Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. City and County of Denver

Decision Date26 March 1992
Docket NumberNo. 90CA2107,RENT-A-CAR,90CA2107
Citation833 P.2d 852
PartiesTHRIFTYSYSTEM, INC., an Oklahoma corporation d/b/a Thrifty Car Rental, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee. . III
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

Kelly/Haglund/Garnsey & Kahn, Edwin S. Kahn, Christine L. Murphy, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.

Patricia L. Wells, City Atty., Helen Eckardt Raabe, Asst. City Atty., Denver, for defendant-appellee.

Opinion by Judge RULAND.

Plaintiff, Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc., appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, City and County of Denver. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Until March 1, 1990, Thrifty operated an off-airport car rental company near Denver's Stapleton International Airport. Thrifty did not maintain either a sales counter at the terminal or a reservation telephone at Stapleton. To service its customers there, Thrifty provided a free shuttle service to and from Stapleton.

Prior to July 1, 1989, Thrifty paid a specified permit fee imposed by the Department of Public Works for each courtesy van entering the airport's terminal. However, effective that date, the manager of the department developed and imposed new ground transportation regulations and fees on Thrifty. These regulations imposed both a transaction and a privilege fee. Under this fee structure, Thrifty was required to pay a transaction fee of approximately $6 per rental to airport customers after $25,000 in gross revenues was received during that calendar month.

Thrifty filed an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief challenging the legality of both the privilege and transaction fees. Because Thrifty sold its rental car business effective March 1, 1990, the claims addressed in the summary judgment proceeding were limited to whether Thrifty was entitled to a refund.

I

As pertinent here, Denver Revised Municipal Code § 5-16(e) provides:

The manager of public works shall have the power and authority ... to establish and set rates, fees and charges as shall be necessary to meet the needs for operating the Denver Municipal Airport system including without limitation the expenses for bonded indebtedness ... its operating expenses, and expenses for construction, reconstruction, replacement, repair and any similar activity for any facility within the system. The manager of public works shall be further empowered ... to reasonably apportion these expenses among the airlines, concessionaires, businesses and other users of the system based upon their present or future projected use of the facilities. (emphasis added)

First, Thrifty argues that the trial court erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that the transaction and access fees were a reasonable apportionment of airport expenses. Specifically, Thrifty maintains that there is a disputed issue of material fact regarding the apportionment of the fees and that, therefore, entry of summary judgment on this issue was improper. We agree.

Summary judgment is a drastic remedy and is never warranted unless there is a clear showing that no genuine issue as to any material fact exists. Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336 (Colo.1988). Further, if the affidavits or the contents of discovery reflect that a material issue of fact remains for resolution, summary judgment should not be entered. Civil Service Commission v. Pinder, 812 P.2d 645 (Colo.1991). Finally, in determining whether a material issue of fact exists, we must resolve any doubt in favor of the non-moving party, and Thrifty must also receive the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn from the undisputed facts. Mancuso v. United Bank, 818 P.2d 732 (Colo.1991).

In support of the trial court's ruling, the City relies upon evidence that Thrifty was paying similar or greater fees at other airports, that the City considered the overall benefit to Thrifty's business which results from its operations at the airport, and that there is ample legal support for the reasonableness of the fees under case law addressing those fees in the context of various constitutional challenges. In this regard, the City relies upon cases such as Alamo Rent-A-Car v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority, 906 F.2d 516 (11th Cir.1990) (transaction fee did not violate Commerce Clause); Airline Car Rental, Inc. v. Shreveport Airport Authority, 667 F.Supp. 303 (W.D.La.1987) (transaction fee does not violate Equal Protection Clause). In our view, however, these cases are inapposite to the issues before us.

Here, the ordinance requires reasonable apportionment of the expenses of the airport among the airlines, concessionaires, businesses, and other users of Stapleton, not other airports. Hence, the fees paid by Thrifty elsewhere are not dispositive.

Similarly, the overall benefit to Thrifty's business is not controlling because that fact, standing alone, does not address the required apportionment. Accordingly, we conclude that evidence proffered by Thrifty to the effect that the charges are unrelated to airport expenses and that the expenses do not appear to be reasonably apportioned was sufficient to demonstrate a material issue of material fact for resolution at trial.

II

Second, Thrifty contends that the trial court erred in ruling that the transaction fee was a permissible user's fee instead of ruling that it was an illegal income tax. Thrifty specifically argues that the transaction fee imposed by Stapleton is valid only if it relates to the cost of services provided to Thrifty. According to Thrifty, the transaction fee imposed is related only to Stapleton's desire to raise revenue, and it is, therefore, an unconstitutional income tax. We view Westrac, Inc. v. Walker Field, 812 P.2d 714 (Colo.App.1991) as dispositive on this issue, and we therefore concur with the trial court's ruling.

As noted in Westrac, the distinction between a fee and a tax does not depend upon its label but rather on the nature and function of the charge. See also Cherry Hills Farms, Inc. v. City of Cherry Hills Village, 670 P.2d 779 (Colo.1983).

A fee is designed to defray the expense of operating and improving the facility upon which it is imposed, whereas a tax is used to defray general municipal expenses. See Bloom v. City of Fort Collins, 784 P.2d 304 (Colo.1989); Western Heights Land Corp. v. City of Fort Collins, 146 Colo. 464, 362 P.2d 155 (1961).

Here, there is uncontroverted record support for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Vermont Soc. of Ass'n Executives v. Milne
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 8 Junio 2001
    ... ... the potential danger to our democratic system posed by abuses in lobbying, Congress and state ... of political speech"); Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Pearson, 390 F.2d 489, 491 (D.C.Cir.1968) ... Cf. Thrifty Rent-A-Car v. City of Denver, 833 P.2d 852, 855 ... ...
  • Saban Rent-A-Car LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 13 Marzo 2018
    ... ... Convention and Visitors Bureaus Pima County Attorney's Office, Tucson, By Regina L. Nassen, ... Ryerson, Counsel for amicus curiae City of Phoenix Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the ... 3 5 In August 2009, Saban RentACar, Inc. sought a refund of amounts it had paid under ... "relate to" or "relating to." See Thrifty RentACar Sys., Inc. v. City & County of Denver, ... ...
  • Bruce v. City of Colorado Springs
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • 15 Diciembre 2005
    ... ... (Adelphia) to construct and operate a cable system. Adelphia agreed to pay the City $4 million to ... McIntyre v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 86 P.3d 402 (Colo. 2004) ... I. Street ... Westrac, Inc. v. Walker Field, 812 P.2d 714 (Colo.App.1991). A ... City & County of Denver, 724 P.2d 1356 (Colo. 1986)(upholding storm ... 1998)(upholding building permit fees); Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. City & County of Denver, ... ...
  • New Mexico Mining Ass'n v. New Mexico Mining Com'n
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 28 Agosto 1996
    ... ... 882 P.2d 541, 545 (1994); AA Oilfield Serv., Inc. v. New Mexico State Corp. Comm'n, 118 N.M. 273, ... San Pedro Mining Corp. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 121 N.M. 194, 199, 909 P.2d 754, 759 ... See Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys. v. City & County of Denver, 833 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT