STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE TAXPAYERS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITIZENS OF SAID CITY OF MIAMI, INCLUDING NON-RESIDENTS OWNING PROPERTY OR SUBJECT TO TAXATION THEREIN,
v.
THE CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
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.
This case reviews a final decree validating a $6.846 million sidewalk bond issue by the City of Miami. The Florida Supreme Court rejected challenges to the bond authorization based on the charter's election waiver provision and confirmed that the proposed debt complied with the constitutional debt limitation of 15% of assessed valuation.
The city was authorized to issue the sidewalk bonds and hold an election on the matter, as the constitutional amendment requiring voter approval superseded the earlier charter provision allowing bonds without election. The proposed debt did not exceed the 15% limitation when calculated by subtracting homestead-exempt property from the assessed valuation base.
“The provision above quoted simply provided that no election should be necessary to authorize the issuance of bonds. Such provision became inoperative and void with the adoption of the Amended Section 6 of Article IX of our Constitution.”
Establishes that the charter's election waiver was superseded by constitutional amendment requiring voter approval for municipal debt.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 Miami issued sidewalk bonds in the principal amount of $6,846,000.00 after proper procedures and voter approval. The city's total assessed…
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 Homestead Exemption cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal brings for review final decree validating an issue of sidewalk bonds of the City of Miami, Florida, in the principal amount of $6,846,000.00.
There is no question as to the propriety of the procedure pursued by the issuing authority, nor that the bonds were authorized by a sufficient vote of the qualified electors.
The appellant presents two questions which are stated as follows:
“1. Is the City of Miami authorized by law to hold an election on the question of issuing sidewalk bonds?
“2. Will the proposed issue of sidewalk bonds, together with the debt of the City of Miami at the time outstanding *749exceed the limitation on indebtedness of fifteen percentum (15%) of the assessed valuation of all real and personal property within the City limits as shown by the last preceding assessment roll of the City, in violation of Section 58 of the City Charter ?”
In presenting the first question it is contended that because Paragraph U of Sec. 56 of the Charter of the City of Miami, Chapter 10847 Special Acts of 1925, is as follows:
“It shall not be necessary to submit to the voters the proposition of issuing any such bonds or making any such improvements or special assessments, or any other matter or thing herein authorized, and the initiative and referendum provisions of the Charter shall not be applicable; all proceedings of the Commission herein provided for may be taken by resolution, which resolution shall be in force from and after its passage.”
No authority exists to issue bonds of this character.
The contention is untenable.
The provision above quoted simply provided that no election should be necessary to authorize the issuance of bonds. Such provision became inoperative and void with the adoption of the Amended Section 6 of Article IX of our Constitution. When this amendment was adopted the authority remained in the City to issue bonds such as these but only in pursuance to the provisions of such amended Section 6 of Article IX. See Spearman Brewing Co. v. City of Pensacola, 136 Fla. 869, 187 So. 365; State v. Calhoun County, 125 Fla. 263, 169 So. 637.
The basis for the second question is that the total assessed valuation of the property within the Municipality is $271,-000,000.00 of which property exempt as homestead is $80,-000.000.00 and there is $672,182.00 balance in the sinking fund and an outstanding indebtedness of $23,850,000.00 in refunding bonds the tax to pay which is assessable against homesteads as well as other property, and there is $535,507.00 of other indebtedness.
The proposition posed is that when $6,846,000.00 is added to the present outstanding indebtedness the indebtedness will exceed 15% of the total taxable assessed valuation. This is *750not the case. A proper computation and statement of the matter is :
“Assessed valuation of all real and personal property, less homesteads............................ $191,000,000
15% of such amount............................................ 28,650,000
Refunding Bonds outstanding ........$23,850,000
Less 29.52% assessed against homesteads .......................................... 7,040,520
16,809,480
Less Balance in Sinking Fund........ 672,182
16,137,298
Plus other indebtedness .................. 535,507
Total existing indebtedness to be considered .............................................. 16,672,805
Additional indebtedness permitted ...................... 11,977,195”,
So it is that the debt limit will exceed the total indebtedness by more than $5,000,000.00.
No error appearing, the decree is affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, BROWN, THOMAS, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. City of Miami, 41 So.2d 888 (Fla. 1949)…,300,000 on July 1, 1949, and $610,000 on July 1, in each year 1950 to 1958 inclusive. The said bonds were, on June 4, 1946, validated by decree of the Circuit Court of Dade County and that decree was affirmed by this Court in State v. City of Miami,157 Fla. 747, 26 So. 2d 903. For reasons not necessary to discuss, the bonds were not issued, but on June 1, 1949, the City Commission adopted Resolution 21479, rescinding Resolution 19401, previously adopted, and providing that in lieu thereof, bonds should be…
Authorities Cited
- Spearman Brewing Co. v. The City of Pensacola, 136 Fla. 869 (Fla. 1939)
- State v. Calhoun Cnty., 125 Fla. 263 (Fla. 1936)