Limitation on authority of local government to impose regulatory fee; examples of those which may be subject to fees; individuals and entities not subject to fees; general laws not repealed.

(b) Examples of businesses or practitioners of professions or occupations which may be subject to regulatory fees of local governments include, but are expressly not limited to, the following:

(1) Building and construction contractors, subcontractors, and workers;

(2) Carnivals;

(3) Taxicab and limousine operators;

(4) Tattoo artists;

(5) Stables;

(6) Shooting galleries and firearm ranges;

(7) Scrap metal processors;

(8) Pawnbrokers;

(9) Food service establishments;

(10) Dealers in precious metals;

(11) Firearms dealers;

(12) Peddlers;

(13) Parking lots;

(14) Nursing homes, assisted living communities, and personal care homes;

(15) Newspaper vending boxes;

(16) Modeling agencies;

(17) Massage parlors;

(18) Landfills;

(19) Auto and motorcycle racing;

(20) Boarding houses;

(21) Businesses which provide appearance bonds;

(22) Boxing and wrestling promoters;

(23) Hotels and motels;

(24) Hypnotists;

(25) Handwriting analysts;

(26) Health clubs, gyms, and spas;

(27) Fortunetellers;

(28) Garbage collectors;

(29) Escort services;

(30) Burglar and fire alarm installers; and

(31) Locksmiths.

(c) Examples of businesses and practitioners of professions and occupations which local governments are not authorized to subject to regulatory fees include, but are expressly not limited to, the following:

(1) Lawyers;

(2) Physicians licensed under Chapter 34 of Title 43;

(3) Osteopaths licensed under Chapter 34 of Title 43;

(4) Chiropractors;

(5) Podiatrists;

(6) Dentists;

(7) Optometrists;

(8) Psychologists;

(9) Veterinarians;

(10) Landscape architects;

(11) Land surveyors;

(12) Practitioners of physiotherapy;

(13) Public accountants;

(14) Embalmers;

(15) Funeral directors;

(16) Civil, mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical engineers;

(17) Architects;

(18) Marriage and family therapists, social workers, and professional counselors;

(19) Dealers of motor vehicles, as defined in paragraph (1) of Code Section 10-1-622;

(20) Owners or operators of bona fide coin operated amusement machines, as defined in Code Section 50-27-70, and owners or operators of businesses where bona fide coin operated amusement machines are available for commercial use and play by the public, provided that such amusement machines have affixed current stickers showing payment of annual permit fees, in accordance with Code Section 50-27-78;

(21) Merchants or dealers as defined in Code Section 48-5-354 as to their deliveries to businesses and practitioners of professions and occupations in areas zoned for commercial use; and

(22) Any other business, profession, or occupation for which state licensure or registration is required by state law, unless the state law regulating such business, profession, or occupation specifically allows for regulation by local governments.

(d) This Code section shall not be construed to repeal other general laws which allow or require regulation of businesses, occupations, or professions by local governments.

(e) For each business, profession, or occupation, local governments are authorized to determine the amount of a regulatory fee imposed in accordance with this article only by one of the following methods:

(1) A flat fee for each business or practitioner of a profession or occupation doing business in the jurisdiction as authorized by Code Section 48-13-8;

(2) A flat fee for each type of permit or inspection requested;

(3) An hourly rate determined by the hourly wage or salary, including employee benefits, of the person or persons assigned to investigate or inspect multiplied by the number of hours estimated for the investigation or inspection to be performed;

(4) An hourly rate as determined by paragraph (3) of this subsection with the addition of other expenses reasonably related to such regulatory activity, such as administrative and travel expenses, multiplied by the number of hours estimated for the investigation or inspection to be performed;

(5) For construction projects that are classified as new construction, the number of square feet of construction or the number of square feet of construction to be served by the system to be installed, in conjunction with and limited by the building valuation data, as established from time to time by the International Code Council or by similar data, and in conjunction with and limited by the hourly rate described in paragraph (3) or (4) of this subsection; or

(6) For construction projects that are classified as renovation and all other construction projects other than those classified as new construction, the cost of the project in conjunction with and limited by the building valuation data that conforms with the principles and methods established from time to time by the International Code Council or by similar data, and in conjunction with and limited by the hourly rate described in paragraph (3) or (4) of this subsection. History. Code 1981, § 48-13-9, enacted by Ga. L. 1993, p. 1292, § 7; Ga. L. 1995, p. 419, § 1; Ga. L. 1999, p. 749, § 3; Ga. L. 2006, p. 544, § 2/HB 304; Ga. L. 2011, p. 227, § 28/SB 178; Ga. L. 2013, p. 37, § 2-3/HB 487. Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 1993, p. 1292, § 8, provided for the repeal of former Code Section 48-13-9, relating to county license fees for carnivals and other itinerant shows, effective January 1, 1995. That Code section was based on Ga. L. 1955, Ex. Sess., p. 17, § 1; Code 1933, § 91A-6005, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 309, § 2. Ga. L. 2013, p. 37, § 3-1/HB 487, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that: “(b) If any section of this Act is determined to be unconstitutional by a final decision of an appellate court of competent jurisdiction or by the trial court of competent jurisdiction if no appeal is made, with the exception of subsection (g) of Code Section 50-27-78 and Section 2-1 of this Act, this Act shall stand repealed by operation of law. “(c) This Act is not intended to and shall not be construed to affect the legality of the repair, transport, possession, or use of otherwise prohibited gambling devices on maritime vessels within the jurisdiction of the State of Georgia. To the extent that such repair, transport, possession, or use was lawful prior to the enactment of this Act, it shall not be made illegal by this Act; and to the extent that such repair, transport, possession, or use was prohibited prior to the enactment of this Act, it shall remain prohibited.” As of May 2022, no such finding has been issued. JUDICIAL DECISIONS Unconstitutional regulation of practice of law. — Occupational tax ordinance levied on professionals and requiring registration and a fee payment at the beginning of each year prior to the transaction of business operated as an unconstitutional precondition on the practice of law. Sexton v. City of Jonesboro, 267 Ga. 571, 481 S.E.2d 818, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 88 (1997). Annual renewal charge on Certificates of Public Necessity and Convenience held by taxicab drivers and companies is a regulatory fee, not a tax, and the charge is lawful because the city is authorized to regulate the business of operating taxicabs and vehicles for hire in which the certificates are used. Hadley v. City of Atlanta, 232 Ga. App. 871, 502 S.E.2d 784, 1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 865 (1998). Ordinance imposing an occupational tax. — Provisions in a city ordinance allowing the city to inspect an attorney’s financial records and to issue an execution to recover unpaid taxes due constituted neither a precondition to the practice of law nor an attempt to regulate such practice because the city’s right to review the financial records did not require the production of material protected by attorney-client privilege and gross revenue statements were specifically protected from disclosure. Moss v. City of Dunwoody, 293 Ga. 858, 750 S.E.2d 326, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 868 (2013). Excessive fees. — Fact that the county had increased the county’s fees for building permits and other real estate development fees when the county had accumulated a two million dollar surplus from those fees was evidence that the fees may have exceeded the reasonable cost of the county’s regulatory activity, and summary judgment for the county was reversed in a case alleging a violation of O.C.G.A. § 48-13-9. Home Builders Ass'n of Savannah v. Chatham County, 276 Ga. 243, 577 S.E.2d 564, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 170 (2003).