FILED. / TracyS.Carlin IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. ST. JOHNS COUNTY, a political. ON APPEAL FROM TElE IN AND FOR ST. JOEINS COUNTY, FLORIDA

Transcription

1 e IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: 86,291 HERBERT M. JOHNSON, TOMMY HARRISON // ocr nd JEAN SWITZER, Privte Citizens, Individully, nd s REPRESENTATIVES for TACO, n Unincorported Assocition, ANDOTHERS, vs. Appellnts, ST. JOHNS COUNTY, politicl subdivision of the Stte of Florid, Appellee. FILED SfD.1 '4qITE 2 lpoc CLERK, SUPREME COURT By Chid &pub C teh ON APPEAL FROM TElE CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTH JUDICIAL, CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ST. JOEINS COUNTY, FLORIDA ANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEE J J!Jmes G. Sisco Florid Br No: County Administrtion Building 4020 Lewis Speedwy St. Augusthe, Florid (904) nd FOLEY & LARDNER Jen M. Mngu Br NO: I' Florid / TrcyS.Crlin Florid Br No: Lur Street Jcksonville, Florid (904) Attorneys for Appellee, St. Johns County, Florid

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. STATEMENT 0 F THE CASE AND FAC TS... 1 A.. Procedurl Histow... 1 B. FctulBckPround... 2 II. SUMMAR Y OF ARGUMENT... 6 III. ARGUMENT... 7 ISSUE WHETER THE TRIAL COURT S VALIDATION OF THE COUNTY S TAXABLE CONVENTION CENTER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1995, SHOULD BE BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE BONDS UNDEX ITS HOME RULJ?, POWERS Iv. CONC J XJS ION... V. APPENDIX... TbNo. 1 i

3 TABLE OF AUTHOlUTlES CASES Speer v. Olson. 367 So. 2d 207 (Fl. 1979) * So. 2d 688 (Fl. 1969) Stte v. Qrnge coulbty 281 So. 2d 310 (Fl. 1973) Tvlor v. Lee Cou nty. 498 So 2d 424 (Fl. 1986) CONSTITUTION Art. VIII. $l(f). Fl. Const STATUTES Chpter 125. Prt I. Fl. Stt. (Supp. 1994) Chpter 159. Fl. Stt. (1993)....lo. 11 $125.01, Fl. Stt. (Supp. 1994)... 9 $125.01(1), Fl. Stt. (Supp. 1994) (1)(r), Fl. Stt. (Supp. 1994)....I $125.01(1)(t), Fl. Stt. (Supp. 1994) $125.01(3), Fl. Stt. (Supp. 1994)... 9 g125.01o4, Fl. Stt. (Supp. 1994)....lo. 11 $ (5)(~), Fl. Stt. (Supp. 1994) # , Fl. Stt. (1993)....lo. 11 fj (1), Fl. Stt. (1993) $ , Fl. Stt. (1993)....lo. 11 $159.14, Fl. Stt. (1993) ii

4 I. STATEMJTNTOFTREC ASE AND FAm A. Procedurl History, This is n ppel from Finl Judgment entered s result of proceeding under Chpter 75, Florid Sttutes, s mended, for the vlidtion of revenue bonds of St. Johns County, Florid (the "County"), designted s the "St. Johns County, Florid, Txble Convention Center Revenue Bonds, Series 1995," in n ggregte principl mount not to exceed $18,000,000 (the "Bonds"). (Appellnts' Appendix-Exhibit ("App.") B). The Finl Judgment ws entered fter full, evidentiry hering tht ws held on July 18, (App. B). At the time of the entry of the Finl Judgment, the tril court hd herd severl hours of testimony nd hd the benefit of the Plintiff's Memorndum of Lw, which ddressed ll of the issues to be determined by the tril court. Thus, the Finl Judgment ws bsed upon substntil competent evidence nd should be ffirmed. Elmnuel A. "Bubb" Rowe, prty to the ction below, filed timely Notice of Appel (Appellee's Appendix 1). Although Mr. Rowe ws the prty to pper below nd to file the Notice of Appel, Mr. Rowe did not submit the Appellnts' Initil Brief on ppel. Insted, the Initil Brief ws fded by Jeffrey Gringer on behlf of Herbert M. Johnson, Tommy Hrrison nd Jen Switzer, individully, nd s representtives for TACO, n unincorported ssocition, nd others (collectively, the "Appellnts"). In the interest of n expeditious resolution of the issues presented in this ppel nd to void ny negtive impct of dely pending submissions by the proper prties, the County requests tht the Court tret hk. Rowe's Notice of Appel s tht of the Appellnts nd tht the Court rule upon the issues presented by the Appellnts' Initil Brief pursunt to the 1

