Pass4sure 212-055 Sun Certified Programmer for the Java 2 Platform.SE 5.0 exam braindumps with real questions and practice software.
Use real 212-055 dumps with true high-quality and recognition.
212-055 certification sample | 212-055 past exams | 212-055 past bar exams | 212-055 cheat sheet | 212-055 test prep - bigdiscountsales.com
212-055 - Sun Certified Programmer for the Java 2 Platform.SE 5.0 - Dump Information
Vendor | : | SUN |
Exam Code | : | 212-055 |
Exam Name | : | Sun Certified Programmer for the Java 2 Platform.SE 5.0 |
Questions and Answers | : | 581 Q & A |
Updated On | : | January 1, 2018 |
PDF Download Mirror | : | 212-055 Brain Dump |
Get Full Version | : | Pass4sure 212-055 Full Version |
Ensure your success with this 212-055 question bank
The best way to get accomplishment in the SUN 212-055 exam is that you ought to acquire dependable preliminary materials. We guarantee that killexams.com is the most direct pathway towards certifying SUN Sun Certified Programmer for the Java 2 Platform.SE 5.0 exam. You will be triumphant with full certainty. You can see free questions at killexams.com before you purchase the 212-055 exam items. Our mimicked tests are in different decision the same as the real exam design. The questions and answers made by the confirmed experts. They give you the experience of taking the real test. 100% assurance to pass the 212-055 real test.
killexams.com SUN Certification contemplate guides are setup by IT experts. Bunches of understudies have been whining that there are excessively numerous questions in such huge numbers of training exams and study aides, and they are quite recently tired to manage the cost of any more. Seeing killexams.com specialists work out this extensive form while still certification that all the information is secured after profound research and examination. Everything is to make comfort for competitors on their street to accreditation.
We have Tested and Approved 212-055 Exams. killexams.com gives the most exact and most recent IT exam materials which practically contain all information focuses. With the guide of our 212-055 exam materials, you don't have to squander your opportunity on perusing main part of reference books and simply need to burn through 10-20 hours to ace our 212-055 real questions and answers. Also, we furnish you with PDF Version and Software Version exam questions and answers. For Software Version materials, It's offered to give the hopefuls reproduce the SUN 212-055 exam in a real environment.
We give free refresh. Inside legitimacy period, if 212-055 exam materials that you have bought updated, we will intimate you by email to download most recent version of Q&A. In the event that you don't pass your SUN Sun Certified Programmer for the Java 2 Platform.SE 5.0 exam, We will give you full refund. You have to send the checked duplicate of your 212-055 examination report card to us. Subsequent to affirming, we will rapidly give you FULL REFUND.
In the event that you get ready for the SUN 212-055 exam utilizing our testing software. It is anything but difficult to prevail for all confirmations in the main endeavor. You don't need to manage all dumps or any free downpour/rapidshare all stuff. We offer free demo of every IT Certification Dumps. You can look at the interface, question quality and convenience of our training exams before you choose to purchase.
Killexams.com Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under;
WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for all exams on website
PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $99
DECSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for All Orders
212-055 Discount Coupon, 212-055 Promo Code, 212-055 vce, Free 212-055 vce, Download Free 212-055 dumps, Free 212-055 braindumps, pass4sure 212-055, 212-055 practice test, 212-055 practice exam, killexams.com 212-055, 212-055 real questions, 212-055 actual test, 212-055 PDF download, Pass4sure 212-055 Download, 212-055 help, 212-055 examcollection, Passleader 212-055, exam-labs 212-055, Justcertify 212-055, certqueen 212-055, 212-055 testking
212-055 q&a bank is required to pass the exam at first attempt.
I prepare people for 212-055 exam subject and refer all to your site for further developed preparing. This is positively the best site that gives solid exam material. This is the best asset I know of, as I have been going to numerous locales if not all, and I have presumed that killexams.com Dumps for 212-055 is truly up to the mark. Much obliged killexams.com and the exam simulator.Take Advantage, Use Questions/Answers to ensure your success.
It is a captains job to steer the ship just like it is a pilots job to steer the plane. This Killexams.com can be called my captain or my pilot because it steered me in to the right direction before my 212-055 test and it was their directions and guidance that got me to follow the right path that eventually lead me to success. I was very successful in my 212-055 test and it was a moment of glory for which I will forever remain obliged to this online study center.where must I sign in for 212-055 exam?
After a few weeks of 212-055 preparation with this Killexams set, I passed the 212-055 exam. I must admit, I am relieved to leave it behind, yet happy that I found Killexams to help me get through this exam. The questions and answers they include in the bundle are correct. The answers are right, and the questions have been taken from the real 212-055 exam, and I got them while taking the exam. It made things a lot easier, and I got a score somewhat higher than I had hoped for.I found a great place for 212-055 braindumps
nicely, I did it and that i can't trust it. I could in no way have exceeded the 212-055 with out your assist. My score changed intoso high i used to be amazed at my overall performance. Its just because of you. thanks very an awful lot!!!were given no trouble! 3 days instruction of 212-055 braindumps is needed.
killexams.com question financial institution was absolutely suitable. I cleared my 212-055 exam with sixty eight.25% marks. The questions were sincerely good. They preserve updating the database with new questions. And men, cross for it - they by no means disappoint you. thanks so much for this.212-055 q&a bank is required to pass the exam at first attempt.
I certainly asked it, honed for a week, then went in and surpassed the exam with 89% marks. that is the issue that the proper examination arrangement ought to be much like for each person! I got to be 212-055 affirmed accomplice attributable to this web page. they've an excellent accumulation of killexams.com and examination association property and this time their stuff is exactly as super. The inquiries are valid, and the examination simulator works best. No troubles identified. I suggested killexams.com Q&A Steadfast!!Try this great source of Real Test Questions.
Killexams is a dream come genuine! This brain unload has helped me bypass the 212-055 examination and now Im capable ofpractice for higher jobs, and i am in a function to choose a better enterprise. this is something I could not even dream of a few years ago. This examination and certification may be very targeted on 212-055, but i discovered that other employers may be interested in you, too. just the fact which you surpassed 212-055 examination shows them that you are an excellentcandidate. Killexams 212-055 education package has helped me get maximum of the questions proper. All topics and regionshave been blanketed, so I did no longer have any primary troubles even as taking the examination. some 212-055 product questions are tricky and a little misleading, but Killexams has helped me get maximum of them proper.Where can I find 212-055 exam study help on internet?
Have simply handed my 212-055 exam. Questions are valid and accurate, that's the coolest news. i was ensured 99% skip fee and cash lower back guarantee, but glaringly i have got fantastic rankings. which is the coolest information.Take Advantage, Use Questions/Answers to ensure your success.
just surpassed the 212-055 exam with this braindump. i can affirm that it is 99% valid and includes all this years updates. I handiest got 2 question wrong, so very excited and relieved.Weekend have a look at is enough to pass 212-055 exam with these questions.
Like many others, I have recently passed the 212-055 exam. In my case, vast majority of 212-055 exam questions came exactly from this guide. The answers are correct, too, so if you are preparing to take your 212-055 exam, you can fully rely on this website.See more SUN dumps
310-055 | 310-813 | 310-879 | 310-202 | 310-302 | 311-232 | 212-065 | 310-220 | 310-301 | 310-345 | 310-502 | 310-811 | 310-105 | 310-615 | 310-036 | 310-540 | 310-043 | 310-232 | 311-019 | 310-052 | 310-035 | 310-110 | 310-814 | 310-625 | 310-100 | 310-880 | 310-600 | 310-200 | 310-610 | 310-065 | 310-016 | 310-091 | 310-044 | 310-620 | 212-055 | 310-014 | 310-560 | 310-203 | 310-084 | 310-330 | 310-015 | SCP-500 | 310-056 | 310-066 | 310-231 | 310-303 | 310-875 | 310-053 | 310-019 | 310-092 |Latest Exams added on bigdiscountsales
1Z0-453 | 210-250 | 300-210 | 500-205 | 500-210 | 70-765 | 9A0-409 | C2010-555 | C2090-136 | C9010-260 | C9010-262 | C9020-560 | C9020-568 | C9050-042 | C9050-548 | C9050-549 | C9510-819 | C9520-911 | C9520-923 | C9520-928 | C9520-929 | C9550-512 | CPIM-BSP | C_TADM70_73 | C_TB1200_92 | C_TBW60_74 | C_TPLM22_64 | C_TPLM50_95 | DNDNS-200 | DSDPS-200 | E20-562 | E20-624 | E_HANABW151 | E_HANAINS151 | JN0-1330 | JN0-346 | JN0-661 | MA0-104 | MB2-711 | NSE6 | OMG-OCRES-A300 | P5050-031 |See more dumps on bigdiscountsales
HP0-M77 | 920-335 | C2010-569 | 050-SEPROAUTH-01 | LOT-987 | A2090-611 | HP0-090 | STI-884 | 1Y0-202 | 00M-240 | 000-046 | E_HANAINS151 | 000-020 | HP0-A100 | LOT-825 | 642-145 | 312-76 | P2020-795 | 1Z0-593 | HP3-X01 | C2020-930 | 000-717 | 000-890 | 00M-244 | C2150-195 | JN0-1300 | ST0-099 | 000-112 | 922-093 | C2030-102 | 920-352 | 9L0-606 | C_TBIT44_731 | 156-215.13 | EX0-003 | 000-342 | 0G0-081 | 70-511-CSharp | 920-196 | 000-175 | 3104 | 000-889 | 050-SEPROSIEM-01 | HP2-N44 | HP2-Z15 | 920-199 | 250-501 | M6040-419 | NS0-330 | 000-M02 |212-055 Questions and Answers
- }
- }
And the invocation:
31. test(null); What is the result?
- An exception is thrown at runtime.
- "String is empty" is printed to output.
- Compilation fails because of au error in line 12.
- "String is not empty" is printed to output.
Answer: A
QUESTION: 214
Given:
- public static void test(String str) {
- int check = 4;
- if (check = str.length()) {
- System.out.print(str.charAt(check -= 1) +", ");
- } else {
- System.out.print(str.charAt(0) + ", ");
- }
- }
And the invocation:
- test("four");
- test("tee");
- test("to"); What is the result?
- r, t, t,
- r, e, o,
- Compilation fails.
- An exception is thrown at runtime.
Answer: C
QUESTION: 215
Given:
10. public class MyClass { 11.
- public Integer startingI;
- public void methodA() {
- Integer i = new Integer(25);
- startingI = i;
- methodB(i);
- }
- private void methodB(Integer i2) {
- i2 = i2.intValue(); 20.
- }
- }
If methodA is invoked, which two are true at line 20? (Choose two.)
- i2 == startingI returns true.
- i2 == startingI returns false.
- i2.equals(startingI) returns true.
- i2.equals(startingI) returns false.
Answer: B, C
QUESTION: 216
Given:
- class Cup { }
- class PoisonCup extends Cup { }
....
- public void takeCup(Cup c) {
- if(c instanceof PoisonCup) {
- System.out.println("Inconceivable!");
- } else if(c instanceof Cup) {
- System.out.println("Dizzying intellect! ");
- } else {
- System.exit(0);
- }
- }
And the execution of the statements: Cup cup = new PoisonCup(); takeCup(cup); What is the output?
- Inconceivable!
- Dizzying intellect!
- The code runs with no output.
- An exception is thrown at runtime.
- Compilation fails because of an error in line 22.
Answer: A
QUESTION: 217
Given:
- String[] elements = { "for", "tea", "too" };
- String first = (elements.length > 0) ? elements[0] : null; What is the result?
- Compilation fails.
- An exception is thrown at runtime.
- The variable first is set to null.
- The variable first is set to elements[0].
Answer: D
QUESTION: 218
Given:
- public class ClassA {
- public int getValue() {
- int value=0;
- boolean setting = true;
- String title="Hello";
- if (value || (setting && title == "Hello")) { return 1; }
- if (value == 1 & title.equals("Hello")) { return 2; }
- }
- }
And:
- ClassA a = new ClassA();
- a.getValue(); What is the result?
- 1
- 2
- Compilation fails.
- The code runs with no output.
- An exception is thrown at runtime.
Answer: C
QUESTION: 219
Click the Exhibit button. What is the result? Exhibit:
- go in Goban go in Sente go in Sente
- go in Sente go in Sente go in Goban
- go in Sente go in Goban go in Goban
- go in Goban go in Goban go in Sente
- Compilation fails because of an error in line 17.
Answer: C
QUESTION: 220
Given:
- public class Foo {
- public int a;
- public Foo() { a = 3; }
- public void addFive() { a += 5; }
- }
and:
- public class Bar extends Foo {
- public int a;
- public Bar() { a = 8; }
- public void addFive() { this.a +=5; }
- }
invoked with:
- Foo foo = new Bar();
- foo.addFive();
- System.out.println("Value: "+ foo.a); What is the result?
- Value: 3
- Value: 8
- Value: 13
- Compilation fails.
- The code runs with no output.
- An exception is thrown at runtime.
