The opinion
.
The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX April 23, 1986
Attorney General
Supreme Court Building Hr. Allen Parker, Sr. Opinion No. .JM-483
P. 0. BOX 12549 Cimmiseimer
Austl”. TX. 79711. 2549 Tsxas Departmentc~f'Labor and Be: Conatltutionalityof article
51214752501 Standards 6687-9a. V.T.C.S., and related
Telex 8101874.1387
Telecopier 51214750266
P. 0. Box 12157 questions
Austin,Texas 71iill
714 Jackson. Suite 700 Dear Mr. Parker:
Dallas. TX. 752024508
214l742.9944
You ask seve::alquestionsabout the Vehicle StorageFacilityAct,
article 6687-98, V.T.C.S., which was anacted by the Sixty-ninth
4824 Alberta Ave.. Suite 180 Legislature. The act authorizes the Texas Department of Labor and
El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 Standards to "isme licenses to operate vehicle storage facilities"
915633.3494 and to "adopt rules establishingrequirementsfor the licensingcf
persons to operatevehicle storage facilitiesto ensure that licensed
1001 Texas, Suite 700
storage facilitiesmaintainadequate standardsfor the care of stored
Hou~)ton. TX. 770023111 vehicles." V.T.C.S.art. 6687-9a;§4.
7t3n23-59S9
Your first questionconcerusthe "local option"provisionof the
act. ~Section13(a) of the act provides:
606 Broadway, Suite 312
Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479
W&747-5239 The governingbody of a city by ordinancemay
provide that this article and rules adoptedunder
this articledo not apply inside the limitsof the
4209 N. Tenth, Suite B
McAlleri, TX. 78501-1685
city.
Slau92-4547
Iu regard to that provisionyou ask whether
2M) Main Plaza, Suite 400 the ordinance adopted by a city pursuant to
San Antonio, TX. 702052797
512l2254181
article,6687-9a(13)must be as stringentas that
article.or rules and regulationsadopted by the
Texas I'epartment
of Labor and Standards.
An Equal Opportunity!
Affirmatlve Action Employer Your question assmes that the act requiresa city to adopt an
ordinance regulating vehicle storage facilities if it chooses to
sxsmpt itself frontregulationunder article6687-9a. The act does not
require cities to do so. It simply authorizesa city to adopt an
ordinance that snakesarticle 6687-9a inapplicableinside the citp
limitsof that c:.ty.
p. 2215
Mr. Allen Parksr, Sr. - Page 2 (JM-483)
You also ask about 1:he constitutionalityof section 13(a).
Although the question Is ,a difficultone, we conclude chat section
13(a) is unconstitutionalunder article I, section 28. of the Texas
Constitution,which providc,s:
No power of mapending laws in this State shall
be exercisedexceptby the Legislature.
In 1915 the Supremehurt held that a statute authorizingvoters
to decide whether the operationof a pool hall would be a criminal
offense in a particularcounty violated article I, section 28. Rx
parte Mitchell, 177 S.W. 9,53(Tex. 1915). The court held that the
statutewculd permit the voters ic a county to suspecd a general law
that allowed the licensingof pool halls. @cord, I.ylev. State, 193
S.W. 680 (Tex. Grim. App. 1917). See also Brown Cracker & Candy Co.
v. City of Dallas, 137 S.W. 342 (Tex. 19'
m . (citv
_ ordinanceoermittina
houses of prostitution tunconstitutionally suspended state
- 1s;
prohibitingthem).
'sinceFXtcbell. hoverer, the courts have upheld a nuwhcr of
statutesallowiaa politicalsubdivisionsto choose whether to accent
the provisionsof-a geusral law. See City of Fort Worth v. Fire
Departmentof City of Fort , 2rS.W.2d 347 (Tex. Civ. App. -
Fort Worth 1948). aff'd w, rev'd in part on other grounds,217
S.W.2d 664 (Tex. lm(uri;eld statutethat allows voters of citv to '
accept the provisionsof a :general law pemitting cities to provibea
police and firemen'scivil servicesystem);Reynoldsv. Dallas County,
203,S.W.2d 320 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1947, no writ) (upheld
statute that authorizes county comissioners courts to adopt
provisionsof voting machinelaw); RosebudIndependentSchoolDistrict
v. Richardson,2 S.W.2d 5'13(Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1928, no vrit)
(upheldstatutethat allowr, county schooltrusteesto chaoge the lines
of legislativelycrsateds&o01 districts);Sullivanv. Roach-Mani=
Paving Co. of Texas, 220 S.W. 444 (Tcx.Civ. App. - San Antonio 1920,
Wit dism'd) (upheldststum:that authorizescity to accept urovisious
of street improvementstilrute); see also Attorney Gene&l Opinion
MW-11 (1979) (statuteis constitutional that exempts automobilesfrom
ad valorem taxation exceptwhere local taxing jurisdictionschoose to
impose a tax on automobiler~).
