Ezel / AG Opinions / TX
TX JM-214 October 23, 1984

Could a Texas state agency use leftover parking-garage construction money to finish the Travis State Office Building?

Short answer: Yes. JM-214 concluded that a 1984-85 appropriations rider allowed the State Purchasing and General Services Commission to move excess funds from the completed parking-garage project to additional Travis Building construction.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1984. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1984
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: This is an official Texas Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority in Texas courts but are not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. The opinion dates from 1984 and interprets biennium-specific appropriations riders; verify current appropriations and transfer authority before relying on it.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official AG opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original AG opinion (PDF)

Texas AG Opinion JM-214: State Construction Funds

Plain-English summary

The State Purchasing and General Services Commission asked whether it could use excess money appropriated for a parking garage to fund additional construction of the Travis State Office Building. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0214.pdf

The 1982-83 General Appropriations Act had appropriated $25 million for "Construction of new State Office Building." A rider in the 1984-85 act reappropriated the unobligated balance for the same purpose and subject to the same restrictions. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0214.pdf

Another 1984-85 rider stated that the commission "may deviate from the exact sums for each project as may be necessary to fund any project." JM-214 read "any project" to include further construction of the Travis Building. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0214.pdf

The opinion therefore concluded that excess funds from the permanent parking structure could be transferred to additional Travis Building construction. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0214.pdf

JM-214 limited its analysis to the facts presented. It expressly did not decide whether rider 11 allowed transfers away from listed projects that had not been completed. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0214.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1984. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could the commission move leftover parking-garage funds to the Travis Building?

Yes. JM-214 concluded that rider 11 authorized the commission to use excess parking-garage funds for additional Travis Building construction during the 1984-85 biennium. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0214.pdf

What language allowed the transfer?

Rider 11 allowed the commission to "deviate from the exact sums for each project as may be necessary to fund any project." The opinion said that language reached any project authorized by the commission's 1984-85 appropriation. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0214.pdf

Why did the Travis Building count as an authorized project?

The opinion said the building had been funded under the earlier $25 million state-office-building item and that completion of the Travis Building was provided for in rider 10 of the 1984-85 act. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0214.pdf

Did the opinion authorize taking money from an unfinished project?

It did not answer that question. JM-214 said it did not address transfers from a rider 10 project that had not been completed. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0214.pdf

How much was listed for the permanent parking structure?

The quoted informational sub-listing assigned $7,857,081 to construction of a permanent parking structure in the Capitol Complex. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0214.pdf

Background and statutory framework

JM-214 interpreted two general appropriations acts. It identified Acts 1981, 67th Legislature, chapter 875, article I, at 3488 (H.B. 656), as the source of the $25 million state-office-building appropriation. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0214.pdf

It identified Acts 1983, 68th Legislature, chapter 1095, article I, at 5893 (S.B. 179), as the act containing riders 10 and 11. Rider 10 reappropriated unobligated construction balances, while rider 11 supplied authority to deviate from exact project sums. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0214.pdf

The opinion found no indication that rider 11 restricted transfers to or from the projects listed in riders 10A through 10Q. It also reasoned that the opposite interpretation would frustrate completion of the Travis Building even though authorized money remained from another completed project. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0214.pdf

Citations and references

  • Acts 1981, 67th Legislature, chapter 875, article I, at 3488 (H.B. 656), contained the earlier $25 million appropriation discussed in JM-214. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0214.pdf
  • Acts 1983, 68th Legislature, chapter 1095, article I, at 5893 (S.B. 179), contained the reappropriation and transfer riders interpreted by the opinion. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0214.pdf

Source

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.

The Attorney General of Texas

October 23, 1984

Mr. Homer A. Foerster
Executive Director
State Purchasing and General Services Commission
L.B.J. State Office Building
P.O. Box 13047, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711

Opinion No. JM-214

Re: Whether the State Purchasing and General Services Commission may use excess funds appropriated for construction of a parking garage to fund additional construction of the Travis Building

Dear Mr. Foerster:

You ask whether the State Purchasing and General Services Commission may use excess funds appropriated for construction of a parking garage to fund additional construction to the Travis Building.

