Johnson v. United States Brief for Appellee

    No. 82-1295

IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1982

ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al
Appellants,

v.

HENRY T. McMILLAN, et al.,
Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND BRIEF OF 
AMICI CURIAE STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS OF FLORIDA, INC. AND THE 
UNDERSIGNED NON-CHARTER COUNTIES OF 
THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL

WILLIAM J. ROBERTS 
Counsel o f  Record 
MICHAEL E. EGAN 
Roberts, Egan and Routa, P.A.
217 South Adams Street 
P.O. Box 1386 
Tallahassee, Florida 32302 
(904) 224-5169
Attorneys for State Association 
of County Commissioners of Florida, Inc.

(names continued on inside front cover)

THE CASILLAS PRESS. INC. -  1717 K Street N.W. -  Washington, O.C. -  223-1220



GREGORY V. BEAUCHAMP 
Levy County Attorney 
P.O. Box 888 
Chiefland, Florida 32626 
T. BUCKINGHAM BIRD 
Jefferson County Attorney 
P.O. Box 247 
Monticello, Florida 32344 
GARY M. BRANDENBURG 
Indian River County Attorney 
County Administration Bldg. 
1840 25th Street 
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
NIKKI CLAYTON 
Seminole County Attorney 
County Courthouse,
N. Park Avenue 
Sanford, Florida 32771 
JOHN A. GEHRIG 
Orange County Legal 

Department 
Suite 1210 
201 East Pine Street 
Orlando, Florida 32802 
MARY A. GREENWOOD 
Manatee County Attorney 
P.O. Box 1000 
Bradenton, Florida 33506 
J. PAUL GRIFFITH 
Jackson County Attorney 
P.O. Box 207 
Marianna, Florida 32446 
LARRY HAAG 
Citrus County Attorney 
110 North Apopka 
Inverness, Florida 32650 
C. DEAN LEWIS 
Suwannee County Attorney 
P.O. Drawer 8 
Live Oak, Florida 32060 
DENNIS R. LONG 
Alachua County Attorney 
P.O. Drawer CC 
Gainesville, Florida 32602 
OWEN L. LUCKEY, JR. 
Hendry County Attorney 
Post Office Box 865 
Labelle, Florida 33935

RONALD A. MOWREY 
Wakulla County Attorney 
P.O. Box 567
Crawfordville, Florida 32327 
ROBERT NABORS 
Brevard County Attorney 
P.O. Box 37 
Titusville, Florida 32780 
MICHAEL H. OLENICK 
Martin County Attorney 
P.O. Box 626 
Stuart, Florida 33494 
CHARLES F. SCHOECH 
Palm Beach County Attorney 
307 N. Dixie Hwy.
Suite 100
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 
ROBERT J. SCHRAMM 
Taylor County Attorney 
P.O. Box 29 
Perry, Florida 32347 
ALFRED O. SHULER 
Franklin County Attorney 
P.O. Drawer 850 
Apalachicola, Florida 32320 
JAMES G. SISCO 
St. Johns County Attorney 
P.O. Box 1533 
St. Augustine, Florida 32084 
F. E. STEINMEYER, III 
Leon County Attorney 
122 S. Calhoun Street 
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 
H. WILLIAM THOMPSON 
Charlotte County Attorney 
18500 Murdock Circle 
Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 
RANDALL N. THORNTON 
Sumter County Attorney 
P.O. Box 58
Lake Panasoffkee, Florida 33538

Counsel for Movants 
and Amici Curiae



(i)

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1982

No. 82-1295

ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al.,
Appellants,

v.

HENRY T. McMILLAN, et al.,
Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

MOTION OF THE STATE ASSOCIATION OF 
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF FLORIDA, INC.

AND THE UNDERSIGNED NON-CHARTER 
COUNTIES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF 
IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL

Pursuant to Rules 36.1, .4 of the Rules of this Court, the 
State Association of County Commissioners of Florida, 
Inc. (“SACC”) and the undersigned, non-charter counties 
of the State of Florida, through counsel, respectfully re­
quest leave to file the accompanying amici curiae brief in 
support of the appeal of appellants Escambia County, 
Florida (“Escambia”) and the members of the Escambia



(ii)

Board of County Commissioners (“County Commission”) 
in the above-captioned action.

The SACC is a non-profit, charter organization com­
prised of county commissioners which represents the in­
terests of county commissions and county commissioners. 
Amici curiae non-charter Florida counties are governed 
by the same state constitutional and statutory provisions 
which heretofore have governed Escambia, also a non­
charter county. Amici curiae, therefore, have an interest 
in, and are impacted directly by, the Fifth Circuit’s deci­
sion (1) invalidating, as applied to elections to the County 
Commission, Florida’s constitutional requirement of at- 
large elections and (2) interpreting the state constitutional 
and statutory provisions which provide powers to non­
charter county commissions, McMillan v. Escambia 
County, Florida, 688 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1982).

This is primarily a vote dilution case under the four­
teenth amendment to the United States Constitution.

When sworn into office, all Florida county commis­
sioners take an oath to uphold the Florida Constitution 
and statutes. The undersigned amici curiae firmly believe 
in the equality of all voters without regard to race, color or 
creed, and urge the Court that the state constitutional pro­
vision requiring at-large elections are not violative of the 
fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.

Under the decisions of this Court cited in the accompa­
nying brief, the specific facts of a case determine the con­
stitutional question whether the political process in issue 
unconstitutionally dilutes particular voters’ votes. The 
Fifth Circuit did not heed this Court’s decisions, and, in­
stead, viewed the decision in Rogers v. Lodge,____ U.S.
___ , 102 S.Ct. 3272 (1982), as controlling the outcome of
the instant suit, irrespective of the difference in facts and



(iii)

state constitutional and statutory laws between Burke 
County, Georgia and Escambia. For example, on the vital 
issue of discriminatory intent, unlike Rogers, appellants 
herein presented direct, personal testimony of the absence 
of such intent, and appellees offered no evidence to rebut 
this testimony.

Significant to this Court’s evaluation of the vote dilu­
tion claims in Rogers was its view of Georgia law and the 
quality of life, as manifested by the existing socio­
economic conditions in Burke County. These factors, 
therefore, are important to this case, and, in compliance 
with Rule 36.3, the undersigned amici curiae will supply 
new facts and argument in support of appellants.

In addition to the vote dilution aspect of this case, the 
Fifth Circuit’s decision interprets Florida’s Constitution 
and statutes in a manner which is directly contrary to the 
Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation of those powers. 
Specifically, the Fifth Circuit held that the Florida Con­
stitution limits the powers of non-charter county commis­
sions to those powers expressly authorized by statute, and 
that, therefore, following a decision invalidating an at- 
large election system, these county commissions lack the 
power to adopt a remedial election system. This portion of 
the Fifth Circuit’s decision was not dependent at all on the 
facts surrounding elections to the County Commission, 
and, as a result, is applicable to all non-charter county 
commissions throughout Florida. Again, amici curiae are 
vitally concerned with the impact the Fifth Circuit’s deci­
sion is likely to have, and have provided additional facts 
and argument in support of appellants’ position.

If allowed to stand, the Fifth Circuit’s decision will af­
fect vote dilution cases not only in Florida but throughout 
the entire United States.



(iv)

This brief is sponsored under Rule 36.4 of the Rules of 
this Court by the undersigned authorized law officers of 
the named county, political subdivisions of Florida which 
have signed and desire to appear as amici curiae in support 
of appellants.

All counsel for appellees refused a request for their con­
sent to the filing of the accompanying amici curiae brief; 
counsel for appellants consented to the filing of the brief. 
A copy of the refusals and the consent has been filed with 
the Clerk of this Court.

For the foregoing reasons, amici curiae request leave to 
file the accompanying amici curiae brief in support of ap­
pellants’ appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAM J. ROBERTS 
Counsel o f Record 
MICHAEL E. EGAN 
Roberts, Egan and Routa, 

P.A.
217 South Adams Street 
P.O. Box 1386 
Tallahassee, Florida 32302 
(904) 224-5169
Attorneys for State Associa­
tion of County Commis­
sioners of Florida, Inc.

GkEGORY V. BEAUCHAMP 
Levy County Attorney 
P.O. Box 888 
Chiefland, Florida 32626

GARY M. BRANDENBURG
Indian River County Attorney 
County Administration Bldg. 
1840 25th Street 
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
NIKKI CLAYTON

T. BUCKINGHAM BIRD 
Jefferson County Attorney 
P.O. Box 247 Seminole County Attorney 

County Courthouse 
N. Park Avenue 
Sanford, Florida 32771

Monticello, Florida 32344



( V )

JOHN A. GEHRIG 
Orange County Legal 

Department 
Suite 1210 
201 East Pine Street 
Orlando, Florida 32802
MARY A. GREENWOOD 
Manatee County Attorney 
P.O. Box 1000 
Bradenton, Florida 33506
J. PAUL GRIFFITH 
Jackson County Attorney 
P.O. Box 207 
Marianna, Florida 32446
LARRY HAAG 
Citrus County Attorney 
110 North Apopka 
Inverness, Florida 32650
C. DEAN LEWIS 
Suwannee County Attorney 
P.O. Drawer 8 
Live Oak, Florida 32060
DENNIS R. LONG 
Alachua County Attorney 
P.O. Drawer CC 
Gainesville, Florida 32602
OWEN L. LUCKEY, JR. 
Hendry County Attorney 
Post Office Box 865 
Labelle, Florida 33935

RONALD A. MOWREY 
Wakulla County Attorney 
P.O. Box 567
Crawfordville, Florida 32327
ROBERT NABORS 
Brevard County Attorney 
P.O. Box 37 
Titusville, Florida 32780

MICHAEL H. OLENICK 
Martin County Attorney 
P.O. Box 626 
Stuart, Florida 33494

CHARLES F. SCHOECH 
Palm Beach County Attorney 
307 N. Dixie Hwy.
Suite 100
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
ROBERT J. SCHRAMM 
Taylor County Attorney 
P.O. Box 29 
Perry, Florida 32347
ALFRED O. SHULER 
Franklin County Attorney 
P.O. Drawer 850 
Apalachicola, Florida 32320
JAMES G. SISCO
St. Johns County Attorney
P.O. Box 1533
St. Augustine, Florida 32084
F. E. STEINMEYER, III 
Leon County Attorney 
122 S. Calhoun Street 
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
H. WILLIAM THOMPSON 
Charlotte County Attorney 
18500 Murdock Circle 
Port Charlotte, Florida 33952
RANDALL N. THORNTON 
Sumter County Attorney 
P.O. Box 58
Lake Panasoffkee, Florida 33538

