Recreation, Tourism, and Resiliency Committee - Nov 10, 2026

opportunity to be here today and to serve the residents of Miami-Dade County. Give us the wisdom that we need in order to do what is best for our county and for the future of our county. Thank you for all the opportunities that you've given us. Bless everyone that's here, their family, especially now as we go into the holiday season. In your name we pray. Amen. Amen. Mr. Steinberg, can you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the Republic for one nation under God. Madam Clerk, can you please? Good morning. The clerk's office received notice that Commissioner McGee will be absent from today's meeting. Commissioner Bastion, Commissioner Regalado, Vice Chairwoman Steinberg, Chairman Garcia. Present. Four members present. We have a quorum. Perfect. Madam Attorney, if you can please walk us through the agenda right now so we can set the agenda. I think we may have a late item. That was added on a grants submission. Do we have that? Yes, Chairman. It would be appropriate to have reasonable opportunity to be heard. Okay. On the grants? On all the items. All right. So the grant, since it's not on the agenda right now, we just added to the agenda when we set the agenda right now? Okay. All right. So we're ready to, is there a motion to set the agenda? So moved. Second. I'm sorry. My apologies. I, if I can read the, the changes. Absolutely. That's what I thought. The items to be considered today are those in the printed final agenda with the following changes. For item 3A, there is a request for deferral by the sponsor to no date certain. There are two additions to the agenda, item 3F and 3G. Additionally, item 3H has been distributed and with your approval will be added with the setting of the agenda. There are also several, several Scrivener's errors. For item 3C, on page MDC2 in the fiscal impact section of the mayor's memo, on the following words were inadvertently omitted after $470,476 from the DERM EEL program. Also, the references to section 2-8.1 of the code on MDC5 and MDC6 should be changed to section 3-1 to A. For item 3D, on MDC9, the resolution should read $1.5 million instead of the number reflected in the title and body of the resolution, consistent with the amount reflected in the delegated authority section of the accompanying memorandum. For item 3G, on MDC18, the reference to January 1st, 2026 should be a reference to January 1st, 2027. Lastly, the administration requests items 3B, 3C, 3G, and 3H be waived to the November 17th BCC meeting. With these changes, a motion to set the agenda is in order. So moved. There's a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Okay. All opposed, like sign. See, we have the agenda set. I'm assuming we're pulling 3F. Okay. So we'll have anyone, any other items we need to pull? You want to do 3D and 3F. Okay. Seeing items 3D and F have been pulled. Mr. Chairman, we need to still do reasonable opportunity on all of the items. On all of the items. Okay. Do you want me, but we have 3D and F. Can we open up reasonable opportunity when we get, I would like to open up reasonable opportunity with the, obviously, I think all the folks that are here are for this aquarium. So we can get through these other items. Can we do that first? That's fine, Mr. Chair. Okay. Appreciate that. All right. So let's go ahead. And there's a motion to move the agenda of the balance, except the 3D and 3F, correct? All in favor say aye. I'll oppose, like sign. All right. So we move those, except with 3D and F. Commissioner Steinberg, you have pulled item 3D. You want to speak on 3D? On 3D? Okay. That's going to do it. Is anyone here want to speak on item 3D? They're going to open up reasonable opportunity for the public to speak on item 3D. Seeing none, we'll go ahead. On 3D? Perfect, sir. Yes. Please say your name. Say your name for the record, please. Good morning, everybody. Good morning, sir. Broadway, Harewood, 6214 Broadway Avenue. And I'd like to add Broadway 305 Hip Hop Museum to the Tourist Board. Can somebody please assist me on how do I go about doing that? Thank you very much, and keep doing the good work. Thank you so much. We'll get in touch with you shortly. Thank you. We're on item 3D. Now seeing reasonable opportunity close for item 3D. We are now on the item. Commissioner Steinberg? Thank you. Yes, I just wanted to get clarification on this item because we're now looking at a total pool for a larger amount, and I wanted to just get some, for the record, the staff to give us the explanation for the landscaping services. I know that I had passed an item not too long ago to pilot moving away from gas blowers and trying to use other forms of those types of materials, and so I want to make sure whatever we do with those pools, which will be competitively bid, that they would, in fact, honor any of those types of directives that we put forward. Do we have someone from Parks here? Mr. Chairman, the contract is for beyond just Parks, so I'd be happy to just respond to the Commissioner's question. Right. It is beyond. It's all. I understand. Guys, give me a minute. I understand that, and I appreciate that, but I ask for the Parks Department to come up. Let me see what our director has. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Christina White, Parks Director. Yes, we are aware of that, Commissioner Steinberg. We did the pilot. We completed it, and we have a report. It's going to be well over a million dollars. I'll sit down with you and go over it, but in the end, if we decide to do that, it'll be competitively bid, which is what I think your question was. Does that suffice? It does suffice, and I guess I'll speak to you offline on that, because we haven't seen the report yet, so I appreciate that. Okay. Thank you. Our pleasure. Thank you, Madam Director. With that, there's a motion on the table. Is there a second? Motion and a second to adopt 3D. All in favor, say aye. I'll oppose like sign. All right, this is show 3D adopted. Okay, we are now on item 3F. We have a boatload of speakers on this item. What I normally do is I normally go through the presentations first, and then I let folks speak. I don't know if you guys want to speak first or want to hear the presentation, and then we could open it up, because I think when we have the presentation, a lot of questions will be answered based on the presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I would appreciate that, because we've gotten a lot of emails and a lot of questions, and many of them, we've answered them in several meetings, but I think, you know, maybe folks aren't aware of some of the responses. So I think it would be beneficial for the public to hear the presentation. That way, when they get their time, they can speak on the issues that are actually in play, as opposed to things that are not. And thank you, Commissioner, and that's how we usually do in our committees, make sure that the presentations are done first. I don't understand why we have public speak first before the presentation, and then you guys, everyone will have the opportunity to speak after the presentation, and then we can go from there. So let's go ahead and do this. So I do have the public comments here, so we're going to go straight into the item. Madam Attorney, where are we? We are on item 3F. Do we have to present the item? You can have the public speak now, or you can speak and then have the public speak. There just needs to be a reasonable opportunity for the public to speak on the item before a vote is made. So we have folks on the other side that are going to talk to this item. I think it's important for the public to understand what makes this item a little bit different than what's just for the voters. I think that if you can help us with the history of this, that would be important. And when I mean the history, from my understanding, from what I see, that this was a lease agreement that was in place. The courts, ultimately, there was a bankruptcy that was involved. The lease was up. My understanding is that that was then, they looked for other folks to take over this lease. When is this lease up? With all extension periods, it would end in 2054. There's the term until 2044, and then an available extension period to 2054. 2054. So this is for the balance of that lease agreement that they have? This would be beyond this. The item before you goes beyond the balance of the lease agreement. It would extend it for a full 99-year term, taking into account the extension period. So give or take 70 years in addition to what's left on the balance of the lease. Okay. So, Mr. Coley, can you walk us through where we were, where we are, and what we have before us? Senator Garcia, thank you, sir. Yeah, to let you know kind of how we got to today, I want to start back in early 2024, when the mayor's office was receiving many complaints about the facility, both in how they were caring for animals, the marine mammals. We were not granted full access, so we couldn't do independent analysis if the animals were okay or not. They continued to represent. They were. While we continued to get pictures and representations from patrons, they were not. RER also had unsafe structures violations. There were eight unsafe structures and 28 enforcement cases going on. So then in June of 24, the mayor authorized an eviction action of the existing operator, which is MS Leisure. So the county filed that eviction action, and then the former operator, MS Leisure, filed for bankruptcy in March of 25. Then when they filed that bankruptcy, the federal court took jurisdiction of the eviction and set it aside to where we couldn't go in local court to continue our eviction wish. They took that jurisdiction and been sitting on it. So then the bankruptcy court publicly offered the lease for sale, the lease that MS Leisure held with the county. They marketed it both nationally and locally for sale. Ultimately, they awarded a TARA affiliate, and they considered the price that they offered for the lease as well as the likelihood of success of the project as the reasons they told us they selected TARA. Who awarded it? The bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court awarded the remainder of the lease? To TARA. TARA Group. Okay. Yes, they did. So then in December of 25, the Board of County Commission adopted a resolution authorizing the lease assignment and directing us and the administration to negotiate an amended lease based on the term sheet that was in the reso that this board provided. The resolution also directed the administration to submit the related land use, zoning, and permitting applications, which we've done. Now, what we've negotiated is what we call the business side of the house and not the regulatory side. So what you have before you is a negotiation for a lease, not a negotiation for permits. So if you approve the lease that we negotiated at your direction, then the applicant still has to go through all permitting agencies. We've made clear to the applicant that there is a solid wall between the two functions of the county and that my role is negotiating the business. If we make that deal, then they go through all environmental and other regulatory rules just like anybody else would. They have no one-ups there. Now, I guess the difficulty of this whole process is this. The former operator, MS Leisure, their former CEO was ousted by their board, and he continues to petition the court and asking the court to allow him to take control of this. Now, the creditors are paying for defending that. The creditors that are trying to get money out of this sale are continuously expending monies to defend the former CEO's claim he should get the property back. Now, what the creditors' representatives have said to us in negotiations is they're spending so much money, at some point we have to make a deal or they're going to walk away because they're spending more money in legal fees than they're going to get out of this lease. And if that happens, we can presume that if the creditors walk away and the bankruptcy court doesn't close this, then this individual is going to be back petitioning the county and we'll be dealing with that individual who's trying to claim rights on this lease for and continue this conflict. So, while I won't represent to you that this deal is a perfect deal for the county, if we don't get a federal bankruptcy final order, then we're going to have further challenges going down the road with these folks claiming that they have rights to the property. Is there any questions currently of Mr. Coley right now? Well, I just want to be able to present some stuff when we get to it, but I'm happy to hear my colleagues' questions. But I would like to speak on a few points and get some things on the record before we go to the public hearing. Okay. So, Mr. Chair, we're not going to have a – that was the presentation? No, no, no. We're going to have a presentation from the TARA group next. Okay. Let's hear the presentation. I'll reserve my questions later. All right. So, Mr. Coley, I just want to be very clear then again. The selection of TARA had nothing to do with us. That's correct, Senator. That was a selection by the bank rep's court and their representatives. And as the presentation goes forward, and, folks, I have been involved with some of the conversations. I have not been involved with the negotiation of the lease, but I do have some – obviously, I'm chairman of the committee, and I have some information prior to this committee. But, again, one of the things that was very clear, and I want everyone to understand that this is very different than the vote that just happened in the city of Miami when it went to a referendum. This is based on a lawsuit that was filed, a bankruptcy that was filed in court as well, and the turning over of a lease. The county commission then voted unanimously, making – Commissioner Steinberg, you weren't there. There was a handful of folks that were not there in that meeting that gave the administration this – what we call the term sheets. The term sheets is the parameters to negotiate a contract with. I think within that term sheet, there was issues having to do with leasing and public access and a bunch of other categories or criteria that the county commission set forth. And you all negotiated that contract or this lease based on those terms, correct? That's correct, sir. Okay. Mr. Chair, I have a question for you. So I'm listening to you and giving all the details, the process of what has been going on. And then I remember when this item came, I think it's 2024 it was. So with such a complex item, why are we getting this today at the 10th hour? Why? Why? That doesn't make any sense to me. Even hearing you. Give me one second. Commissioner, give me one second. Before we do that, we – you're applauding. Let's not applaud. Just raise your – we have this thing. I don't understand that, but we raise our hands up here to wave, but let's keep it at the quorum of the audience and of the commission. So let's just try to listen to the debate. Yes, Commissioner. Yes, yes. Yes. I'm listening to you, Mr. Collier, and I'm amazed. I say, wow. Why? But why? I'm having to go through, seeping through this now. Why? Commissioner, I think this is – I'll tell you this. I do feel – I wish we would have gone this a little bit earlier, but it happens a lot here in the county that we get these items late. But I think that what we have today right now, as what we have before us, is this lease that we open it up, have a conversation over it, and whether we approve it or not, then we can move forward. And if not, we move forward. We have from now to the time that goes to the county commission to the full commission to address all the other issues that may be in there. I'd like to hear Mr. Coley on that. I'd like to have an answer. Commissioner, question. So many waivers. With so many waivers, why now? Happy to answer your question, Commissioner. The negotiations have been going on for almost a year. It was authorized or directed by you last December. And we had some public meetings recently. And in those public meetings, there was a lot of requests made of the developer to add some different terms to the lease. And actually, the lease was continually being amended even yesterday, getting the final amendments in hopes to gain support from some of the environmental