The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSubmittal-Public Comments Submitted Online for the December 11, 2025 City Commission MeetingOnline Public Comments -Miami City Commission Meeting of December 111 2025 Online Public Comment Report for December 11, 2025, Regular City Commission Meeting December 15, 2025 8:21 AM MST Public Comment motero@miamigov.com Stree First Last t A g end Reco Nam Nam Public Comment rded Addr a Item e e Date ess Dear Public Servants I support resolution CA.4 to purchase and install new trees citywide. Miami desperately needs more canopy, and I'm grateful to see this investment move forward. But I also want to urge you to address a long-standing gap that continues to undermine every tree -planting effort this City makes: the lack of an urban landscape professional responsible for ensuring that newly planted trees survive. For decades, City staff and contractors have planted trees, often good species, often in the right locations, but far too many of these trees end up damaged or killed by mechanical injuries from routine ground maintenance. Weed -whackers girdle trunks which eventually kills the trees. Mowers strike the bark and roots. Exposed roots get shredded by mower blades. We spend CA. 4 hundreds of thousands of dollars planting trees, only to lose them to preventable harm #1841 within a few years. This is not a new issue. It is documented in both the Miami Canopy 5 Coalition's Blueprint for Greater Miami's Urban Forests and the City of Miami's own 2006 Accept Tree Master Plan, which clearly calls for proper maintenance protocols, mulching, and Bid - protective understory plantings. To truly protect this $860,000 investment, and all future Dec 2627 1 Sam Purcha investments, you should require three things: First, hire or assign a qualified urban Wills s a nth se and landscaper or urban forestry professional to oversee installation AND maintenance practices 2025 on bays 6:40 a Install citywide, ensuring contractors do not inadvertently destroy the trees we are paying to plant. hoe Variou Second, require the use of native groundcovers, low -growing native plants, or shrubs around am s tree bases. These living plant buffers protect trunks from mechanical damage, keep mowers MST Specie away, improve soil health, store water, and dramatically increase survival rates. They also s of increase biodiversity and the resilience of our urban forest. Third, ensure the City selects a Trees diverse mix of native tree species that support our local ecosystem. We have an overabundance of green buttonwoods, which provide limited canopy and ecological value. Miami needs more large, wind -resilient, hurricane -tested native species such as mahogany, gumbo limbo, and live oak, and native trees that offer habitat, food sources for wildlife, and strong long-term canopy benefits. If we continue planting trees without correcting the maintenance failure that kills them, we are wasting taxpayer dollars and falling further behind our canopy goals. But if you pair today's investment with proper landscape leadership and protective design, these trees will thrive for generations. Please support the resolution, and strengthen it by ensuring our urban forest receives the professional care it needs and deserves. Thank you. PZ. 14 As this area has been changing, shifting from industrial to residential, I don't know that it D 3075 41813 1 makes sense to grant an extension for the continuance of a nonconforming use for 20 Fran Prad sw Except years. Why not insist upon a conforming use for the property, or at least given the rapid 2025 Cisco 0 39 ion - changes in the area, limit the length of the extension, and revisit in a few years? 20 years is 8:50 ave 3875 Practically an eternity am ShiPP i MST ng Av 18658 Submittal -Public Comments Submitted Online for the December 11, 2025 City Commission Meeting First Last Stree Aend Nam Nam Addr agtem Public Comment e e ess Commissioners, what you are voting on today is not a land sale. It is a fire sale. You are transferring 3.2 acres of public, waterfront, fee -simple land — some of the most irreplaceable property in the State of Florida — for $29 million, a number that only exists by pretending this is still a restricted leasehold interest. But the resolution explicitly removes the State restrictions, removes the encumbrances, and delivers full fee -simple title. Your own appraisal says that scenario is worth between $257 million and $343 million. So the public is losing a quarter -billion dollars — minimum — overnight. And worse: the City is PH. 12 paying $4 million to the State to clear the title for the developer, making their land more #1846 valuable — and then selling it to them at the old restricted price. This is not a market sale. 8 This is not a competitive process. This is not highest and best use. And it is absolutely not Execut an arms -length transaction. Section 29-C exists to prevent exactly this: closed -door, no -bid 777 e - transfers of public land to pre -selected private buyers at suppressed valuations. If there has Brick PSA - ever been a case where that protection mattered, it is this one. There is no public