Legislature holds joint hearing on proposed 40-year lease of Marianas Resort; DPL urges further review and community hearings

A joint Senate and House committee held a public hearing on a proposed 40‑year lease, with a possible 15‑year extension, for the former Marianas Resort and Spa on Saipan, during which the Department of Public Lands (DPL) and the prospective lessee answered questions on financial capacity, environmental reviews and community benefits.

The hearing, chaired by Sen. Karina L. McGovna and House Chair Rep. Angela Camacho, drew public commenters from Precinct 4 and lawmakers from both chambers. DPL acting secretary Richard Villegomez told the committee DPL supports approval of the lease but agreed to provide additional financial documents and updated forecasts requested by members.

The discussion centered on three issues: legal status of a pending court challenge to the RFP, the developer’s current financial capacity and the scope of public‑benefit commitments tied to the lease. Resident and former congresswoman Sheila Jack Babauta said the community needs more time and information before approving what she called “the largest land lease in [Saipan]’s history,” and urged additional hearings in northern villages.

DPL and the developer

Acting Secretary Richard Villegomez told the committee that a court case challenging the RFP is currently stayed and that the court permitted DPL and the proposer to continue negotiations. Villegomez said, “If the legislature rejects it, of course, the court would have to—it's currently stayed—so they have to lift the stay, and make a decision,” and that DPL could not predict the court’s next steps in that scenario. He also said DPL remains “in support of the approval of the lease to Marianas Elan Corporation of the former Camp Pacific properties.”

Villegomez and other DPL staff described parts of the negotiated lease and exhibits in the packet. They said base rent in the lease is set to 5% of fair‑market value and that certain additional rent schedules were adjusted as part of negotiations to preserve proposed dollar values from the RFP. Exhibit A (page 42 of the packet) contains the developer’s projected gross revenue (BGR) schedule for the first 15 years.

Financial documentation and forecasts

Committee members requested audited financial statements and updated forecasts from the proposer. DPL said the proposer expects to provide updated 2024 preliminary financials in May and that the committee would be furnished audited 2023 financials when available. Rep. Joel Camacho and others pressed for the documents so members could assess the developer’s ability to meet long‑term obligations. DPL agreed to obtain and provide the requested materials and to follow up on updated revenue forecasts.

Public benefits, project scope and site planning

Members and public speakers discussed the lease’s public‑benefit package and how project components fit on the leased land. DPL said the public‑benefit exhibit (Exhibit C) adds up to approximately $6,868,000 and that the developer is proposing a broader private investment of about $220,000,000. Components cited in the packet and the hearing include a lifelong education/cultural center ($2,850,000 listed under public benefits), a premium shopping mall (construction estimate cited at $25,000,000), a water‑park/swimming‑facility, rehabilitation of the golf course, and on‑site hotel and cottage development.

Rep. Angelo Camacho and others asked about the existing baseball field and pool site: the packet identifies the old baseball field and swimming pool area as the proposed location for the premium shopping mall. Rep. Camacho requested that the $400,000 public‑benefit allocation intended for recreational facilities be redirected to rehabilitate the current baseball field if possible; DPL said it would work with the developer and the committee on alternate baseball‑field sites and on how public‑benefit funds could be used.

Environmental and regulatory compliance

Public commenters raised environmental concerns tied to golf‑course maintenance and coastal runoff. Villegomez and DPL staff said all development must comply with the jurisdiction’s regulatory agencies, naming DCRM and other relevant agencies, and that environmental approvals and required studies are prerequisites to permitting and construction. DPL staff said environmental compliance obligations are written into the lease and that regulatory reviews would be required before those project components proceed.

Risk mitigation and performance guarantees

Committee members asked whether the lease includes security to ensure project completion. DPL pointed to Article 7 of the proposed lease, which addresses security deposits and allows DPL to retain deposits to cover unpaid rent, administrative costs or remediation if the lessee defaults. Villegomez also said standard risk‑mitigation requirements—performance bonds, liability insurance and storm‑hazard insurance—are included in DPL leases.

Assignment and legislative authority

DPL staff said the RFP and negotiated lease include assignment provisions and noted that transfers or assignments involving more than 5 hectares typically require legislative approval. Members asked for clarification about whether negotiated changes reached between DPL and the developer would require court involvement; Villegomez said the court allowed the two parties to negotiate but did not insert the court into ongoing negotiations, and that the committee could seek legal guidance on specifics.

Public comment and next steps

During public comment, residents and stakeholders reiterated concerns about scale, community input and long‑term stewardship of public land. DPL agreed to participate in additional public hearings; committee members said they plan to hold hearings in northern villages (Tonopah and other sites) and indicated interest in at least one central or south Saipan hearing.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to adopt the meeting agenda: passed (voice vote). - Motion to adjourn the joint committee meeting: passed (voice vote).

No formal committee vote on approval or rejection of the lease took place at this hearing.

What’s next

Committee members requested that DPL and the developer provide audited 2023 financial statements, preliminary 2024 financials when available (DPL said May is the target for updated figures), updated revenue forecasts, and clarifications to the public‑benefit schedule. DPL agreed to identify alternate recreation sites for the baseball field and to work with lawmakers on scheduling public hearings in affected communities. The legislature did not take a final action on the lease during the hearing.