activists. The developer has represented to us that the bankruptcy court has told them they have to the end of this year to finalize the deal and close their loan or that the deal is not going to be possible. So that's what the developer has represented to us. I have not spoken to the bankruptcy court about the end of the year final date myself. But that's what they're telling us. And that's why it's before you. Commissioner Gallardo, go ahead. Yeah. I just wanted to respond a little bit to that. Commissioner Mrestian, and when I go through my points, I'm going to explain how we've made the changes to the lease. There's been a lot of changes, but they have been changes based on our meeting with the community and with environmentalists. So I'm going to go through after the presentation, or I could do it before if you would prefer that, as to what we have been negotiating over the last few months. And as Roy mentioned, the term sheet was approved by this board over a year ago. These are deviations from that term sheet to the benefit of the community based on our meeting. So I wish we could have gotten it to you sooner, but we were also waiting from them to hear if they were okay with the changes. And that's been a process. I can tell you personally, I've rearranged my schedule a million times over the last two months, as has Roy, to be able to meet with people and to have these conversations. I've had two public meetings, and we've taken all the feedback from those public meetings in good faith. And what we didn't want to do is continue negotiating and take this to the full BCC. I believe that this is something that should occur in committee, and that way everyone has plenty of time to review it. I wish we could have gotten it sooner. But even last night, as Roy was saying, last night we were working on it this morning, you know, we've really been trying with our attorneys to get to a place where everyone is comfortable with it. It has a lot of moving parts. I'm going to go through it and kind of the changes. And I think that's what the committee process is for in terms of getting to the final BCC, a product that is as robust as possible. And I don't think it would be in the best interest of the community meetings if we didn't respond to them. You know, one of the things we've done is, like, we've been responsive to all the community meetings, right? So that's kind of a – it's a catch-22 in the sense that you have community meetings, you get feedback from people, they want different things, you stop everything you're doing, you negotiate that, you bring in all the parties, but there's lots of people involved. And until late yesterday, we were still waiting to hear from folks if they were okay with these changes. All right, let's do this. Commissioner, so this is your item. Yep. So why don't you go ahead and present – Happy to do it. – present your item, and then we'll go from there. And I think some of the things that I'm going to bring up on the record are going to help everyone kind of understand how we got to this point. So thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank – start by thanking the mayor's office and the county attorney's office and the TARA team for working with my office over the last several months on this. And also the environmental organizations that we've been working with and the residents who have come out today and who have been emailing us and calling us and have attended many of our meetings. Today we're here to approve a lease. There is a CDMP next week that we've talked a little about, but the lease is something that we've been working on for over a year. I want to thank Roy for kind of establishing the timeline so that everyone is aware of what occurred during the bankruptcy proceeding. As many of you know, the Board of County Commissioners nominated me as the representative for the county at the bankruptcy. So I did participate in the bankruptcy proceedings along with staff, and we presented to the bankruptcy court our concerns about this property. I want to say on the record that a lot of people wanted to do different things on this property. One of the proposals was a marina that was almost three times what we're looking at today. Other people wanted to do a stadium. Like people had – some people wanted to do a water park, which obviously there's a litigation with Key Biscayne that would prevent that. Some people wanted to do residential, which is not allowed by our comprehensive development plan. So there was a lot of different ideas and different offers, to Roy's point, proposed to the bankruptcy court. And we want to thank the bankruptcy court for giving us the opportunity to voice our concerns and also to explain our process. And when we explained our process, you know, one of the things that was important was the deadlines and meeting these deadlines. So we have been working on this for a very long time, and the reason that I included the term sheet in the initial item was so that there would be no surprises. So I'm going to go through the different changes from the term sheet just so that we're all kind of on the same page as to what we have been discussing and what this board has approved. I also want to note that this site has not been profitable for the county for decades. As many of you know, this was owned by Wemetco. There was little to no investment made in the infrastructure. And the little profitability that it had at the beginning of its tenure was on the backs of marine mammals. And that's why when this group came before the county commission and I brought the original item, I amended this lease to include the county's ability to care for the welfare of the animals. As many of you know, I'm born and raised in Miami-Dade County. I have a tremendous amount of nostalgia associated with this site. However, from the beginning, the mayor and I have been on the same page in that marine mammals are not a part of this, and we do not want them to be a part of this. So our first big hurdle was getting the bankruptcy court to understand that that was not what our community wants, and that's not what this government wants, and to find a safe home for those marine mammals. The second part was finding something that was financially viable, because the problem that this site had is for decades and decades and decades, not only was the county not receiving any money from it that it could do anything substantial with, but also there was no investment in the infrastructure, and that is what led in part to the decay of the site and the issue with the care of the animals. So we also spent a lot of time working on a financing plan where this countywide asset could be for the benefit of Miami-Dade County, not just for the benefit of the operator. So we'll talk when they do the presentation about the funding that this is going to provide for the Parks Department at a time where we really need that. We were also dealing with the issues that we have on the Rickenbacker and traffic and what we've learned from those studies to ensure that we're not creating more problems. Obviously, we also dealt with the environmental aspects of it, and a lot of the questions that I'm going to be putting on the record really have to do with that part of it. So we know that this is a very sensitive habitat. One of the things that from the beginning we were very clear to the bankruptcy court and to all the proposers is that this is a stewardship property. There are certain things that we wanted to see here that are not financially good for any of the proposers, but it's important for our community and for this property and obviously for the Bay. So one of the first things Roy mentioned it, but I wanted to highlight it is, you know, the County Commission approved this term sheet in December of last year. So a lot of the questions that we have been getting about the terms, these are terms that were in that agreement that was approved unanimously by the board. So for the folks that are saying that they just learned about these terms, that is not the case. That item went through the entire process. We had public comment, and I actually was very, very determined to include that term sheet just so that we wouldn't have this conversation after the fact because I knew we were dealing with the bankruptcy court. If I can, if I just want to add one more time, it was unanimous with the members present. Yes, with the number of members present. Yes. So Roy spoke to the deadline for the proposed lease for the bankruptcy court, and, you know, again, this needs to be done by the end of the year. So as a follow-up, Roy, I don't know if you want to answer it or if Melanie wants to answer it. So just so that everybody's clear, what happens if the deadline passes without the County Commission approving this lease? So there's some uncertainty as to what exactly will happen. The bankruptcy estate we have been told by the debtors in possession is out of money. They don't have money to pay for any of the facilities or for ongoing expenses. There are only a couple of outstanding items left in the bankruptcy from what we've been told by the debtors in possession, this lease being one of them before the bankruptcy is concluded. So they are very anxious to have this done because if they're unable to, you know, continue with the bankruptcy, then they could perhaps walk away, right, and disclaim the property altogether, disclaim this deal that has been negotiated. So there would be uncertainty at that point whether, you know, the deal would fall apart, and then it would go back to the estate of MS Leisure, and then perhaps the previous owner would be involved. So there is some uncertainty on to, you know, what next steps would be, but the debtors in possession have been clear that they are reaching the end of the bankruptcy process, and they do not have money left. That is what has been conveyed to us, and that there is certainly time pressure. They have been pressuring us all along over the past year to conclude this process so the deal can be done, and they can move on and collect the money for the bankruptcy estate. Great. Thank you. And just so that we're all clear, we've all been in communications with the bankruptcy court, so when was the last time they reached out to us and made this point? Because some folks have asked for more time, and obviously, you know, we don't have more time, but just for clarity's sake, I know that they've reached out to the county attorneys, and I know they've reached out to the administration. Just this is the current state of their situation, correct? From last I heard from them, I have not been directly in touch with the lawyers for the bankruptcy estate for a bit, but the last messages that we got were very strong with please conclude this process and asking us what agenda this item was going on. So there has been, you know, pressure from the debtors in possession for desire for this deal to move forward. Right. And obviously, this is – it needs to get out of this committee to go to the November meeting. We do not have a December meeting, so that's another concern that has come up in terms of the timing. All right. Let's get into the size of the marina and the environmental provisions, which is a lot of what you're seeing in the amendments, Commissioner Bastien. When the leasee files plans for the marina, how many wet slips did they propose? My understanding is that the original proposal was 325. Is that correct, Roy? Yeah, that was a maximum number originally proposed. Okay. How many wet slips are listed as the maximum allowed under the lease currently? My understanding is 295. As a maximum, yes. Okay. So just to be clear, there has been a reduction in the slips in part because of our conversations with the different organizations. There's also been some changes in the location that you'll hear about when we have the presentation from the developer. Are they guaranteed the number of slips listed in the lease, or is that number subject to the permitting process with Durham or state and federal agencies? I mention this because you noted that there's a separation, right? We are the leasee, but there also is a permitting process separate and apart. So if you can explain how that number could possibly change once this lease is approved and it goes to permitting, Roy? For clarity, Commissioner, the number of slips is not in the lease. It would be in the CDMP amendment, and it would also be in any permitting process. The lease doesn't set the number because the number will be set during the regulatory process. And in the CDMP, they're proffering a 295 maximum. And again, that's subject to further permitting. Okay. So the 295 is a ceiling. It's not an entitlement. And then it'll be approved at the permitting level. Correct. Okay. Under the amendments before us, one of the things that we've been discussing for some time is changing the location of the piers. So there was a request to eliminate one of the piers. That was done. Now there's the possibility of some submerged land. And if you could explain to folks exactly what is the obligation for the county to work on that, the submerged land lease and how that works. That's obviously a state issue. So we own part of the submerged lands. I don't know if you want our attorneys to deal with it, the ownership piece. Yes. But also when they do the presentation, I think they have an excellent graphic that helps you to understand that. Okay. But just to be clear on the reason that we spent so much time on this amendment, we can't force a state to do anything. But obviously, this was one of the things that was proffered by the environmental organizations, that they wanted them to do a submerged land swap or some sort of agreement with the state of Florida in order to move one of the piers. Yeah. That's not something that we came up with. That was something that was proffered. And we've been dealing with that, Commissioner Bestian, for several weeks now, trying to figure out with our state partners how we do it and how we can correctly place that in the lease so that it makes sense. Once the acquisition closes, does the Marina plan automatically become the 206-slip plan without coming back to the board? It comes back to the board. Everything comes back. Everything comes back. No, I'm just... No, you get your CDMP. Again, yeah. Everything comes back to the board. Mellie, you want to add something? I didn't know if you were asking pursuant to the lease or to CDMP. Pursuant to the lease, the number of slips would not necessarily come back to the board because it's not in the lease. But the CDMP does. So I think there is some confusion about that. And folks want us to put stuff in the lease that's actually going to be in the CDMP. And for the board to understand that this does all come back to the board. It's just because we're approving the lease. And that's the reason that the slip number is not in the lease because it's a CDMP issue. And then it comes back after the permitting process. Under the revised definition of material change, can the leasee reduce the size of the marina at any time without further board approval? The amendment changes the definition of material change so there can be a reduction but not an increase without board approval. Right. And I just wanted the folks that are here to understand that because that's something that we've been going back and forth about in terms of what will happen during the permitting process and what we've heard from different groups. So they cannot increase the number of slips. But they can reduce it. They could always go lower. Right. They can always go lower. I mean, because I think one of the concerns was they can come in and put as many slips as they want now. Not the case. That's okay. So that will be dealt with. That's one of the amendments. Right. That's one of the amendments. All right. So we'll get to those amendments in a bit. And members. And that was my point. Thank you, Mr. Chair. But it's just being responsive. Commissioners, what I would like to do when she finishes the presentation, let's go through the amendments, try to get the ordinance or the lease in proper posture, and then we could open it up to public testimony because I just want to make sure we get that housekeeping out of the way, and then we'll go from there. But go ahead, Commissioner Regalado. Great. Thank you. And I'm happy to walk through the