THE STATE OF FLORIDA ET AL., APPELLANT,
v.
COUNTY OF FLAGLER, FLORIDA, 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.
Florida appealed a decree validating $1,450,000 in general obligation and revenue bonds issued by Flagler County to finance the four-laning of a state highway. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the bond issuance, holding that the county's pledge of state gasoline tax funds as the primary obligation, with county taxes as secondary backup, did not constitute a gross abuse of discretion despite the bonds exceeding 40% of the county's assessed valuation.
The court held that the bond issuance does not constitute a gross abuse of discretion. Although the bond amount exceeds the 40% threshold previously approved in Getzen v. Sumter County, the primary obligation is secured by state gasoline tax funds estimated to exceed the bonded indebtedness by nearly one million dollars, with county taxes serving only as secondary security contingent on the primary fund's failure.
“The primary obligation for servicing the bonds and interest coupons is the 80 percent surplus gasoline tax allocated to Flagler County, and the amount estimated to be available from this fund during the 30-year period exceeds by almost one million dollars the bonded indebtedness payable therefrom.”
Establishes the distinguishing factor: state tax funds as primary security rather than county taxes, reducing the burden on local taxpayers.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlagler County proposed to issue $1,450,000 in bonds (aggregating $2,377,450 with interest over 30 years) to finance four-laning State Road No. 5 with…
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 Lease-Purchase Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
This is an appeal from a decree validating $1,450,000 General Obligation and Revenue Bonds of the County of Flagler, proposed to be issued by it under the circumstances outlined hereafter. The County, pursuant to the legislative authority contained in Chapter 29076, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1953, proposes to issue the bonds to cover the cost of four-laning State Road No. 5 (now a two-lane highway also known as U. S. Highway No. 1) within the confines of the County. It has entered into a lease-purchase agreement with the State Road Department, under the terms of which the Department has agreed to lease the road from the County during the life of the bonds and, as rental, “to pledge for the payment of the principal of and interest on said bonds the un committed eighty percent surplus gasoline tax funds accruing to the Department for use in Flagler County under the provisions of Section 16 of Article IX of the Constitution of Florida * * * ” At the end of the bond period the County will, by appropriate conveyances, transfer title to the State. This agreement and method of financing is also expressly authorized by Chapter 29076, Special Acts of 1953, supra, and similar agreements have been heretofore upheld by this court as a valid pledging of state funds. Comp. State v. Florida State Improvement Commission, 1948, 160 Fla. 230, 34 So. 2d 443, and cases there cited.
In addition to the pledge by the Department of the 80 percent surplus gasoline tax, the County has also pledged its full faith and credit to the payment of the principal of and interest on the bonds; and it is here contended by the State that the issuance of the bonds “will so increase the bonded indebtedness of the County as to render the same disproportionate to the assessed valuation of the taxable property within said County and such issuance will constitute a gross abuse of discretion by the Board of County Commissioners of said County and will impose an undue and unconscionable burden upon the owners of the taxable property within said County for the payment of the principal of and interest on said bonds.” We find no merit in this contention under the circumstances here present.
The record shows that the bonds proposed to be issued will, with interest, aggregate $2,377,450, and will mature over a 30-year period. The total assessed valuation of taxable property in Flagler County is only $5,175,083. Thus, it will be seen that the proposed bond issue is somewhat over the 40 percent of total assessed valuation approved by this court in Getzen v. Sumter County, 1925, 89 Fla. 45, 103 So. 104, for roads which were strictly county roads to be financed solely from county taxes. If the bonds proposed to be issued here were payable solely from county taxes, the State’s position would be much stronger, in view of the fact that the project proposed to be financed by such bond issue is for the improvement of a through or trunk-line highway which is a part of the state’s highway system — even though the project may also be deemed to serve a county purpose. Cf. Lewis v. Leon County, 1926, 91 Fla. 118, 107 So. 146. Such an involvement of the county’s taxing power for a 30-year period might well be held to be “unreasonable with reference to the organic property rights of taxpayers, and to the just requirements of the public purpose contemplated.” Getzen v. Sumter County, supra, 103 So. 104, 107.
But that is not the case here. The primary obligation for servicing the bonds and interest coupons is the 80 percent surplus gasoline tax allocated to Flagler County, and the amount estimated to be available from this fund during the 30-year period exceeds by almost one million dollars the bonded indebtedness payable therefrom. The State Board of Administration, which is charged by the Constitution, Section 16 of Article IX, F.S.A., with the administration of this fund on behalf of the counties, has approved the legal and fiscal sufficiency of the proposed bond issue. The obligation of the County’s taxing power is secondary only and predicated upon a contingency which may never happen, that is, the failure of the 80 percent surplus gas tax fund to meet the debt service requirements of the bond issue. The bond proposal was approved by a majority of the freeholders of the County, and no citizen or taxpayer has come forward in these proceedings to object to the issuance of the bonds. In these circumstances, we can find no “gross abuse of discretion” on the part of the County Commissioners sufficient to invalidate the bonds.
Accordingly, the decree appealed from should be and it is hereby
Affirmed.
MATHEWS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Fla. Dev. Comm'n, 143 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1962)…da State Improvement Commission, 1947, 159 Fla. 351, 31 So. 2d 555; State v. Florida State Improvement Commission, Fla.1950, 47 So. 2d 601; State v. Florida State Improvement Commission, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 146; State v. County of Flagler, Fla.1955, 77 So. 2d 765; State v. Florida Development Commission, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 13; State v. Manatee County, Fla.1960, 119 So. 2d 678. .State ex rel. Moodie v. Bryan, 50 Fla. 293, 39 So. 929; Mugge v. Warnell Lum [*681] ber & Veneer Co., 58 Fla. 318, 50 So. 645; Bar…
-
State v. Fla. Dev. Comm'n, 95 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1957)…rovement Commission, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 718. The plan of financing tendered by the record in the case before us has been approved on several occasions involving the actual construction of highway improvements. State v. County of Flagler, Fla.1955, 77 So. 2d 765; State v. Florida State Improvement Commission, Fla.1950, 47 So. 2d 601; State v. Florida State Improvement Commission, 1948, 160 Fla. 230, 34 So. 2d 443. It remains only to dispose of the contention that the instant case is distinguishable from ou…
-
The City OF Miami v. Fla. Dev. Comm'n, 165 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1964)…d that “[i]t is a marketing arrangement easily understood * * * [and] designed to obtain a slightly better interest rate.” In fine, we do not consider the provision of enough importance to defeat the whole plan. State v. County of Flagler, Fla.App., 77 So. 2d 765. An added point presented by appellants is a challenge of the project because it was not specifically authorized by the legislature as a prerequisite, so it is argued, by reason of the provisions of Sec. 340.02, Florida Statutes 1963, F.S.A., which…
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
- Getzen v. Sumter Cnty., 89 Fla. 45 (Fla. 1925)
- Lewis v. Leon Cnty., 91 Fla. 118 (Fla. 1926)
- State v. Fla. State Improvement Comm'n, 160 Fla. 230 (Fla. 1948)
- City of W. Palm Beach v. Zellar, 91 Fla. 223 (Fla. 1926)