Mr. Clerk, if you could please call the roll. Sure thing. Good morning. Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Millian Orbis, Commissioner Steinberg, Vice Chairwoman Cohen-Heeves, Chairwoman Regalado. Present. Three members present. We have a quorum. Wonderful. And with that, we'll start the Appropriations Committee. We'll have Commissioner Steinberg do the prayer. Perfect. Perfect. And then we'll do the pledge. All right, everyone. So, Mr. Attorney, I do not see any cards. Okay. So we're going to open the reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard. We don't have any cards, so if there's anyone that wants to speak, please come on down and state your name and address for the record. Yeah, we did have a public hearing already on one of the items, and there hasn't been a change to 2A, but there's not a lot of people here. So if you want to speak on that, go ahead. Just, it's not, good morning. Let's get going. Hello, good morning. My name is Thema Campbell, and I'm here on behalf of the- Address, please. The trust legislation. Can you hear me? Yes, we can, but we need your name and address for the record before you begin. We can, before we start at the time. Thema Campbell. Yes, address. 1600 Northwest Third Avenue, Overtown. Miami-Dade County's 64 safety net community-based organizations collectively serve tens of thousands of residents every year across every zip code and every commission district. Our services reach seniors aging alone, people with disabilities, individuals experiencing homelessness, young families struggling to make ends meet, children in crisis, survivors of trauma and abuse. Low income residents requiring mental health and legal services support, Holocaust survivors, immigrants and residents facing and surviving trauma and crisis. Our doors are open, in many cases, 24-7, 365 days per year through storms and other severe weather events. These organizations are often the first call and the last line of defense for people who have nowhere else to turn. The work provided is frontline in care that keeps people alive, housed, fed, safety, and with dignity and a chance to survive and thrive. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good morning, Beatriz Gonzalez, 217 Northwest 15th Street, Overtown, 33136. First of all, I'd like to extend our sincerest gratitude to the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners for its leadership and for restoring the full $25.6 million fiscal year 2526 funding for Miami-Dade safety net of community-based organizations. This investment sends a clear message that the county recognizes the essential role that we play in our decades and sometimes centuries-long relationships in protecting the health, safety, and dignity of our most frail and vulnerable residents at the time of their greatest needs. We respectfully ask for your continued partnership in working towards a sustainable long-term funding solution that allows these services to remain stable and responsive to the community's needs. We also urge that you each make a public commitment that should future budget challenges arise, funding for community-based organizations, the backbone of Miami-Dade's human services system, be treated as a last resort for reductions. Together, we can ensure that Miami-Dade remains a community where no one is left without support when they need it most. Thank you so much. Thank you. Are there any other speakers? All right. With that, we will close the reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard. And now we move on to setting the agenda. Do we have any items that you all want to pull? Any items to be pulled? Yes, I'd like to pull 2A. Okay. Anything else? All right, Mr. Attorney. Yes, good morning, Madam Chair. The only change to your final printed agenda is that with respect to item 2B, Vice Chair McGee has assumed sponsorship. And so with the setting of the agenda, I'm sorry, 3B, excuse me. Yeah, there is no 2B. I was like, I'm missing a tab. There's no, okay, 3B. And so with the setting of the agenda, with the exception of the discussion item 1F1, the public hearing item 1G1, and item 2A, which has been pulled, the balance of the items on the agenda will be approved with the setting of the agenda. Okay. Thank you. I'll move to set the agenda. Thank you. You're going to pull 3A? Okay. Koenig is going to pull 3A. So we have a motion to set the agenda. Can I have a second? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All right. Mr. Attorney? Would you like to take the discussion item first? Yeah, I'll start with the discussion item. So we talked about this a lot. Unfortunately, there wasn't a Sunshine Meeting, and there's no changes to 2A. We'll talk about that when we get to it. So I placed a discussion item just to proffer some other alternatives. There are several holds on these items, which is why I had to do it as a discussion item. But what I would like you all to consider is in the past budget, we funded the CBOs, and actually it was to a tune of $80 million, but thank you, the $25 was only part of it. And we did a presentation on that that I would recommend that folks go and look at when we presented the CBO issues. But in our last budget, we funded the CBOs with the money that was returned from the constitutional officers. And looking at the budget and what is happening now, it looks like in part we're going to be doing more of that. So one of my recommendations is, number one, if we pass 2A or not, I think that we should create a CBO trust fund. So there should be an account specifically for this work. And as we go into the mid-year, thank you, as we go into the mid-year, we know that we are going to get money back from the sheriff. And we could potentially receive some other funding, which I think we should put in that CBO trust fund. So that is not even considering what's going to happen in Tallahassee with property values. But whatever happens with property values happens, potentially a vote in August for the 27 budget cycle. So I would ask you all to consider that. I think no matter what we do, we need to create a fund so that whatever funding mechanism we find, we can put that there and make this a little bit