amendments. You know, I think that this has been a very thoughtful negotiation. We really have tried to capture everyone's interests. But at the same time, ensuring that the county does not make the same mistakes that it made in the past with this lease. So obviously, there are no marine mammals. You know, we're not worried about that. But we also want to make sure that the county is protected. And I've worked very hard, as the administration has, with the developer to make sure that there's different points where we can check in. And there's also things that are provided to the county in terms of, you know, Marine Patrol, the sheriff, all those things that have, like, baked into this. So you'll see that now as we go into the amendments. So I'm happy to go through the amendments with the attorney, and then we can take the public comment, and I'm happy to answer any of your questions on how we got to this point. All right. So let's do this. Commissioners, members, board members, are you guys, are you willing to go through the amendments right now? Or do you have any questions first, and then we go through the amendments? Commissioner Recian? You can go. But I'd like to listen to the public. Absolutely. Absolutely. I just want to get this in the proper posture so they know exactly what they're voting on, what they're talking about. Because I think a lot of times when we have the public speak first, and then we take action, they don't know what we're doing. I think we should be the other way around. That's just the way that I've been brought up in this. But anyway, it is what it is. All right, Commissioner Aguilotto, let's go through your amendments. And if you could be pleased to detail each amendment as to what it does, because some of them are some changes to the lease itself. And if you could explain that so the public could be very aware of what we're doing here. Sure. Commissioner Aguilotto moves to one, amend item 3F to clarify the meaning of material change in the second amendment. And we stated lease amendment to allow for the decrease of size of the marina without further board approval. So we just covered that. That's one of the ones that we've been talking about. So, two, clarify the size of the improvements on the upland portion of this aquarium. Give me one second, Commissioner. Can we go, Madam Attorney, can we go through the amendments right now, what you have there? Can you just say what the amendment is? Yeah, then we'll go through them. I'm confused, yeah. Can we go through the amendments right now, please? Sure. So, amendment 1 that Commissioner Aguilotto has proffered changes the definition of material change, as she stated. It's all on the amendments that were distributed to all of you. So this is the first one. The definition of material change would be changed to allow, as she said, the decrease of the size of the marina without further board approval. Previously, if the size was decreased, it required board approval. So increase of the size would need to come to the board pursuant to the lease. That would constitute a material change, but a decrease would no longer constitute a material change. Okay. Now, is there any questions, Commissioners? Do you want to take all the amendments together? I mean, if she's going to do it this way, then we can hear the amendments. I'm going to take my notes. I'll listen to the public, and then I'll speak. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Aguilotto. So, number two? Melanie? Number two, the second amendment, is to clarify the size of the improvements on the upland portion of this aquarium. So those are the improvements that are built not on the water, not the marina portion, but instead on the upland. So it talks about a minimum square footage to ensure that there are certain components that are not diminished in size or are of a smaller size. So the things that are spoken about, for instance, the aquarium, there is a minimum size that that would be, as opposed to just a maximum size. So the county would be assured or have some certainty related to the minimum size of those improvements. That's the second thing that the amendment does. Give me a second. Is there any questions? Commissioner Aguilotto, do you want to add anything else to this? Yeah, this one covers a lot. So, you know, obviously the Flipper House, the Buckminster Fuller's Aquarium Dome, you know, it actually delineates a lot of the square footage for the different things. So that's on page two, if you want to look at it. We got a lot of questions when we did the presentations about the different things that were being presented. So we decided to be very thoughtful and delineate it so that everyone understood that we're actually doing what we're saying we're doing in these presentations. There's also, I think this part also includes. That's on the second one still. Yeah, that's the second page. It has, like, you know, the Fisherman's Village, you know, what that square footage is going to be. And it really delineates the different event space so that everybody understands, like, how much the square footage is going to be for all the different uses. Okay. So we'll go to amendment number three. The third portion of the amendment provides for a boater safety course. The tenant would make available space within the project from time to time available on a non-exclusive basis and at no cost to the county for third parties to come in to provide boater safety education courses. This is something that we got some calls about, which I think is a good thing. We've all been very supportive of boater safety. It's a good place to have these events. We have a committee, you know, they're committed to it. And, obviously, this would be the first marina to make that level of commitment to this. Okay. Thank you. There's also the substation, right? That's number four. The fourth amendment is to add a public safety substation. So the tenant will be constructing a not less than 1,500 square foot availability of space within the project to have a public safety substation. And the county would be designating what public safety unit would be housed in that substation. They would also be providing an improvement allowance because the county would be taking possession of that property as a shell. And so we would be getting $100 per square foot to complete the construction of the substation facility. I think that's pretty self-explanatory. Yeah, just, you know, Commissioner Steinberg knows that we've had some issues maintaining properties for this kind of stuff. So it was a good opportunity to use it and, obviously, to give us a direct access to the bay. Okay. Commissioners, number five. Number five is to allow availability for the county or other groups to perhaps use the wave pool if constructed for certain lifeguard training and make that space available to the county. There would be some fees associated with the use of that, but it spells out the ability of the county to utilize the wave pool and off hours for lifeguard training. I think that's pretty self-explanatory. Yep. Anything else? Okay. Number six. Number six relates to the acquisition of state submerged lands and also includes the two exhibits with the map. So this outlines the party's obligations as it relates to conferring with the state in an attempt to have the state transfer ownership of the submerged lands that are illustrated in the two attachments that you have to be under the control of the county and, therefore, part of the lease premises. This would then result in a shift of the marina. So there would be a new alternate concept plan of the marina, which is also one of the attachments that shows how the acquisition of the state land would cause the marina to shift. So this is the obligation for the parties, both the tenant and the county, to work together to try and secure the acquisition of that state property. It also tolls the deadlines of development of the property while the parties work in good faith to try and secure the acquisition of the state property. Commissioner Nogalala, you want to explain that? Yeah, this one was a little complex to draft. We spent a lot of time on it, but I think we've done the best that we can. We can't force the state to give it to us, but we've already been in conversations with them. So I think we're going to be able to do it, but we just have to be careful with the language in terms of it is a state process. All right. So we are now, commissioners, any questions on this amendment? All right. So then we'll go to number seven. Number seven is, in addition to the environmental objectives that are part of the lease, the tenant is instructed to implement a program to locate manatees approaching the demise premises, commercially available, reliable AI technologies for inclusion in the program, if commercially feasible, essentially, to add to the environmental objectives for manatee detection within the marina using new technologies that are being developed. Commissioner, anything to add? Yeah, this one, obviously, we've been working with the University of Miami, and when we talk about the overall things that have been included in the lease for some time, there is, you know, coral work. There's a lot of different things. The idea here is to work with this site and to do some of the pilots that DERM cannot do. So it's a good opportunity for us to really be able to jumpstart a lot of the projects that we've all talked about in terms of marine health. Obviously, we just added some more things that came up. We had some questions about the manatees, and that was added to the rest of the environmental initiatives that are part of the lease. Any questions, members? Seeing none. Okay. We are now on number eight. Number eight in the amendment is to make corresponding technical changes to the second amendment of a stated lease. If this amendment is adopted, there are certain definitions that need to change in the lease and the addition of the exhibits, for instance, of the submerged land. So this would just allow the mayor and mayor-designee to make those technical changes. I think it's self-explanatory. Yeah. All right. So with that, we'll take the vote on the amendments afterwards. So let's go ahead and open up. Commissioners, we're going to open up for public testimony. Are we going to have the presentation before the public testimony? You want to do the presentation? Let's do the presentation. There's a presenter. Presenter, you ready? All right. Let's go ahead and do that, and then we'll do the public testimony afterwards. Well, now I'm public testimony, so everyone's able to. How much time do you need? Try 15 minutes, 20 minutes. So David Martin, 3310 Mary Street. I'm here on behalf of Resilient Aquarium LLC. I do have a presentation to show, not sure if that's able to be broadcast or not, but we do have a presentation that we could share some great imagery. Do you have it? I think they have it ready to go. Why do we have it ready? Well, I'll get started, and then hopefully. Why don't you get started, and then they can go through it. Go ahead. Thank you, Chairman Garcia, members of the committee, Deputy Mayor Coley, and members of the administration. Thank you for the opportunity to present. Thank you to everyone joining us and taking time, you know, to be part of this conversation. You know, there are places in a city where the future matters to all of us. This aquarium is one of those places. For generations, families have come here to discover the water and the life within it. Now we have an opportunity to decide what this place should mean for the next generation. As a father and as someone whose work is rooted in this community, I feel the responsibility that comes with that opportunity. I want our children to inherit places that help them understand why Biscayne Bay matters and give them the reason to care for it. I also come to this as someone who has built a company alongside a family. Family values mean caring for living things, keeping our word, and thinking about what we leave behind. Those values should be visible in the places we build and in the way we care for them. Imagine a family walking along the shoreline without having to buy an attraction ticket. A student watching coral restoration and realizing that science can be part of their future. A child seeing marine life up close and beginning to understand the world beneath the water. Those are experiences we want to make possible. We want families to feel welcome here. We want the next generation to understand that this bay is part of their inheritance. That means making room for simple experiences that bring community together. A walk with a grandparent. An afternoon by the water. A school visit that gives a child a new sense of possibility. More than a year ago, we began with this property and litigation in a bankruptcy process that left serious questions about its future and the future of the animals and marine mammals in their care. Working through that process, we helped support safe transfers to appropriate new homes and continued care for all the dolphins, sea lions, and others that were at this property. And we're grateful to the animal care professionals, receiving organizations, the county, and everyone that helped make that transition possible. Those responsibilities carry into the future what we're proposing. Our proposal keeps an aquarium at the heart of this aquarium with no whales, dolphins, or other marine mammals. It preserves the Golden Dome, the Buck Minister of Golden Dome, and Flipper House while opening up a new public waterfront and bringing research into view. For the past year, we have worked closely with the administration, transit, RER, Durham Parks, planning, zoning, the county's attorney's office. You know, and I want to recognize all their hard work. County staff have helped translate community priorities into detailed obligations and operating responsibilities. I know there are serious questions about the bay, traffic, and the scale of what's proposed. Those questions deserve clear answers. And they've helped shape this plan. And today, I will show you specific changes we've made in that response. We've also want education here to lead the opportunity. A young person who discovers marine science should be able to imagine a career in it. Blue jobs, local training, and a financial viable operation to help connect the inspiration to a future here in Miami-Dade. We have accountability, reporting, and a science advisory council that's been created by the University of Miami. We will provide written responses to the council's advice, alongside county oversight and the reporting required by the lease, our environmental program, including continuous water quality monitoring, public online results, and open information that residents can follow. We intend to make the environmental performance visible through monitoring and public reporting so the community can see the project, how the project performs over time. Keeping our word requires attention long after the ribbon is cut. It requires people, resources, and willingness to listen and improve. My hope is that a child who comes here to enjoy the water leaves wanting to protect it. That is the future worth working toward together. Today, we will walk through the proposal and its commitments, and we look forward to answering any of the committee's questions and also bringing in the appropriate members of the team. And at the end, I will return to what the lease means for the public in the county and respectfully request a favorable recommendation. Let me begin with the place itself. This location gives an extraordinary responsibility. This aquarium sits among places where people learn, enjoy nature, and connect with Biscayne Bay. Our plan will strengthen those connections, and we want the waterfront that feels part of that wider community and welcoming families back to Biscayne Bay. For many families, this place holds memories across generations. The Golden Dome remains a recognizable part of Miami, and the site has long introduced children to marine life. We want to carry those memories forward through preservation, education, and new aquarium without marine mammals. That gives our history a continuing role in the future. This is the property we began to work toward moving forward, aging facilities and difficult legal and financial transition, creating uncertainty. As I