HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-77-0139REC%rb
t10/77
and
RESOLUTION NO,__77mllg
A RESOLUTION IMPOSING A PEE POR THE
USE OF THE ORANGE. Bon MEMORIAL STADIUM
E'Y THE MIAMI DoLBHINS, LTD, FoR THE GAMES
PLAYED EY SAID MIAMI boLRHINS> DURING THE
1976-77 POOTEALL SEASON, INCLUDING PRE-
SEASON AND REGULAR SEASON GAMES, IN AN
AMOUNT WHICH EQUALS 15% OF THE GROSS
RECEIPTS oN ADMISSIONS PAID FOR SAID
GAMES; PROVIDING THAT DETERMINATION
of THE AMOUNT DUE TO THE CITY OF MIAMI
SHALL BE DETERMINED FROM RECORDS AND
ACCOUNTS OF ALL MIAMI DOLPHIN TICKET
SALES TRANSACTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
1976-77 FOOTBALL SEASON, WHICi RECORDS
ARE TO BEMADE AVAILABLE 'T0 AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY DURING
REASONABLE BUSINESS HOURS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF EXAMINING AND AUDITING SUCH
RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS.
WHEREAS, there is no agreement between the
CITY OF MIAMI and the MIAMI DOLPHINS, LTD. for the MIAMI
DOLPHIN'S use of the ORANGE BOWL MEMORIAL STADIUM during
the entire 1976 Football Season; and
WHEREAS, pending the disposition of legal
proceedings questioning the CITY'S right to enter into use
agreements with stadium users, no monies were paid to the
CITY by the MIAMI DOLPHINS, LTD. for its use of the stadium
for any of its football games during the 1976 Football Season;
"DOCUMENT !Noel
ITEM
WHEREAS, there has been a judicial determinay.ion
that the CITY may assess rental fees for the stadium's use
subject to court approval; and
WHERJA$ , the CITY OF MIAMI has the power to
establish a fee schedule for the use of the ORANGE BAWL
CITY coma**
MEETING OF
FEB! 01977
7
MEMORIAL STAMM whidh will dOnfof°i to the state Constitution,
the City Charter, and lawfully enacted legislation adopted by
the City Commissions and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has found that a
rental charge of 15% of the gross receipts on admissions
paid for football games played in the ORANGE BOWL MEMORIAL
STADIUUM is a fair and equitable rental amount to be imposed
upon any user who does not utilize the stadium under a multi-
season agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. A fee for the use of the ORANGE
BOWL MEMORIAL STADIUM by the MIAMI DOLPHINS, LTD. for the
games played by said MIAMI DOLPHINS, during the 1976-77
Football Season, including Pre -Season and Regular Season
Games, is hereby imposed, in an amount which equals 15%
of the gross receipts on admissions paid for said games.
The amount of money due hereunder to the CITY OF MIAMI shall
be determined from the records and accounts of all MIAMI
DOLPHIN ticket sales transacted in connection with the
1976-77 Footbal Season, which records are to be made avail-
able to authorized representatives of the CITY during reasonable
business hours for the purpose of examining and auditing such
records and accounts.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this lOth day of February, 1977.
ATTEST
CITY CLERK
MAURICE A. FERRF
MAYOR
PRMAtb AM APPROVED•
ROMAT P. CLAM
A88I8TANT CITY ATTOttNtY
APP AS TO PORM AND CORRECTNESS:
GEOROE P 1NOX, JR,
CITY A RNEY
IN T1 1.1 C11 cn 1i tounT OF •[, t1 i'S l ltit
JUI`)IC`[Ata C`112crt t ` ANt) FOI{ ti 01
COUNTY', J't.ol .,)r
EN IAUAL Jt.i [t ISr)rC`r'toN DIVISION
CA 11J NC), 7(i-28349 t)IVISIOi\ 14
t'It�lMi nor,HINKs, LTD+, a
1' 1erida Rt Cited pttrtttcrship, and
JOSEPHH 1 o1113r ., and SOUTH
i LOif11).1 SPORTS CORP. , as
General Partners of \t1 IVII
DOLPHINS, LTD, ,
Plaintiffs,
THE CITY OF i l[ 1\'tI, a municipal
corporation,
1)ef nclant,.