Answer: A
QUESTION: 221
Which of the following follows Correct Java Bean Listner rules:
- Listener()
- addMouseListener()
- updateActionListener()
- removeMyListener()
Answer: A, B, D
SUN 212-055 Exam (Sun Certified Programmer for the Java 2 Platform.SE 5.0) Detailed Information
Article by ArticleForge
No. 90223. Decided: May 22, 1997 Diane D. Tremor and Chris H. Bentley of Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, Tallahassee; and Thomas K. Morrison of Morrison, Morrison & Mills, Tampa, for Appellant, Cross-Appellee. Emeline C. Acton, County Attorney; Mary Helen Campbell and Christine Beck, Assistant County Attorneys, Hillsborough County, Tampa; James D. Palermo, City Attorney and Jerry M. Gewirtz, Assistant City Attorney, City of Tampa, Tampa; Donald A. Gifford and John Van Voris of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa; and Raymond Ehrlich, Steven L. Brannock, Henry M. Morgan, Jr. and Susan L. Turner of Holland & Knight L.L.P., Tampa, for Appellees, Cross-Appellants. Benjamin H. Hill, III, Dennis P. Waggoner and Gregory P. Brown of Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, for Buccaneers Limited Partnership, Amicus Curiae.
We have on appeal a decision of the trial court declaring invalid a proposed bond issue for a new “Community Stadium” in Tampa, Florida. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(2) of the Florida Constitution, and reverse the decision below.
FACTS
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers (the “Bucs”) NFL football team has played its home games in Tampa since 1976 in a stadium owned and operated by the Tampa Sports ity (the TSA). In 1995, the Bucs franchise was sold to a new owner for approximately $192 million. Prior to the sale, the new owner advised local public officials that the team required additional stadium-related revenue sources, such as luxury suites, club seats, etc., in order to remain financially competitive with other NFL teams, and the team would seek to relocate to another city unless the TSA constructed a new stadium in Tampa offering the necessary amenities. The new owner reiterated his intention to move the team after the sale, but at no time submitted a relocation application to the NFL, which requires approval by three-fourths of the member teams for such a move. Negotiations between the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, and the Tampa Sports ity (the Issuers) and the new owner of the Bucs commenced in the fall of 1995 and continued until an agreement for the construction of a new stadium was reached on August 28, 1996.
In the interim, the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners passed an ordinance on July 10, 1996, levying a one-half cent local government infrastructure surtax for a period of thirty years “to acquire infrastructure for general government purposes, public education, and public safety.” As required by law for the passage of an infrastructure surtax,1 the ordinance provided for a referendum. The purpose of the half-cent sales tax, as presented to the electorate, was
to finance infrastructure for jails, police and Sheriff's equipment, fire stations, emergency vehicles, school construction, a community stadium, transportation improvements, libraries, parks, trails, stormwater improvements and public facilities.
(Emphasis added). The referendum was approved on September 3, 1996, by fifty-three percent of the voters. Hillsborough County, the Cities of Tampa, Plant City, and Temple Terrace, and the Hillsborough County School Board subsequently entered into an interlocal agreement for the distribution of tax revenue which provided that the net proceeds from the local option infrastructure surtax during the thirty-year duration of the tax would be distributed as follows: the School Board would receive twenty-five percent of the net proceeds each year; $318 million of the proceeds would be disbursed for construction of a new Tampa stadium (with that amount subject to change should there be a significant change in the debt service costs for the new stadium) and any remaining proceeds would be distributed among the county and municipalities pursuant to the distribution formulae in section 218.62, Florida Statutes (1995).
Under the Stadium Agreement, Stadium Parcel Development Agreement and Practice Area Development and Lease Agreement entered into between the TSA and the Bucs, and with the approval of the County and the City, the TSA agreed to construct a new 65,000 seat community stadium with amenities at a cost of $168.5 million to serve as the Bucs' home field, as well as a $12 million training facility to be used by the Bucs. In general terms, the Stadium Agreement provides that the Bucs will utilize the stadium for thirty years and will pay the TSA a $3.5 million annual fee, with $2 million allocated to stadium rent, $1 million as practice facility rent and $500,000 as a fee for certain development rights granted to the Bucs with respect to the surrounding stadium property. The TSA will receive $1.93 million annually from a surcharge on tickets for Buc games and other stadium events, and will retain fifty percent of all revenues from non-Buc events beyond the first $2 million in proceeds from these events, which accrues to the Bucs.
PROCEEDINGS BELOW
The proceedings at issue here began on September 27, 1996, when William (“Bill”) Poe, in his capacity as a Tampa area resident and taxpayer, filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the actions of the County, the City and the TSA with regard to incurring debts, using the taxing power and pledging public credit for the construction and operation of the proposed new Tampa stadium project violated article VII, section 10 of the Florida Constitution.2 The complaint further sought an order from the circuit court permanently enjoining and restraining the governmental agencies from unconstitutionally incurring debts, pledging tax monies and credit and expending public funds for the construction and operation of the new Tampa stadium project.
On December 26, 1996, the TSA, the County and the City filed a complaint seeking to validate a series of revenue bond issues for the construction and equipping of a new stadium, the acquisition and construction of a practice facility and the demolition of the existing stadium. The TSA proposes to issue up to $33 million in bonds supported by state sales tax monies,3 11.5 million in bonds supported by the local option four-cent tourist development tax, and $160 million in bonds supported by revenues to be realized from a county-wide local option half-cent sales tax.
Upon agreement of all parties, the two complaints were consolidated for a bench trial, which was held the first week of March 1997. Although the circuit court declined to validate the bonds sought to be issued by TSA, it found that the new stadium project would serve a paramount public purpose and the bonds would be valid but for one clause in the lease agreement which granted the Bucs the first $2 million in net revenues from non-Buccaneer events. In light of this clause, the court concluded that the stadium project served a predominantly private purpose. In its subsequent order denying rehearing, the trial court noted, however, that it would “validate the bonds if an agreement can be made between the Bucs, the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County and the Tampa Sports ity to revise paragraph 10 of the Stadium Agreement to delete the clause that grants the right to the Bucs to receive the first $2 million per year from non-Bucs events.” Both parties challenge the trial court's final order on appeal to this Court.
APPEAL
The scope of judicial inquiry in bond validation proceedings is limited to the following issues: (1) determining the public body has the authority to issue the bonds; (2) determining if the purpose of the obligation is legal; and (3) ensuring that the bond issuance complies with the requirements of law. Rowe v. St. Johns County, 668 So.2d 196 (Fla.1996); Taylor v. Lee County, 498 So.2d 424 (Fla.1986). In the instant case, only the second condition is at issue. We have held that a bond issue does not violate article VII, section 10 so long as the project serves a “paramount public purpose,” and any benefits to private parties from the project are incidental. Northern Palm Beach County Water Control Dist. v. State, 604 So.2d 440, 441-42 (Fla.1992); Wald v. Sarasota County Health Facilities Auth., 360 So.2d 763 (Fla.1978); State v. Jacksonville Port Auth., 204 So.2d 881 (Fla.1967).
In determining whether the trial court erred in finding that the new community stadium in Tampa does not serve a paramount public purpose based solely on the clause in the lease granting the Bucs the first $2 million dollars in net revenues from non-Buc events net of direct costs, we find the cases validating the bonds for the construction and operation of the Daytona Beach Motor Speedway to be instructive.
In the case of State v. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities District, 89 So.2d 34 (Fla.1956), the City of Daytona Beach, through a special district set up to construct and operate a racing and recreational facility in the area, entered into a lease agreement with the Daytona Beach Motor Speedway corporation whereby the corporation was given the right of possession of a facility to be constructed for racing purposes for at least six months of each year for a period of forty years in order to conduct motorized races and other motorized events. Id. at 35. The special district retained the right of possession of the facility for its own purposes for the remaining six months of the year, and at other times when the corporation did not have events scheduled at the facility. The commission governing the special district subsequently filed a petition to validate $2,900,000 in bonds to pay for the cost of constructing, maintaining and operating the racing facility. The Circuit Court in Volusia County validated the bonds and the state appealed in part on grounds that issuance of the bonds would be improper because the racing facility did not serve a “proper public purpose.”
We held that the issuance of the bonds was valid, and rejected the state's argument as follows:
It [the State] cited State v. Town of North Miami, Fla., 59 So.2d 779; Adams v. Housing ity of City of Daytona Beach, Fla., 60 So.2d 663; and City of Clearwater v. Caldwell, Fla., 75 So.2d 765. Each of these cases involved attempts of the city to use public funds to develop property for private benefit and gain and in each case the Court ruled such not to be proper public use. In each of these cases the private purpose was predominant, not incidental to a public purpose. The first case involved the development of an area for industrial purposes; the second involved the acquisition of an area for leasing to private enterprises for industrial and commercial purposes; and the third was concerned with the city being involved in the construction for leasing of hotels or apartments for private enterprise.
In the instant case a private corporation would be in a position to utilize private gain from the facility, but only for a portion of the year. Under the agreement between the District and the corporation, the corporation is given the use of the facilities to be constructed for a period of not less than six months in each year for the conduct of a schedule of motorized racing activities and attractions. The Commission is to have the use of the facilities for its own programs for a period of not less than six months each year and at all other times when not scheduled for use by the Corporation. The corporation would conduct automobile racing events of international interest, as well as other attractions. Tourism, both as between the areas of our State and as between the States of this Nation, is a competitive business. The sand and the sun and the water are not sufficient to attract those seeking a vacation and recreation. Entertainment must be offered. Even ignoring its use by the District for periods aggregating one-half the year, or more, for other recreational and educational purposes for the public, the facility in question, considering the uses to which it will be adopted and their expected effect on the public welfare, is infinitely more a valid public purpose than would any of the schemes contemplated in the three instances cited above. The public purpose here seems to be predominant and the private benefit and gain to be incidental.
․
In the instant case the purpose of the facility is both to increase trade by attracting tourists and to provide recreation for the citizens of the District. We have on numerous cases approved as a public purpose the development of recreational facilities. See State v. City of Daytona Beach, 160 Fla. 13, 33 So.2d 218; State v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 53 So.2d 306; State v. City of Pensacola, Fla., 43 So.2d 340. Appellee's brief ably cites authorities in other jurisdiction which are in accord with the holdings of this Court on the matter. In State v. City of Miami, Fla., 41 So.2d 545, we upheld the selling of certificates to enlarge the Orange Bowl Stadium in Miami and appellant cites cases from several jurisdictions which also validated bonds for the construction of such recreational facilities. Therefore, it is our opinion that the development of the facility in question would serve a valid public purpose, and that the private benefit and gain would be incidental thereto.
Appellant's final argument is that to lease the facility for a part of each year to a private corporation constitutes a violation of Section 10 of Article IX of the Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., which prohibits the loaning of the District's credit to any corporation. It contends that the effect of the contemplated contract with the Corporation is to allow it to use the facility for part of each year for forty years with no capital investment and consequently the credit of the District is loaned to the Corporation. But we have heretofore held that if an undertaking is for public purposes, Article IX, § 10 of the Constitution is not violated even though some private parties may be incidentally benefited. We said in State v. Inter-American Center ity, Fla., 84 So.2d 9, 12, supra:
Since the erection of a Trade Center is designed to strengthen cultural relations among the countries of the Western Hemisphere, it can not be said that it amounts to a pledge or loan of the credit of the state to an individual, company, corporation or association in violation of Section 10, Article IX of the Constitution.
In State v. Board of Control, Fla., 66 So.2d 209, 210, we said
The mere fact that some one engaged in private business for private gain will be benefited by every public improvement undertaken by the government or a governmental agency, should not and does not deprive such improvement of its public character or detract from the fact that it primarily serves a public purpose. An incidental use or benefit which may be of some private benefit is not the proper test in determining whether or not the project is for a public purpose.
This Court has in numerous instances approved the imposition of taxes as being an aid to a public purpose. State v. Inter-American Center ity, supra; State v. City of Miami, Fla., 76 So.2d 294, dealing with an international trade mart (owned, however, by the city); C.V. Floyd Fruit Co. v. Florida Citrus Commission, 128 Fla. 565, 175 So. 248, 112 A.L.R. 562, involving a tax on citrus fruit for advertising purposes; State v. City of Daytona Beach, 160 Fla. 13, 33 So.2d 218, supra, upholding a tax for construction of an auditorium, stadium, boat basin and recreational center; State v. Dade County, Fla., 62 So.2d 404, where a warehouse and overhaul shop were to be constructed and then leased to airlines corporations and the revenue certificates were to be paid from rentals from such corporations; State v. City of Tallahassee, 142 Fla. 476, 195 So. 402, where the construction of an office building by the City for rental purposes was upheld as a public purpose; State v. Escambia County, Fla., 52 So.2d 125, where revenue certificates were sold to construct recreational facilities which could be leased out to private enterprises. It can clearly be seen that in the above cases this Court did not hold the imposition of taxes or use of tax monies to be invalid because some private businesses profited thereby, rather this Court ruled that the tax was for valid purposes notwithstanding the incidental private gain for private businesses. In State v. Town of North Miami, Fla., 59 So.2d 779, supra, involving an area for industrial purposes; in Adams v. Housing ity of City of Daytona Beach, Fla., 60 So.2d 663, involving leasing of lands for private, commercial and business enterprises; and in City of Clearwater v. Caldwell, Fla., 75 So.2d 765, supra, involving the construction for leasing of hotels and apartments, we held that the constitutional provision against the lending of the credit of a city would be violated. In those cases the incidental public purpose accomplished was too inconsequential in comparison to the private gain. We do not feel that the case at bar has such shortcomings and we express our opinion to be, in conformance with our views in the numerous instances referred to earlier in this opinion, that the issuance of the $2,900,000 revenue bonds is in aid of a valid public purpose and does not violate Section 10 of Article IX [now Article VII] of our State Constitution.
