Board of County Commissioners - Oct 20, 2026

Good morning to all. The clerk's office has been notified that Commissioner Gonzales will be absent from today's meeting. Commissioner Bastien, Commissioner Bermudez, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, Present, Senator Garcia, Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Hardiman, Commissioner Lopez, Commissioner Milian Orbis, Commissioner Regalado, Commissioner Steinberg, Vice Chairman McGee, Chairman Rodriguez. We have eight members present, we have a quorum. Thank you, Madam Clerk. To my colleagues at this time, considering that we do not have present in chambers a chair or a vice chair, I move to suspend the rules and name Commissioner Oliver Gilbert as temporary presiding officer for today's meeting. That requires a two third vote. Thank you for the second to our Madam Clerk. Do we need to call roll or is it a voice vote? Voice vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Anyone wish to be recorded no? Motion carries. Commissioner Gilbert, you are the presiding officer. Vocation and Pledge of Allegiance. Reverend, could you please take us to the throne of grace? Thank you so much. My name is Tucker. I serve as a pastor at Christ Fellowship Church. Thank you so much to Commissioner Cohen-Higgins for the opportunity to be with you guys today. Would you guys join me as we pray? Heavenly Father, Lord, we give thanks. Lord, that you have, Lord, allowed us to be in this, Lord, solemn assembly, Lord, where, Lord, lives are impacted in a great and a significant way. Lord, would you bless the decisions that are made here? Would you bless those who are a part of this leadership? Lord, if there be any ill will, Lord, if there be any selfish ambition, Lord, in those who lead in this place, Lord, would you root it out? Because, Lord, Miami, Dade County, Lord, is far too significant of a place, Lord, for us to tolerate, Lord, those who are after their own gain rather than the good of our community. So, Lord, would you bless those who labor to serve this community and beyond. Lord, would you bless this time? Would you bless this gathering and these decisions? In Jesus' name, everybody said? Amen. Amen. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Attorney. We're going to go right into reasonable opportunity to be heard? Yes. All right, reasonable opportunity to be heard. I'm going to call some names. We're going to give everybody one minute. One minute. John Brody, or Baudry, Samantha Barquin, Valeria Donets, Brian Adler, Sophia Bond, Stanley Young, Hope Yusufa, Julian Portis, Sophia Saud, and Paolo Rosales Godi. You all line up behind the podium if you have a minute. Please give me your name, your address. If you're a student, you can just tell me that you're a student and your address is held. Don't give me your address if you're a minor. Good morning. My name is Samantha Barquin. I live at 15040 Southwest 49th Lane, Miami, Florida 33185. I'd first like to thank Commissioner Regalato for her leadership in addressing the future of this aquarium. We recognize that this is a complicated project and an important opportunity for Miami-Dade County. Virginia Key is a very special place, and this proposed amendment would significantly change the future of 36 acres of public waterfront land. That's why we're concerned about using the small-scale amendment process rather than the standard review process, which includes additional state and agency review. Given the significance of this proposal and the unanswered questions about impacts to Biscayne Bay's water quality and seagrass habitat, why wouldn't we take those additional steps? We appreciate the work being done, but we want to ensure that it's being done appropriately and right. We ask that you defer today's vote until these concerns have been adequately addressed. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning. My name is Valeria Donets. My address is 4600 Southwest 67th Avenue 33155, and I'm speaking today on behalf of Friends of Biscayne Bay regarding the proposed aquarium redevelopment. We are deeply concerned about the decision to pursue this application as a small-scale amendment, as under Florida law this process requires only one public hearing. And bypasses the standard state agency review, which is particularly important in the context of manatee protections. For redevelopment involving critical environmental resources, public submerged lands, and potentially a substantial marine infrastructure, this reduced level of scrutiny and public participation is unacceptable. Community organizations have repeatedly requested meaningful engagement with the developer for several months now, yet no publicly advertised community meetings have been held to address our concerns. Where is the county to require a serious or publicly advertised community workshops and charrettes with the developer and relevant agencies present before advancing any approvals? These meetings must provide a genuine opportunity for public input to inform proposal rather than simply presenting the community with decisions that have already been made. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Sophia Bond and my address is 3235 Southwest 59th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33155. I'm speaking today regarding item 4M in this aquarium site of Virginia Key. There has been insufficient public outreach and dissemination of information about the proposed amendment. Residents need clear, accessible information to understand the proposal and its potential consequences. Meaningful public input must happen before the decision advances, not after key decisions have already been made. The public deserves adequate time to review the application, supporting documents, and relevant studies. The ask today is simple. Defer today's vote and schedule public workshops, community briefings, and additional opportunities for public input with sufficient advance notice. Our community deserves a real voice in shaping the decisions that affect how we live. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. My name is Julian Portes and my address is exempt from disclosure. I'm here to speak in support of item 10A2 concerning the financing of the Magnolia Point housing development. As a Miami Beach resident, I have seen how expensive housing has become, especially for working families and younger residents hoping to remain in the communities where they grew up. With approximately 409 rental units planned for low, moderate, and middle income households, Magnolia Point could provide much needed housing opportunities for hundreds of Miami-Dade residents. Housing affordability remains a serious concern throughout Miami-Dade and the demand for reasonably priced homes continues to put pressure on families across the county. I believe the county should continue encouraging developments like Magnolia Point while ensuring that these projects remain affordable to the residents they've intended to serve. I urge the board to vote in favor at item 10A2 and continue supporting affordable housing throughout Miami-Dade County. Thank you for your time. Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. My name is Paulo Rosales and my address is exempt from disclosure. I'm here to speak in favor of item 11A2, which is the resolution to urge Congress to pass the Dump Red Tape Act. I believe that it is in the interest of the board to properly represent the interests of small business owners in Miami and nationwide. There is no need to ignore the plea to help alleviate the heavy bureaucracy and restrictions upon small business endeavors. And we should always encourage and help our small business owners. I believe that it is unfortunate that this legislature is even needed, but it is necessary. And I urge the board to vote yes in favor of item 11A2. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Give me your name again. Paulo Rosales. Rosales, got it. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. My name is Sophia Saud and my address is exempt from disclosure. I'm here to speak in approval of item 11A2, the Dump Red Tape Act. A resolution which serves to create a hotline to address small business owners concerns, desires, and needs in a more convenient and efficient manner. A 2024 report conducted by the House Committee on Oversight while serving the Biden administration determined that small business owners were burdened with over 300 million regulatory paperwork hours resulting in difficulty maintaining and growing their businesses. By implementing this hotline service, small business entrepreneurs will be able to voice their concerns directly to Congress instead of jumping through hurdles to resolve their issues. This act will ensure that the government remains accountable and adaptive to its constituents. I'm asking the board to vote yes on item 11A2. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you very much. Madam Attorney and to the clerk's office or whoever's taking the names downstairs, we need to probably encourage the people who are underage that they don't actually have to write their address on here either because it still becomes a matter of public record if you write it on the piece of paper. So you all want to probably make that announcement downstairs. Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Hope Yousifel. My address is exempt from disclosure. And I'm here today to speak in support of item 10A1. This item would authorize up to $61 million in bonds to help finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of Golden Lakes Apartments. As housing costs continue to challenge families across Miami-Dade, projects like this can help make it possible for many residents to continue calling Miami-Dade home. By investing in existing apartments, we have the opportunity to improve living conditions, preserve housing, provide families with safer and more comfortable places to live. However, I also encourage the commission to ensure these improvements come with long-term affordability and protections for current residents. Ultimately, housing is more than just building. It's about giving families this ability and opportunity to build their futures right here in Miami-Dade County. Thank you for your time. Good morning, Mayor, Commissioner. I'm Rachel Silverstein. I'm the CEO and waterkeeper of nonprofit Miami Waterkeeper, and my address is exempt. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the Seaquarium Project. I know that this is first reading on the CDMP, and there's another item associated, the Red Map item. This is an iconic piece of property. It is extremely important to so many Miamians and, of course, has an environmental impact with considered marina on the bay. I want to thank Commissioner Regalado for her leadership. Rachel, one second. Did you sign up? Because I didn't call your name. I did. All right. Just make sure we get a card for you. Go ahead. Oh, sure. Commissioner Regalado, thank you for leading the discussion on this and bringing the item. We think that there's a lot of potential here. We do have environmental concerns that we have been speaking about, impacts to seagrass, potentially corals, water quality issues, and we are concerned that it is coming before the board today without all the information being available to the public. So we're asking for clarity on what exactly is the plan for protecting our precious seagrass and other aspects of the proposal. So we ask today that this project, where the clock starts ticking today on this process, be presented with really complete information so that we can really understand what's being proposed here. