STATE, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, APPELLEE
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 the circuit court's validation of waterworks revenue certificates issued by the City of St. Petersburg to finance the acquisition and improvement of its water system, including the purchase of two private water companies. The court rejected challenges to the city's authority to issue the certificates without a freeholder vote, to acquire the water companies, and to amend its petition during the validation proceeding.
The court held that the city had authority to issue the certificates without a freeholder vote because they were payable only from net revenues without creating an additional tax burden; the city possessed ample constitutional power to acquire the water companies; the city could pledge the combined revenues; whether the revenues were sufficient was a matter of calculation not in error; whether acquisition was essential to health and safety was a matter for city determination with no showing of arbitrary or illegal action; and the amendment to the petition was proper under applicable procedural rules and immaterial to the validity of the certificates.
“The principal and interest of the certificates 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.”
Establishes the legal principle that revenue bonds backed solely by enterprise revenues do not require voter approval because they do not impose additional taxation.
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 St. Petersburg filed a petition to validate an issue of waterworks revenue certificates intended to enlarge and improve its waterworks sys…
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.
The City of St. Petersburg filed its petition in the circuit court to validate an issue of waterworks revenue certificates, hereinafter designated as certificates, for the, purpose of enlarging and improving its waterworks system, the primary enlargement being the purchase of the properties of Pinellas Water Company and Southern Water Company, both of which are under contract with the City to furnish it water and water facilities.
The certificates and the resolution authorizing them provided that they should be a charge only against the net revenues from the enlarged waterworks system and that they should not be payable from any other funds of the City nor constitute a debt against the City payable from taxes on real estate or other property. On final hearing, the Chancellor validated and confirmed the certificates. This appeal was prosecuted.
The first question challenges the power of the City to issue the certificates without an approving vote of the freeholders as provided by Section 6, Article IX, of the Constitution.
There is no merit to this contention. The principal and interest of the certificates 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.
*208The 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 the city, (3) if acquired, has the City power to pledge the combined revenues of the enlarged waterworks system and (4) is it shown that if acquired, the enlarged waterworks system will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest of the certificates as they mature?
We have examined the provisions of the city charter, ' Chapter 15505, Special Acts of 1931, and we find that the City has ample power to acquire the properties of Pinellas Water Company and Southern Water Company and to impose a rate for furnishing water by the enlarged properties sufficient to pay the certificates as they mature. Whether or not the revenues contemplated are sufficient for the purpose contemplated is a matter of calculation and the record does not show that error was committed on this point by the City. Whether or not the acquisition of Pinellas Water Company and Southern Water Company is essential for the health and happiness of the city is not for the Court to determine. The City has determined that question and there is no showing whatever that its finding is arbitrary or contrary to law.
The seventh and last question raised challenges the right of the City to amend its petition to validate the certificates subsequent to the commencement of publication of the notice to taxpayers but before the answer to the petition was filed or any ruling made thereon.
It appears that the amendment to the petition was regularly made and was authorized by Equity Rule 41 and Section 4902 (10), Pennanent Supplement, Compiled General Laws of 1927. It is further shown that the amendment in no sense affected the character, nature, or validity of the *209water revenue certificates. It was, in other words, immaterial to the real issue in the case and was primarily for procedural purposes.
We find no error in the decree appealed from, so it is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfifld, Brown, Buford, Chapman and'Thom as, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. City of Key W., 153 Fla. 226 (Fla. 1943)…s to effect all powers expressly granted. Ginsburg v. City of Daytona Beach, 103 Fla. 168, 137 So. 253; State v. City of Daytona Beach, 118 Fla. 29, 158 So. 300; State v. City of Hollywood, 131 Fla. 584, 179 So. 721; State v. City of St. Petersburg, 145 Fla. 206, 198 So. 837, and others. Whether the bosds so issued are designed as revenue bonds or revenue certificates is not material. Their import will be controlled by their legal effect rather than by the name given them in the ordinance. We find no objec…
-
Town of Riviera Beach v. State, 53 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1951)…lities. It is our conclusion that the town of Riviera Beach, under Chapter 24851, supra, and the general laws applicable to *831 municipalities, has sufficient power to acquire the Palm Beach Shores water system. See State v. City of St. Petersburg, 145 Fla. 206, 198 So 837; also Chapters 167 and 180, F.S.A.; State ex rel. Ellis v. Tampa Water Works Co., 56 Fla. 858, 47 So. 358, 19 L.R.A.,N.S., 183. The decree of validation in the Court below was denied for reasons viz.: (1) It was not shown that the water…
-
State & R. C. Gardner v. City of Miami, 146 Fla. 266 (Fla. 1941)…in at least two subsequent decisions of the Court (Spearman Brewing Co. v. City of Pensacola, 136 Fla. 869, 187 So. 365, and Clover Leaf, Inc., v. City of Jacksonville, 145 Fla. 341, 199 So. 923), and in the case of State v. City of St. Petersburg, 145 Fla. 206, 198 So. 837, an opinion was rendered by Mr. Chief Justice Terrell which is ample authority for the determination of this proposition contrary to the position of the appellants. So far as we can learn the principle in that case and in this one are i…
Previewing 3 of 6 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 St. Petersburg, 135 Fla. 642 (Fla. 1938)