passed enactments concerning home-rule authority. If the legislature thought it would be good public policy to allow a city to raise revenue by charging a franchise fee in excess of the reasonable costs of inspecting, licensing, supervising, or otherwise regulating the activity, the legislature could have done so. Consequently, any franchise fee charged by a city must be reasonably related to the city’s administrative expenses in the exercise of its police power. These expenses include the reasonable costs of inspecting, licensing, supervising, or otherwise regulating the activity the city is franchising. This holding, however, does not require the city to calculate its administrative expenses to a mathematical certainty. See Bloom v. City of Fort Collins, 784 P.2d 304, 308 (Colo.1989) (<HOLDING>). There is a broad presumption that an
holding rule 45b does not require personal service to the exclusion of other manners of service so long as the nonpersonal service was effected by means reasonably sure to complete delivery holding special fees are not required to be determined to a mathematical exactitude as long as the ordinance creating the fee is reasonably designed to defray the cost of the particular service rendered by the municipality holding that fee application must be sufficiently detailed to allow court to make an independent evaluation as to what fees are actual and necessary and finding that failure to keep contemporaneous records does not automatically result in denial of the fees but the lack thereof justifies a reduction of the fee to the level proven holding that validity of regulations will be sustained as long as  reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation  holding that awarded fees were reasonable and that proof that attorneys fees are necessary apart from testimony as to the reasonableness of the fee is not required