easier. I think one of the challenges after meeting with so many CBOs is the lack of predictability. So I think a CBO trust fund that has money in it as time goes on allows us to, A, find different mechanisms to fund the CBOs, and, B, gives them predictability throughout the fiscal year as to how much money is there for them. Because I don't think you should be worried every year, and that's why one of the things I brought up early on when we were talking about the CBOs was to do something similar to what we did with the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. So I would like to hear kind of the board's thoughts on that idea. That has been how we have funded in the past. I think that's where we're going to end up in this year. I don't know what happens in 2027, right, because we're looking at several things at the state level that, when compounded, are very concerning. There's the property tax reform, but there's also local business tax, right? So there's also items that have to do with local business tax. And if that wasn't enough, the sovereign immunity bill is back, you know? So just to give you some ideas of what we're talking about, just on those, you all know the property tax numbers. There's different issues there. But local business tax would be a loss of $18 million. And the sovereign immunity, there's two different bills. One has a cap and one does not. The House bill does not have a cap. That's a minimum of $28 million, right? So I just want everyone to understand that picture as we move forward because I want to hear what my colleagues have to say about 2A. I do not think it is the best solution, and I've asked folks to proffer better ones. We haven't seen one, so I am proffering one in the hopes that we'll consider different options moving forward. So with that, I open it up to the board. If there's anything in particular you want to say about CBOs before we go into 2A. Yes, Commissioner Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. And so I'm a fan of the idea behind 2A. And I think that as a board, I've heard many people come up today and talk about the most vulnerable in our society. And it would not be fair to not recognize the great CBOs in our community that are walking the walk and talking the talk. Something that bothers me sometimes is that I've had conversations with certain CBOs that are doing a great work and are going above and beyond, yet they receive much less funding than others. That's not to take away from others that are getting funding and are also doing good work. But I think that what we're lacking here is we're lacking a metrics that rewards those that are doing the most work. Everybody's doing work. Everybody is helping. You don't go into a nonprofit to get rich. You just don't do that. You go into a nonprofit to help people. And I think that all of the CBOs in Miami-Dade County are living that noble cause. But unless and until we can develop a metrics that can reward those that are doing the best work and perhaps not eliminate but lower the funding that goes to those that are not impacting as much, then we can't just write a blank check. And in the Intergovernmental Committee, we're going to talk about a different cause that's coming up. But in life, sometimes you need one approach. And then when that approach solves an issue, and that's the point. The point is to solve an issue for the community. When that issue is solved, sometimes another approach is necessary. Sometimes a different organization is necessary. That's not to diminish the great work of other organizations, but it is to allow CBOs to evolve and allow those that are evolving and that are fundraising and that are out there in the community. Sometimes a lot of these people are not getting paid, but it is to reward those that are doing the best possible work. I don't want to say it like this, but with the least amount of funding, you have to reward merit. And so I know that Commissioner Orbis has asked for a report regarding where that metrics exists. Yes, I personally need to see a merit-based report. I need to see that metrics because just like a conversation we're going to have in the Intergovernmental Committee, it's not just about saying, hey, look, here's a blank check, and here's a blank funding source, and these are the only ones that are going to get it. We need to identify a funding source, but that funding source needs to go to merit, not just, I've been here for 30 years, I've been here for 20 years. So that's really my two cents. That's where I'm at with the conversation. That's where I'm at with 2A. I want to see that merit be rewarded before we establish, hey, we're just going to fund everybody and anybody, which, by the way, I think the reason that 2A was deferred previously was because there was an issue between whether there's 16 million or 4 million. And I believe in the last budget, the funding was upwards of 20-something million. It was almost 30 million. So just throwing this out there, yes, it would be great to create a trust. It would be great to create a funding source for the future. However, one, what CBOs are going to get that money? And what's the metrics that's going to identify those that get more and those that get less? That's number one, right? And then number two, how much money is necessary? So that's kind of where I'm at. Orbis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Along the same lines as Commissioner Gonzalez, I fully support CBOs. I want to say that because, you know, some of them have reached out and said that it seems like we don't, but we do. And in my previous work, I have supported CBOs, and I believe that CBOs do amazing work in our community. So that's not what it's about, and I just want to put that on the record. You know, as Commissioner Gonzalez alluded to, I have a report that's coming back. It's due April 1st, and it asks for the administration to lay out all of the information on the CBOs, legacy CBOs, put it into the buckets of what they do, how much funding they have received, what areas of the community they serve. I think this is important information that we need to look at. I think last budget season, we dealt with a very hard reality check, and I think we should treat everything, every meeting as a budget meeting. We continue saying that, and I think we need to stick to it. So this item actually has a fiscal impact statement from the mayor, and it says that implementation of this ordinance could have a fiscal impact on the county, as this additional fee may be passed in the form of higher pricing. And it also may create difficulties for some small and medium-sized firms to remain competitive. So reading that and not having the information from the report that I requested, which I wish we had it back already, I can't support this right now. But I am fully supportive of CBOs, and I would hope that we can maybe defer this or continue working on it, because I do agree that we need to find a mechanism to help these organizations to continue the good work that they do. