Opinion ID: 1729113
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: paramount public purpose

Text: Even if TEA did fall within the section 10 prohibition as a corporation, association, partnership or person, the bonds still could be validated if they serve a paramount public purpose. This Court explained: If the County has not exercised its taxing power or pledged its credit, the obligation must merely serve a public purpose. On the other hand, if the County has used either its taxing power or pledge of credit to support the issuance of the bonds, the purpose of the obligation must serve a paramount public purpose and any benefits to a private party must be incidental. State v. Osceola County, 752 So.2d 530, 536 (Fla.1999) (emphasis added). [5] We consistently have held that an incidental private benefit is not sufficient to negate the public character of a project: Running throughout this Court's decisions on paramount public purpose is a consistent theme. It is that there is required a paramount public purpose with only an incidental private benefit. If there is only an incidental benefit to a private party, then the bonds will be validated since the private benefits are not so substantial as to tarnish the public character of the project. If, however, the benefits to a private party are themselves the paramount purpose of a project, then the bonds will not be validated even if the public gains something therefrom. Orange County Ind. Dev. Auth. v. State, 427 So.2d 174, 179 (Fla.1983) (citations omitted). In the present case, the circuit court found that TEA issued its guarantees to entice third parties to trade with TEA so that TEA will be better equipped to compete in the wholesale energy market and to ensure access to a larger supply of energy and capacity for its members, all of whom are municipally owned or political subdivision utilities. Further, as previously noted, JEA's obligations under its TEA Guarantees apply to all the transactions entered into by TEA. Of those transactions, the resource management arrangements with non-municipally owned or nonpolitical subdivision utilities would account for only a fraction of TEA's revenues. Accordingly, to the extent that private entities are benefitted by these guarantees, such a benefit is incidental to the paramount public purpose served by TEA. [6]