Case Name: George F. PLATTS et al., Appellants, v. DIVISION OF BOND FINANCE OF the DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES of the State of Florida, etc., Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1973-03-07
Citations: 275 So. 2d 231
Docket Number: No. 42355
Parties: George F. PLATTS et al., Appellants, v. DIVISION OF BOND FINANCE OF the DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES of the State of Florida, etc., Appellee.
Judges: CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 275
Pages: 231–233

Head Matter:
George F. PLATTS et al., Appellants, v. DIVISION OF BOND FINANCE OF the DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES of the State of Florida, etc., Appellee.
No. 42355.
Supreme Court of Florida.
March 7, 1973.
Rehearing Denied April 18, 1973.
Philip H. Elliott, of Elliott, Tindell & Armstrong, Daytona Beach, for appellants.
Arnold L. Greenfield and Robert E. Niro, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of a final judgment of the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Florida validating an issue of $7,000,000 state of Florida, Full Faith and Credit, Volusia County Bridge Bonds to finance a state highway bridge project in Volusia County, Florida.
Appellants raise certain objections to the validation. We discuss them briefly hereinafter.
The location of the subject bridge is a matter of discretion vested by law in administrative boards by the Legislature. Compare Pirman v. Florida State Improvement Commission, Fla., 78 So.2d 718. No abuse of discretion or fraud in the location of the subject bridge is shown.
There is no showing there was any failure to satisfy the law regarding the giving of any prior notice to the public concerning the location of the bridge project or in formulating the local and state agreements concerning its financing. Compare Kelton v. Division of Bond Finance, Fla., 261 So.2d 813.
The $7,000,000 issue of bonds is payable primarily from rentals secured by a lien on the net tolls of the project and the uncommitted eighty per cent surplus gasoline tax funds accruing to the Department of Transportation for use in Volusia County, Florida, under the provisions of Section 9(c), Article XII, Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A., in the manner provided in the lease-purchase (rental) agreement between the Division of Bond Financing of the Department of General Services of the State of Florida as Lessor, and the Department of Transportation of the State of Florida as Lessee. No referendum approving such an issue is necessary. See State v. Division of Bond Financing, Fla., 246 So.2d 102.
None of Appellants' objections to the validation appear to have any legal basis. Included in their objections are political and policy considerations, the wisdom of the exercise of administrative discretion in regard to the location and financing of the bridge project, as well as questions relative to the ecological suitability of the bridge project. , However, these are areas of consideration lying beyond our own legitimate judicial province to intrude or to substitute our judgment for what has been decided in the legislative and executive spheres of authority.
Affirmed.
CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
DEKLE, J., dissents with Opinion.
ROBERTS J., dissents and agrees with DEKLE, J.