Opinion
October 20, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Leon County, W. May Walker, J.
William D. Hopkins, Tallahassee, Glenn C. Mincer, Miami, Murray W. Overstreet, Kissimmee, and Walter W. Woolfolk, Lake Wales, for appellants.
J. Turner Butler, Jacksonville, and Ford L. Thompson, Tallahassee, for appellee.
This appeal is from a final decree validating $135,000, State Farmers Market Bonds, Series 26 of the Florida State Improvement Commission. The proceeds of the said bonds are to be used for the purpose of constructing extensions and additions to presently existing State Farmers Markets located in Dade, Hardee and St. Lucie Counties. The said markets are owned and operated by the State Agricultural Marketing Board of the State but their purpose is to serve the people in the communities where they are located in marketing their fruit and truck crops. Inadequacy of these markets for local needs prompts the proposed extensions.
The said markets are operated on a self-sustaining basis by imposing a reasonable charge for the service rendered and by a lease charge for warehouse or marketing space. For the purpose of issuing the bonds the State Agricultural Marketing Board would lease these markets to the Florida State Improvement Commission which will in turn issue the bonds and construct the additions and extensions. The Florida State Improvement Commission would then sub-lease the facilities to the State Agricultural Marketing Board at a rental sufficient to liquidate the bonded debt with interest thereon, including the expense of issuing and marketing the bonds. A lease agreement has been made between the Florida State Improvement Commission and the State Agricultural Marketing Board to effectuate these purposes, for a rental of $16,500, payable semiannually and continuously until the bonds, principal and interest are fully paid. When this is done, the markets are then conveyed to the State Agricultural Marketing Board. The petition to validate shows that all these prerequisites have been complied with. The ad valorem taxing resources of the State nor any county is involved. The sole question presented is one of power.
It is first contended that the proposal to allow the receipts of the separate and distinct farmers markets to be pooled in a single sinking fund and to use the receipts of any one of the three markets to retire the principal and interest incurred by any one of the other two markets is violative of Section 420.06, Florida Statutes 1941, as amended, F.S.A.
The answer to this contention turns on the interpretation of Section 420.06 (12), the pertinent part of which is as follows: "The rentals, tolls or charges for any project acquired and financed hereunder through the issuance of bonds, notes or certificates which are payable from the revenue of such project shall be fixed charges and collected so that such revenues will be sufficient to pay cost not otherwise provided for operating and maintaining said project and paying the interest on and principal of such bonds, notes or certificates as the same become due, and if in any year the net revenue from any project be in excess of the amount provided to be set apart in such a year to pay such principal and interest, such excess shall serve as a basis for the future reduction in such rentals, tolls or charges and may be used for the purchase or retirement of the bonds, notes or certificates issued for account of said project, the cost of improvements and extensions to such project or if and to the extent specified in the proceedings for the issuance of said bonds, notes or certificates such balance, if any, may be applied unpledged to pay the currently due amounts or maturities and interest of any other project for the same institution, board or agency. Provided, however, that if there be no additional project for the same institution, board or agency such surplus shall be applied towards calling any or all outstanding bonds, notes or certificates if they be callable, or if not callable, shall be applied towards the purchase of said bonds at the best price obtainable. The net income of said commission from each project shall be held separate and shall not be used for the payment of principal or interest of bonds, notes or certificates issued against any other project except as provided in this section."
We are concerned here with extensions to three different projects in widely separated places, each to be operated separately producing incomes in different amounts. The proposition is to pool the income from the three projects and apply it to the indebtedness of all without regard to the amount each produces. We think that part of the quoted statute immediately preceding and following the proviso when read with Section 603.16, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., completely negatives appellant's contention. Section 603.16, in defining the powers of the State Agricultural Marketing Board authorizes it to acquire sites and erect the necessary marketing facilities thereon. In so doing, the Board is not confined to facilities in a single county or to a single facility. It is a State Board, its jurisdiction is state wide and it may promulgate a "plan or design, a scheme or proposal" that will comprehend the provision of facilities in several localities. That is what is being attempted here and in view of the powers conferred by the statute we cannot say that the State Agricultural Marketing Board was exceeding its powers.
It is next contended (1) that the State Agricultural Marketing Board is without authority to enter into a binding agreement with the Florida State Improvement Commission extending beyond the biennium, and (2) nor has the Florida State Improvement Commission power to make a binding lease agreement with the State Agricultural Marketing Board for any period.
This question is concluded contrary to the contention of appellants by Section 420.06 (3) (6), and Section 603.16 where the powers of the State Agricultural Marketing Board and the Florida Improvement Commission are defined. See also State v. Florida State Improvement Commission, 160 Fla. 230, 34 So.2d 443, where a contract of similar nature was discussed and State v. City of Miami, 150 Fla. 270, 7 So.2d 146, where the contention that such contracts cannot extend beyond the biennium was refuted.
It is therefore our view that any overall program for extension or additions to several Farmers Markets is a single project as contemplated by Section 420.06, Florida Statutes 1941, as amended, F.S.A., and that the Florida State Improvement Commission and State Agricultural Marketing Board were authorized to make and execute the contract drawn in question.
The final decree validating the bonds is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., and CHAPMAN, THOMAS, SEBRING, HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.