Commissioner Hardiman, Commissioner Milian Orbis, Vice Chairman Gonzales, Chairwoman Cohen Higgins. Four members present, we have a quorum. Good morning. Please bow your heads for prayer led by Commissioner Gilbert, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Milian Orbis. Bow your heads, Heavenly Father, Lord, and Savior today. On this day we never seen before, we never see again. We come first just saying thank you. Just pausing a second and saying thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to be public servants. Thank you for the people in this community. Thank you for the opportunity to serve. Father, give us wisdom. Give us grace. Help us be the best leaders in this moment for your people. Amen. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Oh, there he is. Okay. Good morning. How are you? Good morning and welcome to our Aviation and Seaport Committee. To the attorneys, are there any edits or changes to this morning's agenda? Good morning, Madam Chair. Just two additions to your agenda this morning, items 3B and 3C. At this time, we'll open the reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard. Now is your opportunity to address this body. I don't have any speaker cards. Anyone wishing to be heard, please approach the podium. Seeing none, reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard is now closed. To my colleagues, we don't have any public hearing items before us on this morning's agenda. Are there any items that you wish to bifurcate or discuss? I just, at least just have somebody explain 3C to me real quick. Anyone from strategic procurement, please approach on item 3C. It's an add-on item, excuse me. And Madam Chair, 2A, I kind of want to know why this took so long. I appreciate you bringing them forward, but I want to know why this took so long. Absolutely. Can someone approach on item 3C, which needs discussion by Commissioner Gilbert? Good morning, Commissioner. And you wanted us to explain what the software is for it's being used. What the software, why we're going with the designated purchase, like the whole, yeah, you can do briefly on what the software is. But I'm really, I just, I'm interested when you all invoke the designated purchase holy grail rule. So, Commissioner, this is embedded software, proprietary software that is being used by airport department. And since it's sole source proprietary and the way our code is written, it's, and we're extending the current contract for, because we're not going to rip apart the software in a place with the new one. We continue to do business with the, with this company and use the software. So, it is a designated purchase per our code. So, let me ask you just, and this is on this, but other things. Do you all think that maybe we should stop being in the business of going with software that can only be operated or things that require a single vendor? And, like, I'm only asking because ultimately we've become beholden to their prices because we can never really change anyway. So, because we've heard this argument, like, for AT&T and we've heard, like, we keep hearing the argument. And so, even, so even if it's not the best product or it's not the best quality, for us it will always be the best because the problem with extricating it from our system becomes too onerous and a lot more expensive. So, maybe just as a function of how you all do business and how you procure, that would be a bad habit to maintain? Yeah, Commissioner, just to kind of assuage your concern, we are always exploring, always, you know, alternate softwares, alternate methodologies. So, we do that as a matter of course. In this particular case, we did an analysis which yielded that, I mean, we're extending the contract and adding another $420,000, in order to replace everything, it will be a $3.2 million expense and an 18-month implementation cycle which will create an operational disruption. So, completely understand your concern and we're constantly exploring different ways of doing things so we aren't tied to proprietary software. But in this particular case, it made sense to go ahead and move forward. Well, yes, and that's actually, this is an example that actually makes my point. Because, because we have to factor in the replacement cost effort, we can never change. So, don't buy something else that we can never change out. Like, just stop buying things that we can't change out. Because, and if you know you're going to do that, then on the front end, you need to get such a massive discount. It needs to be like a lifelong discount. Because you can never leave them. So, whenever we factor to procurement, and I'm going to vote for this item, I'm going to move it. But whenever we factor in a procurement, we have to factor in whoever else would bid, if we actually put this out to bid, we have to factor in how much it's going to cost, how the other people will cost. They can never win. And so, we're going to be beholden to this technology, whether they end up being the best or not. Either way, I'll move this item with the rest of the agenda. But I just think maybe going forward, you all on airport, but in the commission as a broader, when you start seeing us bid out stuff that there's no way out, they're the only ones, treat it like it's a lifetime contract. Like it's a lifetime contract. Commissioner, to your point, I know this was purchased some time back, but moving forward, we're bringing to the board, every time we're doing an RFP for, let's say, to buy a software application, we want to look at, okay, is it going to be here for 10 years, 15 years? And we want to come to the board so we could show you the whole life of this is what it's going to cost. We're going to be embedded in here. And so, when we go back out again, we're going back out again for full-blown. So, we're trying to do that, yes. Yeah, but we can never end up going out because, as we know now, the budget crunch, this budget never really gets