HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #21 - Discussion Itema
G;TY '2F li4A`.!I, F I,GRICA
r1T R-C.;i'F-1Cu ; !EN10;;APNDuM
-o:
Mayor and Members of the
City ommiss'
Joseph R. rassie
City Manager
June 21, 108
Miamarina and Dinner key Marina
Proposals
In preparation for your Public Hearing tomorrow, we have compiled
for you all of the proposal documents for each of the following
proposals:
Miamarina
1. Biscayne Recreation Development Company
.'yf`rt 2. Ecclestone Management Company v
.4? 3. New World Marina Incorporated
Dinner Key Marina
1. Biscayne Recreation Development Company
2. Dinner Key Marina Incorporated
3. Ecclestone Management Company
l7 i�ifYtrK�
/
•
�.3nrstrr�«�'
�r
/.. ,` -pe
These represent the three top proposals for each of the two marinas.
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
firm
21
INNER ICIEY MAR,LLNA• lib
inc.
2071 So. I3tic shotc Drive. I;-11
Comm, Grow. Florida
Jutie 21, 1978
Mr. Joseph R. Grassie
City Manager
City of Miami
Miami, Florida
bear Mr. Grassier
The proposal we submitted to the City on March 31, 1978
for the redevelopment of marina facilities at Dinner Key was
divided into two parts, a marine portion and a landside portion,
as per the attached extract from the proposal.
Because of the strong reaction from the community
against the concepts advanced on the landside part, specifically
the hotel and shopping promenade, we have decided to withdraw
that portion of the proposal. The portion withdrawn is "Part Two
Landside" attached.
The remaining portion of the proposal we intend to
submit to the Commission and the public at the scheduled hearing
tomorrow. This will include all of the elements listed in
"Part One - Marine".
The financing of Part One was in no way dependent on
the financing or development of Part Two, and we are ready,
willing and able to proceed forthwith on Part One, either in its
entirety, or in those portions which the Commission selects.
ncerely ►ours
Spencer B. Meredith
President
II
II
0
at
0
0
A
al
d
A
Al
s
A
'0
0
S
A
L
Ill�tltl
111
iiiil9liliVYIIVI�
Mh
ilhf�'ll iiiiiIIiIiIII
iiiiI 11
1111
COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW OF MIAMARINA LEASE PROPOSALS
RATES PROPOSED
LENGTH OF LEASE
OTHER
PROPOSER :
I
BISCAYNE RECREATION
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY'
Paul Balker.
*residentseat/month-stghtseetng
James Sprague.
JamesS)
MANE BARRIER
hot mentioned in
proposal.
PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT
Additional Equipment
and utility Provisions
OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
Additional landscaping
and extensive clean-up
of the area.
FINANCIAL PLEDGE
Min: 3150,000 or
31.51 of gross
receipts.
$.15 per ft/day liveaboard
$.10 er ft/day tfveaboa
$90.00 charter fishing
vessel . $185.00 drift
vessel
vessel . $2.20
$95.00/ charter sail -
30 years.
Extensive promotion
and advertising of
marina•
Nice -President
—
boats $120.00/ charter
__
DINNER AIN MARINA INC
Study surge and wave
Replace wood tinder
Landscaping walkway
from deck to
Post -construction
25% of income
at piers D.E.F.G.
Consistent with those
proposed for Dinner
30 years.
Improvements are
estimated to Cost
Spencer Meredith,
*resident
J.Richard Bell.
Nice -President
action problem. If
breakwater will solve
problem construct 1t
in accord with
requirements of the
regulatory agencies.
piers with concrete
piers. Replace exist-
ing electric utility
boxes. Construct a
parking deck over the
.peninsula. loll
equipment for parking.
parking
restaurant.
pledge
available for distil-
button (as In O.K.
Proposal). Minimum
rental to be
negotiated.
Key.
5676,000 not Includ.
Ing cost of a surge
barrier. Financed
with Revenue Bond.
tccitslONE MANAGEMENT
Not mentioned in
None aenttoned
Min: $50.000
Plus: 25% gross rents
y Not mentioned in.
,proposal.
•
30 years.
Conditions: City
None mentioned t�
specifically.
e 20HPANY
:proposal.
specifically.
income $300.000 -
provide parking
E.L. Ecdestone.