5 Motion for Expedited Relief filed contemporneously herewith. As set forth in the Motion, ny dely in the resolution of this mtter will prejudice the County. B. Fctul Bckmound ' e The County is nonchrter county. On My 23, 1995, pursunt to the County's home rule power, the Bord of County Commissioners (the "Bord") of the County encted Ordinnce No (the "Ordinnce") for the purpose of providing for the cquisition, construction, renovtion, improvement, furnishing nd equipping of public convention center fcilities within the County. (App. E). In the Ordinnce, the Bord found nd determined tht it is necessry nd desirble for the economy nd generl welfre of the County nd its citizens nd of the businesses nd industries which operte within the County tht provisions be mde in the County for the cquisition, construction, renovtion, improvement, opertion, furnishing nd equipping of public convention center fcilities nd for the fmncing nd refinncing of such fcilities. (App. E, Pg. 3). The Bord lso found nd determined tht the provisions for finncing nd refinncing the cost of the fcilities with the proceeds of bonds in the mnner provided in the Ordinnce is in the best interest of the County nd its citizens nd of the businesses nd industries which operte within the County nd is necessry for the economic nd generl welfre of the County. (App. E, Pg. 3). Under the Ordinnce, the County is uthorized, mong other things, to enter into contrcts to purchse convention center fcilities, finnce the cost of the fcilities with the proceeds of bonds of the County nd to enter into greements to operte the convention center fcilities, ll in the mnner provided in the Ordinnce. (App. E). The Ordinnce lso provides tht ny bonds issued pursunt to its uthority will not be deemed to constitute generl 2

6 obligtion debt of the County or pledge of the fith nd credit of the County, but will be pyble solely from ny specificlly pledged funds, which my include only certin leglly vilble non-d vlorem funds, s described in the Ordinnce, or ny combintion of such funds s designted by the Bord for pyment of the principl of, premium, if ny, nd interest on the bonds. (App. E, Pg. 5-6). On June 13, 1995, pursunt to'chpter 125, Prt I, Florid Sttutes, s mended, the Ordinnce nd other pplicble provisions of lw (collectively, the "Act"), the Bord dopted Resolution No (the "Resolution") for the purpose of providing for the cquisition by the County of certin public convention center fcilities (the Tonvention Center Fcilities") to be locted in the World Golf Villge (s defined in the Resolution) nd uthorizing the issunce of the Bonds. (App. F, G nd H). In the Resolution, the County provided for the terms of the Bonds. (App. F). The Bonds will be pyble solely from nd secured by lien upon nd pledge of () the Pledged Revenues (s defined in the Resolution), none of which consist of d vlorem tx revenues or tourist development tx revenues, (b) moneys derived from certin limited lwfully vilble Non-Ad Vlorem Funds (s defined in the Resolution) tht hve been budgeted nd pproprited in the nnul budget of the County specificlly for the pyment of the Bonds pursunt to Section 4.3 of the Resolution nd (c) until pplied in ccordnce With the provisions of the Resolution, the proceeds of the Bonds nd ll moneys, including investments thereof, in the funds nd ccounts estblished under the Resolution, ll in the mnner nd to the extent described in the Resolution (collectively, the "Pledged Funds"). (App. F, Pg. 15, 35-36). The Resolution provides tht neither the fith nd credit nor the txing power of the County is pledged to the pyment of the principl of or interest on the Bonds nd tht no 3

