LTC 64-2002CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Office of the City Manager
Letter to Commission No.
To:
From:
Subject:
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez t ~
City Manager
ALTOS DEL MAR UPDATE
Date: March 11,2002
The State of Flodda Department of Environmental Resources Management has set a new timeline
for the sale of the eleven non-contiguous lots in Altos Del Mar. Information on how to submit offers
is available on the web at www.myflorida.com. Offers are now due on April 3, 2002. The State
intends to negotiate with the highest bidders. Closings on all lots are planned to take place before
June 30, 2002.
The State has previously agreed to give Miami Beach fee simple title to the remaining eleven lots
between 76 Street and 77 Street, provided that the Trust Fund recovers the initial investment of $6.8
million dollars for all 22 lots. July 2002 is the earliest date that the Governor and Cabinet could
approve a transfer of title.
The Mayor and Commission asked the Administration to explore altematives to waiting for fee
simple title to the proposed park land because the process of selling the non-contiguous lots has
been delayed numerous times. In response, the attached legal opinion from the City Attomey
addresses the restrictions placed upon the expenditure of public dollars on improvements to land
that is leased rather than owned by the City.
There is an existing allocation of $2.9 million of G.O. Bond funds for improvements to the proposed
Altos Del Mar Park. No other sources of funds are currently budgeted for this park. The G.O. Bond
funds available at this time are tied to the Gulf Breeze Loan Agreement, which specifically requires
projects to be owned and operated by the City. To overcome this ownership restriction, the City
could undertake a process to amend the Gulf Breeze Loan Agreement, or wait until the next time
GO Bonds are issued. In either case, the City would first need to secure an extension of the lease
with the State of Flodda, which currently expires in 2017. According to the legal opinion, the length
of the lease is more a matter of sound fiscal policy than one of law, and should be at least as long
as the payback period of the bonds.
The question of whether the City should pursue a long-term lease arrangement is pdmadly one of
timing. If the State completes the bid process in April, with closings in June as planned, then the
City could have fee simple title to the land as eady as July. Under that scenario, the time and effort
required to extend the lease plus amend the GO Bond restrictions would yield little or no benefit.
If, however, the State delays the lot sale again or receives less than $6.8 million from the sale, then
tjhM~r~ lease could be worthwhile.
c: Timothy Hemstreet, Special Assistant
Chdstina Cuervo, Assistant City Manager
Jorge Gomez, Planning Director
\\C_H\SYS\PLAN~$ALL\Meyers\CIP projectsV~ltos LTC Feb02.doc