Opinion
November 17, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Charles A. Carroll, J.
Glenn C. Mincer, Miami, for appellants.
Edward L. Semple, Miami, for appellee.
This appeal is from a final decree of the Circuit Court of Dade County validating an issue of municipal Transit Terminal Certificates of the City of Coral Gables, the proceeds of which will be used for the purpose of constructing a bus terminal for the City's municipally owned transit system. They will hereinafter be referred to as certificates.
The point for determination is whether or not the city was authorized to issue the certificates for the purpose and as proposed without an approving vote of the freeholders as required by Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution, F.S.A.
The authority of the City of Coral Gables to own and build a bus terminal is contained in Chapter 23219, Special Acts of 1945. Pursuant to said act the City adopted ordinance 671, authorizing issuance of the certificates without an approving vote of the freeholders for the purpose of constructing adequate terminal facilities for the successful operation of its local transit system. It is shown that the city owns its transit system, that it is operated on a self sustaining basis and that public necessity requires new, larger and more adequate facilities.
It is estimated that the revenues derived from the operation of the municipal transit terminal facilities are more than ample to pay all operating and maintenance costs including the cost of constructing the proposed terminal facilities. As additional security for servicing the certificates as they become due the City agrees that so long as any of the certificates are outstanding it will pay rental for the said terminal facilities in an amount not less than $1,800 per month. In fine, it is proposed to service said certificates not alone with the net revenues from the municipal transit system but with the rents to be paid by the city for the use of the terminal system.
The chancellor found that the rents to be paid by the city were to be derived from the income and revenues from the municipal transit system or in whole or in part out of other available corporate funds, that the rate of such charges was fixed at all times by the city and that the holders of said certificates could not enforce payment against the physical properties of the city. Nor had they recourse to any other funds of the city to service the certificates. The chancellor's holding also refutes the charge that any trustees or five per cent of the certificate holders may supervise the city's budget for the purpose of urging the assessment of taxes if necessary to service the certificates. The resolution, the statute and other proceedings are susceptible to this interpretation.
We construe the validating decree to hold that said trustees or holders of five per cent of the certificates have no power to fix rates on the terminal facilities or in any other respect to direct the action of the city with reference to any matter relative to servicing the certificates. The validating decree also holds that the certificates must be serviced exclusively from revenues derived from the municipal transit system or other available corporate funds and that the ad valorem tax structure is in no way bound to service them.
We affirm the decree as thus interpreted.
Affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., and THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.