Counsel fo r  Movants



TABLE OF CONTENTS

MOTION OF THE STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS OF FLORIDA, INC. AND THE UNDER­
SIGNED NON-CHARTER COUNTIES OF THE STATE 
OF FLORIDA FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI 
CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL.................................i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................... vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................viii

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE...................... 2

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT............................     2

ARGUMENT.........................................................    3

I. Factual Comparison of Burke County, Georgia and
Escambia County, Florida....................    3

A. The Ingredients of Discriminatory Intent Under
the Fourteenth Amendment................................................ 3

B. Population Trends and Area................................................ 9

C. Commerce and Industry: Socio-Economic Facts............ 10

D. Public and Official Treatment of Blacks........................... 11

E. Educational Institutions.................................................... 11

F. Voting Processes...............................................................  12

II. Appellees Failed To Prove that the Escambia At- 
Large Election System Is Being Maintained for 
Discriminatory Purposes........................................................ 13

111. The Florida Constitution and Statutes Provide Non- 
Charter County Commissions the Power To Adopt 
Remedial Election Systems........................................................ 14

(vi)

Page



Page

CONCLUSION................................................................................... 19

APPENDIX

A. December 8, 1982 Editorial in Pensacola News................ la

B. Escambia Community Profile 1981-1982 ........................  4a

C. Economic Profile Burke County Community
1982 .................................................................................. 23a

(vii)



(viii)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

City o f Mobile, Alabama v. Bolden,
446 U.S. 55(1980)............................................................ 7, 8, 11, 14

McGill v. Gadsden County Commission,
535 F.2d 277 (5th Cir. 1976)..............................................................6

McMillan v. Escambia County, Florida,
688 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1982)................................................... 2, 4, 13

McMillan v. Escambia County, Florida,
638 F.2d 1239 (5th Cir. 1981).......................................... 4, 5, 13, 15

McMillan v. Escambia County, Florida,
PCA No. 77-0432 (N.D. Fla.
July 10, 1978) (Memorandum Decision)...............................4, 6, 13

Moore v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway,
340 U.S. 573 (1951)........................................................................... 5

Nevett v. Sides,
571 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1978)............................................................ 9

Rogers v. Lodge,
___ U.S_____ _ 102S.Ct. 3272(1982)...................................passim

United Jewish Organizations o f Williamsburgh, Inc. 
v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144 (1977)............................................................6

Wise v. Lipscomb,
437 U.S. 535 ( 1978) . . . . . .........    15

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions:

U.S. Const, amend. X IV ............................................................... 2, 5

Fla. Const, art. VIII, § 1(0 ........................................................  15, 17

Cases: Page



Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, 79 
Stat. 437 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971,
1973 to 1973bb-l (1976), as amended by
Pub. L. No. 97-205, 96 Stat. 131....................................................3

Fla. Stat. § 125.01 (1981)........................... ................................  15, 17

Miscellaneous:

Bradford, Commission Government in American 
Cities (1911)..................................................... ..............................8

Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept, of Commerce,
PC80-1-A11, 1980 Census of Population Florida (1982)............ 10

Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept, of Commerce,
PC80-1-A12, 1980 Census of Population Georgia (1982)............. 9

Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept, of Commerce,
PC80-1-B11, 1980 Census of Population Florida
(1982)............................................................................................... 9

Levinson, Florida Constitutional Law, 28 U.Fla.L.
Rev. 551 (1974)............................................................................... 17

McCandless, Urban Government and Politics (1970)...........................7

Op. Att’y Gen. 081-48 (1981).............................................................  18

Sparkman, The History and Statutes o f  Local 
Government Powers in Florida, 25 U.Fla.L.Rev.
271 (1973).................................................................................  15, 17

Woodruff, City Government by Commission (1911).......................... 7

(ix)

Page



IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1982

No. 82-1295

ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al.,
Appellants,

v.

HENRY T. McMILLAN, et al.,
Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE STATE ASSOCIATION 
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF FLORIDA, INC. 

AND THE UNDERSIGNED NON-CHARTER 
COUNTIES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN 

SUPPORT OF APPEAL

Amici curiae State Association of County Commis­
sioners of Florida, Inc. and the undersigned, non-charter 
counties of the State of Florida, through counsel, submit 
this amici curiae brief in support of the appeal of ap­
pellants Escambia County, Florida (“Escambia”) and the 
members of the Escambia Board of County Commis­
sioners (“County Commission”) in the above-captioned 
action.



2

STATEMENT OF INTEREST 
OF AMICI CURIAE

The interests of amici curiae are set forth in the preced­
ing motion for leave to file this brief at i.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This case involves the equality of votes which must be 
accorded voters in Escambia under the fourteenth amend­
ment to the United States Constitution and the power of a 
federal court to impose a court-ordered remedial election 
system in lieu of allowing a county commission opportuni­
ty to adopt such a system, where Florida’s Constitution 
and statutes grant county commissions broad powers and 
do not prohibit them from adopting remedial election 
systems.

In McMillan v. Escambia County, Florida, 688 F.2d 960 
(5th Cir. 1982), the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court 
decision holding unconstitutional Florida’s constitutional 
requirement of at-large elections of Escambia’s county 
commissioners.1 The Fifth Circuit based its affirmance on
this Court’s decision in Rogers v. Lodge,___ U .S .___ ,
102 S.Ct. 3272 (1982). However, the court failed to 
recognize the tremendous difference in facts between this 
case and Rogers. The first part of this brief compares 
Escambia and Burke County, Georgia (“Burke”), the 
county which was sued in Rogers, and discusses how the 
Fifth Circuit’s failure to account for the differences bet­
ween Escambia and Burke led to its erroneous decision.

'The provisions of the Florida Constitution and statutes which are 
in issue are reprinted in Appendix E to appellants’ Jurisdictional State­
ment at 123a — 129a..



3

The second part of this brief shows why the remedy the 
Fifth Circuit affirmed was erroneous. That court conclud­
ed that the powers of non-charter county commissions are 
limited to those specifically authorized by state law, and 
that, therefore, the County Commission lacked the power 
to adopt a remedial election system. This view of the 
powers of non-charter commissions is entirely incorrect. 
Non-charter county commissions have broad home rule 
powers which allow them to act unless the Florida 
Legislature has preempted the subject of the proposed ac­
tion. Because the Florida Legislature has not preempted 
the area, non-charter county commissions, under the cir­
cumstances of this case, may enact remedial election 
systems.

ARGUMENT

I. FACTUAL COMPARISON OF BURKE COUNTY, 
GEORGIA AND ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA.

A. The Ingredients of Discriminatory Intent 
Under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The facts of Burke present a picture of “old” South 
segregation while those of Escambia present a picture of 
an area which has grown out of that situation. Having 
come so far toward equality of treatment of all residents, 
Escambia is not covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 
Pub. L. No. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437 (codified as amended at 
42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973 to 1973bb-l (1976), as amended 
by Pub. L. No. 97-205, 96 Stat. 131) and equality is the 
rule rather than the exception in the life of Escambia’s 
citizens today. The profile of Burke painted in Rogers 
stands in sharp contrast to that of suburbanized, urbaniz­
ed Escambia with its modern, county manager government.



4

It is the position of amici curiae that it is unfair in effect 
to judge Escambia on the Burke record as the Fifth Circuit 
did in vacating the opinion and decision it announced in 
McMillan v. Escambia County, Florida, 638 F.2d 1239 
(5th Cir. 1981) and substituting the decision appealed 
herein, McMillan v. Escambia County, Florida, 688 F.2d 
960 (5th Cir. 1982).

Amici curiae adopt the facts and law stated in ap­
pellants’ Jurisdictional Statement with the additions stated 
herein. These additions are believed to require considera­
tion by this Court because the district court relied so much 
on the constantly referred to “aggregate” of ancient 
history and past conditions rather than current facts. 
Finally, in its intermesh of discussion of the Pensacola Ci­
ty Council, the Escambia School Board and the County 
Commission, the district court concluded that, even in its 
“aggregate” approach, the preponderance of evidence was 
not “overwhelmingly” favorable to appellees as clearly was 
the case in Rogers.

The district court in this case concluded:
Because this county and this city have made so 
much progress in complying with the commands 
of the Constitution and the law in recent years, 
this case is not an easy one to decide.

The conclusion impelled and reached is that at 
least the preponderance — though not an over­
whelming preponderance — of the evidence sup­
ports Plaintiffs’ contentions so that judgment 
must be entered for them.

McMillan v. Escambia County, Florida, PC A No. 
77-0432, typescript op. at 35 (N.D. Fla. July 10, 1978) 
(Memorandum Decision). The district court’s conclusion 
in McMillan is to be compared with this Court’s observa­



5

tion in Rogers: “The Court of Appeals also held that the 
District Court’s findings not only were not clearly er­
roneous, but its conclusion that the at-large system was 
maintained for invidious purposes was ‘virtually mandated 
by the overwhelming proof,’ ” 102 S.Ct, at 3275.

Assuming arguendo the discriminatory intent re­
quired to be proved in this fourteenth amendment vote 
dilution case is the intent of officials of Escambia, it seems 
to amici curiae that prior decisions of this Court require 
reversal of the decision of the Fifth Circuit because 
Escambia’s County Commissioners denied any such intent 
and appellees offered no evidence to rebut this direct 
testimony. See Moore v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, 
340 U.S. 573 (1951). In its initial opinion in this case, the 
Fifth Circuit “reviewed the testimony . . . and found no 
evidence of racial motivation by the County Commis­
sioners in retaining the at-large system.” McMillan v. 
Escambia County, Florida, 638 F.2d at 1245 (5th Cir. 
1981). No new evidence was presented in the motion for 
rehearing, and the Fifth Circuit in its opinion on rehearing 
did not weigh this finding along with the many additional 
facts in the findings of the district court which 
demonstrate that the Fifth Circuit’s first opinion was cor­
rect. The second opinion, which is based largely on in­
ferences and circumstantial matters from selected parts of 
the record and ancient history, misconstrues the principles 
of Rogers as applied to the facts and law applicable to 
Escambia in this case.