89 So.2d at 36-38.
The validity of the bonds for the Daytona Beach Motor Speedway came before this Court again, after the facility was constructed and had been operating for several years, in the context of a suit by the county tax collector and others against the special district and the City of Daytona Beach for the collection of taxes on the property leased to the special district and then subleased to the corporation. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist. v. Paul, 179 So.2d 349 (Fla.1965). In this second case, we found that a change in the lease agreement favorable to the corporation, which in essence gave the corporation exclusive use of the raceway all year, did not detract from our previous finding that the bonds were for a predominantly public purpose so as to cause a loss of the special district's tax exemption. We explained:
To recapitulate, the decision of the District Court of Appeal attempts to distinguish the facts of the instant case from those involved in the bond validation case in order to predicate its decision upon a non-conflicting, changed factual situation. It stresses the fact the validated bonds could not be sold and that private financing in lieu was arranged primarily by the District entering contracts and executing a lease agreement with the Speedway operating corporation. However, it was contemplated from the beginning the Speedway racing operation would be conducted by a private corporation irrespective of whether the Speedway facilities were constructed with public or private funds. The original lease with the Speedway Corporation which was considered in the bond validation case provided the Speedway Corporation would control and operate the facility for six months each year for speedway racing purposes while the District reserved the remaining six months to use the facility for District purposes, including community or other public uses. The new and existing lease reduced the District's rights to the facility to a three-month period each year, with further provision the Speedway corporation could, if it desired, pre-empt the three months for speedway racing purposes. But as we have seen, the revising of the lease did not detract from the predominantly public purpose of the facility, which was the successful operation of the Speedway itself, pure and simple, as a tourist and business attraction to the area-a unique facility in the state which harmonized with customs of the City of Daytona Beach where automobile racing was conducted along the beach of the Atlantic Ocean opposite the city for many years past. The decision of this Court in the validation case went straight to the substance of the Speedway venture and held the public purpose of the facility was founded primarily upon the existence and successful operation of the racing facility itself as a community asset and not upon the division of the time in the lease for the use of the facility as between the District and the Speedway Corporation.
Id. at 355 (emphasis supplied). Like the bonds in the Daytona Beach Racing and Recreational Facilities cases, the bonds at issue in this case are valid for similar reasons, and the trial court erred in ruling otherwise.
Here, the trial court credited the testimony of the local government's expert witness who testified that the Bucs would provide an annual economic benefit to the Tampa Bay economy ranging from a high of $183 million to a low of $83 million and the Super Bowl scheduled to be held in the new stadium in the year 2001 can be expected to yield an economic benefit in excess of $300 million. In light of these findings, the trial court concluded, “[a]lthough economic forecasting is obviously not a precise science, the Court is of the opinion that the local community will realize substantial economic benefits from the continued presence of the Buccaneers and from hosting the 2001 Super Bowl and that over time these benefits can be expected to far exceed the cost of the new stadium.” The court went on to find that:
In addition to the quantifiable economic benefits ․ the Court heard credible testimony from the Mayor of Tampa, the Hillsborough County Administrator, the President of the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce and others regarding the immeasurable economic benefits realized as a result of national media exposure in newspapers and from the televised Buccaneer games and Super Bowls, including the value of such exposure in helping attract tourists and new businesses to the Tampa Bay area. Several witnesses testified that without an NFL team the community would find it more difficult to compete with other cities for new business. The evidence also established that the new stadium will host more than 40 major events each year, including 10 Buccaneers games, Tampa Bay Mutiny professional soccer games, University of South Florida football games, high school football games, the annual Outback Bowl football game, equestrian events, tractor pulls, motor cross events and concerts. The Court finds that the Buccaneers instill civic pride and camaraderie into the community and that Buccaneer games and other stadium events also serve a commendable public purpose by enhancing the community image on a nationwide basis and providing recreation, entertainment and cultural activities to its citizens.
In essence then, the trial court's refusal here to validate these bonds was not based on a finding that the new stadium project failed to serve a paramount public purpose, but was due only to the court's belief that the Bucs got “too sweet” a deal with the one clause in the lease agreement allowing the Bucs to receive the first $2 million in proceeds from non-Buc events.
On appeal to this Court, Poe contends that the trial court's concerns as to this one clause should be extended to the entire lease agreement. Poe's criticism's of the terms of the lease agreement, and the “$2 million in non-Buc revenue” clause in particular, may well be valid. However, once a trial court has found that a “paramount public purpose” exists, the court cannot micromanage the arms-length business negotiations of the parties by striking discrete portions of a complex arrangement which, as a whole, the court candidly finds to be substantially beneficial to the public. Because this is exactly what the trial court did in the instant case, we cannot affirm its ruling on appeal. In addition, we reject Poe's contention that even when a project serves a paramount public purpose that only bonds which are to be repaid from revenues derived from the project itself may be validated if a private entity also derives some benefit from the project. See State v. City of Miami, 379 So.2d 651 (Fla.1980); State v. Sunrise Lakes Phase II Special Recreation Dist., 383 So.2d 631 (Fla.1980); Panama City v. State, 93 So.2d 608 (Fla.1957).
While hardly satisfying, citizens of the Tampa area who, like Poe, feel that their local public officials have not served them well in this endeavor still have a remedy of sorts at the ballot box. Indeed, as noted earlier, the majority of citizens voting on the bond issue, while apparently fully aware of the obvious benefits of the deal to the Bucs ownership, nevertheless voted to go forward. Only time will tell if the policy choices made here were wise ones.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order below and remand with directions to enter a judgment validating the bonds proposed to be issued by the TSA for the new community stadium project in Tampa.
It is so ordered.
FOOTNOTES
1. Section 212.055(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996).
2. That provision provides that:Neither the state nor any county, school district, municipality, special district, or agency of any of them, shall become a joint owner with, or stockholder of, or give, lend or use its taxing power or credit to aid any corporation, association, partnership or person; but this shall not prohibit laws authorizing:․ the issuance and sale by any county, municipality, special district or other local governmental body of (1) revenue bonds to finance or refinance the cost of capital projects for airports or port facilities, or (2) revenue bonds to finance or refinance the cost of capital projects for industrial or manufacturing plants to the extent that the interest thereon is exempt from income taxes under the then existing laws of the United State, when, in either case, the revenue bonds are payable solely from revenue derived from the sale, operation or leasing of the projects. If any project so financed, or any part thereof, is occupied or operated by any private corporation, association, partnership or person pursuant to contract or lease with the issuing body, the property interest created by such contract or lease shall be subject to taxation to the same extent as other privately owned property.
3. The State has approved an application for the allocation of $2 million annually from State sales tax collections to fund construction of the new stadium pursuant to section 288.1162, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1996).
PER CURIAM.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Article by ArticleForge
Some Democratic Party leaders called a press conference to oppose it, though others like former Mayor Tommy Hazouri and Eric Smith support it.
Pensions, like potholes, aren’t partisan.
Police and fire protection are not partisan.
Here are key issues in brief:
One-time opportunity: The Legislature will never approve a regular sales tax option. Mayor Lenny Curry masterfully lobbied the Legislature and governor to approve the special sales tax option.
A broader tax: Sales tax revenue will capture revenue from commuters and visitors. Everyone, including renters, benefits from Jacksonville’s police and fire protection.
Property taxes: This option will always be there. Property taxes, however, hit small businesses hard.
Reform: Revenue can’t be used until there is pension reform. The same can’t be said for property tax increases.
It’s not kicking the can: There is no end to the city’s pension obligations. A retiree this year will live several more decades.
A complete solution: Analysis shows that the debt will be fully paid by 2049 when the tax would end.
Trust: Those worried about pension reform should remember that Curry is a conservative business owner. He is committed to pensions that are fair, competitive and affordable.
No more delays: The city has been dealing with this crisis since 2008. It has hurt morale among police officers and firefighters. There is no perfect solution. The biggest danger involves more delays. It is time for closure.
Article by ArticleForge
Grandal was held out of the lineup on Monday after his shoulder flared up while he was taking batting practice before the game, manager Don Mattingly said.
Mattingly was unsure as to whether Grandal had been concealing his pain since returning to the team after being struck by a foul ball on his left shoulder in Philadelphia in early August, or whether the injury had suddenly flared up.
"This is in the same area," Mattingly said. "I don't know if he was not being totally honest with us as far as dealing with that pain, or just didn't want to say. I mean, some guys are just not going to tell you."
Grandal was in the midst of a career year at the plate heading into August. However, since sustaining the injury, the 26-year-old catcher has hit .055.212.055 with no home runs, two RBI, three hits, and 21 strikeouts in 66 plate appearances over 18 games.
He is now hitting .253.367.434, a significant drop from where he was exactly a month ago: .287.391.500.
The Los Angeles Times reports that Grandal declined to comment on the matter.
(ht Los Angeles Times)
Article by ArticleForge
SECTION 7. PLEDGE OF SURTAX NET PROCEEDS .
(A) In order to finance or refinance projects, PSTA may issue bonds or notes, enter into lines of credit, incur loans or other indebtedness, enter into concession, lease or similar agreements, and may secure payment obligations under such bonds, loans, notes, lines of credit or other indebtedness or pursuant to such concession, lease or similar agreements with a pledge of and lien on the Surtax Net Proceeds in accordance with the provisions of Section 212.055(1), Florida Statutes, and other applicable law, including any indebtedness refinancing such bonds, loans, notes, lines of credit or other indebtedness. Prior to the initial issuance of any indebtedness by PSTA, the Pinellas County Attorney shall approve the trust agreement or trust indenture (the "Trust Agreement") pursuant to which such indebtedness is to be issued. The County and PSTA agree that it is their intent that such approval be provided by the County Attorney prior to the date of the Surtax Referendum. Notwithstanding the foregoing, PSTA shall at all times comply with its debt policy referred to in Section 10 hereof
(B) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, to the extent permitted by law, in order to effectuate the purposes in PSTA's Greenlight Plan, PSTA may enter into leases or public private partnerships with concessionaires, and may secure its obligations to make lease, concession and other payments under lease and concession agreements with a pledge of and lien on the Surtax Net Proceeds in accordance with the provisions of Section 212.055(1 ), Florida Statutes. (C) Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the amount of indebtedness that may be incurred by PSTA to be secured by the Surtax Net Proceeds.
Comment
This Section provides the authority for the PSTA to obligate sales tax proceeds to the payment of bonds issued by PSTA. Once obligated, these funds cannot be reduced or used for any other purpose by PSTA or the County. The bond covenants will determine how the money is to be spent, and while the County may have some say in the structuring of the bonds, PSTA will really be in the driver's seat, because they will actually be spending the bond proceeds with limited County over sight.
We have already seen how liberally PSTA interprets rules related to spending money.
SECTION 9. REDUCTION AND TERMINATION OF SURTAX.
Upon the earlier of:
(A) completion of all steps to finance (including without limitation debt incurrence, andor execution of public-private partnerships or leases), acquire, andor construct all projects and capital improvements contemplated in PSTA's Greenlight Plan, as mutually determined by PSTA and the County (if the parties cannot mutually determine whether PSTA's Greenlight Plan has been completed, the parties shall engage a nationally recognized transit consultant acceptable to both Parties to make such determination);
(B) PSTA's decision to discontinue such steps to finance, acquire andor construct substantially all of the projects and capital improvements contemplated in PSTA's Greenlight Plan
(C) the occurrence of a Force Majeure
(D) the fiftieth 50th anniversary of the date the Surtax is first levied and each 20th anniversary thereafter;
(E) a payment default under the Trust Agreement; or
(F) PSTA applying Surtax Net Proceeds for a purpose other than PSTA's Greenlight Plan,
the County and PSTA shall meet to discuss the particular event described in clauses (A) through (F) that has occurred and shall consider, depending upon the event, revising this Agreement, revising or adding to PSTA's Greenlight Plan, seeking further authorization for additional uses by PSTA of the Surtax Net Proceeds or reducing or increasing, if there has been a previous reduction and subject to the limitations of the Surtax Referendum, temporarily or permanently, the Surtax Net Proceeds. If the Parties are unable to agree on what action, if any, to take, after making a good faith effort, the County may take any legally required action to reduce the Surtax Net Proceeds distributed to PSTA. In determining what action to take, if any, pursuant to this Section 9, the Parties shall comply with the provisions of Section 29(B) hereof.