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, can I just ask you a quick question? And I just, I don't need the clarity today, but we need it in the future. I see the young men and women are exempt. Now we had somebody who's not a young man or woman who says they're exempt, and they have a entity that exists that has an address. We've had a gentleman that comes here from Palm Beach that always says he just lives in Palm Beach and doesn't give us his address. So moving forward, can we get clarity so whoever chairs these things gets, we follow the law? Yes, I understand, Commissioner. It is appropriate for the young folks. We know why, but generally speaking, if you're law enforcement or your husband's a judge, your address is exempt, but we should probably state the exemption. There's a statute that normally goes with it, but we'll make note of that. I think that you're, that's a good point. Good morning. It's John Baudre, 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way. And I rise up for public comments on item 2B9 to the members of the board. I rise in support of this report, and I commend our mayor, the CITD, Commissioner Regulato, for asking the right questions. The administration has chosen one strong foundation over many scattered ones. This is the right direction, and a county united, and the systems, and is the county prepared for what comes next? And what comes next is the age of the automaton. In our community and technology, there's growing anxiety over the capabilities of AI and looking towards the future and its effects, not just on our systems, but on our economy. And what do we prepare with contingencies that we take a serious look at it before something happens? And so I just offer my suggestions that let us measure what we build. Let us test what we trust. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. For the record, Brian Adler, Law Offices of Bills and Sundberg, 1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300. I'm here representing Resilient Aquarium LLC, an affiliate of Terra, in connection with item 4M, this aquarium. I'm just going to very briefly respond, because there were some comments made earlier. Today is not the public hearing. Today's vote is only for, as the commission knows, is only for the item to be able to proceed for the public hearing, which is anticipated to be next month, November 19th. So a month away, within that time there will be continued outreach, there has been outreach to the community, there will be continued outreach, there will be public sessions. There will be a community council hearing, a PAB hearing, and then the hearing today. On December 2nd, 2025, the commission adopted Resolution R117725, essentially authorizing the lease for this aquarium to be awarded to Terra. That lease has term sheets, it directed that the mayor's office or the mayor's designee take all actions to effectuate the lease. The application is solely to effectuate the term of the lease. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Young. Good morning, Commissioner. It's good to see you sitting there. Chaplain Stanley Young, Pastor Young of 500 Northwest 2nd Avenue and 36, 45 Northwest 36th Street in District 2 and 3. Thank God for my commissioners. But I rise up to talk about 10A1, 10A2, about amending the debt that is on multifamily homes in Miami-Dade County. Any relief that we could give to those who are homesteaders, those who have seniors who need some relief, who are being priced out of the home that they have been in for the last 30 and 40 years now, is struggling to just pay just this insurance on the place and to keep the place up. So I rise up as a chaplain that walks the streets of Miami-Dade County and talk with those who don't even have a home, who are looking to get a home, and they need any kind of relief, any kind of effort that they could have to really get that done. Thank you. God bless. Thank you, Chaplain. All right. Eliza Axoy, David Kordick, and Tom Robertson. Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. My name is Eliza Axoy. My address is exempt from disclosure. I'm here to speak for item 11A5, which proposes fast-tracking a lease at 9250 West Flagler Street for affordable housing while waiving auditor review and public outreach rules. High living costs make affordable housing critical in Miami-Dade, where medium rents over 2,700 are stretching working families to their limit. Furthermore, as a high school junior and recent resident of Miami, I know firsthand how quickly the environment changes. Frequently, residents have to navigate new construction notices, delays in public transport, and noise complaints. Fast-tracking developments impact residents beyond those relocating. Applying transparent public notices guarantee open communication and support for these communities. This will reinforce the county's interests and the betterment of Miami as a whole. I'm asking the board to vote yes on item 11A5 with an amendment of adding a public notice. Thank you for your time. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. My name is David Kordich, and my address is exempt from disclosure. I'm speaking in support of item 11A5, which fast-tracks a lease of 5.85 acres at 9250 West Flagler for affordable housing. I'm in support of 11A5 because it shows the county taking a step forward into reducing bureaucracy and becoming more efficient. By waiving the auditor review and public outreach requirements, we will be able to move forward on important initiatives such as affordable housing quickly and allows the government to act with proper urgency. I and many others would like to see the county use a similar approach on future agenda items to remove unnecessary steps when possible. For these reasons, I ask you to vote yes for item 11A5. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Tom Robertson. My address is 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 300, and I'm here to talk to you about item 11A7, which is a settlement agreement between the county and red space, and my purpose is to ask you to defer it. There are other parties in this lawsuit that are not included in the settlement agreement who are working with road space to try to settle, and deferring this item will allow those settlements to go forward. And so allowing it to be deferred is not going to kill it. It's not going to interfere with the county's ability to settle the matter, but it will allow for the other parties in the case to reach a reasonable settlement in this matter. So what I'm encouraging is that you take item 11A7, the settlement agreement between Miami-Dade County and red space, and defer it until the next meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair. Hold on. Is it a procedural matter? If not, I'm going to go to the agenda. Yes, it's a procedural matter in case there's other speakers on that. They just requested to defer. No, hold on, Commissioner. We're not doing that. We're not doing that. We're not going to do that. We're going to go to the agenda. Madam Attorney, we're not going to comment on it. I'm deferring it. I'm not commenting. Let's go to approve with the agenda. Excuse me. Commissioner Reglotto, you wish to defer item? Yes. 11A7? Yes. And I was just on the record stating that they just now requested it, so I'm happy to do it. Okay. To the next meeting? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Check that. Let's go to the veto first before we do that. Agenda? Yes. I will read that with the setting of the agenda. The veto is appropriate. Mr. Chair, item 2A1 is the mayor's veto and veto message relating to resolution. Resolution number R79326, a resolution relating to monies, budgeted foreclosure, and demolition of the resources recovery facility. The item was adopted at the board's last meeting. The mayor's veto and veto message for the item is properly before you. The mayor's veto of the item will stand unless two-thirds of the commissioners present vote to override the veto. Your rules provide a motion to override the mayor's veto shall be stated as follows. I move that the resolution be adopted and become effective, notwithstanding the veto of the mayor. Mr. Chair, I have passed out my response to the mayor's veto. Thank you. Just for today, we're going to try this, though. People are going to raise their hand and they're going to wait for me to actually call them before they start speaking. We're going to do that while I'm sitting here. All right. But you can be recognized on this if you want. Thank you. All right. Oh, hold on. Let's let the mayor present first. Madam Mayor, please. Thank you. Through the chair. As mayor of this county, the power of the veto is something that I take very seriously. I don't invoke it unless I believe it is absolutely necessary. And, in fact, I've only exercised it five times in my six years as mayor. But today, it is necessary. And at the October 6th BCC meeting, the board adopted a motion that directed my administration to stop all spending on monies budgeted for the closure and demolition of the resources recovery facility in Doral, except for those necessary for public safety and security, until negotiations with the city of Doral for its contribution of funding toward relocating the county's waste-to-energy facility has been resolved. And I vetoed the board's action because it is too restrictive. It prevents the county from properly addressing conditions on the Doral RRF site, and it causes the county to unnecessarily incur additional costs to maintain a non-operational facility. And first, I want to address the incorrect assumption underlying the board's action that my administration is delayed in negotiating an agreement with Doral. The original directive was to bring back a negotiated agreement with the city of Doral within 60 days of the board's adoption of a resolution selecting a site for a waste-to-energy facility outside of Doral for the future. And it has not occurred. Obviously, this board has not taken action to identify such a site. So that direction was recently modified at the board's second budget hearing to require an agreement by December 26th, 2026, and the agreement with Doral has not yet come due, and imposing this arbitrary deadline hasn't improved our negotiating position. Nonetheless, we have reached out to the city, and we are scheduling a meeting forthwith with the mayor, the city attorney. So we will do all our good faith with the city of Doral to bring an agreement for the board's consideration within this time frame as directed by the board. And in the meantime, the county continues to expend $60,000 per month to maintain and secure the site, but the facility cannot continue to exist in its current state. The county is required to comply with orders to demolish by the unsafe structures board and with oversight by the State Department of Environmental Protection. And furthermore, the process to demolish, close, and remediate a former solid waste facility is highly regulated. It requires permits, approvals, and specific actions following timelines provided by the regulators. And all of these actions will require spending money, which the Department of Solid Waste Management budgeted as part of the board's recently adopted budget. And for those reasons, I urge this board to sustain my veto. