Right place to find 212-055 real question paper.

212-055 Q&A | 212-055 test practice | 212-055 real questions | 212-055 exam questions | 212-055 test prep - Killexams.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 : August 22, 2017
PDF Download Mirror : 212-055 Brain Dump
Get Full Version : Pass4sure 212-055 Full Version


Try out these real 212-055 Actual Questions.

I have cleared the 212-055 exam in the first try. I could achieve this success because of Killexams question bank. It helped me to apply my work book knowledge in the question & answer format. I solved these question papers with exam simulator and got full idea of the exam paper. So I would like to thank Killexams.

Need to-the-point knowledge of 212-055 topics!

Killexams is simple and solid and you can pass the exam if you go through their question bank. No words to express as I have passed the 212-055 exam in first attempt. Some other question banks are also availble in the market, but I feel Killexams is best among them. I am very confident and am going to use it for my other exams also. Thanks a lot ..Killexams.

Great source of great Latest Braindumps, accurate answers.

Joining Killexams felt like getting the greatest adventure of my life. I was so excited because I knew that now I would be able to pass my 212-055 exam and will be the first in my organization that has this qualification. I was right and using the online resources over here I actually passed my 212-055 test and was able to make everyone proud. It was a happy feeling and I recommend that any other student who wants to feel like Im feeling must give this Killexams a fair chance.

How many days required for 212-055 preparation?

I practically lost trust in me in the wake of falling flat the 212-055 exam.I scored 87% and cleared this exam. Much obliged Killexams for recovering my certainty. Subjects in 212-055 were truly troublesome for me to get it. I practically surrendered the plan to take this exam once more. Anyway because of my companion who prescribed me to use Killexams Questions & Answers. Inside a compass of simple four weeks I was completely ready for this exam.

Where can I find free 212-055 exam questions?

After 2 times taking my exam and failed, I heard about Killexams Guarantee. Then I bought 212-055 Questions Answers. Online Testing Engine helped me to training to solve question in time. I simulated this test for many times and this help me to keep focus on questions at examination day.Now I am an IT Certified! Thanks!

That was Awsome! I got Actual Questions of 212-055 exam.

Because of 212-055 certificate you got many chances for security professionals development to your career. I wanted to progress my vocation in information security and wanted to become certified as a 212-055. In that case I decided to take help from Killexams and started my 212-055 exam training through 212-055 exam cram. 212-055 exam cram made 212-055 certificate studies easy to me and helped me to achieve my goals effortlessly. Now I can say without hesitation, without this website I never passed my 212-055 exam in first try.

Try out these real 212-055 questions.

It is a captains job to steer the ship just like it is a pilots job to steer the plane. This Killexams 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.

These 212-055 questions and answers works in the real test.

I dont feel alone during exams anymore because I have a wonderful study partner in the form of this Killexams. Not only that but I also have teachers who are ready to guide me at any time of the day. This same guidance was given to me during my exams and it didnt matter whether it was day or night, all my queries were answered. I am very thankful to the teachers here for being so nice and friendly and helping me in clearing my very tough exam with 212-055 study material and 212-055 study and yes even 212-055 self study is awesome.

How many days required for 212-055 preparation?

I would potentially propose it to my partners and accomplices. I got 360 of imprints. I used to be enchanted with the results I got with the help study guide 212-055 examination course material. I normally thought true and intensive studies were the reaction to all or any exams, till I took the assistance of Killexams brain dump to pass my examination 212-055. Extremely fulfill.

It is unbelieveable, but 212-055 Actual Questions are availabe here.

I have advised about your items to various companions and partners, and they are all extremely fulfilled. Much obliged Killexams Questions & Answers for boosting up my profession and helping me plan well for my intense exams. Much appreciated once more. I must say that I am your greatest fan! I need you to realize that I cleared my 212-055 exam today, taking into account the 212-055 course notes I purchased from you. I solved 86/95 questions in the exam. You are the best training provider.

