Opinion ID: 2585470
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fixed and Reasonable Time Restraints

Text: ¶ 49 The Midvale licensing scheme prescribes fixed and reasonable time periods for application review and does not contain language that might cause undue delay. The licensor must make the decision whether to issue the license within a specified time period and the appeals process subsequent to a denial is clear and unambiguous. The time periods for initial decision and appeal are mandatory and, at forty-five to sixty days, are well within limits that have been deemed acceptable by other courts. See City of Colorado Springs v. Baby Dolls, 896 P.2d 272, 282 (Colo.1995) (upholding forty-day limit); Nightclubs, Inc. v. City of Paducah, 202 F.3d 884, 892 (6th Cir.2000) (noting that under Supreme Court case law, processes including judicial review with `potential delays of over five months are impermissible' (citations omitted)). ¶ 50 Moreover, the ordinance requires timely review, specified appeals processes, and mandatory approvals in cases where the city fails to act. See, e.g., Midvale City, Utah, Midvale City Code § 5.56.130(E) (1998) (if agency fails to approve within 15-day extension, premises shall be deemed approved). These provisions are of the type and kind specifically found to be reasonable under FW/PBS, Inc. and Freedman. See generally Lee R. Russ, Annotation, Validity of Statutes or Ordinances Requiring Sex-Oriented Businesses to Obtain Operating Licenses, 8 A.L.R.4th 130 (1981) (listing cases where ordinances have been found to be both constitutional and unconstitutional as prior restraints). ¶ 51 Chief Justice Durham argues that the relatively innocuous phrase good cause injects the possibility of indeterminacy into the licensing process. This is a mistake. First, the record contains no suggestion that the phrase has ever been invoked. Second, the phrase is omnipresent in the legal field, and is very likely surplusage as used here. Third, we can find no authority to support the concept that this phrase has ever been found to supply a level of indeterminacy necessary to void legislation. Finally, as we discuss below, even if we were to find this phrase problematic, the proper course of action would be to sever the offending words from the ordinance and leave intact the municipality's intent. ¶ 52 Even if we were to determine that the likely unintentional inclusion of the phrase good cause in the ordinance renders it constitutionally suspect, we must determine if that phrase is severable. The fact that the phrase has failed to attract judicial consideration in any similar context notwithstanding, the words are surplusage and clearly severable without affecting the legitimate purpose of the statute. ¶ 53 When reviewing the construction of statutes, the general rule is `that statutes, where possible, are to be construed so as to sustain their constitutionality. Accordingly, if a portion of the statute might be saved by severing the part that is unconstitutional, such should be done.' State v. Lopes, 1999 UT 24, ¶ 18, 980 P.2d 191 (quoting Celebrity Club, Inc. v. Utah Liquor Control Comm'n, 657 P.2d 1293, 1299 (Utah 1982)). ¶ 54 In determining whether an unconstitutional portion is severable, we look to legislative intent. Lopes, 1999 UT 24 at ¶ 19, 980 P.2d 191. When the legislature's intent is not expressly stated, we turn to the statute itself, and examine the remaining constitutional portion of the statute in relation to the stricken portion. If the remainder of the statute is operable and still furthers the intended legislative purpose, the statute will be allowed to stand. Id.; see also Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 717 P.2d 670, 686 (Utah 1985) (`Severability, where part of an act is unconstitutional, is primarily a matter of legislative intent[,]' which generally is determined by whether the remaining portions of the act can stand alone and serve a legitimate purpose. (Citations omitted)). The test fundamentally is whether the legislature would have passed the statute without the objectionable [i.e., the unconstitutional] part.... Union Trust Co. v. Simmons, 116 Utah 422, 429, 211 P.2d 190, 193 (1949); see also Berry, 717 P.2d at 686. ¶ 55 Although the ordinance does not include any indication of legislative intent regarding severability, it is indisputable that the ordinance is not only operable without the phrase, but completely unchanged. The phrase good cause is present in countless statutes, court rules, and contracts for no greater reason than word smiths believe it sounds lawyerly. In the present ordinance, the phrase serves no express or clear purpose, and is severable without any effect on the legitimate purpose of the ordinance. Thus, we must not smite the entire ordinance, leaving it neither root nor branch. Rather, pruning the vine would offer a more circumspect solution.