President
�.OoO'Norrts,
Vice President
$400.000 Plus: 301
gross rental income
over $400.000.
without meters.
City maintain
parking areas. d ty
to provide insurance
other than liability.
MIAMARINA
To engineer and lnstal1)
To engineer and instal
To improve the flow of
Min: $52.500 or 151
receipts.
Not mentioned in
15 years
with 2/15 year Option)
To keep up with
latest techniques
'MAN G RENT INC.
an acceptable solution
4 holding tank sewage
water through the
thereby lmprov-
of gross
proposal.
in marina management.
Stanley Pace,
President
Darwin Pace.
'Secretary
to the existing wave
action and surge
.problem.
pump out facility.
Construct more
efficient dock office.
Boaters supply facillt
basin.
Ing the cleanliness
and reducing the pollu•
tlon of the water.
MiAMI MARINA
-�aD ooNTTosPoaAT1oN1
t,Not mentioned In
proposal.
Not mentioned in
proposal.
Marketing activities
expanded by promotion
Min: $51,000 or 15.7%
of first $325,000 and
Not mentioned in
proposal.
5 years lease with
5/1 year automatic
renewals. After
Computerize Mtamartna
finances. Bring
northern personnel
Gerald Berton.
President
' lichen Berton,
Nice President
JJ
and encouragement of
Northern transients of
berth at MIamarina.
50% of the excess
over a base of $325.000.
The $325.000 base 1s
conpouoded 10%/year.
10 years - option.
during the season-
*Ea/WORLD-MARINA INC.
Not mentioned in
L
Fuel dock, ship stores.
Beautification includ-
Mtn: $10.500 or 10.51
Not mentioned to
20 years lease with
20 years option.
Improve and enlarge
fishing and charter
Gladys Dubbin.
-President
Dorothy Dubbin.
Secretary/Treasurer
Irvin Stepheng,
Adainlstrator
proposal.
laundry. Increase 1 of
transient and permanent
boat slips. Remodel
and enlarge dock office.securlty.
:Provide a pop out
service for newly
Coast Guard required
marina sanitation
ing painting and a
continual basin clean-
ing operation. More
Marine
shuttle service to
serve downtown. Watson
Islandand Dade.
Participation in
pedal events and
of gross receipts. up
to $150.000 151 i
between $750.000 -
$1.000,000 and 201
over $1.000.000.
proposal.
boat services.
Encourage civic,
educational and
youth groups to
utilize the marina
facility.
services.
celebrations.
'RUSSELL PROP. INC.
Traffic control office
possible installation
Clean rest rooms.
Min: 324.000 or 30%
Not mentioned in
10 years lease with
2/5 options.
Tax payments. 1f
assessed would be
Jack Russell
7rving,Resnick
at N.W. corner of
leased property.
Annual piling repair
and replacement program.
of a wave barrier
system which we feel
would have a high
probability of success.
Ile satisfying
environmental consider
ations.
Maintain piers
structures and
services In good
condittons.
of gross receipts and
15s of gross receipts
over $335.000. is
gross receipts over
$335.000.
proposal.
year
deducted from
proceeds of the
lease payments.
i�ont
fazes center
300 Biscayne Boulevard Way, Miami, Florida 3313I
June 22, 1978
New World Marinas, Inc.
25 West Flagle r Street
Miami, Florida 33130
Gentlemen:
AtiNA
Tel. (305) 358-2541
The Dupont Plaza Hotel is pleased to learn that the New World Marinas,
Inc. is being considered as lessees for the Miamimarina. We are
prepared to offer our facilities as an adjunct to the Marinas so as to
increase the Marina's overall desirability to the boater and the public.
JSS:mm
•
Sincerely,
DUPONT PLAZA HOTEL
kip' Shepard
Executi Vice President and
"� General Manager
)
- V
TO THE HONORAELE MAYOR and CITY COMMISSION of the CITY OF MIAMI, tli3RIDAt
Please be advised that we, the undersigned combercial fishing boat
OWners and operators, and sightseeing boat owners and operators, endorse the
leasing of MIAMARINA to NEW WORLD MARINAS, INC.. We further wholeheartedly
support NEW WORLD MARINAS' proposal to enhance the commercial fishing and
sightseeing services offered at MIAMARINA and to aggressively advertise these
important recreational facilities to the public. Moreover, we are delighted
with NEW WORLD MARINAS' proposal for the beautification and upgrading of the
MINIMUM into a full service marina, and for their proposed hotel shuttle
service. We also support the fact that NEW WORLD MARINAS, INC., is not
requesting a rate increase for any marina tenants.