Latest Exams added on Killexams

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 Killexams

HP0-Y47 | P2090-050 | 000-188 | HP0-Y51 | C2180-529 | 920-199 | LOT-923 | 000-350 | P9530-089 | 700-039 | HP2-T23 | 250-251 | 70-494 | C2020-642 | 920-254 | 1Z0-526 | M2110-233 | C_GRCAC_10 | 310-203 | 000-564 | 00M-242 | E20-324 | 3600-1 | 1Z0-412 | 000-463 | HP2-K26 | LOT-923 | 3200-1 | HP2-Z21 | 000-011 | 70-470 | HP0-W01 | 1K0-002 | 050-634 | 050-SEPROSIEM-01 | HP2-Z06 | 00M-646 | 70-466 | 000-741 | 700-703 | 000-371 | C2180-404 | 3202 | 050-691 | 9A0-029 | VCPC510 | HP5-K01D | MTEL | E20-370 | C2180-271 |

212-055 Questions and Answers

212-055


  1. }

  2. }

And the invocation:

31. test(null); What is the result?


  1. An exception is thrown at runtime.

  2. "String is empty" is printed to output.

  3. Compilation fails because of au error in line 12.

  4. "String is not empty" is printed to output.


Answer: A


QUESTION: 214

Given:

  1. public static void test(String str) {

  2. int check = 4;

  3. if (check = str.length()) {

  4. System.out.print(str.charAt(check -= 1) +", ");

  5. } else {

  6. System.out.print(str.charAt(0) + ", ");

  7. }

  8. }

And the invocation:

  1. test("four");

  2. test("tee");

  3. test("to"); What is the result?


  1. r, t, t,

  2. r, e, o,

  3. Compilation fails.

  4. An exception is thrown at runtime.


Answer: C


QUESTION: 215


Given:

10. public class MyClass { 11.

  1. public Integer startingI;

  2. public void methodA() {

  3. Integer i = new Integer(25);

  4. startingI = i;

  5. methodB(i);

  6. }

  7. private void methodB(Integer i2) {

  8. i2 = i2.intValue(); 20.

  1. }

  2. }

If methodA is invoked, which two are true at line 20? (Choose two.)


  1. i2 == startingI returns true.

  2. i2 == startingI returns false.

  3. i2.equals(startingI) returns true.

  4. i2.equals(startingI) returns false.


Answer: B, C


QUESTION: 216

Given:

  1. class Cup { }

  2. class PoisonCup extends Cup { }

....

  1. public void takeCup(Cup c) {

  2. if(c instanceof PoisonCup) {

  3. System.out.println("Inconceivable!");

  4. } else if(c instanceof Cup) {

  5. System.out.println("Dizzying intellect! ");

  6. } else {

  7. System.exit(0);

  8. }

  9. }

And the execution of the statements: Cup cup = new PoisonCup(); takeCup(cup); What is the output?


  1. Inconceivable!

  2. Dizzying intellect!

  3. The code runs with no output.

  4. An exception is thrown at runtime.

  5. Compilation fails because of an error in line 22.


Answer: A


QUESTION: 217

Given:

  1. String[] elements = { "for", "tea", "too" };

  2. String first = (elements.length > 0) ? elements[0] : null; What is the result?


  1. Compilation fails.

  2. An exception is thrown at runtime.

  3. The variable first is set to null.

  4. The variable first is set to elements[0].


Answer: D


QUESTION: 218

Given:

  1. public class ClassA {

  2. public int getValue() {

  3. int value=0;

  4. boolean setting = true;

  5. String title="Hello";

  6. if (value || (setting && title == "Hello")) { return 1; }

  7. if (value == 1 & title.equals("Hello")) { return 2; }

  8. }

  9. }

And:

  1. ClassA a = new ClassA();

  2. a.getValue(); What is the result?


  1. 1

  2. 2

  3. Compilation fails.

  4. The code runs with no output.

  5. An exception is thrown at runtime.


Answer: C


QUESTION: 219

Click the Exhibit button. What is the result? Exhibit:


  1. go in Goban go in Sente go in Sente

  2. go in Sente go in Sente go in Goban

  3. go in Sente go in Goban go in Goban


  4. go in Goban go in Goban go in Sente

  5. Compilation fails because of an error in line 17.


Answer: C


QUESTION: 220

Given:

  1. public class Foo {

  2. public int a;

  3. public Foo() { a = 3; }

  4. public void addFive() { a += 5; }

  5. }

and:

  1. public class Bar extends Foo {

  2. public int a;

  3. public Bar() { a = 8; }

  4. public void addFive() { this.a +=5; }

  5. }

invoked with:

  1. Foo foo = new Bar();

  2. foo.addFive();

  3. System.out.println("Value: "+ foo.a); What is the result?


  1. Value: 3

  2. Value: 8

  3. Value: 13

  4. Compilation fails.

  5. The code runs with no output.

  6. An exception is thrown at runtime.


Answer: A


QUESTION: 221

Which of the following follows Correct Java Bean Listner rules:


