/- -

. Auwrm. TEXASI 787ll

June 22, 1976

The Honorable Pratis L. Duff Director Texas Department of Health Resourcea 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756
Dear Dr. Duff: OpinionNo. H-839
Re: Ray renewal fees under the Texas Sanitarian Act be.increased to more than $10.00.

you have asked if the State Board of Health has the authority to raise the annual renewal fee forprofessional sanitarian licenses above $10.00 if a lower fee is no longer adequate to cover the administrative costs of the Department of Health Resources. There are twopertinent sections of the Texas Sanitarian RegistrationAct, article 4477-3,V.T.C.S. They read:

Section 6. Every professional sanitarianregisteredunder theprovisions of this Act who desires to continue in the field of sanitationshall annuallypay to the Board a fee tobe fixed by the Board for the annual renewalof each license,but the fee for renewalof license shallnot be fixed in excessof Ten Dollars ($10.00).

. . .

. . . Section 8 (cl. All expenses necessary to administeringthe provisions of thisAct shall be paid out of the special SanitariansRegistration and License Fund, mentioned under Subsection (b)above, so that thepassage of thisAct shallnever become a financial burden or obligation to the State of Texas.

Q. 3541The Honorable Fratis L. Duff - page 2 (H-839)

If the fees and charges set out herein prove to be inadequate to pay all costs created by thisAct, the Board is hereby authorized to increase such fees and charges in such amount as will make the administrationof theAct financially self-supportingwithout incurring any new or additional financial obligation to the State of Texas.
Courts will endeavor to harmonize and reconcile various provisions of the same statute. Cole v. State, 170 S.W. 1036 -- (Tex.Sup. 1914); 53 Tex.Jur.2d, Statutes-O. Both sections of thisAct were passed at the same time and neither has been amended since its original passage. A statute should be construed as understood at the time of its nassaqe. Railroad Commission of Texas v. Texas andNew 0rleans‘R.R.O &r 42 S.W.Zd lO¶ ne??!iv.App. ---lESTiirP31,rit ref'd). A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that the statute shouldbe given the effect and scope intendedby the Legislature. 53 Tex.Jur.ad, Statutes S 125 and cases cited therein.
It seems apparent that at the timeof the passage of thisAct the feeling of the Legislaturewas that a $10 annual renewal fee would be sufficient to administer the Act. Section B(c) of theAct expresses the legislative intent that the "passageof this Act shallnever become a financial burden or obligation to the Stateofexas." (Emphasisadded). In order to carry out this expressed intent the Legislature authorized the Board to increase the fees "in such amount as will make the administrationof this Act financially self-supportingwithout incurringany new or additional financial obligations to the State of Texas."
In our view, sections 6 and 8(c) of theAct must be read together, and are not in irreconcilableconflict. The overall expressed intent of the Legislature is that the administration of theAct should be financiallyself-supporting, and in view of the expression of the TexasDepartment of Health Resources that inflationarypressureshave made it impossible to administer theAct under the $10 ceiling, an increase above $10 is in our opinion authorizedby the statute so long as such increase is reasonable.

Q. 3542The Honorable Fratis L. Duff - page 3 (H-839)

SUMMARY Where it is impossible to administer the Texas SanitationAct without increasing the certificate renewal fee tomore than $10.00, the State Board of Health is authorized to increase the fee to a reasonable amount above that figure. -Verytruly yours, 

# //jii&c*

Attorney General of Texas &PROVED: v

/

Opinion Committee jwb

Q. 3543