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I have a question that's more along the lines of a point of order, and the point of order is more for me to gain an understanding of the item that is before us today. It's February 4th. The last time this item was before us was on November 13th, three months ago. And I remember the conversation that we had as a body at that time, and I'm actually reviewing the meeting minutes here. And there were a number of representations made during that hearing, either specifically that the body wasn't comfortable with the item at that time. Everybody spoke about how they support CBOs. I think that message has been sent and is clearly delivered. But I don't want to re-advocate the exact same things that I said back in November. But instead, I have questions regarding what has changed and what has happened between November and February that is changing our consideration this morning. What has been done to appease the concerns that were raised by this body back in November? It was represented that a sunshine meeting would take place. It was represented that consideration would be made on taking an idea like this to the voters, similar to the homeless trust and to our children's trust. I am interested in what has been done and or what amendments have been made to the item that are reflective of the concerns that were raised by this committee three months ago. And, Madam Chair, you indicated, and I appreciate your work on this, you've made a lot of effort to try to find a solution. I appreciate your discussion item because of legislative holds. And you said something at the beginning of your remarks just now during this committee, and I'm not entirely clear on what it is that you are proposing as an alternative. So I want to understand what it is that you are proposing and if that is considered an amendment to 2A. You're not the sponsor and you're not a co-sponsor. So I'm trying to understand procedurally what it is that we are doing this morning on 2A because I do not want us to repeat what we said back in November. And I do not want the remarks that we make as committee members on items. When we say we would like to see this, we would like to see that, and an item comes back in exactly the same form that it was three months ago, I want to understand how that is taking place. Sure. So we did have an initial sunshine meeting, and the commissioner is here, and he could speak to that. And we actually had some of the CBOs present, and we drilled down for some time on the fiscal impact of it. So there is a record of that sunshine meeting. At that meeting, I proposed other alternatives. You know, I think we are at an impasse in terms of the fiscal impact, right? So there is a belief that folks who would be entering into these contracts would pay this, right? I don't think that that is necessarily the case. I think that it will be passed on in some way. I also raise concerns about the nexus. So obviously this is modeled after an existing vehicle, but that vehicle has a legal nexus to who is paying and why. Because it is for work done on procurement. I failed to see the nexus between procurement and CBOs. I did spend some time talking with staff, you know, in different departments trying to find a nexus, and that has been very challenging. We did talk about another sunshine to talk about changes. That did not happen. But the commissioner is here to give his perspective. His item does include a trust fund. So that's why my discussion is about I think we should create a trust fund. How we fund that trust fund is a different thing. To Commissioner Orbis' point about the report that we're getting and the work that we're going to be doing throughout this entire budget process, right? You know, we're going to be going department by department just like we did last year. We're going to be talking about the CBOs just like we did last year. And I think we're going to find ourselves looking at the money that we received specifically from the tax collector to do some of this funding just like we did last year. Because if you remember, the tax collector, when he was part of this government, gave the county $60 million. So that money has historically been used to fund CBOs in one way or another. Now, if this board decides to make that link and say, you know, we're going to take a percentage of what is returned from the tax collector and put it into a CBO fund, we could do that as part of this process. But I continue to have hesitation about this particular vehicle. I support the creation of a trust fund. I support finding funding. I just don't believe that this particular tax, you know, is the way to do it. It concerns me the legal reasons and it concerns me the impact on the general fund. Now, that being said, you know, one of the things I was going to bring up, if this board wants to do that, then I would say, okay, we could do it for a year or two and create a baseline and see if it does have an impact. But then you're going to have to weigh a series of other factors, right? Because you have increasing labor costs, increase, you know, there's a series of things. And to Commissioner Gonzalez's point, there is going to be a delta. So we're going to have this conversation anyway because there is going to be a delta. We're talking, this item deals specifically with one group of