Ford v. Orlando Utilities Com'n
| Decision Date | 06 January 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 81440,81440 |
| Citation | 629 So.2d 845 |
| Parties | Util. L. Rep. P 26,381, 19 Fla. L. Weekly S17 Jim FORD, etc., Petitioner, v. ORLANDO UTILITIES COMMISSION, etc., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Frank J. Griffith, Jr. of Cianfrongna, Telfer, Reda & Feherty, P.A., Titusville, Joe Teague Caruso, Merritt Island, and Larry E. Levy, Tallahassee, for petitioners.
Thomas B. Tart, Orlando Utilities Com'n, Steven R. Bechtel of Mateer, Harbert & Bates, P.A., and Leon H. Handley and Robert S. Green of Gurney & Handley, P.A., Orlando, for respondents.
Kraig A. Conn, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Florida League of Cities, Inc., and Frederick M. Bryant and William J. Peebles of Moore, Williams, Bryant, Peebles & Gautier, P.A., Tallahassee, amici curiae for Florida League of Cities, Inc., Florida Mun. Elec. Ass'n, Florida Mun. Power Agency, City of Alachua, City of Bushnell, Gainesville Regional Utilities, Kissimmee Utility Authority, Utilities Com'n of the City of New Smyrna Beach, and City of Ocala.
We have for review Northcutt v. Orlando Utilities Commission, 614 So.2d 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), in which the district court held that property owned by the Orlando Utilities Commission in Brevard County is entitled to the constitutional tax exemption for municipal property as provided under article VII, section 3(a), Florida Constitution. The district court certified the following as a question of great public importance:
WHERE A MUNICIPALITY, PURSUANT TO STATUTORY AUTHORITY, LOCATES ON ITS PROPERTY IN ANOTHER COUNTY AN ELECTRICAL GENERATING PLANT WHICH SUPPLIES MOST OF ITS ELECTRICITY TO SUCH MUNICIPALITY'S RESIDENTS AND THE REMAINDER TO PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANIES, BUT DOES NOT SUPPLY ANY ELECTRICAL POWER TO THE RESIDENTS OF SUCH COUNTY, IS SUCH MUNICIPALLY OWNED PROPERTY EXEMPT FROM AD VALOREM TAXATION?
We have jurisdiction. 1 For the reasons expressed, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve in its entirety the opinion of the district court.
The following facts are uncontroverted. The Orlando Utilities Commission was created by special legislation to be a part of the government of the City of Orlando. This special legislation specifically authorizes the Commission to operate electric generating plants, transmission lines, and facilities incident thereto within the boundaries of Orange County and neighboring Brevard County. The Commission constructed its Indian River plant on land in Brevard County and erected transmission lines leading from the plant back to Orange County and the City of Orlando. Most of the electricity generated by the plant is directed to Orange County; however, pursuant to state and federal law concerning the coordination of electric utilities, some of the electricity generated by the Indian River Plant is sold via the interconnecting power grid system to Florida Power and Light, a privately owned investor utility. None of the electricity generated by the Indian River Plant is supplied directly to consumers in Brevard County.
Jim Ford, Brevard County Property Appraiser, placed the Commission's property on the tax roll for 1989 and attempted to back assess the property for the previous three years. The Commission filed suit to enjoin Ford from denying the Commission's tax exempt status and to void the attempted back assessment. The outcome of the matter turned on the proper construction of article VII, section 3(a), Florida Constitution, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) All property owned by a municipality and used exclusively by it for municipal or public purposes shall be exempt from taxation. A municipality, owning property outside the municipality, may be required by general law to make payment to the taxing unit in which the property is located....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fla. Dept. of Rev. V. City of Gainesville
...exclusively by a municipality, we have not elaborated on the meaning of "municipal or public purposes." In Ford v. Orlando Utilities Commission, 629 So.2d 845, 846 (Fla.1994), this Court concluded that property located outside Orlando but owned and used by the city for an electrical power p......
-
Dept. of Rev. v. City of Gainesville
...purpose.2 The provision of utility type services has always been considered to be a tax exempt municipal purpose. Ford v. Orlando Utils. Comm'n, 629 So.2d 845 (Fla.1994). Relying on language contained in Sebring Airport Auth. v. McIntyre, 783 So.2d 238 (Fla.2001), appellant and the dissent ......
-
Lederer v. Orlando Utilities Com'n
...So. 264, 265 (1938); Northcutt v. Orlando Utils. Comm'n, 614 So.2d 612, 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), approved sub nom, Ford v. Orlando Utils. Comm'n, 629 So.2d 845 (Fla.1994). The special act established the OUC as a "part of the government of the City of Orlando," provided that the OUC would h......
-
Capfa Capital Corp. 2000A v. Donegan
...and SAWAYA, JJ., concur. 1. Florida Department of Revenue v. City of Gainesville, 918 So.2d 250 (Fla.2005); Ford v. Orlando Utilities Commission, 629 So.2d 845 (Fla.1994); Schultz v. Crystal River Three Participants, 686 So.2d 1391, 1393 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied; 697 So.2d 512 2. Courts ......