Attorney General Opinion WW-0757

THEA~O~EY GENERAL OF-TEXAS Mr. H. R. Nieman, Jr. Executive Director Opinion No. W-757 State Building Commission Re: Authorization of the Austin, Texas State Building Commis- sion to pay the City of Austin for paving its half of the existing thoroughfare and the ad- ditional five feet (an- proximate) inside the State property line in order to render the ac- cess completely finish- ed up to the curbing at the west end of the Sup- Dear Mr. Nieman: reme Court Building. You 'lave requested an opinion of this office con- cerning the Building Commission's authority to pay the City of Austin for paving its half of the existing thoroughfare and the additional five feet (approximate) inside the State property line at the west end of the Supreme Court Building. Under Section 51-b(c),'Article III, Constitution of Texas, the Commission may acquire property and enter in- to such contracts as it deems necessary to build and equip buildings for the use of State agencies. "(c) Under such terms and con- ditions.as are now or may be hereafter provided by law, the Commission may ac- quire necessary real and personal pro- perty, salvage and dispose of property unsuitable for State purposes, modernize, remodel, build and equip buildings for State purposes, and negotiate and make contracts necessary to carry out and ef- fectutte the purposes herein mentioned. . . . In Attorney General's Opinion No. ~-585, when the State Highway Department was confronted with a similar situation, this office held that the authority for the expenditure comes from the Highway Department's capa- city as a land owner, and that money could be spent for Mr. H. R. Nieman, Jr., page 2 (ww-7572 a tract of land just as the roof of a building lo- _.. street improvements next to it could be spent to repair cated on that land. Such an expenditure was also up- held for the Texas State Hospitals and Special Sch,ools in Attorney General's Opinion No. S-102 on the basis that it constituted an Improvement of the property. There is no doubt that the Commissisr! can pay for the paving of the five-foot area on State property under Section 51-b(c), Article III of the Constitution of Texas. The only question is whether bids must be taken in accordance with Section 5 of Article 678m of Vernon's Civil Statutes. It Is clear, however, that Article 678m applies only to the obtaining of building sites and the construction of buildings on those sites. It would not prohibit the Commission from entering into a contract to pay the City of Austin for paving the five-foot area at the west end of the Supreme Court Building. It is our opinion that the Building Commission is authorized to enter into a contract with the City of Austin to pave the area outlined In your question. Of course, the authority to make the expenditure is subject to an appropriation for that purpose. We are of the opinion that the expenditure can be made out of Item No. 10 of the present biennium appropriation to the Building Commission. SUMMARY The State Building Commission is authorized to pay its pro rata share of the street paving cost at the west end of the Supreme Court Building and the addit~ional cost of paving the five-foot (approximate) area within the State'pro under Section 51-b(c P erty line Article III, Constitution of 4exa.3, and Mr. H. R. Nieman, Jr., page 3 (WW-757) Attorney General's Opinions NO. w-585 and NO. S-102. Very truly yours, W?LL WILSON Attorney General oi' Texas BY Assistant JSC:ms APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman Henry G. Braswell Robert H. Walls James R. Irion III Raymond V. LDftin, Jr. REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Leonard Passmore