| |
REPORT:
Mayor Levine Cava emphasized the importance of the Fisher Island fueling facility to the cruise industry operating in Miami and reiterated Mr. Liberty's points regarding the industry's positive economic contribution to the County. She stressed that if the administration were unable to secure the parcel, the County risked losing its fueling capability, which would negatively affect cruising tourism. Mayor Levine Cava requested that the Board authorize the administration to acquire the facility, whether through a negotiated transaction or eminent domain proceedings. She advised that she would be unable to remain for the rest of the meeting and noted that Mr. Morales, was present to address the Board on her behalf.
Commissioner Regalado provided an overview of her proposed item, explaining that she had worked with the administration to draft a resolution but had been unable to place it on the prior Board of County Commissioners (BCC) agenda. She noted that the fuel facility could continue operating for the remaining two and a half years of its lease, but that the administration would need to determine an alternative site and the future use of the current location. Commissioner Regalado stated that her resolution would direct the administration to negotiate with the prospective buyer to determine whether the County could purchase the property, and, if unsuccessful, to pursue eminent domain. She stated that her item also sought to change PortMiami's internal culture by requiring staff to continuously monitor and pursue alternative properties suitable for port use, noting that the port had passed up other opportunities in the past, including this one, despite the sale having been open, disclosed, and active. She explained that under her proposal, the County would pay the verified due diligence costs incurred by the prospective purchaser and, in exchange, would obtain the related intellectual property, including engineering and other studies already completed on the site. She stated that she did not recommend a long-term lease, since the facility was essential to port operations, and that she had been in communication with the Fisher Island Community Association regarding the search for an alternative location. She added that the County did not need to preserve the facility's full existing footprint and could beautify the site, noting that little had changed there in over 50 years. Commissioner Regalado acknowledged that an alternative site could be identified over time, but not within two and a half years, and outlined proposed guidelines to assist the Mayor in negotiations, including an appraisal, County payment of the purchaser's costs, and a cap on the amount payable above the appraised value.
Chairman Rodriguez clarified that no official item was before the Board, since the meeting had been advertised as a discussion item, though motions could still be made.
Commissioner Regalado noted that the legislative language she had circulated had been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office (CAO).
Commissioner Gilbert III acknowledged Commissioner Regalado's points but stated that questions of beautification and broader port policy could be addressed separately, and asked whether the County needed the property.
Mr. Morales confirmed that the County needed the property and stated that the sale was expected to close within approximately four weeks.
In response to Commissioner Gilbert's III question about funding, Mr. Morales stated that the purchase could be financed through PortMiami reserves, potential advance payments from the cruise industry, and possible adjustments to minimum guarantee agreements with cruise line partners, and noted that the County could also issue bonds, with no use of taxpayer funds. Commissioner Gilbert III stated that, given the property was necessary and funding was available, the administration should act to secure it before it was purchased by another party. He recommended initiating eminent domain proceedings to establish the County's interest, noting that this would not preclude continued negotiation with the current owner. Commissioner Gilbert III explained that eminent domain existed to allow government to acquire privately owned property for a public purpose, acknowledged the Fisher Island residents' concerns, and noted that cruise tourism represented one of the state's largest economic drivers. Following his comments, he made a motion consistent with his remarks that the Board direct the administration to institute eminent domain proceedings immediately to acquire the fuel facility property, stating that this would not preclude continued negotiation with the current owner or a future owner in the meantime, and that if acceptable terms were reached through negotiation, the County could still proceed that way.
Chairman Rodriguez stated that he wished to hear from other commissioners before entertaining a motion.
Senator Garcia asked what would happen to the property once the two-and-a-half-year lease ended; to which Mr. Morales responded that the fuel tanks would be removed.
Senator Garcia questioned the need to pursue eminent domain on a private sale and asked what alternatives had been studied and how comparable cities addressed fuel access.
Mr. Morales stated that PortMiami was the only port of its size and stature in Florida that did not own and control its own fueling facility, and that the administration had evaluated alternatives such as rail transport, pipelines, and barging fuel from Port Everglades, all of which were found to be costly and impractical.
Mr. Wong added that other Florida cruise ports maintained on-site fueling facilities.