7 holder or owner of the Bonds will hve ny right to compel ny exercise of the txing power of the County to enforce pyment. (App. F, Pg. 28, 35). The Bonds will not constitute lien upon the Convention Center Fcilities or ny other property of the County, except the Pledged Funds, nd will be pyble solely from the Pledged Funds in ccordnce with the terms of the Resolution. (Am. F, Pg ). The proceeds from the sle of the Bonds will be used to finnce the cost of 0 cquiring the Convention Center Fcilities,funding cpitlized interest nd debt service reserve fund for the Bonds nd pying certin costs of issunce incurred with respect to the Bonds. (App. F, Pg ). Under the Resolution, the County lso () uthorized the cquisition of the Convention Center Fcilities in the mnner provided in the Resolution nd tht certin Purchse nd Sle Agreement by nd between the County nd John Q. Hmmons Hotels Two, L.P., Delwre limited prtnership ("JQH-LP"), to be executed prior to the issunce of the Bonds (the "Purchse Agreement") nd the opertion of the Convention Center Fcilities in the mnner provided in the Resolution nd tht certin Operting Agreement by nd between the County nd JQH-LP to be executed prior to the issunce of the Bonds (the "Operting Agreement") pproved the form of the Purchse Agreement nd the Operting Agreement, substntilly in the forms ttched to the Resolution s "Exhibit B" nd "Exhibit A," respectively. (App. F, G nd H). The County is uthorized to enter into the Purchse Agreement nd the Operting Agreement with JQH-LP under the Act nd the Resolution. The tril court found tht ll requirements of the Constitution nd lws of the Stte of Florid pertining to the Bonds, the security therefor, the proceedings relting thereto nd ll other mtters connected therewith hve been complied with nd strictly followed. (App. 4

8 B, Pg. 6). The Appellnts sole contention on ppel is tht the County does not hve the uthority to issue the Bonds under the lws of the Stte of Florid. This contention is not supported by the fcts or the lw. As result, the Finl Judgment vlidting the Bonds should be ffmed. 4 5

9 II. SUMMARY0 F ARGUMENT THE TRIAL COURT S VALIDATION OF TEE COUNTY S TAXABU C0 TION CENTER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1995, SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAS HE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE BONDS UNDER ITS HOME RULE POWERS. The tril court s vlidtion of the Bonds should be fhed becuse the County hs full uthority under the Constitution nd lws of the Stte of Florid to issue the Bonds to finnce the cquisition of the Convention Center Fcilities. The County hs the uthority to issue the Bonds pursunt to its brod home rule powers by the enctment of the Ordinnce. No generl or specil lw precludes the issunce of the Bonds. The issunce of the Bonds is not inconsistent with ny generl or specil lw pplicble to the County, Thus, the County hs full uthority to enct the Ordinnce, dopt the Resolution nd issue the Bonds to finnce the cquisition of the Convention Center Fcilities in the mnner provided in the Resolution. Accordingly, the tril court s vlidtion of the Bonds should be ffirmed. 6

10 IU. ARGUMENT WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT'S VALIDATION OF THE COUNTY'S TAXABLE CONVENTION CENTER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1995, SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAS TEE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE "EIE BONDS UNDER ITS HOME RULE POWERS. The tril court's vlidtion of the Bonds should be ffirmed becuse the County hs the uthority under the Constitution nd lws of the Stte of Florid, prticulrly Article VIII, Section l(f) of the Constitution ("Article Vm, Section l(f)"), Chpter 125, Prt I, Florid Sttutes, s mended ("Chpter 125"), nd the Ordinnce, to issue the Bonds to fmnce the cquisition of the Convention Center Fcilities. Article Vm, Section l(f) nd Chpter 125 secure to the County brod home rule powers to tffy on county government. These brod home rule powers provide the uthority for () the enctment of the the doption of the Resolution, (c) the issunce by the County of the Bonds pursunt to the Ordinnce to finnce the cquisition of the Convention Center Fcilities in ccordnce With the provisions of the Resolution, (d) the cquisition of the Convention Center Fcilities in the mnner provided in the Resolution nd the Purchse Agreement nd (e) the opertion of the Convention Center Fcilities in the mnner provided in the Resolution nd the Operting Agreement. Thus, the issunce of the Bonds by the County to finnce the cquisition of the Convention Center Fcilities in the mnner provided in the Resolution is fully uthorized by lw. In severl vlidtion cses, the Florid Supreme Court hs held nonchrter counties hve the uthority to issue bonds pursunt to home rule ordinnce. & Tvlor v, Lee County, 498 So. 2d 424 (Fl. 1986) (ffdg vlidtion judgment of trnsporttion fcility revenue bonds issued pursunt to home rule ordinnce nd secured by pledge of bridge tolls); 7 0