easier. So, we're going to never end up going out. So, we know now that the idea that when we go back out is fantasy land. So, let's not even plan for that. Let's plan for what it should cost, like what it should look like if we have to keep this vendor forever. Or having an agnostic technology or system that's plug and play. Plan for one of those things just to be fiscally prudent. Thank you. I have nothing further. I mean, I have nothing further, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Orbis, you are recognized, followed by Commissioner. Thank you. I just, I wanted, Namida, to expand. Starting when, when are you going to be letting us know about the lifetime of contracts? So, new RFPs that we're doing, especially for the software, we're trying to do them for, let's say, if application or system, the life shelf is 10 years, 15 years, we want to bring to the board a 10-year or a 15-year contract. So, you could know the, you could know the pricing, the whole. We'll know at the front end. Correct. We're going to be stuck with these people for 15 years. Correct. Okay. Correct. Do you have, do you have any idea how many contracts in the county are like this, sole source, proprietary, can't get out of them forever and ever, amen? Like how many? Yes. I don't know the number, top of my head, but we do this. This comes up a lot, right? Namida, this comes up like, this comes up, it seems to be many, like, I echo the concerns of Commissioner Gilbert. Like, this comes up a lot where we have sole source. Commissioner, I'll be happy. There's a report that we do in response to one of the directives that the board had adopted. From the numbers perspective, it may seem a lot because the delegated authority for the mayor is $250,000, a penny over, we have to come to the board. But in the overall scheme of things, I don't think it's a lot, but I think the report is due. We do this report every year. We can show it to you, which ones are sole source proprietary systems and what's the dollar value of those systems that we operate today. Yeah, because I know we can't give directives out of committee, as I've been reminded many times, but I think it would be interesting to see how many county RFPs, how many contracts we've awarded that are sole source, how long they have been running, how many years we've been awarding the same vendors over and over and over again, how their performance has been, and what is the plan to replace them someday? Absolutely. Because I know people have issues all the time, right? So when we run into an issue, what is the plan in place? Yes. You know, we have hundreds and hundreds of contracts, right? I imagine thousands of contracts. So it would be very helpful to see, just because we keep asking this, and it's almost like if we're asking unreasonable questions, but I don't think they're unreasonable, right? Commissioner, we'll be happy to give you the report. We have the data. You have the data? Yes. Okay. Absolutely. When can we expect to see that? Next committee cycle? We could, November committee cycle? Yeah. We could bring you the data. Is that just for the airport, Namada, or is that for the airport? No, the whole county. Okay. The county-wide data. Yes. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Orvis. Commissioner Gonzalez, you were recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I don't want to berate the issue, but it does seem like the county is enslaved to many of these proprietary softwares that are only being able to be either used or licensed by certain individuals. And so I understand that you're saying you're going to come back and you're going to give us a 10, 15-year picture, but even that 10, 15-year picture, if it's only one vendor that only makes this specific software, it ends up, when we get it back, that it is too expensive to move to another software, even if that software is the best possible software that can ever exist. So even if this software is renowned within the industry, we're handcuffed because we're stuck with using a software that is so embedded that it costs too much money to get out. And then that begs the question, because I think Commissioner Gilbert has raised a great point, because sometimes it just feels like, and this is not to you, Namada, but sometimes it just feels like there's folks that are working behind the scenes that maybe they could adopt adopt a new software, but it would be more work, and it would be burdensome, and it would mean that they have to learn this new software, and man, I only got 10 years left before I get to retirement, so let me make it somebody else's problem. I'm not saying that this is happening, but it certainly feels that way when we keep getting contracts that need to come back, and it's always the same language, right? It's essential to Miami International Airport's billing software system, et cetera. So what I would say is I wouldn't even want to see just a breakdown of the next 10 or 15 years of what it's going to cost. What I would suggest, and I'm sure you're already looking into this, but what I would suggest is let's look at softwares, as Commissioner Gilbert and Orbis have alluded to, softwares that can either plug and play or that can be adaptable to other companies. I'll give you a perfect example. In my district, when I first got here, there was a splash pad in this park called West Wind Lakes Park, and the splash pad cost millions of dollars. It had been closed for four years. The reason it had been closed is because the only company that can service it was a Canadian company, why would we be held to one company that operates out of Canada to fix a splash pad in South Florida? And so for four years, it was shut down. Finally, once we started doing some digging and some pushing, the parks department, lo and behold, filed a company in Miami-Dade County that can service this very same system that was proprietary and was impossible for anybody else to look into. I say all of