MAHONEY ET AL.
v.
GIVENS ET AL.
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 Miami's authority to lease a city-owned restaurant building to a private caterer without competitive bidding. The court interpreted a municipal ordinance requiring competitive bidding for public works and purchases to apply only to expenditures, not to leases of real property where the city receives rental income.
The City of Miami has authority to lease the restaurant property without competitive bidding. The ordinance requiring competitive bidding applies only to public works, improvements, and purchases where the city expends money, not to leases of real property where the city receives rental payments.
“we find nothing therein to indicate that the ordinance was intended to apply to a situation involving a contract of lease of real property by the City in return for the payment of money into the City Treasury.”
The court's core holding distinguishing leases generating city revenue from expenditures subject to competitive bidding requirements.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Miami owned the Harbor House Yacht Basin and adjoining lands, including a restaurant building. The city proposed to lease the restaurant t…
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 Municipal Ordinance Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
SEBRING, Justice.
The City of Miami is the owner of the Harbor House Yacht Basin and adjoining lands. On the property is a restaurant building which the City proposes to lease for five years to Bayshore Caterers, Inc., for an annual rental in excess of $5000. The sole question on this appeal is whether the City of Miami has authority to enter into such a lease without first advertising for and receiving bids and awarding the lease to the highest 'bidder. The appellants contend that the matter is governed by Section 30, Chapter 2, of the Miami City Code, and that by the terms of this section advertising for bids in such transactions is required. The appellees maintain that when construed with other pertinent provisions of the Code, it is plain that Section 30 is not applicable to such a transaction.
Section 30 of the Miami City Code is a part of Ordinance No. 856 which, as enacted by the City of Miami, reads as follows :
“An Ordinance to Provide for the City Commission to Advertise for and Receive Bids for all Public Works and Purchases for the City in Excess of $1,000.00. Whereas, under Section 53 of the City Charter of the City of Miami, it is provided that all contracts for more than $1,000.00 shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder after public advertisement; and Whereas, it is the desire of the City Commission to receive bids for all contracts for public improvements or purchases in excess of $1,000.00 after public advertisement requiring and providing for competitive bidding;
“Now, therefore, be it ordained by the Commission of the City of Miami:
“Section 1. [Identical language of Section 29, Chapter 2, of the City Code] Advertisements When Contracts in Excess of $1,000.00.
“No contract for any public work or improvement for the City in excess of $1,000.00, or purchase of any kind or nature in excess of $1,500.00, shall be made or executed until competitive bids are first had and received after public advertisement and award of contract by the commission. •
“Section 2. [Identical language of Section 30, Chapter 2, of the City Code] Manner of Advertising: Contracts in Excess of $5,000.00.
“All contracts for more than $1,-000.00 and not more than $5,000.00, and purchases for more than $1,500.00 shall be advertised at least once in a news paper of general circulation in the City, calling for sealed bids to be received 'by the City Commission on a date not earlier than five (5) days from the date of said publication; and all contracts and purchases for more than $5,000.00 shall be advertised at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, calling for sealed bids to be received by the City Commission on a date not earlier than then (10) days from the date of said publication, and copies of such notices shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the City Hall, but all such advertisements shall contain a reservation that the City Manager shall have power to reject all such bids and advertise again.
“Section 3. [Repeals all prior ordinances inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance.]”
Section 53 of the City Charter, to which reference is made in Ordinance No. 856, reads as follows:
“Contracts for Public Works or Improvements.
“Any public work or improvement may be executed either by contract or by direct labor, as may be determined by the Commission. Before authorizing the direct execution of any work or improvement, detailed plans and estimates thereof shall be submitted to the Commission by the City Manager, and there shall be separate accounting as to each work or improvement so executed. All contracts for more than $1,000.00 shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, after public advertisement and competition as may be prescribed by ordinance, but the City Manager shall have power to reject all bids and advertise again.
“All advertisements as to contracts shall contain a reservation of the foregoing rights. Contracts for public works shall be signed by the City Manager after approval thereof by the Commission.”
We think it is plain from the wording of Ordinance 856 that the legislative intent behind the enactment of the ordinance was to require competitive bidding where money is to be expended by the City for public improvements or purchases, but we find nothing therein to indicate that the ordinance was intended to apply to a situation involving a contract of lease of real property by the City in return for the payment of money into the City Treasury. Compare Cleary v. Dade County, 160 Fla. 892, 37 So. 2d 248.
The decree appealed from should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami Marinas Ass'n, Inc. v. The City OF Miami, 408 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…etitive bidding requirements.” Appellee calls to our attention those cases which hold that contracts for leases of real property are immune from competitive bid requirements when they do not involve the expenditure of city funds. Mahoney v. Givens, 64 So. 2d 926 (Fla.1953); Grove Key Marina, Inc. v. Sakolsky, 383 So. 2d 695 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). We reject appellee’s contentions because we believe the leases considered are distinguishable from the management contract which we here consider with regard to the ex…
-
Grove KEY Marina, Inc. v. Sakolsky, 383 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…f or any building permits issued pursuant to such agreements, are hereby declared void.” A reading of the Code, the City Charter. and relevant case law compels us to reverse [*697] the trial court decision. We find the holding in Mahoney v. Givens, 64 So. 2d 926 (Fla.1953), is dispositive of the issue. Although there have been changes in the provisions of the Code of the City of Miami since 1953-Section 2-30 (1945) and Section 16-21 (1975)-none. have been material, substantial changes.3 And Section 2-29 (19…
Authorities Cited
- Cleary v. Dade Cnty., 160 Fla. 892 (Fla. 1948)