Any reduction of Surtax Net Proceeds distributed to PSTA as a result of an action or event described in clauses (C), (E) or (F) above shall be temporary and the County shall promptly begin distributing the full amount of the Surtax Net Proceeds to PSTA, including all amounts that were held back and actual interest earnings, if any, actually derived by the County, when the County determines, in its sole discretion, that such event or action has been cured or no longer exists. The foregoing shall not impose a duty on the County to invest any of such withheld amounts. The County shall determine, in its sole discretion, whether any reduction of Surtax Net Proceeds distributed to PSTA as a result of an action or event described in clauses 6 (A), (B) or (D) will be temporary or permanent. If the County determines to permanently reduce the distribution of the Surtax Net Proceeds, to the extent and as permitted by law, it may take such action as it deems necessary and is legally required to reduce the amount of the Surtax levy in accordance with this Section. Notwithstanding anything in this Section 9 to the contrary, any temporary reduction shall be limited to an amount that will not impair PSTA's ability to meet all of its then outstanding financial obligations under the Trust Agreement.
Comment
This Section sets up the conditions under which the sales tax would terminate. Note that (D) sets the life expectancy of Greenlight at 50 years but allows for two 20 year extensions.
That's 90 Years!
TWO generations.
A baby born on January 1, 2015 when this Tax starts, will pay the tax their entire life, their children will pay it and it is not inconceivable their grand children may also pay it.
This amount of indebtedness for this length of time to develop 24 four rail stations for a train generally going to the wrong places; buying and selling a bunch of land and building tracks and buildings so a very few can get very rich is very, very wrong.
The law you are being asked to approve with your YES vote is just over 5000 words long. The Interlocal Agreement where the County attempts to put some control on PSTA is over 7000 words long. And we have just begun.
Don't mortgage your future, your children's future and grandchildren's future for a train that does not meet the core public transportation need and will cost millions more than the Greenlight plan contemplates.
Send the County, PSTA, TBARTA and Greenlight back to drawing board just like they did in Hillsborough County.
Greenlight is a plan that we don't need and cannot afford.
Vote NO November 4
Talk to you fiends and neighbors and be sure they know what they are voting for.
It's not public transportation. It's all about the money.
E-mail Doc at: dr.webbverizon . Or send me a (Gene Webb) Friend request.Please comment below, and be sure to share on and Twitter.Disclosures: Contributor to No Tax for Tracks
Get free real-time news alerts from the Pinellas Beaches Patch.
This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this post are the author's. Registered users are welcome to post on Patch.
Article by ArticleForge
HENDERSON
89002
232 Patti Ann Woods Drive, $171,000, 179-31-524-004
751 Yellowtail Way, $167,000, 179-30-211-021
856 Noble St., $128,900, 179-29-413-002
89011
1413 Chestnut St., $106,000, 178-01-810-059
777 Crest Valley Place, $115,000, 178-03-513-059
89012
1336 Enchanted River Drive, $161,500, 178-15-812-030
1426 Summer Glow Ave., $108,000, 178-21-514-048
1757 Baja Lane, $170,000, 178-21-318-002
1804 Clear River Falls Lane, $55,000, 179-34-713-166
267 Cale Palacio St., $138,000, 178-17-411-048
312 Pleasant Summit Drive, $425,000, 178-20-814-106
636 Blackstone Mountain Drive, $142,500, 178-23-511-080
781 Bolle Way, $1,375,000, 191-01-316-004
89014
332 Esquina Drive, $186,000, 178-08-617-022
745 Rocky Trail Road, $154,900, 178-04-514-062
89015
1118 Sport Of Kings Ave., $125,000, 179-21-810-024
156 Almond Ridge Place, $93,000, 179-17-116-022
172 Almond Ridge Place, $88,000, 179-17-116-026
215 Apache Place, $55,600, 179-05-802-010
365 Dooley Drive, $145,111, 179-17-710-012
532 Kenerly St., $90,000, 179-21-119-072
89044
2355 Peaceful Sky Drive, $127,000, 190-19-112-031
2516 Dornoch Lane, $405,000, 191-24-711-036
2535 Stardust Valley Drive, $99,000, 125-17-411-040
2748 Kilwinning Drive, $38,000, 138-23-413-050
89052
11060 Magenta Crest Court, $59,000, 161-29-811-018
1241 Sonatina Drive, $232,000, 178-07-816-002
1528 Sabatini Drive, $117,900, 177-27-110-025
2148 Paganini Ave., $133,500, 176-10-311-033
2177 Arpeggio Ave., $220,000, 190-05-210-058
2288 Chestnut Ranch Ave., $151,000, 176-11-412-048
2387 Goldfire Circle, $65,500, 179-34-712-070
513 Melrose Heights St., $290,000, 178-30-611-018
933 Saffex Rose Ave., $228,000, 176-36-417-055
89055
3003 Panorama Ridge Drive, $175,000, 177-36-313-033
89074
1250 American Pacific Drive, No. 2621, $135,000, 177-24-514-077
162 Sand Dune Court, $115,000, 177-13-114-065
2057 Troon Drive, $139,000, 162-25-711-035
226 Drysdale Circle, $258,000, 178-08-316-009
234 Scotgrove St., $200,000, 178-08-815-003
2471 Ping Drive, $460,000, 178-18-211-016
3247 Morning Springs Drive, $123,500, 177-24-514-045
9017 S. Pecos Road, No. 4500, $95,000, 177-13-319-001
9231 Sapphire Hills Court, $203,500, 177-24-610-015
NORTH LAS VEGAS
89030
1316 E. Owens Ave., $70,000, 139-23-812-044
2225 Englestad St., $30,000, 139-22-115-002
2736 N. Bruce St., $52,101, 139-13-710-036
2808 E. Brooks Ave., $50,000, 139-13-116-015
89031
1016 Crescent Moon Drive, $175,000, 124-28-613-042
1918 Silver Crest Court, $90,000, 124-33-115-025
3517 Ashby Field Ave., $54,000, 125-18-616-010
36 Marble Apex Ave., $108,000, 124-27-712-052
3725 Shimmering Creek Ave., $122,990, 124-30-712-070
4013 Madrone Drive, $90,000, 139-06-511-014
4780 W. Ann Road, No 314-S, $52,000, 125-21-213-104
5436 Whisper Bluff St., $109,000, 124-33-114-048
5518 Iberville St., $159,990, 124-31-513-021
89032
132 Winley Chase Ave., $100,000, 139-03-710-078
1324 Indian Hedge Drive, $125,000, 139-09-613-049
3200 Beamery Court, $81,000, 139-08-212-006
3304 Simmons St., $205,000, 124-07-712-008
4425 Fenton Lane, $145,000, 139-07-211-049
89081
1221 Spottswood Ave., $169,000, 124-26-313-033
2817 Big Mountain Ave., $138,000, 124-25-311-141
4008 Recktenwall Ave., $145,000, 123-30-610-005
89084
1721 Little Bow St., $146,000, 124-28-115-098
2504 Mistle Thrush Drive, $172,000, 124-20-710-078
2924 Ivorybill Way, $145,000, 124-17-212-020
3422 Singer Lane, $269,000, 124-17-413-007
6529 Button Quail St., $83,000, 125-29-201-034
89085
4331 Mesa Landing Ave., $231,500, 124-07-412-129
89101
223 Tower St., $205,000, 139-35-816-033
89102
1216 Strong Drive, $600,000, 162-05-510-027
2103 Linda Vista St., $110,000, 162-02-713-011
2800 Colanthe Ave., $216,000, 162-05-613-010
3111 Castlewood Drive, $65,000, 162-07-410-076
4304 Mott Circle, $80,000, 163-14-210-006
89103
4230 Carolyn Drive, $205,000, 163-26-312-002
4231 Ridgeview Drive, $60,000, 138-36-217-014
5224 River Glen Drive, No. 450, $43,439, 163-24-611-278
5278 River Glen Drive, No. 417, $62,000, 163-24-611-313
89104
1319 Rexford Place, $110,000, 161-05-510-300
1509 S. Eastern Ave., $55,000, 139-21-510-140
4646 E. Imperial Ave., $60,001, 161-05-610-063
89107
198 Upland Blvd., $118,500, 138-36-110-002
3604 W. Washington Ave., $107,000, 139-30-617-019
89108
1008 Shifting Sands Drive, $127,000, 138-26-615-081
1804 Starbuck Drive, $117,000, 138-23-412-024
2110 Bavington Drive, No. D, $40,600, 138-23-416-015
2400 Goldenmoon St., $295,000, 138-14-411-027
5113 Mambo Vista Ave., $104,000, 138-13-711-042
5299 Reiter Ave., $60,000, 125-30-201-017
5340 Dulce Ave., $98,000, 138-24-710-012
5438 Alfred Drive, $146,000, 138-13-313-009
616 Monticello Drive, $62,000, 138-35-718-008
6304 Anaconda St., $100,000, 138-14-711-040
6421 Starcrest Drive, $86,000, 138-23-412-057
89109
2700 Las Vegas Blvd South, No. 504, $196,900, 162-09-616-008
2877 Paradise Road, No. 2001, $1,270,000, 163-17-415-006
89110
1260 N. Hollywood Blvd., $137,000, 138-28-817-017
4632 Curdsen Way, $57,000, 140-29-111-024
4748 E. Monroe Ave., $47,100, 139-13-516-005
479 Battle Mountain Drive, $65,000, 140-33-611-073
481 Hall Of Fame Drive, $110,000, 140-33-618-024
5612 Super Bowl Drive, $200,040, 124-29-112-038
631 Harney Court, $83,888, 140-29-415-030
6637 Alma White St., $145,000, 140-28-816-017
874 Golden Poppy St., $175,000, 140-27-716-045
906 Azure Heights Place, $52,000, 140-19-811-001
917 Ute Lane, $70,500, 140-28-410-019
89113
7311 Linaria Road, $132,000, 176-10-511-005
7404 Dry Corral Lane, $225,000, 163-34-210-046
7640 Turquoise Stone Court, $290,000, 176-10-213-041
7749 Apache Cliff St., $158,000, 163-27-310-028
7899 Mustang Canyon St., $144,000, 176-10-311-025
89115
1659 Lovebird Lane, $70,000, 140-20-415-008
2078 Wondra Drive, $77,000, 140-20-210-014
89117
1604 River Birch St., $490,000, 163-04-617-009
2212 Glenbrook Way, $3,200,000, 138-32-213-208
2904 Waterview Drive, $190,500, 163-08-213-014
3162 Chambord St., $142,000, 176-12-611-089
7060 Palmyra Ave., $415,000, 163-10-706-010
7362 Laredo St., $340,000, 163-10-104-007
7644 Angel Crest Circle, $365,000, 163-10-411-004
7943 Monaco Bay Court, $265,000, 163-09-811-050
8424 Gering Lane, $212,000, 163-04-111-017
8600 W. Charleston Blvd., No. 2131, $174,000, 138-09-820-003
89118
6441 Crystal Dew Drive, $199,000, 163-26-610-061
89119
3930 Swenson St., No. 606, $62,000, 138-36-210-010
6577 Keynote Drive, $160,000, 163-14-714-014
7073 Shadow Crest Drive, $109,000, 177-02-811-011
89120
3430 Villa Knolls Drive, $105,000, 138-26-613-003
3692 Rawhide Court, $80,000, 161-30-315-043
4077 E. Reno Ave., $80,000, 161-30-611-007
5364 Pistolera Circle, $133,000, 161-30-710-078
5887 Little Cove Court, $211,000, 162-36-512-004
89121
2512 Natalie Ave., $117,000, 162-12-313-010
2932 Schaffer Circle, $130,800, 162-12-415-003
3048 Van Buskirk Circle, $545,000, 163-04-712-007
3461 Persico Circle, $89,000, 162-13-112-059
3560 Anthony Drive, $106,000, 161-17-211-003
3655 Mt. Vernon Ave., $40,000, 178-12-510-142
4012 Sorrento Way, $175,000, 163-04-111-040
4371 El Esteban Way, $113,500, 161-20-410-016
4418 Zev Court, $241,000, 162-24-621-010
4474 Sage Brush St., $154,000, 162-24-605-002
4489 Margarete Ave., $89,900, 161-33-610-033
4516 El Carnal Way, $125,000, 161-20-312-018
6585 Woodsworth Ave., $126,000, 138-23-117-006
89122
3251 Chimayo Lane, $70,000, 161-09-810-152
3327 Jewel Cave Drive, $58,000, 161-16-110-297
3525 Chelsa Grove St., $65,000, 139-24-110-304
5229 Ocala Lane, $59,900, 161-16-210-112
89123
1134 Blue Magenta Ave., $110,000, 177-27-812-091
133 Windy Creek Ave., $103,949, 177-21-312-093
56 E. Serene Ave., No. 425, $191,500, 177-21-220-252
760 Hermosa Palms Ave., $150,000, 177-15-112-028
7837 Lobella St., $168,000, 177-10-717-002
917 Coldwater Falls Way, $158,100, 162-36-511-006
89128
1844 Klamath Falls Way, $165,000, 138-22-311-021
1909 High Valley Court, No. 111, $34,226, 138-21-619-059
7605 Rockfield Drive, $150,000, 138-21-814-044
8249 Ruby Mountain Way, $201,000, 138-21-419-011
909 Scarlett Ridge Drive, $113,000, 138-28-617-050
89129
3420 Golden Pedal St., $126,000, 138-07-710-073
3421 Lacebark Pine St., $231,000, 137-12-713-020
3860 Badgerbrook St., $109,550, 137-12-511-088
4680 Blue Mesa Way, $420,000, 138-05-510-019
4756 Sand Hawk Court, $143,000, 125-25-712-079
7420 Radville Drive, $185,000, 138-10-212-005
8660 W. Cheyenne Ave., No. 110, $198,000, 124-29-510-086
89130
5212 Mantua Court, $117,000, 125-25-711-026
5220 Mantua Court, $121,500, 125-25-711-028
5240 Maverick St., $290,000, 163-28-511-006
4937 Buckskin Mare Ave., $90,000, 125-12-810-001
5521 Old Stable Lane, $144,000, 125-12-110-040
5529 Ambrosia Stream Ave., $325,000, 125-12-412-044
5925 Jalisco Ave., $170,000, 125-01-310-028
6868 Sky Pointe Drive, No. 2065, $83,000, 125-21-213-132
7226 Silver Charm Court, $420,000, 125-15-211-023
7240 Boyd Lane, $452,500, 125-13-401-005
8032 Pandur St., $165,000, 125-09-410-074
8345 New Leaf Ave., $36,000, 140-33-818-013
8860 Regatta Bay Place, $132,000, 125-10-115-038
89134
10137 Pinnacle View Place, $215,000, 137-24-716-122
2213 Menifee Court, $269,950, 137-24-517-006
2509 Rocky Plains Drive, $192,500, 137-13-812-062
9108 Vista Greens Way, No. 102, $245,000, 138-29-312-010
89135
10299 Cider Mill Road, $260,000, 164-25-813-223