) r
ctr
) )
..• ..
.. r .z. ".....--....t..
•-N
act'
/
//
•
•
(a)
\ \ \\I
-
MEM
•
'IN I I I I
..,,,,,q*t._ . „„ogfltiotttf,, $kiint, I
P`'-`••••••"40i- . - III k•1'• '.0;;?,..1•7;:il't,l'I4 — kr; . .4
4A4t
.4tt.
...',,, ; , '!.., V; Azigy..3e.. 3 , J.,. 4..' .k. -ii:esssi..&lit.....••,..y. • ...,....
r: : ..' ' ; 7. .., :. ' :: :;,:1 •Xf;•,‘*.,.„..,'; , ,
— ille,:i .. 'A' ::•1/4...4;.•.•...,!,..-:,,.. il':.4•04.kW4i '4: i ,if•,,+;,i: • „, . ,
V. , •;;,..4':, e::4',:...„`:•,.. i',‘ ' '.-. F J., ...t'itts 1'4°. ,..1'• ' - • ' - ' '
k.- y • i ,-,•...;:.;,;',..1.-ii .r.:.,.::,..,'.;,..,,..-.,t1,-.;,-...--ic..-c. • . -, .
-.• ;7' ",..'1,r-tlfr,,?= 4., • ,
rilimw*rrelywe."'erft‘tar",,T4r*,0"'„?0';',1"r"'„,,
, • •,; 1":„V't -
7 -4. ••• • • . • • • ,
• •
vfdi..•:;:o.Atl,,?.,-kyoarO444 •
e . • • • " ",
• •'
rt404..„
•
Irk
. • ••
, • ig,044 ig•A% it-. ,
•
'!• t6,4214.''d44
.k• ••**47/e.4140.7"*,i,VCir,7,./:','
•
•
•
- - • • -?"-^ „ -
• • ;
•
• ' .;•'..4,t,,,t1/71„iV.. • •
14071-!•/•'sfrs.-4.-. A., •
4.,
• -
- • ,
.4-1.0.0.11.*14fxr'•;"
•• .• , .. •
. • . • A
•
is4
•
.,„- •
, -
•
•
• .
• .= •
ta.
•,•••••• '•—••;!:4;3r
- •
04.4114r,z,*.
' s•rr.::{P,41;:'*Ar.,/,e,rof :r „. •
. • '
Nav Wb12LD MA.Fg._NAS 3NC.
AMtliDAt A
The following represents an outline of proposed points in the
fiainteiiance, operation and development of Miamari.na that the proposers
Would like to implement consistent with the City's wishes. These proposals
will be elaborated on at a presentation before the City Commission,
1: Beautification program to include repair, painting and a
continual basin cleaning operation.
2: Development program designed to provide full service marina
facilities including, but not limited to, fuel dock, ship stores, laundry,
information center and telephone, mail and message services.
3: Program to increase number of transient and permanent boat
slips.
4: Remodel and enlarge dock office possibly to include a second
floor for maximum management view of the marina and better security.
5: Provide facilities for a marina shuttle and taxi service to
serve Watson Island, downtown Miami and Dade County.
6: Enhance the marina security by augmenting it with a security
service and new security equipment.
7: Institute an aggressive promotional and advertising program.
8: Implement financial control systems utilizing public accountants
and strict control procedures.
9: Develop small boat launching facilities.
10: Staff with competent, qualified, responsible personnel.
11: Expand Civic use of facility by partiCipating in City and
County programs# special events and celebrations.
12: tnhance physical plant maintenance program to preserVe the
marina properly.
13: Manage Watson Island Marina pending its replacemnt.
14: Provide a pump out service for newly Coast Guard required
marine sanitation services.
15. Install a wave barrier to reduce the rough water in the
marina.
ADDENDUM 13
NEW WOF i MAMAS, INC., proposes to develop, operate and maintain
a MIAMAIIIMA as one of the finest landmark marinas in the world. The proposers
are dedicated to developing a beautiful, exciting and useful attraction for the
entire community. It is their belief that the marina can be managed so as to
be an important tourist attraction and a spot for relaxation and rejuvenation
of downtown workers, as well as a useful and much needed marina facility for
residents of the City and County.
