Opinion
May 2, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County, D.O. Rogers, J.
Walter W. Woolfolk, Lake Wales, for appellant.
Wm. A. McRae, Jr., Bartow, for appellee.
The City of Bartow approved an ordinance authorizing it to issue bonds to construct improvements, betterments and extensions to its public utilities. This appeal is from a final decree validating said bonds. There is no challenge to the ordinance or the regularity of the petition or other proceedings leading up to the final decree validating the bonds.
It is first contended that the City of Bartow was devoid of authority to issue the proposed bonds payable from the net revenues derived from its electric, water and sewer utilities without an approving vote of the freeholders as required by Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution, F.S.A.
This question was answered contrary to the contention of appellant in Wilson v. City of Bartow, 124 Fla. 356, 168 So. 545; State v. City of Bartow, 147 Fla. 67, 2 So.2d 125 and State v. City of Bartow, 157 Fla. 868, 27 So.2d 350, wherein we held that the City charter, Chapter 9683, Sp. Acts of 1923, as amended, authorizes the City to issue such bonds or certificates. State v. City of Winter Park, 160 Fla. 330, 34 So.2d 740; Zinnen v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 159 Fla. 498, 32 So.2d 162; State v. City of Pensacola, 135 Fla. 239, 184 So. 768 and a number of other cases are also in point.
The foregoing cases also dispose of the contention that the proposed bonds fall in the category of securities condemned by Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution because of the name by which they are designated. Whether they are called bonds, revenue certificates or by some other name is not material. The point is whether or not the taxing power of the city is pledged to service or to protect them. The petition and the language of each bond provides that the city of Bartow is under no obligation to pay them or the interest thereon except from the available net revenue from the city utilities, that neither said bonds nor the interest coupons thereon shall constitute an indebtedness of the City of Bartow, but they shall be paid solely from the revenues of the utility being provided for. Section eight of the resolution authorizing the bonds also provides that no holder of said bonds or interest coupons shall ever have the right to compel the exercise of the taxing power of the city to service them nor shall the holder be entitled to have them paid from any other funds of the city except from the net revenues of the utilities produced by them. Reben v. City of Sarasota, 135 Fla. 698, 185 So. 607 and State v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 So. 6, and many other cases support this view.
Assault is also made on the provision of the city ordinance providing for issuance of the proposed bonds in that it recognizes other outstanding bonds of the city, series of 1940 and 1946 including the obligation of the city to impose ad valorem taxes to pay them. The contention is that such a recognition in the city ordinance and the body of the bonds renders the proposed bonds amenable to the requirements of Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution.
We do not think there is any merit to this contention. The proposed bonds are entirely separate and distinct obligations from the outstanding bonds, they are supported by separate and different tax obligations, all are of different vintage and they are in no wise tied to or dependent on the other. It is shown that the resources pledged to support each issue are ample to support and redeem them as they mature, that none of them have ever been in default and in fact, we find no basis whatever to support this contention. State v. City of Miami, 146 Fla. 266, 200 So. 535.
Other questions raised have reference (1) to the power of the city to own and operate its utilities on what is termed a consolidated basis and pledge its revenues derived from them to the payment of principal and interest on the bonds in question, and (2) has the city power to impose rates sufficient to meet the pledge of the proposed bonds and to operate and maintain said facilities in good condition?
It is sufficient to say that these points have been thoroughly explored and we find no merit whatever to support appellant's thesis. The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., and THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.