In response to Senator Garcia's follow-up questions, Mr. Wong stated that fuel bound for Fort Lauderdale traveled by pipeline to Miami International Airport (MIA), while supply vessels fueled the Fisher Island facility directly, and that other major ports relied on international fuel barges, which were subject to weather-related reliability issues.
Senator Garcia acknowledged the urgency but stated that the matter warranted further vetting before the County moved to take private property.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins raised concerns similar to Senator Garcia's, noting that neither the seller nor the prospective buyer was present to participate, that the County had never owned the port property, and that private negotiations for its sale were already underway.
Mr. Morales explained that TransMontaigne, the current owner, intended to sell the land but would continue operating the facility through the remainder of the lease, and that negotiations with the prospective purchaser had not been successful. He stated that the purchaser intended to build condominiums on the site and that, once a sale closed, the County could lose the facility entirely through restrictive covenants or be left negotiating from a weaker position, which he cited as the basis for the administration's sense of urgency. He stated that acquiring the property now would allow the County time to continue using the facility while identifying an alternative location. Commissioner Cohen Higgins asked for further clarification on the need for eminent domain, noting that the $180 million purchase price had not been vetted through the committee process. She stated that if the parcel sold at that price, it would help establish a baseline value the County could rely on if a future owner sought a higher price, and she reiterated her question about the consequences of the sale closing before the County could act.
Mr. Morales stated that the administration had originally intended to bring the item to the Board's October 9, 2025, meeting, but moved up the timeline after learning the sale could close within one to two weeks.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins responded that the sale price was already known and questioned why urgent action was needed before the scheduled budget hearing, noting that entitlement and purchase processes generally take time.
Mr. Morales stated that property values could rise within six months, and that a buyer intending to build condominiums would likely take steps that could further increase the property's value. Commissioner Cohen Higgins asked why the County had not placed an offer on the property during the open market sale process.
Mr. Hecker stated that he became aware of the transaction around 2024 and had not known the property was for sale.
Mr. Wong also noted that the property had last changed hands in 2014, when it was purchased by another fuel operator that continued fuel farm operations, meaning eminent domain had not been necessary at that time.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins asked whether any offers had been made to continue leasing the facility to the County; Mr. Morales stated he was not aware of any, and that media reports indicated the prospective buyer intended to remove the tanks in connection with planned condominium development.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins noted that the County was operating on an assumption about the buyer's intentions without direct confirmation from either party, and stated she needed additional information before voting.
Commissioner Regalado stated that she disagreed with Commissioner Gilbert's III approach, preferring to continue negotiations with the prospective buyer until an impasse was reached. She explained that the County could not approach the seller directly because doing so risked tortious interference with the seller's existing sale contract with the buyer and stated that she preferred negotiating with the buyer in good faith, with eminent domain as a fallback if no agreement was reached. She advocated for the County owning the property outright rather than leasing it going forward. Chairman Rodriguez indicated he was inclined to convert the motions into resolutions and refer the matter to committee in October, followed by a subsequent BCC meeting, which he noted would place both the buyer and seller on notice.
Commissioner Gilbert III responded that his proposal already required negotiation and did not prevent it, stating that initiating eminent domain proceedings would simply put both parties on notice of the County's interest without precluding a negotiated outcome. He reiterated that waiting would likely increase the property's cost and stated his opposition to placing the County in a position of having to negotiate with an unwilling seller.
Commissioner Higgins stated that PortMiami's limited physical footprint left little margin for fuel supply disruption and that a two-and-a-half-year timeline was insufficient to permit and construct an alternative facility. She warned that losing reliable fuel access could push cruise lines to shift operations to Fort Lauderdale, with delayed action risking the loss of the property before the Board could act through the committee process, and indicated she would second Commissioner Gilbert's III motion. Chairman Rodriguez stated that he better understood the urgency and asked how the eminent domain valuation process would work.
Commissioner Gilbert III explained that he could not speak to how the seller and buyer arrived at the $180 million figure, and noted that appraised value depended on development potential rather than square footage alone. He stated that timely action was needed to lock in pricing before the property changed hands and cautioned that discussing the matter publicly on the dais put both the buyer and seller on notice of the County's interest, which could give them added incentive to close their transaction quickly before the County could act. Commissioner Steinberg asked whether the day's advertisement as a discussion item allowed for final Board action, and asked the administration for an update on the status of negotiations.
ACA Gonzalez clarified that no additional advertisement was required and that a motion adopted that day could constitute final action.