10436 Avebury Manor Lane, $780,000, 164-06-101-011
2562 Red Springs Drive, $749,900, 164-11-512-015
5531 Table Top Lane, $233,000, 164-25-813-195
89138
11612 Azul Celeste Place, $267,000, 137-35-416-001
11765 Costa Blanca Ave., $344,400, 137-34-618-005
89139
4832 Lone Grove Drive, $111,000, 177-07-411-042
5110 Gilleran Ave., $150,000, 176-12-615-044
6266 Hopeful Light Ave., $14,900, 176-14-613-079
7309 Banner Cloud Court, $90,000, 176-11-511-032
7485 Hinson St., $285,000, 177-07-506-014
7581 Camino Heights Court, $140,000, 176-11-611-032
7879 Windhamridge Drive, $127,500, 176-12-310-045
8845 S. Decatur Blvd., $232,000, 176-13-801-009
89141
10987 Santorini Drive, $160,000, 176-36-320-028
11183 Grants Landing Court, $475,000, 177-31-814-007
3093 Pawtucket Lane, $205,000, 191-05-317-023
89142
5769 Fairlight Drive, $55,100, 161-04-214-049
89144
10117 Summit Canyon Drive, $1,500,000, 137-36-618-002
10621 Redwood Grove Ave., $210,000, 137-25-219-013
10728 Elk Lake Drive, $365,000, 137-36-312-033
301 Pine Haven St., No. 106, $133,000, 137-25-615-038
89145
637 Edgebrook Drive, $505,000, 137-36-711-009
7216 Walter Schirra Circle, $89,900, 138-34-410-062
8008 Genzer Drive, $119,700, 138-33-510-004
9820 Winter Palace Drive, $1,922,000, 138-32-213-196
89146
2085 Westwind Road, $188,000, 163-01-307-015
2945 Mann St., $379,000, 163-11-701-006
5304 Westleigh Ave., $137,000, 163-01-613-036
6420 Spring Mountain Road, No. 16, $210,000, 164-12-115-023
89147
153 Dawn Garden Ave., $245,000, 163-20-211-047
4346 Sandcastle Drive, $125,000, 163-22-212-032
4718 Arial Ridge St., $159,000, 163-19-412-017
4750 Desert Plains Road, $99,800, 139-07-717-036
4827 Beaconsfield St., $100,000, 138-23-812-020
4865 Farlington Drive, $105,763, 163-22-418-012
7709 Isley Ave., $122,500, 163-22-311-023
8093 Sundown Vista Ave., $263,000, 137-35-419-053
8925 W. Flamingo Road, No. 231, $438,500, 163-20--056
9159 W. Flamingo Road, No. 105, $85,500, 138-26-313-025
9720 W. Cherokee Ave., $78,000, 138-27-614-018
89148
220 Rusty Plank Ave., $172,000, 176-08-216-001
9050 W. Warm Springs Road, No. 1048, $59,500, 176-05-414-268
9652 Brooks Lake Ave., $149,000, 176-06-612-006
89149
5040 Jessica Joy St., $197,712, 125-28-817-016
5540 N. Ft. Apache Road, $325,000, 125-32-101-003
9429 Forest Edge Ave., $248,500, 125-18-714-056
9464 Wakashan Ave., $300,000, 125-19-710-015
89156
1930 Balzac Drive, $98,000, 140-23-710-024
2380 N. Los Feliz St., $72,000, 140-23-512-039
5978 Turtle River Ave., $100,000, 140-15-317-013
89166
10655 Banera Mountain Lane, $115,000, 126-13-113-050
10814 Old Ironside Ave., $111,111, 126-13-118-030
7639 Gatsby House St., $117,021, 126-13-">212-055
89169
3175 S. Eastern Ave., $386,000, 139-32-512-027
604 Bonita Ave., $135,000, 162-03-714-033
89178
7000 Haldir Ave., $215,000, 164-02-711-036
8168 Deadwood Bend Court, $160,000, 176-21-716-028
9234 Wildcat Hill Court, $236,000, 176-29-413-027
9626 Old Storm Court, $197,500, 176-20-415-019
9828 Maspalomas St., $47,500, 163-26-111-069
89179
7204 Mountain Den Ave., $225,000, 176-34-814-023
10184 Hailey Lynne Road, $429,000, 177-28-713-003
BOULDER CITY
89005
104 Graham Court, $170,170, 186-05-712-017
1334 Denver St., $250,000, 186-04-410-008
1405 Bronco Road, $187,000, 186-10-312-022
MESQUITE
89027
361 Rodeo Lane, $34,000, 001-19-702-015
LAUGHLIN
89029
2210 Rugged Mesa Drive, $80,000, 264-21-314-005
OVERTON
89040
895 S. Moapa Valley Blvd., $45,000, 070-12-310-068
POE v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
William F. POE, Sr., Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, City of Tampa, Florida and Tampa Sports ity, Appellees, Cross-Appellants.No. 90223. Decided: May 22, 1997 Diane D. Tremor and Chris H. Bentley of Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, Tallahassee; and Thomas K. Morrison of Morrison, Morrison & Mills, Tampa, for Appellant, Cross-Appellee. Emeline C. Acton, County Attorney; Mary Helen Campbell and Christine Beck, Assistant County Attorneys, Hillsborough County, Tampa; James D. Palermo, City Attorney and Jerry M. Gewirtz, Assistant City Attorney, City of Tampa, Tampa; Donald A. Gifford and John Van Voris of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa; and Raymond Ehrlich, Steven L. Brannock, Henry M. Morgan, Jr. and Susan L. Turner of Holland & Knight L.L.P., Tampa, for Appellees, Cross-Appellants. Benjamin H. Hill, III, Dennis P. Waggoner and Gregory P. Brown of Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, for Buccaneers Limited Partnership, Amicus Curiae.
We have on appeal a decision of the trial court declaring invalid a proposed bond issue for a new “Community Stadium” in Tampa, Florida. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(2) of the Florida Constitution, and reverse the decision below.
FACTS
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers (the “Bucs”) NFL football team has played its home games in Tampa since 1976 in a stadium owned and operated by the Tampa Sports ity (the TSA). In 1995, the Bucs franchise was sold to a new owner for approximately $192 million. Prior to the sale, the new owner advised local public officials that the team required additional stadium-related revenue sources, such as luxury suites, club seats, etc., in order to remain financially competitive with other NFL teams, and the team would seek to relocate to another city unless the TSA constructed a new stadium in Tampa offering the necessary amenities. The new owner reiterated his intention to move the team after the sale, but at no time submitted a relocation application to the NFL, which requires approval by three-fourths of the member teams for such a move. Negotiations between the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, and the Tampa Sports ity (the Issuers) and the new owner of the Bucs commenced in the fall of 1995 and continued until an agreement for the construction of a new stadium was reached on August 28, 1996.
In the interim, the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners passed an ordinance on July 10, 1996, levying a one-half cent local government infrastructure surtax for a period of thirty years “to acquire infrastructure for general government purposes, public education, and public safety.” As required by law for the passage of an infrastructure surtax,1 the ordinance provided for a referendum. The purpose of the half-cent sales tax, as presented to the electorate, was
to finance infrastructure for jails, police and Sheriff's equipment, fire stations, emergency vehicles, school construction, a community stadium, transportation improvements, libraries, parks, trails, stormwater improvements and public facilities.
(Emphasis added). The referendum was approved on September 3, 1996, by fifty-three percent of the voters. Hillsborough County, the Cities of Tampa, Plant City, and Temple Terrace, and the Hillsborough County School Board subsequently entered into an interlocal agreement for the distribution of tax revenue which provided that the net proceeds from the local option infrastructure surtax during the thirty-year duration of the tax would be distributed as follows: the School Board would receive twenty-five percent of the net proceeds each year; $318 million of the proceeds would be disbursed for construction of a new Tampa stadium (with that amount subject to change should there be a significant change in the debt service costs for the new stadium) and any remaining proceeds would be distributed among the county and municipalities pursuant to the distribution formulae in section 218.62, Florida Statutes (1995).
Under the Stadium Agreement, Stadium Parcel Development Agreement and Practice Area Development and Lease Agreement entered into between the TSA and the Bucs, and with the approval of the County and the City, the TSA agreed to construct a new 65,000 seat community stadium with amenities at a cost of $168.5 million to serve as the Bucs' home field, as well as a $12 million training facility to be used by the Bucs. In general terms, the Stadium Agreement provides that the Bucs will utilize the stadium for thirty years and will pay the TSA a $3.5 million annual fee, with $2 million allocated to stadium rent, $1 million as practice facility rent and $500,000 as a fee for certain development rights granted to the Bucs with respect to the surrounding stadium property. The TSA will receive $1.93 million annually from a surcharge on tickets for Buc games and other stadium events, and will retain fifty percent of all revenues from non-Buc events beyond the first $2 million in proceeds from these events, which accrues to the Bucs.
PROCEEDINGS BELOW
The proceedings at issue here began on September 27, 1996, when William (“Bill”) Poe, in his capacity as a Tampa area resident and taxpayer, filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the actions of the County, the City and the TSA with regard to incurring debts, using the taxing power and pledging public credit for the construction and operation of the proposed new Tampa stadium project violated article VII, section 10 of the Florida Constitution.2 The complaint further sought an order from the circuit court permanently enjoining and restraining the governmental agencies from unconstitutionally incurring debts, pledging tax monies and credit and expending public funds for the construction and operation of the new Tampa stadium project.
On December 26, 1996, the TSA, the County and the City filed a complaint seeking to validate a series of revenue bond issues for the construction and equipping of a new stadium, the acquisition and construction of a practice facility and the demolition of the existing stadium. The TSA proposes to issue up to $33 million in bonds supported by state sales tax monies,3 11.5 million in bonds supported by the local option four-cent tourist development tax, and $160 million in bonds supported by revenues to be realized from a county-wide local option half-cent sales tax.
Upon agreement of all parties, the two complaints were consolidated for a bench trial, which was held the first week of March 1997. Although the circuit court declined to validate the bonds sought to be issued by TSA, it found that the new stadium project would serve a paramount public purpose and the bonds would be valid but for one clause in the lease agreement which granted the Bucs the first $2 million in net revenues from non-Buccaneer events. In light of this clause, the court concluded that the stadium project served a predominantly private purpose. In its subsequent order denying rehearing, the trial court noted, however, that it would “validate the bonds if an agreement can be made between the Bucs, the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County and the Tampa Sports ity to revise paragraph 10 of the Stadium Agreement to delete the clause that grants the right to the Bucs to receive the first $2 million per year from non-Bucs events.” Both parties challenge the trial court's final order on appeal to this Court.
APPEAL
The scope of judicial inquiry in bond validation proceedings is limited to the following issues: (1) determining the public body has the authority to issue the bonds; (2) determining if the purpose of the obligation is legal; and (3) ensuring that the bond issuance complies with the requirements of law. Rowe v. St. Johns County, 668 So.2d 196 (Fla.1996); Taylor v. Lee County, 498 So.2d 424 (Fla.1986). In the instant case, only the second condition is at issue. We have held that a bond issue does not violate article VII, section 10 so long as the project serves a “paramount public purpose,” and any benefits to private parties from the project are incidental. Northern Palm Beach County Water Control Dist. v. State, 604 So.2d 440, 441-42 (Fla.1992); Wald v. Sarasota County Health Facilities Auth., 360 So.2d 763 (Fla.1978); State v. Jacksonville Port Auth., 204 So.2d 881 (Fla.1967).
In determining whether the trial court erred in finding that the new community stadium in Tampa does not serve a paramount public purpose based solely on the clause in the lease granting the Bucs the first $2 million dollars in net revenues from non-Buc events net of direct costs, we find the cases validating the bonds for the construction and operation of the Daytona Beach Motor Speedway to be instructive.
