Opinion ID: 1788426
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Providing Telecommunications as a Municipal Purpose

Text: Finally, even adhering to the majority's new definition of municipal purpose as one essential to the health, morals, protection, and general welfare of the municipality, surely it cannot be denied that providing telecommunications services meets this description. In the midst of a technological and communications revolution that has been hailed as having a greater impact on civilization than anything that has preceded it, we cannot deny local governments the opportunity to bring these benefits to their citizens. I have already alluded to the fact that we are deciding this case in a backdrop of natural disasters where government at all levels, including local, has been sharply criticized for its communications failures. [16] The First District's opinion clearly articulates why the provision of telecommunications services should be considered a municipal purpose: [I]f municipality-owned property is being used by the municipality for a public purpose, the legislature may not remove the exemption. Yet, that is precisely the purpose of section 166.047. The legislative staff analysis of chapter 97-197 states the purpose of the act: to remove the exemption that municipalities, counties, or other entities of local government have for ad valorem taxes on real property used for the purpose of providing telecommunication services to the public. Fla. H.R. Comm. on Utils. and Communications, HB 313 (March 5, 1997) Staff Analysis (on file with Comm.). The only issue before us is whether this property which is owned by the City is being used for a municipal purpose. . . . . Indeed, the provision of telecommunication services for the benefit of city residents constitutes a valid municipal purpose pursuant to any reasonable interpretation of the term municipal purpose. The best evidence in this regard is the statute itself which recognizes that political subdivisions within the state may be issued certificates by the Public Service Commission to act as a telecommunications provider. See § 364.02(13), Fla. Stat. In addition, as recognized by the trial court, there is a long history in Florida and elsewhere in this country of local governments providing utility services. In discussing the provision of telecommunications services, the trial court stated, While the provision of telecommunications services may also partake of no aspect of sovereignty, it is no less a legitimate municipal corporate undertaking for the comfort, convenience, safety, and happiness of the municipality's citizens than a marina. Indeed, if anything, it is more analogous to such services as electricity and water, long recognized as serving valid municipal and public purposes. See Ford v. Orlando Utilities Comm'n, 629 So.2d 845 (Fla.1994) (property used in furnishing electricity is used for valid municipal purpose and exempt from tax under the Florida Constitution); Schultz v. Crystal River Three Participants, 686 So.2d 1391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (interest of municipalities in private power plant was tax exempt); Orlando Utilities Comm'n v. Milligan, 229 So.2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (furnishing of electricity, power, and water was municipal purpose under Florida's 1885 Constitution.) (footnote omitted). Indeed, the provisions of telecommunication services are still regulated by the Public Service Commission just like water, sewer, and electricity. See Chs. 362, 366, and 367, Fla. Stat. Telecommunication providers like utilities provide essential public services. Telegraph and telephone companies as ordinarily operated are categorized as public service corporations, and in legal phraseology as quasi-public corporations or corporations affected with a public interest. They are important agencies and instrumentalities of commerce, in constant use in conducting both governmental and private affairs of the country, so that the public clearly has an interest in such business. The property employed, as well as the proceeds of the business, belongs to the company, but such property is used and the business conducted for the accommodation and convenience of the public. 74 Am.Jur.2d Telecommunications § (2003) (footnotes omitted). City of Gainesville, 859 So.2d at 598, 600-01 (footnotes omitted). The First District opinion demonstrates just how well and naturally the provision of communications services fits in a natural evolution of municipal purpose. Certainly no one could argue the relevance of telecommunications services in today's day and age, the information age. In modern society, for example, telecommunications services have become essential to meet the educational needs of our children and all of our citizens. Without telecommunications, there would be no radio, television, or internet broadcasts warning of impending hurricanes or other emergencies; there would be no telephone service with which to call the police, fire department, or hospitals. Therefore, it would seem apparent that telecommunications services especially qualify as a municipal purpose, even under the majority's newly created definition. [17] It would appear to be undeniable that allowing municipalities to enter the telecommunications market would greatly benefit all of the citizens of Florida, especially in rural areas where there may be few, if any, telecommunications service providers at present. Just as rural electrification was once seen as an enormous boost to the quality of life of rural residents, modern communications technology has been hailed as an unsurpassed opportunity to advance all mankind.