RFP, no Smit ell Sale of competitive bids, no evaluation of alternative uses, no exploration of Live Local mixed- Sta n h Ave 3.2 income programs, no ground -lease modeling, and no binding development agreement Miam Acre attached to the resolution. You are being asked to approve a blank -check sale with no i FL Parcel specifications, no affordability, no workforce requirements, and no economic -development deliverables — only a vague $9 million "community benefits" number that isn't tied to any Watso enforceable outcomes. If this were private land, no owner in Miami would sell for $29 n million. Not Brickell, not Edgewater — not even Allapattah. Watson Island is some of the Island most valuable land in the entire county, and the City is handing it away for pennies on the dollar. It is better to auction or handle this through an RFP. This is a precedent -setting divestment of public wealth, and if it goes forward, every developer in this city will ask for the same treatment: waive bidding, waive valuation, waive the public interest. You cannot allow this. Not at this price. Not under these terms. Not with these unanswered questions. Defer this item. Demand a full fee -simple appraisal review. Require a competitive process, or at minimum, a long-term ground lease that preserves public value. Miami cannot afford a $300 million mistake — and that is exactly what PH.12 represents today. Dear Commissioners. I support resolution CA.4 to purchase and install new trees citywide. Miami desperately needs more canopy, and I'm grateful to see this investment move forward. But I also want to urge you to address a long-standing gap that continues to undermine every tree -planting effort this City makes: the lack of an urban landscape professional responsible for ensuring that newly planted trees survive. For decades, City staff and contractors have planted trees, often good species, often in the right locations, but far too many of these trees end up damaged or killed by mechanical injuries from routine ground maintenance. Weed -whackers girdle trunks which eventually kills the trees. Mowers strike the bark and roots. Exposed roots get shredded by mower blades. We spend CA. 4 hundreds of thousands of dollars planting trees, only to lose them to preventable harm #1841 within a few years. This is not a new issue. It is documented in both the Miami Canopy 5 Coalition's Blueprint for Greater Miami's Urban Forests and the City of Miami's own 2006 Accept Tree Master Plan, which clearly calls for proper maintenance protocols, mulching, and Bid - protective understory plantings. To truly protect this $860,000 investment, and all future 5910 Purcha investments, you should require three things: First, hire or assign a qualified urban San Mois NE se and landscaper or urban forestry professional to oversee installation AND maintenance practices dy e 6th Install citywide, ensuring contractors do not inadvertently destroy the trees we are paying to plant. Court Variou Second, require the use of native groundcovers, low -growing native plants, or shrubs around s tree bases. These living plant buffers protect trunks from mechanical damage, keep mowers Specie away, improve soil health, store water, and dramatically increase survival rates. They also s of increase biodiversity and the resilience of our urban forest. Third, ensure the City selects a Trees diverse mix of native tree species that support our local ecosystem. We have an overabundance of green buttonwoods, which provide limited canopy and ecological value. Miami needs more large, wind -resilient, hurricane -tested native species such as mahogany, gumbo limbo, and live oak, and native trees that offer habitat, food sources for wildlife, and strong long-term canopy benefits. If we continue planting trees without correcting the maintenance failure that kills them, we are wasting taxpayer dollars and falling further behind our canopy goals. But if you pair today's investment with proper landscape leadership and protective design, these trees will thrive for generations. Please support the resolution, and strengthen it by ensuring our urban forest receives the professional care it needs and deserves. Thank you. Reco rded Date Dec 07 2025 2:28 pm MST Dec 11 2025 6:11 am MST First Last Stree Reco Aend Nam Nam Addr agtem Public Comment rded e e Date ess CA. 4 #1841 5 1010 Accept 8 NE Bid - 1st Purcha Mar Bent Ave, se and y on Miam Install i Variou Shor s es Specie s of Trees Jenn Cary 334 CA.4 ifer el North #1841 west 5 108th Accept Stree Bid - t Purcha se and Install Variou s Specie s of Trees Dear Commissioners. I support resolution CA.4 to purchase and install new trees citywide. Miami desperately needs more canopy, and I'm grateful to see this investment move forward. But I also want to urge you to address a long-standing gap that continues to undermine every tree -planting effort this City makes: the lack of an urban landscape professional responsible for ensuring that newly planted trees survive. For decades, City staff and contractors have planted trees, often good species, often in the right locations, but far too many of these trees end up damaged or killed by mechanical injuries from routine ground maintenance. Weed -whackers girdle trunks which eventually kills the trees. Mowers strike the bark and roots. Exposed roots get shredded by mower blades. