McCOY RESTAURANTS, INC., and Stephen Williams, Appellants, v. CITY OF ORLANDO, Florida, acting by and through the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, Appellee, 392 So. 2d 252

OVERTON, Justice. This is a direct appeal from the trial court’s final judgment validating certain public revenue bonds. We have jurisdiction and affirm. The revenue bonds under review concern the construction and expansion of new facilities at the Orlando International Airport. The Florida Legislature established the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority as an agency of the City of Orlando in 1957 and granted to the authority the power to issue revenue bonds in the city’s name.

In 1978, the authority issued $125,000,000 in revenue bonds for the expansion and improvement of facilities at Orlando International Airport, including a new terminal building. Bond repayment was to be solely through funds derived from the rental and lease of the airport’s physical plant to various airlines, concessionaires, and others. The circuit court validated these bonds on July 14, 1978; no appeal was taken and the authority sold the bonds on September 20, 1978. At the time the bonds issued, only four major airlines serviced the Orlando area.

The proposed airport improvements reflected this factor in the number of airliners and estimated passengers the new facilities could accommodate. With federal aviation deregulation, six additional airlines sought to service Orlando and the use of the new facilities. The result was to render the yet incomplete improvements inadequate, and the aviation authority, in an attempt to compensate, enlarged the project. Mispro-jections in initial construction costs coupled with the project’s enlargement resulted in considerable cost overruns.

Obligated to complete the project and to offset the additional expense, the authority sought to issue additional revenue bonds in the maximum amount of $169,275,000. This second bond issue, which is the subject of this review, would be in parity with the first and be satisfied with revenues from the same sources. The circuit court entered its final judgment validating the additional bonds on June 18,1980. The state attorney participated in the trial court proceedings but has taken no

part in the instant appeal.

McCoy Restaurants, Inc. and Stephen Williams, taxpayers and intervenors in the trial court and on this appeal, contend that (1) the airline-aviation authority agreements for the lease of the airport facilities unconstitutionally delegate the authority’s powers to the private and beneficial use of the airlines; (2) the airline-aviation authority negotiations to modify the initial lease agreements so to accommodate the additional bonds violated Florida’s government-in-the-sunshine law; and (3) the trial court’s actions inconsistently favoring the authority’s position for validation denied the state a fair trial.

We find that appellants’ first point concerning the validity of the lease agreement is clearly a collateral issue and not properly the subject of a bond validation proceeding. The sole purpose of a validation proceeding is to determine whether the issuing body had the authority to act under the constitution and laws of the state and to ensure that it exercised that authority in accordance with the spirit and intent of the law. State v. City of Miami, 379 So.2d 651 (Fla.1980); State v. Sarasota County, 372 So.2d 1115 (Fla.1979); State v. City of Sunrise, 354 So.2d 1206 (Fla.1978). As the Court stated in State v.

City of Miami, 103 So.2d 185 (Fla.1958): It was never intended that proceedings instituted under the authority of this

chapter to validate governmental securities would be used for the purpose of deciding collateral issues or those other issues not going directly to the power to issue the securities and the validity of the proceedings with relation thereto. Id. at 188. Accord, State v. Sunrise Lakes Phase II Recreation District, 383 So.2d 631 (Fla.1980); City of Gainesville v. State, 366 So.2d 1164 (Fla.1979). In the instant case, appellants are contesting the validity of the airline-aviation authority lease agreements, which we find to be a collateral issue to the bond validation proceeding.

The airlines and other interested parties are not parties to this action, and the trial court has no jurisdiction to determine the validity of the leases in this type of proceeding. See State v. Sunrise Lakes Phase II Recreation District. By their second point, appellants contend that the airlines, because of the airline-aviation authority lease agreements, were public representatives and as such were precluded by the sunshine law from caucusing among themselves in closed sessions. We find this contention, under these circumstances, to be without merit.

We note that there is no allegation that the authority as a body or its officially designated members met in violation of the sunshine law, and the record supports a finding that the authority followed the law in its final approval of the bond resolution. We find no merit in appellants’ third point concerning a denial of fair trial. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed to the extent that it validates the revenue bonds under review. It is so ordered. SUNDBERG, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ, concur. ADKINS, J., dissents with an opinion. . Art. V, § 3(b)(2), Fla.Const. .

Chapter 57-1658, Laws of Florida, created the Greater Orlando Port Authority whose jurisdiction included aviation. The Florida Legislature subsequently amended

chapter 57-1658 to change the authority’s name to the “Greater Orlando Aviation Authority.” Ch. 75-464, Laws of Fla. . Delta Airlines, one of the initial four, brought a diversity action in United States District Court to require the aviation authority to proceed with the completion of the new airport facilities. The court, in a memorandum opinion, ordered the authority to issue additional revenue bonds in an aggregate amount sufficient to complete the project. Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Greater Orlando Aviation Auth., No. 80-F-Orl-Civ-Y (M.D.Fla. Jan. 28, 1980). .§ 286.011, Fla.Stat. (1979).