State v. City of St. Petersburg
Decision Date | 18 November 1952 |
Citation | 61 So.2d 416 |
Parties | STATE v. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Archie Clement, Tarpon Springs, for appellant.
Lewis T. Wray, Harry I. Young, Frank D. McDevitt and Carroll R. Runyon, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
From a decree validating certificates of the City of St. Petersburg in the aggregate principal amount of $1,500,000 designated 'Sewer System Revenue Certificates, 1952 Series', the State of Florida, through its States Attorney, has appealed.
The appeal presents four propositions for determination. We will discuss them in the order presented.
The first question presented is whether the City of St. Petersburg had the power to issue these certificates without first obtaining the approval of the freeholders at an election as provided by Section 6 of Article IX of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A.
The resolution authorizing the issuance of these certificates provides:
The appellant urges that the plan of financing the certificates is liable indirectly to create a pledge of the taxing power or impose an obligation coercive upon the city to exercise the power of taxation to meet the principal and interest upon said certificates in the event the net revenues derived from the sewer system should be insufficient. The record discloses, however, that, based upon past revenues derived from the system then in operation, the increased charges imposed by Ordinance No. 17.c ( ) would be adequate to retire the principal and interest on such certificates as they matured. There was adequate and substantial evidence to support this contention in the lower court. See Town of Riviera Beach v. State, Fla., 53 So.2d 828.
We have repeatedly and consistently held that certificates of the kind her considered may be issued without an election as contemplated by Section 6, Article IX of the Florida Constitution. See State v. City of Miami, 157 Fla. 726, 27 So.2d 118, 124, where we held:
See also the more recent cases of Zinnen v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 159 Fla. 498, 32 So.2d 162; State v. City of Winter Park, 160 Fla. 330, 34 So.2d 740.
Appellants-- in their second question--contend that Chapter 23523, Special Acts of 1945, as amended by Chapter 24875, Special Acts of 1947, requires the certificates here involved to be first authorized by a vote of the qualified electors of said city. It is true that the 1945 Act, as amended, does contain such a provision, but Section 10 of the Act contains a provision that:
'* * * This Act is intended as a supplemental and additional grant of power and shall not supplant or repeal any existing powers of the City, but no limitations or prohibitions contained in any other Act shall prevent the complete exercise of the autority conferred hereby.'
We hold that the 1945 Act, as amended, was intended to be and was (as stated in the Act) a grant of supplemental and additional power and did not supplant or repeal the then existing powers under the charter of the city, viz., Chapter 15505, Special Acts of 1931, under which these certificates are to be issued. Herbert v. City of Daytona Beach, 121 Fla. 212, 163 So. 565; Sullivan v. City of Tampa, 101 Fla. 298, 134 So. 211; State v. City of Hollywood, 131 Fla. 584, 179 So. 721.
In numerous cases we have upheld the issuance of revenue certificates under the city's charter authority, supra. See Blocker v. City of St. Petersburg, 125 Fla. 156, 157, 169 So. 647; State v. City of St. Petersburg, 135 Fla. 642, 185 So. 451; State v. City of St. Petersburg, 145 Fla. 206, 198 So. 837.
We now come to the question of whether the City of St. Petersburg has the power and authority under its charter and the laws of Florida to issue the certificates here under consideration and to impose and collect the service charges imposed to service such certificates.
In this connection the following are the pertinent provisions of the Charter of the City, Chapter 15505, Special Acts of 1931:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gate City Garage, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville
...Section 6 of Article 9 of the State Constitution of the State of Florida. State v. City of Miami, Fla., 63 So.2d 333; State v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 61 So.2d 416. The appellants urge that the case of State v. City of Miami Beach, Fla., 47 So.2d 865, should not be considered as autho......
-
Fort Pierce Gas Co. v. City of Fort Pierce
...Section 6 of Article 9 of the State Constitution of the State of Florida. State v. City of Miami, Fla., 63 So.2d 333; State v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 61 So.2d 416.' See also State v. Florida State Improvement Commission, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 601; Wolfe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.1......
-
Petition of Mitchell
...Meade v. Dane County, 155 Wis. 632, 145 N.W. 239; Dallas Railway Co. v. Geller, 114 Tex. 484, 271 S.W. 1106.' In State v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 61 So.2d 416, 419, the city had the power '[t]o establish, impose and enforce water rates and rates and charges for gas, electricity and al......
-
Holzendorf v. Bell
...initiative proceedings for a period of one year after the referendum election.3 Albeit under dissimilar facts, in State v. City of St. Petersburg, 61 So.2d 416 (Fla.1952), the court held that an ordinance simply regulating charges for sewage disposal is an exercise of the executive or admin......