STATE
v.
CITY OF POMPANO BEACH
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's validation of City Hall revenue certificates issued by the City of Pompano Beach. The court held that the city had the authority to issue these certificates under its charter and that they did not require a freeholder vote because they were payable solely from specific franchise revenues, not the city's general taxing power.
Yes, the City of Pompano Beach was authorized to issue the City Hall revenue certificates under its charter. No, these certificates do not require a freeholder vote because they are payable solely from franchise revenues and do not impose a general obligation on the city's taxing power.
“Chapter 24835, Special Acts of 1947, among other things, authorizes the City of Pompano Beach to issue and sell revenue bonds or certificates to provide funds to "finance, acquire, construct, improve and operate any utility, facility, enterprise, work, undertaking or project which said City is authorized by law to acquire, construct, improve and operate, and to provide that such revenue bonds and/or certificates and interest thereon shall be payable from the revenue to be derived by the City from the operation of same, or a combination of any or all of such utilities, facilities, enterprises, works, undertakings, or projects."”
Establishes the statutory authority for the city to issue revenue certificates for projects.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Pompano Beach sought to issue City Hall revenue certificates. The Circuit Court of Broward County validated these certificates, finding th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Freeholder Approval For Bonds cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
This appeal is from a final decree of the Circuit Court of Broward County validating City Hall revenue certificates of the City of Pompano Beach. The court found that all legal prerequisites leading up to the issuance and validation of the certificates were complied with.
It is first contended that the City of Pompano Beach was devoid of authority under the constitution and laws of the State of Florida to issue said City Hall revenue certificates.
There is no merit to this contention. Chapter 24835, Special Acts of 1947, among other things, authorizes the City of Pompano Beach to issue and sell revenue bonds or certificates to provide funds to "finance, acquire, construct, improve and operate any utility, facility, enterprise, work, undertaking or project which said City is authorized by law to acquire, construct, improve and operate, and to provide that such revenue bonds and/or certificates and interest thereon shall be payable from the revenue to be derived by the City from the operation of same, or a combination of any or all of such utilities, facilities, enterprises, works, undertakings, or projects."
Chapter 24835, Special Acts of 1947, is the present city charter of the City of Pompano Beach. Other provisions of the charter authorize the city to construct buildings and public improvements of all kinds essential for municipal purposes. The certificates in question are proposed for the construction of a city hall which would seem to be a municipal purpose within the purview of Saunders v. City of Jacksonville, 157 Fla. 240, 25 So. 2d 648, State v. City of Tallahassee, 142 Fla. 476, 195 So. 402 and State v. City of Pensacola, Fla., 43 So. 2d 340.
It is next contended that the revenue certificates are in effect bonds which require an approving vote of the freeholders as specified in Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution, F.S.A., before they may be lawfully issued.
This contention is likewise devoid of merit. The record and the evidence show that the certificates do not impose a general obligation on the taxing power of the city to service them. They are payable solely from revenues derived from the franchise granted to the Florida Power and Light Company by the City and it is shown that these revenues are more than ample to retire them as they fall due. They are supported by no other pledge and there is not the remotest probability, or basis for pledging the taxing power to service them.
Other questions challenge, (1) the power of the City of Pampano Beach to enter into the contract to maintain its Florida Power and Light contract for the life of the certificates, (2) whether or not the members of the City Commission of Pompano Beach are required to sign all ordinances of the city and evidence their approval to them in writing, and (3) whether or not the certificates in question are such as authorize the city to proceed under Chapter 75, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., to promulgate and validate them.
We have given due consideration to each of these contentions and we find no error in the decree appealed from as to them. *517 We therefore conclude that the city was fully authorized to issue the certificates, that they do not require an approving vote of the freeholders and that they are in all respects legal and properly validated.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., and THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Panama City v. State, 93 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1957)…are concerned, see State v. City of Coral Gables, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 48; as to the utility service taxes, see State v. City of Winter Park, 1948, 160 Fla. 330, 34 So. 2d 740; as to the franchise taxes, see State v. City of Pompano Beach, Fla.1950, 47 So. 2d 515, and in State v. Monroe County, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 522, 523, we said with reference to the general proposition of excise taxes, “We have repeatedly held that revenue bonds issued for a public purpose, payable solely from revenues derived from the u…
-
N. Shore Bank v. Town of Surfside, 72 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1954)…palities to pledge such revenues [the franchise tax] has been uniformly approved by this Court,” citing State v. City of Daytona Beach, 160 Fla. 13, 33 So. 2d 218; State v. City of Lakeland, Fla., 42 So. 2d 580; State v. City of Pompano Beach, Fla., 47 So. 2d 515; State v. Miami Shores Village, Fla., 60 So. 2d 541; Bessemer Properties, Inc., v. Town of Miami Springs, Fla., 65 So. 2d 567. In the Daytona Beach case the bonds were voted upon and approved by the people and were general obligation bonds. In none…
-
Town OF Medley v. State, 162 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1964)…y of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.1948, 38 So. 2d 36; State v. City of Lakeland, Fla.1949, 42 So. 2d 764; State v. City of Daytona Beach, Fla.1949, 42 So. 2d 580; State v. City of Pensacola, Fla.1949, 40 So. 2d 569; State v. City of Pompano Beach, Fla.1950, 47 So. 2d 515; State v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.1951, 53 So. 2d 306; and State v. City of West Palm Beach, Fla.1960, 125 So. 2d 568. It may be true that the pledging of the special sources of revenue to retire the subject revenue bonds may require the Town of…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. City of Tallahassee, 142 Fla. 476 (Fla. 1940)
- Saunders v. City OF Jacksonville, 157 Fla. 240 (Fla. 1946)
- State v. City of Pompano Beach, 47 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1950)
- State v. City of Pensacola, 43 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1949)