Zb reach this goal the proposers are desirous of operating the
marina so as to:
1: Preserve and enhance its physical structure and insure the marina's
worth to its community.
2: Provide a full service marina to benefit boaters of all types fran
the small boatman to the transient yachters.
3: Expand the number of slips to accommodate more permanent and
transient vessel berthing and maintain reasonable dockage rates befitting a
municipal marina.
4: Work with local shipyards and associated marine industries to
encourage touring boaters to utilize Miami facilities for repairs and equip-
ment purchases.
5: Advertise this unique facility throughout the boating world
to encourage yachtsmen to make Miami one of their Ports -of --Call.
6: Work with the Parks Department to support special events in
New World Park and join with the City and County in special projects and
celebrations.
7: Improve and enlarge Charter and sport -fishing boat services.
8 : provide the City a maximum return cn its investment,
it,
5: gi burage civic, educational, arfd youth groups to utili2e the
marina facilities.
10: Actively participate with local marina organizations to en-
courage the marina industry in Dade County as one of the most important
segments of the Miarni economy.
LAW OFFICES
DtJ3t3DD4 ScltttF, ttlaxMkg & Dut ttI r
444 E3RICKELL AVENUE
MIA1.II# •Lorin 331a1
1000 R1VERGATE PLA2A
June 22, 1978
Biscayne Recreation Development Company
Dadeland Professional Building
9655 South Dixie Highway
Miami, Florida 33156
Re: Lease of Dinner Key Marina with the City of Miami.
(Our File No. 19170)
Gentlemen:
TELEPHONE (a4) 3j3606
This Memorandum of Law is submitted pursuant to your request and expresses our opinion
as to several questions of law that had been raised from time -to -time relative to your
proposed lease of the Dinner Key Marina and Miamarina from the City of Miami. This
Memorandum also addresses itself to questions raised by Mr. Norman S. Segall in two
separate letters prepared by him on file with the Application of Grove Key Marina, Inc.
All emphasis will be supplied unless otherwise indicated. The fundamental question
raised by Mr. Segall's two opinion letters dated December 15, 1977 and March 28, 1978,
is as follows:
WHETHER A LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND A PRIVATE CORPORATION FOR MANAGE-
MENT OF A PUBLIC FACILITY SUCH AS THE DINNER KEY MARINA DOCKS, MOORING AREAS
AND MARINE RECREATION FACILITIES CONSTITUTE A PUBLIC PURPOSE.
ANSWER: YES.
OPINION
As set forth in Mr. Segall's letter dated December 15, 1977, the issue
being raised is whether a lense or contract by the City with a private corporation will
trigger a reverter clause in the deed from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Fund of the State of Florida, dated February 24, 1949. The reverter clause in the
said deed provides that the "bay bottom" at the Dinner Key Marina shall never be sold,
conveyed or leased to a private person or firm for a private use or purpose as opposed
to a public or municipal purpose.
MC-
Mr-
Wa-
In his two letter opinions, Mr. Segall first implies that the
reverter provision might be triggered because the lease of the Dinner
Key Marina facilities to a private corporation would not constitute a
"public purpose," Secondly, Mr. Segall states that a different form of
arrangement, such as a management agreement with the City, might circumvent
the restriction in the deed forbidding a sale, conveyance or lease of
the property,
We strongly disagree with the conclusions of Mr. Segall in his
letters. In the first place, it is quite clear that the lease of the
Dinner Key Marina property to a private corporation would properly be
deemed as a "public purpose." Indeed, in his letter of March 28, 1978,
Mr. Segall seems to concede that the lease arrangement of a "port facility"
clearly constitutes a public purpose. Mr. Segall states, at the bottom
of page 1 and carrying over to page 2, the following:
"In construing similar circumstances, the
courts have been concerned that the contem-
plated transaction does not result in the
use of the governmental entity's taxing
power or credit to a private corporation
in violation of Article VII, Section 10
and 11, Fla. Const. (1968). However,
Section 10(c) specifically contemplates
the operation by a private corporation
of a 'port facility' financed or refinanced
by revenue bonds pursuant to contract with
the issuing body. So long as the project
itself is a proper public purpose, incidental
gain to a private corporation through a
contract to operate all or part of the facility
does not violate this constitutional pros-
cription....