11 SDWr v. Olson, 367 So. 2d 207 (Fl. 1979) (ffirming vlidtion of generl obligtion bonds issued pursunt to home rule ordinnce nd Secured by pledge of bth d vlorem tx revenues nd non d vlorem tx revenues); Stte v. Ornee Cou nty, 281 So. 2d 1973) (ffirming vlidtion of cpitl improvement revenue bonds issued pursunt to home rule ordinnce nd secured by pledge of rcetrck nd ji li funds). In Tylor, nd Ornge County, the Court recognized tht the grnt of uthority to issue revenue bonds pursunt to home rule ordinnce origintes from the home rule powers grnted to nonchrter counties under Article VIII, Section l(0, which sttes in pertinent prt: Counties not operting under county chrters shll hve such power of self-government s is provided by generl or specil lw. The bord of county commissioners of county not operting under chrter my enct, in mnner prescribed by generl lw, county ordinnces not inconsistent with generl or specil lw. The unquestioned object of Article Vm, Section l(f) is to grnt nonchrter counties brod home rule powers. Ornge Cou nty, 281 So. 2d t 312. The home rule powers grnted to counties by Article Vm, Section l(f) re implemented by Chpter 125. Speer, 367 So. 2d t 210. Section (1), Florid Sttutes, s mended ("Section (1)"), provides in pertinent prt: "The legisltive nd governing body of county shll hve the power to crry on county government. To the extent not inconsistent with generl or specil lw, this power includes, is not restricted to, the power to: (c) Provide nd mintin county buildings. (r) Borrow nd expend money; issue bonds, revenue certifictes, nd other obligtions of indebtedness... (t) Adopt ordinnces nd resolutions necessry for the exercise of its powers... 8

12 (w) t - r ~c~nsistent wl'th lw, which cts re in the common interest of the people of the county, exercise ll.. -nd pnvileees not s~ecificllv - D rohibited bv (Emphsis Added.) h. sttes tht: Moreover, Section (3), Florid Sttutes, s mended ("Section (3)"), () The enumertion of powers herein shll not be deemed exclusive or restn 'ctive, but shll be deemed to inmrporte ll implied powers necessry or incident to crrying out such powers enumerted, including specificlly, uthority to employ personnel, expend funds, enter into contrctul obligtions, nd purchse or lse nd sell nd exchnge rel or personl property. (b) The provisions of this section shll be liberlly construed in order to effectively crry out the purpose of this section nd to secure for the counties the brod exercise of home rule powers uthorized by the Stte Constitution. (Emphsis Added.) Thus, Article VIII, Section l(f) nd Section , Florid Sttutes, s mended ("Section "), generlly provide tht counties hve the uthority to perform ny ct not inconsistent with lw nd exercise ll powers nd privileges not specificlly prohibited by lw. As stted in the first sentence of Section (1) nd in Section (3), county's home rule powers include, but re not restricted to, the powers specificlly enumerted in Section As stted in Section (3), the provisions of Section re to be liberlly construed to secure to the counties the brod exercise of home rule power uthorized by the Constitution. This Court stted in tht unless prticulr subject hs been pre-empted by either specil or generl lw, county hs full uthority to ct through the exercise of home rule powers. $-peer, 367 So. 2d t 211. Bsed upon this brod grnt of power, the Florid Supreme Court hs consistently concluded tht counties hve the uthority to issue bonds pursunt to their home rule powers by 9

