ROBERT F. SHARP
v.
CITY OF BRADENTON, CHARLES W. WARD, AS MAYOR, HAROLD F. SIVER, AS CITY CLERK, AND H. C. LEWIS, WHITNEY CURRY, AND W. D. CONN, AS CITY COUNCILMEN
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.
Robert Sharp, a Bradenton citizen and taxpayer, challenged the city's authority to issue $148,000 in Revenue Certificates for waterworks improvements without voter approval. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that revenue certificates payable solely from waterworks revenues are not bonds requiring voter approval under the state constitution.
The City of Bradenton was authorized to issue the revenue certificates. Because the certificates were to be paid solely from waterworks system revenues and not from general tax revenues, they are not bonds requiring voter approval under Section 6 of Article IX of the Florida Constitution.
“Since they are to be paid solely from revenues from the waterworks system, they are not bonds requiring an approving vote of the people as contemplated by Section 6, of Article IX of the Constitution”
Establishes the key distinction between revenue certificates and bonds—the source of payment determines whether voter approval is required
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn November 1938, the City of Bradenton adopted an ordinance to issue $148,000 in Revenue Certificates for waterworks extensions and improvements, to …
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 Revenue Certificates cases and more on FLexlaw
In November, 1938, the City of Bradenton in Manatee County adopted an ordinance providing for. the issuance of Revenue Certificates in the sum of $148,-000.00 to be used for the construction of extensions and improvements to its waterworks system and to be paid solely from revenues derived from services furnished by said waterworks system.
The said ordinance was predicated on a finding of fact that the City had ample authority to issue said Revenue Certificates, that the present waterworks system is inadequate and insufficient in quality and quantity to supply the needs of the City, that it is imperative that said extensions and improvements be made, that the income from said waterworks system is sufficient to pay said certificates as they mature in addition to operating and other expenses, and that said Revenue Certificates should be issued without an approving vote of the taxpayers as contemplated by Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution.
The Appellant, a citizen and taxpayer of the City, aS complainant in the court below, filed his bill of complaint seeking to restrain the issuance of said Revenue Certificates on the ground that the City of Bradenton was without power to issue them, and on the further ground that they were in effect bonds as contemplated by Section 6, of Article IX of the Constitution, and could not be issued without an approving vote of the freeholders.
The grounds urged here for reversal of the decree below are the same as those urged' in the Circuit Court to restrain the issuance of the Certificates. Both questions were con*606sidered and definitely answered contrary to the contention of Appellant in McGoon v. Town of Miami Springs, and cases therein cited, decided December 16, 1938.
The City Charter of Bradenton, Chapter 9692, Acts of 1923, and amendments thereto, have been examined and we think the City is authorized to issue said revenue certificates. Since they are to be paid solely from revenues from the waterworks system, they are not bonds requiring an approving vote of the people as contemplated by Section 6, of Article IX of the Constitution The City as a taxing unit is not bound for any part of the obligation incurred-The decree below is therefore affirmed on authority of the last cited case and cases therein cited.
Whitfield, Brown, Chapman, and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. City of Tampa, 137 Fla. 29 (Fla. 1939)…Fla. 549, 169 So. 39; Roach v. CLy of Tampa, 125 Fla. 62, 169 So. 627; Boykin v. Town of River Junction, 124 Fla. 827, 837, 169 So. 492; State, ex rel. City of Vero Beach, v. MacConnell, No. 1, 125 Fla. 130, 169 So. 628; Sharp v. City of Bradenton, 135 Fla. 604, 185 So. 346; State v. City of Clearwater, 135 Fla. 112, 184 So. 675. It is next contended that (a). Chapter 17118, Acts of 1935, Laws of Florida, fails to grant the power or authority to the City of Tampa to enact Ordinances numbered 686-A and 692…
-
Neff v. City of Jacksonville & Town of Green Cove Springs, 139 Fla. 179 (Fla. 1939)…. Town of River Junction, 124 Fla. 827, 837, 169 So. 492; State ex rel. City of Vero Beach v. MacConnell, No. 1, 125 Fla. 130, 169 So. 492; State ex rel. City of Vero Beach v. MacConnell, No. 1, 125 Fla. 130, 169 So. 628; Sharp v. City of Bradenton, 135 Fla. 604, 185 So. 346; State v. City of Clearwater, 135 Fla. 112, 184 So. 675. Where a municipality owns a utility in a corporate or proprietary capacity and from which it derives annual net revenues and desires to repair, enlarge or extend said utility, it…