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Mayor, I wish your staff would have spoken to me earlier, and I wish that when we pass this item, you would have spoken more about the issues that you had with it. This is not the first time that we talk about this issue. In fact, as I mentioned in my response to your veto message that I've passed out, we mentioned this twice in committee. We asked the administration point blank, and you had still not reached out to Doral. I brought an item at the first budget hearing, and I again asked the question. You said that the direction of the original item did not afford you the opportunity. So I brought an item in the second budget meeting. You did not speak on those terms at that point, and that passed. And when we talked about it yet again, after the budget, the administration had not even sent a letter to the city of Doral advising them of this board's action. So the item that we passed is in frustration. It is not in any way to take away your power. Everyone here wants a resolution of this issue, and it is mind-blowing that we have to talk about it six, seven, eight times before a letter is sent to the city of Doral. So I have a few comments in regards to your veto message. I'm happy to amend the item and to work with you on this. I think we all want the best outcome. But once again, even in your veto message, you are providing inaccurate information to the board that is in direct conflict with the report that we all read at our last meeting. So let's go through it one by one. You've vetoed the board motion claiming that the administration is not overdue in bringing back an agreement with Doral, that the action restricts the county's ability to address conditions at the RRF site, and that the action does not improve the county's negotiation. Each claim fails on the administration's own record. The action protects the only leverage that the county has over the city of Doral. The action exempts all spending needed for public safety and security and does not affect the administration's own demolition schedule as laid out in your memo. The administration has not negotiated with Doral. I'm glad you finally sent them a letter and you're going to do something. And finally, you've informed them as to the report. And the reality is that the solid waste rate payers are the ones who pay for this inaction. This action was not driven by an incorrect assumption. It is driven by the administration's own statements on the record. I just delineated, you know, all the different times that we've talked about this, and I delineated further with the dates in my response to your veto. This protects the county's negotiation position. What the city of Doral most wants is for this facility to be gone. We have stated this time and time and time again. Even Commissioner Bermudez, the representative Doral, has stated that we need to resolve this issue. If the county spends public money to demolish the RF before Doral agrees to contribute, Doral receives what it wants at no cost and has no reason to return to the table. A deadline is leveraged and serial inaction compounded by a failure to inform a municipality or board action that impacts them are what disadvantages every resident of Miami-Dade County that pays a rate for solid waste. This action does not restrict the county's ability to keep the site safe or meet regulatory requirements. It expressly exempts every expenditure necessary for public safety or security at the RF site. Once again, the administration makes statements in conflicts with its own report. Agenda Item 2B-13, dated April 17, 2026, states that the demolition cannot begin until the state approves the Power Plant Sitting Act modification and RER issues a demolition permit. And it sets June 30, 2028, as the completion target. The unsafe structures board deadline cited in the veto is February 18, 2029. The board's deadline for a Doral agreement is December 26, 2026. If a regulator requires an action not covered by the exemption, the administration can bring it to this board. That said, the fact that in your veto you stated that your failure to act is because we gave you a deadline of December 26, we said that we wanted an agreement by December 26, which would mean that you would be negotiating up to December 26. So to tell us in the veto that you haven't failed to act because your deadline is 2026, the city of Doral's deadline to come up with an agreement is December 26. So, I mean, I'm happy to amend the item to expressly explain what negotiation looks like, but it is shocking to me that we would do this. So, the last thing I want to mention is this administration uses board action as a sword and as a shield. When the administration does not want to act, it says that they're waiting on this board. When the board gives direction, it calls it micromanagement or that it lacks specificity. But if we provide specificity, then it's micromanagement. Deciding how budgeted funds are spent is this board's responsibility. Negotiating is the administration's responsibility. And if the administration needs the board's assistance, we had several opportunities, and you should have asked for our help in terms of changing the item that we passed in order to give you more leverage to negotiate. As my prior item on Department of Solid Waste Management made clear, items in this particular department stall, and the department does not come to the board when it needs help. When this motion was heard, the administration offered no amendments and no alternative language, and it has provided no status on the negotiation until this point post the veto. At the end of the day, the rate payers are the ones that are paying for this. And I just want to point out one more thing to the board, which I mentioned in my statement. The administration could not be bothered to write a letter to Doral, but we did spend over $100,000 from the solid raise fee in order to send a notice for an item that hadn't even been put on the agenda. So I move to reconsider this motion so that we can amend it to provide more clarity to the mayor so that we can resolve this once and for all. Motion? Motion to reconsider. The motion that we... Hold on. Hold on. Back to that. I have the motion. I'm waiting for a second of the motion. I see Commissioner Hardeman. I'm recognizing it. Well, no. I just don't think that it's a motion to reconsider because the motion passed, right? To reconsider it before we veto it. So two things. Commissioner Hardeman, you have a point and a question. Is it a motion to reconsider because the motion passed? If it is a motion to reconsider, you want a prevailing side, but I'm not sure that it is because what's before us. I guess we can reconsider before we do a veto, but the motion has been seconded yet. Yeah. I'll second the motion for the question. Okay. So you have any further discussion other than the letter you just read? Well, yes. So I'm happy to reconsider the motion and amend it. I think if the mayor needs assistance, you know, I think we could name a county commissioner to help with the negotiation. If JC wants to do it, it's his district. If we want to provide more clarity, clearly the mayor's veto mentions that she needs a lot more clarity on what negotiation is. I'm glad that she finally contacted the city of Doral and that they're talking. But I find that we're going to find ourselves in the same position because there appears to be hesitation to have this conversation with Doral, which is why you brought an item. I amended that item. I amended it again. And I'm happy to amend this again so that the mayor is happy with it. But I just feel that there are things that are mentioned in the veto message that are just erroneous. In this case, first of all, the dates are wrong. That's why I gave the end of the year. There's a lot of things that have to happen that have not happened in order for us to shut down this facility. Regalado, to your point, those are things that, so when I said additional information that you haven't already stated, I'm okay with us voting on it or even new information, but I don't want us to repeat it. And so I got it. The dates were wrong and you think it's factually incorrect. The administration disagrees with you. Is there something else or other things from this dais that we need to consider before we vote on your motion to reconsider? Yes, that, and this is a policy decision. The mayor believes that undoing this resolution takes away leverage. I believe that this resolution provides leverage. It is a basic tenet of negotiation. Right now, the mayor's position is that the RRF is not a place where we will put an incinerator and that we should continue removing everything there as soon as possible. I believe that our leverage is putting a pause in that process so that we can negotiate with Doral. I don't see why we would give Doral everything that they want and then ask them to negotiate because we have no leverage. Okay, got it. There were ten commissioners here for the initial vote. How many commissioners are here now? All right, so the count is going to be two-thirds. Yes. Okay, so all those in favor of, do we need to do a roll call on this? On the motion to reconsider? No, this would be a motion to reconsider. On the motion to reconsider. Resolution 793-26 that the board adopted at the last meeting. Mr. Chairman, I guess I need some more clarification. So we're doing this before we address the veto? Yes. Okay. This is a common procedural thing to try to find a middle ground before we determine whether we have, whether we're going to override the veto. So it's not uncommon that we do this, but it's going to take a two-thirds vote. And so we can go ahead and, if there are, unless there's any unreadiness. You're good? Okay. Yeah. It's a voice vote. So all those in favor of the motion to reconsider, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? No. No. No. Yeah, well, I know it didn't get two-thirds, but I can call the roll just to make sure if you want. Call the roll. I appreciate it. Commissioner Bastian. Commissioner Bermudez. No. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. No. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. I'm sorry? No. No. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. No. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis. Commissioner Regalado. Yes. Commissioner Steinberg. Motion fails two to seven. That's so confusing because when we did the voice vote, that was so much more than two years. Like, right? That was crazy. But okay. That was crazy. Now on to the veto itself. Do we have a motion to override the veto? So moved. Might as well. Well, I can, I mean, again, I'm going to be consistent. The rate payers are paying for this nonsense. Well, I'm going to take your arguments. I'm going to apply them to this motion. And so, is there a second on that? Saying no second, the motion dies for like a second. Before we, I have a question, Mr. Chairman. You look so nice in that seat. This item passed at our last meeting. And I think it passed for a reason. And so, my question is, you know, really, we received a veto message. But the question I have is, what have we learned? What have we learned that we can apply so that those of us who voted in favor of this don't feel the same way that we felt when we voted in favor of it? So, an override of a veto is another step. It's another level and layer to what we can do. And it's not necessarily some things that people take very lightly. So, anytime a mayor exercises his or her opportunity to veto, I take always the time to pause. Because I think that it's a message, especially when they don't do it without going around and trying to corral votes for it. I think it's a message that's worthy of consideration. And so, I just want to know that we've learned something so that the message that was passed by this board is we know that it is heard by this administration. Through the Chair, Commissioner, this item was based on a directive that happened without consultation with us to an item that came up that we were following from the budget hearing without consultation with us. I hope that what is learned is to consult with administration about our reasons for actions before we don't do that. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Hardiman, let me help out the administration. This is what was learned, that this board is dissatisfied with the pace at which this is happening, and we want you to act more diligently when we give a deadline. We expect that that deadline will have things, as you work up to the deadline, that should be taking place. That is the lesson. I am not voting to override your veto out of deference to you and the mayoral veto process, but you should take note that we are dissatisfied with the pace of this. We are dissatisfied with, because I think the original motion with regard to Doral and paying was actually my item. So we think that you ought to be moving a little faster. That's the lesson. Not consulting. We passed items, which was consultation enough. Those items were very direct, and it doesn't appear that there's been a lot of movement on them. So that's the lesson that was learned, but I am not supporting overriding the veto. Thank you, Commissioner Hardiman, for the question, though. Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think, well, I have a question, technically, on what we just did, because the spirit of what the commissioner from District 7 was trying to accomplish, I think, was shared by the majority of the board, because it was consistent with resolutions that were passed in 2023. But what I need clarity on is the resolution that was passed in 2023 does make clear that Doral is to pay upon the selection of a site, which we have not yet done. And then there was a subsequent resolution or direction that was given during budget that gave a 60- or a 90-day time period. I just need clarity from the administration that we are traveling now under the new resolution of 60- or 90 days, not the 2023 resolution of pick a site first. We are, Commissioner. And we also believe that our negotiating position isn't compromised as we tear down unsafe structures and clean up the site, because if this board gets dissatisfied with the negotiation with Doral, you can always, say, rebuild the site there. Us cleaning the site up doesn't take that site off the table. But previous resolutions did that? They did. Okay. And currently today we're functioning under the resolutions that's told us that site will not be made available for waste energy. Okay. And just so that we are clear as we address this topic, what is the actual deadline of that more recent budget directive on either 30 or 60 days? It's a December date, and Mayor Cobb alluded. She's had private conversations with Mayor Fraga of Doral, and we're scheduling in-person meetings with their attorneys and us to find out what their position is. We don't know what their exact position is today, but they've agreed to talk. Okay, so by our January either committee or BCC hearing, we will have some sort of an update on the administration's position with Doral on this issue, pursuant to the updated resolution or directive that we passed at or during budget. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Well, hold on. Yeah. So, no, you're holding up a piece of paper, so I know it's not going to be quick, and you're saying it's going to be quick, but it's not going to be quick because you're holding a piece of paper that's single-spaced in, like, 17 pages. So it's not going to be quick. Commissioner Bermudez first because it's his district, and then you're going to have, like, 30 seconds to wrap this up, but then let's get past this. We need to get into the agenda. I'm going to be consistent with the way I voted, but I am going to support the veto because that's the way I voted. I do not think, as the mayor and the deputy mayor said, that this precludes the mayor and the deputy mayor from having those conversations. And I don't think we're – I think the mayor and the deputy mayor are very clear on what they're doing. They've already acknowledged they've reached out, and they're in the – one thing doesn't – it doesn't – one thing doesn't keep the other from happening is what I'm trying to get at, and that's the bottom line. But we do – you know, and you all know where I stand, but I think that I'm going to support the mayor's position because she's already acknowledged, and so has Roy, that they're in the process of having those conversations anyways. Thank you. I just wanted to point out the inconsistencies between the mayor's response to Commissioner Cohen-Hagan's questions. The veto message on page 2 specifically says, The board recently modified its original directive related to the Doral agreement in an early morning vote during the second budget meeting on September 17th to require the administration to bring back an agreement with Doral by December 22nd, 2026. By imposing an arbitrary deadline rather than lying the negotiation of the agreement to a selection of a site, the board disadvantaged the county's position with Doral. The action doubles down on this disadvantage. The mayor continues to disagree with this board's position, and yet she's sitting here telling us that now she's going to go into negotiations. So I warn you all, because even in her veto message, not only is she vetoing the item that we passed out of frustration for not acting on the first item, she's doubling down in the message and saying that she disagrees with both items. So there is a disconnect here between what is being said on the dais and the documents that are being provided to us, and that is my frustration because she's going into a negotiation saying that she does not agree with this board's action. So at a minimum, we should name someone to go and negotiate this because clearly the administration does not want to or have clarity as to why in her veto message she is saying that the item that she did not veto, which is the item that we are currently traveling under, now that you all have decided to uphold her veto, she still disagrees with it. I'm happy to withdraw my item, but I just, I think we should be consistent. This is not consistent. You know, as I understand that the mayor is a strong mayor, but this board passed an item and that was a direction and time and time again, what we're seeing is we vote on a direction and if the mayor doesn't agree with that direction, she sits on it, you know, and she disagrees with it and nothing happens. And that's what's been happening time and time again on this issue with solid waste. But I'm happy to withdraw. The item. Okay. The motion reconsidered fail. We're on the mayor's veto. There was a motion to override the mayor's veto. That motion was not seconded. That motion was not seconded. The motion to override the mayor's veto fails for lack of a second. Approve. Let's get to approval of the agenda. Second. Mr. Chair, I do have changes to your agenda. I have a request to bifurcate item 4C from Senator Garcia. I'll bring that back up when we're on this first readings. Just a point of order. Can someone really bifurcate something and not be here? He's in traffic. Because in the real world, I know that we can submit these early, but if you're not here when it comes to the bifurcated item, there's no one to speak to the item. If he's not here when we get to 4C, we will not have a bifurcation. Go ahead. And I have more bifurcations. Item 5B, Commissioner Regalado wants to bifurcate that one when we go to the public hearings. Commissioner Milian Orbis wishes to bifurcate item 5C. Commissioner Regalado wishes to bifurcate 5G. In addition, I have for item 8J1, Commissioner Steinberg, Milian Orbis, and Cohen Higgins are all adding this item to the pull list. 8N2, Senator Garcia, Chairman Rodriguez, and Commissioner Cohen Higgins add this item to the pull list. 11A5, Senator Garcia adds this item to the pull list. 11A6, Commissioner Lopez adds this item to the pull list. Earlier during the course of the meeting, Commissioner Regalado said she wished to request deferral of item 11A7 to the November 17th commission meeting. Commissioner Bermudez, you had pulled that item? Yeah, but if it's deferred, I'm supportive of it. Okay, so with the setting of the agenda, 11A7 will be deferred. 11A8 and it's supplement, Commissioner Regalado adds this item to the pull list. 15B1, Commissioner Bermudez adds his name to the pull list. 15B4, Commissioner Steinberg adds this item to the pull list. I have additional requests for co-sponsorship. 4K substitute, Commissioner Bermudez. 5H, Commissioners Bastien and Steinberg, co-sponsor. On item 10A1, Commissioner Bastien is assuming sponsorship of this item. 10A5 and 11A1, Commissioner Steinberg, co-sponsor. And 11A2, Commissioner Millian Orbis, co-sponsor. The items to be considered at today's meeting will be those listed in the printed final agenda with the additions, deferrals, withdrawals, and scrivener's errors noted in the Chairman's memorandum and the items I just mentioned. The commission will approve all these items by single vote setting the agenda except ordinances for first reading, public hearings. Item 6B1, discussion item on the county stormwater plan. Item 6B2, discussion item regarding safety review of playground slides at Dade County Parks. and the following pull list items. 8J1, 8N2, 11A5, 11A6, 11A8 and its supplement, 14A1 and its supplement, 14A2, 14A3, 14A4, 14A5, 14A6. That's a first reading item, I'll read it with the other items, 14A7, 15B1 and 15B4. Motion to set the agendas in order. I'm going to take the motion to set the agenda from Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Bastien. And are there any, is there anything else you all want to pull? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed. Does that, are we passing all the 14s that none of them got? None of the 14s have been pulled. 14A6 is a first reading, so if you wish to take a motion on those, it's 14A1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. I'll take, I'll entertain a motion on those by Lopez, seconded by Bastien. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed, show those passed. All right, let's go in order. All right, let's go. I can read all the first readings. Yep. Item 4A, ordinance relating to Miami-Dade Economic Advocacy Trust, amending sections 2-501, 503, 505, and 506 of the code. Amending the purpose, composition, tenure, organization, staff support, reporting requirements, powers, and duties, of the trust, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. 4B's in ordinance relating to the South Day Black History Center and the South Day Black History Center Advisory Board, amending Articles 46 and 166 of the code. Renaming the center and SDAB, making technical revisions, suspending Rule 506A by two-thirds vote of board members present, as related to the preparation and enactment of ordinances and resolutions, and providing severability, inclusion, and an exclusion from the code, and an effective date. 4C's in ordinance relating to the rules of procedure of the Board of County Commissioners, amending section 2-1 of the code. Revising requirements relating to sponsorship of county approvals of state or municipal namings, renaming or code designations of roads, facilities, or property. Clarifying background research requirements for county approvals of state or municipal namings, renaming or code designations of roads, facilities, or property. Providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. 