that to say it's not only about the 10- to 15-year price, because even if the 10- to 15-year price is a reasonable price, what's going to happen after 10 years? Because, for example, this contract, we're looking for $420,000 in additional funding increasing the total contract amount from $650,000 to $1.7,000, right? That's through December 2029. Now, what happens after the renewal? Well, this software is embedded. We can't get rid of it. It would cost way too much money to bring in a new software. I'm not saying that that's where we're going, but it just seems that way. So let's try to get out of that habit, and rather than just go for the status quo and go for what is embedded, let's try to figure out how we can get into what is going to be the best possible scenario for the airport. And, Director, I know that you're always looking at new technologies. I know you're always looking at ways to improve the airport. I think that this would help. I'm certainly not trying to overspend on things, and perhaps this is the best possible software, but I think what you're hearing from this board is it doesn't feel nice when you're handcuffed to one specific system, right? Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I would add also, I know that it takes the county a long time to catch up with things, but software is dead, right? Now it's AI, and you can literally ask AI to just program anything for you. So I think we should be considering moving in that direction, because we don't need to be handcuffed to a company, as the other commissioners are saying, to provide a software that only we can use, and they sell it to us over and over, when possibly we ourselves can use AI to generate exactly what we need and be able to change it as the time moves on. Thank you, Commissioner Orbis. I'll just add to the conversation. I think the concern is rooted in the bottom line that the board is facing on whether or not we are receiving the best value for the county and for the residents, especially as we approach potentially very tight budget times, even though understanding, obviously, that the airport is proprietary. I just wonder if there is an opportunity, and Namada, this is mainly directed to you, when you present us with a legacy contract option for us to renew, because there's language that says, for example, that the software is deeply embedded, right? In order to avoid the concerns that are being raised by the commissioners this morning, and this is certainly not the first time that we've heard the concerns raised, would it be prudent to add some language in the item that says, we've looked elsewhere, or is that too onerous of a burden? Meaning, would you have to put out an entire RFP in order to receive solicitations? Would it be, and I'm looking for an authentic response, because I think if there was language in these items that say, it is our recommendation that we move forward with this legacy contract, because it's deeply embedded, and because we've done a diligent search of other options, and the other options are far more expensive, for example, or the other options are not compatible with our, whatever the reasoning may be, it would make us, at least myself, feel more comfortable moving forward with the legacy option. So it's not based exclusively on the argument that we are using it, and it's easier for us to just continue using it. And I'm looking for an authentic response from you, Madam Director, on whether or not you think including that sort of language, and not just language, but actually doing the work to do the research, is something that would be reasonable for your team to add, and exclusively on the items that are bringing forward the legacy contract options for renew. Definitely, Commissioner. The staff, my staff, along with, in this case, airport staff, they do conduct research, and they try to gauge who are the other software system providers, and try to get some sort of estimate from them, that how much it's going to cost to replace. But to get exact value, yes, you're right, we have to do a full-blown RFP, and however, we do get estimates from other companies, and looking at what it would cost them to replace something to meet our needs. So we can try to beef that up and put it in the memo. Yeah, I think that would be helpful. And again, not suggesting a full-blown RFP. I know the work and the labor that it takes to do that, but I think that these companies are eager to do business with the county and would be willing, and again, excuse my ignorance if this is not correct, would be willing to give us a rough estimate, at least, so that we can have that knowledge with us at the time that we approve these items. Director? No, thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Just to kind of echo what Namada said, at least at MIA, we are constantly doing that, so we never bring a legacy item or a designated purchase or an item of that nature to the board without ourselves doing our own internal analysis to make sure that it makes sense for us. So, and we weigh different factors. Obviously, operational disruption to the airport, which is a big deal when it comes to customer service, and also cost. So, if we identify a project that maybe will be better suited by a designated purchase because there's going to be a significant operational impact or because the cost is such that it just makes sense to continue with the current vendor, we do that as a matter of course before any designated purchase or legacy item is brought to the board. So, that's kind of embedded into what we do and how we do business at MIA. If it's embedded in what you do, then it shouldn't be arduous or onerous for you to include that then in the item. Sure, absolutely. Appreciate that work and that, you know, showcase your work, right? If you're doing it, highlight it for us. At least, like I said, it would make me feel a bit more comfortable. Thank you for answering those questions. Commissioner Hardiman, you are recognized. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. Can you describe what it looks like then when you want to transition? Give me an example of you transitioning from one software to another, where, for instance, it's an 18-month impact, it costs millions of dollars, and it has an operational impact upon the airport. Like, how would you go about doing it? Because, you know, Commissioner Gibbard spoke earlier about this is a lifetime contract. I mean, it's as good as long as the person is providing you the service. So it reminds me of electric buses, for example, right? It's like we have it until we don't have it anymore. So what does it actually look like to transition from software program A to software program B because this board decides that it's in the best inches of the airport? So, Commissioner, the big example that we have is the Informs or the PeopleSoft that we switched from our prior mainframe system, which was AdPix and Famous. Those were green screen financial and procurement systems. So usually we'll put out an RFP a few years in advance, get the system, get the board to approve through the procurement process, get the board to approve the award, and depending on how many departments are involved, what the system functionality is, how many modules we are implementing, implementation could take between 18 months to 2 years, 3 years. Usually there's a cutover period where we may run both systems simultaneously, training, and depending on how complex and how deeply rooted the system is, the functionality is, it could take between 1 year to 3 years. Did we, in fact, do that with the Informs? System? We hired the implementer through an RFP process, yes. No. Did we do it the way that you described? Over time while the other system was running at the same time to bring it on? Yes. Yes. We did, right? So then for something like this, are you deciding beforehand that you'd just rather stay with the company and you're not really giving us the option? Or are you saying two years ahead of time you have the option of doing X, we recommend Y, and Y would be two years from now just extending the contract? Because we want a fair opportunity to make a decision, and we don't feel as if you're giving us that by just bringing to us an option to renew. So what are you doing with us today? So today we're asking you to approve this extension because the research conducted indicates that going back out and replacing is costly, more costly than what we are paying today to maintain the existing system. And when is this contract expiring? Late 2026. So, in fact, you are telling us we must do this the way that you've described it. You didn't come to us two years ago and say we have an option to extend two years from now or we can begin the process of procuring a new system, and that system we can implement over the next two years, two or more years. That's a fair option. And so, like, when I'm sitting on this board and I hear the frustration, it's because you're bringing us these moments. You know, you're forcing us to make a decision. And it's one of those circumstances where you're going to begin to force us to make other decisions. And what that means to me is that if I have to continue to make decisions at the last minute and it only leads to one procurement, one person, one firm, one this, one that, I'm going to start to believe that, yes, there may be other nefarious things that matter or that if this is, in fact, just a mistake, then who is it that keeps making this mistake that puts us in the circumstance that we're in contract after contract after contract? Maybe that's where we should be paying our close attention to and not the individual contractors before us. So, Commissioner, I think there are a couple of ways to address this. There is a recommendation by a STRIP task force that calls for standardization. In other words, the board decides, for example, in this case, INFORMS, for example, is a standardized system right now that we have adopted. We know we're not going to get out of this system for a long time because it's cost and money. So we could come back to you and show you, okay, we have, I'm making that up, 50 systems today. Of these 50 systems, this is the investment, and we are recommending that we should carry out of these 50, we should continue doing business with 25, and the remaining 25, we need to go back out again, and that could be the potential cost. So we could come back with something like that, a report to you, where you decide, okay, you know what? Based on the analysis, out of the 25, we carry on staff for 25 and keep using these 25, but the remaining 25 go back out again in the next few years and bring back the awards. We can certainly do that. I mean, that sounds good, but you did not do that. That's what would have happened, I would think, for this two years ago. And that's what we're saying. It's like, it's a great idea, but you didn't implement it. It's a great idea, it sounds good, but that's not what we're faced with today. Go ahead. So, Commissioner, to answer your question, what we did do is what I mentioned before, we did do a thorough analysis of the software and what the cost would be and weighing what the operational disruption would be of going with a new software, and that yielded a $3.2 million estimated cost and an 18-month implementation cycle, which would have, as I'm going to mention, any time you transfer from one system to another, you're going to have a code-over period where you end up paying both vendors, the new vendor and the existing, during that transition, which also adds to the cost. So, that analysis was done months ago prior to this item coming to the board. If I understand you correctly, what you're looking for is something earlier, to have something presented to the board earlier, maybe when we're getting closer, or I don't know how long before the contracts are going to expire. This item specifically asked