Case Title: City of New Smyrna Beach v. Fish

Citation: 384 So. 2d 1272

Docket Number: 57043

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1980-07-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
384 So. 2d 1272 (1980)
CITY OF NEW SMYRNA BEACH, Petitioner,
v.
William J. FISH, Individually, and As Representative of a Class Consisting of Condominum Unit Owners within the City of New Smyrna Beach, Florida, Respondents.
No. 57043.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 17, 1980.
*1273 C. Allen Watts of Watts & Biernacki, DeLand, for petitioner.
John F. Bolt, New Smyrna Beach, for respondents.
ADKINS, Justice.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision of the First District Court of Appeal holding that Ordinances 40-76 and 45-75 of the City of New Smyrna Beach are unconstitutional. The court certified that its decision passes upon a question of great public interest. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. (1972).
Prior to October of 1975 the City of New Smyrna Beach provided garbage and trash collection services to residential units and business establishments in accordance with City Ordinance 907. Single-family residences, duplexes, and multi-family dwellings containing up to six units per building were charged $3.50 per month per unit for semi-weekly garbage collection and weekly collection of uncontainerized trash. All other multi-family dwellings, including apartments and condominiums were classified as business establishments and paid charges based on number and size of containers provided by the city, and the frequency of pickup. All garbage for apartments and condominiums, as well as businesses, were deposited in bulk containers or "dumpsters."
In October of 1975 the City passed Ordinance 45-75, amending Ordinance 907. The ordinance increased charges to both residential and business customers and reclassified the types of residential units that service was provided to. The fee for single-family residences and duplexes was increased to $4.00 per unit. Condominiums, multi-family dwellings and mobile homes in mobile home parks were now charged $2.50 per month per unit for garbage collection only. Trash collection would be provided on request of the management office and be paid for in accordance with Section 13-25 of the City Code of Ordinances.
In December of 1976 Ordinance 40-76 was passed amending Ordinance 45-75. As the City was running a deficit for the collection of garbage and trash, it was resolved that all dwelling units would be served on an equal schedule and be billed equally. All units were charged $2.50 per month for semi-weekly garbage collection and $1.50 per month for weekly collection of uncontained trash.
On May 26, 1977, the respondent (plaintiff below) filed a class action suit on behalf of the condominium unit owners of the City. He sought declaratory relief concerning the validity of garbage and trash collection rates established by Ordinance 40-76, and reimbursement of overcharges based upon the allegedly arbitrary and discriminatory rates established by Ordinances 40-76, and 45-75. The trial court found that, (1) the classification by the City of condominium units as "residential" was reasonable, *1274 and not arbitrary or capricious; (2) the rates for garbage and trash collection were uniform within the residential class, were neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, nor did they deny the members of the class equal protection of the law; and (3) the imposition of a flat rate for garbage and trash collection for all residential units was constitutional.
The First District Court of Appeal held that "ordinance 40-76 imposes on condominium residents, garbage collection fees which are disproportionately higher than the fees charged for the same [bulk] service, rendered at the same cost, to businesses. These ordinances are unconstitutional in their preferential treatment of businesses as contrasted with condominiums, but not otherwise." Fish v. City of New Smyrna Beach, 382 So. 2d 307, 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
The issues presented are whether the City's classifications and charges discriminate unconstitutionally against condominium residents and in favor of business users and residents of single family dwellings; and whether the respondents are entitled to a refund.
Judge Melvin in an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, wrote:
382 So. 2d  at 310-11.
We agree with Judge Melvin. We perceive no constitutional infirmity. When all factors are considered, we find that the ordinances and the rates charged, are neither arbitrary, unreasonable, nor discriminatory.
Section 180.13(2), Florida Statutes (1977) reads in part as follows:
With respect to utility rates set by municipalities:
*1275 12 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d Ed. 1970), § 35.37(b); quoted with approval in Pinellas Apartment Association, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, 294 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).
Contractors and Builders Association v. City of Dunedin, 329 So. 2d 314, 320 (Fla. 1976).
In State v. City of Miami Springs, 245 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1971), appellants contended that the rates charged for sewer services to different classes of users were arbitrary and discriminatory. Single family residences were charged a flat fee of $7.00 per month while all other users were charged a variable rate based on actual use, with a minimum charge of $7.00 per month. This Court held that these classifications were not unreasonable or arbitrary or in conflict with the state or federal constitutions or laws. 245 So. 2d  at 81.
In Stone v. Town of Mexico Beach, 348 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), appellants refused to pay the $3.50 monthly fee for garbage collection. The first occupied his home only four months of the year and refused to tender payment for the other eight months; the second, a year-round resident, testified that he never had any garbage for the town to collect, and refused to pay. The court held that there was "no constitutional infirmity in Mexico Beach imposing a flat rate, regardless of use, to fees charged for the collection and disposal of garbage." 348 So. 2d  at 42.
In Charlotte County v. Fiske, 350 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), after an area of the county became inundated with garbage the county charged a $51.00 annual "special assessment" to each residential unit owner in the sanitation district for a mandatory garbage disposal system. Commercial property owners were not assessed, but were required by the ordinance to contract for collection service with the franchised disposal company or obtain a permit to haul their own garbage. Recognizing there was a widely varied production of garbage among commercial units, the court held that the ordinance was not clearly shown to be arbitrary, oppressive, discriminatory or without basis in reason. 350 So. 2d  at 580.
In the instant case, the First District Court of Appeal stated:
382 So. 2d  at 310.
We agree with the district court that it is impossible to quantify the similarities and differences in the cost of garbage collection from the different classes of residential owners. Nevertheless, we also recognize that there are dissimilarities between the services provided not only to multi-unit residences and business customers, but that there are also different classifications of business customers.
As the garbage output produced by a condominium unit and a single-family residence may be uniform, and not vary to a large degree, a flat fee is both just and equitable. Unlike residential customers, business customers' garbage varies by type and quantity. A restaurant; an office; a supermarket; a manufacturing or industrial concern; each produces a different type as well as a different quantity of garbage. When these variables are taken into account, it becomes difficult to set a flat fee for all business customers. The City points out, and we recognize that if a business doubles its garbage output, its rates will increase; however, if a condominium doubles its garbage output, the City will either provide another dumpster, or make more frequent collections, without additional charge.
We conclude that the ordinances enacted by the City of New Smyrna Beach are not unconstitutional as the rates charged are just and equitable. The establishment of different classifications and the charging of different rates for each class is not unreasonable or discriminatory. We find that by classifying its customers as residential or business customers, there is no discrimination within each class.
The City's classifications are both valid and reasonable, and are based upon legitimate distinctions between the classes. There is a presumption that legislative determinations or findings of fact are correct and should not be voided absent a clear showing that they are arbitrary, oppressive, discriminatory or without basis in reason or justification. Charlotte County, 350 So. 2d  at 580. No such showing was made here.
Finding the ordinances to be constitutional, it is unnecessary to pass upon plaintiff's entitlement to a refund.
The decision of the First District Court of Appeal is quashed, and the cause is remanded with instructions to affirm the judgment of the trial court.
SUNDBERG, C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
ENGLAND, J., dissents.