FINAL JUDGMENT
ON September 15, 1976, the Plaintiffs, MIAMI DOLPJII1S, LTD.,
etc., JOS. PII HOLi?IE and SOUTH FLORIDA SPORTS CORP., etc., (here-
- inafter referred to az The Dolphins), filed a complaint for declaratory
judgment and injur .ion against THE CITY OF MIA1v1T, a municipal corpora-
tion, (hereinafter referred to as The City).
The Dolphins set forth in its complaint that for the years 1966
through 1975, The Dolphins and The City operated under an agreement with
respect to the n age of the Orange Bowl Stadium wherein The Dolphins were
to pay to Th:' City $22, 222. 22 per game for both exhibition and regular NFL
football g;tmos. The agreement having expired prior to the 1976 football
season, and the parties having been unable to negotiate an additional contract,
sought injunt:tivcr relief from this Court to allow them continued use of the
Orange }lo;vl pending such contract negotiations and/or declare Section 39-20,
of the Code of the City of :Miami, as amended by Ordinance 8579, unconstitutional
aincl
' to allow iltc Dolphins to use the Orange hovel Stadium at more reason-
able fee arrange:flent4.
pi 7 11 / 0 .r
° The t'ity and ,`, !i:)lphin:-; entered int() a Vat a y jrlFfrC.etnent by
14°Et' or a temporary injunction itltprot'cct and entr'rcci lty the Circuit Court On
eptcntbr r 16, 197ii wherein ` he'City agreed to allow The l)alpltin.t to Utii.lite
the ()range l oj�f t. facilities ror the 197(i football season upon the posting or a
fi4, QO , Clt7 suretyl)oncl prior to each game being played.
Subsequently, The City riled its answer F;tating that Ordinance No.
8519, as passed by the City Commission in October of 1978 amending Section
39-20 of the Code of the City or Miami, was properly passed and was within
the legislative function of the City to determine user charges. In further
response, The City stated the economic impact upon the area was a factor
and concern itt determining rates and payment fer use by various entities of
the Orange Elowt Stadium and that the passage of Ordinance 8579 is not a
denial to the Plaintiffs of equal protection of the law or an arbitrary exercise
of municipal power or an unlawful delegation of authority.
On January 28, 1977, the matter being at issue, the parties pre-
sented their testimony, evidence and legal argument of their respective attor-
neys. The parties stipulated to the admitted facts set forth in The Dolphins
trial. memorandum and :narked into evidence as Exhibit 1 for The Dolphins.
Residents and; or taxpayers look to their government to provide the
necessary services associated with city budgets and tax dollars; i. e., fire,
police protection, garbarge disposal, utilities, transportation, disaster re-
lief, etc. 17 times, can the residents of a community look to its govern-
ment to be responsive to other needs and desires. South Florida has looked
to the Oran,;e Bowl as an arena for sporting and non --sporting events. The
community rallied around their first professional football team to the far
extreme:3 of painting the J'iTA buses team colors and renaming a section of
State I oad 836, The Dolphin Expressway.
wway.
•
The City has indicated a desire to protect and enrich the citi:cent;
and taxpayers of Miami by coil ai4ei'ing the economic impact of competitive
wainfor Super iIoO gatnos, Accoc cling to the City', expert, more: than
ti/; t-(i t of t}te t ectatr. at at S q)Esr l;nv.i wttnrr are tt'• t (t',tt (ll ..tat,..!, t)nly.
0j,1 or the specstators at season Battles are front out of ate, This Court
cat t cow size thc` ecotlOt(t is 1)03C1t of it Sup"- r 110.41 i,atne; 1)..E Ccrtlinty hot
at the oxpc'tlst� or our own citizens and tapayer z .