Mr. Morales explained that port staff had led earlier discussions with the prospective purchaser, and that the County had received a counteroffer far above the private transaction price. Additionally, a subsequent County offer near the private sale price plus a premium likewise did not lead to an agreement.
Commissioner Steinberg asked whether the cruise line partners would share in funding the acquisition or whether PortMiami would bear the cost alone.
Mr. Morales responded that, if authorized, the administration would discuss options with cruise line partners, including increasing the minimum annual guarantees �MAGs� which he described as tied to passenger counts, and facility charges as well as possible cash advances to assist with cash flow needed for court proceedings. Where Commissioner Steinberg asked for clarification on the distinction between the two motions.
Commissioner Regalado explained that her motion directed the administration to negotiate with the buyer, while Commissioner Gilbert's III motion would authorize eminent domain proceedings against the seller; she reiterated that the seller could not be approached directly at this stage due to its existing sale contract with the buyer.
Commissioner Gilbert III disagreed that Commissioner Regalado's approach was simpler, arguing that the property's value would rise over time regardless of which party the County negotiated with.
Commissioner Steinberg asked the administration whether both motions were workable.
Mr. Morales confirmed that both required negotiation and that the administration would support either, noting that Commissioner Regalado's approach allowed more room to negotiate in good faith. Commissioner Cohen Higgins asked for the anticipated closing date and reiterated that the Board lacked sufficient information to condemn private property without input from the affected parties.
Mr. Morales stated that the closing was expected sometime between mid-September and mid-October.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins stated that the meeting had been noticed as a discussion item on port fueling, not the condemnation of private property, and expressed discomfort making a final decision without a confirmed closing date, direct participation from the buyer and seller, and given the port's earlier inaction during the open market sale process. She questioned why the Board was receiving the item on short notice despite the property having been on the market for an extended period.
Mr. Morales acknowledged the timeline concerns, stating that the administration had been in negotiations with one of the parties for six to seven months. He explained that the administration avoided approaching the seller directly due to the risk of tortious interference, but that as negotiations with the prospective buyer proved unproductive, the administration sought Board authorization to pursue eminent domain to protect the County's interests in the port.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins asked whether Board direction was required before the County Attorney's Office could pursue eminent domain, or whether that step could be taken without a formal vote.
ACA Herman confirmed that a Board-approved resolution was necessary before eminent domain could proceed.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins followed up by asking whether the property owner or the prospective buyer needed to be notified in advance of such action, and ACA Herman stated that no additional legal notice was required.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins acknowledged the urgency of the situation but stated she could not support a vote authorizing eminent domain given the way the item had been brought before the Board that day. Commissioner Milan Orbis asked the administration and the attorneys to weigh the two competing proposals against one another, specifically which would impose less financial cost on the County, and would better protect the port's ability to fuel ships going forward.
Mr. Morales explained that negotiation and eminent domain were sequential rather than alternative paths under state law: the administration was required to attempt a negotiated purchase first, and only after that effort failed could it proceed to eminent domain. When asked directly whether eminent domain was the only way to prevent the property from being lost to a competing buyer, Mr. Morales confirmed that it was.
Chairman Rodriguez asked how the two motions differed and what each would require of the administration going forward.
Commissioner Regalado responded that her motion directed the administration to negotiate with the prospective buyer first, turning to eminent domain only if that negotiation failed, and distinguished this from Commissioner Gilbert's III approach of pursuing eminent domain immediately while negotiating in parallel. She argued that pursuing both tracks simultaneously, as Commissioner Gilbert's III motion proposed, created greater legal exposure for the County. Chairman Rodriguez expressed reluctance in pursuing eminent domain, noting that doing so could ultimately cost the County an additional sum of an estimated hundred million dollars. He acknowledged that the site would likely be developed into condominiums under private ownership, but stated that the administration still bore responsibility for protecting the port and the cruise industry that depended on it. At the Chairman Rodriguez�s request, ACA Gonzalez walked the Board through a detailed comparison of the two motions. He noted that both directed the administration to acquire roughly 9.6 acres containing the fuel tanks, along with the rights needed to berth vessels for fuel transfer, and both authorized pursuing that acquisition through negotiation. The motions diverged primarily on financial terms: Commissioner Regalado's motion authorized reimbursing a prospective purchaser's verified redevelopment costs, along with an incentive payment of up to 2.5% over the property's appraised value, while Commissioner Gilbert's III motion capped that incentive at 1.5% over appraised value and limited closing costs to $500,000. Both motions authorized the administration to retain appraisers and other experts, record instruments of conveyance, negotiate with cruise and cargo line tenants, and make use of the seaport's expedited-improvement ordinance once the County owned the property. ACA Gonzalez noted an additional distinction in how each motion treated future operation of the facility: Commissioner Gilbert's III motion required any operating contract to come back to the Board for approval, while Commissioner Regalado's motion authorized the administration to solicit bids for an operator directly. Both motions authorized eminent domain, but Commissioner Regalado's version conditioned that authority on negotiations first reaching an impasse. Mr. Morales questioned why Commissioner Regalado's motion included a supermajority voting requirement tied to future operation of the facility, noting that it had functioned as a marine facility for decades without one.
