Opinion ID: 2542695
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Increased Appeals Fee

Text: At the outset of this litigation, Fremont County charged an $80 fee for an administrative appeal, but it increased this fee to $550.00 in May 2001. This increase applied to Cowan's appeals filed after May 2001. Cowan argues, therefore, that this increase represents an excessive appeal fee that prevents parties from seeking review of planning and zoning decisions and thus violates due process. The Board contends that Cowan lacks the standing to make his argument and that the argument is moot because he did not properly appeal this legislative action taken by the County. While such a large fee increase could implicate due process concerns if it were unreasonable or were used to discourage appeals, this Court lacks jurisdiction to examine the County's fee increase by direct judicial review. To begin, the decision to raise the appeals fee was a legislative act. Legislative activity . . . is differentiated from quasi-judicial activity by the result  legislative activity produces a rule or policy which has application to an open class whereas quasi-judicial activity impacts specific individuals, interests or situations. Burt v. City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 67, 665 P.2d 1075, 1077 (1983). While legislative actions by counties are subject to collateral actions such as declaratory judgments, they cannot be attacked by a petition for judicial review. Scott v. Gooding County, 137 Idaho 206, 208, 46 P.3d 23, 25 (2002). Therefore, because Cowan attacks a legislative action in his petition for review, this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the issue under the procedural posture of Cowan's instant appeal.