For several rsasons,we do not think that the cases cited above
controlthe issue before us. Those cases are based on a rule that is
consideredan exceptiontc'the generallanguageof limitationin the
constitution. See Reynol53, 203 S.W.2d at 324; see also Attorney
General Opinions-11 ('1979). That exception avolics when the
leglslatur; has given a municipalitythe- autboriti to determine
whether a general LtLt2r:e shall becone effective within the
jurisdictionof the munic:lpality in situationsin which it would be
impossiblefor the 1egisLztureto determinewhether the benefits of
p. 2216
Mr. Allen Parker,Sr. - Page 2’ (J&483)
in that municipality. Reynolds, 203
the general statute are aeedfrti
S.W.Zd at 324. That axcepritmdoes not apply here. Article 6687-Ya
providesfor the licensingof operatorsof vehicle storagefacilities.
The purpose underlying arti~zle6687-Ya Is to ensure that storage
facilities maintain adequate standards for the care of stored
vehicles. V.T.C.S. art. 66:37-Ya,54. We see no reason why the
standards or the need for standardsshould vary from city to city.
Therefore,the rationaleof Reynoldsand similar cases does not apply
in this instance. Where t:hs exception set out in Reynolds Is
inapplicable,we think the general rule of unconstitutionality in
Hitchellmust apply.
Also, Reynolds and the other cases cited above uphaltistatutes
creating a situationin which the voters or the governingbody of a
political subdivision could choose whether or not the pcliticsl
subdivision itself wculd exercise certain powers provided for by
general law. Article 6687-98, in contrast, presents a situationin
which the governingbody of ,acity may decide that an administrative
agency may not exercisepowers:provided for by generallaw within the
city limits of the city. We do not think that the authorityof a city
to limit the power of a stat,eadministrativeagency can be justified
on the basis of cases that a:ll.ow
politicalsubdivisionto limit their
own power, particularlyeln~ those cases are an exception to the
general rule of unconstitutionality.Consequently,it is our opinion
that section 13(a)of article6687-9sis unconstitutional.
We also hold that the,unconstitutionalprovision of article
6687-Ya is severablefrom the rest of the statute. An unconstitu-
tional provisiondoes not runder an entire enactmentvoid unless it
appears that the legislaturewould not have enacted the statute
without the unconstitutlonslprovision or unless the statute is
unworkable without the unconstitutionalprovision. Harris County
.Water Control & ImprovementJistrict No. 39 v. Albright,263 S.W.2d
944, 947 (Tex. 1954). The Local optionsprovisionof article 66S7-Ya
is not the centerpieceof thlcstatute,so it does not appear that the
legislaturewould not have truactedarticle 6687-9awithout the local
option provision. Also, the regulatoryscheme providedfor by article
6687-Ya can certainlybe executedwithout the provisionthat allows
cities to exempt themselvesfrom the regulatoryscheme. Therefore,
the rest of article6687-Ya:Lsvalid.
Tour secondquestionis whether the Texas Departmentof Labor and
Standards may adopt a fee schedule governing the amount vehicle
storage facilitiesmay charge for storage. Rules promulgatedby an
administrativeagency must 1~ within the granted power and "may cot
ie?poseadditionalburdens,cxditions, or restrictfoosin excessof or
lcccasisttrtt
with statutory;:rovisic~b.” Eexar CountyFail Eond
----Board
v. Ceckard,604 S.W.2d214, 216 (Tex.Civ.-App.- San Antonio IYEC, no
writ). Article 6687-?a g:ivesthe department authority to issue
p. 2217
Mr. Allen Parker,Sr. - Page 4 (JM-483)
licensesto personswho opcratl?stcragcfacilitiesand to make various
rules regardinglicensing. 11:gives the departmentno authorityto
regulate the fees charged by storage facilities. Therefox;. the
departmentmay not adopt a fee schedulegoverningthe amount storage
facilitiesmay charge.
SlJ M M A R Y
Article6687-Ya,mction 13(a),V.T.C.S.,which
allows cities to exempt themselves from
applicationof the provisionsof article6687-96,
is unconstitutional, The Texas Department of
Labor and Standardsmay net adopt a fee schedule
governing the ~IDOCGL vrhicir storage facilities
my chargefor storage.
s bJt+
Very ruly your
JIM
A
RATTOX
AttorneyGeneralof Texas
JACK HIGRTOWXR
First AssistantAttorney General
MARY KELLER
ExecutiveAssistantAttorney Galera
ROBXRT GRAY
SpecialAssistantAttorneyGenrral
RICK GILPIN
Chairman.OpinionCommittee
Preparedby SarahWoelk
AssistantAttorneyGeneral
p. 2218