In the case of State v. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities District, 89 So.2d 34 (Fla.1956), the City of Daytona Beach, through a special district set up to construct and operate a racing and recreational facility in the area, entered into a lease agreement with the Daytona Beach Motor Speedway corporation whereby the corporation was given the right of possession of a facility to be constructed for racing purposes for at least six months of each year for a period of forty years in order to conduct motorized races and other motorized events. Id. at 35. The special district retained the right of possession of the facility for its own purposes for the remaining six months of the year, and at other times when the corporation did not have events scheduled at the facility. The commission governing the special district subsequently filed a petition to validate $2,900,000 in bonds to pay for the cost of constructing, maintaining and operating the racing facility. The Circuit Court in Volusia County validated the bonds and the state appealed in part on grounds that issuance of the bonds would be improper because the racing facility did not serve a “proper public purpose.”
We held that the issuance of the bonds was valid, and rejected the state's argument as follows:
It [the State] cited State v. Town of North Miami, Fla., 59 So.2d 779; Adams v. Housing ity of City of Daytona Beach, Fla., 60 So.2d 663; and City of Clearwater v. Caldwell, Fla., 75 So.2d 765. Each of these cases involved attempts of the city to use public funds to develop property for private benefit and gain and in each case the Court ruled such not to be proper public use. In each of these cases the private purpose was predominant, not incidental to a public purpose. The first case involved the development of an area for industrial purposes; the second involved the acquisition of an area for leasing to private enterprises for industrial and commercial purposes; and the third was concerned with the city being involved in the construction for leasing of hotels or apartments for private enterprise.
In the instant case a private corporation would be in a position to utilize private gain from the facility, but only for a portion of the year. Under the agreement between the District and the corporation, the corporation is given the use of the facilities to be constructed for a period of not less than six months in each year for the conduct of a schedule of motorized racing activities and attractions. The Commission is to have the use of the facilities for its own programs for a period of not less than six months each year and at all other times when not scheduled for use by the Corporation. The corporation would conduct automobile racing events of international interest, as well as other attractions. Tourism, both as between the areas of our State and as between the States of this Nation, is a competitive business. The sand and the sun and the water are not sufficient to attract those seeking a vacation and recreation. Entertainment must be offered. Even ignoring its use by the District for periods aggregating one-half the year, or more, for other recreational and educational purposes for the public, the facility in question, considering the uses to which it will be adopted and their expected effect on the public welfare, is infinitely more a valid public purpose than would any of the schemes contemplated in the three instances cited above. The public purpose here seems to be predominant and the private benefit and gain to be incidental.
․
In the instant case the purpose of the facility is both to increase trade by attracting tourists and to provide recreation for the citizens of the District. We have on numerous cases approved as a public purpose the development of recreational facilities. See State v. City of Daytona Beach, 160 Fla. 13, 33 So.2d 218; State v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 53 So.2d 306; State v. City of Pensacola, Fla., 43 So.2d 340. Appellee's brief ably cites authorities in other jurisdiction which are in accord with the holdings of this Court on the matter. In State v. City of Miami, Fla., 41 So.2d 545, we upheld the selling of certificates to enlarge the Orange Bowl Stadium in Miami and appellant cites cases from several jurisdictions which also validated bonds for the construction of such recreational facilities. Therefore, it is our opinion that the development of the facility in question would serve a valid public purpose, and that the private benefit and gain would be incidental thereto.
Appellant's final argument is that to lease the facility for a part of each year to a private corporation constitutes a violation of Section 10 of Article IX of the Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., which prohibits the loaning of the District's credit to any corporation. It contends that the effect of the contemplated contract with the Corporation is to allow it to use the facility for part of each year for forty years with no capital investment and consequently the credit of the District is loaned to the Corporation. But we have heretofore held that if an undertaking is for public purposes, Article IX, § 10 of the Constitution is not violated even though some private parties may be incidentally benefited. We said in State v. Inter-American Center ity, Fla., 84 So.2d 9, 12, supra:
Since the erection of a Trade Center is designed to strengthen cultural relations among the countries of the Western Hemisphere, it can not be said that it amounts to a pledge or loan of the credit of the state to an individual, company, corporation or association in violation of Section 10, Article IX of the Constitution.
In State v. Board of Control, Fla., 66 So.2d 209, 210, we said
The mere fact that some one engaged in private business for private gain will be benefited by every public improvement undertaken by the government or a governmental agency, should not and does not deprive such improvement of its public character or detract from the fact that it primarily serves a public purpose. An incidental use or benefit which may be of some private benefit is not the proper test in determining whether or not the project is for a public purpose.
This Court has in numerous instances approved the imposition of taxes as being an aid to a public purpose. State v. Inter-American Center ity, supra; State v. City of Miami, Fla., 76 So.2d 294, dealing with an international trade mart (owned, however, by the city); C.V. Floyd Fruit Co. v. Florida Citrus Commission, 128 Fla. 565, 175 So. 248, 112 A.L.R. 562, involving a tax on citrus fruit for advertising purposes; State v. City of Daytona Beach, 160 Fla. 13, 33 So.2d 218, supra, upholding a tax for construction of an auditorium, stadium, boat basin and recreational center; State v. Dade County, Fla., 62 So.2d 404, where a warehouse and overhaul shop were to be constructed and then leased to airlines corporations and the revenue certificates were to be paid from rentals from such corporations; State v. City of Tallahassee, 142 Fla. 476, 195 So. 402, where the construction of an office building by the City for rental purposes was upheld as a public purpose; State v. Escambia County, Fla., 52 So.2d 125, where revenue certificates were sold to construct recreational facilities which could be leased out to private enterprises. It can clearly be seen that in the above cases this Court did not hold the imposition of taxes or use of tax monies to be invalid because some private businesses profited thereby, rather this Court ruled that the tax was for valid purposes notwithstanding the incidental private gain for private businesses. In State v. Town of North Miami, Fla., 59 So.2d 779, supra, involving an area for industrial purposes; in Adams v. Housing ity of City of Daytona Beach, Fla., 60 So.2d 663, involving leasing of lands for private, commercial and business enterprises; and in City of Clearwater v. Caldwell, Fla., 75 So.2d 765, supra, involving the construction for leasing of hotels and apartments, we held that the constitutional provision against the lending of the credit of a city would be violated. In those cases the incidental public purpose accomplished was too inconsequential in comparison to the private gain. We do not feel that the case at bar has such shortcomings and we express our opinion to be, in conformance with our views in the numerous instances referred to earlier in this opinion, that the issuance of the $2,900,000 revenue bonds is in aid of a valid public purpose and does not violate Section 10 of Article IX [now Article VII] of our State Constitution.
89 So.2d at 36-38.
The validity of the bonds for the Daytona Beach Motor Speedway came before this Court again, after the facility was constructed and had been operating for several years, in the context of a suit by the county tax collector and others against the special district and the City of Daytona Beach for the collection of taxes on the property leased to the special district and then subleased to the corporation. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist. v. Paul, 179 So.2d 349 (Fla.1965). In this second case, we found that a change in the lease agreement favorable to the corporation, which in essence gave the corporation exclusive use of the raceway all year, did not detract from our previous finding that the bonds were for a predominantly public purpose so as to cause a loss of the special district's tax exemption. We explained:
To recapitulate, the decision of the District Court of Appeal attempts to distinguish the facts of the instant case from those involved in the bond validation case in order to predicate its decision upon a non-conflicting, changed factual situation. It stresses the fact the validated bonds could not be sold and that private financing in lieu was arranged primarily by the District entering contracts and executing a lease agreement with the Speedway operating corporation. However, it was contemplated from the beginning the Speedway racing operation would be conducted by a private corporation irrespective of whether the Speedway facilities were constructed with public or private funds. The original lease with the Speedway Corporation which was considered in the bond validation case provided the Speedway Corporation would control and operate the facility for six months each year for speedway racing purposes while the District reserved the remaining six months to use the facility for District purposes, including community or other public uses. The new and existing lease reduced the District's rights to the facility to a three-month period each year, with further provision the Speedway corporation could, if it desired, pre-empt the three months for speedway racing purposes. But as we have seen, the revising of the lease did not detract from the predominantly public purpose of the facility, which was the successful operation of the Speedway itself, pure and simple, as a tourist and business attraction to the area-a unique facility in the state which harmonized with customs of the City of Daytona Beach where automobile racing was conducted along the beach of the Atlantic Ocean opposite the city for many years past. The decision of this Court in the validation case went straight to the substance of the Speedway venture and held the public purpose of the facility was founded primarily upon the existence and successful operation of the racing facility itself as a community asset and not upon the division of the time in the lease for the use of the facility as between the District and the Speedway Corporation.
Id. at 355 (emphasis supplied). Like the bonds in the Daytona Beach Racing and Recreational Facilities cases, the bonds at issue in this case are valid for similar reasons, and the trial court erred in ruling otherwise.
Here, the trial court credited the testimony of the local government's expert witness who testified that the Bucs would provide an annual economic benefit to the Tampa Bay economy ranging from a high of $183 million to a low of $83 million and the Super Bowl scheduled to be held in the new stadium in the year 2001 can be expected to yield an economic benefit in excess of $300 million. In light of these findings, the trial court concluded, “[a]lthough economic forecasting is obviously not a precise science, the Court is of the opinion that the local community will realize substantial economic benefits from the continued presence of the Buccaneers and from hosting the 2001 Super Bowl and that over time these benefits can be expected to far exceed the cost of the new stadium.” The court went on to find that:
In addition to the quantifiable economic benefits ․ the Court heard credible testimony from the Mayor of Tampa, the Hillsborough County Administrator, the President of the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce and others regarding the immeasurable economic benefits realized as a result of national media exposure in newspapers and from the televised Buccaneer games and Super Bowls, including the value of such exposure in helping attract tourists and new businesses to the Tampa Bay area. Several witnesses testified that without an NFL team the community would find it more difficult to compete with other cities for new business. The evidence also established that the new stadium will host more than 40 major events each year, including 10 Buccaneers games, Tampa Bay Mutiny professional soccer games, University of South Florida football games, high school football games, the annual Outback Bowl football game, equestrian events, tractor pulls, motor cross events and concerts. The Court finds that the Buccaneers instill civic pride and camaraderie into the community and that Buccaneer games and other stadium events also serve a commendable public purpose by enhancing the community image on a nationwide basis and providing recreation, entertainment and cultural activities to its citizens.
In essence then, the trial court's refusal here to validate these bonds was not based on a finding that the new stadium project failed to serve a paramount public purpose, but was due only to the court's belief that the Bucs got “too sweet” a deal with the one clause in the lease agreement allowing the Bucs to receive the first $2 million in proceeds from non-Buc events.
On appeal to this Court, Poe contends that the trial court's concerns as to this one clause should be extended to the entire lease agreement. Poe's criticism's of the terms of the lease agreement, and the “$2 million in non-Buc revenue” clause in particular, may well be valid. However, once a trial court has found that a “paramount public purpose” exists, the court cannot micromanage the arms-length business negotiations of the parties by striking discrete portions of a complex arrangement which, as a whole, the court candidly finds to be substantially beneficial to the public. Because this is exactly what the trial court did in the instant case, we cannot affirm its ruling on appeal. In addition, we reject Poe's contention that even when a project serves a paramount public purpose that only bonds which are to be repaid from revenues derived from the project itself may be validated if a private entity also derives some benefit from the project. See State v. City of Miami, 379 So.2d 651 (Fla.1980); State v. Sunrise Lakes Phase II Special Recreation Dist., 383 So.2d 631 (Fla.1980); Panama City v. State, 93 So.2d 608 (Fla.1957).
While hardly satisfying, citizens of the Tampa area who, like Poe, feel that their local public officials have not served them well in this endeavor still have a remedy of sorts at the ballot box. Indeed, as noted earlier, the majority of citizens voting on the bond issue, while apparently fully aware of the obvious benefits of the deal to the Bucs ownership, nevertheless voted to go forward. Only time will tell if the policy choices made here were wise ones.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order below and remand with directions to enter a judgment validating the bonds proposed to be issued by the TSA for the new community stadium project in Tampa.
It is so ordered.
FOOTNOTES
1. Section 212.055(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996).
2. That provision provides that:Neither the state nor any county, school district, municipality, special district, or agency of any of them, shall become a joint owner with, or stockholder of, or give, lend or use its taxing power or credit to aid any corporation, association, partnership or person; but this shall not prohibit laws authorizing:․ the issuance and sale by any county, municipality, special district or other local governmental body of (1) revenue bonds to finance or refinance the cost of capital projects for airports or port facilities, or (2) revenue bonds to finance or refinance the cost of capital projects for industrial or manufacturing plants to the extent that the interest thereon is exempt from income taxes under the then existing laws of the United State, when, in either case, the revenue bonds are payable solely from revenue derived from the sale, operation or leasing of the projects. If any project so financed, or any part thereof, is occupied or operated by any private corporation, association, partnership or person pursuant to contract or lease with the issuing body, the property interest created by such contract or lease shall be subject to taxation to the same extent as other privately owned property.
