Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin <br />February 25, 2011 1 Volume 51 No. 4 <br />The court explained that the burden rested on TALP, the challenger of <br />the fee, to show that the fee was unreasonable. TALP had to show that <br />the fee did not bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of regulating <br />the industry. In other words, TALP had to show that the fee was being <br />used to raise revenue for general governmental purposes by either: (1) <br />establishing that "the fee was enacted for the purpose of raising revenues <br />for the general fund "; or (2) demonstrating that "the fee was unreason- <br />able because it was disproportionate to the cost of the services rendered <br />or to the `government's costs of regulating and policing a business or <br />activity.'" <br />Here, the inspection fee was enacted for a proper purpose: to compen- <br />sate the City for the costs of conducting civil inspections. Thus, it was <br />TALP's burden to show the fee was unreasonable: TALP had to show <br />that the City's civil inspection revenues exceeded the City's civil inspec- <br />tion expenses by an unreasonable amount. TALP failed to make that <br />showing, found the court. Rather, the City's five -year analysis showed <br />that the City's costs exceeded its revenues. TALP did not present any reli- <br />able evidence to dispute the City's five -year costs /revenue analysis, nor <br />did TALP show how application of a different fee would have led to a <br />more reasonable result. Therefore, the court concluded that the fee was <br />reasonable and thus was not unconstitutional. <br />See also: Home Builders Ass'n v. City of North Logan, 1999 UT 63, 983 <br />P.2d 561 (Utah 1999). <br />See also: Home Builders Ass'n of Utah v. City of American Fork, 1999 <br />UT 7, 973 P.2d 425 (Utah 1999). <br />Case Note: In its decision, the court also held that a multiyear anal- <br />ysis of costs /revenue in determining the reasonableness of an inspec- <br />tion fee is "an appropriate approach for analyzing whether a [mu- <br />nicipality's] costs exceed its revenues." The rationale for such an ap- <br />proach, explained the court, is that: "a city's disbursement for its <br />regulatory expenses `may so vary from time to time that the surplus <br />of one year may be needed to supply the deficiency of another. "' <br />Rezoning —Town Rezones Property to <br />Commercial <br />Nearby residential residents say rezone is invalid because it <br />conflicts with comprehensive plan <br />Citation: Ferraro v. Town Bd. of Town of Amherst, 79 A.D.3d 1691, <br />2010 WL 5395786 (4th Dep't 2010) <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />