State v. Broward County, 66187
| Citation | 468 So.2d 965,10 Fla. L. Weekly 222 |
| Decision Date | 11 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 66187,66187 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 222 STATE of Florida, et al., Appellants, v. BROWARD COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Michael J. Satz, State Atty., and Christina L. Spudeas, Asst. State Atty., Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Fort Lauderdale, and J. Robert Miertschin, Jr. of the Law Offices of J. Robert Miertschin, Jr., Coral Gables, for appellants.
Susan F. Delegal, Gen. Counsel, Broward County, Fort Lauderdale, and Brown, Wood, Ivey, Mitchell & Petty, New York City, for appellee.
We review the final judgment of the Circuit Court for Broward County validating resource recovery revenue bonds not exceeding $590,000,000. The trial court held that chapter 166, Florida Statutes (1983), is a valid and constitutional statute and constitutes sufficient and valid authority for the issuance of these bonds. We agree and affirm the judgment of the trial court validating these bonds.
Broward County has developed a plan for the proper disposal of solid waste in its area which requires the construction of two solid waste disposal plants at a cost approaching $590,000,000. The County first intended to finance these plants through the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds under chapter 159, Florida Statutes (1983), and on April 19, 1984, the Broward County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing and adopted, pursuant to published notice, Resolution 84-964 entitled:
Resolution declaring the intention of Broward County to provide financing by the proposed issuance of industrial development revenue bonds in an amount of up to $590,000,000 for financing waste-to-energy facilities, land disposal facilities and the sites therefor to be leased to a private vendor.
This resolution, however, represented only an initial step in the process. In order to actually issue and market these revenue bonds, the County still had to perform the following: Select a company or companies and negotiate construction and waste disposal contracts; acquire the land required for the plants; obtain the necessary federal, state, and local permits to construct and operate the plants; enter into the necessary agreements with municipalities for their services; and prepare all the documentation required to issue the bonds.
While the County was proceeding under the above financing scheme, the United States Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 which contains volume cap limits 1 on industrial development revenue bonds by which the County planned to finance the plants and which places limitations on the investment of such bond proceeds and reserves. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-369, §§ 621, 624, 98 Stat. 494, 915-918, 922-924 (1984). This act also provides, however, that such tax-exempt bonds could be issued without regard to the volume caps and investment limitations if an inducement resolution (an "official action") had been adopted prior to June 19, 1984, and the bonds were issued by December 31, 1984. See id., § 631, 98 Stat. at 934-937. The County determined that Resolution 84-964 qualified as an official action for purposes of the Deficit Reduction Act but determined that it could not issue industrial development revenue bonds under chapter 159 by December 31, 1984.
This change in the tax law placed the entire project in jeopardy. 2 In response, the County developed a two-step plan of financing. Because it was vital that the bonds be issued by December 31, 1984, the County would first issue revenue bonds under chapter 166 and secure the payment of principal and interest by investing the bond proceeds in United States securities. The County would then continue to proceed with the project. In the second phase, if the resource recovery plants are sold, leased, or operated by a private vendor, the present revenue bonds would be converted after notice and a full validation hearing to industrial development revenue bonds under chapter 159. If, however, the project is abandoned for any reason, the County proposed to redeem these revenue bonds, and any deficiency would be paid by the issuance of special obligation bonds.
It is important to note at this point that we review only the issuance of revenue bonds by the County under section 166.111, Florida Statutes (1983), despite any future intention of the County to convert these bonds to industrial development revenue bonds authorized and secured under chapter 159, part II. Subsequent aspects of this financing plan are not before this court, and the County's authority to issue chapter 159 bonds is not determined at this time.
To implement the first part of this complex financing scheme, the Board of County Commissioners met again on September 4, 1984, held a public hearing, and adopted Resolution 84-2053 entitled:
A resolution authorizing the issuance of not exceeding $590,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Broward County resource recovery revenue bonds for the purposes of financing a portion of the cost of the acquisition, construction and installation of a project consisting of solid waste disposal and conversion facilities located at certain sites in Broward County, Florida, and paying or providing for the payment of any notes issued to finance a portion of said project; providing that such revenue bonds shall not constitute a debt, liability or obligation of Broward County or the State of Florida or any political subdivision thereof but shall be payable solely from the revenues and proceeds provided therefor; providing for the issuance of special obligation bonds payable from the half-cent sales tax under certain circumstances; making certain findings; repealing a resolution adopted on June 19, 1984, relating to similar subject matter; authorizing proceedings validating said revenue bonds; and providing an effective date.