4C's in ordinance authorizing issuance from time to time in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Seaport commercial paper notes. In one or more series, in an aggregate principal amount, not to exceed $400 million. Outstanding at any one time for purpose of providing interim financing or improvements to Seaport properties and certain other capital expenditures, including paying commercial paper notes. Authorizing issuance from time to time of not to exceed $500 million, aggregate principal amount. Miami-Dade County, Florida, Seaport revenue refunding bonds in one or more series pursuant to sections 208 or 211 of ordinance number 21-74 for the purpose of refunding outstanding commercial paper notes. Providing for establishment of details of commercial paper notes and refunding bonds by subsequent resolutions. Authorizing the mayor's designee to obtain proposals for selection of commercial paper dealers. Issuing and paying agents and credit providers in connection with commercial paper notes. Providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. For E as an ordinance granting petition of Downtown Doral Community Development District, generally bounded as amended on the North by Northwest 54th Street, on the East by Northwest 79th Avenue, on the South by theoretical Northwest 48th Street, and on the West by Northwest 87th Avenue. Amending the boundaries of the district to expand its total acreage by approximately 18.82 acres. Providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. For F as an ordinance granting petition of Etmore Community Development District, generally bounded as amended on the North by Southwest 272 Street, at Moore Drive, on the East by Northwest 157th Avenue. On the South by Southwest 278th Street, and on the West by Southwest 162 Avenue. Amending the boundaries of the district to expand its total acreage by approximately 39.75 acres. Providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. Board G is an ordinance creating and establishing a special taxing district in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Generally bounded on the North by Northwest 17th Street, on the East by Northwest 118th Place. On the South by Northwest 14th Street, on the West by theoretical Northwest 122 Avenue. Known and described as Upland Park Street Lighting Special Taxing District. Identifying services to be provided, authorizing and directing the mayor designee to provide for the installation of street lights. Improving a street lighting agreement of Florida Power and Light, and authorizing the mayor designee to execute the agreement. Waving provisions of resolution number R1306, and providing for exclusion from the code and an effective date. For H's an ordinance creating and establishing a special taxing district in the county. Generally bounded on the North by Canal 103 South, on the East by Southwest 167 Avenue, Southeast 12th Avenue, Tennessee Road. On South by Southwest 328th Street, Southeast 8th Street, Lucy Street, and on the West by Southwest 172 Avenue, McMinn Road, Southeast 6th Avenue. Known and described as Sendero Landing, multi-purpose maintenance special taxing district. Identifying services to be provided, and providing for exclusion from the code and an effective date. For I as an ordinance creating and establishing a special taxing district in the county. Generally bounded on the North by Southwest 223 Street, on the East by theoretical Southwest 130 Avenue. On the South by theoretical Southwest 223 Lane, and on the West by Southwest 132 Avenue. Known and described as Traeger North Street Lighting Special Taxing District. Identifying services to be provided, authorizing and directing the mayor designee to provide for the installation of street lights. Approving a street lighting agreement with Florida Power and Light, and authorizing the mayor designee to execute the agreement. Waving provisions of resolution number R1306, and providing for exclusion from the code and an effective date. 4K substitute is an ordinance relating to zoning creating section 33-193.17 of the code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Establishing notice requirements of administrative decisions on certain applications relating to workforce housing development allowances. Providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. 4L is an ordinance relating to Miami-Dade County comprehensive development master plan. Providing disposition of application number CDMP 2025-20, located at the Southwest corner of the intersection of Southwest 288th Street and Southwest 177 Avenue, Chrome Avenue, 5 by 288th Street, LLC. In the October 2025 cycle to amend the county's comprehensive development master plan. Providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. 4N is an ordinance relating to Miami-Dade County comprehensive development master plan. Providing disposition of application number CDMP 2026-7. Located at 4400 Rickenbacker Causeway, southern westernmost portion of Virginia Key. Filed by Miami-Dade County Parks, Recreation, and Open Spaces Department in the May 2026 cycle to amend the county's comprehensive development master plan. Providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. 4N is an ordinance relating to zoning, creating section 33-107.1 of the code. Providing for variance of county spacing and height requirements for Class C signs under certain circumstances. Relating to municipal annexation and corporation applications. Approving the form of application, providing for contingent effective date. Providing severability, inclusion in, and exclusion from the code, and an effective date. And item 14A6 is an ordinance relating to the rapid transit system development zone. Amending section 33-C-2 of the code, amending the Coral Gables University Station sub-zone of the rapid transit zone. To remove property located at 1250 Harriet Tubman Highway. Providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. Those are your first reading items. Thank you. Public hearing on this item, at least on everything, I guess, is open. First reading item. Oh, this is first reading? These are first readings. They give me the motion. Second. Call the roll. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Hardiman, Commissioner Lopez, Commissioner Emiliano Orbis, Commissioner Regalado, Commissioner Steinberg, Commissioner Bastian, Commissioner Bermudez. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right. As appropriate to these motions now, I have a couple of motions. One from me to suspend the board's rules of procedure requiring committee review of 4A to set the public hearing and second reading for this item on November 17, 2026, meeting of the board of county commissioners. Direct the clerk of the board to publish all necessary notices and amend 15B1 accordingly. And I have the same thing for- 4B. That's 4A, and I have the same thing for board B. These are items that need to come back. Oh, Jerry? Mr. Chair? Jerry? Yes, we have the same as well. So we have for 4A, 4B, 4E, and 14A6 all have the same request to have them come back, I believe, on the November 17th meeting for, and some have committee review waivers. All right, we can take them together? Yes. It's been moved, it's been moved by- Second, I'll move it. I'll bring you to a second by Lopez. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? All right, any releases? Anybody have releases? Five, the public hearings now? We can, someone told me there were some releases. I don't have any that I'm aware of. Oh, 11A5 Garcia would like to release that. Okay, you want to vote no on 11A5? We have release on 11A5. I move 11A5. It's been moved by Commissioner Cornick and second by Commissioner Lopez. Is this a roll call? This is, yeah, call the roll. No, we don't need a roll call. All those in favor? Those opposed? All right, show it passing. All right, let's go to the public hearings. 5A is a resolution co-designating the portion of Southwest 127th Avenue between Southwest Second Street and Northwest Second Street as Coach Richard Stewart Boulevard. In its supplement, 5B is a resolution approving South Miami Community Redevelopment Agency Redevelopment Area Plan 2025. Approving the terms of and authorizing the mayor or designee to execute an interlocal cooperation agreement. By and among the county, the city, and the South Miami Community Redevelopment Agency and delegating certain community redevelopment powers to South Miami Community Redevelopment Agency. 5C is a resolution approving the waiver of plat of 6301 Southwest 27th Street, LLC. 5D is a resolution approving the plat of RETO West. 5E is a resolution taking action on proposal of AFR Estate LLC to designate real property located at 7248 Southwest 42 Terrace as a brownfield area. 5F is an ordinance relating to zoning amending section 33-284289 of the code revising minimum size requirements for retail entertainment district planned area development district. And providing severability inclusion in the code and an effective date and its supplement. 5G is an ordinance relating to redevelopment of the South Miami Community Redevelopment Area. Generally bounded on the north by Southwest 62nd Street, on the south by Southwest 76th Street. On the east by Southwest 57th Avenue Red Road and on the west by Southwest 62nd Avenue. Creating a redevelopment trust fund in accordance with section 163.387 Florida statutes. Providing for appropriation of funds and calculation of increment for deposit into such trust fund. Setting forth obligation to appropriate to trust fund and duration of such obligation. Providing for limited county approval of debt. Providing for review of financial records and right of audit. Providing finding of public purpose and providing severability inclusion in the code and an effective date and its supplement. 5H is an ordinance relating to environmental protection amending article one division two of chapter 24 of the code. Adopting by reference certain state statutory provisions for the purpose of administering and implementing the delegation to the county. By the Florida Department of Environmental Protection of Certain Authority related to its on site sewage program including certain state environmental permitting. Providing severability inclusion in the code and an effective date and 5H supplement. 5I is an ordinance relating to county procurement. Implementing in whole or in part recommendations from the final report of the special task force to reduce inefficiencies in procurement. Reorganizing and modifying the county's procurement regulations creating chapter three of the code. Relating to county procurement amending the requirements relating to the acquisition of professional architectural engineering services in the code. To remove the requirement that a selection committee evaluate the response to a solicitation if only one responsive bid is received. Amending the code of silence to require the county mayor, mayor's designee to commence negotiations within a certain period of time if only one responsive proposal is received or to report to the board. Appealing sections 2-8.1, 8.3, 10.4, 2-8.1.6, 2-8.2.7, 2-8.2.7, 0.1, 2-8.2.7, 0.2, 2-8.2, 2-8.2.5. 2-25, 2-25.2, 2-286.1, 2-8.211, 2-8.212, 8.214, 8.215, 8.210, 2-10.6, 2-8.2.6, 2-8.1.1.1, 2-8.6.5, 2-1042, 2-8.4, 2-8.1.1, 10-330201, 2-8.6, 2-8.4.1, 10-34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 2-8.5, 2-8.5.1, 2-8.