City lawsuit over Youth Center records now likely

By Coral Gables Gazette staff

Last minute correspondence between special counsel hired by the City of Coral Gables and lawyers for the War Memorial Youth Center Association did little to stop what looks like a lawsuit to be filed against the association in order for the city to get its hands on records it says should be public.

The association and its lawyer, Jane Muir, disagree and sent a letter just before the end of the year, on December 29, reasserting the fact that it is a private nonprofit entity, not a public agency , and is not subject to Florida’s Public Record’s Law. Despite the association acting in “good faith” and providing certain filings to which the city (and others) are entitled, Muir says the association is under no legal obligation to produce internal records, financial documents, correspondence, or governance materials in response to a public records demand.

After a meeting between the lawyers for the city and association was held in mid-December, the city and its special counsel, Israel Reyes, officially advised the association on December 23 that it had a been authorized by the Gables City Commission to file a lawsuit to compel production of the requested public records. It gave the association until the close of business on Friday, January 2 to provide the requested documents.

The Coral Gables City Commission voted last month to give the Coral Gables War Memorial Youth Center Association up to two weeks to meet with city staff and provide documents long requested by the city, or face litigation to obtain them. The 3-2 decision came after the city attorney reported repeated postponements in scheduling a meeting with the association’s counsel.

Muir challenged the city to “identify any ordinance, resolution, contract, interlocal agreement, or other legal instrument by which the city delegated governmental authority, public decision-making responsibility, or operational contr0l to the association” to argue that it should be required to laws that govern cities like the Gables.

“If the City contends that the Association is subject to Chapter 119 notwithstanding the foregoing, please identify with specificity the factual and legal basis for that position, including any document or authority upon which the City relies to establish a delegation of municipal authority or public agency status. Upon receipt of such materials, the Association will review them carefully and respond as appropriate.

In his December 23 letter, Reyes asserts that the city’s “position remains unchanged as well,” which asserts “the city’s belief that the association is obligated to produce the public records in its possession that are responsive to the requests set forth in the City’s letter, dated October 24, 2025.”

Those requests, included: comprehensive records and information to assess the association’s financial health, governance, legal status, and operations. Specifically, the city seeks detailed financial documents from the past five years; records related to the association’s organizational structure, governance, and decision-making; documentation supporting its tax-exempt and nonprofit status; and records concerning scholarships, its Booster Club, and the Association’s use of city facilities and resources. The purpose of these requests, the city argues, is to ensure transparency, accountability, and compliance with applicable laws and agreements.

Although the city attorney and commissioners in favor of the lawsuit argue that the city is simply protecting one of its most valuable assets, opponents of the move believe the entire issue is motivated by little more than political retribution, at best, and plans to do something different with the property, at worse.

In the association’s September 11 response to the original city requests, Muir pointed to “outside entities (that) may have an interest in the Youth Center property for purposes unrelated to its original dedication.” Specifically, the letter mentioned Somerset Academy, a private charter school located across the street from the Youth Center, which is currently seeking to increase its enrollment, but whose 2007 zoning permission restricted it from using the Youth Center property. The association emphasized the existence of a reverter clause that ensured the youth center would be preserved exclusively for the benefit of the youth of Coral Gables, and not for any private school students.

A “living memorial” and a reverter clause

The Coral Gables War Memorial Youth Center Association dates back to the post–World War II era, when civic leaders sought to establish a “living memorial” honoring veterans by creating a permanent youth center for the community. After relocating from its original site, the association transferred the land for the current Youth Center on University Drive to the City of Coral Gables in the mid-1950s.

That transfer came with a critical condition: a reverter clause embedded in the deed. The clause provides that if the city ever ceases to use the property as a youth center, ownership of the land reverts to the association.

According to the city’s own historical records, the clause was intended “to assure future maintenance of the property primarily as a youth center.” For nearly 70 years, the city has acknowledged that obligation and funded the facility’s continued operation.

The clause has now resurfaced in city politics. Mayor Vince Lago has described it as a “cloud on title” and has called for its removal, citing concerns about oversight, governance, and the association’s periods of inactivity, including lapses in nonprofit status and limited access to financial records. Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson and Commissioner Richard Lara agree.

Supporters of the association counter that the reverter clause is precisely what has protected the Youth Center from being repurposed, with Commissioners Melissa Castro and Ariel Fernandez arguing that the latest attempt to remove it is political retribution aimed at former Commissioner Kirk Menendez, the association’s current president, and could be costly to the city.  

How much is the city spending on legal expenses stemming from pending lawsuit?

With at least two commissioners expressing concern over the amount of money the city will spend on the pending lawsuit against the Youth Center association, the Political Cortadito blog recently submitted a record request for invoices and payments to lawyers the city hired to pursue the case. The city responded with by advising that it would cost $492.27 – the equivalent of eight hours of work produce that information.

Muir previous warned the should the city that pursue litigation to compel the association to produce documents it says are private, the association would “seek all remedies available under law, including recovery of attorney’s fees and costs.”