The district court’s findings have been addressed by ap­
pellants but amici curiae wish to refer to and to emphasize 
the Commissioners’ testimony that they rejected the single­
member district proposals for good government reasons 
and acted to uphold their oath of office to support the 
Florida Constitution’s requirement of at-large elections



6

and not to dilute the vote of any citizen of Escambia— 
Transcript at 1478, 1501, 1517-18, 1558-59 (testimonies of 
Commissioners Beck, Kelson, Deese and Kenney respec­
tively). The district court cited the present equality of ac­
cess to the election process and the absence of slating 
organizations, inaccurately found racially polarized voting 
and that such voting was “rendering an otherwise neutral 
electoral system constitutionally infirm,” United Jewish 
Organizations o f Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, 430 U.S. 
144, 157 (1977), praised the responsiveness of the Com­
missioners to the needs of blacks, cited the Commis­
sioners’ efforts in affirmative action programs “in employ­
ment and public recreation as impressive,” referred to the 
fact that “the Commissioners listen to and act upon re­
quests and complaints of blacks,” and recognized that 
“[tjhere was no significant discrepancy shown between ser­
vice to blacks and whites.” McMillan v. Escambia County, 
Florida, PCA No. 77-0432, typescript op. at 10, 15 (N.D. 
Fla. July 10, 1978).

Amici curiae most respectfully urge that the Rogers in­
ference rule should work both ways and that the concrete, 
proven facts and the inferences derived therefrom regard­
ing good government ideas and intentions should be held 
to confirm and to support the County Commissioners’ 
testimony to the fact that their actions on the proposals 
for single-member district elections were for good govern­
ment purposes and were not taken for discriminatory 
reasons.

Escambia’s form of commission government with com­
missioners’ being elected at-large was created under the 
Florida Constitution for racially neutral, good govern­
ment purposes to eliminate evils then existing in the ward 
electoral system. See McGill v. Gadsden County Commis­
sion, 535 F.2d 277, 280-81 (5th Cir. 1976).



7

The commission form of government first was created 
in Galveston, Texas in 1900. Within twenty years it had 
spread rapidly to approximately 500 cities and other local 
governments in the North as well as in the South. It is now 
employed by approximately 540 local governments across 
the Nation. Commission government is founded upon two 
fundamental principles. First, its structure is designed to 
foster corporate management-type efficiency of operation 
through the creation of clear lines of known public respon­
sibility for specific aspects of the government’s affairs. 
Woodruff, City Government by Commission 29 (1911). 
Second, every voter is a constituent of each commissioner, 
which alleviates the “ward-heeling” and “logrolling” that 
characterized the aldermanic or councilmanic systems in 
the early 1900’s.2 As one political scientist of the time 
stated:

[U]nder the ward system of representation, the 
ward receives attention, not in proportion to its 
needs, but to the ability of its representatives to 
‘trade’ and arrange ‘deals’ with fellow members.
The pernicious system of logrolling results.

‘To secure one more arc light in my ward, it was 
necessary to agree to vote for one more arc in 
each of the other seven wards;’ said a former 
councilman, ‘the City installed and paid for eight 
arc lamps when only one was needed! So with 
sewer extensions, street paving and grading and 
water mains.’ Nearly every City under the alder-

2Political scientists attribute the relative decline in adoption by 
governments of the commission form to the rise of council-manager 
government, founded upon the essentially same premises, which also 
depends upon at-large voting to assure that officials maintain a city­
wide perspective. McCandless, Urban Government and Politics 168 
(1970); see also City of Mobile, Ala. v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55,65 (1980).



8

manic system offers flagrant examples of the 
vicious method of ‘part representation.’ The 
Commission form changes this to representation 
of the City as a whole.

Bradford, Commission Government in American Cities 
165 (1911).

A large majority of municipalities in the United States 
conduct elections at-large. See City o f Mobile, Alabama v. 
Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 60 n.7 (1980). Therefore, the belief 
by Escambia’s County Commissioners that at-large elec­
tions provide the best form of good government is also the 
belief of a large majority of the residents of municipalities 
in the United States. That there are continuing fears that a 
ward or district system will return the County Commission 
to the same evils also supports the view of the Commis­
sioners that the at-large system is the best form of govern­
ment for Escambia. See Appendix A.

Assuming discriminatory intent could be the overall in­
tent of the people of the whole county such as was shown 
by the example of the segregated laundrymat owner in 
Burke (Jurisdictional Statement at 77a, 94a, Rogers) and 
the anti-black prejudice which pervades that County ac­
cording to the record as reported in this Court’s Rogers 
opinion, then the overall treatment of blacks by the people 
of Escambia and the quality of life its socio-economy of­
fers its residents must be considered in establishing the 
constitutional law on intent in this case. Elence, amici 
curiae present in this brief the socio-economic facts giving 
the overall picture of “life” in Escambia, entitled “Com­
munity Profile 1981-82,” Appendix B, and the “Economic 
Profile of Burke County, Georgia,” Appendix C.3

3That these are not equal profiles and few new references are given 
to facts describing Burke County beyond those referred to in Rogers is 
due either to their non-existence or to amici curiae’s inability, after



9

This Court in Rogers quoted with approval a statement 
by the Fifth Circuit in Nevett v. Sides, 571 F.2d 209 (5th 
Cir. 1978): ‘“The task before the fact finder is to deter­
mine whether under all the relevant facts, in whose favor 
the ‘aggregate’ of the evidence preponderates, this deter­
mination is peculiarly dependent upon the facts of each 
case.’” 102 S.Ct. at 3278 (quoting Nevett, 571 F.2d at 
224). This statement has led amici curiae to present not on­
ly Appendices B and C but also the following comparison 
between the highlights of the major facts which appeared 
to impact this Court’s opinion in Rogers and the facts con­
cerning Escambia.

B. Population Trends and Area.

The downtrodden, poverty ridden, predominately 
agricultural picture of Burke is set forth by this Court in 
its opinion in Rogers. 102 S.Ct. at 3279-80. Small wonder 
that the Court cited as significant the drop in total popula­
tion in Burke between 1930 and 1980, from 29,224 to 
19,349, and the steadily diminishing percentage of blacks 
over the last 50 years. Id. at 3274 n.2.

In contrast, Escambia is a suburban and urban area 
which has grown from 53,394 in 1930 to 233,794 in 1980, 
Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept, of Commerce, PC 
80-1-B11, 1980 Census of Population — Florida 15 (1982). 
The largest city in Escambia is Pensacola with 57,619 
residents in 1980. Id. at 35. The largest city in Burke, 
Waynesboro, had 5,790 residents in 1980. Bureau of the 
Census, U.S. Dept, of Commerce, PC80-1-A12, 1980

great effort, to secure them. Because this Court has recently reviewed 
the record in Rogers, we will not repeat the detail given therein. Amici 
curiae has set forth the new facts which they obtained from the of­
ficials of the State of Georgia.



10

Census of Population — Georgia 12 (1982). Burke has 833 
square miles of area, Id., while Escambia has 661 square 
miles, Bureau of the" Census, U.S. Dept, of Commerce, 
PC 80-1-A ll, 1980 Census of Population — Florida 8 
(1982).

C. Commerce and Industry: Socio-Economic 
Facts.

As noted in Rogers, Burke is a predominately 
agricultural area. 102 S.Ct. at 3274. Other information on 
Burke County confirming the facts set forth in Rogers is 
provided in Appendix C. Appendix B to this brief details 
the tremendous government, finance, business, port and 
industrial socio-economic activity in the Escambia com­
munity.

Amici curiae submit that the kind of socio-economic 
quality of life Escambia obviously offers its citizens does 
not show the poverty-depressed, segregated quality of life 
shown in the “aggregate” of the record in Rogers for 
blacks in Burke. As reflected in Appendix B, Escambia’s 
socio-economic picture is outstanding, and blacks residing 
therein are not proven to lack the benefits thereof. This is 
a major distinction when considering how unfair it is to 
apply Rogers principles enunciated in the context of the 
facts of Burke, and Georgia as a whole, on discriminatory 
maintenance to the very different facts in Escambia.

As indicated in Appendix C, there are four banks now 
in Burke with total assets of $62,600,000 and one savings 
and loan institution with total assets of $321,900,000. Ap­
pendix B to this brief reports 12 banks in Escambia Coun­
ty with 35 locations and total deposits of $506,680,000 and 
debits of $1,984,659,800; savings and loan associations 
have 14 locations and deposits totaling $443,534,000.



11

There are also 28 credit unions with assets of 
$292,500,000.

The federal government, with 10,900 employees in 
Escambia,4 and state and local governments, with 14,800 
employees, are the largest employers in Escambia. Other 
employers and the number of their employees are listed in 
Appendix B along with many socio-economic facts not in 
the record herein but which amici curiae believe will be 
helpful in judging the “aggregate” evidence pertaining to 
the absence of discriminatory intent applicable to this ap­
peal under the principles set forth in Rogers and Bolden.

D. Public and Official Treatment of Blacks.

Internal, hostile, racial discrimination in Burke, as 
disclosed by the record in Rogers, does not pervade in 
Escambia. There was evidence that blacks openly are call­
ed “niggers” in Burke County Commission meetings. Brief 
of Appellees at 14, Rogers. No such evidence is in the 
Escambia record. The “colored” and “white” signs on 
courthouse restroom doors and the “nigger hook” on the 
water fountain in the Burke courthouse, Jurisdictional 
Statement at 74a, 75a, 94a, Rogers, also are not present in 
Escambia. The intense public hostility toward blacks em­
phasized in Rogers does not exist in Escambia. No 
segregated laundrymat, Id. at 94a, 97a, or other 
segregated facility is referred to in the record in this case.

E. Educational Institutions.

In Rogers, this Court and the district court stressed the 
lack of educational facilities in Burke as a factor proving

“There is a total of over 24,000 military and civilian government 
personnel earning over 297 million in payroll annually. See Appendix 
B at 11 a-12a.



12

discriminatory intent. 102 S.Ct. at 3280. No such facts ap­
pear in the Escambia record. As shown in Appendix C, 
Burke has the following educational institutions:

6 elementary schools
1 junior high school
2 high schools
no institutions of higher learning.

In contrast, Appendix B reveals that Escambia has the 
following educational institutions:

42 elementary schools 
11 middle schools 
8 high schools

21 private and parochial schools.

University of West Florida, enrollment 5,000 
University of West Florida, graduate schools 
Pensacola Junior College, enrollment 19,958 
2 private 4-year colleges: Liberty Bible College and 

Pensacola Christian College.

Significantly, the record does not show that these facilities 
are not available equally to blacks and whites.

