STATE
v.
CITY OF LAKELAND
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 court affirmed a decree validating the City of Lakeland's issuance of utility Tax Revenue Certificates. The city pledged net proceeds from utility service taxes to pay the certificates, and the court found the city had the authority to do so without a freeholder vote.
Yes, the City of Lakeland had the authority to pledge utility service taxes for revenue certificates without a freeholder vote. The city also had the authority to covenant with certificate holders to continue levying these taxes.
“The latter act expressly validated all covenants and provisions of the ordinance and other proceedings of the city providing for the issuance of the revenue certificates brought in question.”
Establishes legislative validation of the city's actions.
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 Lakeland proposed to issue revenue certificates for municipal improvements, pledging only the net proceeds of utility service taxes for re…
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 Impairment Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final decree validating an issue of utility Tax Revenue Certificates by the City of Lakeland. The proposed issue is for street, sewer and other municipal improvements and will be hereafter referred to as revenue certificates. The sole pledge of the city for payment of principal and interest on said revenue certificates is the net proceeds of utilities service taxes imposed by the city.
It is first contended that the City of Lakeland was devoid of authority to pledge its utility service taxes for payment of the revenue certificates without an approving vote of the freeholders.
If the City Charter, Chapter 10754, Sp.Acts of 1925, as amended by Chapter 22829, Acts of 1945, F.S.A. § 167.43 — 1, did not confer such authority there can be no doubt that it was conferred by Chapter 26448, Sp.Acts of 1949. The latter act expressly validated all covenants and provisions of the ordinance and other proceedings of the city providing for the issuance of the revenue certificates brought in question. The latter act further authorized the city to continue the levy and collection of the utilities service taxes so long as the certificates are outstanding. The following cases conclude the question contrary to the contention of appellant: State v. City of Winter Park,160 Fla. 330, 34 So. 2d 740; State v. City of Pensacola, Fla., 40 So. 2d 569; Schmeller v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 38 So. 2d 36.
It is next contended that the City of Lakeland was devoid of authority to covenant with the holders of the revenue certificates, that so long as any of them were outstanding the city would continue the levy of the utility service taxes during the life of said revenue certificates and that it would in no wise modify or repeal the ordinance levying the taxes to service them.
This contention is likewise without merit. As pointed out in the discussion of the previous question, the power of the city to *Page 581 issue the revenue certificates is beyond question. It had that power when the revenue certificates were issued and validated and having such power at that time, it may not be later impaired by the city or the legislature. To admit that this contention had any merit would in effect preclude any bond issues for future betterments or improvements by all governmental entities.
We therefore conclude that there is no basis for the contention that the revenue certificates in question must be supported by an approving vote of the freeholders. The ordinance and other proceedings authorizing them provide in terms that they shall not be a debt of the city, supported by a pledge of its full faith and credit, but that both principal and interest shall be payable solely from the proceeds of the utilities service taxes and from no other source, and that each revenue certificate shall so recite. It is also clear that said revenue certificates are not secured by a lien on the physical properties of the city nor are they supported by an ad valorem tax levy.
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
-
N. Shore Bank v. Town of Surfside, 72 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1954)…t a vote and with the statement, “The right of municipalities 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 t…
-
Town OF Medley v. State, 162 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1964)…ertificates to that constitutional requirement. We have consistently and repeatedly so held. Schmeller v. City 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 th…
-
State of Fla. & the Taxpayers v. The City OF Miami, 76 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1954)…cates are not ‘bonds’ within the meaning of Section 6 of Article 9 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A. State v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 So. 6; State v. City of Pensacola, Fla., 40 So. 2d 569; State v. City of Lakeland, Fla., 42 So. 2d 580.” The citations given in support of the text in the case of State v. Miami Shores Village, supra, were in error because none of these cases involved a franchise tax. In lieu of the cases cited the case of State v. City of Pompano Beach, supra, shou…
Previewing 3 of 7 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 Winter Park, 160 Fla. 330 (Fla. 1948)
- State v. City of Pensacola, 40 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1949)
- Schmeller v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 38 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1948)