STATE
v.
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG
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 upheld the City of St. Petersburg's issuance of $238,000 in Gas Plant Revenue Certificates without a taxpayer vote, holding that revenue certificates paid solely from utility revenues are not bonds subject to constitutional voting requirements.
The City had clear authority under its charter to issue the certificates, which are not bonds subject to Section 6, Article IX constitutional requirements because they are paid solely from utility revenues and do not bind the City as a taxing unit.
“The Certificates are not bonds requiring an approving vote óf the taxpayers as contemplated by Section 6, of Article IX, of the Constitution'.”
Establishes the central holding that revenue certificates are legally distinct from bonds and do not require constitutional voter approval.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn November 1938, St. Petersburg's City Council adopted a resolution authorizing issuance of $238,000 in Gas Plant Revenue Certificates to construct a…
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.
In November, 1938, the City Council of St. Petersburg adopted a resolution authorizing the issuance of $238,000.00 of Gas Plant Revenue Certificates hereinafter referred to as “certificates” for the purpose of con*643structing a Utilities Administration Building, the said Certificates to be payable solely from the net revenues derived from services rendered by the Municipal Gas Plant of the City, and to be issued without an approving vote of the taxpayers as contemplated by Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution.
The resolution was predicated on a finding of fact that the City of St. Petersburg was the owner and operator of its Municipal Gas Plant which had for years paid a net income over operating expenses, that the construction of a Utililties Administration Building is essential and necessary, that the present Utilities Administration Building is totally inadequate, is unsafe, antiquated, and does not begin to respond to the present and growing needs of the City, that the City is authorized by resolution to issue said certificates and that the net income from the Gas Plant is sufficient to pay said Certificates as they mature in addition to operating and other expenses.
Petition to validate said certificates was filed in the Circuit Court November 22, 1938, order to show cause and notice to taxpayers was duly given and published as required by law. Answer was filed, testimony was taken as to all material facts and requirements and on final hearing, a decree was entered validating the Certificates. The instant appeal is from the decree of validation.
Seven questions are urged here for reversal of the validating decree. Some of them are in reality questions of fact, on which we deem the finding of the City final or they are such as have no legal bearing on the validity of the certificates and are not treated in this opinion. The questions of law urged relate to (1) the power of the City to issue the Certificates, and if it is authorized to issue them whether they can be issued by ordinance or resolution, (2) the power of the City to construct the Utilities Administration *644Building, and (3) is the City authorized to issue said Certificates without an approving vote of the taxpayers as conteniplated by Section 6, of Article IX, of the Constitution.
The City Charter of St. Petersburg, embraced in Chapter 15505, Special Acts of 1931, has been examined and found to contain ample warrant to the City to construct the Utilities Administration Building and to issue the Certificates either by ordinance or resolution for that purpose in the manner shown to have been accomplished.
The Certificates are not bonds requiring an approving vote óf the taxpayers as contemplated by Section 6, of Article IX, of the Constitution'. They are paid solely from the net revenues derived from the Municipal Gas Plant. They cannot be paid from any other revenues of the City, and the City as a taxing unit is in nd sense bound for the payment of them of any part of them. McGoon v. Town of Miami Springs, and cases therein cited, decided December 16, 1938.
The judgment below is therefore affirmed on authority of the latter case and cases therein cited.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Brown, Ruford and Chapman, j. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. City of St. Petersburg, 61 So.2d 416 (Fla. 1952)…ood, 131 Fla. 584, 179 So. 721. In numerous cases we have upheld the issuance of revenue certificates under the city's charter authority, supra. See Blocker v. City of St. Petersburg, 125 Fla. 156, 157, 169 So. 647; State v. City of St. Petersburg, 135 Fla. 642, 185 So. 451; State v. City of St. Petersburg, 145 Fla. 206, 198 So. 837. We now come to the question of whether the City of St. Petersburg has the power and authority under its charter and the laws of Florida to issue the certificates here under c…1 / 2
-
State v. City of St. Petersburg, 145 Fla. 206 (Fla. 1940)…ificates is payable from the net revenue of the enlarged waterworks system and being so, this Court has repeatedly held that an approving vote of the freeholders is not required, there being no additional tax burden. State v. City of St. Petersburg, 135 Fla. 642, 185 So. 451. [*208] The second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth questions challenge the power of the City (1) to acquire Pinellas Water Company and Southern Water Company, (2) whether or not such acquisition is essential to the health and safety of…