for a two-year extension of the contract plus one-year OTR and the additional $420,000, which, when weighed against the $3.2 million, we considered to be fiscally responsible as far as cost and also made sense on the operational disruption, which is why it came before you this way. Thank you, Commissioner Hardeman. Commissioner Gonzalez, you were recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I apologize ahead of time, because hearing Commissioner Cohen-Higgins and hearing Commissioner Hardeman, it just makes me want to say a lot of things, right? And it makes me want to have a candid conversation, both with the director and with you, Namida, because I have the utmost respect for you guys, and I know that you guys are doing everything you can to do the best possible job that you can, not only for Miami International Airport, but for the residents of Miami-Dade County. But I think there's a bigger point here that we're dancing around respectfully, but I think there's a bigger point here. And the bigger point is the lack of innovation that is coming from Miami-Dade County as a whole, right? I'll give you a perfect example. I go to Orlando a lot, right? I got three little girls, right? I have a six-year-old. I have a two-year-old. I have a 14-year-old. So you would think, I mean, I'm in theme parks all the time. The parking in some of these places in Orlando is fantastic. You don't need to get a little ticket. You just go inside, right? They see your license plate. And then by the time you leave, it already knows. I don't know if this is AI or magic. I don't know what it is. But by the time you're leaving, it knows exactly how much time you've been there, and it charges you automatically, right? I travel a lot. And the Port of Miami, Miami International Airport, we don't have that. We don't have that. I'm not saying that we absolutely need something like that, but I'm just saying that I have seen technology like that implemented elsewhere, right? And I don't see it in Miami-Dade County. Commissioner Orbis just alluded to AI that's being used all throughout, but it's not being used in Miami-Dade County. And something that Commissioner Hardiman said last meeting got me thinking, because it's almost like there's a lack of want to innovate. And in the private sector, folks, you guys know this very well. In the private sector, if you don't innovate, you die. I'll give you a perfect example. Do you guys remember? I'm a 90s baby, right? You guys remember Blockbuster? Bro, I loved Blockbuster, right? Friday night, we'd go to Blockbuster. We'd get some Caesar's pizza, go home, and it was the most amazing evening we can have, right? Then Netflix came out. Blockbuster, in 2000, was offered the opportunity to buy Netflix for $50 million. Now, at the time, and still today, $50 million is a lot of money. Blockbuster didn't even want to have a conversation, because that's not going anywhere. And I would imagine that there was a lot of engineers and very invested, top-level executives at Blockbuster that were saying, you know what, why are we going to look at this new technology? We already run the game. We already have this software where we are rewinding movies and charging people when they don't rewind movies, and that's giving us great revenue. And that's not going to stop, right? If we let people stream, we're not going to get the revenue from rewinding the movies. Forget Netflix. We don't need them. Blockbuster's not around today, because they didn't innovate. Miami-Dade County, there is a lack of wanting to innovate. And, Director, I'm certainly not trying to pick on you. I say this because I'm comfortable speaking with you, because I know where your heart is, and I know what you want to do for Miami International Airport. But oftentimes, it dawns on me that there may be high-level folks at the airport that are just waiting to retire. They're just waiting for this not to be my effing problem. But it is the problem of every single resident in Miami-Dade County, and it is the problem of this entire board, as was just said by Commissioner Hardiman. Because if we don't have the right projects coming forward, if we don't have the right innovation being presented, and we're just rubber-stamping the legacy contract that has been here forever, we've always done it like this, so why would we change it, blockbuster mentality, we're going to keep sinking. And it's never going to get better, despite all of the efforts that I see you doing at the airport. And this is not just pertinent to the airport. I'm not trying to pick on the airport. This is every department in Miami-Dade County. This is every industry in the world right now. We're in a new technological era where we need to adapt or die. And we are simply not adapting. At least, I don't feel that way. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. You know, I think that the sentiments are somewhat uniform, and I hope it's being received as a message of motivation, not in the opposite direction. And I say that because I think that, you know, adding additional information will help and go a very long way. And what I've also found is that when we prompt, meaning the board, when we prompt you, and it's not you, these two amazing directors before us, but you, meaning the administration, to go back and either be more innovative or do something more aggressively, i.e. save money or what have you, the results tend to be rather positive. And so I think we would like to see that done on the front end as opposed to being pushed and prompted by us to do it. And on this particular item, I don't know if it's the will of this board, but maybe it's best to defer the item and bring it to the November committee hearing and bring it back to us with the information that we're asking for today so that we can feel comfortable extending this legacy contract. Because the fact is, once we extend it now, it's going to be even more embedded five years from now, right? And