13 the enctment of home rule ordinnces. Section (1)(r), Florid Sttutes, s mended ("Section (1)(r)"), uthorizes the issunce of county bonds. Section (l)(t), Florid Sttutes, s mended, uthorizes the doption of ordinnces nd resolutions necessry for the exercise of county powers. The Court stted in w e Cou ntv tht "[tlhere is little need for Section (l)(r) if county still hs to go to the Legislture to get specil enbling legisltion ech time it wishes to issue bonds." Ornye Coum, 281 So. 2d t 311. See lso $peer, 367 So. 2d t 211. Additionlly, the Court hs noted tht gret mny cpitl projects hve been finnd throughout the Stte,of Florid by using the device of home rule ordinnce. Speer, 367 So. 2d t 211. Accordingly, unless there is generl or specil lw to the contrry, the County clerly hs the uthority to issue the Bonds pursunt to the Ordinnce. No generl or specil lw precludes the issunce of the Bonds. The issunce of the Bonds is not inconsistent with ny generl or specil lw. In this context, the term "inconsistent" mens "contrdictory in the sense of legisltive provisions which cn not coexist." &te e x rel. Dde Cou ntv v. Brub 'Pm, 224 So. 2d 688, 692 (Fl. 1969); See lso Ornge County, 281 So. 2d t 312. Nevertheless, the Appellnts rgue tht the issunce of the Bonds by the County is invlid becuse there re lternte methods vilble to counties to issue revenue bonds to finnce convention center fcilities. In support of this rgument, the Appellnts direct the Court's ttention to certin sttutory provisions contined in Section , Florid Sttutes, s mended (relting to the Locl Option Tourist Development Act); Sections nd , Florid Sttutes, s mended (relting to certin uthorized Chr county projects); nd Chpter 159, Florid Sttutes, s mended (relting to the Revenue Bond Act of 1953). The 10

14 issunce of the Bonds by the County pursunt to its home rule powers is not in ny mnner prohibited by or inconsistent with ny of these sttutory provisions. Section nd Chpter 159, Florid Sttutes, s mended, re expressly stted to be supplementl nd dditionl to ny other powers conferred upon counties by lw. $ (5)(c), Fl. Stt. (Supp. 1994); i159.14, Fl. Stt. (1993). Tht lnguge is not limittion or prohibition of ny power otherwise conferred upon county but is insted n dded grnt of power. si>eer, 367 So. 2d t 212; m, 498 So. 2d t 426. Supplementl nd dditionl sttutory provisions my be rejected in their entirety by county nd ny other pplicble lw my be used in its plce. Speer, 367 So. 24 t 213. The County is not prohibited from issuing the Bonds pursunt to Section , Florid Sttutes, s mended, or Chpter 159, Florid Sttutes, s mended. Moreover, the issunce of the Bonds by the County pursunt to the Ordinnce is not inconsistent with those sttutory provisions, Therefore, the County is uthorized to issue the Bonds pursunt to its home rule powers in the mnner provided in the Ordinnce. Sections nd , Florid sttutes, s mended, re expressly stted to be pplicble only to certin chrter counties. # (1), Fl. Stt. (1993). Becuse the County is nonchrter county, those sttutory provisions re totlly unrelted nd irrelevnt to ny exercise of the County s home rule powers. Becuse those provisions re not pplicble to the County, they do not prohibit nd re not inconsistent with the exercise of the County s home rule powers. Thus, the issunce of the Bonds by the County pursunt to the Ordinnce is not prohibited by or inconsistent with those sttutory provisions. 11

