Request By:
Honorable John S. Smith
City Attorney
City of Lebanon
Lebanon, Kentucky 40033
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in response to your letter of August 30 in which you enclose a copy of an automobile licensing ordinance enacted by the city of Lebanon which imposes a license tax on each automobile regularly driven upon and over the streets regardless of whether the owner is a resident or nonresident of the city. Section IV specifically requires a separate license for each motor vehicle regardless of the number of vehicles owned by the resident or nonresident person, firm or corporation. The ordinance further details certain exceptions which we will discuss later.
In connection with the ordinance you relate that complaints have been received from a large number of residents of the city who work in other cities and who thus spend a large amount of time driving to and from their place of work. Many are required to obtain an automobile sticker in the city in which they work. The suggestion has been made by the spokesmen for these out of town workers that the city amend the ordinance by exempting from the sticker tax one vehicle used by out of town workers in getting to and from their employment, provided the worker who has more than one car has purchased at least one other vehicle sticker. The basic question is thus raised as to whether or not such exemption would be valid and our response would be in the negative.
As you know it is well settled in this state that every city has the power to levy a license fee not only on resident automobiles but also nonresident automobiles where such are operated regularly within the city. This authority is based upon the ground that the license is not a property tax but one imposed by virtue of the city's police power for the privilege of using the city streets. See Commonwealth v. Kelly, 229 Ky. 722, 17 S.W.2d 1017 (1929); Johnson v. City of Paducah, 285 Ky. 294, 147 S.W. 721 (1941); City of Mayfield v. Carter Hardware Co., 191 Ky. 364, 230 S.W. 298 (1921); Watson v. City of Paducah, 312 Ky. 680, 229 S.W. 453 (1950); and City of Georgetown v. Morrison, Ky. 362 S.W.2d 289 (1962).
The court, in the case of Johnson v. City of Paducah, supra, and Commonwealth v. Kelly, supra, clearly pointed out that the license tax was to be imposed upon all persons operating vehicles within the city whether they were resident or nonresident. At the same time there can be no discrimination by exempting from the license one automobile where the owner owns a number of vehicles, all of which are driven on the city streets, as such an exemption on the basis of multiple ownership of cars would be in our opinion an unreasonable classification and discriminatory as pointed out in a miscellaneous letter, dated December 5, 1977, addressed to Mr. Carl H. Eldridge of Sandy Hook, Kentucky (copy attached).
Section II of the Ordinance reads as follows:
"As used herein, the term 'motor vehicle' means automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, motor scooters and all other motor-powered vehicles which are used upon the streets and which are subject to licensing by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Motor-powered vehicles not required to be licensed by the Commonwealth, farm and garden tractors, golf carts, motor vehicles bearing valid Historic Vehicle licenses issued by the Commonwealth, and motor vehicles held for the purpose of resale by City and State licensed new and used car dealers are specifically exempted."
Again referring to the case of Johnson v. City of Paducah, you will note the question of classification was raised and the court declared that there was no reasonable classification for exempting nonresidents over residents owning and regularly operating motor vehicles on the city streets. The question thus boils down to whether or not the above exemptions constitute a reasonable classification for exemption and we believe they do. For example, farm tractors are declared not to be "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the term found in KRS 186.010. Golf carts of course are not required to be licensed under state law and are not used regularly on the streets. Historical vehicles are considered in the category of special use vehicles entitled to a special permanent license under KRS 186.043. Motor vehicles held for the purpose of resale by new and used car dealers would, of course, fit the exemption classification until they are sold and driven regularly on the streets of the city.
After reviewing the entire ordinance, including the exemptions, we believe that it is valid and, further, that it cannot legally be amended to exempt a vehicle which is obviously used on the city streets regularly by the out of town workers getting to and from their employment since the tax must be levied on each and every automobile regularly using the streets of the city regardless of ownership.