F. Voting Processes.

Until the Rogers case was filed, all voters in Burke had 
to register to vote at the County Courthouse. This had 
been made an almost shameful process for blacks. The 
district court found no such facts in Escambia. In fact, an 
intense county-wide registration program is undertaken 
before each election. McMillan v. Escambia County, 
Florida, PCA No. 77-0432, typescript op. at 10 (N.D. Fla. 
July 10, 1978). The fact that, according to the district 
court’s findings, blacks are 17% of the registered voters 
and 19.7% of the population and that 66.9% of eligible



13

blacks have registered to vote as compared to 69.7% of 
eligible whites, Id., demonstrates that there is no 
discrimination whatsoever in Escambia in this vital area.

II. Appellees Failed To Prove that the Escambia At- 
Large Election System Is Being Maintained for 
Discriminatory Purposes.

The denial by Escambia’s County Commissioners that 
discriminatory considerations were the reason they 
favored retention of the at-large election system has been 
referred to at 5-6 supra. The Commissioners’ many actions 
supporting this fact are replete throughout the record. In 
upholding the Commissioners’ testimony as controlling on 
this issue, the Fifth Circuit recognized that “the desire to 
retain one’s incumbency unaccompanied by other evidence 
ought not to be equated with an intent to discriminate 
against blacks qua blacks.” McMillan v. Escambia County, 
Florida, 638 F.2d at 1245; see also Rogers, 102 S.Ct. at 
3292 (Stevens, J. dissenting). In its opinion on rehearing, 
the Fifth Circuit noted that it was “not depart(ing) from 
our prior conclusion that desire to maintain incumbency 
does not equal discriminatory intent”. McMillan v. 
Escambia County, Florida, 688 F.2d at 969 n.19.

This testimony by the Commissioners coupled with the 
favorable district court findings discussed above and the 
tremendous amount of evidence in the record showing the 
sensivity and responsiveness of the Commissioners to the 
needs of blacks certainly buttress the proof that the Com­
missioners harbored no intent to maintain the at-large 
election system for invidious or discriminatory purposes 
and warrant no inference to the contrary.

The district court’s findings range over the acts of three 
governments, and it is not always easy to separate out



14

parts relating solely to the County Commission. More 
than two-thirds of the record in this case is devoted to the 
Pensacola City Council and the Escambia School Board. 
No incidents of specific County Commission alleged 
discrimination are contained in the record other than its 
actions on the charter proposals referred to above. The 
district court’s conclusion that the case was difficult to 
decide because the preponderance of the evidence was not 
“overwhelmingly” against the three sets of defendants in 
the jointly tried case must be weighed against the 
favorable findings the district court also made as to 
Escambia and the County Commission; and the references 
to past history do not have the same relevance or impact as 
present intent proven by acts done. The Fifth Circuit on 
rehearing would “in the manner of original sin,” Bolden, 
446 U.S. at 74 (1980) (plurality opinion), use old history 
the Commissioners did not make to condemn Commis­
sioners who today obviously operate a governmental 
system to the equal benefit of blacks and whites.

In contrast to the evidence in Rogers as to Burke, the 
“aggregate” of proof in this case as to the County Com­
mission shows conclusively that the at-large election 
system is not being maintained for discriminatory reasons. 
Accordingly, amici curiae respectfully urge that, under 
Rogers, the “aggregate” of facts in this case did not require 
the Fifth Circuit either to grant rehearing or to change its 
original opinion.

III. The Florida Constitution and Statutes Provide 
Non-Charter County Commissions the Power To 
Adopt Remedial Election Systems.

Based on its adoption of Justice White’s analysis in 
Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535 (1978), the Fifth Circuit



15

addressed the issue of whether the County Commission 
has the power to adopt a remedial election system, and 
concluded that the Commission does not possess such 
power because the Florida Constitution expressly limits 
the legislative powers of county commissions to those 
specifically authorized by state law. McMillan v. Escam­
bia County, Florida, 688 F.2d at 972. This interpretation 
of Florida law is the exact opposite of what Florida law ac­
tually provides.

In their Jurisdictional Statement, appellants established 
that, rather than limiting powers of non-charter county 
commissions, Fla. Const, art. VIII, § 1(f); Fla. Stat. 
§ 125.01 (1981) provide these county commissions with 
broad home rule powers. Jurisdictional Statement at 
26-29. In addition to the authorities cited by appellants, 
additional authorities confirm appellants’ construction of 
Florida law.

For example, commenting on the 1968 amendments to 
Florida’s Constitution, one commentator wrote that “[t]he 
1968 revision of the Florida Constitution embodied the 
most fundamental change in the relationship of the state 
and local governments in the state’s history.” Sparkman, 
The History and Statutes o f Local Government Powers in 
Florida, 25 U. Fla. L.Rev. 271, 271 (1973). With respect to 
the home rule powers afforded by these changes to 
Florida’s Constitution, this commentator also observed:

These changes to article III [of the Florida 
Constitution], while not directly bearing on 
home rule powers, represent a significant nar­
rowing of the scope of permissible general laws 
of local application . . . .  Taken in conjunction 
with the new home rule provisions, they fit into 
an over all design to take local decisions out of 
the legislature and put them into the hands of



16

local officials who are in closest contact with the 
people affected.

A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE ON LOCAL 
GOVERNMENT

The heart of home rule in Florida is now found 
in subsections 1(f), 1(g), and 2(b) of article VIII. 
The subsections apply to non-charter counties, 
charter counties and municipalities respectively.

*  *  *  *

No significant changes in the statutes were made 
in 1970, but the home rule thrust was continued 
in 1971 with the passage of a broad county home 
rule bill . . . .  The intent was to clarify and ex­
pand the home rule powers of counties and to en­
courage counties to exercise them.

. . . Thus, chapter 71-14 [codified as amended 
at Fla. Stat. § 125.01 (1981 & Supp. 1982)] is 
significant as the first act of home rule im­
plementing legislation to address itself to the 
elimination of preexisting detailed authorizing 
legislation, passed under earlier philosophies, 
that could be restrictive under the constitutional 
limitations on home rule. In addition, as in other 
home rule legislation, there is a specific direction 
that the act is to be liberally construed to secure 
the broad exercise of home rule powers.

Another significant point about the act is that 
it draws no distinction between charter and non­
charter counties, evidencing a legislative intent to 
provide the fullest possible extent of home rule 
powers for all counties. The range and scope of 
the powers enumerated by the new law are so 
broad and comprehensive as to encompass all



17

readily and imaginable local government con­
cerns. The role of chapter 71-14 in the home rule 
scheme is such that it has been described as ‘in 
fact and intent, a legislative charter for a non­
charter county.’

Id. at 289-90, 297-98 (footnotes omitted).

Similarly, another commentator concluded: “The 
general thrust of the [1968] revision [to Florida’s Constitu­
tion] is to increase local autonomy . . . .  Implementing 
legislation has granted broad powers, both to charter and 
non-charter counties . . . .” Levinson, Florida Constitu­
tional Law, 28 U. Fla. L.Rev. 551, 586-87 (1974) (footnote 
omitted).

More recently, Florida’s Attorney General has expressed 
his concurrence in views of the above commentators and 
appellants. In response to a request for an opinion on cer­
tain powers of non-charter counties under Fla. Const, art 
VIII, § 1(f); Fla. Stat. § 125.01, the Attorney General ad­
vised:

I am compelled to conclude that § 125.01, F.S., 
implements the provisions of Art. VIII, § 1(f), 
State Const., granting non-charter counties the 
full power to carry on county government. Thus, 
as the court stated in Speer [v. Olson, 367 So. 2d 
207 (Fla. 1978)5], unless the Legislature has 
preempted a particular subject relating to county 
government by either general or special law, the 
governing body of a county, by reason of 
§ 125.01, has the authority to act through the ex­
ercise of its home rule powers. To the extent that 
previous opinions of this office are to the con­
trary, they are hereby superseded and modified.

5The Speer case is discussed in the Jurisdictional Statement at 28-29.



18

Op. Att’y Gen. 081-48, 7-8 (1981).

The only conclusion to be drawn from the above, addi­
tional authorities confirms that non-charter counties have 
broad powers and may legislate in those areas which have 
not been preempted by the Florida Legislature. The 
Legislature has not sought to preclude non-charter county 
commissions from adopting remedial election systems 
under the circumstances of this case, and the courts below 
erred in holding to the contrary.



19

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the issues presented by this 
case are of enormous importance to the majority of local 
governments throughout Florida and the entire Nation 
whose officials are elected at-large, and this Court should 
note probable jurisdiction.

GREGORY V. BEAUCHAMP 
Levy County Attorney 
P.O. Box 888 
Chiefland, Florida 32626
T. BUCKINGHAM BIRD 
Jefferson County Attorney 
P.O. Box 247 
Monticello, Florida 32344
GARY M. BRANDENBURG 
Indian River County Attorney 
County Administration Bldg. 
1840 25th Street 
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
NIKKI CLAYTON 
Seminole County Attorney 
County Courthouse 
N. Park Avenue 
Sanford, Florida 32771

Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAM J. ROBERTS 
Counsel o f Record 
MICHAEL E. EGAN 
Roberts, Egan and Routa, 

P.A.
217 South Adams Street 
P.O. Box 1386 
Tallahassee, Florida 32302 
(904) 224-5169
Attorneys for State Associa­
tion of County Commis­
sioners of Florida, Inc.