CBOs, not with the other group of CBOs. In our first meeting, we spent some time distinguishing the different groups. This particular group is historically part of the CBOs and there's a tremendous amount of accountability associated with the work that they're doing. But obviously, we've gotten calls from other folks that are not included in this group. And they're like, well, why are you prioritizing this group and not the other CBOs, right? So it is a multifaceted issue. And as I said the first time that we met on this, I do not believe that for any issue, whether it be CBOs, whether it be dealing with property taxes, whether it be dealing with infrastructure, safety to sewer, I've always said the same thing. There is no one solution. There can be several solutions that compounded, right, resolve your issue. But I do not believe that there is a magic bullet out there somewhere, right, that we plug a hole. And that has proven true budget after budget after budget. So I think if we are going to establish the trust fund and we are going to establish a baseline, we should start with what we know. And that is that the constitutional officers, specifically the tax collector, is going to return a certain amount to us. And that the tax collector has been very clear in the last budget that he wanted that money used for CBOs. Now, what the tax collectors and the constitutional officers believe as to how the money that they return to the county should be used is just an opinion, right? It does not move this board. But they are our partners. I think that's what we did last year. Chances are that's what we're going to do this year. So I think that is a good starting point as to trying to find solutions to the CBO issue. And the mayor and staff has also been very clear in that they also want a solution. So I don't think there's anyone here that doesn't want a solution to the CBO funding. The question is how we get there. And I think that the first step is the trust fund and then trying to find different forms of revenue that could be put into that trust fund that do have a nexus to it. So with that, I know that the maker of the item is here. I don't know if you want to speak on the item or on the discussion. We're taking them up separately, but yours keeps coming up. So I don't know how you want to do that. Thank you, Madam Chair. And what I can do is just speak to both of them at the same time, if that is okay with you. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I've heard quite some concerns from the different members. And I'll just quickly address them independently and just get right to the point. As it relates to the metrics, Commissioner Gonzalez, currently the administration already put these not-for-profits through what they call their audits. And they have to submit documentations in order for them to be funded or be reimbursed for the work that they do. So the county has that information. And I do believe if I were to ask the administration right now that question, is that true? Yes. Yes, sir. Okay. So the metrics are already there. As it relates to how the funding breakdown with this proposed UAP, again, the vehicle has already been created. What we're simply doing is saying that we're going to ask for a 2% increase. Now, most businesses at the beginning of the year, they do what we call a margin calculation. And in that margin calculation, they know what their margins are. So what we're doing in this particular instance is basically looking at the margins and saying, okay, 2% to go towards this particular body of programs shouldn't be a burden on that particular vendor. So the money is not directly coming from the actual community. The money is actually looking at the margin calculation that was actually put forth by the particular vendors in this particular instance. As it relates to this social burden that we hear coming out of the administration. Listen, I don't know where they get their numbers from. But what I can tell you is, and maybe the administration can help me with this. Has there been any lawsuit as it relates to the UAP about the IG funds that come through that particular vehicle or any other funding that comes out of the UAP to support? Commissioner, no. I said there's a nexus there. Obviously, the work done by the UAP is like procurement. Right. There's a clear nexus there. Right. So what I am getting at is the idea that there isn't going to be, there is going to be an automatic push down of this 2% to the community. There is no evidence to suggest that that is going to occur. As a matter of fact, the inverse is true, right? That what we're seeing is there hasn't been any pushback against the 2% since this has been in existence. And lastly, let me just say this. The question did come up about what has taken place since the last Sunshine meeting. Pretty much that Sunshine meeting was exactly what it was. It was for us to have a conversation in the Sunshine to talk about some of the issues that were laid out. And some of the issues that were laid out that we dealt with was whether or not it would affect small businesses. And whether or not the monies and the fundings that are going to come through would affect contracts such as small purchase orders or county departments. So we were able to deal with those issues in the Sunshine. And so I would simply say at the end of the day, if everybody's in agreement with creating the trust fund, create the trust fund, wait for the report to come back. And then we go ahead and address the actual vehicle as to how to fund it later on in front of the BCC. So I think that would be an approach that we can take. I do believe we've answered the questions that were put forth. But I do also believe at the end of the day, there hasn't been another idea placed before this board to address what the administration has indicated. To be a very tough budget year that we're going to encounter. And as we sit here today, again, this has been the one approach that addresses the issues that the CBOs are faced with in addition to other things. So I would say at the appropriate time, if the UAP is the issue, then what we do is, because this item does two things. It creates the trust and it