THE STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
CITY OF WINTER PARK, FLORIDA
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 Supreme Court upheld the validity of sewer revenue bonds issued by the City of Winter Park, determining that they do not constitute constitutional debt requiring voter approval because they are payable solely from sewer revenues and utility service tax proceeds, not from property tax revenues.
The sewer revenue bonds do not constitute bonds within the contemplation of Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution because they are not secured by a pledge of taxing power on any property or utility and are payable solely from limited specified revenue sources, therefore no voter approval is required.
“they do not constitute an indebtedness of the City of Winter Park and no holder or holders of said Sewer Revenue Bonds or any coupon attached thereto can under any circumstances compel the exercise of the taxing power on real or personal property within the City to pay said bonds or the interest thereon”
Establishes that the bonds are limited obligations not requiring voter approval as constitutional debt
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 Winter Park issued sewer revenue bonds pursuant to Chapter 24,992 of the Special Acts of 1947 for purchasing and constructing improvements…
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 Freeholder Vote Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal is from a final decree validating sewer Revenue Bonds of the City of Winter Park, issued for the purpose of purchasing and constructing improvements and additions to the sanitary sewer of the City, the principal and interest of said bonds' payable solely from the gross revenues derived from the operation of the sewer system and in addition thereto the net proceeds of a utility service tax, and from no other source.
It is first contented that the City cannot pledge the gross revenues derived from the sewer system to the payment of the sewer Revenue Bonds without an approving vote of the freeholders as required in Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution.
There is no merit to this contention. The Sewhr Revenue Bonds were issued pursuant to Chapter 24,992, Special Acts of 1947. The act and the resolution providing for their issue declare that they are not bonds as contemplated by Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution, that they do not constitute an indebtedness of the City of Winter Park and that no holder or holders of said Sewer Revenue Bonds or any coupon attached thereto can under any circumstances compel the exercise of the taxing power on real or personal property within the City to pay said bonds or the interest thereon. Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County v. Herrick, 123 Fla. 619, 167 So. 386; Brash v. State Tuberculosis Board, 124 Fla. 652, 169 So. 218, and many other cases upheld the validity of similar bonds.
It is next contended that the Sewer Revenue Bonds in question are violative of Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution, because they pledge the net proceeds of the utility service taxes for their payment and have not been approved by a vote of the freeholders.
This question might have appropriately been treated with the first question. The utility service tax is an excise tax *332which the City is authorized to impose on each and every purchase of electricity, metered or bottled gas, water service, telephone or telegraph service in an amount not exceeding ten per cent of the sum received from the purchaser within the City. Such taxes are derived from the proceeds of the utility and they are controlled by 'the same resolution as the taxes discussed in the preceding paragraph. The following cases treated and upheld bonds serviced by a similar tax: State v. Florida State Improvement Commission, 159 Fla. 350, 31 So. (2nd) 554; Prescott v. Board of Public Instruction of Hardee County, 159 Fla. 663, 32 So. (2nd) 731; State v. State Board of administration, 157 Fla. 360, 25 So. (2nd) 880; State v. Escambia County, 153 Fla. 282, 14 So. (2nd) 576.
It follows that the Sewer Revenue Bonds validated by the decree appealed from were expressly authorized by Chapter 24,992, Acts of 1947, that they do not constitute bonds within the contemplation of Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution, because they are not secured by a pledge of the taxing power on any property or utility of the City. They expressly state that no lien is created by them on any real or physical assets of the city. They are limited obligations of the City payable solely from the sources discussed in this opinion and no others.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, C. J., CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
State v. Miami Beach Redev. Agency, 392 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1980)…pplemental allocations of tax revenues to that purpose. The Court later expanded this rule to allow the pledging of various sources of local government revenue other than ad valorem taxes. For example, in State v. City of Winter Park, 160 Fla. 330, 34 So. 2d 740 (1948), the Court approved the issuance of bonds for sewer system improvements, payable from the sewer system revenues and from revenues of a municipal utilities service tax, without referendum. Even though municipal resources other than the revenue…
-
State of Fla. & the taxpayers v. Inter-American Ctr. Auth., 84 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1955)…unless such bonds were approved by a vote of the freeholders. Bonds or certificates of indebtedness payable solely from revenues derived from facilities provided by the proceeds of the bonds were excepted. State v. City of Winter Park, 160 Fla. 330, 34 So. 2d 740; Schmeller v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 38 So. 2d 36. Appellant relies on these cases to defeat the bonds. Appellee contends on the other hand, that State v. City of Tampa, Fla., 72 So. 2d 371; State v. City of Miami, Fla., 72 So. 2d 655, 656,…
-
Panama City v. State, 93 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1957)…opinions of this Court. For instance, so far as the power to pledge the cigarette taxes are concerned, see State v. City of Coral Gables, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 48; as to the utility service taxes, see State v. City of Winter Park, 1948, 160 Fla. 330, 34 So. 2d 740; as to the franchise taxes, see State v. City of Pompano Beach, Fla.1950, 47 So. 2d 515, and in State v. Monroe County, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 522, 523, we said with reference to the general proposition of excise taxes, “We have repeatedly held that re…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sol Brash v. State Tuberculosis Bd., 124 Fla. 652 (Fla. 1936)
- The Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Pinellas Cnty. v. Herrick, 123 Fla. 619 (Fla. 1936)
- State v. State Bd. OF Admin., 157 Fla. 360 (Fla. 1946)
- State v. Escambia Cnty., 153 Fla. 282 (Fla. 1943)
- Prescott v. The Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Hardee Cnty., 159 Fla. 663 (Fla. 1947)
- State v. Fla. State Improvement Comm'n, 159 Fla. 350 (Fla. 1947)