Wilson v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 31304

• Decision Date: 14 February 1962
• Docket Number: No. 31304,31304
• Citation: 138 So.2d 65
• Parties: Robert W. WILSON, Alice E. Wilson, M. J. Alfonso et al., Appellants, v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AVIATION AUTHORITY, Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 65

138 So.2d 65

Robert W. WILSON, Alice E. Wilson, M. J. Alfonso et al., Appellants, v.HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AVIATION AUTHORITY, Appellee.

No. 31304.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 14, 1962.

Rehearing Denied March 19, 1962.

Corcoran & Henson, Tampa, for appellants.

T. Paine Kelly, Jr., of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellee.

THORNAL, Justice.

We have for review an interlocutory order of the circuit court sustaining a motion to dismiss a complaint by which Robert W. Wilson et al., assaulted the constitutionality of Section 11, Chapter 59-1356, Florida Statutes, relating to the powers of the appelleeHillsborough County Aviation Authority.

We must decide whether the cited statute violates Section 20, Article III, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., which prohibits the passage of local laws 'regulating the jurisdiction and duties of any class of officers', and also local laws 'for assessment, and collection of taxes for State and county purposes * * *.'

Hillsborough County Aviation Authority was created by Chapter 23339,Laws of Florida 1945.The agency consists of three persons appointed by the Governor and two others, one of whom must be the mayor of Tampa and the other must be a County Commissioner of Hillsborough County.The announced purpose of the statute was to establish an agency to supervise, control and manage all airports in the county, as well as to acquire, own, and operate, airports and facilities related thereto.Two portions of Section 11, Chapter 59-1356, supra, are under attack.One provides that the Authority,

'* * * shall adopt a resolution determining and finding the estimated amounts to be expended by the Authority in the ensuing fiscal year, exclusive of the proceeds of any bonds or other obligations of the Authority, for acquiring, establishing, constructing, enlarging, operating and maintaining said airports and other aviation facilities and other facilities related thereto of the Authority, or for any other corporate purpose of the Authority, and requesting the Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County to levy a tax, not exceeding in any event one and one-half (1 1/2) mills per annum, on all the taxable real and personal property in the county for the exclusive and proper use of the Authority for such purposes. * * *'

The other provides,

'* * * neither the said board of county commissioners nor said county budget commission shall have any right or authority to alter, change, revise, or amend said estimate nor any of the provisions in the aforesaid annual budget for the expenditure of such amounts for said purposes, except that the county budget commission within the provisions of Chapter 14678, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931, amended, by resolution duly adopted and filed with the board of county commissioners, may alter, change, revise or amend the provisions in the annual budget which relate to the general administrative and operating expenses of the Authority in such manner as it deems advisable * * *.'

In seeking an injunction the appellants contended that the quoted provisions constituted a prohibited regulation of the duties and jurisdiction of the county commission and the budget commission.They also contended that the provisions which we have quoted purport to authorize the assessment and collection of taxes by a local law.Preliminary to the consideration of the application for a temporary restraining order to prevent the Authority from functioning under the statute, the chancellor considered a motion to dismiss the complaint.This he was authorized to do under our prior decisions.McMullen v. Pinellas County, 90 Fla. 398, 106 So. 73;Hall v. Hanford, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 303;Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, Fla.1960, 118 So.2d 541.By his order sustaining the motion to dismiss the chancellor expressly passed upon the validity of the subject statute.This interlocutory appeal, therefore, comes directly here under Article V, Section 4(2), Florida Constitution.

We have heretofore upheld local acts establishing various special improvements districts and county development authorities such as the County Airport Authority here involved.In those instances where we have approved such legislation, we did so on the basis that the county agency served an important and valid public purpose.When an analysis of a statute reveals that an appropriate county purpose will be served by the agency created, we have consistently extended to the legislation our judicial approval.Kirkland v. Phillips, Fla.1958, 106 So.2d 909;State v. Dade County, Fla.1953, 62 So.2d 404;State v. DadeCounty, 1946, 157 Fla. 859, 27 So.2d 283.

Any extensive citation of decisions to support the view last announced would unduly burden the present opinion.It is sufficient to conclude the point with the observation that so long as the purpose served is a public one, there is no constitutional prohibition against the establishment of such districts and authorities.Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 So. 47.

The provision of Section 20, Article III, Florida Constitution, proscribing...