JOHN A. GEHRIG 
Orange County Legal 

Department 
Suite 1210 
201 East Pine Street 
Orlando, Florida 32802
MARY A. GREENWOOD 
Manatee County Attorney 
P.O. Box 1000 
Bradenton, Florida 33506
J. PAUL GRIFFITH 
Jackson County Attorney 
P.O. Box 207 
Marianna, Florida 32446
LARRY HAAG 
Citrus County Attorney 
110 North Apopka 
Inverness, Florida 32650



20

C. DEAN LEWIS 
Suwannee County Attorney 
P.O. Drawer 8 
Live Oak, Florida 32060
DENNIS R. LONG 
Alachua County Attorney 
P.O. Drawer CC 
Gainesville, Florida 32602
OWEN L. LUCKEY, JR. 
Hendry County Attorney 
Post Office Box 865 
Labelle, Florida 33935

RONALD A. MOWREY 
Wakulla County Attorney 
P.O. Box 567
Crawfordville, Florida 32327
ROBERT NABORS 
Brevard County Attorney 
P.O. Box 37 
Titusville, Florida 32780
MICHAEL H. OLENICK 
Martin County Attorney 
P.O. Box 626 
Stuart, Florida 33494
CHARLES F. SCHOECH 
Palm Beach County Attorney 
307 N. Dixie Hwy.
Suite 100
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402

ROBERT J. SCHRAMM 
Taylor County Attorney 
P.O. Box 29 
Perry, Florida 32347
ALFRED O. SHULER 
Franklin County Attorney 
P.O. Drawer 850 
Apalachicola, Florida 32320
JAMES G. SISCO
St. Johns County Attorney
P.O. Box 1533
St. Augustine, Florida 32084
F. E. STEINMEYER, III 
Leon County Attorney 
122 S. Calhoun Street 
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
H. WILLIAM THOMPSON 
Charlotte County Attorney 
18500 Murdock Circle 
Port Charlotte, Florida 33952
RANDALL N. THORNTON 
Sumter County Attorney 
P.O. Box 58
Lake Panasoffkee, Florida 33538 

Counsel for Amici Curiae



la

APPENDIX A

THE PENSACOLA NEWS 

VIEWPOINT

Clifford W. Barnhart, Publisher 
J. Earle Bowden, Editor
Paul Jasper, Editorial Page Editor

8A Wednesday, December 8, 1982

BACK TO THE OLD SYSTEM

NO MATTER what Pensacola City Council election 
plan is adopted by U.S. District Judge Winston Arnow, 
it’s almost certain to be better than the one he will adopt 
for the Escambia County Commission.

For the city plan, however gerrymandered to work out 
three special “black” districts, at least incorporates a 
vestige of the idea that a governing body should represent 
the entire community, not each individual representing a 
single district.

The civil suit settlement between the city and the plain­
tiffs — who contended, victoriously, that the old at-large 
election system unconstitutionally diluted the black vote 
— provides there will be seven single-member district seats 
and three at-large seats.

The hope is that the three at-large seats, representing the 
whole community, can offset the kind of district-by- 
district trading that brought the ward system into 
disrepute in the first place.

Yet there seems to be no such hope insofar as the Coun­
ty Commission is concerned.



2a

Though the county’s case is still on appeal to the U.S. 
Supreme Court, the higher courts have told Arnow to pro­
ceed with the elections here on the basis that the at-large 
system is unconstitutional.

At least one commissioner seemed to be entertaining 
some hope that Judge Arnow would approve a county 
plan calling for an expanded commission with a couple of 
at-large commissioners.

The judge, in fact, tentatively approved such a plan two 
years ago -  but only on the contingency that the county 
go to charter government.

But the charter government proposal did not pass.

The rationale for Arnow’s position, as news stories had 
it at the time, is this:

The City Council working under a charter, has the 
authority to reapportion itself.

The County Commission, without a charter, does not.

Thus, under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling of 1979, Ar­
now was required to give “considerable weight” to the 
city’s seven-three plan.

But, said the news stories, he had “no choice” but to go 
to a five-member single-district plan for Escambia County 
absent a county charter.

Which, unless the court has made another ruling while 
we weren’t looking, seems to put paid to having any at- 
large commissioners.

And it’s a shame.

The County Commission, everyone admits, was not 
designed to be discriminatory, however discriminatory its 
effects.



3a

It was adopted so that people all over the county would 
have a hand in electing the five commissioners whose deci­
sions affect them all — and, at that, this newspaper spent 
years persuading them to act accordingly.

It won’t happen overnight, probably, but we can see the 
day not far down the road when “road-board politics” will 
once again become a familiar phrase.



4 a

APPENDIX B

ESCAMBIA COMMUNITY PROFILE 1981-82

This document is written, printed and published by the Pensacola Area Chamber of 
Commerce, Pensacola, Florida.

LOCATION: Pensacola, seat of Escambia County, is 
located in extreme northwest Florida. The City is 
strategically located along the Gu If Intracoastal Water­
way at 30° 28’ latitude and 87° IF  longitude. Altitude 
ranges from sea level to 120 feet above sea level.

AREA: The Pensacola Standard Metropolitan Statistical 
Area (SMSA) consists of the two westernmost counties in 
the Florida Panhandle.

Escambia County 657 square miles
Santa Rosa County 1,152 square miles
City of Pensacola 23.13 square miles

There is an additional 64,000 acres of water area. 
Escambia County extends from the Gulf of Mexico to the 
Alabama-Florida border, a distance of approximately 50 
miles.

HISTORY: Pensacola was founded by Don Tristan de 
Luna, Colonizer under King Phillip of Spain, on August 
14, 1559, six years before the settlement of St. Augustine.

Two years after its founding the settlement was aban­
doned due to dissension among its inhabitants. One hun­
dred and thirty-five years after its abandonment, the City 
was resettled by Spanish, and has continued to this day.

In 1718 Pensacola was captured by the French. Within 
two years the Spanish were again in control. Pensacola re­
mained in the hands of the Spanish for many years until, 
as a result of a European agreement, it passed into the



5a

hands of the British. In 1781, it was again returned to the 
control of the Spanish.

The cession of Florida to the United States occurred in 
1821 with Andrew Jackson taking possession of the State 
of Florida in Pensacola. During the Civil War, Pensacola 
once again changed hands when the City was under con­
trol of the Confederate Government. At that time Union 
forces evacuated Fort San Carlos and Fort Barrancas in 
favor of the more defensible Fort Pickens on Santa Rosa 
Island. In 1862 the Confederate Government abandoned 
the City to the Union Forces and once again Pensacola 
flew the flag of the United States.

During more than four hundred years of its history the 
City of Pensacola changed hands 13 times, and the flags of 
five different nations have flown over its forts-thus, the 
name, “City of Five Flags”. This history of the city is 
celebrated during the month of May in a week long 
pageant known as the “Fiesta of Five Flags”.

POPULATION: The Pensacola SMS A ranks eighth in the 
State in population with Escambia County ranking 11th.

Year Pensacola SMSA Pensacola
1970 243,075 59,507
1980 289,782 (+19.2%) 57,619( —3.2%)



6 a

DECENNIAL CENSUS INFORMATION 1850-1980

Year
Escambia
County

Santa Rosa 
County

City of 
Pensacola

1981* 239,391 57,205 57,934**
1980 233,794 55,988 57,619
1970 205,334 37,741 59,507
1960 173,829 29,547 56,752
1950 112,706 18,554 43,479
1940 74,667 16,085 37,449
1930 53,594 14,083 31,579
1920*** 49,386 13,670 31,035
1910 38,029 14,897 22,982
1900 28,313 10,293 17,747
1890 20,188 7,961 11,750
1880 12,156 6,645 6,845
1870 7,817 3,312 3,347
1860 5,768 5,480 2,876
1850 4,351 2,883 2,164

♦Bureau of Economic & Business Research, U. of F.
**City of Pensacola, Community Design Department
***1920 Census indicated that part of Santa Rosa County was taken
to form new counties sometime between 1910 and 1920.

RACE & ETHNICITY: Escambia County racial distribu­
tion (1980): 77.7% white, 19.7% Black, 2.7% other.

AGE: Median, Escambia County, 25.5 male; 28.5 female.

INCOME: Escambia County 1979 per capita income 
$6,973, ranks 27th in State. 1981 median family income; 
$18,900. Percent change in per capita income from 
1970-1979 was plus 124.28%. Percent change in median 
family income $976-1981 was plus 65.79%.

TOTAL WAGES: Pensacola SMSA, 1981 . .
$1,253,420,608.



7a

EMPLOYMENT: From the year ending December 1980 
to the year ending December, 1981, total employment in­
creased by 5.7% to 106,700. The civilian labor force in­
creased to 113,500. Unemployment increased over the 
period by 11.5% to a total of 6,800 and the unemployment 
rate rose to 6.0% (source: Fla. Dept, of Labor & Employ­
ment Security, Division of Employment Security, Bureau 
of Research and Analysis).

WAGE RATES: Wage rate information is available upon 
request from the Florida State Employment Service, Post 
Office Box 1393, Pensacola, FL 32596 or at the Chamber.

MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS:
Automobiles....................  137,853
Trucks............................... 33,097
O thers............................... 34,396
TOTAL............................  205,346

UTILITIES: Electric Power: Northwest Florida is ade­
quately served with electrical power provided by Gulf 
Power Company, a subsidiary of the Southern Company. 
They own 33 modern generating stations in Northwest 
Florida. Gulf Power Company. Post Office Box 1151, 
Pensacola, FL 32522, (904) 434-8111. Customer Facility 
Charge: $5; October-May 5.610C per kilowatt hour. June- 
September 6.169<P per kilowatt hour. A deposit of $75 for 
new residents plus a connection fee of $10 is required. 
Deposits returned after two years. Telephone Service: 
Southern Bell Telephone Company, Post Office Box 1071, 
Pensacola FL 32595; New Residential Customers: If your 
name begins with A-L, (904) 436-1201; if your name 
begins with M-Z, (904) 434-1232. Private Residence Line: 
$10.25 per month plus tax. Two-party Residence Line: 
$7.90 per month, plus tax. Business installation charge 
$97.40 plus tax, for single line. Telephone deposits vary



8a

depending on the number of long distance calls and the 
basic service charge. Other Communications systems: Gulf 
Coast Electronics, Inc., 3535 West Fairfield Drive, Pen­
sacola, FL 32505, (904) 453-5134. Southland Systems, 40 
North Palafox Street, Pensacola, FL 32501, (904) 
434-3096. Public Utilities: The Escambia County Utility 
Authority, 9250 Hammon Avenue, Building 942, Pen­
sacola FL 32504, (904) 476-0480 supplies sanitary sewers 
and water to the metropolitan area. A $25 deposit is re­
quired within city and outside city limits. Sewage Rates: Ci­
ty limits: $2.38 per 1,000 gallons of water. Outside city 
limits: $2.98 per 1,000 gallon of water. Gas Service: City 
of Pensacola, Energy Services of Pensacola, Post Office 
Box 12910, Pensacola, FL 32521, (904) 436-4111. $35 
deposit and $5 connection fee required in advance.

CLIMATE: Pensacola is situated in a warm temperate 
zone, and its climate is typical of the region along the up­
per Gulf Coast. The winters are mild and the summer heat 
is tempered by the southerly prevailing winds from the 
Gulf of Mexico. The City averages 348 days of the year in 
which sunshine occurs. The average annual percentage of 
sunshine is 66%. Unusual weather phenomena such as 
hurricanes and tornadoes have occurred, but such 
phenomena are far less frequent or severe than in many 
other parts of the Southeast. Late summer and fall are the 
seasons of highest winds.



AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURES

Month Average
Temperature

Average
Maximum

Average
Minimum

January 53.5 62.3 44.6
February 56.1 65.2 46.9
March 61.0 70.2 51.8
April 67.9 76.5 59.3
May 75.5 84.0 66.9
June 81.1 89.3 72.8
July 81.7 89.2 74.1
August 81.5 89.2 73.8
September 78.2 85.9 70.5
October 70.4 79.6 61.1
November 59.5 69.3 49.7
December 54.3 77.0 45.3
Yearly Averages: 68.4 77.0 59.7

AGRIBUSINESS: 1981 total gross value $28,970,000. 
82,500 acres, planted with soybeans, corn, wheat, oats, 
cotton, vegetables, fruits and nuts and sorghum yielded a 
gross value of $16,886,000. Gross value in livestock (beef, 
swine and dairy) was $5,209,000 in 1981. Ornamental hor­
ticulture and forestry yielded a gross value of $6,875,000.



10a

MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN THE PENSACOLA 
METROPOLITAN AREA

Company Product Number of
Employees

Federal Government 10,900
Local and State Government 14,800
Monsanto Textiles Company Nylon 5,000
Baptist Hospital Hospital 1,880
St. Regis Paper Products 1,800
Sacred Heart Hospital Hospital 1,560
West Florida Hospital Hospital 1,545
Gulf Power Company Electric Utilities 1,432
Southern Bell Telephone Service 1,000
American Cyanamid Acrylic Fiber 650
Armstrong World Industries Acoustical Celling Tiles 650
Sears and Roebuck Department Store 650
Westinghouse Electric Co. Nuclear Reactor Components 640
Vanity Fair Clothing Manufacturer 565
Gayfers Department Store 500
Medical Center Clinic Clinic 479
Air Products Industrial Chemicals 470
Lewis Bear Co. Wholesale Distributors 403
Pensacola News-Journal Newspaper 306
University Hospital Hospital 300
Instrument Control Services Instrumentation 268
Reichhold Chemical Chemicals 205

CONSTRUCTION: 1981 Permits issued for 1472 residen­
tial units totaling $58,074,349. 129 commercial permits 
issued totaling $22,107,428.

PLANNING AND ZONING: The City of Pensacola’s 
Department of Community Design and Planning is 
responsible for maintaining and updating a comprehensive 
City Plan for Pensacola. The City does have zoning or­
dinances and subdivision regulations. The Escambia 
County Division of Community Development has the 
primary function of promoting orderly growth within the 
County. Inspections: City maintains and enforces up to 
date codes for building, electrical, plumbing and gas in­



stallations. The Standard Building Codes of the Southern 
Building Code Congress are applicable. County codes ap­
ply only to the area outside the city limits, and cover new 
construction, alterations and additions.

HOUSING: Total of 3947 properties available as of May 
17, 1982 ranging from $30,000 - $101,000 plus. Properties 
include houses, duplexes, condominiums, townhouses and 
mobile homes. A list of Chamber member realtors is 
available upon request.

FINANCE: Escambia County has 12 commercial banks 
with 35 locations and total deposits of $506,690,000 
(6/30/81) and debits totaling $1,984,659,800 (1/82). Sav­
ings and Loan Associations: Three savings and loan 
associations with 14 locations and deposits totaling 
$443,534,000. Credit Unions: 28 credit unions with assets 
totaling $292,600,000.

RETAIL TRADE: Total retail sales to taled
$1,170,779,000 in 1980. Major shoping areas include: Cor­
dova Mall (80 retail stores), University Mall (81 retail 
stores), Westwood Mall (23 establishments), Town and 
County Plaza (63 retail stores). Other shopping facilities 
include: Warrington Village, Fairfield Plaza, Ensley 
Square, Downtown Pensacola, and Ferry Pass Plaza.

MILITARY: Pensacola has a special advantage in the 
calibre and strength of its military bases. Known since 
1914 as the “Cradle of Naval Aviation,” Pensacola is the 
home of the Naval Air Station, the Naval Air Rework 
Facility (NARF) and the USS Lexington. Other Navy in­
stallations in Pensacola include Saufley Field and Corry 
Station. Whiting Field is located in Milton, Florida, about 
20 miles northeast of Pensacola. Over 24,000 military and 
civilian personnel earn payrolls in excess of $297 million



12a

annually. Pensacola is especially proud to be the home of 
the famous Naval flight demonstration team “The Blue 
Angels”.

Of special interest is the Naval Aviation Museum, which 
contains hundreds of artifacts, exhibits and stories of the 
history of flight. The museum is open 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. dai­
ly, no admission charge.

GOVERNMENT: City: The City of Pensacola has a 
Council-Manager form of government, with ten council- 
men elected for two year terms. The City Manager is ap­
pointed by the Council, and the Mayor is elected by the 
Council. Pensacola’s bond rating is A-Moody’s with a 
$48.9 million budget. County: Escambia County has a five 
person Board of Commissioners elected for four year terms. 
The County Administrator is appointed by the Commis­
sion. The County’s bond rating is also A-Moody’s, with a 
$82.9 million budget. County-total taxable value - 
$2 ,682 ,602 ,290 . C ity -estim ated  ac tu a l value 
$1,052,451,000.

TAXATION: Unemployment Compensation Rate: 
2.7% on employee’s first $6,000 earned (normally $162.00 
per employee per year). Workmen’s Compensation: Varies 
by job classification. Corporate Income Tax: State tax of 
5% on Florida’s portion of adjusted Federal income. 
Florida’s portion is determined by a formula using three 
factors. State Income Tax: THERE IS NO STATE PER­
SONAL INCOME TAX IN  FLORIDA. Pensacola City 
Taxes: 22.92 mills or $22.92 per $1,000 of assessed value. 
Real property is assessed at 100% of assessed value. 
Homestead Exemption is available to all resident property 
owners. Escambia County Taxes: 18.988 mills or $18.98 
per $1,000 of assessed value. Sales and Use Tax: 5% of the 
total price on the retail sale or rental of tangible personal 
property; no sales tax on groceries or drugs.



13a

LAW ENFORCEMENT: Police D epartm ent: The City of 
Pensacola Police Department employs 133 sworn person­
nel, 48 support staff for a total of 181; 76 vehicles and 1 
boat.

Florida H ighw ay Patrol: Pensacola is a subdistrict 
headquarters for the Florida Highway Patrol, employing 
48 officers and 50 vehicles.

Florida M arine Patrol: Pensacola is location of District 
office 11, covering Escambia, Santa Rosa and Okaloosa 
Counties. They employ 18 personnel, are equipped with 13 
boats, 2 airplanes and 1 helicopter.

S h eriffs  D epartm ent: The Escambia County Sheriff is 
an elected official, whose office employs 220 law enforce­
ment officers and 230 vehicles.

FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City of Pensacola Fire 
Department numbers 139 persons, with jurisdiction extend­
ing to all incorporated areas of Pensacola. The Depart­
ment has 6 fire stations and 17 pieces of equipment. In 
Escambia County some 15 volunteer fire departments and 
more than 500 volunteer firefighters work within the 
County. Together they have more than 50 pieces of 
firefighting equipment and class five to ten rating.

TRANSPORTATION: A ir  Service: Civilian all weather 
airport: Airlines serving Pensacola - Air Florida, Con­
tinental, Eastern, Texas International. Commuter airlines 
serving Pensacola: Dolphin, Scheduled Skyways. Number 
of scheduled flights: Air Florida-in- 3 daily; out-3 daily. 
Continental-in-2 daily; out-2 daily. Eastern-in 9 daily; 
out-9 daily. Texas International-in 2 daily; out-2 daily. 
Dolphin-in-2 daily; out-2 daily. Scheduled Skyways-in-1 
daily; out-1 daily. Longest Runway-7,000 feet. Distance 
Downtown: 4 miles. Jet Fuel Available: 100 Jet A. R ail



14a

Service: Burlington Northern, (904) 432-6185. SCL/L&N, 
(904) 434-2783. Freight Service. Bus Service: Inter-city: 
Greyhound and Trailways. Local Bus Service: Escambia 
Transit System (ETS). ETS has a fleet of 27 busses serving 
an area of 91 square miles with a route system of 283 one 
way miles. Estimated passengers in 1981: 1,600,000. For 
information regarding routes and charter information, 
call ETS at (904) 436-9383.

PORT OF PENSACOLA: The port of Pensacola is 
among North America’s oldest and includes major ter­
minals located on the largest protected Bay in the south. 
Because of its strategic location at the extreme western tip 
of Florida on the Gulf of Mexico, Pensacola has several 
competitive advantages over other ports of the Upper Gulf 
Coast. The bay is approximately 12 1/2 miles wide. It may 
be entered from the Gulf day or night through dredged 
channel with a depth of 33 feet at mean low water and a 
minimum width of 500 feet. Santa Rosa Island lying be­
tween Pensacola Bay and Gulf forms a natural breakwater 
for the inner harbor. Natural depths in the bay range from 
20 to 45 feet and, except at its mouth and alongside of 
docks, no maintenance is required. There are no bridges 
between the city port and open seas. The port is served by 
four steamship agencies, 6 freight forwarders, appropriate 
government agencies, chandlers, marine surveyors and the 
necessary facilities for modest ship or barge repair. Total 
tonnage passing through the port during fiscal year 1981 
was 1,354,790 net tons. Net tons exported: 1,079,491; net 
tons imported: 275,299.

HIGHWAYS: Pensacola is served by four major federal 
highways providing easy access from the north, east and 
west. Interstate 10 is a transcontinental east-west 
superhighway stretching from Jacksonville to Los



15a

Angeles. Supplementing 1-10 as a major east-west 
transcontinental artery is U.S. 90 (Old Spanish Trail). 
U.S. 90 runs from St. Augustine to San Diego. U.S. 98 
(Gulf Coast Scenic Highway) is another east-west artery 
starting at West Palm Beach and running to Natchez, 
Mississippi. U.S. 29 is a direct route to the Northeast, 
which connects with 1-65 at the Northern entry to Escam­
bia County. It originates in Pensacola and terminates in 
Washington, D.C. Interstate 1-100 is a major spur off 1-10 
to downtown Pensacola and the beach areas.