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2, 2-10401, 2-8.5.2, 2-8.8, 2-8.1.4, 2-8.10, 2-10.7, 2-8.2.6, 2-8.2.6.2, 2-11.15, 9-3, 2-9, 2-10, and 2-10.1 of the code in Chapter 2, Article 142 of the code relating to contracts and purchases generally. The mayor's recommendations, the acquisition of professional architecture, engineering, landscape, and architectural services. The program for expedite purchasing, the economic stimulus ordinance, the miscellaneous construction contracts program. The janitorial and landscaping services purchasing program, aviation department procurement, and the county mayor's authority as to such contracts. The acceleration of aviation department capital improvement projects. The county mayor's authority as to retail activities in Miami International Airport. The water sewer department's contracting authority and its consent to create and capital improvement programs acceleration ordinance. The Jackson Health System Capital Expedite Program. The Seaport Capital Improvement Programs Expedite and Acceleration Ordinance. Procurement policy for contracts funded by building better communities general obligation bond funds. Competitive bidding requirements for county bond transactions, public-private partnerships, and unsolicited proposals. The taping of selection and negotiation proceedings. The purchase, sale, lease of real property, appraisal requirements for the purchase, sale, and lease of real property. Bid protest procedures, bid collusion. County contracts with those convicted of a felony. Penalties for contractors attempting to meet contractual obligations with the county through fraud. Misrepresentation material must statement. The requirement to list subcontractors and to obtain releases of claims by subcontractors. The prohibition of bidding utility connection fees. The prohibition of membership and trade organizations as qualifications and procurement. The department of contractors, local preference, preference for local veteran businesses, small business programs for goods, services, and architecture and engineering. And the application of those preferences policy relating to fair subcontracting practices, the prompt payment ordinance. The user access program, the purchase of American iron and steel products, procurement program, the cyber security information technology procurement. And protection program are in public places, the first source hiring referral program. Contract extensions, intergovernmental agreements for services, and joint purchases. Moving the aforementioned code provisions to chapter three of the code, including technical updates and revisions. Amending section 2-11.1 to move the condescends to chapter three of the code. Amending sections 2-384.3, 10-3302, 21-154, 22-5, 26-22, 29-120, and 11-838 of the code to update references to chapter three. Amending section 8-8-54 of the code relating to reporting requirements for licensees for cable systems installation operation maintenance to remove an outdated reporting requirement. Repealing implementing orders 2-13, 3-21, 3-32, 3-34, 3-39, 3-41, 48, 53, 54, 57, 58, 68. 8-4, 10-13, and 10-16. Adopting master procurement implementing order 3-38, including revision to former implementing order 3-39. Attachment 5 to master procurement implementing order 3-38. Authorizing and directing the mayor designate to update the code references in the master procurement implementing order in accordance with this ordinance. Revise the policy on selection committees to provide for administrative review in lieu of selection committee evaluation when only one response to submission is received. Implement a performance review program for county vendors. Make recommendations on how to improve local preference and small business goods, services, and architectural engineering programs based on meetings and feedback from the small business community. And prepare a written report directing the clerk of the board to create, maintain, and update a centralized, automated online portal for use in the protest process in coordination with the county mayor or designee. And providing severability, inclusion, and an exclusion from the code and an effective date. No, we're clapping for different things. I acknowledge the presence of our chairman here, and he's going to take the meeting now. Thank you, Chairman Rodriguez. Right there. Get through the red card. So, Mr. Chair, those were all of your public hearing items. Love that. Don't know if you have any cards. We're on five now? All right. And why are we using this little thing here? Was it COVID still? All right. So, are we in public hearing now, or? Yes. I don't know if you have any cards for all of your public hearing items. I do have requests to bifurcate when that is appropriate. All right. I do have some names for public hearing. So, have these been called or no? No, right? I'm just getting started. They have not. All right. Well, good morning. Thank you for getting all this done, Commissioner Gilbert. All right. I am going to then start with calling up the individuals, right? So, let's open a public hearing. As I call your name, you know the drill. Stand up on each side of the center aisles, and the first two can approach the wells. Jose Romano, Noel Cleland, Stephen Pearson, Sally Phillips, Manuel Menendez, Victoria McCaffrey, Valeria Donitz, Doné, Gregory Franco, Rachel Silverstein. And then I have, why is this highlighted? And I have a, oh, that's because that's our clerk. That's why it's highlighted. Clerk, come on up and approach the well. I guess I'll actually get started with you, if you can get here. Clerk, I don't see you. The clerk's representative. Oh, the clerk's. Sorry, I didn't mean to butt you, you lady. And then I have, wait one second, and then I have Nick Garzili. All right, perfect. So, give me a second. I'm going to recognize the clerk's office. Go ahead and state your name and address as required. Luis Montaldo, the general counsel for the clerk of courts, Juan Fernandez Barquín. 20 Northwest First Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33128. I appreciate it. Good morning, Chairman Rodriguez, commissioners, vice chairman, Madam Mayor. My list will not be as long as our esteemed county attorneys. I can assure you of that. I'm basically bringing up the clerk wanted me to address item 5I. This is the item that's asking for the clerk of the board to implement a centralized automated online bid protest portal. There are three main points that the clerk wanted me to bring to your attention regarding this item. The item requires the clerk to procure a new bid protest system. That would require funding. The cost of the system is unknown at this time. It's not a known quantity. Whether the clerk procured that system or asked the county's ITD staff to create a system, that's something that is a question mark. Additionally, funding for that proposal was not included in last year's budget, the budget that was where the COB received budget cuts, as you all know. Procuring and implementing and maintaining a new bid protest system will require a significant amount of COB staff and hours to launch. Yes. The bid protest filing fee has been unchanged. I bring that to your attention because it's been unchanged since 2001. It's addressed in the I.O. That has caused a significant problem for just hiring hearing officers by the clerk of the board. This has been going on for 10 years, that the clerk of the board, through the county attorney, when we present the list of hearing officers, you are not getting as many hearing officers as you can because the wages and the rates for hearing officers have been stagnant since 2001, as have the bid protest filing fees. Having bid protest filing fees that have been stagnant through 2001 also cause for less money coming into the COB to fund this project. So what he wanted to bring to your attention was we have a project here which the clerk will always move mountains to try to implement for the board because that's what he's here for, but the funding's not there, the wages for the hearing examiners are not there, and the administrative fees are not there, and they haven't been changed in 25 years. Thank you. Mr. Romano. Good morning. My name is Jose Romano. My address is 8770 Southwest 97th Terrace. I'm here to speak in favor of Item 5A, naming Coach Richard Stewart Boulevard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Madam Mayor, Deputy Mayor. Many of you may know me through my community and professional work, but what you may not know is that more than 40 years ago I played football at Belen Jesuit for the man you are considering honoring today, Richard Stewart. A proud graduate of Columbus Senior High, Richard began coaching at Belen in 1983. Over 34 years as head varsity coach, he won 224 games, the winningest coach in Dade County history, highlighted by an appearance in the 2009 state final. He earned the Miami Herald's Coach of the Year Award and Lifetime Achievement Awards, and he later served as athletic director for the middle school. In our first two seasons of varsity together, we earned a combined three wins and 17 losses. But you learn far more about people in defeat than in victory. You learn what they're made of, and Coach Stewart is made of iron. After that inglorious start came many years of success with people going on to Ivy League and Division I football, but those are the least of his accomplishments. Coach Stewart understood that what was at stake was more than wins and losses, but what the young men would become that graduated under him. Today, his former players include CEOs and CFOs of major public companies, leaders, above all good fathers and sons. Coach Stewart was influential in all of us and really built in us a core of what we are today. So thank you very much for considering this item. Thank you, Mr. Romano. Appreciate it. And just for the rest of you guys, we still do have a minute to speak. I just, the first speaker was an elected official, and that's why they always get a little extra time, but just wanted to make sure I say that. Go ahead, ma'am. Thank you for waiting. I know that you kind of got butted a little bit when the clerk's office came up. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Victoria McCaffrey. I am with the Goldstein Environmental Law Firm. I'm speaking for information for Item 5E. Well, I think, and I don't mean to interrupt you yet again, but I think you actually may need to be sworn in because it's a quasi-judicial item that you're speaking on. Correct. So can we get her sworn in, please? Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that all the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So hope you got it. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. I'm just here to provide any information should any of the commissioners have questions about the designation of a green reuse area at 7248 Southwest 42nd Terrace. That was easy. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And we'll keep that in mind if anyone has any questions. There's representation here for that item. Ma'am. Hello, my name is Valeria Donets. My address is 4600 Southwest 67th Avenue, Miami 33155. