Town of Indian River Shores v. City of Vero Beach

• Decision Date: 10 May 2023
• Docket Number: 4D22-1646
• Parties: TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the Laws of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. CITY OF VERO BEACH, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the Laws of the State of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

1

TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the Laws of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. CITY OF VERO BEACH, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the Laws of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D22-1646

Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District

May 10, 2023

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Indian River County; Janet Carney Croom, Judge; L.T. Case No 312020CA000576.

Kevin W. Cox, Tiffany A. Roddenberry and D. Bruce May of Holland & Knight LLP, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Rachael M. Crews and Thomas A. Cloud of Gray Robinson, P.A. Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The Town of Indian River Shores appeals a final summary judgment in favor of the City of Vero Beach on the Town's declaratory judgment and breach of contract claims against the City. We affirm.

The Town claimed that its contract with the City to supply the Town with water required the City to match the County's rates for the same rate classifications. When the City refused to reduce its rate for pressurized reclaimed water to the County's rate for non-pressurized reclaimed water the Town sued, arguing that the contract required the City to match the County's rate. The City, however, was providing pressurized reclaimed water, and the prior County rate category was simply for reclaimed water. The trial court found that the "Non-pressurized Reclaimed Water" was a different classification than "Pressurized Reclaimed Water," and thus according to the terms of the contract, the City did not have to meet the County rate. Viewing the entire record, we agree with the trial court that

2

the contract was not ambiguous, and no genuine issue of material fact remained in dispute.

Even if there was ambiguity in the contract, as advocated by the Town, the trial court was also correct that the City was entitled to set its rates as it deemed reasonable. "[R]ate-setting for municipal utilities is a legislative function to be performed by legislative bodies like local municipal governments and the commissions to which these bodies delegate such authority." Mohme v. City of Cocoa, 328 So.2d 422, 424 (Fla. 1976). As applied to contracts for a municipality to provide water, our supreme court has held that as long as "a contract does not require the city to supply water at less than cost, then the contract is not invalid" as an unreasonable limitation upon municipal powers. City of Daytona Beach v Stansfield, 258 So.2d 809, 810 (Fla. 1972) (citing City of Safety Harbor v. Pinellas...