HIGHWAY MILEAGE TO SELECTED CITIES

City: Miles: Driving
Hours:

Atlanta, GA 368 7.3
Chicago, IL 800 16.0
Los Angeles, CA 2,102 42.0
Miami, FL 693 13.8
Mobile, AL 60 1.0
Montgomery, AL: 170 3.4
New Orleans, LA 200 4.0
New York, NY 1,289 25.7
Tallahassee, FL 200 4.0

MOTOR FREIGHT: Pensacola is served by 17 motor 
freight carriers and several contract and special commodi­
ty haulers. All of the common carriers maintain local 
freight terminals and all provide store-door delivery serv­
ice.

EDUCATION: University o f  West Florida-enrollment, 
5,000; Graduate Schools-University of West Florida. Pen­
sacola Junior College-enrollment, 19,958 and 2 private 
four year colleges, Liberty Bible College and Pensacola



16a

Christian College. Elementary Schools-42; Middle 
Schools-11; High Schools-S; 21 private and parochial 
schools; over 40 day care centers. All high schools in 
Escambia County are fully accredited by the Southern 
Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. Teachers 
must meet State Certification requirements. There are 180 
days in the school year, which normally begins the Mon­
day before Labor Day and runs through the first week in 
June. For further information on the Escambia County 
School District, call (904) 432-6121.

1980-81 SAT Scores

Mean SAT Score Mean SAT Score
Math Verbal

Escambia County 480 Escambia County 434
Florida 463 Florida 424
Nation 466 Nation 424

Library Systems: The West Florida Regional Library 
serves the Pensacola SMSA (Escambia and Santa Rosa 
Counties). The central plant is located in Pensacola at 200 
West Gregory Street, with four branches. The system in­
cludes one bookmobile and one outreach van with 
estimated monthly circulation of 55,000. Total volumes, 
301,432.

John C. Pace Library, University of West Florida, con­
tains more than 400,000 volumes and 550,000 microfilms. 
The Library is a regional depository for publications of 
the U.S. government and the State of Florida.

Pensacola Junior College Library system encompasses 
the main campus, the Warrington Campus and PJC 
Milton Center with 114,000 volumes and 8,000 audio­
visuals.



17a

HEALTH CARE: Seven hospitals, including a U.S. navy 
regional medical facility, are located in the Pensacola 
area, providing approximately 1900 beds. The number of 
beds per 1,000 population is 5.9, compared to 6.5 per 
1,000 nationally. There are 320 practicing physicians and 
98 dentists.

Among the many services provided by the area’s 
hospitals are: a children’s medical center, perinatal clinic, 
neonatal intensive care center, a surgical center, cancer 
treatment center, spinal cord injury and Gulf Region 
poison control center.

M ajor hospitals include:

B aptist H osp ita l has 535 beds and is the largest facility 
in Pensacola. The hospital operates a 24-hour a day Life 
Flight helicopter service.

Sacred H eart H osp ita l has a total of 375 beds and in­
cludes a 62-bed children’s hospital. One of the state’s seven 
neonatal intensive care centers is located at Sacred Heart.

U niversity H osp ita l Clinic is a 130-bed facility owned 
and operated by the county. W est F lorida H ospita l, the 
area’s newest facility, is a 400 bed full service hospital. The 
Medical Center Clinic, a group practice comprised of over 
80 specialists, is located adjacent to the hospital. Because 
of the medical specialization at the Clinic, West Florida 
Hospital draws nearly 50 percent of its patient load from 
outside the County.

The State Board of Health, the City of Pensacola and 
Escambia County Health units are active in various phases 
of public health. The Pensacola area is also served by the 
Rehabilitation Institute of Northwest Florida and the 
Community Health Association of Escambia County.



18a

Emergency ambulance service in Escambia County is 
provided by the Ambulance Division of Escambia Medical 
Services. The Emergency Communications Center dispat­
ches calls for medical, fire and disaster assistance. Forty- 
four full time registered Emergency Medical Technicians, 
including 20 Certified Paramedics, staff five ambulance 24 
hours a day. Four ambulances are located in Pensacola 
and one in northern Escambia County at Century. In 1981 
requests for ambulance service totaled 13,307 of which 
2,210 were Advanced Life Support calls.

TOURISM: 1980 figures from the state Division of 
Tourism reflects 1,791,400 visitors to the Pensacola area. 
The economic impact of tourism is approximately 
$250,000,000.

There are 600 acres of public parks in the City of Pen­
sacola and 480 in Escambia County. Tennis buffs will en­
joy 34 public courts and there are 9 golf courses; 2 public, 
2 semi-private and 5 private. A full range of sports ac­
tivities is available from the obvious fishing, water sports 
and diving to hunting, horseback riding, motorcross, rac- 
quetball, handball, dog racing, stock car racing, high 
school and college athletics and semi-pro football.

Clear blue water, mild surf, gently sloping beaches, 
magnolias, a rich history dating back to the 16th century 
Spanish explorations of the New World are all offered in 
the Gulf Island National Seashore. Pensacola Beach, ac­
claimed as “the World’s Whitest Beach”, offers surfing, 
swimming, sailing, crabbing, skiing, shell collecting and 
fishing from the “World’s Longest Fishing Pier”. Pen­
sacola Beach is located off U.S. 98E on Santa Rosa Island.

Pensacola Historic District: The rich history of Pen­
sacola is constantly cared for by its citizens. Gracious 
homes, brick streets, and museums enhance the historical



19a

flavor of Pensacola. Included in this district are: the Old 
Christ Church, completed in 1821, houses the city’s 
historical museum; West Florida Museum of History, 
originally constructed for use as a warehouse; Transporta­
tion Museum, where wagons, carriages, fire engines and a 
street scene from Pensacola’s past are displayed. The 
Hispanic Building includes the history and development 
of Northwest Florida. Seville Square Historical District in­
cludes shops, galleries, restaurants, and museums in keep­
ing with Pensacola’s rich historical past. St. Michael’s 
Cemetery, deeded by St. Michael’s Roman Catholic 
Church, provides a visible record of Pensacola’s earlier 
years.

MOTELS: Escambia County has 57 motels with 3,132 
units.

RESTAURANTS: A wide range of dining pleasures can 
be found in Pensacola’s restaurants. Easily accessible to all 
are restaurants featuring outstanding regional and tradi­
tional American dishes and a diverse representation of in­
ternational cuisine.

CHURCHES: Pensacola is a community rich in religious 
heritage and practice. More than 245 churches and 
synagogues represent some 30 denominations.

COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA: Newspapers: Daily: The 
Pensacola Journal (morning); The Pensacola News (even­
ing). Circulation: Morning, 59,000; evening, 16,000; Sun­
day News-Journal, 72,000; Post Office Box 12710, Pen­
sacola, FL32574. Weekly, Commercial News, P.O. Box 
2237, Pensacola, FL 32503; Escambia County Beacon, 
P.O. Box 12157, Pensacola, FL 32590; Gulf Breeze Sen­
tinel, P.O. Box 967, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561; The Press-



20a

Gazette, P.O. Drawer 607, Milton, FL 32570; The Pen­
sacola Voice, 213 East Yonge St., Pensacola, FL 32503; 
The New American, P.O. Box 422, Pensacola, FL 32592; 
Escambia Sun Press, P.O. Box 4625, Pensacola, FL 
32507; The Islander, P.O. Box 292, Gulf Breeze, 32561.

AM  Radio Stations: WBOP 980; WBSR 1450; WCOA 
1370; WHYM 610; WNVY 1230; WPFA 790.

FM Radio Stations: WJLQ 100.7; WMEZ 94.1; 
WOWW 107.3; WTKX 101.5; WUWF 88.1; WXBM 
102.7; WPCS 89.3.

Television Stations: WEAR, channel 3, ABC; WSRE, 
channel 23, PBS; WKRG, channel 5, CBS; WALA, chan­
nel 10, NBC; WPMI, channel 15, Independent. Cable 
television is available with 11 channels and Home Box Of­
fice.

CULTURAL ATTRACTIONS: The 1925-era Saenger 
Theatre has enjoyed an overwhelmingly successful first 
season after its restoration. From September 1981, when 
the theatre opened to the sounds of the Duke Ellington 
Orchestra and champagne toasts, through April 1982 
when Broadway’s A CHORUS LINE packed the house, 
over 60,000 people were entertained in the 1,761-seat 
theatre.

During the summer, the theatre features classic films 
every weekend, plus Pensacola Junior College’s summer 
musical. The Saenger will continue to be the toast of Pen­
sacola as its 1982-83 season brings ANNIE, the Atlanta 
Symphony, A CHRISTMAS CAROL, Western Opera 
Theater, THE GLASS MENAGERIE, Alabama 
Shakespeare, GIVE ‘EM HELL HARRY, Carlos Mon­
toya, CHILDREN OF A LESSER GOD, The Vienna 
Choir Boys, the 1940’s RADIO HOUR, Ferrante and



21a

Teicher, ANGEL STREET, Big Band Calvacade, Tam- 
buritzans, six travel films, the Florida Junior Miss 
Pageant, musicals by PJC and the University of West 
Florida, and much, much more.

The Pensacola Arts Council was founded in 1967 to 
guide, coordinate and promote cultural activities. The 
Council contributes to the Pensacola Symphony, the Pens­
acola Little Theatre, Oratorio Society and the Pensacola 
Museum of Art. The PAC sponsors the Great Gulf Coast 
Arts Festival in November each year. Begun ten years ago, 
the juried art show is limited to 200 artists. An estimated 
120,000 persons attended last year’s festival. The Pen­
sacola Symphony presents five performances throughout 
the year; the Pensacola Oratorio two; the Pensacola Little 
Theatre stages five plays on three consecutive weekends 
during the year. The Pensacola Museum of Art, 407 South 
Jefferson is open Tuesday-Saturday, 10 a.m. - 5 p.m.