also creates the funding mechanism. So what we'll do is bifurcate the funding mechanism from the trust, create the trust, get the more information that's been requested, and then when we come back, we can look at the UAP later. Great, and I agree with that, and I'm happy to support that. I will say I just offered an alternative, but we'll get into the alternatives. But I think Commissioner Cohen-Higgins had one more thing, and then we have Commissioner Steinberg that wants to speak. But I really appreciate that, Vice Chair, I think that that really does deal with a lot of issues. We're all good with creating the trust and then dealing with the mechanism of funding the trust separately as we move closer to the budget and have more information. So Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for answering my questions, and thank you to the sponsor for being here. And thank you both for putting in the work and taking the time to do the sunshine. And frankly, you've given me the answers that I need to feel comfortable with my vote on this item. I think when we try to work collaboratively together to find solutions and we make that effort and we invest that time and items come back in exactly the same form as they were before us three months ago, it gives me tremendous reservation where there are no amendments reflecting any movement whatsoever. And so I can't support this item in its form today. I believe that everyone's intention is in the right place, bifurcating and somehow splicing this item on the floor today and saying we're just going to create a trust fund that has no money in it. I don't understand what that accomplishes. I don't think that that appeases our CBO community. I don't think that that moves the needle at all because the actual difficult work is the funding. The actual difficult work is identifying and finding where this money will come from. And so for me, it is nonsensical to separate it and say we're going to create a trust fund with zero dollars and zero ability to fund it, but we'll figure that out later. I think the better policy would be to figure it all out and move the item at once. And we are simply not there yet. And so for me, I can't support this item today. I think that there is a lot of work that needs to be done, and I appreciate and trust that that work will be done. I'm certainly happy to help in any way that I can, but item 2A that is before us in identical form as it was back in November, I cannot support. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Commissioner Steinberg. Yeah. So obviously we've heard from the majority of this body, and 2A in its current form doesn't seem to have any support. But I guess the question is for the sponsor. And I think we, instead of rehashing everything we discussed at the last meeting, I think there's been progress. I guess my first question is, Commissioner Milian Orbis, do you remember when that report is due? It's due in, okay, so it's due in April 1st. April 1st, through the Chair. They have 100, up to 120 days. They don't have to take the entire 120 days, but it would be due back April 1st. Okay. And Commissioner McGee, you are the sponsor of this item. And I think there is consensus, like you said, for creating a trust and then figuring out, as Commissioner Cohen-Higgins says, rolling up our sleeves and doing the hard work as to how we find that. I think we all want to see a dedicated funding source, or I do, in some capacity. And if we take in a tier level, like you were suggesting, and I think we can get there. I think it needs work, but I think we can get there. And the question really does become, what is the mechanism to get something to the full board that everybody can wrap their arms around and support? So do you – I think you may have to bring this back in another kind of – taken in the feedback so we have some of these amendments that you heard today so that we have something more to kind of chew on so that we can polish it and really send something that we can all be proud of, that the CBOs can support, that we can support, that the public can support, because at the end of the day, we know that the work that's being done is a service to the community that we don't often get to help directly in our role in the same way that the CBOs can touch. And so it's definitely a very important role and a very important part of helping the entire community ecosystem, right? So we want to support that. The 2 percent on top of a 2 percent on top of, in some cases, a 1.5 percent for the – are in public places on construction contracts and other things really could have a fiscal impact, according to the staff, right? But that doesn't mean that we have to dismiss it fully. It just means that we need to know, eyes wide open, what are we getting into so we can make the right policy call. It might mean that there is another funding source, like you were talking about, with the additional dollars that could come from the tax collector's office. If that was general revenues that were used before, then you can justify that. And there may be other avenues that we're just not thinking of. This is to set up a long-term vision so that we're not in this situation year after year that has – it needs to have safety net. It needs to have a predictability for them, but it also needs to have checks and balances for us. And so I suggest – because we've heard – you don't have a vote on this committee, and so I thank you for being here today to present your item. But, you know, you've gotten really strong feedback, I think, from the board. I would suggest you come back and give us – work with the CBOs and bring us something that can pass out a committee. Because today, as it stands, it doesn't have the votes to pass. Yeah. Yeah. Are you done? But I think we can get something. And, by the way, I'm okay with creating a – starting the process of at least saying philosophically, yes, we're there. Let's create a trust fund. But then how do we find the vehicle to fund it, and what does that look like, and what are the parameters in which the CBOs have to comply with in order to be eligible? Thank you, Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Gonzalez, you had a comment? Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do agree with Commissioner Steinberg that a trust is a good idea. Like, I don't want this to go away. And I want to be clear. I don't want this to go away. We need to stop kicking the can down the road, and we need to figure out a solution to this. I want to thank the Chair, and I want to thank the sponsor of the item for moving this conversation along and working towards a resolution. As far as the metrics are concerned, I am aware that there is an audit, and you're absolutely right. I believe that the administration has the – I guess the results, but I'm not talking about an audit. I'm talking more a metric system that explains the impact. And the impact is not just, hey – I mean, I haven't seen it. I don't know if any of my colleagues have seen – It's ROI. It's – I mean, and we talked about that the first time that we had the meeting. We talked about ROI and the cost that they incur for doing the work that the county is responsible for doing. So we went, like, a long time on that the first time around, right? Because we're partners, right? Exactly. So the whole point was that. And we did, but yet here we are, and it is the same item. And so that's really my issue, right? My issue is, one, I don't want this to go away. We need to figure out how to resolve this. Two, there needs to be a metrics for the ROI. And if that metrics already exist through the audit, we need to see it because otherwise I don't think Commissioner Orbis would have wasted her time with asking for that report. Three, once we see it, now as a board, as a body, we need to decide either a tier system or an effective way to make sure that those that are doing the most work are rewarded for doing the most work. That's where I'm at. I don't know if just creating the trust without a funding source, without a metrics, without a tier system is going to drive this forward. I would hate to just create a trust, and then we don't see this for another nine months because that's not going to help anybody. I would much rather bring this back perhaps to the next committee. But I mean the next committee. Obviously, this is up to the chair, but probably bring it back to the next committee. Let's keep having this hard conversation until we get to a solution. That's my suggestion. Thank you. I will say this, and I agree with you all. There are several moments in time that are important. So I understand that the report is coming in April, and I think we all look forward to that information, but we're also about to receive the mid-year, and the mid-year will be an opportunity. So when we talk about predictability, the mid-year is your moment, and we can figure out what we're going to do. We know that we are going to receive potentially some money back from the sheriff because you'll remember as we went through the budget, there was a long conversation about her ability to stand up a certain number of academies. So I think there is going to be something in the mid-year, and there will be a conversation. And to our CBO partners, what you need to understand is when we get to the mid-year, we're going to say, okay, well, is the camera money that we're getting enough for the sheriff, right? Is the revenue predictions that we have enough? Are we going to go through that analysis of where we are in terms of the budget and what to do with whatever mid-year funding we receive? I mentioned the constitutional officer, specifically the tax collector, because it is within the tax collector's purview to return to the county whatever is, quote-unquote, unused. And I think that it would be beneficial for the board to earmark those funds because that allows us to better make the case for why that money should be returned to the county so that it's not just you're going to return it because you didn't use it and it goes into some black hole, right? I think that we should incentivize our constitutional partners, you know, in their role as our partners to support the priorities of this county. So I believe that it would make sense for us to, as much as possible, earmark that money towards those priorities so that they can feel part of it. They're not just giving us money back, right? They're giving us money that we're using for goals and priorities and values that we share in common. Commissioner Steinberg. Thank you. Okay, so, I mean, I don't want to see this just hang out here at committee for, you know, with no date certain into when we actually can have this at the full body. So I think we heard some recommendations of maybe bringing some, you know, kind of working on this item and bringing it back next month. Now, that doesn't help those who are on the board who want to see the report before they make a recommendation. So I'm trying to figure this out. From the administration, where are we with that? Because I know some of my colleagues really feel that that's part of how they're going to be able to make a decision. And also from Ray, when are we expecting the mid-year? Because those two things need to go together because we don't want to miss that window. Through the chair, thank you for the question. The team is diligently working on the item that was sponsored and requested by Commissioner Orbis. And so our hope is to get that to you as soon as possible. I do think given the time it takes for us to make sure we do a quality job and a comprehensive job, April 1st is the date. We did request that date so that we could ensure it was quality and comprehensive. We are actually working on what we call the true-up, which is the end-of-the-year item. And then anything that we need to do to amend or adjust the current year's budget as a result of that. And so our hope would be to get that moved first reading, February? Well, you're pretty ambitious. The new guy is very ambitious. First reading, February 18th. So we're working on that. All right. Okay, Ray. All right. And then so then the mid-year? Obviously, that's a true-up, but what about the mid-year? I'm not quite sure about the mid-year at this point. You know, the true-up and then anything that we need to reconcile for 25-26, we're actually trying to move expeditiously so that we can do one of the other things that the board has requested, which is try to give you all regular and monthly updates on the variance between the budget and our expenses. And so our goal is to try to do both of those things, Madam Chair, sooner rather than later. And just to finish my thought, thank you. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. And that gives me that I feel like they are moving. Thank you, Ray, for your enthusiasm. I, you know, the other final thing is I know we're talking about, you know, other potential revenue funding sources and, you know, thinking outside the box, like some of the dollars that could come back and you can make the nexus from the tax collector. But I also want to caution us. I wouldn't want to, and I want to let this everybody know, I don't know that I want to commit saying the entire amount. Because, I mean, I think those dollars, you know, we all probably understand that there are a lot of needs in a tough budget cycle. Yes, I want to look at a portion of that. Yes, I agree. I just want to make that clear. It would be a portion. Because we also have reserves that need funding, and I talk about this until, you know, until I can make everybody, you know, we can go down the rabbit hole, but our reserves also need to be fully funded because when times aren't good, we really need to make sure that we're being fiscally responsible. And when times are good, we need to make sure we're being fiscally responsible. But so there are a lot of different really important avenues that those dollars could be used for. But I do think that could be one of those buckets in which we could use for our CBOs. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Yeah, and I will say we have a meeting April 15th. So assuming that we get the item April 1st. Yes, it's all aligned, you know. So that's our meeting in April. So it might be a good opportunity to kind of connect those things. And I'll continue working with staff to see what we can find. I think, again, like I said earlier, I think it's going to be funding from several sources, right? I'm not talking about sweeping everything, you know, the constitutionals. But I think a portion of that could go to this, and then we can try to figure out where else we can find some funding that we can commit to this. I have Carla Denise, but Commissioner, you had it. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. And I agree with Commissioner Steinberg, again, because I thought about that too, right? What happens in the event of an emergency, right? So we do need to take emergencies and making sure that we have the monies for emergencies into consideration, which I'm sure that we all will. So I would propose, and I'll motion, I'll motion that we defer it to April 15th when we have the report. But I would kindly request, obviously, at the will of the Chair, perhaps we can have another discussion item regarding funding at... Earlier, right, earlier. Yes. Right, at the next meeting. But not a sunshine, perhaps just... A discussion here. Just a suggestion, but maybe we can have a discussion here, and perhaps the Chair would invite some of our other colleagues to come and give their two cents. That's just a suggestion. Yeah, well, first of all, all of my committees, everyone is invited and everyone can speak, so just as a general rule. And so I'm happy to do that, and I'm happy to put another discussion item so that we can talk about specifically the funding. And as I've told the CBOs and the administration, we're open to all ideas. So if folks have ideas, by all means. I've vetted some of them with the administration. They haven't necessarily panned out, but it's not for lack of trying, right? So I think that's a good point. And I think, too, if we're going to get the close of year from Ray in February, we'll have a little bit more information from a fiscal perspective that we can use when we have that conversation. So we do have, we're getting to a point where we're going to be able to forecast a little bit as we get in before April. So, and then we'll see what happens with the mid-year, but Commissioner Orbis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make sure we're clear on the date because the item that I, the report that's due back in, by April 1st, does state that it needs to go in front of the full board without committee review first. So I think that first commission meeting would be April 21st. But it'll be available? It'll be available, well, it depends on the administration if it's ready to review for us. Right, I mean, it'll be available. It just, you know, it wouldn't have passed the full board. I mean, we're not going to vote on it. We just want the information that's in it. I just want to clarify the dates that are stated in the request to make sure that we're not putting this on the agenda redundantly. So it's due back, April 1st would be the 120 days, but I don't know if we will have full board review of that report before. We won't, we won't, but I don't want to waste time to go into the next committee cycle. So we would just take up the report as an informational piece. We're not voting on it, but we want the information that's in it. So I don't think we should wait until after the April BCC. I mean, all reports pass anyway, after April BCC to discuss it again. So, yes. Through the chair, typically when we have a deadline for a report, we make every attempt to distribute that report by the deadline, and then it's included as a discussion or an item at the next either committee or BCC, depending on what was directed. And so I'm hearing from staff, because we're very anxious about getting this information to you, because it's critically important that we're working to ensure we meet the April 1st date so that we can share and distribute that report. And Commissioner Orbis, I would love for our staff to make sure we're sitting down with you early on to ensure that we're hitting all the key points that you think are critically important. I'm also taking copious notes of some of the issues that were presented today. I thought Vice Chairman's comments about audits and metrics was important. We have a report card that's published. We