so before we make that decision, have the amazing professionals in your departments go gather that information to give to us to make us feel comfortable yielding this extension. So is that something that you all feel? And again, I don't know if it's the will of the board to support that sort of an idea. But I do think that the work should be done so that we feel comfortable with this item and frankly, future items of similar nature, i.e. legacy extension of contracts related particularly to software. My colleagues couldn't be more accurate. AI, innovation, we as the largest county in the great state of Florida should be the leaders on these issues, right? Not playing catch up. And this item can just be an opportunity to showcase that. So are you agreeable to doing that and bringing it back at the November hearing that will still meet the December deadline, right? And so you're still... And then we would have the additional information. To my colleagues, is that something that you all are seeing to be agreeable? I'm seeing yes. Okay. So at this time, I'd like to move to set the agenda. Can I have a second? Second. It's been second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Anyone which should be recorded, no. Our agenda is set. I move to defer 3C to the November Airport Committee. Second. With... Thank you. With the important caveat that we'd like some information returned to the board in the form of a written report regarding what due diligence was done to show some level of competition and that this is actually the best company to move forward with. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Anyone which should be recorded, no. 3C is deferred to our November Airport Committee. Commissioner Gonzalez, you were recognized on item 2A. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank you for bringing this up because I think there's a lot to like here, right? This is a very valuable space at one of the busiest airports in the country. And competition should be generally, we should start at what can produce a better result for the county. And so to the administration, the administration previously came to us believing that the heat concept justified a negotiated agreement. And it's been two years and we still do not have a signed agreement from the heat. I don't know if there's somebody from the heat here or if the administration can just... What has taken so long and why did it take two years for us to find out that this just wasn't going to happen? And why did it take Commissioner Cohen-Higgins to come up and put this forward for us to start thinking about filling this space? Because I've been to this store and it's prime real estate, right? Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. Anyone from the heat? Well, we say the heat. I believe that the vendor's name is Airball Sports. Is anyone from Airball Sports present that would like to approach and answer the Commissioner's questions? Good morning and welcome. Good morning, Madam Chair. George Lopez representing Airballs, Miami Heat, Basketball Properties. Thank you for the opportunity. Address 2665 South Bay Shore Drive. Madam Chair, if I may, the Airball has been working with the airport for now many years when we first took the space. This agreement signed by us came before this committee back in May, I think it was. The only thing that was pending was, at that time, there was an identification of a labor peace agreement required by one of your resolutions. We had never executed one. In fact, when the original agreement was executed, I think it was an acknowledgment rather than an agreement that the local union at the time, because of the number of employees, was not interested. But again, fast forward, we started the conversations with the union. Local union has been fantastic, to be honest with you, and very illustrative of what these agreements are for, since we are unfamiliar with them. We've been working through it. In fact, a couple amendments were made, I guess, thanks to the union. And we have an executed agreement with them. As I understand, the affidavit that goes along with the item is a companion to our agreement, as it has been executed now for months. Thank you, Mr. Lopez. And as always, you are a gentleman and a scholar, sir. I really appreciate that. Very generous. Do we, to the administration, do we normally require labor peace agreements from concessionaires at MIA? Because Mr. Lopez is saying that it used to be an acknowledgment? If I may, Madam Chair. The original agreement had just an acknowledgment. The legally sufficient item that was executed by us and the airport and came to your agenda had the same acknowledgment. There was an identification by the union that that was incorrect and that we should enter, pursuant to a board resolution. I want to say it's about 18 years old resolution. Many of us had never seen it. We started to work through it. Obviously, it was off-season for us, so no excuse, but that did take some time. But we've worked through all those issues. Amendments have been accepted and executed, sir. Anything? Well, if I can get an answer for the administration, do we require these? The answer is yes. Yes, Commissioner, we do. Okay. All right. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. Anything? Anyone else? Well, I had a question, Madam Chair. What is, I know that you're going to go out, you're soliciting a new proposal for this, a new competitive proposal. What do we think is, you know, what are we intending to go there in this spot? Because this is after security, right? Post-security? So do we have any idea what type of store this will become? Commissioner, to answer your question, assuming that we will put out a competitive procurement for this, we really have no preference. I mean, the heat has been there a long time. We do have a longstanding history at the airport where we give preference to our local sports teams. We have an Inter-Miami store. In the past, we had a Marlins store. We've had the heat store for a long time. So we do have that history at the airport. We always want to have our local sports teams to have a preference there. But, again, it is primary real estate, as the Commissioner mentioned. And if we would go out for competitive procurement, then, you know, we'd have to look at what the market would yield and what submittals we would receive for that space. But we have other stores in the airport that are team stores already, don't we? Correct. Inter-Miami, we have as well. In the past, we had the Marlins. We lost them a few years ago. But, yeah, we do have other sports teams. Is there not one store that sells all the Miami teams? No. You mean Miami Heat or just all the Miami teams? No. No. Okay. So this is going to be not necessarily a concession. It's going to be a store, like a retail store. Correct. Correct. Not like food. Correct. Although it could be converted to food, it would require a lot more investment because it would require grease trap connections and other, you know, kitchen connections, things of that nature. But it could be converted to that. But typically, in that area, it would probably end up being a retail store. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Orvis. Commissioner Hardiman, you are recognized. Thank you. I mean, I see no reason why we would be ejecting the Miami Heat from Miami International Airport. I mean, if we're talking about killing the brand of Miami-Dade County, I mean, let's start there. I want us to stop and think about what we're talking about here. If there is an agreement that is to be made through the Miami or Yogi Ball with the union and also then, therefore, with the airport, then let's finish that agreement. It's taking too long. I don't know why it's taking so long. I don't think the excuses that we'll put on the record is sufficient. But I've seen that things take a long time in Miami-Dade County. Fortunately, there is existing business being ongoing there, right? So that's most important that we continue to sell Miami Heat merchandise. But any city that you fly into, I don't care if it's Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, New York City, I mean, if you can't buy a team jersey from these airports in these cities, what are we doing? It's the basic foundational thing that you do to show pride in the city or the county that you represent. And so I have no intention whatsoever in voting to validate this agreement and putting out for another bid to put anything, Tommy Hilfiger, Polo, Caterpillar, it doesn't matter. The Miami Heat must be here. Now, we're not asking to give them any discount. We're not asking to do any of these things. But there should always be a prime retail space for an organization like the Miami Heat. I'm sorry to hear that the Miami Marlins, maybe they've lost some favor because of some of the mistakes they've made in the past, but we would like to see them there as well. Even if this, well, it may not be this organization, but even if this organization decides that they can, you know, be able to get a license agreement with them to carry their merchandise. But the bottom line is this, is that we in the airport should have a store that is selling the merchandise of the flagship teams in our place. Because if you've ever tried to buy a jersey from a store at an arena, it is very difficult, right? Meaning that you have to go to that well-populated area, park, walk all the way up to the stadium on a day that you're not supposed to be there, get the merchandise, then leave. But if you're flying into town and you can stop there before you grab your bags, it makes most sense to purchase there. It's a great sale option, and it makes MomDee kind of look good. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Gilbert, you were recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Hardiman, when you said polo, I mean, I thought about a trick that he's on. Are those bugle boys you're wearing? Hell no. You know it's polo. Yeah. Let me just say, we have Bam Adebayo, Bams, you know, he was here, this is our dude, we have Giannis now. We're good. Yeah, we're good. Like, we actually, this is the time, so I agree that the heat needs to be there. Let's just get the, look, but labor's important, labor peace is important. It took too long, let's get it done quicker. Like, move at the speed of business, that's all we're trying to say. Move at the speed of business, please. Thank you, Commissioner Gilbert. Someone from labor peace is here. Would you like to approach? I shouldn't say from labor peace. I should say from our- That's okay. Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Wendy Walsh. I'm the general vice president for Unite Here International Union, and I also lead our local union here in Miami-Dade. I'm sorry. Yeah, we executed a labor peace agreement with Airball Sports yesterday. We've signed, in the last 18 years, over 100 of these, I think, at the airport. Usually, they take a day or two. This one took longer. But we made our way through it. George has been great to work with, and it's been executed. We have no issues. Thank you. Thank you for that important update. And to my colleagues, I couldn't agree more. I think everybody agrees that we want the heat presence in our airport. This particular fact pattern gave me pause because the agreement that they had with Miami International Airport expired on November 28, 2024. And Miami International Airport sent not one but multiple notices to the vendor to say, we are stopping negotiations for lack of response. And so for two years, the vendor stayed in our airport essentially as a holdover tenant, not renegotiating new agreements, and having the financial benefit, frankly, to Miami International Airport of what that new agreement would yield. And that's what caused the concern for me when a contract expires, it should not, especially at Miami International Airport, where space