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars planting trees, only to lose them to preventable harm within a few years. This is not a new issue. It is documented in both the Miami Canopy Coalition's Blueprint for Greater Miami's Urban Forests and the City of Miami's own 2006 Tree Master Plan, which clearly calls for proper maintenance protocols, mulching, and protective understory plantings. To truly protect this $860,000 investment, and all future investments, you should require three things: First, hire or assign a qualified urban landscaper or urban forestry professional to oversee installation AND maintenance practices citywide, ensuring contractors do not inadvertently destroy the trees we are paying to plant. Second, require the use of native groundcovers, low -growing native plants, or shrubs around tree bases. These living plant buffers protect trunks from mechanical damage, keep mowers away, improve soil health, store water, and dramatically increase survival rates. They also increase biodiversity and the resilience of our urban forest. Third, ensure the City selects a diverse mix of native tree species that support our local ecosystem. We have an overabundance of green buttonwoods, which provide limited canopy and ecological value. Miami needs more large, wind -resilient, hurricane -tested native species such as mahogany, gumbo limbo, and live oak, and native trees that offer habitat, food sources for wildlife, and strong long-term canopy benefits. If we continue planting trees without correcting the maintenance failure that kills them, we are wasting taxpayer dollars and falling further behind our canopy goals. But if you pair today's investment with proper landscape leadership and protective design, these trees will thrive for generations. Please support the resolution, and strengthen it by ensuring our urban forest receives the professional care it needs and deserves. Thank you, Mary Benton Dear Commissioners. I support resolution CA.4 to purchase and install new trees citywide. Miami desperately needs more canopy, and I'm grateful to see this investment move forward. But I also want to urge you to address a long-standing gap that continues to undermine every tree -planting effort this City makes: the lack of an urban landscape professional responsible for ensuring that newly planted trees survive. For decades, City staff and contractors have planted trees, often good species, often in the right locations, but far too many of these trees end up damaged or killed by mechanical injuries from routine ground maintenance. Weed -whackers girdle trunks which eventually kills the trees. Mowers strike the bark and roots. Exposed roots get shredded by mower blades. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars planting trees, only to lose them to preventable harm within a few years. This is not a new issue. It is documented in both the Miami Canopy Coalition's Blueprint for Greater Miami's Urban Forests and the City of Miami's own 2006 Tree Master Plan, which clearly calls for proper maintenance protocols, mulching, and protective understory plantings. To truly protect this $860,000 investment, and all future investments, you should require three things: First, hire or assign a qualified urban landscaper or urban forestry professional to oversee installation AND maintenance practices citywide, ensuring contractors do not inadvertently destroy the trees we are paying to plant. Second, require the use of native groundcovers, low -growing native plants, or shrubs around tree bases. These living plant buffers protect trunks from mechanical damage, keep mowers away, improve soil health, store water, and dramatically increase survival rates. They also increase biodiversity and the resilience of our urban forest. Third, ensure the City selects a diverse mix of native tree species that support our local ecosystem. We have an overabundance of green buttonwoods, which provide limited canopy and ecological value. Miami needs more large, wind -resilient, hurricane -tested native species such as mahogany, gumbo limbo, and live oak, and native trees that offer habitat, food sources for wildlife, and strong long-term canopy benefits. If we continue planting trees without correcting the maintenance failure that kills them, we are wasting taxpayer dollars and falling further behind our canopy goals. But if you pair today's investment with proper landscape leadership and protective design, these trees will thrive for generations. Please support the Dec 11 2025 9:47 am MST Dec 11 2025 7:00 am MST First Last Stree Aend Nam Nam Addr agtem Public Comment e e ess resolution, and strengthen it by ensuring our urban forest receives the professional care it needs and deserves. Thank you. Dear Commissioners. I support resolution CA.4 to purchase and install new trees citywide Miami desperately needs more canopy, and I'm grateful to see this investment move forward. But I also want to urge you to address a long-standing gap that continues to undermine every tree -planting effort this City makes: the lack of an urban landscape professional responsible for ensuring that newly planted trees survive. For decades, City staff and contractors have planted trees, often good species, often in the right locations, but far too many of these trees end up damaged or killed by mechanical injuries from routine ground maintenance. Weed -whackers girdle trunks which eventually kills the trees. Mowers strike the bark and roots. Exposed roots get shredded by mower blades. We spend CA. 4 hundreds of thousands of dollars planting trees, only to lose them to preventable harm #1841 within a few years. This is not a new issue. It is documented in both the Miami Canopy 5 Coalition's Blueprint for Greater Miami's Urban Forests and the City of Miami's own 2006 Accept Tree Master Plan, which clearly calls for proper maintenance protocols, mulching, and 434 Bid - protective understory plantings. To truly protect this $860,000 investment, and all future NE Purcha investments, you should require three things: First, hire or assign a qualified urban Me[i Fran 102 se and landscaper or urban forestry professional to oversee installation AND maintenance practices ssa tz Stree Install citywide, ensuring contractors do not inadvertently destroy the trees we are paying to plant. t Variou Second, require the use of native groundcovers, low -growing native plants, or shrubs around s tree bases. These living plant buffers protect trunks from mechanical damage, keep mowers Specie away, improve soil health, store water, and dramatically increase survival rates. They also s of increase biodiversity and the resilience of our urban forest. Third, ensure the City selects a Trees diverse mix of native tree species that support our local ecosystem. We have an overabundance of green buttonwoods, which provide limited canopy and ecological value. Miami needs more large, wind -resilient, hurricane -tested native species such as mahogany, gumbo limbo, and live oak, and native trees that offer habitat, food sources for wildlife, and strong long-term canopy benefits. If we continue planting trees without correcting the maintenance failure that kills them, we are wasting taxpayer dollars and falling further behind our canopy goals. But if you pair today's investment with proper landscape leadership and protective design, these trees will thrive for generations. Please support the resolution, and strengthen it by ensuring our urban forest receives the professional care it needs and deserves. Thank you. Ede[ Lope 1040 CA. 4 Dear Commissioners. I support resolution CA.4 to purchase and install new trees citywide. man z 0 NE #1841 Miami desperately needs more canopy, and I'm grateful to see this investment move 4th 5 forward. But I also want to urge you to address a long-standing gap that continues to ave, Accept undermine every tree -planting effort this City makes: the lack of an urban landscape Miam Bid - professional responsible for ensuring that newly planted trees survive. For decades, City i, fl Purcha staff and contractors have planted trees, often good species, often in the right locations, but 3313 se and far too many of these trees end up damaged or killed by mechanical injuries from routine 8 Install ground maintenance. Weed -whackers girdle trunks which eventually kills the trees. Mowers Variou strike the bark and roots. Exposed roots get shredded by mower blades. We spend s hundreds of thousands of dollars planting trees, only to lose them to preventable harm Specie within a few years. This is not a new issue. It is documented in both the Miami Canopy s of Coalition's Blueprint for Greater Miami's Urban Forests and the City of Miami's own 2006 Trees Tree Master Plan, which clearly calls for proper maintenance protocols, mulching, and protective understory plantings. To truly protect this $860,000 investment, and all future investments, you should require three things: First, hire or assign a qualified urban landscaper or urban forestry professional to oversee installation AND maintenance practices citywide, ensuring contractors do not inadvertently destroy the trees we are paying to plant. Second, require the use of native groundcovers, low -growing native plants, or shrubs around tree bases. These living plant buffers protect trunks from mechanical damage, keep mowers away, improve soil health, store water, and dramatically increase survival rates. They also increase biodiversity and the resilience of our urban forest. Third, ensure the City selects a diverse mix of native tree species that support our local ecosystem. We have an overabundance of green buttonwoods, which provide limited canopy and ecological value. Miami needs more large, wind -resilient, hurricane -tested native species such as mahogany, gumbo limbo, and live oak, and native trees that offer habitat, food sources for wildlife, and strong long-term canopy benefits. If we continue planting trees without correcting the Reco rded Date Dec 11 2025 8:22 am MST Dec 11 2025 7:02 am MST First Last Stree Reco Aend Nam Nam Addr agtem Public