Case Name: ORANGE COUNTY CIVIC FACILITIES AUTHORITY, a body politic and corporate, in Orange County, Florida, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, and the Taxpayers, Property Owners and Citizens of the County of Orange including non-residents owning property or subject to taxation therein, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1973-10-22
Citations: 286 So. 2d 193
Docket Number: No. 44051
Parties: ORANGE COUNTY CIVIC FACILITIES AUTHORITY, a body politic and corporate, in Orange County, Florida, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, and the Taxpayers, Property Owners and Citizens of the County of Orange including non-residents owning property or subject to taxation therein, et al., Appellees.
Judges: ROBERTS, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 286
Pages: 193–198

Head Matter:
ORANGE COUNTY CIVIC FACILITIES AUTHORITY, a body politic and corporate, in Orange County, Florida, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, and the Taxpayers, Property Owners and Citizens of the County of Orange including non-residents owning property or subject to taxation therein, et al., Appellees.
No. 44051.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct. 22, 1973.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1973.
Bobby G. Wombles, of Icardi, Wombles & Livingston, Winter Park, and Freeman, Richardson, Watson, Slade, McCarthy & Kelly, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Stephen P. Kanar, of Fishback, Davis, Dominick & Simonet, Orlando, for appel-lees.

Opinion:
ERVIN, Justice.
This is an appeal of a judgment of the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida, denying validation of a bond issue. The appeal was taken pursuant to Section 3(b) (2), Article V of the 1968 State Constitution F.S.A. and the former provision of Section 4(2) of Article V of the 1885 Constitution as amended, which provision now exists as an unrepealed statute under Section 20(g) (the schedule) of revised Article V of the 1968 State Constitution as amended.
The Orange County Civic Facilities Authority established by Chapter 71-803, Laws of Florida, sought validation of $4,200,000 Civic Facilities Bonds, Series 1973, dated April 1, 1972, to be issued by the Authority.
The Circuit Court of Orange County at first validated the bonds but on motion for rehearing entered an amended final judgment denying validation of the bonds. This appeal ensued.
Pursuant to Chapter 71-803 the Orange County Civic Facilities Authority was leased the Tangerine Bowl by the City of Orlando. The Authority through the proposed bond issue, a revenue issue, sought to finance the enlargement and improvement of the Bowl, a football stadium,, and its related facilities and hopefully among the goals to be achieved by the improvement of the Bowl was to attract for the Orlando community a membership in or franchisement of a football team in one of the professional leagues of national football.
The stumbling block leading to the denial of validation of the bonds was an agreement (referred to as the Cooperation Agreement) between the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County and the Authority under which Orange County agreed to provide the Authority with a maximum of $200,000 a year for payment on the proposed bonds from non-ad valo-rem tax revenues accruing to the County. This agreement was found by the Circuit Court to be in violation of Section 5, Paragraph 13, of Chapter 71-803, Laws of Florida, which reads as follows:
"(13) Bonds issued under the provisions of this act shall not be deemed to constitute a debt of the County of Orange or any o.ther governmental unit in Orange County or a pledge of the faith and credit of the County of Orange or any other governmental unit in Orange County, and a statement to that effect shall be recited on the face of the bonds."
The Circuit Court further stated in its judgment that the proposed bonds
"are' an indirect, but nevertheless real, debt of Orange County and pledge of its faith and credit; that the record reveals that, contrary to the restriction imposed by the legislature as set out above, it is primarily only the indirect pledge of the faith and credit of Orange County which would support and make marketable the said bonds; that while the evidence reveals that holders of the bonds could not directly proceed against Orange County for the money needed to service and retire the said bonds, the holders of the bonds could accomplish the same ultimate result by compeling (sic) the Plaintiff to enforce its agreement with Orange County to pay up to $200,000.00 per year to a fund of the Plaintiff out of which the bonds would be serviced and retired; that this indirect but enforceable pledge of the faith and credit of Orange County to indirectly service and retire the said bonds, is prohibited by Chapter 71-803, Laws of Florida, in the same manner as if it were a direct pledge; the Legislature clearly intended that the Plaintiff should be prohibited from issuing bonds which Orange County (and its taxpayers) would be required to repay and that is precisely what the Plaintiff here seeks to do; that since the said bonds violate the restrictions of Chapter 71-803, Laws of Florida by indirectly obligating Orange County (and its taxpayers) to repay them, the Plaintiff has no legal authority to issue the said bonds."
Our review of the record in this case and the applicable law leads us to the conclusion validation of the bonds should not be denied for the reasons stated.
Section S, paragraph 5 of Chapter 71-803, reads in part as follows:
"(5) The following revenues may be pledged by the authority as security for and may be used for payment of the bonds of the authority issued pursuant to this act, interest thereon and other necessary expenses and costs of said bonds:
"(a) The revenues accruing to the authority from operation or use of facilities.
"(c) Any other revenues provided to the authority by governmental units or by other entities for pledging by the authority as security for and payment of the revenue bonds of the authority issued pursuant to this act, interest thereon and other necessary expenses and costs of the revenue bonds. Such other revenues that may be so provided to the authority, in the discretion of the governmental units or other entities, shall include but not be limited to cigarette taxes as authorized by general law accruing to governmental units in Orange County, ad valorem taxes and occupational license taxes or similar taxes levied, collected or received under general or special law or the law of any governmental unit in Orange County. Said other revenues may be so provided and used despite the provisions of any other law; provided, however, ad valorem taxes may be so provided and used only after full compliance with the State Constitution." (Em.phasis supplied.)
Section 5, paragraph 4 of the act provides:
"(4) payment of the bonds and the principal and interest thereon may be secured by a pledge of all or part of the revenues provided for in this act together with such other revenues as may otherwise be authorized by general or special law; provided, however, no ad valo-rem taxes may be pledged for payment of the bonds except after full compliance with the State Constitution."
It clearly appears from these last quoted provisions when read in connection with Section S, paragraph 13 of the Act that any revenues of the County may be pledged for the retirement of the proposed bonds with the sole exception of ad valo-rem tax revenue. There is no inconsistency in these provisions when considered together since their obvious purpose when so read is_ only to exclude the pledging of ad valorem tax revenues. Even county ad va-lorem tax revenues may be pledged if approved at a referendum of the county electors. This conclusion is in conformity with the construction placed by this Court upon similar statutes authorizing local units to make revenue pledges other than ad valorem tax revenues for the payment of local unit bond issues. See Klein v. City of New Smyrna Beach (Fla.1963), 152 So.2d 466, at 468.
Only recently this Court approved a similar pledge in the form of a cooperation agreement between Dade County and the Inter-American Center Authority. See State v. Inter-American Center Authority, Fla., 281 So.2d 201, opinion filed July 27, 1973.
The rationale of the following cases further supports the conclusion we reach herein. Compare: State v. Tampa Sports Authority (Fla.1966), 188 So.2d 795; State v. City of Jacksonville (Fla.1951), 53 So.2d 306; State v. City of Bartow (Fla.1950), 45 So.2d 886; State v. Okaloosa County Board of Public Instruction (Fla.1968), 214 So.2d 723; Webster v. North Orange Memorial Hospital Tax District (Fla.1966), 187 So.2d 37; State v. Florida State Improvement Commission (Fla.1947), 159 Fla. 338, 31 So.2d 548; Klein v. City of New Smyrna Beach, supra, and Town of Medley v. State (Fla.1964), 162 So.2d 257.
The judgment denying validation is reversed with direction that further proceedings below be in accord herewith.
Reversed.
ROBERTS, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
CARLTON, C. J., and BOYD, J., dissent with opinion.
DEKLE, J., dissents.