  1. Listener()


  2. addMouseListener()

  3. updateActionListener()

  4. 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

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



References:


Pass4sure Exam Study Notes
Pass4sure Certification Exam Study Notes
Pass4sure Certification Exam Study Notes
Pass4sure Certification Exam Study Notes
Pass4sure Certification Exam Study Notes
Pass4sure Study Guides and Exam Simulator - shadowNET
Killexams Study Guides and Exam Simulator - simepe.com.br
Download Hottest Pass4sure Certification Exams - CSCPK
Complete Pass4Sure Collection of Exams - BDlisting
Latest Exam Questions and Answers - Ewerton.me
Here you will find Real Exam Questions and Answers of every exam - dinhvihaiphong.net
Practice questions and Cheat Sheets for Certification Exams at linuselfberg
Study Guides, Practice questions and Cheat Sheets for Certification Exams at brondby
Study Guides, Study Tools and Cheat Sheets for Certification Exams at assilksel.com
Study Guides, Study Tools and Cheat Sheets for Certification Exams at brainsandgames
Study notes to cover complete exam syllabus - crazycatladies
Study notes, boot camp and real exam Q&A to cover complete exam syllabus - brothelowner.com
Study notes to cover complete exam syllabus - Killexams.com
Study Guides, Practice Exams, Questions and Answers - cederfeldt
Study Guides, Practice Exams, Questions and Answers - chewtoysforpets
Study Guides, Practice Exams, Questions and Answers - Cogo
Study Guides, Practice Exams, Questions and Answers - cozashop
Study Guides, Study Notes, Practice Test, Questions and Answers - cscentral
Study Notes, Practice Test, Questions and Answers - diamondlabeling
Syllabus, Study Notes, Practice Test, Questions and Answers - diamondfp
Updated Syllabus, Study Notes, Practice Test, Questions and Answers - freshfilter.cl
New Syllabus, Study Notes, Practice Test, Questions and Answers - ganeshdelvescovo.eu
Syllabus, Study Notes, Practice Test, Questions and Answers - ganowebdesign.com
Study Guides, Practice Exams, Questions and Answers - Gimlab
Latest Study Guides, Practice Exams, Real Questions and Answers - GisPakistan
Latest Study Guides, Practice Exams, Real Questions and Answers - Health.medicbob
Killexams Certification Training, Q&A, Dumps - kamerainstallation.se
Killexams Syllabus, Killexams Study Notes, Killexams Practice Test, Questions and Answers - komsilanbeagle.info
Pass4sure Brain Dump, Study Notes, Pass4sure Practice Test, Killexams Questions and Answers - levantoupoeira
Pass4sure Braindumps, Study Notes, Pass4sure Practice Test, Killexams Questions and Answers - mad-exploits.net
Pass4sure Braindumps, Study Notes, Pass4sure Practice Test, Killexams Questions and Answers - manderije.nl
Pass4sure study guides, Braindumps, Study Notes, Pass4sure Practice Test, Killexams Questions and Answers - manderije.nl
Pass4sure Exams List - mida12.com.br
Braindumps and Pass4sure Exams Download Links - milehighmattress
Exams Study Guides Download Links - morganstudioonline
Study Guides Download Links - n1estudios.com
Pass4sure Study Guides Download Links - netclique.pt
Killexams Exams Download Links - nrnireland.org
Study Guides Download Links - partillerocken.com
Certification Exams Download Links - pixelcoding
Certificaiton Exam Braindumps Download Links - porumbeinunta
Brain Dumps and Study Guides Links - prematurisinasce.it
Pass4sure Brain Dumps - nicksmagic.com
Quesitons and Answers - recuperacion-disco-duro.com
Exam Questions and Answers with Simulator - redwest.se
Study Guides and Exam Simulator - sarkic.com
Pass4sure Study Guides and Exam Simulator - shadowNET
Killexams Study Guides and Exam Simulator - simepe.com.br
Killexams Study Guides and Exam Simulator - skinlove.nl
Pass4Sure Study Guides and Exam Simulator - marinedubai.com/
Pass4Sure QA and Exam Simulator - brandtsleeper/
Pass4Sure Q&A and Exam Simulator - risingeagleproductions/
VCE examcollection and Exam Simulator - starvinmarv/
Collection of Certification Exam Study Guides - studyguidecourses


Speed Marketing India (c) 2017