Comment rded e e Date ess RE. 17 #1862 0 Allocat 485 e Brick Fundin ell 9- Ave Afforda #230 ble Rob Ellis 3 Housin Miam g - i FL 1251 3313 SW 7 1 Street Mabru k USA LLC Rob Ellis 485 PH.12 Brick #1846 ell 8 Ave Execut #230 e - 3 PSA - Miam Sale of i FL 3.2 3313 Acre 1 Parcel Watso n Island maintenance failure that kills them, we are wasting taxpayer dollars and falling further behind our canopy goals. But if you pair today's investment with proper landscape leadership and protective design, these trees will thrive for generations. Please support the resolution, and strengthen it by ensuring our urban forest receives the professional care it needs and deserves. Thank you. Good morning Commissioners. I am commenting on Item PH.15, regarding the disposition of City -owned land to Mabruk USA LLC. I respectfully request that this item be modified and deferred so it may follow the proper land -disposition protocols consistent with State redevelopment law and competitive public procurement standards. Under Florida Statutes Chapter 163.380, when real property is conveyed within or adjacent to a Community Redevelopment Area, the State requires an open, competitive solicitation — an RFP or RFQ — to ensure transparency, fair market participation, and the highest public return. CRAs are not allowed to conduct negotiated, no -bid land transfers. They must use a public process. Although this item is being routed through the City rather than the CRA, the underlying transaction is identical in nature to a CRA redevelopment deal. It involves City -owned land, a private development partner, public subsidies, affordability requirements, and the long- term disposition of a public asset. Functionally, this is redevelopment activity — but the competitive process required by State law is not being applied. Additionally, PH.15 provides no disclosure of the transfer price or valuation. When public land is conveyed to a private entity, the purchase price is a material term that must be transparent for the public to evaluate whether the City is receiving fair value. This becomes even more concerning when the same developer is receiving a $4 million forgivable loan under RE.17 on this very agenda. Land plus public funding is being awarded to a single private entity without competition, without valuation disclosure, and without market testing. Regardless of whether a technical Charter exemption exists, the Commission has the authority — and I would argue the obligation — to require an open solicitation, public valuation, and competitive process for the disposition of City -owned property. Our land assets are too scarce and too important to be transferred through negotiated processes that bypass the safeguards built into State redevelopment law. I respectfully request that Item PH.15 be deferred and returned with a public valuation and a competitive solicitation consistent with the standards applied to CRA land dispositions under Section 163.380. Good morning Commissioners. My name is Rob Ellis. I am here today to respectfully request that Item PH.12 be deferred until basic valuation, procurement, and public -asset safeguards are met. The City is proposing to permanently dispose of a 3.2-acre waterfront parcel on Watson Island for $29 million, which equates to approximately $9 million per acre. This price point is materially below any rationalized land valuation framework for comparable zoning or entitlement intensity in the urban core. Downtown waterfront parcels are now trading at effective land bases exceeding $40 million per acre, and in Brickell, waterfront valuations routinely exceed $100 million per acre once FAR is normalized. Given that this site allows high -density hotel and residential use, and given its location on the last remaining urban waterfront development pad in the City's inventory, the proposed disposition does not reflect market value. In fact, the absence of an appraisal or supporting valuation study is itself a significant procedural deficiency. There is no MAI appraisal in the backup. There is no broker opinion of value. There is no valuation memo, no highest -and - best -use analysis, no financial feasibility comparison, and no documentation demonstrating that the proposed price meets or even approaches fair market value. This is not a market sale, and it is not an arms -length transaction. Competitive bidding was waived. Appraisals were waived. Independent verification was waived. The public is being asked to approve a permanent disposition of high -value waterfront real estate without the most basic valuation protections. For transactions of this magnitude, best practices —and common municipal policy across the United States —require at minimum two independent MAI appraisals, funded by the applicant, to avoid conflicts of interest and to ensure that the disposition of public land complies with fiduciary obligations. Miami Beach, Broward County, Palm Beach County, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston all require dual appraisals for public -land transfers, particularly waterfront land or land with unique entitlements. Additionally, the Commission has not been