3. The State has approved an application for the allocation of $2 million annually from State sales tax collections to fund construction of the new stadium pursuant to section 288.1162, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1996).
PER CURIAM.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Article by ArticleForge
Good reasons to support the mayor's sales tax plan
The plan to resolve the city’s huge unfunded pension debt has turned partisan, which is sad.Some Democratic Party leaders called a press conference to oppose it, though others like former Mayor Tommy Hazouri and Eric Smith support it.
Pensions, like potholes, aren’t partisan.
Police and fire protection are not partisan.
Here are key issues in brief:
One-time opportunity: The Legislature will never approve a regular sales tax option. Mayor Lenny Curry masterfully lobbied the Legislature and governor to approve the special sales tax option.
A broader tax: Sales tax revenue will capture revenue from commuters and visitors. Everyone, including renters, benefits from Jacksonville’s police and fire protection.
Property taxes: This option will always be there. Property taxes, however, hit small businesses hard.
Reform: Revenue can’t be used until there is pension reform. The same can’t be said for property tax increases.
It’s not kicking the can: There is no end to the city’s pension obligations. A retiree this year will live several more decades.
A complete solution: Analysis shows that the debt will be fully paid by 2049 when the tax would end.
Trust: Those worried about pension reform should remember that Curry is a conservative business owner. He is committed to pensions that are fair, competitive and affordable.
No more delays: The city has been dealing with this crisis since 2008. It has hurt morale among police officers and firefighters. There is no perfect solution. The biggest danger involves more delays. It is time for closure.
Article by ArticleForge
Struggling Grandal to have MRI on ailing left shoulder, listed day to day
Reaffirming the suspicions of attentive fans, Dodgers catcher Yasmani Grandal's left shoulder injury has flared up again, and he is headed for an MRI exam to try to sort out what's going on.Grandal was held out of the lineup on Monday after his shoulder flared up while he was taking batting practice before the game, manager Don Mattingly said.
Mattingly was unsure as to whether Grandal had been concealing his pain since returning to the team after being struck by a foul ball on his left shoulder in Philadelphia in early August, or whether the injury had suddenly flared up.
"This is in the same area," Mattingly said. "I don't know if he was not being totally honest with us as far as dealing with that pain, or just didn't want to say. I mean, some guys are just not going to tell you."
Grandal was in the midst of a career year at the plate heading into August. However, since sustaining the injury, the 26-year-old catcher has hit .055.212.055 with no home runs, two RBI, three hits, and 21 strikeouts in 66 plate appearances over 18 games.
He is now hitting .253.367.434, a significant drop from where he was exactly a month ago: .287.391.500.
The Los Angeles Times reports that Grandal declined to comment on the matter.
(ht Los Angeles Times)
Article by ArticleForge
Greenlight - The 50 Year Mortgage
Below are two lengthy Sections from the Interlocal Agreement between PSTA and Pinellas County that was approved at the June PSTA Board of Directors meeting.SECTION 7. PLEDGE OF SURTAX NET PROCEEDS .
(A) In order to finance or refinance projects, PSTA may issue bonds or notes, enter into lines of credit, incur loans or other indebtedness, enter into concession, lease or similar agreements, and may secure payment obligations under such bonds, loans, notes, lines of credit or other indebtedness or pursuant to such concession, lease or similar agreements with a pledge of and lien on the Surtax Net Proceeds in accordance with the provisions of Section 212.055(1), Florida Statutes, and other applicable law, including any indebtedness refinancing such bonds, loans, notes, lines of credit or other indebtedness. Prior to the initial issuance of any indebtedness by PSTA, the Pinellas County Attorney shall approve the trust agreement or trust indenture (the "Trust Agreement") pursuant to which such indebtedness is to be issued. The County and PSTA agree that it is their intent that such approval be provided by the County Attorney prior to the date of the Surtax Referendum. Notwithstanding the foregoing, PSTA shall at all times comply with its debt policy referred to in Section 10 hereof
(B) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, to the extent permitted by law, in order to effectuate the purposes in PSTA's Greenlight Plan, PSTA may enter into leases or public private partnerships with concessionaires, and may secure its obligations to make lease, concession and other payments under lease and concession agreements with a pledge of and lien on the Surtax Net Proceeds in accordance with the provisions of Section 212.055(1 ), Florida Statutes. (C) Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the amount of indebtedness that may be incurred by PSTA to be secured by the Surtax Net Proceeds.
Comment
This Section provides the authority for the PSTA to obligate sales tax proceeds to the payment of bonds issued by PSTA. Once obligated, these funds cannot be reduced or used for any other purpose by PSTA or the County. The bond covenants will determine how the money is to be spent, and while the County may have some say in the structuring of the bonds, PSTA will really be in the driver's seat, because they will actually be spending the bond proceeds with limited County over sight.
We have already seen how liberally PSTA interprets rules related to spending money.
SECTION 9. REDUCTION AND TERMINATION OF SURTAX.
Upon the earlier of:
(A) completion of all steps to finance (including without limitation debt incurrence, andor execution of public-private partnerships or leases), acquire, andor construct all projects and capital improvements contemplated in PSTA's Greenlight Plan, as mutually determined by PSTA and the County (if the parties cannot mutually determine whether PSTA's Greenlight Plan has been completed, the parties shall engage a nationally recognized transit consultant acceptable to both Parties to make such determination);
(B) PSTA's decision to discontinue such steps to finance, acquire andor construct substantially all of the projects and capital improvements contemplated in PSTA's Greenlight Plan
(C) the occurrence of a Force Majeure
(D) the fiftieth 50th anniversary of the date the Surtax is first levied and each 20th anniversary thereafter;
(E) a payment default under the Trust Agreement; or
(F) PSTA applying Surtax Net Proceeds for a purpose other than PSTA's Greenlight Plan,
the County and PSTA shall meet to discuss the particular event described in clauses (A) through (F) that has occurred and shall consider, depending upon the event, revising this Agreement, revising or adding to PSTA's Greenlight Plan, seeking further authorization for additional uses by PSTA of the Surtax Net Proceeds or reducing or increasing, if there has been a previous reduction and subject to the limitations of the Surtax Referendum, temporarily or permanently, the Surtax Net Proceeds. If the Parties are unable to agree on what action, if any, to take, after making a good faith effort, the County may take any legally required action to reduce the Surtax Net Proceeds distributed to PSTA. In determining what action to take, if any, pursuant to this Section 9, the Parties shall comply with the provisions of Section 29(B) hereof.
Any reduction of Surtax Net Proceeds distributed to PSTA as a result of an action or event described in clauses (C), (E) or (F) above shall be temporary and the County shall promptly begin distributing the full amount of the Surtax Net Proceeds to PSTA, including all amounts that were held back and actual interest earnings, if any, actually derived by the County, when the County determines, in its sole discretion, that such event or action has been cured or no longer exists. The foregoing shall not impose a duty on the County to invest any of such withheld amounts. The County shall determine, in its sole discretion, whether any reduction of Surtax Net Proceeds distributed to PSTA as a result of an action or event described in clauses 6 (A), (B) or (D) will be temporary or permanent. If the County determines to permanently reduce the distribution of the Surtax Net Proceeds, to the extent and as permitted by law, it may take such action as it deems necessary and is legally required to reduce the amount of the Surtax levy in accordance with this Section. Notwithstanding anything in this Section 9 to the contrary, any temporary reduction shall be limited to an amount that will not impair PSTA's ability to meet all of its then outstanding financial obligations under the Trust Agreement.
Comment
This Section sets up the conditions under which the sales tax would terminate. Note that (D) sets the life expectancy of Greenlight at 50 years but allows for two 20 year extensions.
That's 90 Years!
TWO generations.
A baby born on January 1, 2015 when this Tax starts, will pay the tax their entire life, their children will pay it and it is not inconceivable their grand children may also pay it.
This amount of indebtedness for this length of time to develop 24 four rail stations for a train generally going to the wrong places; buying and selling a bunch of land and building tracks and buildings so a very few can get very rich is very, very wrong.
The law you are being asked to approve with your YES vote is just over 5000 words long. The Interlocal Agreement where the County attempts to put some control on PSTA is over 7000 words long. And we have just begun.
Don't mortgage your future, your children's future and grandchildren's future for a train that does not meet the core public transportation need and will cost millions more than the Greenlight plan contemplates.
Send the County, PSTA, TBARTA and Greenlight back to drawing board just like they did in Hillsborough County.
Greenlight is a plan that we don't need and cannot afford.
Vote NO November 4
Talk to you fiends and neighbors and be sure they know what they are voting for.
It's not public transportation. It's all about the money.
E-mail Doc at: dr.webbverizon . Or send me a (Gene Webb) Friend request.Please comment below, and be sure to share on and Twitter.Disclosures: Contributor to No Tax for Tracks
Get free real-time news alerts from the Pinellas Beaches Patch.
This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this post are the author's. Registered users are welcome to post on Patch.
Article by ArticleForge
Resale Homes Report
Editor's note: Listings include the resale home's parcel number. Occasionally, the address listed is the homebuyer's mailing address and not the actual location of the home. Check the parcel number to make sure. Also, a few transactions do not reflect the market value of the homes.HENDERSON
89002
232 Patti Ann Woods Drive, $171,000, 179-31-524-004
751 Yellowtail Way, $167,000, 179-30-211-021
856 Noble St., $128,900, 179-29-413-002
89011
1413 Chestnut St., $106,000, 178-01-810-059
777 Crest Valley Place, $115,000, 178-03-513-059
89012
1336 Enchanted River Drive, $161,500, 178-15-812-030
1426 Summer Glow Ave., $108,000, 178-21-514-048
1757 Baja Lane, $170,000, 178-21-318-002
1804 Clear River Falls Lane, $55,000, 179-34-713-166
267 Cale Palacio St., $138,000, 178-17-411-048
312 Pleasant Summit Drive, $425,000, 178-20-814-106
636 Blackstone Mountain Drive, $142,500, 178-23-511-080
781 Bolle Way, $1,375,000, 191-01-316-004
89014
332 Esquina Drive, $186,000, 178-08-617-022
745 Rocky Trail Road, $154,900, 178-04-514-062
