Opinion
September 12, 1952.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumter County, T.G. Futch, J.
T.E. Duncan, Gainesville, for appellants.
James W. West, Bushnell, and Patterson, Freeman, Richardson Watson, Jacksonville, for appellee.
This is an appeal in bond validation proceedings to validate a proposed issuance of Jail Certificates by the County of Sumter to finance the construction of a jail, as authorized by Section 135.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
The proceedings preparatory to the issuance of these certificates appear to be regular in all respects, and the method of refunding same and the form thereof have heretofore been approved by this Court. See Tapers v. Pichard, 124 Fla. 549, 169 So. 39; Posey v. Wakulla County, 148 Fla. 115, 3 So.2d 799; Seaboard Airline Railroad Co. v. Peters, Fla., 43 So.2d 448.
The fact that the County Commissioners chose to levy a tax "not to exceed five mills per annum * * * for a period of ten years", rather than fixing a definite annual millage for the ten-year period, is entirely consistent with the provisions of Section 135.01, and does not make the tax void for being vague and indefinite. As stated in 3 Cooley on Taxation, 4th Ed., page 2085: "The amount of a tax need not, however, be prescribed by statute, for if it is determinable by a mere act of computation, the ascertainment of it is ministerial or executive, and not legislative. Thus, where the constitution required that every law creating a state debt should levy a tax annually sufficient to pay the annual interest of such debt, the requirement was complied with by a provision that 'an annual tax, in addition to all other taxes, shall be levied upon the property of the state sufficient to pay the interest on the loan,' etc., there being then in force a general law under which it became the duty of an executive officer to fix the amount of the tax and order its collection." Section 135.01 provides that "The tax levied shall be assessed and collected at the same time and in the same manner as other state and county taxes are levied and collected." And, clearly, the provision for a tax "not to exceed five mills per annum" enables the County Commissioners to adjust the tax annually to meet the debt service charges so that the millage will not be in any one year either too large or too little.
No error having been made to appear, the decree of validation should be and it is hereby
Affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., and BUFORD, Associate Justice, concur.
MATHEWS, J., concurs specially.
The certificates involved in this case relate solely and exclusively to a county jail. A county jail or court house stands in a different class from any other county building or any other county undertaking. The erection of a county jail or court house does not only serve a county purpose but it is an absolute county necessity. A county government could not exist without a county jail and a court house. The enforcement of the laws is vital and necessary in order for a county government to exist. Persons charged with such crimes as murder, rape, arson, burglary and other felonies could not be incarcerated and detained without the existence of a county jail, whether erected and constructed by the county or rented by the county. Without jails or places of detention and incarceration, we would have confusion, disorder, chaos and anarchy.
Private individuals, associations or institutions may construct playgrounds, parks, hospitals or other public places which could also be constructed by a county as serving a county purpose. However, such public places could not be constructed from the proceeds of a bond issue or from the proceeds of certificates of indebtedness where ad valorem taxes to be collected in future years are pledged for the payment of principal and interest of such bonds or certificates of indebtedness in violation of Section 6 of Article IX of the State Constitution, F.S.A. There is a vast difference between an undertaking which will serve a county purpose and an undertaking which is vital and necessary to the very existence of a county government. In the case of Posey v. Wakulla County, 148 Fla. 115, 3 So.2d 799, 801, this Court said:
"The construction of a county courthouse is an essential governmental requirement of the county and certificates of indebtedness for that purpose payable from budgetary requirements in due course of law do not require an approving vote of the freeholders."
In the case of Tapers v. Pichard, 124 Fla. 549, 169 So. 39, 40, this Court said:
"Contracts let in contemplation of this act are limited to county necessities under strict budgetary regulations. The county could wait until the tax collecting period (not exceeding five years) expired and the taxes collected and then proceed to construct the courthouse or jail, but in lieu of this, if it becomes necessary to commence construction earlier and pay for it from the funds as they are collected, no law is violated." (Emphasis supplied.)
By concurring in the opinion written by Mr. Justice Roberts it is not intended to set any precedent for the approval of certificates of indebtedness or bonds where the payment of the principal and interest thereof is secured by the pledge of ad valorem taxes to be collected over a period of years for such purposes as the erection of county hospitals, county health centers, school buildings, roads and bridges, juvenile delinquent homes, or any other undertaking simply because it will serve a county purpose. This concurring opinion is limited solely and exclusively to the subject matter of the validation proceedings, to wit, a county jail.