is such a premium, and especially for a product as heavily regarded as Miami heat material, it should not take two years and the night before a hearing to execute agreements in order to move forward. So I want our vendors in our airport to understand that if you have the benefit of being present at Miami International Airport, respect the process, respect the airport. If your contract has expired, you know, honor the obligations that everybody else has to honor. I'm not sure that every other vendor at Miami International Airport would have had the benefit of being a holdover for two years. In this instance, I'm grateful that whatever needed to be executed was executed, and in light of the same, I'm happy to defer item 2A to no date certain because it's been represented on the record here today that agreements have been signed. And I believe now the appropriate thing, yes, director, you can approach, would be to bring back their lease extension or their lease renewal, which is my understanding that that new lease agreement that was previously before this board does have all of the updated terms that all of our concessionaires have had to sign, does have a better financial arrangement for Miami International Airport, right? Everything has been updated pursuant to that agreement, and so I am very pleased to hear that that is now ripe and ready to move forward. It's ready to put back on agenda, Madam Chairwoman. We were just waiting for this particular item, an issue, to be resolved. It was on agenda before, as Mr. Lopez mentioned. We're ready to put it back on and get the agreement signed. It's a 10-year lease for millions of dollars in revenue generation, and we get to keep our hometown basketball team at the airport. Absolutely. I'll second the deferral. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. All those in favor of the deferral, signify by saying aye. Oh, yes, Commissioner Hardiman. Yes, Commissioner Hardiman, you were recognized. I want to say first, Madam Chairwoman, I think you're right. It took too long. We can't have business working this way. And I'll tell you, the Miami International Airport is a different entity, necessarily, than Miami-Dade County, but in the same breath, I have a holdover tenant for probably now five, six years in a facility that we have a lease that's expired with in Miami-Dade County. And they've done a number of things, this organization, that are what would be considered, say, illegal in the space or volatile of a lease agreement or things that would even get us in trouble with our federal government partners, right? But we're dealing, and they don't move at any speed, as I've seen, in trying to ensure that these entities or this entity in particular is out of the space. And so this is something that we see time and time again. And I think that the way that you did this, we obviously didn't have an opportunity to talk about this because that's not what we do, but the way that you did this to bring it to light, I think, is perfectly reasonable considering the circumstances. And after I heard everything, I agree with the way that we've done this, and I will support your deferral. Thank you, Commissioner Hardiman. And I appreciate those comments. And listen, for me, I think my mission is the same as everyone else's. I don't appreciate the business community. When we say we mean business, we have to be able to back that up. And whatever your situation is, bring it to us, right? Like, we will support. There should be no holdover tenants in Miami-Dade County for whatever that time period that you just mentioned. I think it said five or six years. Bring the item to the board. I think we all want business done differently in this county, and so I appreciate those remarks. Commissioner Orbis, did you? Yeah, I did. You were recognized. So when did we find out that the heat renewed the contract? Was that, like, right now during the meeting? Did they just call you? 10.30 last night. That's what I'm hearing. Okay. Because I have an item here that says, instead, solicit open competitive proposals for a future tenant of such location. So when did you find out? That the heat executed the agreement with United Heat? I found out first thing this morning. This morning? Correct. Okay. I heard it last night, but. Last night this morning? I found out this morning. And. They came to an agreement last night, and it was signed last night. Were you planning on telling us, or were we just going to vote on this item? No, no. That. Okay. Because I totally missed that, and I am the commissioner of the airport, so I would appreciate to know these things before the committee meeting. Thank you. Any further discussion to the attorneys was item 2A deferred. Did we call a vote? I'm just asking for a vote. The vote hasn't happened yet. Okay. So all in favor of deferring 2A to no date certain, signify by saying aye. Anyone wish to be recorded no. Orbis is a no vote. 2A is deferred to no date certain. Any other items on the agenda that the commissioners would like to discuss or bifurcate? I'll entertain a motion on the balance of the agenda. So moved. It's been seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Anyone wish to be recorded no. To the attorneys, any additional unreadiness before the body this morning? Seeing none. Thank you, everyone. We are currently adjourned. Arms down. If we are in the middle of now, be quite honest. Absolutely. Now you know how we've chosen this bishop, for what we are able to talk about? Why are you actually going to live with us? We're staying in the middle of now. If, when we're planning on the children with family, we'd be very excited to go ahead and be eager to ask them all to end. Instead of worrying about a unfortunate amount of, if you find no change, we want to shake is if not. If we have nothing would have any problem, we free to remove the reconsider. 你的 attitude as we're not Cuban. Next week's sake is how I'm ready to move forward.