mentioned, animal care came first. The next responsibility is to restore a viable, well-maintained place with a clear public purpose and the resources to sustain it. These photographs explain why public access matters. Families should be able to enjoy the shoreline, and our proposal creates a continuous public waterfront route and free spaces where people can walk, rest, learn, and launch a kayak. That is a direct everyday benefit residents will be able to experience. Today, much of this valuable edge serves equipment back-of-house functions. The redevelopment gives us an opportunity to recognize the site around public access, landscape, and environmental care while providing the infrastructure of modern operation needs. Water gives this place its identity. Nature gives its life. Preservation and education connect its history to the future, while culture and recreation give people reasons to return. These ideas belong together. A family may come for an afternoon outside and leave having learned something about the bay. This plan locates the aquarium and attractions, research and education, marina services, and parking within the overall site. The public bay walk connects the shoreline, and open space is part of that public framework. These are proposed use areas and planning limits. The detailed design will require continuous site plan approval process, so today just showing what the current property looks like. Here's a vision as one connected place. The aquarium and education centers support learning. The Golden Dome and Flipper House preserve history. The Fisherman's Village and the public waterfront create a place to gather, and the marina connects people to the water. The bay walk ties these experiences together, and this is the proposed concept that the lease and subsequent approvals will help put into practice. Let me turn to the economic responsibilities behind this proposal and return it's intended to create for Miami-Dade. The forecasts in this presentation show the scale of the opportunity. Approximately $4.5 million in county receipts in the first operating year, growing to $7.43 by year 15. The presentation also projects the number of jobs, almost 1,300, including 770 direct on-site jobs. These are projections, and the underlying assumptions matter. What they represent is a chance to create careers connected to water, support local businesses, and establish a viable operation. The development program shown here anticipates approximately over $200 million in investment, with $100 million minimum commitment under the lease terms. The county keeps ownership of the land. We take on the redevelopment, the operations, and the maintenance. At least $10 million of the overall minimum investment goes into public amenities available at no charge. The lease also provides public safety slips, county use of the dome, local workforce training, and environmental standards. Long-term care is supported by a project capital reserve and reporting. The county also receives an oversight fee and share of a qualifying transfer profit, which has never really been done. Financial reporting, audit rights, inspector general oversight, and enforcement remedies give the county the tools to hold us to this agreement. Under the proposed resolution, county lease receipts support capital needs and deferred maintenance across the county park system. That extends the public value well beyond this property. Our responsibility to explain what we intend to deliver and how we will operate and how the community can follow the performance. Our marina proposal stays within historically dredged basin. Again, we are not dredging for this property. We are committing to no dredging throughout the existing seagrass meadows with sediment removal inside the existing basin subject to the required reviews and permits. Coral protection, manatee observers during in-water work, and boating rules are part of that approach. We have reduced the proposed wet slip count to 295, and with the amendment that you all just discussed, that number may go down to around 262 if we are able to get the state to approve what we are proposing and what we are committed to propose. Our operating commitments include pump-out service, responsible waste handling, wildlife protections, and boater education. We will pursue and maintain Florida Clean Marina certification under this lease. These practices need to continue every day the marina operates. On land, our proposal brings together a greener landscape, preserve history, and a new aquarium that will never hold marine mammals. The Golden Dome and Flipper House remain part of this place's future. We're planning a living shoreline with features and native tree canopy expansion alongside the applicable building standards. We also have accountability reporting and a science advisory council. We'll provide written responses to those, public online water quality information, and real-time dashboard, and the lease establishes its own reporting and oversight requirements. A cleaner waterfront depends on routine decisions, how sewage is handled, how fueling is managed, how runoff is treated, how boaters use sensitive areas. Our program addresses each of those responsibilities. It includes debris collection, education, inspections, incident tracking, and an annual public summary. We also intend to use water quality monitoring and scientific review to understand the results and adjust operations when needed. Families should be able to see the connection between the standards we described today and the way this place is cared for over time. We want specific advice to shape the design, guide operations, and help the public understand what is working and what needs attention. This science advisory council set up by the University of Miami brings together its rainfall, coastal engineering, groundwater, aquaculture, coal, seagrass, and fisheries experts and scientists. I want to thank the scientists shown here for informing this work, and will continue to inform this work. Their value is in the questions they ask and the evidence they bring to decisions. Our commitment includes written responses to their advice. We want their monitoring and public reporting to make that process visible over time. The council advises our project, while the county and other agencies continue to make regulatory decisions that belong to them. This is one of the commitments I want every family to understand. We'll be able to come here and enjoy the waterfront without buying an attraction ticket. The plan shows approximately three-quarters of a mile of continuous public ocean walk, connecting places to sit, learn, gather, and launch a kayak or canoe. The lease establishes free access every day from sunrise until two hours after sunset, with an 18-foot minimum clear width and at least $10 million of minimum investment. Maintaining the nearby Metro bus stop helps connect residents to that access, and I want this to become part of everyday life for Miami-Dade families. These experiences give families different reasons to return. We preserve the dome and flipper house so the next chapter remains connected to the history. We have Fisherman's Village creating space for waterfront dining and local businesses. The Conservation and Education Center and public research exhibits can introduce a student to conservation in a career in marine science. And the marina connects recreation with boater education and stewardship alongside free public waterfront. This range of uses is intended to sustain an active place where learning, community life, and economic opportunities support one another. The lease reserves four slips for public safety. Miami-Dade County receives one wet slip for up to 50 feet and one dry stack slip for up to 40 feet. The Village of Key Biscayne receives two wet slips for vessels up to 50 feet. These allocations carry no slip rents with related services governed by the lease. The plan identifies the anticipated locations, and this is a concrete way that the project can support agencies and responsible safety on the water. Let me show you how these commitments come together. These are the places that make the waterfront useful throughout the day. The Aquarium and Education Center create opportunities for discovery. Golden Dome carries our history forward. The Ocean Walk and Green Space welcome families while recreation, dining, and local activities support an operation that care for the property over time. We want someone to come for one experience and leave having discovered several others. This is the conceptual program we're taking through review. It includes the Aquarium Attractors, Event Space, et cetera, Research and Education Marina. The table shows the different square footages. The program currently is 295 wet slips, but with the amendment today, we will be pursuing a pathway for the marina slips to be reduced to 262 with the state, and we're hopeful that the state will sign off on that, and so the distribution and intensity of uses will be established through site plan review. I repeat, we are not getting our site plan review today or with the CDMP. Our site plan review will be happening hopefully post these hearings with all the administration, community support, and community engagement that is required for that detailed design. Martin, you have five more minutes. Thank you, sir. This is the beginning of the Ocean Walk. A family can arrive, walk by the water, learn something about the bay, and launch a kayak. This image captures that feeling that we want. This section talks about public access that's tangible. Here's the Golden Dome that belongs to Miami history as well as some green space, a green lawn, places for people to gather, preserving the structure. Here's the Ocean Walk as it passes through the Fisherman's Village. The public route is a common thread with shade, seating, waterfront views. This section shows the public walk as well. Here inside the aquarium, this is the architecture, brings people close to the marine life and creates spaces to stop, observe, and ask questions. Along the Ocean Walk, here's a bay lens that creates a place to slow down and look more closely. Seating, shading, and views toward the living edge make learning part of the ordinary walk. We're preserving all mangroves. No mangroves will be touched. Here, this is a view of the proposed living edge, which is one of the most exciting things that this project has, which will have a public walkway above and also habitat features below. Here, in this case, we have an oyster habitat that basically is going to be cleansing stormwater before it gets to the bay. People can see the relationship between the marina and the actual environmental work. It also creates a setting for researchers and educators to explain what is being studied. Here, the walkway leads families toward viewing and areas to sit. The water's edge is approachable and understandable. This is the experience I return to when I think about the project, a child noticing marine life and a parent helping them understand. Restoring the bay. The environmental program gives substance to that experience through restoration work, scientific review, and a commitment to measure. One of the most important things is that in the 1940s, this property was filled. This area was dredged in the 1940s, and we strategically located the marina only in places where no dredging would be required. I want to repeat that. We located the marina where no dredging would be required. This was extensively dredged in the 1940s, and today this aquarium is part of that fill. It is filled land, and the property sits on filled land, and the proposed marina occupies the basin dredged decades ago. That history helps us understand it does not remove our responsibility to protect the habitats that exist today, but the design and permitting must account for seagrass, water depths, and other resources. And given limited time, this is kind of one of the big missions that we have for the entire project. I want to just highlight some of the very cool things that we're working on with the Science Council. You know, these are the sponge spatial distribution. One of the big things, our docks are going to have sponges, which are going to really help for water quality, which we'll show a little later, the oyster wetland sizing, the coral nursery transplantation strategy, seagrass management in native, and then also how we're managing stormwater, which is important. The next two slides, you know, are going to talk a little bit more about that. Here on the bottom left, you see the sponge docks that we're going to be instituting. On the top left, you see the oysters, so the sponge docks help water quality, and that's kind of our mission, which is to make the bay healthier and better than we found it. And here with some climate tech of Miami-Dade County, we're working with Kind Design, that's going to have a living seawall that we're super excited about and working very closely with them. And obviously, there is a public demand for these slips, right? And I think it's important that this marina is intended to serve the local recreational boaters. It reserves the wet slips for safety. And we're providing a Marine Patrol substation and boater education alongside. So, you know, these are just important elements. I just wanted to close out, sorry for the time, but just wanted to close out commissioners and everyone in this room. You know, as we consider the future of this property, I want to return the families who, you know, who will experience it. A parent should be able to bring a child to the water, feel that this place belongs to their community. A student should be able to see science at work and imagine the future in it. And those possibilities carry a personal responsibility for me. I've built a company alongside my family, and the values I want them to learn are the values we should practice in this project. Care for the living things. Keep your word. Respect the people doing the work. And leave something worthwhile for those who come after you. You know, with that, commissioners, you know, I wanted to just highlight our environmental program aims to restore native landscape. Care for the mangrove lagoon. Improve habitat. Treat stormwater before it reaches the bay. Living shorelines. Seagrass restoration. Sustainable building practices are part of that program and part of this lease. We will measure that. And so, with that, I respectfully ask to move forward this item. And I want to thank you all, you know, for your time and consideration. And thank everyone that's in this room. Thank you so much. Thank you. And don't go too far, because we're going to open up to the public right now, and then we'll have some questions, I'm sure, from the county commissioners. Thank you. So, thank you for your presentation. Folks, don't kill me if I butcher your last names. Some folks have handwriting like mine. I can't even understand my own handwriting. So, David Dobler, please state your name and address for the record. And you'll have two minutes. And normally, those are the rules. But if you go a little bit longer, we're not going to hold you to that two minutes, but don't go too longer than the two minutes, all right? Good morning. Thank you. My name is Dave Dobler. I'm a member of the county's Biscayne Bay Watershed Management Advisory Board, and I'm speaking for myself. I'm not here to oppose this project, but I'm opposing this flawed process, which is lacking in transparency and opportunity for engagement. The final lease became available yesterday, late afternoon, only a few business hours before this meeting. It's 249 pages for a 99-year lease. Mr. Martin has publicly said that he wants a model sustainable marina. I'm asking you to defer this item, restore the four-week public review, and direct staff to add protections before the lease is signed so the county can ensure the marina and aquarium meets his stated vision. Two weeks ago, I sent the mayor's office specific lease language that fixes the flaws. None of it appears in the lease. Here are just a few flaws. One, it bans marine mammals, and that's the only animal rule, and it only appears in the program description, not as a covenant. No language addresses manta rays, sea turtles, migratory sharks. It doesn't stop swim with shark shows or builds protections for how any species is sourced. In fact, Mr. Martin's own