The Orange Bowl is nvaiInble for tire -season, season and post -
season games, The community should be able to enjoy all, if possible, attrl
The City should be at.)le to negotiate contracts for any or all of there games,
independently, and for the best rental based on the most received. The
Dolphins have given this area a feeling of community pride and excitement;
brought national media coverage; the distinction of being one of 28 cities in
the 'United States to have a professional football franchise, and tnany other
benefits.
The Court recognizes the right and the duty of The City to enact
legislation and maintain fee schedules for use of the Orange Bowl. The Court
must ascertain the constitutionality of these ordinances. Ordinance 8579,
amending Section 39-20 of the Code of The City of Miami was passed as an
emergency. Accepting that all reasonable doubts are resolved in favor of
the constitutionality of an ordinance and the case of Lifscllitz vs. City of
Miami Beach, 3:;9 So. 2c1 232; the Court finds that there is no reasonable
basis in law or in fact for the passage of Ordinance 8579 as an emergency
legislation. The Court finds specifically, that based upon the City's own
witnesses, and arguments, that the passage of Ordinance 8579 was to pro-
mote the into a better, if not superior, bargaining position with the
Dolphins for the negotiations of a long term contract.
The Court finds that The Dolphins have standing to challenge the
validity of tho ordinances in question as they are directly affected by the
provisions : +lntained therein,
Tilt! Court finds as a matter of law that Section 39-20 of the Code
of The City of Miami and Ordinance $152 amending same are unconstitutional
in their application of an achntsfqons ta':, ':f1tc City has requested the Court
-
tt!%°Court !t"it,:rpre ta:» in the ICgi$Iati
td be litL:;F,'r fee",
I IiL,OW' t fli(E; t*earl tff::` COI(' iir1:1 ot'Clinlnce and tL (t tlt tt t:t :F'f li 80.
I4t)t'tlt ttC► not. fail within t 1 1, criteria set forth in City of t)uiic.c,iri V7: Ciiti-
tt`ae!.ors ilnd 1 utldet's AF oci:ttio!1, 312 Sr. 2d 763 (197`)) and thus tannest
e hi`rrpretcd as a user fee,
'the Court finds: that the City may negotiate for the best contract
obtainable with the Dolphins; and the charges for use of the Stadium by
any (tither entities is not a basis for the Dolphins' assertions that they are
being denied equal protection.
The City may enact legislation in conformity with the Florida
Constitution and the Charter of the City of Miarni fixing rates, etc. for
the use of the Orange Bowl.
The Court dots not infer from this opinion that the parties must
negotiate a cori.tra.ct or that the City must enact near legislation.
The Court will, upon proper motion, determine the discharge of the
sureties and the assessment of monies due the City and costs to be later taxed.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the aforementioned reasons,
the Court Orders and Adjudges as follows:
City of Miami Ordinance 8152 is unconstitutional.
Ci'_y of Miami Ordnance 8579 is unconstitutional.
Section 39-20 of the City of Miami. Code is unconstitutional..
Thr, Court reserves jurisdiction for further orders consistent
here with.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Dade County, Florida
this 28th clay of January, 1977.
_i
C'iU CLJ)L' JLJDOtr ._ ._
•
CITY OP MIAM I PLORi 3A
tNfii=ft,ebti idt M Mbt AN
um4t'1 f_ •L 1;1 I I i •
" : The Honorable Members
df he City Commission
pctoph*--
eorge V : Knox, Jr.
City At rney
BATE
SIIfJECT:
February 1, 1977
Miami Dolphins v. City or Miami
Circuit Court #76-2884
P FEitENCE9.
ENCLOSURLS;
I have attached a copy of the Final Judgment that
was rendered by the Honorable Rhea F. Grossman in
our Dolphins litigation.
You will please note that the Court has reserved
jurisdiction in the matter for the purpose of
entertaining the appropriate motion to make some
disposition of the Surety Bonds that have been
posted in the Registry of the Court, and to approve
the assessment of a fee for the Dolphins' use of
the Orange Bowl in 1976-77.
I will ask that the Agenda Clerk include this matter
for your discussion at the February loth Commission
meeting.
GFK/sdp
Enc.
cc: Joseph R. Grassie
City Manager
Aroza,r204, ,7 7—/3 f