presented with an evaluation of alternative disposition structures, including a 99-year ground lease, a ground lease with an upfront lump -sum payment, or a hybrid revenue model. A sale permanently divests the City of waterfront property and removes any opportunity for recurring revenue, inflation -indexed Dec 07 2025 2:52 pm MST Dec 07 2025 2:05 pm MST First Last Stree Reco Aend Nam Nam Addr agtem Public Comment rded e e Date ess CA. 4 #1841 5 Accept Bid - Chri 3752 Purcha Ba ra stop Kum se and her loto quat Install Va riou s Specie s of Trees PH. 12 #1846 8 Execut e- NE PSA - Jose Ger 1st Sale of man 3.2 Ave Acre Parcel Watso n Island Katri Morr 4130 CA.4 na is Lyby #1841 er 5 Ave Accept Bid - Purcha se and Install Va riou s rent escalations, or participation in future land appreciation. A properly structured ground lease would preserve ownership, protect the public's long-term balance sheet, and generate predictable recurring income for generations. The City should also retain critical public easements, including resiliency, stormwater, shoreline access, transportation, and pedestrian access easements, none of which appear to be secured at this time. Furthermore, the current Community Benefits Agreement allocates $9 million for undefined housing and infrastructure uses but contains no measurable workforce development metrics, no apprenticeship requirements, no local hiring targets, and no economic mobility provisions. Major cities require enforceable commitments tied to quantifiable outcomes in exchange for public land disposition. These should be incorporated before any approval is granted. Because this transaction affects a unique coastal site governed by historic deed restrictions, and because the City is also required to pay $4 million to the State to remove those restrictions, the City Attorney should formally opine on the sufficiency of the valuation, procurement, and waiver processes, including whether this transaction meets the legal threshold for disposition of public property under the Florida Constitution, state statutes, City Charter, and procurement code. For all of these reasons, I strongly urge the Commission to defer this item, require the developer to fund two independent appraisals, evaluate ground lease alternatives, secure public easements, and incorporate quantifiable workforce and economic development commitments before any irreversible action is taken. This is a once- in -a -generation decision involving irreplaceable public waterfront land. It must meet the highest legal, fiduciary, and procedural standards. Thank you. I do NOT support this item, although I DO support the investment of substantial capital into Dec tree plantings and especially tree maintenance to improve our Urban Tree Canopy. Please 11 consider a more thorough review of the bids with public comment, so that reviews of similar 2025 projects and evidence of success with native tree plantings and maintenance are considered 8:38 rather than bottom line of lowest bid. am MST I oppose the public land sale of Watson Island --certainly at the "obnoxiously low' sale price the commission has settled on. Given the questions around the appraisal of this land, it is Dec clear that the city needs a better understanding of how much the developers stand to profit 11 before selling off the land for pennies on the dollar. Additionally, the rush to sell the land 2025 gives an air of impropriety that is hard to remove in a city marred by constant corruption 9:22 scandals. The commission should forgo the sale of Watson Island until it conducts a more am careful cost -benefit analysis and can proceed in a manner that is the most beneficial to tax- MST payers, not the developers. Mayor, Commissioners and City Manager, I am surprised to see procurement of over $860k Dec for trees and planting. This is a very large expenditure. Where are the trees going? Is there 11 a master plan? Is this money coming out of the tree trust fund? I would ask you to defer 2025 and provide more information to the public before approving this bid. Thank you. 12:5 3a m MST First Last Stree Aend Nam Nam Addr agtem Public Comment e e ess Specie s of Trees Mayor, Commissioners, City Manager: I urge you to reject this $29 million Watson Island sale price. The City Manager argues the property is only worth $29 million because development restrictions remain in place after the sale. But let's examine what these PH. 12 "restrictions" actually allow: • 105 luxury condos priced above $1 million each • 500 hotel #1846 rooms in two towers on prime waterfront • Nearly 100,000 square feet of retail and office 8 space • 40-story and 30-story towers This isn't a restricted property - it's a highly valuable Execut development program on irreplaceable Biscayne Bay waterfront. 