presentation at the rusty pelican showed a manta ray in the aquarium. Many of these animals are highly migratory and suffer in containment. Are you ready for 99 years of protests? Aquarium accreditation and certification is only a reasonable effort obligation. Who is going to ensure the animals are treated properly if we don't mandate accreditation? Three, it expressly permits scenic helicopter tours, but doesn't prohibit jet ski rentals, thrill rides, or bare boat rentals, which are huge problems all over the bay and create safety risk. Four, it sets no limits on slips, vessel size, or dry stacks so the marina could grow without board approval. I don't know if this is entirely accurate because I just saw it. Single-use plastics and polystyrene are covered only by existing county requirements, subject to feasibility exceptions. The lease has no independent monitoring, public data, or accountability standard. Wrap it up. Yep. The county's own memo says that the last operator was evicted for lease breaches, including failure to care for animals. A lease can only enforce what it says, and the contents of the lease do not address challenges and goals facing Miami and Biscayne Bay. Thank you, Dave. Thank you. Thank you, Dave. I appreciate that. Next, we have Lauren Jonaitis, Executive Director, Tropical Audubon Society, address 5530 Sunset Drive. So I just want to state that we are not opposed to redeveloping this property. It is a real opportunity to transform the site into something that benefits our entire community. But again, what's deeply concerning is that a 249-page lease agreement was made available last night. And we're talking about a 99-year commitment involving publicly owned waterfront property. We do appreciate the inclusion of environmental objectives in the lease, but our objectives are not the same as enforceable protections. These safeguards must be clearly defined, measurable, and incorporated into binding agreements. We respectfully request that you defer item 3F. You know, commissioners, if this redevelopment is truly intended to serve the public for the next 99 years, then surely the public deserves more than one night to review the agreement that will govern it. Thank you. Thank you for staying within the time frame. Alexandra Frankel, and then followed by Aaron Stauber. Good morning, members of the community. Morning. My name is Alexandra Frankel, and I live at 2990 in Matlas Street. I'm speaking on item 3F, the Sea Aquarium lease. As a Miami resident and a mother, I want to share why this place matters to me. When my boys were little, finding places to enjoy the outdoors was a priority. The Sea Aquarium was one of our favorite places, and every visit ended with the same question. Mom, when can we come back? For so many Miami families, the Sea Aquarium is part of growing up. It's part of our history, our memories, and our community. But Virginia Key is so much more than that. In a county where access to the water is not always easy, this is a place where everyone can come, park, sit by the bay, and enjoy what makes Miami so special. That access is precious, and it belongs to all of us. The bay is a sanctuary for sea life. The construction of this massive marina will cause irreparable damage to the environment. And once it is finished, heavy boat traffic will destroy the seagrass and push the marine life away from their sanctuary. The thought of a 99-year lease brings me tremendous concern. This decision will affect generations. And with the boating traffic we already see, imagining a massive marina and mega-yachts in this area is deeply troubling. My very close friend and my community have already experienced the unimaginable loss of a child in a tragic boating accident. We cannot ignore the safety implications. I'm asking you to please give the citizens of Miami time, transparency, and a meaningful voice in this decision. This is our public land. We deserve to understand the plan, evaluate its environmental and safety consequences, and have a real say before decisions are made. I want my grandchildren and their children to enjoy this special place. There are some things money cannot buy or replace. Please defer this item and keep the four weeks of public notice. Thank you. Aaron. Then followed by Samantha Barkeen. Good morning, Commissioners. Aaron Stauber, Bell Harbor. I'm speaking on item 3F, the sequerium lease. I'm here to respectfully ask you to slow the vote. You're being asked here to waive three important taxpayer safeguards, competitive leasing, two independent appraisals, and four weeks of public notice. The mayor claims the bankruptcy court already conducted a competitive process, but that process concerned the existing sequerium lease, not this new 99-year lease, and not the 56 additional acres of county-owned submerged Biscayne Bay land. These are two entirely different transactions. The bankruptcy process never established the fair market value of this new deal. It cannot substitute for the county's safeguards. The mayor also claims four weeks' notice is unnecessary because the public already knows the terms. Really? The December resolution contained a three-and-a-half-page term sheet. The actual 246-page lease was posted just 20 hours before this meeting. The mayor took over 10 months to negotiate this deal. How can the public possibly evaluate it in 20 hours? This is backwards. The rent is tied to what gets approved, 5% of gross revenue from the marina component. If that's not approved, there's zero rent. So get all the approvals first, then bind yourself to a 99-year lease. If Martin's deal falls apart, what happens? The county proceeds with its eviction. It gains full control of its site back, unencumbered by any lease. The county would then be free to do whatever it wanted with the site. Finally, the mayor asserts the project complies with Article 7 of our charter, but that's precisely the question Gregory Frankl and I have asked the circuit court to decide. Whether this project requires a countywide referendum is a fundamental legal question that deserves a judicial answer before the county commits. Commissioners, these safeguards exist for a reason. This is public land, and your decision could bind generations of us. Please protect the public's right, respect the judicial process, and slow the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Good job. Thank you. We have Samantha Barquin, and then followed by Manuel Manny Rionda. Manny, if you can make your way up already, so after Samantha, you can speak. And when I call the person after, please make your way up so you can try to expedite the process. Go ahead, Samantha. Hello, Commissioners. My name is Samantha Barquin. I reside at 15040 Southwest 49th Lane, Unit F, Miami, Florida 33185. I'm here on behalf of Miami Waterkeeper as the Chief Programs Officer. First, I would like to thank Commissioner Regalado and everyone working to find a new future for this aquarium. We recognize that this is a complicated undertaking and an important opportunity for our county. But we have significant concerns about the overall scale and footprint of this proposed lease and what it could mean for Biscayne Bay. We cannot overlook the cumulative impacts of increased vessel traffic and piers with wet slips over existing turtle grass, which raise serious concerns about direct habitat loss. State wildlife officials have also identified significant manatee activity in these waters and recommend reducing marine capacity to 250 total slips. The current slip count is contingent on the land swap with the state and, if not successful, could lead to more impact to seagrass and marine life. Yet, we haven't seen a mitigation plan or clear assurances that piers will avoid existing turtle grass as required for consistency with the CDMP. And what happens if mitigation is not successful? What guarantees are in place to protect Biscayne Bay over the life of this 99-year lease? We also have to ask how much of this property will actually be accessible to the public. The red pad requires only 10% public open space, but when talking about county-owned waterfront park land, is that really enough? We're also concerned about the uses allowed under this lease, including the possibility of jet ski operations in these sensitive waters. And while the lease includes environmental commitments, terms like commercially viable, reasonable, and environmental objectives leave considerable discretion to the developer. For example, living shorelines aren't required if they cost more than 150% of a conventional seawall. Why are we prioritizing upfront costs over long-term ecological benefits? Ultimately, this is public land, surrounded by one of our most important natural resources. The decisions made today will shape its future for generations. We respectfully ask you to take more time to reassess the project's footprint, permitted uses, public access commitments, and enforceable environmental protections before approving this lease. Thank you. Good job. Thank you. Manny, followed by Tawana Peck. Tawana? Tawana? Sorry. Go ahead, Manny. Good morning. Manny Rianda, 155 Sunrise Drive, Key Biscayne, Florida. Thank you very much, Senator, Commissioner Regalado, and esteemed committee members. I respectfully urge you to consider the proposed waivers in Item 3F on Recreation, Tourism, and Resiliency Committee agenda today and ensure meaningful public participation before committing our county-owned waterfront property to a 99-year lease. We need your leadership as voices for conservation and protection of Biscayne Bay. Virginia Key presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create something truly extraordinary in Miami-Dade County, a world-class park that could rival Central Park in New York or Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, yet be uniquely Miami. I'm particularly inspired by landscape architect Walter Meyer's proposed design, which thoughtfully integrated coastal restoration, resilience, wildlife habitat, and public recreation. This is exactly the kind of forward-thinking vision that could make Virginia Key a destination residents cherish and visitors from around the world seek out. I genuinely like and appreciate many elements of the vision for this aquarium property. However, I have serious concerns about the proposed marina, which would accommodate 847 boats up to 200 feet, 295 wet slips, and a 10-story dry stack building of 552 more. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has recommended reducing the marina to 250 total boat spaces, wet and dry combined, to minimize impacts on wildlife and their habitat in this fragile area. I believe that with meaningful public input, we could arrive at a vision more closely aligned with that recommendation, balancing recreational access, economic opportunity, and environmental stewardship. Equally concerning are the proposed waivers of four weeks of advance public notice, two independent appraisals, and the county's standard procedures for leasing county land. For a project of this magnitude, transparency and community participation should be fundamental, not optional. We have an extraordinary opportunity to create a lasting legacy for future generations. I urge you to champion a more inclusive process and ensure that protecting Biscayne Bay remains central to the final vision. Let's get this right. Thank you. Good job. Thank you. Ms. Peck, followed by Armanda Prieto. Hi, my name is Tanya Peck, and I live in 225 Cranwood Drive in Key Biscayne. I'm here requesting more time for this process and to take into account residents of Key Biscayne and Miami to have a vote in this because the Biscayne Bay matters to us. Not only is Biscayne Bay a precious natural resource, and our community is working hard to restore it and protect it. As a mother of two boys who love fishing, kayaking, and paddle boarding, I cannot imagine more boats in the Biscayne Bay. Adding more traffic to Key Biscayne to this only entrance and exit is also a very serious safety concern to all of the Key Biscayne residents. I don't understand why more people aren't here discussing about this. This is a Miami-Dade public land, and both Key Biscayne and Miami residents should have a say in this future. Thank you. Thank you. Amanda, followed by Gregory Fradler. Thank you, and good morning. Good morning. I live at 13456 Southwest 108th Street, Circle North. My name is Amanda Prieto, and I'm the Chief Operating Officer for Miami Waterkeeper. We're really happy to see this type of leadership and creative solutions being presented that prioritize green infrastructure and improving water quality. But if the question today is whether the environmental organizations are comfortable with the lease, the process, the scale, and the impacts of the proposed project, let me put it on the record that Miami Waterkeeper is not. There are still many details missing. When asked, we've been very open about our significant concerns with the scope and impacts of this project. If more time is needed to discuss these concerns and impacts, let's take that time now. You have one opportunity to get this right. We are very willing to continue having constructor conversations about what this project and how this land can be used. But a lease of this magnitude will have implications for generations to come. This is county-owned, waterfront, parkland, and submerged lands. It deserves transparency and adequate time for public review. The actual lease was only provided yesterday. Today, you're being asked to waive the required four weeks' advanced written notice. It's simply not sufficient time to provide meaningful review, understand, and evaluate an agreement of this magnitude. We respectfully request that this decision not move forward today. Thank you. Thank you. Followed by Gregory, we have Louisa Conway next. Good morning. Thank you, Senator. Good morning to all the commissioners. My name is Gregory Frankel, 2990 Mathless Street. I'm speaking on item 3F, the aquarium lease. Aaron Stalber and I filed a lawsuit against the county because we believe the residents of this county have the right to vote on a marina in Biscayne Bay. Believe me, we didn't want to file a lawsuit. Why do two residents of the county want to file, get into litigation with the county? But we felt like we had no other choice. We sent a letter September 30th asking the county in writing whether it would hold the vote, and we got no answer. On October 20th, the commission moved two approvals this project needs. So on October 21st, we filed the lawsuit, and nothing has slowed down since. On November 3rd, the county asked the court to dismiss our case as premature because the commission had not yet acted on the lease. But the very next day, it introduced this item. The 246-page lease was posted, like everybody said, 20 hours before the meeting, and the item asks you to waive four weeks of public notice, two independent appraisals, and the county's own leasing procedures. The county attorney's checklist on this item and says the three-day rule applies if one of you wants to raise it. This morning, you heard that this is, if this is not approved now, the creditors will walk. Okay, well, that is a private deadline and a private agreement the county's not even a party to. It's not a reason to skip the county's own notice rule, to sidestep Article 7, or to act before the court rules. How can the county sign a 99-year lease while the court is still deciding whether it's centerpiece? The marina needs a vote. We're not taking a position on this project. It's about the process. The county's own safeguards and taking a decision away from people who own the land. A webinar and a presentation at a restaurant is not public input. Please defer this item. Out of a minimum, do not waive the four-week notice. Thank you. Thank you. Louisa. And then followed by Rose Hanvey. Haney. Haney. Oh, you're Rose. I'm no, I'm Louisa. Oh, so you know Rose. Thanks. Hi, I'm Louisa Conway. Hi, I'm from Key Biscayne. Good morning, Chair and Commissioner Regalado. My comments are not about David's amazing project. I'm actually here to ask the committee to please consider some of my questions when you go on to deliberate. We have heard that the county does not consider the sequerium lease an asset of MS Leisure, yet believes it must proceed with Tara. We have also heard the county attorney cite pressure from debtors to conclude bankruptcy