-.
.
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 cot-
tages , duplexes and
small apartments for
employees of the Rusk
State Hospital, from
funds appropriated
for “employees’ dorm-
itory and equipment .”
Dear Sir:
We quote your request for an opinion, dated
November 5, as follows:
“In Senate Bill No. 374, 50th Leg-
islature of Texas, Regular Session, at
Item 54 for the Rusk State Hospital,
an appropriation of thirty-five thous-
and 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 em-
ployees 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 de-
partment 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 ac-
commodations for the employees of the
Rusk State Hospital .n
Eon. T. a. Warden, Page 2, V-460
Since your particular appropriation is unques-
tionably specific as to purpose, as required by Art. VIII,
Sec. 6 of the Constitution, being for an “ez21oyees’ dorm-
itory and equipment”, the sole question is whether your
propsal to construct cottages, duplexes, or small apart-
ments 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 con-
taining a series of sleeping room; a
sleeping apartment oapable of containing
zany beds, esp. one connected with a col-
lege, boarding school, monastery, etc.”
We find no definitive statenents in the Texas
cases, but the foregoing definition was adopted in Rus-
sell 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’ dormi-
tory” as authorizing only the construction of an employ-
ees 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 liv-
ing pu:?oses, it would appear to come within the defini-
tion of a ‘ldoraitory’l. The construction of several dis-
johe? 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, du-
plexes, 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 apart-
ment house, dormitory or like structure.
Yours very truly
BY
APPROVED
2JC:jmz:jrb