can leverage that information to ensure that it has higher visibility so that Commissioner Gonzalez, you know and can see how we're currently rating the CBOs and other grantees that the county financially supports. So this was a great meeting, Chairwoman, for us to get information that will support the data that's needed to make an informed decision. I also just briefly wanted to say, because the mayor and I have spoken about this extensively, she also had an opportunity to meet with the CBOs last week. We are very anxious about finding a solution to fund this critical opportunity. I mean, the CBOs, as you all have said, are important to our community. They're exceptionally important to Madam Mayor. And so I just want to commend the committee for coming up with ideas that we can use to put into the trust fund. The trust fund will only be as good as the money that goes in it. And so whatever we can do to fund that, we are open to considering. Okay. So, Madam Chair? Yes. So I guess the motion would be to... Oh, we have a motion to defer. To the now April 15th, I guess. Yeah. That's what we were talking about. So we'll have a discussion. I'm happy to have a discussion item next meeting and continue talking about it. But he needs to redraft his item, right? We all agree. And we want the information. And we're going to keep looking for funding sources. So it's a double motion. And it's the motion to have a discussion item continue next month on exploring additional funding sources. Right. And then seeing an updated legislative item from the sponsor at our April 15th meeting. Okay. So that's the motion. Is the sponsor okay with that? Yeah, yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. And yes, absolutely. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to bring back an item that has a bit more options within the actual language. And secondly, I do know we've heard from one of the members that they were expecting amendments. But at the end of the day, this is why we have the committees, because we do the amendment process here in the committee. So it's disingenuous to say that it should have been done. We do amendments in this process, in the committee all the time. Thirdly, I can just say this also. This is a CBO item, which means that the CBOs have come together to create this item, and I'm carrying this item on behalf of the CBOs. So the conversations have already happened with them, but we'll have more conversations with them. And lastly, let me just say this as, again, as it relates to the metrics, and thank you to the administration. There's never going to be enough, in my humble opinion, for this administration to get behind this, even though in the beginning they said they were. So only thing I am saying is if we're going to put things on the record as to how we support CBOs, let's be truthful in our position, not so much the board, but just so much when we hear and see statements that are coming out that are actually putting up more roadblocks than putting up solutions. Again, they put up a solution, the CBOs put up a solution, the UAP 2%. Since then, we haven't heard anything from the administration to give us an alternative. But again, I'll continue to work to get this thing in a position where it can get through, because I definitely believe this is going to be the vehicle that's going to help the CBOs. So with that said, I support the actual deferral, and I look forward to coming back before you all again. The attorney has to read the item, because we went from, like, discussion to the item. So if you could do that, so we can vote on the deferral. The item is an ordinance creating Chapter 2, Article 1D of the Code, establish the Miami-Dade CBO Trust Fund and CBO Trust Fund deduction to be applied to eligible county purchases, providing legislative intent and purpose, directing the county mayor to provide reports to the board. Okay. All right. So we have a motion to defer. We have a second? I'll second. Yes. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All right. And then the speaker, if I may, I'm sorry. I just want to let the CBOs know that we did contact the budget office, because I know some of you still haven't gotten your allocations from our last budget in September. And so they are going to be, they're on it. So I just wanted to put that out there. We did reach out. Thank you. And we don't, yeah, we don't need to vote on the discussion item. We'll just continue it. You know, and we'll, we'll bring more ideas. I'll work with the administration and we'll see what we can come up with in terms of funding opportunities. All right. With that, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you pulled 3A? Yes, Madam Chair. Just to vote, no. Okay. Does anyone have any questions or concerns about 3A? The sponsor is here. Seeing none. Can I have someone move it? Okay. Can I have a second? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All those against? Okay. That's it. Mr. Attorney? Madam Chair, we still have the public hearing item, 1G1. 1G1, right. It's an ordinance relating to the Building Better Community Citizens Advisory Committee, amending sections 2-1801, 2-1802, 2-1803, and 2-1805 of the code, removing language referencing the county manager and updating language pertaining to committee member attendance, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. And this is a public hearing item. I'll second. All those in favor, say aye. What's the roll call? Sorry. Madam Chair, would... Yeah, public hearing. I have to open the public hearing. All right. I don't have any cards for 1G1. Does anyone want to speak on 1G1? It's a simple cleanup item. Seeing nobody here, we will close the reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard on this public hearing item. Anyone have any comments on this one? Everyone's, like, packing up. So, Mr. Clerk, call the roll before we lose court. Commissioner Gonzalez. Four. Commissioner Amelia Norbis. Commissioner Steinberg. Vice Chairwoman Cohen-Higgins. I vote yes. Chairwoman Regalado. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you all very much. And with that, we will adjourn. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.