proceedings. But why should private bankruptcy pressures determine the timetable for committing public land for nearly 100 years, spanning at least two generations? David has just presented an impressive economic projections, including $1.69 billion in estimated rent over 99 years and approximately $200 million in projected investment. But projections are not guarantees. Have these figures been independently verified? Has the county established fair market value for the public lands involved? And why designate this an economic development conveyance while waiving four weeks of public notice? What specific bankruptcy court order requires approval of these expanded lease terms? Gregory Frankel and Aaron Stubber have filed litigation on this transaction. Why proceed before these legal questions are resolved? Just last week, approximately 65% of City of Miami voters rejected Virginia Key Marina referendum. Please heed the message from the City of Miami voters to protect and safeguard public lands. Economic development cannot replace transparency, independent oversight, or government accountability. Public land belongs to the people. It is a public trust, not a private bargaining chip. Thank you. Thank you, and I urge you to defer on item 3F. Thank you. Amanda Rodriguez is next. Start coming up. Rose? Yes, Rose Haney, 472 Glen Ridge Road, Key Biscayne. I'm here today to say that I do not support the plan, but also the plan is very unclear because it keeps changing. I think now there's a new plan, and also the first meeting that I know about is on Thursday, but they want you to vote today, and we have a meeting Thursday to get community input. I don't understand that. Anyway, I'm very familiar with that area. I have a boat. I drive around that little area, and it's super shallow. Even in my little boat, I have to go very slow. It's like an obstacle course. So I'm very concerned about all these large boats there. They're going to rip up the bottom. Even if you don't dredge, they will be dredging and ripping up all the bottom. There's manatees, dolphins, all kinds of sea life there that's going to be impacted. And as you know, the manatees are endangered now through all kinds of boat hits and starvation. Less seagrass is going to affect that situation. I like a few things, though, that was mentioned in the plan, where the public does have some access to walk around the area. But I really think the plan mainly benefits yacht owners and boat owners. I think the number of wet slips have been reduced, but then you have this big 100-foot wall for dry slips, which is going to get in the way of the beautiful bay. As you drive down Key Biscayne, you're going to see a 100-foot wall of dry slips blocking you. So anyway, there's a lot of things about this plan that need to be fine-tuned, and they're not giving you enough time or the public enough time to have input. So please don't be rushed for a bad plan that's going to be a 99-year lease. We need to have input on this wonderful land. Thank you, Rose. Thank you. Daniela Rodriguez, followed by Cecile Sanchez. Cecile? Eugenia? Maria Eugenia, no? Rodriguez? No, Daniela Rodriguez. Maria Eugenia, just go. Go ahead. Go ahead. Testify. All right. Then you're next. Then you're next. Good morning. My name is Daniela Rodriguez. I reside in 8475 Southwest 94th Street, 33156. That would be District 7. I was born and raised here, and I grew up visiting Virginia Key. Today, I test Biscayne Bay's water for a living. So I see up close how fragile this bay is and how long it takes to recover when we get something wrong. You're being asked to commit 56 acres of public bay bottom for 99 years, and to do it, you're being asked to waive four weeks of public notice, waive the appraisal, and waive the county standing leasing procedures. Those rules exist for exactly this kind of decision. They are how you and people you present know what you're approving. The marina hasn't been permitted. The land use and zoning hearings are still ahead of us this month. So why is the lease moving first? We just heard about an 18-foot public walkway. But if that walkway rungs alongside the marina, what's the public's view? Hundreds of boats. I grew up coming to Virginia Key to see the bay itself. The seagrass and the open water, a view of a marina is not accessed to Biscayne Bay. Four weeks against 99 years. If this is a good deal, it will still be a good deal in a month. If it isn't, those four weeks are how you find out. Now, no one will remember that this vote came a month later. Everyone will live with it for 99 years. Thank you. Thank you. Good job. Maria Eugenia, and then followed by Cecile Sanchez. Good morning, Councils, Senator. I'm a Key Biscayne resident, and I'm here asking you to defer item 3F. I think David's plan for the marina is concerning, but his plan to develop the sea quarry on the side is magnificent. We all remember that Hugo died in the sea quarry in the 80s. Lolita spent 43 years in the tank alone and died before she could even be moved. What did we learn? That decisions made at this site outlast the people who made them. The bay is precious. Please defer item 3F. Thank you. Thank you. Luis de la Cruz. Come on, Cecile. Then followed by Stephen Leidner. Cecile Sanchez, 260 Cypress Drive. Thank you for allowing us to come and speak. I am very concerned about that land. That is precious, precious parcel of land. But it belongs to all of us, all of us residents of Dade County. I know today you're asking for a delay or to, sorry, not consider the four weeks in signing this lease. This is our land. We, the people, residents of Dade County, should be allowed to make the decision on what to do with our land. What I've heard today, it's extremely interesting. What happens if we let the bankruptcy go ahead? And that land belongs to us. Miami is already overcrowded. The Rickenbacker Causeway is the place. Key Biscayne, the parks, is where people in Miami-Dade County go and relax. I think what David is trying to do is commendable. It is nice. But wouldn't it be nicer if this aquarium land becomes ours to enjoy? It would be Miami-Dade County Central Park. Think about it. Think about it. It's all you that need to think of us since we voted you in. Thank you. Thank you. Steven and Justin, Justin Torres after. Morning. Morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My name is Luis de la Cruz. I'm 640 Allendale Road, Key Biscayne, Florida. I want to start by recognizing a couple of people here that mean a lot to me and I think mean a lot to the village of Key Biscayne. Number one is our commissioner representative, Raquel Regalado. She has been the absolute best representative for the village of Key Biscayne since I've been there, and I've been there for about 50 years. So I thank you very much. I want to also thank David Martin, who I happen to admire and who I point to whenever I think of somebody who embodies everything that there is in success. He is the ultimate, most dedicated developer that I've ever seen. I am one of his fans. I very much supported his development in Key Biscayne, the Silver Sands redevelopment, and he knows it. But this is a situation where I think you've both lost your way. I'm going to read something that was written not by me but by somebody else, a good friend of mine, who I think represents a large part of the residents of Miami-Dade County. Please bear with me. This is a political blitzkrieg. The developer, hand-in-hand with county government, deploying overwhelming money, power, and political influence to short-circuit due process and legislatively sidestep Article 7 at all costs. The objective appears to be to move so quickly and randomly that the public has no meaningful opportunity to keep ahead of the fire hose of legislative maneuvering to challenge this fundamental change in the use of public parkland. Reminds me very much of the hurry-up offensive run by David Sampson and Jeffrey Loria back in the day, meaning the developer will get... Sir, thank you. We're running up the clock. Stephen Leitner, 1025 Bay Harbor, 94th Street, Bay Harbor Island. Senator, you got my name right. Thank you so much. Commissioners, I'd like to say that Miami Sierra Club would like to acknowledge the developer's upland proposals are inspiring and inspired, and we thank the developer for what he has conceived. The marina, however, is in fact on the backs of marine mammals. The marine mammals, in this case, are not in tanks. The Save the Manatees has weighed in with their scientists and biologists' concerns over the impacts of this marina and its location, and Miami Sierra Club opposes this marina. Thank you. Thank you. Next, what's your name, ma'am? Jocelyn Torres. Okay, Jocelyn. Then we have Laura Reynolds, and then followed by Mariana Aziz. Please just join us. Jocelyn Torres, 161 Crandon Boulevard, apartment 121. Biscayne Bay belongs to all of us, and we deserve the right to vote on a decision that will shape its future. Although the proposed marina has been reduced, its total boat capacity remains more than three times the total recommended by state wildlife officials to protect manatees. Why pursue a project of this scale if a smaller alternative could offer the same public benefits with fewer environmental risks? Conservation features alone do not justify its size. I am concerned about the potential harm to marine life, seagrass, and water quality. This bay is part of a legacy we leave to our children and grandchildren. They deserve a healthy bay, and we deserve a voice in protecting it. Please do not approve this agreement today. Put it to vote. A decision with consequences for generations should have the public consent. Thank you. Thank you. Mariana Aziz, after. Please be ready. Laura. And then Deanna Donaldson. Donaldson. Thank you, Senator and Commissioners. Laura Reynolds, 6820 Southwest. Laura, you know how this is done. So get right to the point so we can try to get her. Right to the point. Oh, wait. Did you take some of my two-minute time? Okay, go ahead. Thank you. Representing Friends of Biscayne Bay. And yes, I know how this is done. This is probably my 25th year, almost, speaking before you on these types of issues. And I have never seen a developer avoid public procedure like this one has. And I'm sorry. I do like David Martin, and he has met with us several times. And we have worked really hard to ask for public charrettes, a slowed process. And we've been asking all of you since July to follow that public process. We think that you should use the long form of the CDMP process, where you send this to the state for input. We have unresolved state issues, including Fish and Wildlife Service. We have unresolved issues, in my opinion, that this is the aquatic preserve. And you're moving forward, binding yourselves for 99 years on a project that has not been resolved. So I ask you to defer this item. I ask you to slow down. We are now in the midst of the holiday season. And you're asking all of us to come to 10 or 12 different meetings to talk about this issue. And you have all been asked to look at this with just a few hours. And that's not fair. There's a public process in place to protect public lands. And that is being shirked here by everyone. And we are asking you to make sure that everyone has time to look at this. Now, I'm sure that if the county asked the bankruptcy court for more time to do their due diligence, that that would be honored. And we're asking you to do that. The other thing I want to bring up to you is that the real concern here is that our economics, our central park, is Biscayne Bay. And we have to do everything we can to protect it. And that includes the Bay Bottom. If you lose the seagrass, we lose our blue heart, $64 billion of our economic viability. So, please defer this item and get it right. Thank you. Deanna Donaldson. I mean, you're, Maria, you're, Ms. Assis, you go. Good afternoon, honorable chair and commissioners. My address is 2121 Ponce de Leon. My name is Mariana Assis, and I am here representing Miami Waterkeeper. We want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today. But I am here to ask you to grant the public sufficient time to properly review the proposed lease and restore the four-week public notice. This lease before you is almost 250 pages long and was available for the public and the members of the committee only yesterday. This is a 99-year lease of valuable public land. Decision of this magnitude should not be made on a rush. We want to thank the sponsor for adding recent public meetings. We appreciate these efforts, but the lease was not available at that time. A 99-year lease should deliver the maximum public benefit. And getting there requires more time, more transparency, and a deeper engagement process. We see this as an opportunity to work collaboratively. Public participation should be more than a chance to react to a proposal that has already been negotiated. It should be an opportunity for a meaningful influence and a meaningful outcome. For this reason, we respectfully ask you to defer Item 3F and provide a genuine opportunity for engagement. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Dalton? Hello. My name is... And finally, we have Elena. Elena. Is Elena here? Hello. Come up, Elena. I'm Deanna. I'm 9277 Southwest 227th Street. I am from Cutler Bay. I come today to represent myself, but I am a Miami-Dade public school teacher. Funny to mention, I'm actually a science teacher. So as I'm listening, I hear a lot about finding a safe home. I hear a lot about the land before not being profitable. I hear a lot about the new development being something for the children to learn about science. And I'll tell you something that we learn in science. We learn something called the carbon cycle. We also learn something about flood, well, the rock cycle. We learn something else about coastlines. So as I'm looking at this development and process with a lot of other different things, I do want us to keep in mind that the more that we develop on the land, the less of a safe home that we have for not only the animals, not only the marine life, but also for the humans, also for us and our children that will be here for another 99 years, if I'm so blessed to have some children. I'm thinking about the future. 99 years from now, where will our children be? That's what we have to ask. Where would the marine life be if we continue to keep building on land that is submerged? I don't want to bring up tragedies that have already happened here in Florida, but I must. Coastlines. We can't keep building on coastlines as a teacher. I will let you know that. The more that we continue to weather down these rocks, the more that we keep breaking down the process, water, it's going to break down the land. So how can we really make, is it really about profitability? It's a great business deal, but what about the manatees and the people and the trees? Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate you being out here. Elena? Good morning. My name is Elena Iturralde, and I'm the founder and president of Zero Waste Culture, a Quibiscayne nonprofit dedicated to environmental education and sustainability. And I live in Morningside. I'm here, I came here from Spain 17 years ago, and Biscayne Bay has become a very special place to me. I love Biscayne Bay. And honestly, I cannot believe we are considering a project of this size. Hundreds of boats, including enormous yachts, in a bay that is already struggling. What will happen to our manatees, our dolphins, seagrass, and all the marine life that depends on the bay? I'm deeply concerned about the damage this could cause. A 99-year lease, without giving the public enough time to even read it? This is public land. It belongs to all of us. I'm not against improving the Seaquarium site, but improving one place should never mean destroying another. Please don't rush this. Don't waive public notice. Let us read the lease and understand the environmental consequences before making a decision we may regret for generations. Thank you. Thank you. And with that, we have finished the public testimony. You see that we have a couple of minutes left. Yeah, but did you sign up? You may open the floor for 3D. There was no sign-ups for that. You let someone on the other side. All right, Billy. Go ahead and finish, Billy. But you see, these are the things. You know the process. You know you could have signed up. It's okay, but you're going to speak. That's fine. Thank you, Chair. Billy Corbin, resident of High Pines. I'm here to speak on this 99-year lease on public waterfront, parkland on Virginia Key in the old Seaquarium space. This feels like a stunning piece of political theater here where a couple of the electeds and certainly all of the administration appear to be advocating for this project on behalf of the private developer. It begs the question, who is it that sits on our side of the table? Who is it that negotiates for us? And I think the answer here is nobody. And it's not a question of whether or not this plan is better than what was there before or better than what is there now. I think the question is, is this a good deal and is it a good process? And I think by every objective measure, the answer is no. You've heard from the people here today. You have eliminated four weeks of public notification. There was one public meeting last week on the eve of the election. And the process has just been amidst all the financial questions, the environmental questions, has not been a good one. And let's talk about the deal itself. I don't know, I saw the presentation said there was 38 acres at play, but the truth is there's another 56 acres at play of a bay bottom property that will probably be more lucrative than even the land itself is. So that means that this project is two and a half times the size, 149% larger than this aquarium property. And also, Amendment 3 just passed. They're not going to be paying any property taxes on this land. So what are we doing here? I agree with the District 2 commissioner. We need to slow this process down. If it's such a good deal, if you're so confident in it, let the people vote. Put it to a referendum. The reason you don't want to do that is because this has been on the ballot. And it failed. Virginia Key Marina scheme failed 65% to 35%. And so the people do not want this. They are against development, redevelopment, and overdevelopment on Virginia Key, whether it's the north end or the south end. And to the point of the District 2 commissioner, I think that poor planning on the developer's part does not constitute an emergency on our part. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And I appreciate, when you said Amendment 3, Amendment 3 is for homestead of property taxes, sir. So let's just be clear with when we speak to the items. Billy, we got you. I got you. Right, but you're not paying property tax, Chair. What's your name? Yes, my name is Juan Pablo Ortega, and I'm an eco-tour guide. I'm involved with a nonprofit called Florida Ocean Cleanup Society. And I'm a father, too, been here in Miami for 20 years. And so I'm kind of like a guy that this marina is supposed to be built for families. I've spent countless of hours in the bay, in Biscayne Bay. And let me tell you something. Nobody here is talking about the last 10 years we lost 70% to 80% of the seagrass already. So I wish that every developer was like Mr. David here that is worried about all the environmental things. And I'm actually impressed by everything he wants to build. But a marina, manatees are in that area. I've been in that area. I've snorkeled in that area. There's starfish in that area. There's seagrass. We have, again, 70% to 80% less seagrass, okay? And what I want to say that a marina, before we do any marina, before we make any marina bigger, and we already know the voters, at least the voters of Sierra of Miami, we already know that they don't want fancy marina for mega yachts. And we understand this is good for the economy. And we understand that that's where the money comes from to do all the good things. But we need to find alternatives. Everything that he's proposing, except the marina part, is great, okay? And I just want to know, yeah, we need spaces like that. We need places to run ecotours, you know? But more boats, especially the size of the boats, more power boats, are going to... You can see, when we're snorkeling there, you can see the lines of the boats in all the sandbars. You can see everything. My kids just want to say something here, right? I do not want a place where manatees are uncomfortable. That's awesome. Good job. We have a little actor there. Okay, thank you. Thank you all for your testimony. Okay, so look, we are... Madam Attorney, we're running up against the clock here. So, what are our options, Commissioners? Commissioner Regalado? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, I think we can request some time from the next committee so that we can wrap it up. I do want Melanie to put a few things on the record, just because there's a few things that have been said that I just want to clarify. The first is, Melanie, because we've talked about this, several people requested the lease. You provided the lease to folks. If you could tell us about the request for the lease and the providing of the lease, because I think people were making lots of statements there. The lease is a public record, so it can be requested and be provided in whatever form it is in at that moment. It is a public record and has been. And you have provided it to people that have requested it? We've complied with all the public records requests that we've received. Okay. Article 7 has come up several times. We've discussed this. Obviously, there is litigation. But if you could give us the county attorney's perspective on Article 7 and this lease. I will say it's probably better to speak individually outside the dais as, you know, related to ongoing litigation. But it is the belief that the approval of this lease did not require a referendum. And, you know, colleagues, I could not have submitted an item if it did not meet legal sufficiency. So there was a lot of time spent ensuring that everything that was provided to this board in December of last year and the current submissions have all been approved by our attorney and have been vetted for legal sufficiency. And then, finally, the issue of Key Biscayne and traffic has come up. I've actually talked about this in several meetings regarding the shoreline and before Key Biscayne. It's going to come up again when we discuss the CDMP. That's where this item would come up. But we have been working with a developer on the shoreline and on the current issues with the Rickenbacker. And we'll discuss that at length when we get to the CDMP. But that information has been provided to Key Biscayne residents in over four different meetings where we've discussed the Rickenbacker and the shoreline. Thank you. Thank you for that, Commissioner. Bastien, before I go, Commissioner Regalado, you and I have had some differences on the dais. But I'll tell you this. I know when you bring something, it really does meet the legal muster. So at least on that aspect, I appreciate and respect you. I mean, I respect you for everything. But on that part, I appreciate what you just put on the record. Commissioner Bastien. All right. A lot to digest here, huh? First of all, I want to acknowledge the work that you've put in this item, Commissioner Regalado. I also would like to acknowledge the work, the hard work of the staff. Great presentation from David, from the developers. And then for everyone who contributed to bring us where we are today. I agree with you, Commissioner Regalado. This seems to be a very transformative, phenomenal project. However, I have a few concerns that I'd like to raise. I remember before I moved, I continued, that I used to bring my three sons to the Miami Seaquarium. And they loved it with a passion. I mean, even on our way home, they wanted to know when we would go back. Because they enjoyed themselves so much. And so did I, too. And my ex-husband and I. So this brings a lot of memories discussing the Miami Seaquarium today. But I have a few points that I'd like to address for the record. And then also, I also believe that we probably need more time. I want to thank you for your additional information and amendments that you brought forth, Commissioner Regalado. And I must confess that it moved me an inch further, right? Closer. But I'm not there yet. I'm not there yet. I have a few points, like I said. And one of them is to ask, has any independent party validated the projected economic impacts and revenue assumptions presented to the board? The proposal mentions job creation, economic output, and future county revenue. But many of these numbers come from analysis done for the tenant. Before we approve a lease that could last almost a century on valuable public waterfront land, I want to know if the county received any independent review to confirm that the assumptions proffered and to look at the risk if attendance, revenues, or construction timelines do not meet expectations. We also need to carefully consider the environmental impact of this project, and I've heard, I've listened to some of the information provided, but I still have some concerns on that aspect. The marina effects on submerged land and Biscayne Bay mitigation requirements still depend on future approvals and assessments. So I'm wondering if additional time to consider this item would be prudent for our community. Finally, I'm also concerned about waiving the county's appraisal requirements. I'm gravely concerned about that. The appraisal process is important because it gives an independent view of a public asset's value and helps make sure that taxpayers get fair value in return. Do we have any information that has been presented to the board about any appraisal that meets the county requirements? This is a question I'd like Mr. Coley to respond to. Mr. Coley? Again, again, again, once, once, once, a minute, please. I'll give him a chance to answer in a minute. I'm deeply concerned about any action taken on this item without even having the opportunity to have an appraisal conducted. When was the last time was an appraisal conducted on this property? For a land like this, it is important that we have information that can show that we are being the best towards possible of a county-owned assets and for our environment. Like I said, I've listened to Mr. David Martin with a lot of attention. I appreciate his passion. But I'd like Mr. Coley to answer these two questions. And even after all your, all the information that was presented today, I still feel that we need more time. There is no, I wasn't, I'm not convinced. I'm not convinced that we have to, there is there, that we need to move to rush through this. So, Mr. Coley, if you could answer the questions. Thank you, Commissioner Bastion, for the question. Yes, there was an appraisal on the upland portion of the property, but you're absolutely right. The business prospectus did come from the developer. And so what we did on the negotiating team to limit any exposure to the county is we required the developer to increase its minimum payments. The lease that is currently in existence that still has term left on it had a minimum annual payment to the county of about $750,000. And we required that the minimum payment from this developer go to $1.1 million, and then we get a percentage of all his sales on top of that. And, yes, the prospectus did come from the developer. It did not come from us. We reviewed it, and it appeared reasonable. But, nonetheless, whatever the business produces is what we'll get a percentage of. All right. Commissioner Steinberg. Thank you. Okay, so I guess those of you who know me know this is not going to come as such a shock. But, you know, I obviously also have some concerns. First of all, I want to thank everybody who came out and spoke today. I also want to thank the team that presented. You did a very thorough job, and there are a lot of incredible things that were discussed and were presented. I also appreciate some of the amendments, especially, you know, the voter safety and some other things that you put forward. And one thing I know is that you probably have been living, breathing this, and working really hard on this. So I do appreciate that. My concerns are similarly that, you know, we did receive this. And we've discussed add-ons at the ninth hour and how we feel about it as a committee or a board. And it's tough because it puts us in a tough position because I didn't have a chance to go through it in the way I would have liked to have gone through it. And so it puts me in an uncomfortable situation because there's no way I can properly, with good conscience, move something forward that I haven't had enough time to fully digest and to fully understand. You know, this could be very well the best deal that the county could have, but it also may have things that we could maybe fine-tune and fix and maybe make a little better and may not be the best deal. I also know that there were some situations that were discussed today that we heard. Some things I think were alleviated, but I think maybe you can explain why are we waiving any sort of appraisal, just so I understand that. Mr. Coley, there was an appraisal, and then for the upland property. But more importantly is the lease that exists today is available to be transferred to anyone the court chooses. The only way that we have input on who gets that lease at all is our willingness to negotiate any terms. So if we do not accept this lease, which is your prerogative to do so, then the court can either choose to sell the existing lease to whoever they want to or give it back to the existing people. So, yes, this is not a perfect deal, but it certainly mitigates a lot of potential problems down the road. Okay. I have a lot of follow-ups on that, but I'm going to hold off. Okay. So ultimately, obviously, like I said, I actually thought I was going to come in here and be kind of the lone concerned person in terms of needing more time. So I would, you know, feel more comfortable. I can't support this today, but I think we do need to discuss deferring this to give that time. I don't know when we meet again, but I would requestfully ask whatever chair we have to please add this to a future meeting that is maybe before the end of the year to give four weeks' time and to give time so that the bankruptcy court or what have you can also work its way. But we need the time because I can't today, you know, move it forward without having that time, without better understanding what it is, what the ramifications are. Again, I know how much work and time has been put into this, and I do appreciate that. It's just that the public didn't have a chance to see the lease until whenever they requested their public records request, I guess, but I didn't get it until yesterday. So thank you. Thank you. Is there ever a moment where we can ask the courts for more time? Yes. We can speak with the debtors in possession and the bankruptcy court. A lot of this has to do with the sale, you know, the assignment of the existing lease between the debtors in possession and Tara. My fear, my fear is that this will, if something doesn't happen, and this is what happens all the time with this county commission sometimes with the administrations that we get things at the last hour where our backs are up against the wall. And this is, we've been hearing that frustration from us constantly, and I just would hate for this lease to go into who knows whose hands and do whatever they may want with it. But anyway, Commissioner Regolato, you... Thank you. Just as a point of clarification, I think Roy did a good job. This board has until the end of the year to approve something other than the existing lease. We could ask for a lot of things, but if this board fails to act, that is an asset. We have been told many times that we cannot weigh in to the sale of that asset, and as Melanie said, the bankruptcy court has told us time and time again that we're out of time, they're running out of money, and they just want to dispense of the assets. So they could just sell the asset, and then we have nothing to do with it, and we just have to deal with what's left of the lease. That's problem number one. Problem number two, we don't have a meeting in December. They canceled the meeting in December. Yes, we're going to elect a new chair, but currently we do not have a meeting in December, and we had to communicate that to the bankruptcy court. This board is not going to have a BCC in December. So this would have to get out of this committee to then go to the November meeting, and currently we wanted to