Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1984 )


Menu:
  •                                 The Attome!!, General of Texas
    Octsber   12, 1984
    JIM MATTOX
    Attorney General
    Supreme CarI Bullding
    Mr. Lynn Brown, Adwnistrator                 Opinion No.    JR-210
    P. 0. Box 1254a                Teraa State Board ofi Plumbing
    A”,!,“. TX. 78711.254Q            Examiners                                 Re: Authority of a municipality
    512l47525m                     P. 0. Box 4200                               to impose a registration  fee on
    Telex 9101874.13S7
    Austin, Texas   78:‘tiS                      plumbers
    Telecopier 5121475-0268
    Dear Mr. Brown:
    714 Jackson. suite 700
    Dallas. TX. 75202.4505                You have informed this office      that several cities  in Texas have
    2141742.8944
    passed city ordinances requiring persons licensed as plumbers to pay a
    “registration     fee”    as a condition     precedent   to engaging  in the
    4824 A,bwta Ave.. BUite 180    practice    of plumbi>; in that city.      In connection vith this, you have
    El Paso. TX. 79QC62793         asked this office     zlie following questions:
    915/53534S4
    1. DC,such registration       fees   constitute   a form
    1 Texas. Suite 700                    of, licen sure?
    “couston, 7X. 77002-3111
    71~2235886                                  2. Are these     registration fees ‘occupation
    taxes, ’ as aet forth in Attorney General Opinion
    V-428 (1 &i7)?
    806 Broadway. Suite 312
    Lubbock. 7X. 7Q401.3479.
    QOSi747-5235                                3. Acs the registration   fees a valid require-
    ment in Light of the Plumbing License Law, article
    6243-101, V.T.C.S.?
    43oQ N. Tenth. Suite 8
    McAlm. TX. 78501.1685
    5121882.4547                        In order for such a fee to constitute       a &censure,   it must confer
    a right to a deserving individual       that would be denied to all others.
    See Cit   of Fort Worth v. Gulf Refining Co., 
    83 S.W.2d 610
    , 617 (Tex.
    200 Win Plaza, Suite 4W       m5*-                 icense will allow a parson to practice      a trade which
    SPY &ntonio. TX. 782Q5-2797
    he could not practi:e      without such a license.    See Aoefling v. City of
    51212254191
    San Antonio, 20 S.il. 85. 87 (Tex. 1892).       For such a fee to constitute
    an occupation     tax,, hovever.    it must be levied      primarily   for the
    purpose of raising; revenue.       See City of Fort Worth v. Gulf Refining
    
