CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 101078
...tilities within the state; whereas the franchise fees in issue have no impact upon the rates of the respective utilities, in that the fees assessed are passed onto the customer, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 25-6.100(7). Additionally, section 366.13, Florida Statutes (1989), provides that "[n]o provision of this chapter shall in any way affect any municipal tax or franchise tax in any manner whatsoever." (Emphasis added.) Such provision clearly implies the counties' authority to r...
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
...t the
declaration; (2) the declaration was outside the PSC’s authority; (3) the PSC’s
declaration improperly strips the County of its property rights and grants them to
the City, unregulated and in perpetuity; and (4) the declaration violates section
366.13’s prohibition against the PSC “in any way” affecting a franchise fee....
...ns, municipalities, towns, villages,
or counties, and, in case of conflict therewith, all lawful acts, orders, rules, and
regulations of the commission shall in each instance prevail.”) (emphasis added).
(4) The Declaration Does Not Violate Section 366.13, Florida Statutes
- 13 -
Last, the County argues that the declaration violates section 366.13’s
prohibition against the PSC “in any way” affecting a franchise fee. § 366.13, Fla.
Stat....
...It does not
prevent the County from receiving remuneration for the City’s use of its property
in furtherance of its service obligation under the PSC’s territorial orders, nor does
the City suggest that it would be able to use the County’s property without
payment. The PSC’s declaration does not violate section 366.13.
CONCLUSION
Given the County’s position that the expiration of the Franchise Agreement
voids the PSC’s territorial orders and effectively evicts the City as the authorized
electric servi...
...e and superior” statutory
- 14 -
jurisdiction to determine utility service areas. Furthermore, the PSC’s declaration
does not impermissibly grant the County’s property rights to the City or violate
section 366.13’s prohibition against the PSC affecting a franchise fee.
Accordingly, we affirm.
It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, and PERRY,
JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING M...
