Executed Lease Validation — Claim-by-Claim

Document reviewed: Attached below — "Lease Agreement Between the City of Miami and Virginia Key, LLC" (88 pages, the executed/agenda form attached to Resolution 26-0254) Reviewed: July 7, 2026 Purpose: Validate public claims and the complaint's allegations against the actual lease text, attached below.

---

Bottom line up front

We now have the lease. Details below, with pinpoint cites.

---

Claim 1 — "75-year lock-up; renewals at tenant's sole discretion" → ✅ CONFIRMED VERBATIM

§3.1: "The initial Lease Term is for a period of forty-five (45) years, commencing on the Delivery Date."

§3.2: "The Lessee has the option of extending this Lease for two (2) additional terms of fifteen (15) years each... To exercise the First Renewal Term or the Second Renewal Term, the Lessee must give Lessor written notice..." and "The total term of the Lease, inclusive of the First and Second Renewal Term, is seventy-five (75) years."

Validation: The renewal option belongs to the Lessee. The only condition is no existing Event of Default. The City has no discretion to refuse renewal and no ability to reset terms at renewal except the pre-set Base Rent escalator. The lease itself uses the words "seventy-five (75) years."

"The lease itself says the total term is 'seventy-five (75) years,' and the renewals belong to the tenant, not the City." Unassailable.

---

Claim 2 — "The $80,000,000 investment is not in the executed lease" → ✅ CONFIRMED

Finding: The figure "$80,000,000" (and "$80 million," "eighty million," any minimum-investment dollar figure) appears NOWHERE in the 88-page lease.

What the lease actually says about construction (§5.1): "The Lessee shall, at its own cost and expense, design, construct, install, equip, and maintain the Leasehold Improvements on the Premises in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the RFP and further set forth below." - No dollar figure. The obligation is defined by reference to the RFP and the Conceptual Plan, not by a committed investment amount.

§5.2 Conceptual Plan: "The parties acknowledge that the Conceptual Plan will change from time to time... any reference herein to the Conceptual Plan shall mean and refer to those plans as revised from time to time." - Confirms the complaint's ¶90 allegation: the plans are explicitly revisable.

---

Claim 3 — "'Environmentally sensitive' is not in the executed lease" → ✅ CONFIRMED

Finding: Article XII "Environmental Liability" is a standard hazardous-materials liability and indemnity clause - not a redevelopment-quality standard.

§12.2 Lessee's Environmental Covenant in full is a covenant that the Lessee won't bring/store/release Hazardous Materials except as customary and compliant, and must clean up if it breaches. It's a pollution-liability allocation, boilerplate in any ground lease.

What's absent: Nothing in the lease requires the redevelopment to be done "in an environmentally sensitive manner," the phrase the ballot uses. No green-building standard, no seagrass/manatee/water-quality performance requirement, no environmental design criteria tied to the "environmentally sensitive" ballot promise. The word "sensitive" does not appear in an environmental-design sense anywhere.

Validation: The ballot promises redevelopment "in an environmentally sensitive manner." The lease contains a hazmat-cleanup covenant and nothing that operationalizes "environmentally sensitive" as the ballot implies.

---

Claim 4 — "Parking at tenant's sole discretion" → ✅ CONFIRMED VERBATIM

§4.2 Parking Facilities: "Lessee shall have the right to increase, decrease, change, alter or otherwise modify the Parking Facilities throughout the Lease Term, in its sole discretion, pursuant to the terms of this Lease and Applicable Law."

Validation: Verbatim match to complaint ¶120. The ballot lists "public parking" as a benefit; the lease lets the tenant modify parking at will. Note one nuance for honesty: the lease DOES require the Lessee, upon completion, to convey the Parking Facilities to the City or a City agency, and to preserve ≥220 spaces for the adjacent Rusty Pelican per the RFP. So there's a public-conveyance backbone - but the size/configuration is "sole discretion." Claim stands; quote the "sole discretion" language directly.

---

Claim 5 — "Rent anchored to a 2017 appraisal that cannot be reset; produces less than current operator pays" → ✅ CONFIRMED

Confirmed — the appraisal anchor and no-reset (§4.1.6): "As required by Applicable Laws, the Lessor has determined that the Base Rent and the Percentage Rent constitutes Fair Market Value as required by the RFP. The Lessor has made such determination based upon appraisals of the proposed project performed by two (2) State-certified general appraisers hired by the Lessor." — This is a one-time FMV determination at signing. There is no periodic reappraisal or market-reset mechanism anywhere in Article IV. The only escalation is §4.1.2: annual increase of the greater of 3% or CPI, capped at 5%. So rent tracks a fixed escalator, NOT the market. The "frozen, no reset" core of our argument is confirmed by the lease itself.

---

Other notable findings (new, usable)

• §10.5 "going public" carve-out: The lease expressly permits Lessee to go public (SEC registration, public offering of ownership interests) without City consent. That IS a strong, lease-cited point: 27.62 acres of Miami public waterfront could end up owned by public-market shareholders with no City approval. This is a cleaner version of the "you don't know who'll end up controlling it"
• §3.2 renewal fine print: the City must send a "Reminder Notice" before the term can expire — a small pro-tenant wrinkle worth noting (the City can't let it lapse by inaction).
• §1.4 Priority of Documents: the executed Lease governs over the RFP and Proposal. So where the ballot's promises ($80M, "environmentally sensitive") live only in the Proposal/RFP and not the Lease, the Lease controls - meaning those promises are subordinate to a Lease that doesn't contain them. This is a strong §101.161 point: the binding document omits what the ballot advertises.

---

One strategic reframe this unlocks

The strongest honest frame now available, fully lease-supported: "Don't take our word for it — read the lease. The ballot promises '$80 million' and 'environmentally sensitive' redevelopment. Neither is in the 88-page lease the City actually signed. The lease says the term is 75 years, the renewals belong to the developer, the parking can be changed at the developer's sole discretion, and the whole thing can be taken public and sold to shareholders without the City's consent. The binding contract governs over the promises — and the binding contract doesn't contain the promises."

That frame needs no allegations at all - it's the primary document against the ballot. It's the most defensible position that the City of Miami Ballot Language is illegal.