Opinion ID: 1202187
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: validity of the ordinance

Text: TAB's remaining contentions, concerning the prematurity of the fee, the trial court's finding that the City was out of water on January 6, 1986, and the changes in the amounts of the fee, are relevant to the question whether the ordinance was a proper exercise of the City's legislative authority. The standard of review of a challenged city ordinance is well established. If the presumptive reasonableness of legislative action is challenged by probative evidence of unreasonableness, the challenge must be met by evidence of reasonableness. If such evidence of reasonableness is sufficient to make the issue fairly debatable, the legislative action must be sustained; if not, the evidence of unreasonableness defeats the presumption and the legislative act cannot be sustained. Town of Narrows v. Clear-View Cable TV, 227 Va. 272, 280-81, 315 S.E.2d 835, 840, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 925, 105 S.Ct. 315, 83 L.Ed.2d 253 (1984) (citations omitted). In reviewing this issue we must give full credit to the presumption of validity of the challenged legislation and also accord the trial court's finding a presumption of correctness. Id. at 281, 315 S.E.2d at 840. The trial court's finding may be set aside only if, based on the record, it is clearly wrong. Code § 8.01-680; Bankers Credit Serv. of Vermont v. Dorsch, 231 Va. 273, 343 S.E.2d 339 (1986).