SOUTHERN GULF UTILITIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
A municipality is not indefinitely bound by a contract to supply water at a fixed rate and may change rates by ordinance, but only if the new rate is reasonable and determined to be so.
[1] A municipality's statutory authority to set and readjust water rates is not irrevocably surrendered by a contract to supply water at a fixed rate.
[2] A municipality may not arbitrarily change a contractually set water rate by ordinance without demonstrating that the new rate is reasonable.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSouthern Gulf Utilities contracted with the City of North Miami Beach for water at a fixed rate. The City later adopted an ordinance increasing the ra…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contract Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, VINCENT T., Associate Judge.
Appellant, Southern Gulf Utilities, Inc., appeals from a final declaratory judgment in favor of the Appellee, City of North Miami. Beach, finding that the City of North Miami Beach does have the exclusive power and authority to determine, change, and or readjust its water rates or charges from time to time.1 The trial Court further held that City Ordinance No. 74-11, adopted and approved by the City of North Miami Beach on the 18th day of June, 1974, establishing a new water rate schedule of Fifty Cents per one thousand gallons, was legal, valid and proper; and therefore binding upon Southern Gulf Utilities, Inc. The record of the trial Court discloses that Chapter 26054, Special Acts of Florida, became effective May 17th, 1949. By the terms of the Act, the City of North Miami Beach was empowered with authority to create, own, and operate a waterworks system in and surrounding the City. It was also empowered with authority to set and collect uniform rates for providing water, and “Readjust such rates or charges from time to time.”
On July 14, 1964, Southern Gulf Utilities, Inc., and the City of North Miami Beach entered into a contract for the supply of water to Southern Gulf Utilities, Inc., by the City waterworks system created under the provisions of Chapter 26054, Special Acts of Florida. The terms of the contract provided that the City of North Miami Beach would agree to supply water to Southern Gulf Utilities, Inc., at a rate of Twenty-eight Cents per 1,000 gallons of water. The contract did not provide for a time limit, and it would appear that the City was bound by the terms of the contract ad infinitum.
On July 18, 1974, the City of North Miami Beach adopted Ordinance No. 74-11 establishing a new uniform rate schedule of Fifty Cents per 1,000 gallons of water applicable to all bulk users of water, including Southern Gulf Utilities, Inc. The express purposes of the Ordinance were to prevent default in City bonds, provide adequate revenue to operate the system, upgrade the City’s water system, and conserve precious palatable water. Southern Gulf Utilities, Inc., contends that the City of North Miami Beach, even though a Municipality, is bound by the terms and conditions of the contract entered into by the parties on July 14th, 1964, and that there is no evidence that the City of North Miami Beach made a determination that the increase in the water rate as reflected by City Ordinance 74-11 bore any relationship to the cost of water or its distribution to the bulk users, such as Southern Gulf Utilities, Inc.,
The salient questions confronting this Court are:
(1) Whether the Municipality is bound by the terms of the Contract for an indefinite term, thereby preventing any future City Commission from exercising the authority and power conferred upon it by a special act of Florida, in effect at the time of the execution of the contract.
(2) Whether the Municipality may, by Ordinance, arbitrarily change a rate set by contract without a showing that the rate change is reasonable, i. e., bearing some relation to the costs, reserves, and other related items incurred in the operation of the system.
With respect to the initial question, this Court is bound by the opinion of our Florida Supreme Court in City of Tampa v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 45 Fla. 600, 34 So. 631 (1903) wherein it was recognized in a similar situation:
“The section not only becomes a part of every contract, as much so as if written therein, but by implication it denies the authority of the Legislative to bind itself, either by a contract of its own making or one made by a Municipality under its authorization, not to exercise the power thereby recognized whenever in its wisdom it should think necessary so to do. The effect of this section is to reserve to the Legislative full power at all times, notwithstanding any supposed contract not to exercise it, to require water companies and others mentioned in the section to comply with their common-law obligation to supply their customers at reasonable rates’’
Therefore, in the instant case, this Court finds that the City of North Miami Beach is not bound by the terms of the contract, and must exercise such power and authority as is conferred upon it by a Special Act in effect at the time of the execution of the contract. The trial Court’s ruling that the City of North Miami Beach does have the exclusive power and authority to determine, change, and or readjust its water rates or charges from time to time is therefore affirmed.
With regard to the second question involved herein, the Court feels that the trial Court erred in determining that a Municipality may change a rate set in a contract between the parties, by an Ordinance, without a showing that the new rate change is reasonable.
The record of the trial Court fails to show that the City of North Miami Beach, at the time of the adoption of Ordinance No. 74-11, made any determination that the rate increase was reasonable. In lieu of this determination, it appears that the rate increase was arbitrarily based upon the need for revenue for Municipal bonds, operation of the City water system and conservation of palatable water. In City of Tampa v. Tampa Waterworks, Co., supra, the Supreme Court opined:
“Water companies and others mentioned in the section to comply with their common-law obligation to supply their customers at reasonable rates.”
Similarly, this Court has recognized that a Municipality must furnish water to its customers at “a reasonable rate.” City of Miami Beach v. City of North Bay Village, 313 So. 2d 126 (Fla.App.1975)
Therefore, with respect to the trial Court’s ruling finding that City Ordinance No. 74 — 11 was duly, legally and constitutionally adopted by the City Council of the City of North Miami Beach, we reverse and find that it is not legal and binding on Southern Gulf Utilities, Inc., because of the failure of the City of North Miami Beach to make a determination that the rate increase, authorized by City Ordinance No. 74-11, was reasonable.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
. Pursuant to Chapter 26054, Laws of Florida Special Acts of 1949, and the code of Ordinance of the City of North Miami Beach; irrespective of the provisions contained in an agreement dated July 14th, 1964, between Southern Gulf Utilities, Inc., and the City of North Miami Beach.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Killearn Props., Inc. v. City OF Tallahassee, 366 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…trial court gave KPI the benefit of the agreement during the period of its existence. KPI is entitled to no more. [*183] After the trial court entered its judgment in this case, relying on Southern Gulf Utilities, Inc. v. City of North Miami Beach, 323 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), the Supreme Court held that that decision was correct in recognizing the city’s power to change its rates or charges notwithstanding a prior contract, but that the District Court of Appeal erred in holding that the city could not…1 / 4
-
City OF N. Miami Beach v. S. Gulf Utils., Inc., 339 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1976)…SUNDBERG, Justice. This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 323 So. 2d 669. It is maintained that there is conflict with City of Tampa v. Tampa Water Works Co., 45 Fla. 600, 34 So. 631 (1903), insofar as the decision under review determines that a municipality may not change a rate set in a contract between the parties, by…
-
S. Gulf Utils., Inc. v. City OF N. Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…PER CURIAM. WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on November 25, 1975 (323 So. 2d 669) affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida in the above styled cause, and WHEREAS, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment f…
Authorities Cited
- The City of Tampa v. The Tampa Waterworks Co., 45 Fla. 600 (Fla. 1903)
- City OF Miami Beach v. City OF N. BAY Vill., 313 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)