ACA Gonzalez explained that the provision would not need to be invoked that day, but would become relevant only if a private company were later selected to operate the facility, since County Code required seven votes of the full Board to authorize private operation of a port facility.
Senator Garcia raised a broader procedural concern, stating that the Board was being asked to commit enterprise fund dollars and consider eminent domain without any public testimony, cost-sharing analysis, or resident input, and questioned why the item could not be deferred under the Board's Four-Day Rule.
CA Bonzon-Keenan reviewed the Board's Rules of Procedure, explaining that the Four-Day Rule did not apply to special meetings, and confirmed that the meeting's public notice was broad enough to permit action on any resolution, ordinance, or motion properly brought before the Board that day. Chairman Rodriguez asked which elements of the pending motions were strictly necessary to act on immediately.
CA Bonzon-Keenan indicated that both motions would require a follow-up resolution to formally initiate eminent domain proceedings, separate from the vote taken that day.
ACA Gonzalez added that approving the framework for a negotiated acquisition, directing preparation of an eminent domain resolution, and authorizing the retention of experts and appraisers were all necessary steps, but that negotiating tenant agreements with cruise and cargo lines, and selecting a facility operator, could be deferred to a later date.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins asked that the administration report back at the next meeting with a confirmed closing date and some indication of the seller's and buyer's positions in the transaction.
Commissioner Gilbert III stated he was comfortable incorporating that reporting requirement into his motion.
Later in the discussion, Commissioner Regalado asked whether Board action directing the administration toward eminent domain could cloud the property's title or interfere with a buyer's ability to secure financing before any sale closed.
ACA Herman explained that no cloud on title would result, since ownership would not transfer until a court authorized the taking, and that a mandatory 30-day negotiation period, plus additional statutory steps, would have to run before any court filing could occur. Commissioner Gilbert III closed by stating that further delay would only increase the eventual cost to the County and would not change the underlying need to secure the property, and reiterated his motion as amended to include Commissioner Cohen Higgins' reporting requirement.
Hearing no other questions or comments, the Board then held a roll call vote on Commissioner Gilbert's III motion, which resulted in a 6�6 tie (Commissioners Cohen Higgins, Bastien, Gonzalez, Regalado, Steinberg and Senator Garcia voted �no� and Commissioner Bermudez was absent).
In the discussion that followed, Senator Garcia moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Cohen Higgins seconded that motion. Separately, Commissioner Hardemon seconded Commissioner Regalado's motion, which she had already amended to remove herself as the County's designated negotiator and to require the matter to return to the Board for further action.
When Chairman Rodriguez asked whether the motion to adjourn took precedence over Commissioner Regalado's pending motion, CA Bonzon-Keenan read the Board's parliamentary rule into the record, explaining that once a motion had been made and seconded, only a motion to adjourn, table, postpone, or amend may be taken up ahead of it, and that such motions were considered in that order. Discussion ensued among Chairman Rodriguez and Commissioners Gilbert III and Regalado over which motion the Board had been considering at the moment Senator Garcia moved to adjourn.
Commissioner Steinberg proffered a summary position, stating that she supported the port securing a reliable fuel supply but preferred that the administration negotiate in good faith before the Board authorized eminent domain outright.
The Board proceeded to vote on Senator Garcia�s motion to adjourn, which resulted in a 6�6 tie (Commissioners Gilbert III, Hardemon, Higgins, Regalado, Steinberg and Vice Chairman McGhee voted �no�; and Commissioner Bermudez was absent).
