/- - 

. 

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: 

Opinion No. 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 for professional 

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 two pertinent sections of the Texas Sanitarian 

Registration Act, article 4477-3, V.T.C.S. They read: 

Section 6. Every professional 

sanitarian registered under the provisions 

of this Act who desires to continue in the 

field of sanitation shall annually pay to the 

Board a fee to be fixed by the Board for the 

annual renewal of each license, but the 

fee for renewal of license shall not be 

fixed in excess of Ten Dollars ($10.00). . . . 

. . . 

Section 8 (cl. All expenses necessary to 

administering the provisions of this Act shall 

be paid out of the special Sanitarians Registration and License Fund, mentioned under 

Subsection (b) above, so that the passage of 

this Act shall never become a financial 

burden or obligation to the State of Texas. 

Q. 3541 
The 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 

this Act, the Board is hereby authorized 

to increase such fees and charges in such 

amount as will make the administration of 

the Act financially self-supporting without 

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 this Act 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 and New 0rleans‘R.R.O 

&r 42 S.W.Zd lO¶ ne??!iv.App. ---lESTii rP31,rit 

ref'd). A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that 

the statute should be given the effect and scope intended by 

the Legislature. 53 Tex.Jur.ad, Statutes S 125 and cases 

cited therein. 

It seems apparent that at the time of the passage of 

this Act the feeling of the Legislature was that a $10 

annual renewal fee would be sufficient to administer the 

Act. Section B(c) of the Act expresses the legislative 

intent that the "passage of this Act shall never become a 

financial burden or obligation to the Stateofexas." 

(Emphasis added). In order to carry out this expressed 

intent the Legislature authorized the Board to increase the 

fees "in such amount as will make the administration of this 

Act financially self-supporting without incurring any new or 

additional financial obligations to the State of Texas." 

In our view, sections 6 and 8(c) of the Act must be 

read together, and are not in irreconcilable conflict. The 

overall expressed intent of the Legislature is that the 

administration of the Act should be financially self-supporting, 

and in view of the expression of the Texas Department of 

Health Resources that inflationary pressures have made it 

impossible to administer the Act under the $10 ceiling, an 

increase above $10 is in our opinion authorized by the 

statute so long as such increase is reasonable. 

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

SUMMARY 

Where it is impossible to administer the 

Texas Sanitation Act without increasing the 

certificate renewal fee to more than $10.00, 

the State Board of Health is authorized to 

increase the fee to a reasonable amount 

above that figure. 

-Very truly yours, 

//jii&c* 

Attorney General of Texas 

&PROVED: v 

/ 

Opinion Committee 

jwb 

Q. 3543