Opinion
December 12, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Stanley Milledge, J.
Field Spence, Miami, for appellant.
J.W. Watson, Jr., Miami, for appellees.
From the challenge of a decree in favor of the defendant City of Miami, entered upon bill and answer, there arises the question of the validity of an ordinance imposing a charge upon the users of the sanitary sewer system for the purpose of raising money to be immediately spent for preliminary engineering services in furthering a plan for the disposal of sewage, which is now cast into Biscayne Bay and the Miami River.
The appellant concedes that the construction and operation of such a disposal system is a governmental function; certain it is that the health of a community may be safeguarded by the proper treatment of sewage.
Of course we are not primarily concerned with the wisdom of the plan, but simply give this short statement of the purpose of the municipal law-making body in order that the reader may understand the reason for the charge.
It is patent that this is a legitimate levy and one which is calculated to benefit, not only those using the system at the present time, but those who will in the future do so. The treatment of sewage so that it will not contaminate the waters on which the city is located and so that the health of a community as a whole will be protected is just ground for the imposition of the charge, even though the burden is presently borne by relatively few. In all matters of taxation there is likely to be actual or potential inequity, and very often benefits may inure to those who do not contribute to the public treasury.
The city seems to have the authority thus to raise money for the improvement, and the object to be accomplished is legal.
We see no objection, either, to the ordinance merely because the money received from the levy will first be applied to the preparation of plans and reports and the compensation of engineers. In our opinion these costs are an integral part of the whole expenditure, for it would be impractical to install such a plant without having a thorough survey and comprehensive plans of the project beforehand. The cost of these and the compensation to experts qualified to make them are as legitimate as the cost of the actual construction of the system contemplated.
We find no sound objection to the charges imposed or the ordinance supporting them, and therefore we affirm the decision of the chancellor.
Affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., and TERRELL, CHAPMAN, HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
SEBRING, J., not participating.