90 Pa. Commw. 80 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1985
Opinion by
Roberta Stark appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County which denied her post-trial motion in arrest of judgment in an action convicting her of a violation of the Township of Ridley solicitation ordinance by failing to obtain the required license for door-to-door sale of goods.
In a trial de novo on appeal from her summary conviction, Stark challenged the reasonableness of the $150 annual fee for the license. We must determine whether Judge Diggins correctly concluded that the license fee was reasonable.
In Armour & Company v. City of Pittsburgh, 363 Pa. 109, 112-13, 69 A.2d 405, 407 (1949), the Supreme Court characterized a “license fee” as
one exacted for the purpose of regulating an occupation or privilege which is deemed to be in need of public control, and, ordinarily, it is designed for the sole purpose of reimbursing the sovereign, in whole or in part, for the necessary expense of administering such control; if it exceeded the amount required for that purpose it would become a tax revenue and cease to be a valid license fee.
The party challenging the license fee has the burden of proving that it is not reasonable. Flynn v.
At trial, Stark presented evidence that the municipalities surrounding Ridley Township have significantly lower license fees — none in excess of $35 per year. However, evidence of the license fees charged by surrounding municipalities is of no relevance to' the reasonableness of the Ridley Township license fee, particularly in the absence of any evidence regarding the cost of administering and enforcing the solicitation ordinances in those other municipalities.
. On the other hand, Ridley Township called its Manager and the Captain of the Township Police Department who testified that the number of hours required to administer and enforce the Ridley Township ordinance includes:
(1) Clerical Staff: One-half hour processing the application;
(2) Police Department: One hour screening applicants, their business organizations, and any vehicles which applicants will use for business purposes;
(3) Police Department: One hour per week responding to and investigating complaints regarding door-to-door solicitation.
The township also introduced evidence that one hour of police service costs Ridley Township $25.57. Therefore, the township’s annual cost in police enforcement time alone would be $1,329.64 (52 hours multiplied by $25.57), well in excess of the $700 total amount of such license fees collected over the year 1982.
Consequently, the license fee amount is reasonable.
Stark also relies on Olan Mills, Inc. v. City of Sharon, 371 Pa. 609, 92 A.2d 222 (1952), where the Supreme Court invalidated a $200 monthly license for all transient retailers, and stated:
[The ordinance] does more than license; it collects revenue which is not used or needed in the enforcement of the ordinance, for the record shows that the enforcement of the ordinance imposes no unusual extra expense on the city.
Id. at 612, 92 A.2d at 223. However, the court invalidated that license fee because it improperly included the cost of litigation, and indicated that a fee which is not “disproportionate to whatever expenses might be required to regulate the business in question” is permissible. Id. at 612, 92 A.2d at 224.
We conclude that Judge Higgins did not err in including the costs of general police enforcement in his calculation of the costs of administering and enforcing the Ridley Township solicitation ordinance, and that, therefore, Ms. Stark did not sustain the burden of establishing that the license fee is unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Order
Now, June 12,1985, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County at No. SA348-82, dated July 18, 1983 is affirmed.
Ms. Stark raises other constitutional issues which we cannot consider because she did not raise them at the trial court level. Pa. R.A.P. 302.