33109, right next door, is e the USA's most expensive zip code. BH3 themselves paid over $50 million just for the 4130 PSA - leasehold rights to build this exact project. According to news reports, your appraiser Integra Katri Morr Lyby Sale of Realty Resources valued this property at $257-342 million. The city should make the na is er 3.2 complete Integra appraisal publicly available so residents can understand how the same Ave Acre appraiser arrived at both $29 million and over $250 million. Furthermore, if the "restrictions" Parcel were truly that limiting, why did BH3 pay so much for the leasehold? Why do they want to buy it now? We're also trading $2 million in annual rent for 99 years - that's $198 million in Watso future revenue - for just $29 million upfront. The voters approved the sale at "fair market n value:' A price that's 90% below your appraiser's valuation is not fair market value. This is Island not an emergency. We are not a distressed seller. The public deserves a transparent valuation, an independent appraisal, and a deal that reflects the true value of the land. Please vote no and get a proper valuation. Thank you. My name is Rob Ellis, Executive Director of JobsFlorida Inc. Across multiple items today — whether it's the $150 million Omni CRA bond issuance, the Town Park Village restructuring, ground leases, public land decisions, funding allocations, or ROW improvements — there is RE. 12 a consistent missing piece: Economic development and job creation are not being treated as #1860 core requirements for these approvals. Miami is investing hundreds of millions into housing, 485 6 infrastructure, and redevelopment — but without a parallel, measurable strategy for: local Brick Approv workforce participation small business activation micro -retail opportunities contracting ell e - opportunities for local firms vendor pathways for residents corridor and public -realm Ave Omni economic activation Housing without jobs creates displacement. Infrastructure without #230 CRA Rob Ellis activation creates empty corridors. And funding cultural or entertainment venues without an 3 Series economic engine behind them doesnl build long-term stability. I am asking the City and the Miam 2026 CRAs to require an Economic Impact Component on every major item: Bond issuances LOIs i FL Issuan Public land decisions Capital allocations Sidewalk and ROW projects Event funding 3313 ce - Affordable housing incentives This should include: Projected jobs created Local vendor 1 F.S. utilization Small business opportunities created Workforce training or placement Activation 163.38 plans for surrounding corridors Miami's growth must support the people who live here — not 5 just buildings, museums, or one-off events. I strongly recommend integrating this economic - development lens into today's approvals and into every major action moving into 2026. Thank you. Erica Scot 3250 PZ. 13 On behalf of Miami Homes for All, I'm here in strong support of PZ.13(18563), an ordinance t SW #1856 that allows affordable housing to be developed by right on land owned by civic, religious, 3rd 3 and educational institutions. Thank you, Commissioner Rosado, for championing this Ave Zoning important proposal. Miami is facing a severe affordable housing crisis. We are short 90,000 Miam Text — affordable rental homes for households earning up to $75,000 a year. Addressing this i, FL Reside shortage requires bold and practical solutions, and PZ.13 is both. There are two key reasons 3312 ntial why this ordinance matters: First, it empowers institutions to serve their communities. 9 on Across Miami, churches have vacant lots while parishioners struggle to afford rent. This Civic ordinance allows these institutions to turn unused land into affordable homes, helping Institut people stay connected to their neighborhoods. Second, it unlocks meaningful new housing ion capacity. The City has identified 668 civic -use properties that would be eligible under this (YIGB measure. At a time when every unit counts, this represents an important opportunity to Y) increase the supply of affordable housing. We urge you to support PZ.13 and help move Miami toward a more affordable, inclusive future. This ordinance gives our schools, churches, and civic institutions the tools to expand their mission and directly support the Reco rded Date Dec 11 2025 12:4 9a m MST Dec 07 2025 1:46 pm MST Dec 10 2025 9:11 am MST First Last Stree Aend Nam Nam Addr agtem Public Comment e e ess residents they serve. Thank you for your time and for your continued commitment to addressing Miami's housing crisis. Public Comment — Item PH.14 (File 18570) and Item RE.18 (File 18621) City of Miami Commission — December 11, 2025 1 am submitting a technical comment regarding the disposition of City -owned real property and the associated forgivable loan package proposed for N.R. Investments. These actions raise structural concerns regarding process integrity, valuation, and statutory compliance: Waiver of Competitive Bidding: Both PH.14 and RE.18 rely on Section 29-B and 29-C of the Charter to waive competitive solicitation. While the Charter allows waivers, their use in the context of fee simple land conveyances and multi- million -dollar public subsidies constitutes a material deviation from the City's standard procurement and land disposition practices. The City is effectively awarding public land and RE. 18 public funds to a pre -selected entity without testing the market, without competitive #1862 evaluation, and without establishing