STATE
v.
CITY OF PENSACOLA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the City of Pensacola's authority to issue water revenue certificates to extend its water distribution system into unincorporated areas adjacent to the city. The court found that state law granted municipalities express and implied authority to extend municipal services beyond city limits for public health purposes, and that revenue from the water system was sufficient to service the debt.
The City of Pensacola had full authority to issue the water revenue certificates to extend its water distribution system into the adjacent unincorporated areas without requiring an approving vote of freeholders. State law granted municipalities express authority under Chapter 17118, Acts of 1935, and implied authority under Chapter 15425, Acts of 1931, to extend municipal services outside corporate limits when necessary for public health, safety, and welfare.
“to extend and execute all of its corporate powers applicable for the accomplishment of the purposes of this Act outside of its corporate limits, as hereinafter provided, and as may be desirable or necessary for the promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare or for the accomplishment of the purposes of the Act”
This quote from Chapter 17118, Acts of 1935, Section 1(C) establishes the express statutory authority for municipalities to extend services beyond their corporate limits for public health purposes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Pensacola sought to issue water revenue certificates dated July 1, 1940, to extend its water works system into unincorporated areas known …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
This appeal is from a final decree validating an issue of water revenue certificates of the City of Pensacola, dated July 1, 1940. The City contends that it has express authority under Chapter 17118, Acts of 1935, and implied authority under Chapter 15425, Acts of 1931, to issue said certificates for the purpose of extending its water works system.
It is admitted that the City is authorized to issue water ■revenue certificates for the purpose of improving' and ex*824tending its water supply and distribution system within the city limits. It is also admitted that if the City has power to extend its water distribution system into areas adjacent to but outside the city that it has power to issue water revenue certificates for that purpose so the only question we are concerned with here is the authority of the City to extend its waterworks system into the unincorporated area of Brownsville and West Pensacola adjacent to but'beyond the limits of the city.
Chapter 17118, Acts of 1935, was designed to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of all municipalities by the construction of water works system, sewage systems, garbage collection, and garbage disposal plants. Section 1 (C) of said Act authorizes any municipality “to extend and execute all of its corporate powers applicable for the accomplishment of the purposes of this Act outside of its corporate limits, as hereinafter provided, and as may be desirable or necessary for the promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare or for the accomplishment of the purposes of the Act.” Other provisions of the Act contribute to this general purpose as does Chapter 15425, Acts of 1931.
The ordinance authorizing the issuance of the certificates brought in question declared that it was necessary and imperative for the protection of the public health of the city to extend its water supply and distribution system into the unincorporated areas adjacent thereto known as Brownsville and West Pensacola. This declaration of policy was supported by the testimony of the city engineer and the county health officer and the basis for their judgment is convincing to anyone.
The record further discloses that the general taxing power of the City is not invoked for the payment of said certificates, that it is proposed to liquidate them, both prin*825cipal and interest, with net revenues from the water works system and that such revenues for the five years last past are shown to have been ample for this purpose. State v. City of Pensacola, 135 Fla. 239, 184 So. 768, supports this view.
On this showing, the chancellor held that the City was fully authorized to issue the certificates without an approving vote of the freeholders. Limited to the peculiar facts of this case, we find no error in his judgment so it is affirmed. See also State v. City of Tampa, 137 Fla. 29, 187 So. 604.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. City OF Riviera Beach, 397 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1981)…n of Riviera Beach v. State, 53 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1951), reversing the lower court and validating revenue bonds of the town, now the city of Riviera Beach, for the purchase of a water system located in another municipality; State v. City of Pensacola, 143 Fla. 823, 197 So. 520 (1940), validating revenue bonds to extend city’s water system into unincorporated areas adjacent to the city; State v. City of Tampa, 137 Fla. 29, 187 So. 604 (1939), validating sewer revenue bonds to extend city’s sewer system into un…
-
Lake Util. Servs., Inc. v. City OF Clermont, 727 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…public health, safety and welfare or for the accomplishment of the purposes of this chapter; provided, however, that said corporate powers shall not extend or apply within the corporate limits of another municipality. In State v. City of Pensacola, 143 Fla. 823, 197 So. 520 (1940), the supreme court held that the predecessor to the foregoing statutory provision authorized a municipality to extend its water service beyond its city limits. The court reasoned in part as follows: It is admitted that the City…1 / 2
-
Norwood W. Hope & H. Inc. v. City OF Gainesville, 195 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1967)…s is found, inter alia, in Chapter 8957, Special Act 1921, and Chapter 12760, Special Acts 1927. That this Court has likewise approved similar extensions see, for example, State v. City of Tampa, 137 Fla. 29, 187 So. 604; State v. City of Pensacola, 143 Fla. 823, 197 So. 520, and State v. City of Miami, Fla., 76 So. 2d 294. As for Point 5 : In regard to the last point cited by Appellants, suffice it to say that there is adequate material or evidence in the record of this case to fully support the actions o…
Authorities Cited
- State v. City of Tampa, 137 Fla. 29 (Fla. 1939)
- State v. City of Pensacola, 135 Fla. 239 (Fla. 1938)