THE STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
CITY OF FORT MYERS
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.
Florida challenged the City of Fort Myers' plan to consolidate its water, sewerage, and gas utilities and issue $550,000 in Municipal Utility Revenue Certificates secured by revenues from the combined operation. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's validation, holding that Chapter 180 of the Florida Statutes explicitly authorizes municipalities to consolidate utilities and pledge their combined revenues to secure debt.
The consolidation is authorized and the city may issue revenue certificates redeemable from the income of the joint operation. Chapter 180 of the Florida Statutes expressly permits municipalities to include two or more utilities in one project and to pledge revenues of all or any part of existing plants or systems to secure borrowing for utility improvements.
“any municipality availing itself of the "provisions of [the] chapter for the extension or improvement of any existing utility plant or system" may include two or more utilities in one project and, further, may pledge "the revenues of all or any part of any existing plants or systems ... to secure moneys advanced for the ... improvement of any utility plant or system or any part thereof or any combination thereof."”
This quote establishes the statutory authority under Chapter 180 for the city to consolidate utilities and pledge combined revenues for debt security.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Fort Myers owns and operates water, sewerage, and gas utilities. To fund extensions and improvements to these systems, the city proposed c…
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.
The City of Fort Myers owns and operates the sewerage system and the plants furnishing water and gas to its inhabitants. Efficiency demands that these properties be extended and improved. To obtain funds to accomplish this program it is proposed by the city to combine the three utilities and pledge the net revenues of the consolidated operation to the payment and retirement of $550,000 in “Municipal Utility Revenue Certificates.” Inasmuch as there are now outstanding and unpaid certain certificates secured by the net revenue of the water plant alone, the income available for retirement of the new issue will be subject to prior claim of the holders of these “Water Works Revenue Certificates.”
The circuit judge validated the proposed certificates and approved the plan of the city to conduct all three utilities as *682one unit. State of Florida appealed and now presents to us the dual question whether the consolidation is authorized and whether the city may issue certificates redeemable from the income of the joint operation.
The question may be answered by turning to Chapter 180 Florida Statutes, 1941, F.S.A., where, in Section 180.08, there is given authority to municipalities to extend utilities and repay from income money borrowed for the purpose. In the preceding section, paragraph (2), it is expressly provided that any municipality availing itself of the “provisions of [the] chapter for the extension or improvement of any existing utility plant or system” may include two or more utilities in one project and, further, may pledge “the revenues of all or any part of any existing plants or systems ... to secure moneys advanced for the ... improvement of any utility plant or system or any part thereof or any combination thereof.”
The court, in considering and construing Chapter 180, supra, originally Chapter 17118, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1935, seems to have arrived at conclusions with which the circuit judge’s decree is in harmony. State v. Town of River Junction, 125 Fla. 267, 169 So. 676; State v. City of Fort Pierce, 126 Fla. 184, 170 So. 742.
The decree is—
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, BUFORD, BROWN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
ADAMS, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. & the Taxpayers v. THE City OF Miami, 157 Fla. 726 (Fla. 1946)
-
State v. City of Pensacola, 40 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1949)…f Pensacola had the power to levy a tax on the purchases of electricity, gas, water and telephone services within the City of Pensacola. See Chapter 22829, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1945, F.S.A. § 167.43 — 1. The case of State v. City of Fort Myers, 156 Fla. 681, 24 So. 2d 50, involved certificates of indebtedness payable from the income of enumerated utilities owned by said city. The city owned and operated a sewer system. It supplied its inhabitants with gas and water. For various reasons it became necess…
-
State v. Fla. State Imp. Comm'n, 71 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1954)…fferent public improvements into one project for 'financing purposes. Compare State v. Florida State Improvement Commission, Fla., 48 So. 2d 156; State v. Florida State Improvement Commission, Fla., 47 So. 2d 601; State v. City of Fort Meyers, Fla., 24 So. 2d 50; State v. City of Daytona Beach, 160 Fla. 13, 33 So. 2d 218. The other questions presented by appellant have been considered and found to be without merit. Accordingly, the decree appealed from should be and it is hereby Affirmed. THOMAS, Acting…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Town of River Junction, 125 Fla. 267 (Fla. 1936)
- State v. City of Fort Pierce, 126 Fla. 184 (Fla. 1936)