that this is the highest -value or best -use outcome for 1 the taxpayers. Inconsistency with CRA Standards: Although the parcels are not within a Allocat CRA, the City typically applies CRA-like public notice, competition, and scoring frameworks e when disposing of significant development -ready property. Here, the land conveyance and Fundin loan approval are being advanced through administrative pathways that bypass the 485 g - community redevelopment norms used throughout District 3. Bundled Transactions Without Brick Afforda Market Validation: The City is simultaneously: conveying the land (PH.14), and issuing a ell ble forgivable loan (RE.18) to the same developer, with no appraisal disclosures, no alternative- Ave Housin proposal review, no unsolicited proposal framework, and no evidence of a third -party #230 Rob Ellis g - valuation confirming that the public is receiving adequate consideration. Public Land 3 1340 Disposition Without Highest and Best Use Analysis: No documentation has been provided Miam SW 8 demonstrating: the land's current appraised market value, whether the City evaluated i FL Street alternative programs such as a ground lease, long-term revenue share, or Live Local Act 3313 and density optimization, or whether higher public benefit could be achieved under competitive 1 825 procurement. State -Level Review and Reverter Risk: The resolutions reference statutory SW 13 requirements tied to land use restrictions and affordable housing compliance, but the Court - process bypasses the State -level oversight frameworks normally triggered when public land NR is transferred for below -market value. When the City conveys real property at a reduced Invest value and forgives debt simultaneously, this triggers heightened scrutiny to confirm ments compliance with the Public Purpose Doctrine and Florida's prohibition on gifting public assets. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Commission defer action on PH.14 and RE.18 until the City conducts: a full competitive procurement or public RFP process, an updated, independent appraisal, a highest -and -best -use analysis, including the feasibility of a City -controlled ground lease, and a transparent evaluation of all alternatives available to maximize long-term public benefit. This is not an objection to affordable housing — it is an objection to process, precedent, and compliance. The disposition of City -owned assets should follow a documented, competitive, and transparent methodology to ensure that residents receive full value and that the City avoids legal and financial exposure. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. mart smit 465 PH. 12 The City of Miami cannot legally transfer, amend, extend, or sell leasehold rights for private ha h Brick #1846 development on Watson Island because no fully executed, referendum -approved lease ell 8 exists. Your own legislation states —multiple times —that the Luxury Hotel Lease, the Ave Execut Residences Lease, and the Lifestyle Hotel Lease "do not yet exist:' You cannot amend or #230 e - assign something that was never finalized. Under Section 29-C of the City Charter, any 6 PSA - disposition of waterfront land, long-term leasehold interest, or private development rights Miam Sale of requires: A valid, executed lease; A competitive procurement; and A citywide referendum. i FL 3.2 None of that has occurred. The original Flagstone agreement is legally moot. It was never Acre completed, it was terminated, and its rights were never vested. The City cannot "revive" or Parcel 'modify" a contract that never came into legal existence. More importantly, the Watson Island conveyance to the City was conditioned on public recreation and public benefit uses. Watso Selling or transferring acreage for a private residential or hotel development would not only n violate the Charter —it may trigger reversion to the State of Florida, because the City cannot Island dispose of state -granted public land for a private commercial purpose. If this Commission approves this transaction without a valid lease, without a referendum, and without meeting the conditions of the original deed, you are exposing the City to immediate litigation, state intervention, and the potential loss of the land entirely. What I urge today is simple: Pause this item. Review the Charter. Review the deed restrictions. And do not transfer Watson Reco rded Date Dec 07 2025 2:59 pm MST Dec 08 2025 4:55 pm MST First Last Stree Reco Aend Nam Nam Addr agtem Public Comment rded e e Date ess PR - PRES 1880 ENTAT Glad Han 7 NE IONS ys dzlik Miam AND i P[ PROC LAMAT IONS Alex Mile ande s r PZ. 13 #1856 3 3177 SW Zoning Text — 19th Reside St., ntia[ Miam i, FL, on Civic 3314 5 I nstitut ion (YIGB Y) Island to private development under a lease that legally does not exist. Watson Island is one of the last large-scale public waterfront assets in the City of Miami. It deserves a transparent public process —not a rushed disposition based on an expired, incomplete, and unenforceable agreement. Urgent Funding and Reform Needed for Miami -Dade Animal Shelters (Medley and Dora[) N/A End of Report Dec 10 2025 Dec 15 2025