    5. supra
    ; Attorney      General O-ion    V-428 (1947).
    Therefore,    tt,e answers to your first       two questions  depend upon
    whether these ordinances confer an occupational          right to an individual
    vho wants to engage in the profession          of plumbing, or whether these
    ordinances are revenue raising devices.         You have supplied this office
    vith tvo ordinanccz       from cities   in Texas:    one provides for a regis-
    tration    fee for plumbing contractors;          the other provides    that an
    organization     consisting   of licensed   plumbers who vish to do business
    must first    registl!:: vith the city.      Although both ordinances     charge
    p.   947
    . ’
    I
    Nr. Lynn grovn - Page 2           (JM-210)
    small fees       for registratiorl,      ve are of the opinion    that            this   is
    i~terial       to our findings.        See City of Fort Worth v. Gulf             Refining
    co.,    D.         We conclude,     t,txfore,   that  these ordinances            are,   in
    affect,    licensing   feea.
    Article     6243-101, V.T.C.S..        (“Plumbing License Lav”) vas enacted
    .in 1947.      Thia act created tlw State Board of Plumbing Examiners, thus
    taking avay much of the authority              to regulate the plumbing occupation
    from cities.        See Attorney General Opinion V-549 (1948).                 The Texas
    State Board of-&mbing               Rxa~sIiners is the sole licensing         agency for
    plumbers,     thereby excluding         this authority     from all municipalities.
    Attorney     General      Opinion      V-428    (1947).     Because   the board        has
    exclusive     jurisdiction      over t:he licensing      of plumbers, any municipal
    regulations      vhich     conflict     vlth    the board’s     responsibilities       are
    invalid    under section         15 of the Plumbing Licensing          Lav.      Attorney
    General Opinions V-1217 (1951); V-720 (1948); V-333 (1947).                      See also
    Attorney General Opinion MW-.jIi5 (1982).
    This office   has previowly     considered  a problem similar    to this
    question.     Attorney General 0pinion V-1217 (1951) dealt with several
    municipal requirements that required plumbers to post indemnity bonds
    before    engaging in speciflecl    plumbing vork.   One such ordinance,     for
    example, required plumbers ‘:o post a bond before          that plumber could
    engage in his profession.       ‘Pa+ opinion made the following   observation:
    The Board’s respou:~ibilitles         deal primarily     with
    the personal     fitness      and skill     of    individual
    plumbers.    The ’11 c.ense’ vhlch it grants and its
    authority    to prc,sulgate        rules   respecting     the
    licensing   of plumblrrs are Intended to cover the
    subject of skill     z.r:d personal fitness     of plumbers
    and matters    incidental      thereto.    Cities    may not
    invade that field,        Neither may the Board invade
    the field reserved for municipal regulation.
    The opinion vent on to conclude that a city may require a bond under
    its authority       to prescribe     t’le terms and conditions        for the granting
    of a “permit” under the terms of Section 15, and that the Board has no
    jurisdiction      over that subjc!ct matter.          The distinction     betveen these
    tvo    statements      is    clear:      the Board may regulate           the plumbing
    occupation      in its     licensing      procedures;    a city    may only regulate
    certain    specific     acts of ploobers,       as set forth in sectjon        15 of the
    Plumbers License Lx             See Attorney General      Opinion V-549 (1948).         See
    also    Attorney     General~ir:ion          V-720 (1948).       However,    cities     e
    require      plumbing organisat 1 ,ns to register             vith    the city      before
    engaging in the business of plumbing.                 For example, home rule cities
    may “license        any lawful      business,     occupation     or calling       that is
    susceptible      to the contra:.        of the police       power.”     V.T.C.S.      art.
    1175.23.     This includes the business of plumbing.              See Trevitt v. City
    of Dallas,      
    242 S.W. 1073
    , lC177-78 (Tex. Civ. App.?Dallas                   1922, no
    writ).
    p.   948
    Mr. Lynn Brown - Page 3       (JW:!lO)
    Therefore,   it  la our opinion that ordinances vhich regulate      the
    profesaion      or occupation    of   plumbing    infringe   upon a function
    conferred   solely to the Texas State Board of Plumbing Exaninera by the
    Plumbing License      Lav and are invalid.        Hovever , ordinances vhich
    require   the registration     of plumbing buainesacs        as a condition
    ~precedent to engaging in the profession       are valid.
    SUMMARY
    A municipal    ortitnance vhich purports to confer
    an occupational     ri.I;ht to an individual.   and is not
    designed for the sole purpose of raising revenue,
    is a license      fee.     A municipal    ordinance   vhich
    regulates the profession        or occupation of plumbing
    infringes    upon a function conferred solely        to the
    Texas State Boar’i of Plumbing Examiners by the
    Plumbing License Law. article         6243-101, V.T.C.S.,
    and is invalid.        itn ordinance vhich requires      the
    registration    of a plumbing business as a condition
    precedent to enga:g:lng in the profession        is valid.
    -JIM       M A- T T 0 X
    Attoruey General of Texas
    TOMGREEN
    First Assistant   Attorney   General
    DAVID R. RICEARDS
    Executive Assistant Attorney      General
    Prepared by Rick Gilpin
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION CCWITTEE
    Rick Gilpln. Chairman
    David Brooks
    Colin Carl
    Susan Garrison
    Jim Moellinger
    Nancy Sutton
    

Document Info

Docket Number: JM-210

Judges: Jim Mattox

Filed Date: 7/2/1984

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017