15 The County duly encted the Ordinnce pursunt to its home rule powers grnted by Article VIII, Section l(f) nd Chpter 125. The Ordinnce uthorized the County to issue revenue bonds pursunt to resolutions dopted by the County in order to cquire convention center fcilities. The County duly dopted the Resolution pursunt to nd in complince with the Ordinnce. Pursunt to the Resolution, the County uthorized the issunce of the Bonds to finnce the cquisition of the Convention Center Fcilities in ccordnce with the Ordinnce. The tril court specificlly found tht ll requirements of the Constitution nd lws of the Stte of Florid pertining to the Bonds, the security therefor, the proceedings relting thereto nd ll other mtters connected therewith were complied with nd strictly followed. The County hs full uthority pursunt to the Act nd the Resolution to enct the Ordinnce, dopt the Resolution, issue the Bonds pursunt to the Ordinnce to finnce the cquisition of the Convention Center Fcilities in the mnner provided in the Resolution, cquire the Convention Center Fcilities in the mnner provided in the Resolution nd the Purchse Agreement nd operte the Convention Center Fcilities in the mnner provided in the Resolution nd the Operting Agreement. Therefore, the tril court s vlidtion of the Bonds should be ffirmed. 12

16 IV. CONC LUSION For the foregoing resons, this Court should ffirm the tril court s vlidtion of the Bonds. Jmes G. Sisco Florid Br No.: County Administrtion Building 4020 Lewis Speedwy St. Augustine, Florid (904) nd FOLEY & LARDNER By: d Fkdd3r No.: Trcy S. Crlin Florid Br No. : Lur street Jcksonville, Florid (904) Attorneys for Appellee, St. Johns County, Florid CERTIFICATE OF S ER- I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT copy of the foregoing hs been submitted by HAND DELIVERY this 28th dy of September, 1995, to JEFFREY GRATNGER, Esquire, 211 N. Liberty Street, Suite 3, Jcksonville, Florid

17 Appendix

18 IN THF, CIRCUIT COURT, SXVZNTH mdrcrkt CIRCUIT, XN ANQ FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CA DIVL5Ibff: 55 ST. JOHNS COUNTY, politicl subdivision of the Stte of Florid, vs Plintiff, STATE OF FLOmDA, nd the TxpyerE, Property -ers nd citisens of St. J P ~ S county, including nonresidents owning prclperty or subject to txtion therein, et l., Defendnts. J v Y NOTICE IS GIVEN tht ELMUEL A- RD-, Defendnt/ Appellnt, ppels to Wle SUMPRmE COURT OF FLORSDA, the order of this Court dted July 18, The order is finl, order vlidsting bonde of indebtedness. A Copy of the order is ttched. I HEREBY ceittrfy tht copy of this dowment hs heen to Jms STSCO, Attorney for 9tc Johns County, nd to The Offices of the Stt8 Attorney in nd for St, J0hnsp)unty. Jcksonville, FL (904)

19 ST. JOHNS COUNTY, politicl subdivision o the SW of Florid, VS. Plintiff, STATE OF FLOIUDA, ct l., Defmdxlts. The h nd foegokg cuse hving come m for f d hering on the dtg nd t the time nd plce set forth h the Ammded Order to Show Cuse herctofom i d by tl& Corn md h the n ~tic~ ddmd to the Sttt of Fl& txpy- nd the sevezf property owners, nd citizens of Plintiff, indoding nunresidents Owning pmperty or subject to txdon thw nd ll others hving or climing ny 6ght, title or intcrwt in prom to be gffsctdd by the issunce by Plintiff of not excxlhg $ls,ooo,ooo of its Txble Comtion Cter Revenue Bonds, StricS 1995 (the "Bonds"), or to be ffected in my wy thereby, d.= heremfore issued ginst the Stte of Florid, nd the Stte A ttmy for this CmUit hving Hcd n nswer h&; nd the Court, hving considtred sid ZUIM nd hrd the nd 1 i '3