The University of West Florida and Pensacola Junior 
College also present cultural activities throughout the 
year. Other special events include: January: Camelia 
Show; Florida Junior Miss Pageant; February: Mardy 
Gras, Heart Fund Run; March: Escambia County Special 
Olympics, Pensacola Hunter Jumper Show, Escambia 
County Community Games; April: Five Flags Speedway 
seasons opens, Hospitality Night at the Races, Greyhound 
Racing Season opens, Greater Pensacola Orchid Show; 
May: Pensacola Charity Horse Show, Outdoor Show, 
American Amateur Golf Classic; June: Coon Hound 
Championships/Bench Show, Pensacola Hunter Jumper 
Show, Pensacola Shark Rodeo; July: Pensacola Interna­
tional Billfish Tournament, Big Bang (4th of July), 
Southern Juniors Golf Championship; August: Ladies 
Billfish Tournament, Gulf Coast Masters Invitational 
Billfish Tournament, Depression Glass Show; September:



22a

Seafood Festival, American Amateur Tennis Classic, Na­
tional Hunting & Fishing Day, Fiesta of Five Flags Anti­
que Show & Sale, Pensacola Hunter Jumper Show, Great 
Gulf Coast Gumbo Cookoff; October: St. Anne’s Western 
Roundup, Greyhound season ends; Pensacola Interstate 
Fair, National Women’s Clay Court Tennis Tournament; 
November: Great Gulf Coast Arts Festival, Greek Festival 
Bazaar, Escambia County Junior Miss Pageant, Blue 
Angels Air Show, Jerry Pate Boy Scouts Tournament; 
December: Winston Snowball Derby, Pensacola Hunter 
Jumper Show.



23a

APPENDIX C
ECONOMIC PROFILE 

BURKE COUNTY COMMUNITY 1982
PREPARED AND PUBLISHED BY THE 

BURKE COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, 
WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA

LOCATION:
City of Waynesboro, Burke 
County, 159 miles East 
of Atlanta.
COMMERCIAL SERVICES

COMMUNICATIONS. Local Newspapers: 1 weekly. 
Other dailies delivered: Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta 
Journal, Augusta Herald, Savannah Morning News, 
Savannah Evening Press. 4 TV channels received (cable 
available). Local radio stations: 1 AM, 1 FM.

FINANCIAL FACILITIES. 4 banks with $62.6 million 
assets. 1 S&L branch with $321.9 million assets.

INDUSTRIAL SUPPORT SERVICES. Tool & die serv­
ices, machine shops, fabricating, plating.

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS. 4 restaurants (largest 
capacity, 100). 1 hotel (40 rooms). 1 motel (21 units). 
7 meeting facilities (largest seats 200).

EDUCATION

COUNTY ELEMENTARY/SECONDARY
SCHOOLS. 9 public schools with 250 teachers and 4,100 
students. 189 high school graduates. 3 area private schools 
with 40 teachers and 577 students.

HIGHER EDUCATION. Area vo-tech: Augusta at 
Augusta (31 miles) with 2,640 students. Jr. college:



24a

Emanuel County at Swainsboro (25 miles) with 378 
students. 4-year college: Augusta College at Augusta (31 
miles) with 3,825 students.

HEALTH

1 hospital (57 beds). 6 MDs. 4 dentists. County public 
health department. Burke County Emergency Medical 
Service. Burke County Health Facility. Keysville Con­
valescent & Nursing Center.

INCOME

PER CAPITA INCOME

COUNTY STATE U.S.

1970 1,956 3,300 3,893
1975 3,420 5,029 5,861
1978 4,241 6,825 7,846
1979 5,217 7,627 8,757

MUNICIPAL SERVICES

FIRE PROTECTION. 6 full-time and 10 volunteer fire 
personnel. Protection outside city limits. Fire insurance 
classification 6.

POLICE PROTECTION. 19 full-time city police per­
sonnel and 26 county personnel. Protection outside city 
limits.

GARBAGE. Service provided by city.

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. None.

ZONING. City has a planning commission and zoning 
ordinance. Burke County has a Land Development Code.



25a

CITY COUNTY
STATE

(mil)
U.S.
(mil)

1950 4,461 23,458 3.4 151.3
1960 5,359 20,596 3.9 179.3
1970 5,530 18,255 4.6 203.2
1980 5,760 19,349 5.3 222.2

RECREATION (COUNTY)

HIGHLIGHTS. 1 swimming pool. 4 tennis courts. 1 
country club. 4 softball fields. 2 football fields. 2 outdoor 
basketball courts.

STATE PARK. Magnolia Springs (13 miles) has swimm­
ing, fishing, camping, water skiing, motor boating.

PUBLIC LAKE/RIVER. Clarks Hill Lake and Dam (50 
miles) 1,200 miles of shoreland.

YEARLY EVENTS. Field Trials, “Bird Dog Capitol of 
the World”.

SCENIC ATTRACTIONS. Historical landmarks. 

TAXES

PROPERTY. Property taxes are determined by tax rates 
and assessment ratios, which vary by location. The only 
realistic way to compare property taxes for different loca­
tions is to use “effective tax rates” (tax rate multiplied by 
assessment ratio). Effective tax rates combine city, coun­
ty, school, and state tax rates into one convenient figure — 
the yearly tax for each $1,000 of property at its fair market 
value. This rate applies to land, building, machinery, 
equipment, inventory, and retail inventory.



26a

PROPERTY
LOCATED

EFFECTIVE 
1981 RATE

Within city 
Outside city

$9.23
4.03

RETAIL SALES TAX. City and county have 1% local 
sales tax in addition to the 3% state sales tax.

TRANSPORTATION

AIR. Nearest commercial service at Augusta (31 miles). 
Airlines: Delta. Public airport: Waynesboro (3 miles S.). 
Type runway: Asphalt. Length: 3,200 ft. Services: aircraft 
tiedown, lighted runway.

MOTOR FREIGHT CARRIERS. 7 interstate. 2 in­
trastate.

RAIL. Southern Railway. Piggyback ramp at Augusta 
(31 miles).

WATER. Nearest navigable river: Savannah River (15 
miles). Channel depth: 9 ft. Nearest public barge dock: 
Augusta (31 miles). Nearest seaport: Savannah (101 
miles). Maintained channel: 38 ft.

UTILITIES

ELECTRICITY. A part of the state’s modern, in­
tegrated electrical transmission system, Waynesboro has 
excellent ability to supply industrial demands of electrici­
ty. Compared to 47% for the U.S., coal accounts for 84% 
of fuel used in the state’s power generating plants, thereby 
assuring long-term continuity.

NATURAL GAS. Supplied by Southern Natural Gas 
Company and available in industrial quantities on an in­
terruptible basis.



27 a

WATER. Plant capacity 2,700,000 gal/day. Consump­
tion (gal/day) 953,000 average; 1,119,000 maximum. 
Elevated storage capacity 600,000 gallons; ground storage 
capacity 250,000 gallons. Source: 1 deep well with pump­
ing capacity of 800 gal/min. Briar Creek. Daily flow (cu 
ft/sec): 269 average, 108.3 minimum.

SEWAGE. Plant capacity 1,000,000 gal/day. Present 
load 630,000 gal/day. Oxidation filter treatment plant.



1981 INDUSTRY MIX BURKE COUNTY AREA

RANKED BY WAGE

ALL INDUSTRIES

INDUSTRY ESTAB

Mining 2
Transportation/Public Utilities 141
Construction 494
Wholesale Trade 334
Manufacturing 261
Public Administration 301

Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 360
Service 1,378
Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing 65
Retail Trade 1,296
All Others 25

TOTAL 4,657

E M P L O Y M E N T

%
AREA

%
FEM ALE

WEEKLY
W AGE

2 4 0 1% — $ -

5 ,111 5 — 336

6 ,3 6 9 6 - 285

4 ,1 1 4 4 - 271

2 4 ,9 8 7 24 55% 261

5 ,5 6 7 5 — 2 3 9

4 ,1 5 1 4 — 238

3 4 ,3 1 5 33 — 223

2 ,9 8 2 3 — 2 2 0

1 5 ,8 4 4 15 - 154

66 1 — —

1 0 3 ,7 4 6 100% N A $ 2 3 4

28a



MANUFACTURING

Chemicals 26
Paper 10
Transportation Equipment 2
Food 39
Stone/Clay/Glass/Concrete 22
Nonelectric Machinery 4
Instruments 7
Textiles 7
Fabricated Metals 24
Printing 24
Lumber 36
Electric Machinery 2
Rubber/Plastics 3
Furniture 5
Apparel 25
Petroleum Refining 1
Leather 1
Primary Metals 1
Miscellaneous Manufacturing 6

TOTAL 261

1,471 6% 56% $450
1,940 8 63 440

592 2 20 —
2,758 11 61 275
2,142 9 58 275
2,246 9 41 267
3,884 16 42 232
3,884 16 42 232
1,456 6 26 225

656 3 44 221
1,364 5 21 211

96 1 32 —
310 1 62 177
647 3 61 158

4,258 17 87 155
20 1 90 •

20 1 5 —
20 1 5 —

272 1 65 —

24,987 100 55% $261

Counties: Burke, Emanuel, Jefferson, Jenkins, Richmond, Screven. 

Source: Georgia Department of Industry and Trade, 1982.



MAJOR BURKE COUNTY MANUFACTURERS

INDUSTRY COMPANY PRODUCT MALE FEMALE TOTAL

CHEMICAL Gough Gin & Fertilizer Chemicals 14 1 15

(Gough)
Waynesboro Fertilizer Co. 
(Waynesboro)

Fertilizer 8 1 9

FABRICATED Cowart Iron Works, Inc. Structural Steel 35 2 37

METAL (Midville)
Keller Ladders of Georgia Aluminum Ladders 46

(Waynesboro)
Waynesboro Industries, Inc. 
(Waynesboro)

Food Service Equip. 125

LUMBER ITT Rayonier, Inc. Timber 37 37

(Midville)
Sardis Lumber Company Timber 13 1 14

(Sardis)
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 
Southeastern U.S. Forest

Lumber 220

Products Co. 
(Waynesboro)
Talley Corbett Box Co. 
(Waynesboro)

Wood Products 15 15 30



APPAREL Burke Manufacturing Co. Men’s & Boy’s 19 157 176
(Waynesboro) Jackets
Samson Manufacturing Co. 
(Waynesboro)

Curtains & Draperies 380

PRINTING Roy F. Chalker Publishing Co. 
(Waynesboro)

Newspaper Printing 12 18 30

The True Citizen 
(Waynesboro)

Newspaper Printing 2 10 12

NON-ELECTRIC Midville Tool & Die Co. Jigs, Fixtures & 9 0 9
MACHINERY (Midville) Machinery

ELECTRIC Perfection Products Co. Room Heaters 200
MACHINERY (Waynesboro)

FURNITURE Keller Aluminum Furniture 
of Georgia 
(Waynesboro)

Aluminum Furniture 175

CONCRETE Builders Supply Co. Ready Mix Concrete 4 1 5
McKinney Wholesale Co., Inc. Concrete Building 10
(Waynesboro) Materials
Waynesboro Concrete Products Concrete Products 7 1 8
Co., Inc. 
(Waynesboro)

31a