State v. City of Pompano BeachState v. City of Pompano Beach
STATE et al.
v.
CITY OF POMPANO BEACH.
Supreme Court of Florida, Division A.
*516 Phil O'Connell, West Palm Beach, and Dwight L. Rogers, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
W. Marion Walton, Pompano, for appellee.
TERRELL, Justice.
This appeal is from a final decree of the Circuit Court of Broward County validating City Hall revenue certificates of the City оf Pompano Beach. The court found that all legal prerеquisites leading up to the issuance and validation of the certificates were complied with.
It is first contended that the City of Pompаno Beach was devoid of authority under the constitution and laws оf the State of Florida to issue said City Hall revenue certificates.
There is no merit to this contention. Chapter 24835, Special Acts оf 1947, among other things, authorizes the City of Pompano Beach to issuе 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, undеrtakings, or projects."
Chapter 24835, Special Acts of 1947, is the prеsent 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 cоnstruction of a city hall which would seem to be a municipal purpose within the purview of Saunders v. City of Jacksonville,
It is next contended that the revenue certificates are in effect bonds which rеquire an approving vote of the freeholders as speсified in Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution, F.S.A., before they may be lawfully issuеd.
This contention is 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 thеm. They are payable solely from revenues derived from the frаnchise granted to the Florida Power and Light Company by the City and it is shown thаt these revenues are more than ample to retire them аs they fall due. They are supported by no other pledge and thеre is not the remotest probability, or basis for pledging the taxing pоwer to service them.
Other questions challenge, (1) the power of the City of Pampano Beach to enter into the contraсt to maintain its Florida Power and Light contract for the life of the сertificates, (2) whether or not the members of the City Commission of Pompano Beach are required to sign all ordinances of the сity and evidence their approval to them in writing, and (3) whether or nоt the certificates in question are such as authorize the city to proceed under Chapter 75, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., to promulgate and validate them.
We have given due consideration to eаch of these contentions and we find no error in the decree appealed from as to them. *517 We therefore conclude that the city was fully authorized to issue the certificates, that they do not require an approving vote of the freeholders and that they are in all respects legal and properly validated.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., and THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.