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. And today I'm speaking on behalf of Friends of Biscayne Bay against Item 5F. This is a text amendment that impacts the entire county. Reducing the minimum acreage from 50 to 30 acres represents a 40% reduction in the existing threshold. Yet the county has not provided an inventory of newly eligible properties or explained why 30 acres were selected as a new threshold. The proposed aquarium redevelopment illustrates why this matters. It's approximately 36 acre upland property currently requires a variance from the 50 acre minimum. This amendment would eliminate that requirement while the county is separately considering a major redevelopment of additional public submerged lands and substantial marine facilities. The commission should identify which additional properties would become eligible and evaluate implications for coastal and environmentally sensitive areas, public lands, and precious natural resources. We urge you to defer Item 5F and convene comprehensive public workshops to examine the aquarium lease, CDMP, and zoning applications, proposed manure redevelopment, and their relationship to this amendment before moving forward. We're asking for transparency and fairness and protection of our public lands on Biscayne Bay. Thank you. Thank you. Sir. Good morning, Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. Good morning, Mayor. My name is Nick Garzilli. My address is 224 23rd Street, Miami Beach, apartment 515. I'm here representing my company, Chariot Living. We have an MOU with Swift Cities to build whoosh networks. And essentially what this is, for everyone who doesn't know, is born out of Google's Project Swift. It is like a Waymo in the sky. It is a network of smart vehicles that you just tell it where you want to go, and you go there, just above the traffic, above the streetlights. We'll put it. It's very cheap compared to existing modes of transport. And I'm here in support of 5I. You are streamlining the PPP process, and we plan to use that process to put together an unsolicited proposal. I'm looking to bring developers together. So if anyone would like to learn more about this and become part of this team, you can go to Chariot Living and get in touch with me. But I'm meeting with the right people, and I'm very encouraged with the progress that we are making. And we can solve this. Technology is coming to fix this problem. The future of Miami is in the sky, and we can add mobility. Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Rodriguez, Commissioners, Madam Mayor, Deputy Mayor Coley, Gregory Frankel, 2990 Mathless Street, speaking on item 5F. Resilient Aquarium LLC with the county as applicant is asked to rezone this aquarium site to Red Pad. The 36 acres of upland is short of the 50-acre minimum and needs a variance. Under 5F, it would not. That makes 5F one of several approvals, moving this aquarium redevelopment forward, along with a 99-year lease that adds about 56 acres of Biscayne Bay for an 847-boat marina. None of it has gone to the voters. Article 7 requires that vote. The charter's exemption names this aquarium, does not reach 56 acres of bay that were never part of it. There is no court deadline. The bankruptcy hearing set for today was adjourned with no new date, and a developer's own schedule cannot override the charter. Please defer 5F and put this to the voters. I've reached out to several of your offices and welcome a chance to meet. Thank you. Sir. Steven Pearson, 10665 Southwest 62nd Avenue, Pinecrest, Florida. I'm here to speak against Item 5B. First of all, the South Miami CRA authority consists only of the mayor, vice mayor, and the city clerk. That's hardly an independent review of this project that's majorly changed the whole character of South Miami. They say they're preserving the honors, the history, and a resilient future. I don't see how that can be when you're doubling the size of the whole population of South Miami in this little CRA. They could call it slum and blighted, but that's only like maybe 20 percent of this area. And I'm also particularly outraged if they're talking about destroying the Gene Willis Park. The Tropical Flowering Tree Society, of which I'm a founder and actually planted these trees, donated all the trees and the work to create that park back in 1992. The city of South Miami was very appreciative. They gave us the clear understanding that this would be maintained in perpetuity. And what they don't tell you in this CRA is that it's a best efforts move. Thank you. And that is not, you know, very, you know, real. Thank you, sir. Sir, sir. Thank you. Go ahead, sir. Good morning. Brian Adler, Law Office of Bills and Sundberg, 1450 Brickle Avenue, Suite 2300. I have submitted a card, Mr. Chair. I'm here representing Resilient Aquarium LLC. I'm just going to respond to some of the comments made with regard to 5F as it relates to Sequarium. The Red Pad District in, the commission voted for a study to be done many years ago for the Red Pad District. The commission did, a study was done for the county. Specifically page 21 of that study references the Miami Sequarium as a major attraction. And so therefore, it's actually even highlighted in the Red Pad report. The purpose of the Red Pad District is, per your code, to allow the development in the unincorporated area of major recreational and mixed, major entertainment, recreational, and mixed use venues that draw their audience from throughout Miami-Dade and beyond. That further the county's economic development and tourism. There was nothing in the Red Pad study that mentioned 50 acres, that created anything for 50 acres. All this ordinance does is it lowers the threshold from 50 to 30 for a use that's specifically mentioned in the study. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Adler. All right, as the well frees up, Sergeants, if you can, Sergeants, if you can make sure that the well is never empty. Hello? Go ahead, ma'am. My name is Sally Phillips. I live at 7310 Southwest 64th Court in South Miami, and I'm here to speak against your item 5B. What is being proposed there, in general, is a little bit, or what's being described is not being described accurately. But in any case, at one point they talk about how they really appreciate art, parks, and history, and yet in there they are looking at a design that includes demolishing one historic building that is under Dade County protection and one flowering tree park that cannot be moved. They are moving that calm, peaceful park, which they talk about on and on and on many, many times in this proposal. They do not indicate on their map on page 17 that that's a park at all. They just have it there as part of the general land. It's not part of the general land. It is a park. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Sir? Hello, my name is Manuel Menendez. I'm here to speak to provide some context on item 5B. I live at 5625 Southwest 62nd Avenue, South Miami. The proposed redevelopment of the city of South Miami City Hall would have us destroying the only historically designated building that the city owns. It would also have us losing the Gene Willis Park, which is one of a few parks that the city has. And with so many condos going up within 600 yards of the city of South Miami Hall site, over 4,000 actually, green space is going to be critical. We're going to need green space. I also wanted to mention that I think that it's inappropriate and insincere that the mayor and commissioners of the city of South Miami be voting on this because they have been receiving tens of thousands of dollars from the developers that are behind this. So I ask that they have some decency and recuse themselves and get out of the way and not take away our park. All right. Is that all our speakers? I also had Rachel Silverstein, but did she speak already at the beginning? All right. So that concludes all the public speakers. Therefore, public hearing is officially closed. Any bifurcations? Any bifurcations? Mr. Chair, I had requests from Commissioner Regalado to bifurcate item 5B and 5G. Okay. You still wish to bifurcate those, Commissioner Regalado? Yes, because I have amendments. Okay. And I also have a request from Commissioner Milley on Orbis to bifurcate item 5C. I don't know if there are any additional requests. Is that still the case? 5C, Commissioner Orbis? And 5F? So 5F by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, the 8th. All right. 5G? Is 5G bifurcated? 5G is bifurcated, yes. 5G is bifurcated. All right. So can I have a motion on 5I? Is that 5I? So moved. I also have 5A. Well, hold on. So I have an amendment. I'm sorry. 5A is bifurcated? 5A, I'd like to move it. Okay. Let me do my job. One second. I'm here now. So I have an amendment on 5I, which is my item. Can you read the amendment, and then I'll entertain a motion, perhaps by Bermudis, to move the rest of the public hearing items with my amendment to my motion, to my item. Chairman Rodriguez moves to amend section 4 of item 5I on pages MDC 194 to MDC 199 to amend section 2-11.1T of the Code of Miami-Dade County, the cone of silence, to read as follows. Cone of silence. The provisions relating to the cone of silence set forth in section 320 of this code are hereby incorporated by reference. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, the Ethics Commission shall have jurisdiction to enforce and render opinions about the cone of silence as set forth in section 320 of the code. The relocation of the text of the cone of silence to section 320 of the code remains unchanged. All right. So I'll entertain a motion. I'll move it. Mr. Chair, with the amendment, both the items that have not been bifurcated. Okay. 5A and 5I. There's a motion by Commissioner Bermudez, second by Commissioner Lopez. Clerk, please call the roll. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado. Yes. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bastien. Commissioner Bermudez. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Four. Chairman Rodriguez. I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. So those items passed. And then Commissioner, I'm going to take Regalado back to back. So I'm going to start with 5C. Commissioner Orbis, you're recognized as a bifurcating commissioner on 5C. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And on this item, I would just like the county attorney's office to clarify for the record, what is the board's role in this item? And in this case, if a waiver of a plat meets code criteria, then how much discretion does this board actually have to deny it? Good morning. And through the chair, this board must approve the quasi-judicial application unless there is something in the record that shows that by substantial competent evidence, it does not meet the printed criteria that are enclosed in Chapter 28 and Chapter 177. Okay. So a denial, could it legally be sustained? A denial from this board, could it legally be sustained on this item? Only if there is substantial competent evidence supporting that denial. Okay, so thank you for that clarification. And understanding that we have limited discretion on this item, I am in good faith to my residents because they have not had a meaningful voice in the process. I will be a no on this, I will be a no. And I just, I want to say for the record as well that I am working on legislation to provide the residents with a voice and a process with a notification on these types of administrative decisions. So, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. All right, so is there a motion to move? I'm not moving it because I'm a no. Of course. But you guys can move. All right, so I'll entertain a motion by Commissioner Gilbert, seconded by Commissioner, I need a second on 5C. Second. All right, seconded by Commissioner Regalado. