City of Leesburg v. State

42 Fla. Supp. 112
CourtCircuit Court of the 5th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Lake County
DecidedFebruary 10, 1975
DocketNo. 75-17
StatusPublished

This text of 42 Fla. Supp. 112 (City of Leesburg v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 5th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Lake County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Leesburg v. State, 42 Fla. Supp. 112 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1975).

Opinion

W. TROY HALL, Jr., Circuit Judge.

Final judgment: The above and foregoing cause came on for final hearing on the date and at the time and place set forth in the order to show cause heretofore issued by this court and in the notice addressed to. the state of Florida and the several property owners, taxpayers and citizens of the city of Leesburg, Florida (hereinafter called “plaintiff”) including non-residents owning property or subject to taxation therein and all others having or claiming any right, title or interest in property to. be affected by the issuance by the plaintiff, of not exceeding $2,000,000 Utilities Revenue. Certificates, Series-1974 (hereinafter called “Obligations”), dated .October 1, 1974, hereinafter more particularly described,- or-to be affected in any way thereby, as heretofore issued against the state of Florida on complaint of the plaintiff, Gordon G. Oldham, Jr., [113]*113state attorney, having filed an answer herein, this cause having duly come on for final hearing, and the court having considered the same, heard the evidence and being fully advised in the premises, finds as follows, that —

1. Plaintiff, is and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a duly and legally organized and existing political subdivision of the state of Florida, created and incorporated under the provisions of the constitution and the laws of the state of Florida.

2. Plaintiff, in and by Chapter 9820, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1923, as amended and supplemented, is authorized to acquire and construct extensions, additions and improvements to the plaintiff’s water distribution facilities, electric power distribution facilities, sewage collection and treatment facilities and its natural gas distribution facilities, all of which are operated in combination as a single combined system (hereinafter sometimes called the “system”), in accordance with the plans and specifications on file or to be filed with the plaintiff (hereinafter called “project”).

3. Authority is conferred upon the plaintiff by the constitution and laws of the state of Florida, particularly such Chapter 9820, to issue the obligations to finance the cost of the project and to pledge the net revenues derived from the operation of the system to the payment of such obligations and the interest thereon on a parity with certain outstanding Utilities Revenue Certificates, dated October 1, 1954; Utilities Revenue Certificates, Series 1959; Utilities Revenue Certificates, Series 1962; Utilities Revenue Certificates, Series 1965 and Utilities Revenue Certificates, Series 1970.

4. It is necessary for the continued preservation of the health welfare, convenience and safety of the plaintiff and its inhabitants to construct and acquire the project, and it is essential that same be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of that certain ordinance enacted on December 9, 1974 (hereinafter called “ordinance” ), which said ordinance authorizes the issuance of the obligations, hereinafter more particularly described.

5. Pursuant to and in accordance with the provision of the constitution and laws of Florida, plaintiff, by such ordinance authorized and provided for the issuance of the obligations, dated October 1, 1974, in the denomination of $5,000 each, numbered consecutively from one upward, maturing and bearing interest at such rate or rates as hereinafter set forth, for the purpose of financing the cost of the project, all of which appears and is more fully set forth in the certified copy of the ordinance heretofore filed herein.

6. The estimated net revenues to bé derived from the operation of the system will be sufficient to pay the amount to become due [114]*114in each fiscal year for the payment of the principal of and interest on the obligations herein referred to and on the outstanding obligations payable on a parity therewith.

7. The obligations shall be payable as to both principal and interest solely from the net revenues derived from the operation of the system. The obligations will not constitute an indebtedness of the plaintiff within the meaning of any statutory limitation and no holder or holders of any of the obligations or any coupons appertaining thereto shall ever have the right to compel the exercise of the ad valorem taxing power of the plaintiff to pay the obligations or the interest thereon or to make any of the reserve, sinking fund or other payments provided for in the ordinance. The obligations shall not constitute a lien upon the system except upon the revenues derived from the operation of the system.

8. The obligations are not “bonds” within the meaning of the constitution of Florida, and are not required by the constitution and statutes to be approved at an election..

9. The plaintiff, pursuant to the constitution and laws of the state of Florida, has the power and is authorized, and in the ordinance has covenanted, at all times, to fix,establish and maintain such rates and collect such fees, rentals or other charges for the services and facilities of the system, and to revise the same from time to time whenever necessary, which will always provide revenues sufficient to pay, through the manner specified in the ordinance, the principal of and interest on the obligations, in addition to paying as the same shall become due the necessary expenses of operating and maintaining the system, all reserve or sinking fund or other payments provided for in the ordinance, and all other obligations and indebtedness payable from the revenues of the system and that such rates, fees, rentals or other charges shall not be reduced so as to be insufficient to provide adequate revenues for such purposes. Such covenant is legal and valid in all respects.

10. The plaintiff is authorized to issue the obligations as additional parity obligations pursuant to the provisions of the ordinance of the plaintiff authorizing the issuance of the outstanding parity obligations.

11. The obligations are of the character and the proceedings preliminary to the issuance thereof are of the nature as entitle the plaintiff to proceed within the provisions of Chapter 75, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of having the right óf the plaintiff to issue:, the obligations determined. .. .....

12. Due and proper notice addressed to the state of Florida, and the several property owners, taxpayers and citizens of the- plaintiff,.-. [115]*115including non-residents owning property or subject to taxation therein and all others having or claiming any right, title or interest in property to be affected by the issuance by the plaintiff of the obligations, hereinbefore described, was duly published by the clerk of this court in a newspaper published and of general circulation in said city of Leesburg, Florida, once each week for three consecutive weeks, the first publication being at least twenty days prior to the date of said hearing, as required by law, all as will more fully appear from the affidavit of the publisher of the Daily Commercial heretofore herein filed.

13. No taxpayer, citizen or other person has intervened or made application to become a party to said proceedings for the purpose of interposing objections to the granting of the prayers as set forth in said complaint as provided by law.

14. The answer of the state attorney for and on behalf of the state of Florida has been carefully considered by this court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 Fla. Supp. 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-leesburg-v-state-flacirct5lak-1975.