take it up at the CDMP together. So that's the other issue. We don't want to pass. The two things should ride together. That's the other concern that we've been dealing with. You can move it out of this committee without a recommendation. That would be my suggestion. You don't have to support it. We can move it to the full BCC without a recommendation. Everyone has time to meet with the attorneys, you know, and to go through the lease. I can tell you that the lease has been negotiated for a long time, but the changes that you saw today were what's happened over the last few weeks as a result of meetings with the community and meetings with the different organizations. And you can't separate the two things. You can't say we want the development in the uplands, but we don't want the marina because the marina is what is paying for the development and paying the portion that's going to go to the county. So this idea of bifurcating the two things, they are intertwined. So, again, we're here to answer questions. You know, I would, I'm happy to move to just move it without a recommendation, but not taking action will lead the bankruptcy court to take their own action before the end of the year. Mr. Gene Stearns? I'm sorry. Thank you, Senator. If I gave Mr. Corbyn the opportunity to speak, then I have to give him the opportunity to speak as well. And he speaks well. I may not agree with Billy, but he does speak well. Let me address some of the questions that's been asked. Bankruptcy law in Delaware particularly is not something you can explain in this setting. I can only say that it isn't just the court that's involved. It's the creditors. The creditors came up with what is called a debtor in possession or dip financing. They've run out of money, and therefore it will stop, and therefore the lease will then be disposed of in a way that may not be appropriate. There was a bid for the lease, and the bidder is in front of you who won the bid in Delaware, which is the way the law works. But I must say specifically here, much of the concerns you've heard address regulatory issues that don't go away with the lease. That is to say, the size of the marina, what the marina would be, all are regulatory issues that would be addressed. Finally, in terms of Article 7, with all due respect to arguments about that, it's clear and unequivocal that Article 7 exempts two things. It exempts the sequarium, and it exempts marinas, whether they be public or private. Those are exemptions that are clear and unequivocal. And so what you're left with ultimately at this point, by the way, there are statements made about the bay bottom extends the lease. The current lease includes the bay bottom, as it is. Respectfully, it's in the lease agreement. Up to now, we've had decorum. Let's keep it. It is. People don't want to hear what they don't want to hear, but it is in the written document that bay bottom is included. Folks, come on. Let's stop. Stop for a minute, guys. Come on. We're all adults here. We are very passionate on one side or the other. Let's let him speak, and then we'll move forward. You got another 20 seconds, sir. And I'll finish. And I would just say that focusing now here on the lease to let it go forward without a recommendation allows the bankruptcy court to do what it's doing. Then at the commission meeting, you all can listen to these issues. And obviously, in dealing with regulatory approval, all the complaints you've heard can be addressed. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So what's your name, sir? Can you just add your name? Say your name for the record and your address, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gene Stearns, 250 Cape Florida Drive, Key Biscayne. All right, Jim. Okay, Commissioner Regalado. I'm happy to move the item without a recommendation. Obviously, I'm asking my colleagues to support it so that it can make its way to the full Board of County Commissioners so that we can at least attempt to meet our December 30th deadline. On the motion to move to the next committee? We'll move out of this committee without a recommendation. Without a recommendation. Commissioner Bastian, any thoughts? I'd rather if we defer this. And then I know at the next meeting, we will elect a new chair, right? I mean, if there is an issue, I think. I mean, we knew – my problem with this is that we – I'm not convinced, really, that we cannot go back and ask for more time. I'm not convinced. I'm not convinced at all. I'm not. And then I would rather we defer this. Okay, so, look, this is where we are because I would think, based on the time frame and time constraints, we would like to move this without a recommendation and have the whole Board, and it gives – when's the next commission meeting? Next week. Next week. It will give folks an opportunity to digest this. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. What was – No, no. I was asking to try to move this out of committee and have folks without recommendations. It has to be unanimous. So that's – so it has to be unanimous, and there's the answer, so – Mr. Chairman, could I make just a modest suggestion? Yes, sir. I think might be helpful to this committee is if you don't move it out of here without a recommendation, then essentially you are going to be sending a very poor signal to the creditors and to the bankruptcy court, and your request for additional time in that context will be problematic. The second problem is if you don't move it out without a recommendation, the full Board will not have an opportunity to actually consider this item before the end of the year. And there – make no mistake, there is a deadline of December 30th with the creditors to close the transaction. So all I'm suggesting to you is maybe the thing to do is to move it out of committee here without a recommendation, and you direct the – your attorneys and your administration to make a request to the bankruptcy court or to the creditors or both requesting more time. And you will at least have an answer before we get to the committee – to a commission next week, and you can deal with it accordingly. The problem is if you don't move it today, you're essentially putting the deal in complete, utter jeopardy, like done. Thank you, Mr. May, and please state your name and address for the record, and we're going to go ahead. Brian May, offices at 235 Catalonia Avenue in Coral Gables. Okay. I think by sensing the feeling on the Board, in order to move this without recommendation, it needs to be unanimous, correct? Correct. So seeing that we don't have the unanimous support – go ahead, Commissioner. Well, give me a minute. Seeing we don't have the unanimous support, we have to take some action on this item. So either we have an option of either voting it up or down and – or deferring the item. So, Commissioner Regalato, I think before you speak, I want to say to the administration and everyone that's involved, this is what happens when we wait until the last hour. This is what happens. This is – stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. It's not about trying to get applauses. This is what happens when we wait until the last hour. The issue of the four weeks is a big deal for folks, you know, and I think always – I talk a lot about transparency and openness, and I think this contract that we had before us is pretty good. It took me a while to go through it and our team. But we just can't continue to do this because we have something that's going to be really good for us, something that now is going to grant public access, which under this aquarium right now, there is no public access. You have to pay to get into this aquarium. So there's a lot of components, too, that are good. I think there's some issues that could be resolved if we had a little more time and so forth. But we have to stop doing things like this in Dade County because we always are putting ourselves – you guys are always putting us against a rock in our heart place on these issues, and now we have an asset that can likely be sold to someone else, and we don't know what's going to happen at that point. Commissioner Regalado. Thank you. So – and listen, I'm the first to complain about last-minute stuff. I will tell you that I have been working with the administration to get these amendments working with the folks that were against this deal. So I feel like we're being punished for listening to folks and meeting with them time and time again. But that being said, a deferral is not an option that I would consider. This either has to move to the full board – if we have a meeting in December, fantastic. Currently, we do not have a meeting in December. So that's part of the problem that we have here is that if we defer this to the next committee, the next BCC would be in January, which means that the bankruptcy court could then sell the underlying lease, and the deferral would have essentially killed this entire negotiation. The good and the bad points of this negotiation and all the work that has been done to this point. So this is one of those situations where disagreeing with a small percentage of a plan will, in fact, kill the entire plan and leave people with a 1950s lease that has no public benefit, no consideration for traffic, has marine mammals, and runs everything that we don't want on this property. So that is the decision before you today, and I think people need to vote on the record on that. My conscience is clear. I have been working on this for a very long time. I have put in the time. Commissioner, if you might – I know it is, but let me ask you this. Can the chairman waive this out of committee if there is a full county commission meeting? The chair would have to exercise his emergency powers in order to do so because it's already been placed in the jurisdiction of this committee. Okay. So he technically can. So technically he can if – and give and put it – and call for a meeting in December and it gives – and give the public ample opportunity to review what's in this late lease. As a point of reference, the chairman in his two years as a chairman has not used his emergency powers. So while I appreciate that, I just want everyone to have clarity on what the vote will do today. And, again, I'm happy to direct our attorneys to request more time. We have talked about this, but this is a deadline that was not set for Miami-Dade County. It was set for the entire bankruptcy, and we have been moving towards that deadline for a long time. All right. With that, Commissioner Steinberg, and then we'll take a motion and vote it up or down and do what we've got to do. And I hear what you're saying. And, again, I know it's not you working on this, or I just don't know why it came to us at that hour. Okay. I think I need some clarification on something else. Currently we have a lease. Can Tara or whatever entity take over that existing lease while we're having these negotiations to buy us just a couple – by the way, we may be already very much there. It's just to give that process time to play out. We would have to look into that, Commissioner, to make sure that it aligns with the order from the bankruptcy court. But I believe that there could be a closing of the existing lease with Tara. But I would want to do some more research into the orders from the bankruptcy court. But that would be the existing lease, not the lease that's before you. But just as a point of clarification – Give me one second. Give me a second. Commissioner Steinberg – Commissioner Steinberg, and we're trying to understand what that answer meant. I was trying to explain that I want to go back and look at the bankruptcy court order that was entered in approving the deal. But I think there is a chance that perhaps there could be a closing between the debtors in possession and Tara as it relates to the existing lease. So all they would be getting is the lease that's going to expire in 2044, 2054 to operate a sequerium, not what's before you today. So they would, in turn, could get that existing lease while we negotiate? Is that what you're saying? But there may be a possibility where they would have possession, but that's all they would have is the existing lease. They wouldn't have what has been negotiated between the parties. Commissioner Regalato, thank you. Yeah, and it would make it really difficult for us to negotiate because then they would have the underlying lease without any of these terms. So then what exactly would we be negotiating? So they would have to purchase it, and we would be in a difficult position because then they could do anything under that lease without going to CDMP, without a site plan. It would unravel everything that we've done. So here you have people that are saying defer it because we want more protections, and what we're offering is less protections. So at the end, if we don't, if they take over this lease, then whatever protections we have in place right now, if we don't pass this, they can go ahead and do pretty much, what can they do? Anyone, I mean, and Melanie, anyone can buy it, right? So it's a process, right? So now it's all going to, now we have to see what would happen. You already spoke. I could answer that question. Now, I appreciate that. Melanie, you have a lot of people in your ear right now. Go ahead. Sorry, yes, I'm trying to address everyone's questions. So, again, I would like to go back and look at the order from the bankruptcy court, but I believe, I want to go back and look, that it approved the sale of the existing lease to Terra, contingent on the approval of this board. All right, folks, so we have to go ahead. I think we heard enough. I think we heard, guys, stop. You guys are adults. For God's sakes, come on. So we have to, we've gone over our time. So I think, I think I see where the votes are. We're not willing to, the only thing that we have right now is to defer it, because we don't have the votes to move this out of committee without, Marlene, it has to be without, where are you at, Marlene? Commissioner, Commissioner Bastien, I'm sorry. My position was to defer. Your position is to defer. So we're good? So that's, that's, that's, that's where we are right now. So, um, is there. That's their attorney. So I don't know if you, if you want to say something. I'm sorry. If I may just answer the question that was asked about the ability to close on the existing lease. Go ahead. So, um, Eric Singer with Bills and Sundberg, um, 1450 Brickell on behalf of, uh, Terra Resilient Aquarium LLC. Um, we have a contract in place with the existing tenant, the debtor, which is controlled by its creditors. It is to purchase the lease as amended, um, what is, what is before you. There is no contract in place to purchase the existing lease. Is it, is it theoretically possible we'd have to get their consent? We'd have to negotiate a new deal, take that new deal to the bankruptcy court and ask them to approve it. And so we, we just, that's not an option that we can, we can commit to or even really imagine at this time. Commissioner Steinberg. Thank you. And I appreciate that. I recognize that. Thank you. All right. So look, I think, I think we know where we are right now. So I think the motion, uh, Commissioner, uh, Bastien, you have a motion to, to defer. Because a motion to approve is not going to happen and we're not going to be able to get this out of this committee. So, and we'll ask the chairman to reconsider this and hopefully we can try to get this as soon as possible. Hopefully we can have a special meeting and it gives people, the public, enough time to consider all the options and see what's within the piece of legislation before us. Let's urge. And we ask, uh, I hope he's listening. Maybe you can ask him to schedule a meeting as soon as possible so we can have another bite at, uh, at this apple. Make sure that the public, uh, stays aware of what's, uh, what's in this piece of, uh, this, this lease anyway. So with that, there's a motion in a second to have this item deferred. Do we need a motion to defer? Yeah, I guess we do, right? Yes. And would this be to no date certain? The very next meeting that we can get it on. The one and a half. So that's what the item is. All in favor, say aye. Opposed. Opposed. Like sign. Yeah, you guys have it with the motions deferred to the, yeah, because it was, there's, there's, there's, all right, with that, see the item deferred. All in favor, say aye.