The 1982-83 General Appropriations Act, Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 875, art. I, at 3488 (H.B. 656), appropriated $25 million for "[C]onstruction of new State Office Building" (item 9). The 1984-85 General Appropriations Act, Acts 1983, 68th Leg., ch. 1095, art. I, at 5893 (S.B. 179), contains the following riders:

  1. Any unobligated balances remaining as of August 31, 1983, in appropriations made to the State Purchasing and General Services Commission by Acts of the Sixty-seventh Legislature, Regular Session, 1981, for Capital Acquisition, Construction, Repairs and Renovation, Item 10, and by riders, are hereby reappropriated for the same purpose and subject to the same restrictions for the biennium beginning September 1, 1983.

For the Years Ending August 31, 1984 and August 31, 1985

Informational sub-listing of projects to be funded from Items 10.b and 10.c (Construction, Repairs and Renovations)

A. Construct Permanent Parking Structure, Capitol Complex: $7,857,081; U.B.
B. Fire/Safety Deficiency Corrections, Capitol Complex: $575,611; U.B.
C. Remove and Stabilize Ceiling, Starr Building: $324,113; U.B.
D. Remove and Stabilize Ceiling, Supreme Court Building: $995,292; U.B.
E. Fire/Security Alarm System, Starr Building: $27,110; U.B.
F. Relocation of Mechanical Facilities, Governor's Mansion: $38,141; U.B.
G. Seal Exterior, Jones Building: $91,831; U.B.
H. Repair Leaking Patios, Reagan and LBJ Buildings: $207,519; U.B.
I. Replace Roofing, Supreme Court Building: $106,688; U.B.
J. Replace Carpet, Austin Building: $219,160; U.B.
K. Energy Conservation Measures, Capitol Complex: $473,427; U.B.
L. Replace Gas Turbine Chiller with Electric Drive, Austin Building: $490,427; U.B.
M. Seal Areaway Openings, Capitol: $65,523; U.B.
N. Purchase of Land and Construction of Hangars, Ramps, Office and Maintenance Facilities, Aircraft Pooling Board: $3,054,239; U.B.
O. Miscellaneous Projects, Not to Exceed $3,300 each, Capitol Complex: $100,000; U.B.
P. Renovate French Legation: $35,000; U.B.
Q. Repairs to Permanent Parking Structures, Capitol Complex: $74,102; U.B.

GRAND TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS AND RENOVATIONS: $14,735,264; U.B.

  1. The State Purchasing and General Services Commission may deviate from the exact sums for each project as may be necessary to fund any project.

The Travis Building is one of the items referred to in rider 10, supra, a project funded under item 9 of the 1982-83 General Appropriations Act. As a result, the balance of the $25 million which remained unobligated on August 31, 1983, was reappropriated for construction of the Travis Building for the 1984-85 biennium. Rider 11 in the 1984-85 General Appropriations Act authorizes the commission to "deviate from the exact sums for each project as may be necessary to fund any project." If "any project" includes the further construction of the Travis Building described in rider 10, it follows that funds may be transferred from rider 10A, authorizing construction of a "permanent parking structure," for use on the Travis Building.

Rider 11 does not indicate any legislative intent to restrict transfer of funds to or from those items listed in riders 10A-Q. Indeed, it specifically permits deviation for "each project." In our opinion, this language includes any project authorized by the commission's 1984-85 appropriation. Since completion of the Travis Building is provided for in rider 10, we believe it constitutes such a project. To construe rider 11 otherwise would be to thwart completion of the Travis Building, when authorized unexpended funds exist from another, already completed, project. We do not address whether funds may be transferred under rider 11 if the specific projects in riders 10A-Q from which transfer is contemplated were not completed. We do not believe the legislature could have intended this result. Accordingly, the State Purchasing and General Services Commission may use excess funds appropriated for construction of a parking garage to fund additional construction of the Travis Building.

SUMMARY

The State Purchasing and General Services Commission is authorized to use excess funds appropriated during the 1984-85 biennium for a parking garage to fund additional construction of the Travis Building.

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General

DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Tony Guillory
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1984 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.