State v. City of Pompano Beach
| Decision Date | 28 July 1950 |
| Citation | 47 So.2d 515 |
| Parties | STATE et al. v. CITY OF POMPANO BEACH. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Phil O'Connell, West Palm Beach, and Dwight L. Rogers, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
W. Marion Walton, Pompano, for appellee.
This appeal is from a final decree of the Circuit Court of Broward County validating City Hall revenue certificates of the City of Pompano Beach. The court found that all legal prerequisites leading up to the issuance and validation of the certificates were complied with.
It is first contended that the City of Pompano Beach was devoid of authority under the constitution and laws of the State of Florida to issue said City Hall revenue certificates.
There is no merit to this contention. Chapter 24835, Special Acts of 1947, among other things, authorizes the City of Pompano Beach to issue and sell revenue bonds or certificates to provide funds to 'finance, acquire, construct, improve and operate any utility, facility, enterprise, work, undertaking or project which said City is authorized by law to acquire, construct, improve and operate, and to provide that such revenue bonds and/or certificates and interest thereon shall be payable from the revenue to be derived by the City from the operation of same, or a combination of any or all of such utilities, facilities, enterprises, works, undertakings, or projects.'
Chapter 24835, Special Acts of 1947, is the present city charter of the City of Pompano Beach. Other provisions of the charter authorize the city to construct buildings and public improvements of all kinds essential for municipal purposes. The certificates in question are proposed for the construction of a city hall which would seem to be a municipal purpose within the purview of Saunders v. City of Jacksonville, 157 Fla. 240, 25 So.2d 648, State v. City of Tallahassee, 142 Fla. 476, 195 So. 402 and State v. City of Pensacola, Fla., 43 So.2d 340.
It is next contended that the revenue certificates are in effect bonds which require an approving vote of the freeholders as specified in Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution, F.S.A., before they may be lawfully issued.
This contention in likewise devoid of merit. The record and the evidence show that the certificates do not impose a general obligation on the taxing power of the city to service them. They are payable solely from revenues derived from the franchise granted to the Florida Power and Light Company by the City and it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boschen v. City of Clearwater
...the financing of projects for broad municipal purposes. See State v. City of Miami, 76 So.2d 294 (Fla.1954); State v. City of Pompano Beach, 47 So.2d 515 (Fla.1950). 3. Article I, section 1.01(a), of the Charter provides that the City "may exercise any power for municipal purposes except wh......
-
North Shore Bank v. Town of Surfside
...citing State v. City of Daytona Beach, 160 Fla. 13, 33 So.2d 218; State v. City of Lakeland, Fla., 42 So.2d 580; State v. City of Pompano Beach, Fla., 47 So.2d 515; State v. Miami Shores Village, Fla., 60 So.2d 541; Bessemer Properties, Inc., v. Town of Miami Springs, Fla., 65 So.2d 567. In......
-
Panama City v. State
...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 t......
-
Town of Medley v. State
...764; State v. City of Daytona Beach, Fla.1949, 42 So.2d 580; State v. City of Pensacola, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 569; State v. City of Pompano Beach, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 515; State v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.1951, 53 So.2d 306; and State v. City of West Palm Beach, Fla.1960, 125 So.2d It may be......