"The ability of a municipality to contract
with a private corporation for the operation
of a public facility is well established,
both in practice and in law...."
Numerous cases, in addition to Section 10(c) of Article VII of
the Florida Constitution, support the public purpose of the operation of
a leasehold marina by a private company. See, Panama City v. State, 93
-2-
So,2d 608 (Fla. 1957) Sunny Isles Fishing Pier v. Dade County, 79 Sor2d
667 (Fla, 1955); Hanna v, Sunrise Recreation, 94 So,2d 597 (Fla, 1957),
In Hanna v Sunrise Recreation, the Florida Supreme Court
considered a case involving the Hugh Taylor Birch State Park, There was
a deed which provided that the lands conveyed to the State of Florida
could be used "for State Park purposes only, for the use, benefit and
enjoyment of the public forever." Portions of the park were leased by
the Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials to private lessees to
operate certain recreational facilities. The issue before the Supreme
Court involved the authority of the Board to enter into such leases in
light of the provision in the deed.
The Supreme Court held that the private leasehold of recreational
facilities constituted a park or public purpose and that the Board had
the authority to enter into the leases. The Court stated:
"The fact that charges will,be made for
the use of the facilities and that a
private corporation will profit there-
from are not controlling. The Board
is authorized by statute...to make
charges to the public who use the
facilities of the park. And we have
held that the fact that a private
corporation or individual will inci-
dentally profit from the transaction
does not in itself defeat a public purpose.
(Citations omitted)"
Similarly, the Supreme Court in Sunny Isles Fishing Pier v. Dade
County, supra, held that a fishing pier operated privately at Baker's
Haulover in Dade County constituted a public purpose.
Mr. Segall, at page 5 of his letter of December 15, 1977,
states that, "Unquestionably the Florida Supreme Court is taking a more
restrictive view as to what constitutes a public purpose...." He then
-3
cites two cases, Williams, Jones, 326 So,2d 425 (Fla, 1976) and Volusia
County v.,_Daytona BeachRacing District, 341 So,2d 498 (Fla, 1976),
Both of these opinions involve a question of an exemption from taxation
by private parties who claimed that their property was being used for a
public purpose and was thereby exempt from taxation. The Court noted in
both cases that tax exemptions are strictly construed against the party
claiming them.
In Williams v. Jones, supra, the property sought to be taxed
consisted of both commercial and residential leasehold interests on
county -owned property from the Santa Rosa Island Authority. These
commercial operations included barber shops, plumbing businesses, beauty
shops, laundries, rental cottages or rental units, motels, restaurants
and campgrounds. In other words, the dominant use of the property was
clearly private in nature and not public. In Volusia County v. Daytona
Beach Racing District, supra, the Court considered an effort by the
Volusia County Tax Assessor to assess city -owned land which was used as
a speedway and race track. There was a specific special act of the
Legislature which removed the tax exemption on this property. These two
cases simply do not indicate that the Florida Supreme Court is taking a
"more restrictive view" as to what constitutes a public purpose.
The Supreme Court is taking a traditional view of closely
scrutinizing whether a particular public interest supporting the use of
public funds dominates private gain and therefore can be considered a
"public purpose." See, Baycol, Inc. v. Downtown Development Authority,
315 So.2d 451 (Fla. 1975); Hertz Corporation v. Walden, 299 So.2d 121
(Fla. 2d DCA 1974), affirmed, 320 So.2d 385 (Fla. 1975).
In both Williams v. Jones and Volusia County v. Daytona Beach
-4-
Racing District, supra, the Supreme Court construed Section 196,199(2)(a),
Florida Statutes (1975), which relates to taxation of leasehold interests
and reads as follows:
"(2) Property owned by the following
governmental units but used by non-
governmental lessees shall only be
exempt from taxation under the
following conditions:
(a) Leasehold interests in property
of the United States, of the state or
any of its several political subdivisions,
or of municipalities, agencies, authori-
ties and other public bodies corporate of
the state shall be exempt from ad valorem
taxation only when the lessee serves or
performs a governmental, municipal, or
public purpose or function, as defined
in Sec. 196.012(5)...."
