Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> C. License Fees <br /> License fees are presumed to be valid in the absence of evidence to the <br /> contrary, and a court will not hold them unreasonable unless they are <br /> palpably so. See Minneapolis Street Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis, <br /> 236 Minn. 109, 52 N.W.2d 120 (1952);State ex rel Remick v. Clousing, <br /> 205 Minn. 296, 285 N.W. 711 (1939). However, fees that are grossly <br /> disproportionate to administrative costs at the time of the adoption of a <br /> statute or ordinance may constitute a "tax in disguise" and may be an <br /> invalid exercise of police powers. See Investment Company Institute v. <br /> Hatch, 477 N.W.2d 747 (Minn. App. 1991); State v. Northern Raceway <br /> Corp. 381 N.W.2d 526 (Minn. App. 1986)(cost included in licensing fee <br /> must be only the cost of regulating the licensed business itself and not the <br /> general public); cf. Lyons v. City of Minneapolis, 241 Minn. 439, 63 <br /> N.W.2d 585 (1954)(If a business has the potentiality of developing or <br /> generating into a nuisance, protection of public welfare may, from a police <br /> power standpoint,justify imposition of a license fee large enough to <br /> operate as a restraint upon those who might otherwise engage in such <br /> business). <br /> D. License Denial <br /> Standards for excluding persons from engaging in a licensed activity must <br /> bear a reasonable relationship to their qualifications to engage in that <br /> activity. See Alexander v. City of St. Paul, 303 Minn. 201, 227 N.W.2d <br /> 370 (1975); Peterson v. Minneapolis City Council, 274 N.W.2d 918 <br /> (Morn. 1979)(denial of massage parlor license upheld). The burden of <br /> proof to show that a license should be granted is on the applicant. See <br /> 4 <br />