89015
1118 Sport Of Kings Ave., $125,000, 179-21-810-024
156 Almond Ridge Place, $93,000, 179-17-116-022
172 Almond Ridge Place, $88,000, 179-17-116-026
215 Apache Place, $55,600, 179-05-802-010
365 Dooley Drive, $145,111, 179-17-710-012
532 Kenerly St., $90,000, 179-21-119-072
89044
2355 Peaceful Sky Drive, $127,000, 190-19-112-031
2516 Dornoch Lane, $405,000, 191-24-711-036
2535 Stardust Valley Drive, $99,000, 125-17-411-040
2748 Kilwinning Drive, $38,000, 138-23-413-050
89052
11060 Magenta Crest Court, $59,000, 161-29-811-018
1241 Sonatina Drive, $232,000, 178-07-816-002
1528 Sabatini Drive, $117,900, 177-27-110-025
2148 Paganini Ave., $133,500, 176-10-311-033
2177 Arpeggio Ave., $220,000, 190-05-210-058
2288 Chestnut Ranch Ave., $151,000, 176-11-412-048
2387 Goldfire Circle, $65,500, 179-34-712-070
513 Melrose Heights St., $290,000, 178-30-611-018
933 Saffex Rose Ave., $228,000, 176-36-417-055
89055
3003 Panorama Ridge Drive, $175,000, 177-36-313-033
89074
1250 American Pacific Drive, No. 2621, $135,000, 177-24-514-077
162 Sand Dune Court, $115,000, 177-13-114-065
2057 Troon Drive, $139,000, 162-25-711-035
226 Drysdale Circle, $258,000, 178-08-316-009
234 Scotgrove St., $200,000, 178-08-815-003
2471 Ping Drive, $460,000, 178-18-211-016
3247 Morning Springs Drive, $123,500, 177-24-514-045
9017 S. Pecos Road, No. 4500, $95,000, 177-13-319-001
9231 Sapphire Hills Court, $203,500, 177-24-610-015
NORTH LAS VEGAS
89030
1316 E. Owens Ave., $70,000, 139-23-812-044
2225 Englestad St., $30,000, 139-22-115-002
2736 N. Bruce St., $52,101, 139-13-710-036
2808 E. Brooks Ave., $50,000, 139-13-116-015
89031
1016 Crescent Moon Drive, $175,000, 124-28-613-042
1918 Silver Crest Court, $90,000, 124-33-115-025
3517 Ashby Field Ave., $54,000, 125-18-616-010
36 Marble Apex Ave., $108,000, 124-27-712-052
3725 Shimmering Creek Ave., $122,990, 124-30-712-070
4013 Madrone Drive, $90,000, 139-06-511-014
4780 W. Ann Road, No 314-S, $52,000, 125-21-213-104
5436 Whisper Bluff St., $109,000, 124-33-114-048
5518 Iberville St., $159,990, 124-31-513-021
89032
132 Winley Chase Ave., $100,000, 139-03-710-078
1324 Indian Hedge Drive, $125,000, 139-09-613-049
3200 Beamery Court, $81,000, 139-08-212-006
3304 Simmons St., $205,000, 124-07-712-008
4425 Fenton Lane, $145,000, 139-07-211-049
89081
1221 Spottswood Ave., $169,000, 124-26-313-033
2817 Big Mountain Ave., $138,000, 124-25-311-141
4008 Recktenwall Ave., $145,000, 123-30-610-005
89084
1721 Little Bow St., $146,000, 124-28-115-098
2504 Mistle Thrush Drive, $172,000, 124-20-710-078
2924 Ivorybill Way, $145,000, 124-17-212-020
3422 Singer Lane, $269,000, 124-17-413-007
6529 Button Quail St., $83,000, 125-29-201-034
89085
4331 Mesa Landing Ave., $231,500, 124-07-412-129
89101
223 Tower St., $205,000, 139-35-816-033
89102
1216 Strong Drive, $600,000, 162-05-510-027
2103 Linda Vista St., $110,000, 162-02-713-011
2800 Colanthe Ave., $216,000, 162-05-613-010
3111 Castlewood Drive, $65,000, 162-07-410-076
4304 Mott Circle, $80,000, 163-14-210-006
89103
4230 Carolyn Drive, $205,000, 163-26-312-002
4231 Ridgeview Drive, $60,000, 138-36-217-014
5224 River Glen Drive, No. 450, $43,439, 163-24-611-278
5278 River Glen Drive, No. 417, $62,000, 163-24-611-313
89104
1319 Rexford Place, $110,000, 161-05-510-300
1509 S. Eastern Ave., $55,000, 139-21-510-140
4646 E. Imperial Ave., $60,001, 161-05-610-063
89107
198 Upland Blvd., $118,500, 138-36-110-002
3604 W. Washington Ave., $107,000, 139-30-617-019
89108
1008 Shifting Sands Drive, $127,000, 138-26-615-081
1804 Starbuck Drive, $117,000, 138-23-412-024
2110 Bavington Drive, No. D, $40,600, 138-23-416-015
2400 Goldenmoon St., $295,000, 138-14-411-027
5113 Mambo Vista Ave., $104,000, 138-13-711-042
5299 Reiter Ave., $60,000, 125-30-201-017
5340 Dulce Ave., $98,000, 138-24-710-012
5438 Alfred Drive, $146,000, 138-13-313-009
616 Monticello Drive, $62,000, 138-35-718-008
6304 Anaconda St., $100,000, 138-14-711-040
6421 Starcrest Drive, $86,000, 138-23-412-057
89109
2700 Las Vegas Blvd South, No. 504, $196,900, 162-09-616-008
2877 Paradise Road, No. 2001, $1,270,000, 163-17-415-006
89110
1260 N. Hollywood Blvd., $137,000, 138-28-817-017
4632 Curdsen Way, $57,000, 140-29-111-024
4748 E. Monroe Ave., $47,100, 139-13-516-005
479 Battle Mountain Drive, $65,000, 140-33-611-073
481 Hall Of Fame Drive, $110,000, 140-33-618-024
5612 Super Bowl Drive, $200,040, 124-29-112-038
631 Harney Court, $83,888, 140-29-415-030
6637 Alma White St., $145,000, 140-28-816-017
874 Golden Poppy St., $175,000, 140-27-716-045
906 Azure Heights Place, $52,000, 140-19-811-001
917 Ute Lane, $70,500, 140-28-410-019
89113
7311 Linaria Road, $132,000, 176-10-511-005
7404 Dry Corral Lane, $225,000, 163-34-210-046
7640 Turquoise Stone Court, $290,000, 176-10-213-041
7749 Apache Cliff St., $158,000, 163-27-310-028
7899 Mustang Canyon St., $144,000, 176-10-311-025
89115
1659 Lovebird Lane, $70,000, 140-20-415-008
2078 Wondra Drive, $77,000, 140-20-210-014
89117
1604 River Birch St., $490,000, 163-04-617-009
2212 Glenbrook Way, $3,200,000, 138-32-213-208
2904 Waterview Drive, $190,500, 163-08-213-014
3162 Chambord St., $142,000, 176-12-611-089
7060 Palmyra Ave., $415,000, 163-10-706-010
7362 Laredo St., $340,000, 163-10-104-007
7644 Angel Crest Circle, $365,000, 163-10-411-004
7943 Monaco Bay Court, $265,000, 163-09-811-050
8424 Gering Lane, $212,000, 163-04-111-017
8600 W. Charleston Blvd., No. 2131, $174,000, 138-09-820-003
89118
6441 Crystal Dew Drive, $199,000, 163-26-610-061
89119
3930 Swenson St., No. 606, $62,000, 138-36-210-010
6577 Keynote Drive, $160,000, 163-14-714-014
7073 Shadow Crest Drive, $109,000, 177-02-811-011
89120
3430 Villa Knolls Drive, $105,000, 138-26-613-003
3692 Rawhide Court, $80,000, 161-30-315-043
4077 E. Reno Ave., $80,000, 161-30-611-007
5364 Pistolera Circle, $133,000, 161-30-710-078
5887 Little Cove Court, $211,000, 162-36-512-004
89121
2512 Natalie Ave., $117,000, 162-12-313-010
2932 Schaffer Circle, $130,800, 162-12-415-003
3048 Van Buskirk Circle, $545,000, 163-04-712-007
3461 Persico Circle, $89,000, 162-13-112-059
3560 Anthony Drive, $106,000, 161-17-211-003
3655 Mt. Vernon Ave., $40,000, 178-12-510-142
4012 Sorrento Way, $175,000, 163-04-111-040
4371 El Esteban Way, $113,500, 161-20-410-016
4418 Zev Court, $241,000, 162-24-621-010
4474 Sage Brush St., $154,000, 162-24-605-002
4489 Margarete Ave., $89,900, 161-33-610-033
4516 El Carnal Way, $125,000, 161-20-312-018
6585 Woodsworth Ave., $126,000, 138-23-117-006
89122
3251 Chimayo Lane, $70,000, 161-09-810-152
3327 Jewel Cave Drive, $58,000, 161-16-110-297
3525 Chelsa Grove St., $65,000, 139-24-110-304
5229 Ocala Lane, $59,900, 161-16-210-112
89123
1134 Blue Magenta Ave., $110,000, 177-27-812-091
133 Windy Creek Ave., $103,949, 177-21-312-093
56 E. Serene Ave., No. 425, $191,500, 177-21-220-252
760 Hermosa Palms Ave., $150,000, 177-15-112-028
7837 Lobella St., $168,000, 177-10-717-002
917 Coldwater Falls Way, $158,100, 162-36-511-006
89128
1844 Klamath Falls Way, $165,000, 138-22-311-021
1909 High Valley Court, No. 111, $34,226, 138-21-619-059
7605 Rockfield Drive, $150,000, 138-21-814-044
8249 Ruby Mountain Way, $201,000, 138-21-419-011
909 Scarlett Ridge Drive, $113,000, 138-28-617-050
89129
3420 Golden Pedal St., $126,000, 138-07-710-073
3421 Lacebark Pine St., $231,000, 137-12-713-020
3860 Badgerbrook St., $109,550, 137-12-511-088
4680 Blue Mesa Way, $420,000, 138-05-510-019
4756 Sand Hawk Court, $143,000, 125-25-712-079
7420 Radville Drive, $185,000, 138-10-212-005
8660 W. Cheyenne Ave., No. 110, $198,000, 124-29-510-086
89130
5212 Mantua Court, $117,000, 125-25-711-026
5220 Mantua Court, $121,500, 125-25-711-028
5240 Maverick St., $290,000, 163-28-511-006
4937 Buckskin Mare Ave., $90,000, 125-12-810-001
5521 Old Stable Lane, $144,000, 125-12-110-040
5529 Ambrosia Stream Ave., $325,000, 125-12-412-044
5925 Jalisco Ave., $170,000, 125-01-310-028
6868 Sky Pointe Drive, No. 2065, $83,000, 125-21-213-132
7226 Silver Charm Court, $420,000, 125-15-211-023
7240 Boyd Lane, $452,500, 125-13-401-005
8032 Pandur St., $165,000, 125-09-410-074
8345 New Leaf Ave., $36,000, 140-33-818-013
8860 Regatta Bay Place, $132,000, 125-10-115-038
89134
10137 Pinnacle View Place, $215,000, 137-24-716-122
2213 Menifee Court, $269,950, 137-24-517-006
2509 Rocky Plains Drive, $192,500, 137-13-812-062
9108 Vista Greens Way, No. 102, $245,000, 138-29-312-010
89135
10299 Cider Mill Road, $260,000, 164-25-813-223
10436 Avebury Manor Lane, $780,000, 164-06-101-011
2562 Red Springs Drive, $749,900, 164-11-512-015
5531 Table Top Lane, $233,000, 164-25-813-195
89138
11612 Azul Celeste Place, $267,000, 137-35-416-001
11765 Costa Blanca Ave., $344,400, 137-34-618-005
89139
4832 Lone Grove Drive, $111,000, 177-07-411-042
5110 Gilleran Ave., $150,000, 176-12-615-044
6266 Hopeful Light Ave., $14,900, 176-14-613-079
7309 Banner Cloud Court, $90,000, 176-11-511-032
7485 Hinson St., $285,000, 177-07-506-014
7581 Camino Heights Court, $140,000, 176-11-611-032
7879 Windhamridge Drive, $127,500, 176-12-310-045
8845 S. Decatur Blvd., $232,000, 176-13-801-009
89141
10987 Santorini Drive, $160,000, 176-36-320-028
11183 Grants Landing Court, $475,000, 177-31-814-007
3093 Pawtucket Lane, $205,000, 191-05-317-023
89142
5769 Fairlight Drive, $55,100, 161-04-214-049
89144
10117 Summit Canyon Drive, $1,500,000, 137-36-618-002
10621 Redwood Grove Ave., $210,000, 137-25-219-013
10728 Elk Lake Drive, $365,000, 137-36-312-033
301 Pine Haven St., No. 106, $133,000, 137-25-615-038
89145
637 Edgebrook Drive, $505,000, 137-36-711-009
7216 Walter Schirra Circle, $89,900, 138-34-410-062
8008 Genzer Drive, $119,700, 138-33-510-004
9820 Winter Palace Drive, $1,922,000, 138-32-213-196
89146
2085 Westwind Road, $188,000, 163-01-307-015
2945 Mann St., $379,000, 163-11-701-006
5304 Westleigh Ave., $137,000, 163-01-613-036
6420 Spring Mountain Road, No. 16, $210,000, 164-12-115-023
89147
153 Dawn Garden Ave., $245,000, 163-20-211-047
4346 Sandcastle Drive, $125,000, 163-22-212-032
4718 Arial Ridge St., $159,000, 163-19-412-017
4750 Desert Plains Road, $99,800, 139-07-717-036
4827 Beaconsfield St., $100,000, 138-23-812-020
4865 Farlington Drive, $105,763, 163-22-418-012
7709 Isley Ave., $122,500, 163-22-311-023
8093 Sundown Vista Ave., $263,000, 137-35-419-053
8925 W. Flamingo Road, No. 231, $438,500, 163-20--056
9159 W. Flamingo Road, No. 105, $85,500, 138-26-313-025
9720 W. Cherokee Ave., $78,000, 138-27-614-018
89148
220 Rusty Plank Ave., $172,000, 176-08-216-001
9050 W. Warm Springs Road, No. 1048, $59,500, 176-05-414-268
9652 Brooks Lake Ave., $149,000, 176-06-612-006
89149
5040 Jessica Joy St., $197,712, 125-28-817-016
5540 N. Ft. Apache Road, $325,000, 125-32-101-003
9429 Forest Edge Ave., $248,500, 125-18-714-056
9464 Wakashan Ave., $300,000, 125-19-710-015
89156
1930 Balzac Drive, $98,000, 140-23-710-024
2380 N. Los Feliz St., $72,000, 140-23-512-039
5978 Turtle River Ave., $100,000, 140-15-317-013
89166
10655 Banera Mountain Lane, $115,000, 126-13-113-050
10814 Old Ironside Ave., $111,111, 126-13-118-030
7639 Gatsby House St., $117,021, 126-13-">212-055
89169
3175 S. Eastern Ave., $386,000, 139-32-512-027
604 Bonita Ave., $135,000, 162-03-714-033
89178
7000 Haldir Ave., $215,000, 164-02-711-036
8168 Deadwood Bend Court, $160,000, 176-21-716-028
9234 Wildcat Hill Court, $236,000, 176-29-413-027
9626 Old Storm Court, $197,500, 176-20-415-019
9828 Maspalomas St., $47,500, 163-26-111-069
89179
7204 Mountain Den Ave., $225,000, 176-34-814-023
10184 Hailey Lynne Road, $429,000, 177-28-713-003
BOULDER CITY
89005
104 Graham Court, $170,170, 186-05-712-017
1334 Denver St., $250,000, 186-04-410-008
1405 Bronco Road, $187,000, 186-10-312-022
MESQUITE
89027
361 Rodeo Lane, $34,000, 001-19-702-015
LAUGHLIN
89029
2210 Rugged Mesa Drive, $80,000, 264-21-314-005
OVERTON
89040
895 S. Moapa Valley Blvd., $45,000, 070-12-310-068
Comments
Post a Comment