Thus, by statute, the Florida Legislature has indicated its
intent to strictly limit tax exemptions by nongovernmental lessees which
lease property owned by a public body. It is interesting to note the
definition of governmental, municipal or public purpose or function, as
set forth in Section 196.012(5), which is referred to in the statute
above. That definition reads as follows:
"(5) Governmental, municipal, or public
purpose or function shall be deemed to
be served or performed when the lessee
under any leasehold interest created in
property of the United States, the state
or any of its political subdivisions, or
any municipality, agency, authority, or
other public body corporate of the state,
is demonstrated to perform a function
or serve a governmental purpose which
could properly be performed or served
by an appropriate governmental unit, or
which is demonstrated to perform a
function or serve a purpose which would
otherwise be a valid subject for the
allocation of public funds...."
Under this definition of a governmental or public purpose, the
-5-
lease of property at Dinner Key Marina would qualify for a tax exemption
as a legitimate governmental purpose which properly could be performed
by the City of Miami and which is certainly appropriate for the allocation
of public funds.
In short, the question of a public use or private use still
turns on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. It is
clear to us that the facts of this case involving the leasehold of a
port or marina'facility at Dinner Key constitutes a public use pursuant
to the cases cited hereinabove, as well as Article VII, Section 10(c) of
the Florida Constitution.
Even assuming that Mr. Segall were correct in his assessment
that the leasing of the Dinner Key facility would constitute a private
use (which he is not), it is disingenuous to suggest that simply by
changing the form of the business arrangement between the City of Miami
and a private corporation the reverter provision of the deed from the
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund will be circumvented.
A private use by means of a management agreement similarly
would trigger the reverter provision in the deed just as would a leasehold
use for private purposes. The deed from the Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Fund provides that in addition to a reverter for the sale,
conveyance, or lease of the "bay bottom" to a private person for a
private use, the said property also shall revert if the City gives or
grants any "license or permit" to any private person, firm or corporation
for any private use or purpose.
Mr. Segall, at page 5 and 6 of his letter of December 15, 1977,
suggests that a management contract with the City would circumvent these
reverter problems, apparently because no property interest would be
-6-
granted by the City, and states as follows:
".,.Since construction on the premises
would then be in the name of the City
as owner; licenses and permits for such
construction would not be granted to
private persons; firms or corporations
as also proscribed."
This assertion is incorrect, A license in real property is
defined as a personal; and ordinarily revocable, unassignable privilege
conferred either by writing or parol to do one or more acts on land,
without possessing any interest in the land, Thus, a license in real
property is a mere permit to do something on the land of another; and
does not imply an interest,in land. See generally, 11 Fla, Jur.,
Easements and Licenses, Section 2, at page 222. It is clear that the
deed from the Internal Improvement Fund proscribes private uses of the
"bay bottom" property whether or not an actual interest in the land is
conveyed. Therefore, even though a management contract might not convey
an actual interest in the "bay bottom" land, there is no question that
the City would be licensing the use of such land to a private firm
or corporation for a private use in violation of the reverter clause.
Therefore, the reverter clause would be triggered automatically. In
sum, the fundamental problem raised by the reverter clause in the deed
simply cannot be circumvented by an arrangement which applies "form over
substance." The substantial issue still is whether or not the use of
the Dinner Key Marina is a private purpose or a public purpose.
Additionally, we would point out that the City has advertised
for bidders with respect to the Dinner Key Marina seeking to lease the
property. The City may not now deviate from the advertised terms of the
bidding process because such a deviation might destroy the competitive
-7-
character of the bidding process and work as an advantage or benefit to
one bidder which is not enjoyed by other parties who are bidding for the
lease contract of the Dinner Key Marina property. See, Harry pepper &
Associates _v._City of Cape Coral, 352 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
CONCLUSION
A lease of the Dinner Key Marina property to a private firm or
corporation would be incidental to the main public purpose of the project
and would not trigger a reverter clause in the deed. Also, a management
contract between the City of Miami and a potential bidder for the Dinner
Key Marina project would do nothing to avoid triggering the reverter
clause, assuming that the use of the marina property may be construed to
be a private use as opposed to a public use.
Respectfully submitted,
DUBBIN, SCHIFF, BERKMAN & DUBBIN
1000 Rivergate Plaza
444 Brickell Avenue
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone No. (305) 373-3606
By:
/ [/%r % !,/ /A! //�
MURRA ' UBBI1;1 ' l/
By: C�
EVAN LANGBEIN
-8-