The County then filed its complaint, seeking validation of these revenue bonds pursuant to the above resolution.
The trial court found:
1. The Resolution is a valid resolution of the County and is sufficient in form and in substance to authorize the issuance of the Bonds.
2. The Bonds have been duly authorized for proper public purposes and in the manner as required by law and when issued as provided by the Resolution and as authorized by Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, will be valid and binding obligations of the County in accordance with their terms.
3. The determination made by the County as recited in the Resolution on the basis of action taken under the Code and Tax Regulations and upon advice of its bond counsel as mentioned in paragraph (m) above will permit the Bonds to be issued on or before December 31, 1984, without regard to the volume caps established by the 1984 Act.
4. All of the terms and provisions of the Resolution are in accordance with law and are fully authorized by the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida, and are in all respects validated.
5. The County is authorized under Section 166.111, Florida Statutes, to issue the Bonds secured as to the payment of principal and interest by a pledge of the principal and interest coming due on Government Obligations (as defined in the Resolution) to be purchased from a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds.
....
8. The complaint for Validation filed in this proceeding fully complies with all of the provisions and requirements of Chapter 75, Florida Statutes, applicable thereto and is sufficient to authorize the validation of the Bonds and the proceedings therefor, including the Resolution, and all of the provisions thereof.
9. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this cause and to render a decision herein, including all of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and is fully authorized by law to validate the Bonds and the proceedings therefor.
10. The County shall, prior to converting the Bonds to obligations payable solely from revenues derived from the sale, operation or leasing of the Project, in accordance with Chapter 159, Florida Statutes, validate such Bonds and the contractual and financing arrangements made to secure the same. In such proceeding, notice shall be provided to counsel of record in this cause.
11. ... Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, is a valid statute of the State of Florida and constitutes sufficient and valid authority for the issuance of the Bonds described herein for the purposes stated, said Bonds when issued as provided by the Resolution and the Supplemental Resolution and as authorized by said Chapter 166 will be valid and binding obligations of the County in accordance with their terms. (Emphasis added.)
The State contends that neither the public nor the State was given sufficient and adequate notice by the County that it intended to issue resource recovery revenue bonds under chapter 166, rather than industrial development revenue bonds under chapter 159. After a review of the record, we find that the judgment of validation was entered after notice to the parties and to the public as required by chapter 75, Florida Statutes (1983). Moreover, even if the nature of the bonds to be validated was initially unclear, the State has presented no evidence that its ability to respond during either the validation proceeding or on appeal was prejudiced.
The State also asserts that Broward County has no authority to act as a municipality and issue revenue bonds under section 166.111, which provides:
The governing body of every municipality may borrow money, contract loans, and issue bonds as defined in s. 166.101 from time to time to finance the undertaking of any capital or other project for the purposes permitted by the State Constitution and may pledge the funds, credit, property, and taxing power of the municipality for the payment of such debts and bonds.
This Court has broadly interpreted the self-governing powers granted charter counties under article VIII,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowe v. Broward County
...court has "broadly interpreted the self-governing powers granted charter counties under article VIII, section 1(g)." State v. Broward County, 468 So.2d 965, 969 (Fla.1985). The legislature has accorded counties broad self-governing powers. Section 125.01(1), Florida Statutes (1999), "grants......
-
Orange Cnty. v. Singh
...We have "broadly interpreted the self-governing powers granted charter counties" under that article. Id. (quoting State v. Broward Cty., 468 So. 2d 965, 969 (Fla. 1985)). Below, the Fifth District held that section 97.0115, Florida Statutes (2010), expressly preempts the Orange County ordin......
-
Broward Cnty. v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig.)
...inconsistent with general law, or with special law approved by vote of the electors." Fla. Const. art. VIII, § 1(g). In State v. Broward County, 468 So. 2d 965 (1985), the Florida Supreme Court stated it has "broadly interpreted the self-governing powers granted charter counties under artic......
-
Tell v. Broward County
...is a charter county and, as such, its powers are derived from Article VIII, Sec. 1(g) of the Florida Constitution. See State v. Broward County, 468 So.2d 965 (Fla.1985). Relevant here is its charter provision that "[A]ll powers of the County shall be carried into execution as provided by th......