State v. City of Miami, 58088
| Decision Date | 24 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 58088,58088 |
| Citation | 379 So.2d 651 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF MIAMI, a Municipal Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Janet Reno, State's Atty., and Eric William Hendon, Asst. State's Atty., Miami, for appellants.
George F. Knox, Jr., City Atty., and Jose B. Alvarez, Deputy City Atty., Miami, Lucien C. Proby, Jr. of Proby & Adkins, Coral Gables, and Brown, Wood, Ivey, Mitchell & Petty, New York City, for appellee.
This is a direct appeal from a final judgment validating revenue bonds in Dade County. We have jurisdiction. 1 The questions we must decide are whether the issuance of the revenue bonds to finance the convention center-garage serves a valid municipal or public purpose and whether the City properly exercised its financing power.
In validating these revenue bonds, the trial court found the following facts. In 1964, the City Commission of Miami adopted a resolution providing for the issuance of $4,500,000 in convention center bonds. These bonds were sold in 1969, but construction of the convention center was delayed indefinitely due to increased costs. In 1977, the City of Miami (City) entered into an agreement with an architectural firm to prepare a master plan of the entire convention center site. Later that year, in an agreement between the City and the University of Miami (University), the City agreed to construct a convention center with a parking garage and further agreed to cause to be constructed a hotel and retail area. The City also agreed to provide the University with adequate parking in the parking garage. The University, in return, agreed to rent a conference center area for a term of thirty years with two thirty-year renewal options. In 1979, the City entered a development agreement in which the City agreed to lease to the developer certain properties for the purpose of constructing and operating a hotel and other facilities at its own expense for a term of forty-five years with a forty-five-year renewal option. The City agreed to construct a water plant to service the needs of the convention center and the hotel and further agreed to give the developer priority to reserve a share of the spaces in the parking garage. The City Commission approved the execution of the development agreement and adopted an ordinance authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds of the City in an amount not exceeding $60,000,000. The bonds were secured by a pledge of the net revenues derived by the City from or in connection with the convention center-garage and other revenues of the City exclusive of ad valorem tax revenues.
The trial court found that under the authority of the Florida Constitution and chapter 166, Florida Statutes (Municipal Home Rule Powers Act), the City was authorized to issue revenue bonds for the construction of the convention center-garage. The court expressly stated that:
The Convention Center-Garage serves a public purpose of the City and its financing and construction as herein authorized are in the public interest by providing exhibit, meeting, conference, parking and other facilities in the City for public, educational, civic, commercial and other organizations.
The trial court found that the City of Miami had properly proceeded under chapter 75, Florida Statutes, complying with each provision thereof, and further found that the bonds did not constitute or create a debt of the City or a pledge of its faith and credit.
The state contends that the bond validation should be denied on two grounds. First, the bond issuance does not comply with article VII, section 10, of the Florida Constitution 2 in that the convention center-garage does not serve a public purpose. Second, the state argues that section 74 of the city charter requires an election which was not held; and, further, the partial lease of the premises for forty-five years is in violation of a thirty-year lease limitation in said section 74 which may void the lease and result in the city being forced to use a substantial additional portion of its general revenue to make bond payments.
Article VII, section 10, of the Florida Constitution prohibits a municipality from lending or using its credit to any private enterprise. When public revenue bonds are used to finance a project other than those described in section 10(c), the particular circumstances must be considered in determining whether the lending or use of public credit for the project is contemplated. The validity of the proposed public revenue bond financing project depends on whether the bond issuance serves a paramount public purpose. See Nohrr v. Brevard County Educational Facilities Authority, 247 So.2d 304 (Fla.1971). If the bond issuance serves a public purpose, then even an incidental benefit to a private entity will not negate the public character of the project. See Gate City Garage, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 66 So.2d 653 (Fla.1953). In addition, this Court has previously held that it is "impossible to conceive of a public improvement which will not incidentally benefit some private individual . . . engaged in private enterprise for private gain." See State v. Board of Control, 66 So.2d 209, 210 (Fla.1953).
In the instant case, it is our view that the convention center-garage does serve a valid public purpose. As noted by the trial court, this facility will provide a forum for educational, civic, and commercial activities and organizations. Further testimony at the bond validation proceeding indicated that this facility will also increase tourism and international trade. We have previously held that these interests serve a public purpose. See State v. Inter-American Center Authority, 84 So.2d 9 (Fla.1955). This Court has also recognized that the redevelopment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation Auth.
...10 of the Florida Constitution prohibits the JAA from lending or using its credit to aid any private enterprise. State v, City of Miami, 379 So.2d 651, 653 (Fla.1980). "If the [Authority] has not exercised its taxing power or pledged its credit, the obligation must merely serve a public pur......
-
Orange County Indus. Development Authority v. State
...County Industrial Development Authority, 417 So.2d 959 (Fla.1982); State v. Leon County, 400 So.2d 949 (Fla.1981); State v. City of Miami, 379 So.2d 651 (Fla.1980); Wald v. Sarasota County Health Facilities Authority, 360 So.2d 763 As far as the first prong is concerned, there is no disagre......
-
KEY CITIZENS FOR GOV., INC. v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Auth.
...laws of the state and to ensure that it exercised that authority in accordance with the spirit and intent of the law. State v. City of Miami, 379 So.2d 651 (Fla.1980); State v. Sarasota County, 372 So.2d 1115 (Fla.1979); State v. City of Sunrise, 354 So.2d 1206 (Fla.1978). As the court stat......
-
Barry v. Garcia
...to a vote and approved by a majority of the electors voting. 4 Our attention has been called to the following authority. State v. City of Miami, 379 So.2d 651 (Fla.1980); City of Miami Beach v. Forte Towers, Inc., 305 So.2d 764 (Fla.1974); Rolle v. City of Miami, 408 So.2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA ......
-
Economic Development and Public Transit: Making the Most of the Washington Growth Management Act
...85. See, e.g., Linscott v. Orange County Indus. Dev. Auth., 443 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1983) (regional business headquarters); Florida v. Miami, 379 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1980) (convention centers); Wald v. Sarasota County Health Facilities Auth., 360 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1978) (private hospitals); Lartnec......
-
An examination of the background, issues and ramifications surrounding the stadium litigation in Tampa.
...from the project itself may be validated if a private entity also derives some benefit from the project. See State v. City of Miami, 379 So.2d 651 (Fla. 1980); State v. Sunrise Lakes Phase II Special Recreation District, 383 So.2d 631 (Fla. 1980); Panama City v. State, 93 So.2d 608 (Fla. Th......