State v. Jacksonville Port Authority, s. 44820

• Decision Date: 18 December 1974
• Docket Number: 45392,Nos. 44820,s. 44820
• Citation: 305 So.2d 166
• Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. JACKSONVILLE PORT AUTHORITY, Appellee. JACKSONVILLE PORT AUTHORITY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 166

305 So.2d 166

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. JACKSONVILLE PORT AUTHORITY, Appellee.

JACKSONVILLE PORT AUTHORITY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 44820, 45392.

Supreme Court of Florida,

Dec. 18, 1974.

T. Edward Austin, State's Atty., and Dorothy H. Pate, Asst. State's Atty., for the State of Florida, appellant-appellee.

Francis P. Conroy of Marks, Gray, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, for Jacksonville Port Authority, appellee-appellant.

OVERTON, Justice.

These consolidated appeals are from separate judgments of the Duval County Circuit Court entered in proceedings for the validation of bonds. In each instance, the question before us is whether a specified capital project constitutes an industrial plant within the meaning of Article VII, Section 10(c), Florida Constitution, and Ch. 159, Part II, F.S.A. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(2), Florida Constitution, and Section 75.08, F.S.A. (1973).

In separate resolutions of the Jacksonville Port Authority, each of these projects was approved for the issuance of $1 million (principal amount) in Industrial Development Revenue Bonds pursuant to Ch. 159, Part II, Florida Statutes. Separate bond validation proceedings were duly conducted before the Circuit Court of Duval County.

The first proposed capital project is for a food distribution center under construction by Publix Super Markets, Inc., in Jacksonville, Florida. It is to be located in a structure containing approximately 250,000 square feet on a land area of approximately fifty acres. When completed, the facility will be part of a food distribution system for some 180 retail outlets in the state. The circuit court validated the bond issuance for the food distribution center, specifically finding, inter alia, that the project would make a significant contribution to the economic growth of the City of Jacksonville. The court also stated, '. . . (t)he project will constitute an industrial plant within the meaning of the (Florida Industrial Development Financing) Act and Section 10(c), Article VII of the Constitution of Florida.'

The second proposed capital project is a laundry facility in Jacksonville, to be occupied by Dixie Uniform Supply, a division of Neway Uniform and Towel Supply of Florida, Inc., hereinafter referred to as 'Neway.' The proposed plant will have a working area of 28,000 square feet. The work to be performed in the new facility will include the laundering, servicing, and renovating of industrial working garments. Special cleaning agents, not used in normal commercial laundries, will be needed to remove the petroleum-based soils in the fabrics laundered. Customers will be limited to specified industries and will not include the general public. The present Neway facility employes sixty people and has a current dollar volume business in excess of $1 million. This laundry facility project was disapproved by the trial court, which cited the evidence and record presented as well as the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Missouri in State ex rel. Keystone Laundry and Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. McDonnell, 426 S.W.2d 11, 18 (Mo.1968). Construing the word 'industry' within a state constitutional provision similar to Florida's, the Missouri court said:

'A laundry is purely a service institution. Neither the size nor the cost of the building and equipment nor the number of employees is controlling.'

The State has appealed to urge reversal of the trial court's validation of bonds for the Publix food distribution center, while Neway seeks to overturn the trial court's decision refusing to validate the issuance of bonds for the Neway laundry facility project.

The constitutional language governing these cases is contained in Section 10(c) of Article VII, Florida Constitution. It provides that neither the state nor any other governmental unit shall give, lend, or use its taxing power or credit to aid any corporation, association, partnership, or person. It further provides that the restriction shall not prohibit laws authorizing '. . . revenue bonds to finance or refinance the cost of capital projects for industrial or manufacturing plants . . ..'

To implement this constitutional language, the legislature enacted Chapter 159, Part II, §§ 159.25 through 159.43, F.S.A. ¹ The term 'project' is defined by § 159.27(5), F.S.A., in these words:

"Project' means any capital project comprising an Industrial or manufacturing plant, including one or more buildings and other structures, whether or not on the same site or sites; . . .' (Emphasis supplied)

The phrase 'industrial plant' is not specifically defined within the bond financing provisions of the Florida Constitution or the above-cited implementing provisions of Chapter 159, F.S.A. Yet it seems clear from a reading of Section 159.27(5), F.S.A., that the legislature intended the...