Poe v. Hillsborough County
1997 WL 268914, 695 So.2d 672 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public body's issuance of revenue bonds for a project that incidentally benefits a private entity does not violate Article VII, Section 10(c) of the Florida Constitution's prohibition against lending public credit or taxing power to private corporations, so long as the project serves a paramount public purpose. Once a paramount public purpose is found, courts cannot micromanage the financial terms of the agreement between the public body and the private entity.
Facts:
- Since 1976, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (Bucs) NFL football team has played its home games in Tampa in a stadium owned and operated by the Tampa Sports Authority (TSA).
- In 1995, the Bucs franchise was sold to a new owner, who informed local public officials that the team required additional stadium-related revenue sources (such as luxury suites and club seats) to remain financially competitive and would seek to relocate to another city unless a new stadium with the necessary amenities was constructed.
- Negotiations between Hillsborough County, the City of Tampa, the Tampa Sports Authority (Issuers), and the Bucs' new owner commenced in the fall of 1995.
- On July 10, 1996, the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners passed an ordinance to levy a one-half cent local government infrastructure surtax for thirty years, subject to a referendum, to finance various infrastructure projects including a 'community stadium'.
- An agreement for the construction of a new stadium was reached on August 28, 1996.
- On September 3, 1996, fifty-three percent of the voters approved the referendum for the infrastructure surtax.
- Under the Stadium Agreement, the TSA agreed to construct a new 65,000-seat community stadium and a $12 million training facility for the Bucs, with the Bucs utilizing the stadium for thirty years, paying annual fees, and receiving the first $2 million in net revenues from non-Buc events.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 27, 1996, William Poe, a Tampa area resident and taxpayer, filed a complaint in circuit court (trial court/court of first instance) seeking a declaration that actions by Hillsborough County, the City of Tampa, and the Tampa Sports Authority regarding the proposed new stadium project violated Article VII, section 10(c) of the Florida Constitution, and seeking an injunction.
- On December 26, 1996, the Tampa Sports Authority, Hillsborough County, and the City of Tampa filed a separate complaint in circuit court seeking to validate a series of revenue bond issues for the construction of the new stadium, practice facility, and demolition of the existing stadium.
- Upon agreement of all parties, the two complaints were consolidated for a bench trial in the circuit court.
- The circuit court declined to validate the bonds, finding that while the new stadium project would serve a paramount public purpose, a specific clause in the lease agreement granting the Bucs the first $2 million in net revenues from non-Buccaneer events caused the project to serve a predominantly private purpose.
- In its subsequent order denying rehearing, the circuit court noted it would validate the bonds if the $2 million clause in the Stadium Agreement was deleted.
- Both William Poe (Appellant, Cross-Appellee) and Hillsborough County, the City of Tampa, and the Tampa Sports Authority (Appellees, Cross-Appellants) appealed the circuit court's final order to the Florida Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public body's agreement to construct a new community stadium, partially financed by revenue bonds, violate Article VII, Section 10(c) of the Florida Constitution when a private professional sports team receives significant benefits, including a portion of non-team event revenues, if the project is found to serve a paramount public purpose?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a public body's agreement to construct a new community stadium, including a clause granting the private professional sports team the first $2 million in net revenues from non-team events, does not violate Article VII, Section 10(c) of the Florida Constitution, because the project serves a paramount public purpose. The court reaffirmed its precedent 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 are merely incidental. The court cited State v. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities District (1956) and Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist. v. Paul (1965), which validated bonds for a racing facility that primarily benefited a private corporation, by finding the broader public purpose of increasing tourism and providing recreation. In this case, the trial court had already credited expert testimony regarding significant economic benefits to the Tampa Bay economy (ranging from $83 million to $183 million annually and over $300 million for the 2001 Super Bowl), as well as 'immeasurable economic benefits' from national media exposure, attracting tourists and businesses, fostering civic pride, and providing recreation and entertainment. The Supreme Court found that the trial court's refusal to validate the bonds was not due to a lack of paramount public purpose, but rather its belief that the Bucs' deal was 'too sweet' due to the specific $2 million revenue clause. The Court held that once a trial court finds a 'paramount public purpose,' it 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.' The court also dismissed the argument that bonds must be repaid solely from project-derived revenues when private entities benefit, and noted that citizens have a remedy at the ballot box, as voters had already approved the bond issue.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'paramount public purpose' doctrine in Florida, demonstrating the Supreme Court's deference to public-private partnership agreements once the primary public benefit is established. It limits judicial oversight over the specific financial terms of such deals, asserting that courts should not 'micromanage' negotiations deemed substantially beneficial to the public. The ruling reinforces that the political process, specifically voter approval of bond issues, is the primary mechanism for accountability in these ventures, rather than judicial intervention on the granular details of financial agreements. This decision likely encourages more public-private projects by providing greater certainty against judicial second-guessing of deal specifics after a public purpose has been found.
