Dade County Industrial Development Authority v. State

49 Fla. Supp. 79
CourtCircuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County
DecidedJanuary 19, 1979
DocketNo. 78-20685(23)
StatusPublished

This text of 49 Fla. Supp. 79 (Dade County Industrial Development Authority v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dade County Industrial Development Authority v. State, 49 Fla. Supp. 79 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1979).

Opinion

DAN SATIN, Circuit Judge.

Judgment: This cause coming on to be heard on the 18th day of January, 1979, at the hour of 4 o’clock P. M. of said day, and continued on the 19th day of January 1979 at 9 o’clock A. M., in the Dade County Courthouse in the city of Miami, in the county of Dade in the eleventh judicial circuit of Florida, upon the complaint of the Dade County Industrial Development Authority (herein called the “issuer”) for the validation of $1,310,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Carolina Freight Carriers Corporation Project), Series 1978 (herein called the “bonds”), of said issuer, pursuant to a notice and order to show cause heretofore issued by this court requiring the defendants to show cause at said time and place why the bonds and the proceedings of the board of commissioners of the issuer in connection with the issuance of said bonds should not be validated as was prayed in said complaint, and it appearing that copies of said notice and order and of said complaint were served upon the state attorney for the eleventh judicial circuit of Florida, as is required by law, that said notice and order was published as is required by law, that said state attorney has filed an answer as required by law, that no one except said state attorney and said plaintiff has made any appearance or filed any pleading or paper of any kind whatever in said matter, and that the court has jurisdiction of this cause and of the subject matter hereof and of the parties hereto, and evidence having been intro[81]*81duced and the cause submitted for consideration and decision, the court, having heard and determined all of the questions of law and of fact in this cause, finds the facts as follows —

(a) All of the material allegations in said complaint for validation are true, and the issuance of $1,310,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Carolina Freight Carriers Corporation Project), Series 1978, of said issuer has been duly authorized.

(b) The issuer was created by Part III of Chapter 159, Florida Statutes (herein called the “Act”), as a body corporate and politic and a public instrumentality of the county of Dade, Florida (herein called the “county”).

(c) The board of county commissioners of Dade County (herein called the “board”) adopted on March 21, 1978 an ordinance entitled —

Ordinance declaring a need for an Industrial Development Authority in Dade County; designating the members of the authority; providing for severability; providing for inclusion in the Code; and providing an effective date.

which ordinance (herein called the “enabling ordinance”), by declaring a need for an industrial development authority in the county, had the effect under the Act of authorizing the issuer to transact business and exercise its powers under the Act.

(d) the Issuer was created for the purpose of financing and refinancing capital projects including industrial and manufacturing plants and air, water and othei pollution and waste control facilities, together with appurtenant facilities, for the complete operation thereof for the purpose of fostering the industrial and business development of the county.

(e) The constitution of the state of Florida provides, in Section 10 of Article 7, that neither the state nor any county, school district, municipality, special district, or agency of any of them, shall become a joint owner with, or stockholder of, or give, lend or use its taxing power or credit to aid any corporation, association, partnership or person, but that this shall not prohibit laws authorizing the issuance and sale by any county, municipality, special district or other local governmental body of revenue bonds to finance or refinance the cost of capital projects for industrial or manufacturing plants to the extent that the interest thereon is exempt from income taxes under the then existing laws of the United States when the revenue bonds are payable solely from revenue derived from the sale, operation or leasing of the projects.

[82]*82(f) Paragraph (1) of Section 103(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (herein called the “Code”), in effect makes the interest on industrial development bonds (as therein defined) subject to federal income taxes, but paragraph (6) (A) of Section 103(b) of the Code provides that said paragraph (1) shall not apply to any obligation which is issued as part of an issue of an aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 or less when substantially all of the proceeds thereof are to be used for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, or improvement of land or property of a character subject to the allowance for depreciation.

Paragraph(6) (B) of Section 103(b) of the Code provides that if the proceeds of two or more issues of obligations described in paragraph (6) (A) of Section 103(b) of the Code (whether or not the issuer of each such issue is the same) are or will be used primarily with respect to facilities located in the same incorporated municipality or located in the same county (but not in any incorporated municipality), and the principal user of such facilities is or will be the same person or two or more related persons, then in determining the aggregate principal amount of any issue there shall be taken into account the principal amount of obligations .issued under all prior such issues and outstanding at the time of such later issue.

Paragraph (6) (D) of Section 103(b) of the Code provides that at the election of the issuer, “$10,000,000” may be substituted for “$1,000,000” in paragraph (6) (A) mentioned above, provided that in determining the face amount of the issue there shall also be taken into account the outstanding principal amount of obligations described in paragraph (6) (B) mentioned in the next preceding paragraph and the aggregate amount of “capital expenditures’ ’(financed other times from the proceeds of the bonds) with respect to the facilities mentioned in the next preceding paragraph.

(g) The issuer, as required by the Act and by Article 7, Section 10 of the Florida Constitution, has determined that the interest on the bonds to be issued by the issuer to pay the cost of the acquisition, construction, equipping and installation of the proiect will be exempt from income taxes under existing laws of the United States based on (i) the representations of the companv made in the sale agreement (hereinafter mentioned) that (A) all of the proceeds of the bonds will be used to finance the acquisition, construction, or improvement of land or propertv of a character subject to the allowance for depreciation, (B) that there will not be on the date of issue of the bonds any outstanding obligations of a prior issue the proceeds of which are reauired to be taken into account pursuant to paragraph (6) (B) of Section 103(b) of the Code (as [83]*83described in paragraph (f) of this judgment) and (C) that the sum of “capital expenditures” within the meaning of Section 103(b) (6) (D) of the Code (as described in paragraph (f) of this judgment) to be made other than from the proceeds of the bonds will not on the date of issue of the bonds exceed $500,000 and (ii) a written opinion of the bond counsel to the issuer, to be dated the date of issue of the bonds, that the interest on the bonds is exempt from federal income tax.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 Fla. Supp. 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dade-county-industrial-development-authority-v-state-flacirct11mia-1979.