20 1. PlinWis, nd t ll times hereinfter rxlentioned ws, pofitiml subdivision of the Stte of Florid, crested nd misting under the pmyisions of the Constitution nd the lws of the Stte of Florid. Cunty (the cquire the Fdlilies pursunt to nd in ccordnce with tht &n purchse nd Sle Agreement (the 'Fmhse nd Sle Agreement'), to be executed by nd between Plintiff nd John Q, Hmmons Hotels WO, L.P., Dehvre Lmitd prhship ("JQH-LP'), substntilly in the form ttched s 'Exhibit B" to die Resolution, s more * *- ' prticulrly dcsuibd in the Purchse nd Sdc Agreement md (c) opernb= the FcWw pumnnt to nd in ccordnce with tht Eertin Opitbg Agrmncnt (b "Opmhg Agreement"), to be memted by nd between Plintiff nd JQH-LP, submtidy in the f m ttchd s "Ekhibit 0 A' to the Resolution, s more pxticukly described in thc Opemhg Agrsemt. I nd by the ksoluthn Plintiff m& ll findings nd determintions requid by the Act; fud the detils of the Ecmds; prwidecl tht the intcrwt on the Bpnds shll not excd the legl me, pmvidcd tht the principd of nd interest un the mds shll be pyble =My fkrm nd m u d by lien upon nd pledge of the Pzedged Revcnw {s definbd irl the Resohdm), including Certin revenues &ved by Plintiff in wnntction with the Fiditie~, Oertin moneys Specifidly 2

21 until pplied in ccordnce of the provision of the Resolution, the premeds of t)le Bonds nd ll of Florid, prticulrly the Act, to issuc revenue bcmds to finncc thc cost of cquiring the Fcilities nd b pledge the Pledged Funds i the mnn pmvidod in thc Resolution, 5. AU of the Bnds shll d eqdy s to fien on nd source nd security for pyment frwm thc Pkdgcd Funds. The Bonds shll k pyble s to both principl nd hterest - solely from the Pledged Funds. The Bonds will not constitute generl indebtedness of -. Plintiff, nd no holder or holders of ny of the Bonds SW ever hve the dght to corn+ the The Bonds shll not Constitute lien upon the F&* ot ny other plroperty of MW, cept the Pledged Funds. 6. Plintiff, pursunt to the Constitution nd lws of thc Stte of Florid, hs the power nd is uthorized to pledge the Pledged Funds to the pyment of thc phcip! of nd inmt on the Bonds. Sid pledge is legl nd vlid in ll nd d m not violte ny prmkiions of the Constitution or lws of the Stte offlorid. 3

22 4

23 O+RI 0 hdg, s required by hw; ll s more fully ppers fmm the ffivit of the publisk of= * hs been &u &~lly mfisideffd by this Court. Such Answer shows cuse why the p y of Plintiff should not bc grnted nd didom no irreguhrity or illeglity in the pmxcdilrgs set &I Srth in sid Complint, nd the objections concinod in sid Answer be nd thc 9ms ~ te hdy mermled. 12, One or mom proptrty owncxs, txpycn, C i W or other psns h m intervend or mde ppliction to become prty to these Pr0ceedi gs for the pu- of interposing objections to the grnting of the pryers set forth in Sid Cmpllint iu w e d by lw. The objections of such pmons hve been crefully considered by this Court. Such objections show no legl cw why W pry- of PhintiPP should not be pd nd disclose no irregulrity or illeglity ~II the pmcdings set forth in sid CompZ$nt, nd such objections be nd the sme re hereby mezruled.

24 the stte of Florid Pert;ing to the Wds, the security hd", the W g s relting NOW, THEREFORE, IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, tht the immcx thelegl me, is fr propcr, legl nd public purpose nd is fully uthorized by &tw, Mdtht Horid& this dy of July, f - - muit Judge Copies tot Kr. Ehneul A. "Rubb" Zowe Jmes G, Sisco, Esq., County AEtrey Stephen Alexnder, Esq,, Stre Attorney 6

25 0 COuNnr OF=. JOHNS I, IN RE: V. Plintiff SATE OF FZORIZIA, nd the l%>cpnyer, Propffty hers nd Citizens of St. Johns County, including numesidmts wning property Qr subject to txtion therdn, et l. Defendnts CASE NO.: CA95-928