State v. Manatee County Port Authority
| Decision Date | 20 January 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 33668,33668 |
| Citation | 171 So.2d 169 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. MANATEE COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Frank Schaub, Beadenton, for appellant.
Goodrich, Hampton & Boylston, Beadenton, for appellee.
We have for review by appeal, a decree of the Circuit Court validating an issue of revenue bonds to finance the construction of 'Port Facilities' in Manatee County.
We are called upon to consider the legality of the existence of the issuing agency and the sufficiency of the description of purposes to be accomplished by the financing program.
By resolution adopted June 24, 1963, the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County designated itself as a Port Authority under Chapter 312, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. By a subsequent resolution, adopted July 8, 1964, the same Board, acting as the governing body of the Manatee County Port Authority, adopted a comprehensive resolution authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds to finance the construction and acquisition of port facilities in the Piney Point area of Manatee County. This resolution authorized the issuance of $750,000 in revenue bonds to be secured by a pledge of the income of the facilities, supported by an additional pledge of race track revenues payable to the county, pursuant to Chapters 550-551, Florida Statutes. It included an estimate of $100,000 per year as gross receipts from the facility and an annual income of $225,000 from race track revenue. The bonds are to be dated July 1, 1964 and mature July 1, 1999, subject to certain redemption privileges. By a subsequet resolution adopted July 17, 1964, the Board of County Commissioners, as such, approved and confirmed the bond resolution and specifically recognized the proposed securities as county obligations within the limits prescribed by the resolution. A motion to dismiss the petition for validation was denied. After hearing, the Circuit Judge entered a decree validating the issue. The State now seeks reversal of this decree.
Primarily, the State contends that the Manatee County Port Authority cannot issue the bonds because it has no separate existence as a legal entity. It further asserts that the petition and authorizing resolution failed to describe, with reasonable definiteness, the purpose for which the bond proceeds are to be used.
By its initial resolution the Board of County Commissioners constituted itself a Port Authority under the provisions of Chapter 315, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Under this Act, and by the resolution, the Port Authority is not a separate governmental agency. Chapter 315, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is obviously a general authorizing enactment to provide for the accomplishment of the public objectives therein described. When a board of county commissioners constitutes itself into a Port Authority under the act, it does not thereby purport to bring into being an autonomous governmental unit. The Manatee County Port Authority is not a separate political subdivision. It is, in reality, merely the Board of County Commissioners functioning under a different name for administrative purposes. The Commissioners simply take on additional duties as a Port Authority under the authorizing statute. Burton v. Dade County, Fla., 166 So.2d 445. These additional functions are logically incidental to the other functions of the Board as the governing agency of the county. We find no merit to the attack on the validity of the existence of the authorizing agency.
The bond resolution recites that it was adopted pursuant to Chapter 315, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. It clearly provides that its intended purpose is to accomplish the construction of the public facility described by statute. It authorizes the construction of 'Port Facilities' in the Piney Point area. It provides for land acquisition and the construction of port improvements. It is clear that it is contemplated that the port facilities to be constructed are those specifically defined by Section 315.02(6), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Nowhere does it appear that there is any purpose to pledge the public credit for private functions in violation of Article IX, Section 10, Florida Constitution, F.S.A. The project to be constructed under the resolution is inseparably tied to the definition of 'Port Facilities' defined by Section 315.02(6), supra. Any subsequent deviation from this definitive specification of port facilities would be in violation of the limitations built into the resolution itself. These port facilities defined by the statute and prescribed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baycol, Inc. v. Downtown Development Authority of City of Fort Lauderdale
...to be issued. We were satisfied that the notice requirements of Chapter 74, Florida Statutes, were offered. Cf. State v. Manatee County Port Authority, 171 So.2d 169 (Fla.1965). That resolution provided specifically for the purchase and acquisition of certain recreational facilities And for......
-
KEY CITIZENS FOR GOV., INC. v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Auth.
...public body has the authority to issue the bonds. See Port Orange, 650 So.2d at 3. As this Court explained in State v. Manatee County Port Authority, 171 So.2d 169, 171 (Fla.1965), "[t]he function of a validation proceeding is merely to settle the basic validity of the securities and the po......
-
City of Bowie v. County Com'rs for Prince George's County
...of the nature and subject matter of the project to be built with the borrowed funds. In accord are the cases of State v. Manatee County Port Authority (Fla.), 171 So.2d 169; Sublett v. City of Tulsa (Okl.), 405 P.2d 185; and Volusia County v. State, 98 Fla. 1166, 125 So. 375, 379, cited ear......
-
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist.
...the executive or administrative level. They are beyond the scope of judicial review in a validation proceeding.State v. Manatee County Port Auth., 171 So.2d 169, 171 (Fla.1965). In Town of Medley v. State, 162 So.2d 257, 258-59 (Fla.1964), we explained that the reasonableness and economic f......