A second vote, this time on the motion to adjourn, also ended in a 6�6 tie and failed.
With the failed adjournment motion, Commissioner Hardemon noted for the record that Commissioner Regalado's motion remained properly before the Board, since it had been superseded only by the failed adjournment motion.
Commissioner Regalado accepted Commissioner Steinberg's suggestion that the administration be required to report back to the Board if negotiations failed and eminent domain became necessary.
Commissioner Gilbert III requested a defined negotiation deadline rather than an open-ended "impasse" standard, and Commissioner Regalado proposed a 30-day window, explaining that the same period would be used to gather the appraisal and supporting documentation needed for eminent domain if it came to that.
Commissioner Gilbert III confirmed with the attorneys that any appraisal obtained during that window could still be used later in eminent domain proceedings, provided it remained reasonably current.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins objected that the amended motion undercut the administration's own claim of urgency, since eminent domain could not begin for at least 30 days in any event, and argued that the Board should instead have passed a resolution urging good-faith negotiation while properly noticing the matter for a future meeting with the seller and buyer present.
ACA Gonzalez explained that the practical difference was that Commissioner Regalado's motion would let the administration close a negotiated deal without returning to the Board, whereas an urging resolution would require any negotiated outcome to come back for approval.
Commissioner Regalado added that, in the meantime, the buyer remained free to finalize a separate agreement with the Fisher Island Club to remove the tanks and pursue condominium development, which she said underscored the need for clear negotiation terms.
At the Vice Chairman McGhee�s request, ACA Gonzalez read Commissioner Regalado's fully amended motion into the record, including the 30-day negotiation period, the financial incentive terms, the directive to prepare an eminent domain resolution if negotiations failed, and the requirement to report back to the Board on October 9.
Chairman Rodriguez then proposed lowering the incentive cap in Regalado's motion from 2.5% to 1.5% over appraised value, aligning it with the cap in Commissioner Gilbert's III motion.
Commissioner Regalado accepted the change.
Commissioner Gilbert III noted that his own motion would have cost the County less, and asked which party the administration would actually be negotiating with under Commissioner Regalado's approach.
ACA Gonzalez explained that negotiations would proceed with whichever party held the applicable legal rights, most likely the prospective purchaser based on discussions to date, though that could change within the 30-day period.
Commissioner Gilbert III argued that, because approaching the seller directly still carried tortious interference risk, Commissioner Regalado's motion would effectively require negotiating through the buyer, which he characterized as forcing the County into a weaker negotiating position.
Commissioner Regalado responded that the seller and buyer were already deep into an existing agreement, and that attempting to bypass that relationship, as Commissioner Gilbert's III motion proposed, would more likely have resulted in litigation.
Commissioner Steinberg clarified that the day's action would not itself begin eminent domain proceedings, and that the matter would return to the Board on October 9 for further direction.
Hearing no questions or comments, the Board proceeded vote on Commissioner Regalado�s motion, as amended to direct the County Mayor, or the Mayor's designee, to take all appropriate actions over a period of 31 days to acquire the Fuel Facility Property through a negotiated agreement at appraised value. The negotiated agreement could include reimbursement of a prospective purchaser's verified redevelopment costs, conveyance to the County of any related studies, drawings, or plans, an incentive payment not to exceed 1.5% over appraised value, and payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs not to exceed $500,000. The motion further authorized the administration to employ appraisers and expert witnesses, obtain environmental audits, record instruments of conveyance, negotiate agreements with cruise and cargo shipping lines to offset acquisition costs, and negotiate operating contracts for the facility, provided such contracts were revenue-generating, cost-neutral, or had costs borne by third parties, with any finalized contract returning to the Board for approval. It authorized use of the Seaport Department's Capital Improvement Programs Expedite and Acceleration Ordinance for the property, directed the administration to provide a status update at the Board's October 9 meeting, and directed the County Attorney to prepare a separate resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings if negotiations proved unsuccessful, to be placed on the October 9 agenda if an impasse had been reached by that date. The motion also directed the administration, upon acquisition, to meet with the Fisher Island Community Association and Fisher Island Club to develop a beautification plan, and to provide the Board with ongoing written reports on suitable port-use properties available near PortMiami.
|
|