only is authorized may use
appropriated funds for major repair and
rehabilitation.
There follow specific appropriations for seventeen named institutions,
together with details regarding the purpose of the expenditures. The
first two appropriations, for example, provide as follows:
p. 1884
Mr. Kenneth I-l.
Ashworth - Page 2 (MW-520)
1. The University of Texas at Arlington
New Construction:
a. Thermal Energy Plant
b. Architecture Building
C. Engineering Building
Major Repairs and Rehabilitation:
d. Renovation of Cooper Center
TOTAL APPROPRIATION $25,000,000
2. Texas Tech University
New Construction:
a. Library Basement Alterations for Computer
Center
b. South Utilities Tunnel Interconnect
C. Completion of Subbasement in Art Building
Major Repairs and Rehabilitation
d. Industrial Engineering Building
e. Civil and Mechanical Engineering Building
TOTAL APPROPRIATION $5.900.000
Section 2 of House Bill No. 1 then states:
Funds appropriated in this Act may be expended
only after the advance approval of the
Coordinating Board, Texas College and University
System, in accordance with the statutory
responsibilities of the board. A project shall
not be initiated until the aovernina board of the
institution has determined that there are
sufficient funds available to complete the
project. (Emphasis added).
Attorney General Opinion MN-519 (1982) held that section 61.058
of the Education Code obviated the need for Coordinating Board
approval in the situation presented there. That statute provides, in
pertinent part:
p. 1885
Mr. Kenneth H. Ashworth - Page 3 (MW-520)
To assure efficient use of construction funds
and the orderly development of physical plants to
accommodate projected college student enrollments,
the board shall:
.. . .
(8) approve or disapprove all new construction
and repair and rehabilitation of all building and
facilities at institutions of higher education
financed from any source other than ad valorem tax
receipts of the public junior colleges, provided
that:
. . ..
(D) the requirement of approval or disapproval
by the board does not aeely to any new
construction or major repair and rehabilitation
project that is specifically approved by the
legislature.
Since the legislature in House Bill No. 1 has specifically approved
each of the "new construction" and "major repair and rehabilitation"
projects funded by that statute, Attorney General Opinion MW-519
(1982) concluded that Coordinating Board approval is not required for
any of the projects. You now ask whether approval is required where
funding for the projects is derived in whole or in part from non
appropriated funds.
Section 61.058(D) provides that Coordinating Board approval is
not necessary for any "Project that is specifically approved by the
1egislature.u (Emphasis added). As we have noted, section 1 of House
Bill No. 1 declares that "those projects or improvements are hereby
authorized." The Supreme Court has held that a rider which authorizes
a university to acquire and construct various projects is not an "item
of appropriation," and therefore, is not subject to veto by the
governor. Jessen Associates, Inc. v. Bullock, 531 S.W.2d 593, 599
(Tex. 1975). We conclude that the terms of House Bill No. 1 itself
authorize the particular "projects" referred to therein and that, as a
result, section 61.058(D) precludes the necessity of Coordinating
Board approval in those instances.
SUMMARY
Approval by the Coordinating Board of the Texas
College and University System is not required for
any project authorized in House Bill No. 1, Acts
1982, Sixty-seventh Legislature, 2d Called
p. 1886
Mr. Kenneth H. Ashworth - Page 4 (MW-520)
Session, chapter 1, at 1, for %ew construction"
and "major repairs and rehabilitation" at any of
seventeen named institutions of higher education,
regardless of the source of funding of any such
project.
ml#g
WHITE
Attorney General of Texas
JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.
First Assistant Attorney General
RICHARD E. GRAY III
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Susan L. Garrison, Chairman
Kate Conroe
Rick Gilpin
Patricia Hinojosa
Jim Moellinger
p. 1887