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Hardiman, Commissioner Lopez, Commissioner Emiliano Orbis, Commissioner Regalado, Commissioner Steinberg, Commissioner Bastien, Commissioner Bermudez, Commissioner Cohen Higgins, Senator Garcia, Chairman Rodriguez. I don't know. Motion fails, 427. All right, Mr. Chair, just one quick question if we may have the attorneys, for all of us in future reference, could we get some sort of understanding of what is considered competent substantial evidence for the courts, just for all of us? In the future? Yeah, I agree. And while we... Yes. Yes. Awesome. Thank you. All right, so, and, well, I was going to go to you now because I missed the very, very beginning of this meeting, as you all know. But I wanted to take an opportunity and wish you a happy birthday, Commissioner Hardiman. Thank you, sir. Happy birthday. Thank you. Happy birthday. He was going to... Here at work, bright and early. We got to sing him happy birthday. We will. We will in due time. We will in due time. But you also raised your hand not for birthday recognition, so go ahead. You're recognized. No, I was just about to say that a good cross-examination could put some competent, you know, evidence on the record for us to consider. So that's something that we should always, you know, we should think about, especially when we don't appreciate the information that's being presented to us. So, so, so that's that. Second, there was a motion to approve. It failed. So now what? So this item will have to come back to this board for approval. We'll go ahead and provide the requested information on competent, substantial evidence, and we'll make sure that the, working with the administration, that the item clearly sets forth whether there was competent, substantial evidence to support this application. So then will there be another opportunity for both parties, if you will, for the parties to provide competent, substantial evidence, or are we, or have we passed that part of this item? Through the chair, this, this item is a public hearing item. So there's always an opportunity for the public to speak on a public hearing item. Okay. So right now it needs a deferral. Should we defer, move to defer to the next agenda? It does. Yes, there would just need to be time to advertise. It didn't die. Well, it didn't die, but it automatically, or we need an actual motion to defer? The item didn't die, the motion died. Yeah. Well, I think the attorney's saying it comes back next meeting. Well, we haven't moved to the next item. So there, a motion to defer, right? So the motion to approve failed, but a motion to defer can be taken up at this time without a reconsideration. And that way this item will appear on your next agenda, provided that it can be noticed and advertised for that. I have a question just out of curiosity. So absent Commissioner Hardiman's question, had I swiftly moved on to the next item, were you all going to mention that we needed to take further action prior to me moving on to the next item? Or like what was going to happen? Because from what I understood prior to his questioning, it would have just come back because it has to come back. I'm going to defer to Lauren, but I believe this item has been before you at least two or three times already. And so it will have to come back because it's a quasi-judicial item, and this board will have to take some action at some point. Okay, all right, all right, so did you, was that your same question, or? Well, yeah, I was going to, we do, it would be appropriate to move to defer this item. Want to make a motion? I move to defer this item. You have to reconsider it, right, or? No, let's move to defer this item until the next meeting. Yes. Assuming we can advertise, yes, that would be appropriate. And if you can't advertise for the next meeting, then defer to the meeting after that. Okay, so, yeah, let's do that. The next available, advertisable meeting. The next available, advertisable meeting, yes. All right, it's been moved by Commissioner Gilbert, seconded by Commissioner Lopez. And before I take a roll call, did, Hardiman, are you done with your line of questioning, or? All right, and Commissioner Bermudez, are you good? Yeah, I just had a question of the attorneys, because there was a 1997 case that statements by community organizations and activists are considered competent, substantial evidence. So I just want to point that out. And I just, unless, when you give us a memorandum, because I think it's important for Commissioner Orbis and the rest of us to understand how you define competent, substantial evidence. Because when we say there is no, it's quasi-judicial and you have to take a position, we also need to know, her residents need to know, that if they have an opportunity and they can go on the record, that's considered competent, substantial evidence. I just ask, I leave it up to you guys, but that's what I remember from previous days. And unless it's changed, it happened, the 3rd DCA ruled that way back in the late 90s. So, you know, I just want to make sure we all understand it. I would hope, not only for my benefit, but for all of our, my colleagues' benefit, that that gets clarified as we move forward. Chairman, just, it depends on what they say. So it depends on what they say. What, they can provide competent, substantial evidence, but I don't like it, so don't approve it. It's not competent, substantial evidence. You are correct, but they have to have the right to be able to say something that is based on competent, substantial evidence. That's why, but they, and I think that goes to the crux of what Commissioner Orbis says. Maybe I'm wrong. She can speak for herself, but that's what I understood. But that's why I think, and I know Congressman, Commissioner, soon-to-be Congressman Gilbert, and I have both been mayors, so we've dealt with this many times with community organizations, but I think everybody here needs to get, and also Commissioner Hardiman has at the City of Miami, but it does depend on what they say, but they can be considered to be competent, you know, evidence. So I just want to make sure you make that clear to everybody before we take the next vote on this thing again. Commissioner from District 5, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, just to the county attorneys, the sponsoring commissioner has had this before us and has asked the same question every single time, and- I'm not a sponsor. It's just in my district. Sorry, that's true. Sorry. Thank you for the clarification. Yes, but I understand what you're saying. It impacts her district, and she has asked every single time that it's been before us, what is, you know, the definition of the competent, you know, evidence? So, I guess I'm trying to figure out, to Commissioner Bermudez's point, I don't still know what that would look like or what that would be. So, I guess I would encourage you all to do the memorandum that Commissioner Bermudez has said, because I myself don't know. I'm taking your word for it, and we've taken your word for it every single time, despite, you know, Commissioner Milian Orbis's concerns around this item. So, we all need to know exactly what that looks like before we can continue down this path, because now, after the questioning by my colleagues, I'm unclear as to what it is. So, I would suggest, in the fifth round, that you all be very clear, so that we will know whether or not we should be voting in favor of it, because we have no other choice, or because there are options. That's just my note. I agree. Thank you, Commissioner Milian Orbis, for your leadership on this. Mr. Chairman, for clarification, just with regard to this item, we don't know, but it's by no means to be taken that we don't know what competent substantial evidence is, because we do know what competent substantial evidence is, because if we didn't, everything that we had denied previously would be challenged. So, we know what competent substantial evidence is. With regard to this item, we don't know. Yeah. To this item. All right, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay, show the item deferred to the next available, advertisable. Mr. Chair, I'm a no on the deferral. All right, please clerk, please note that. All right, Commissioner from District 7 on 5B, and then I'm going to recognize you on 5G as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could have staff read the amendment on 5B. Commissioner Regalata moves to amend item 5B as follows, to reflect that on October 6th, 2026, the City of South Miami and the South Miami Community Redevelopment Agency adopted resolution number 090, excuse me, 2616504 and resolution number CRA04, 2604, respectively, approving the interlocal cooperation agreement among the county, the city, and the agency. Number 2, to replace Exhibit D, the interlocal agreement beginning on page MDC 070 with the form of the interlocal agreement approved by the city and the agency, which reflects that the party's agreement to exempt the children's trust from the requirement to make annual contributions to the trust fund, pursuant to section 163.387, subsection 2, subsection C, Florida statute in sections 2-1741 and 2-1742 of the code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, and 3-1742 to add the city and the agency's resolutions and exhibits. There was a handout given to you that reflects all the strikeouts and underlines, and all the exhibits are attached to that handout. Thank you. And, Mr. Chair and colleagues, the amendment is just that when the item first began its process, the city had not done its part. So the city has finalized its part. There's no substance and changes other than the addition of the agreement that the city agreed to, and all references of the agreement have now been replaced by the actual executed agreement. As we discussed before when this went to committee, this is an infrastructure CRA. It's very, very different. I'm happy to move it. All right. It's been moved by Commissioner Marcolato, seconded by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Any further discussion on the item? D1, you recognize? Just a question. As an infrastructure CRA, where's the money coming from? The tax increment, I guess, the increase in value, would that be money that would be coming out of the general fund that we would have received? Essentially, at the very site, at that very site, right? So we need the infrastructure CRA in order to redevelop the entire area. The redevelopment, by the time it's done, is going to provide us with more money because of how quickly it's going to be redeveloped. In its current situation, the county would be responsible for doing the infrastructure work. And the infrastructure work, in part, with a developer would take a very long time. We negotiated with the administration and really kept it very, very tight. Even the administrative fee on this, we're not creating a structure. It's modeled after the Midtown CRA that just provided infrastructure. And the administration in support of this? Yes. Okay. I second. All right. That was interesting. Commissioner from District 8. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Commissioner Gilbert, for your line of questioning. To the administration, the key question that was just asked on whether you were supportive of this, it's because, and I want to be clear, this CRA commenced after your issued or proposed moratorium on CRAs, correct? And your moratorium specified that you would not disrupt CRAs that were already in the process of being created. So, i.e., CRAs subsequent to that issuance of a moratorium will have a different position, I'm assuming, by the administration? Through the Chair. Yes. This particular CRA is very circumscribed. It also includes substantial investment in the transit operations, which is important. And so, it wasn't an across-the-board. It was more to make sure that the Commission understood that we need to be very, very thoughtful and limited in how we approve CRAs and expansions. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show that item passed. Commissioner Bermudez? I just wanted to hear a question to Mr. Cohen-Higgins. I remember distinctly that this was one of the CRAs that was exempted from when we took that vote. All right, Commissioner from District 7 on 5G. If the attorneys could read. To the attorneys, go ahead. The amendment. There's no amendment to 5G. 5B needed to pass before 5G, that's why. Right. Okay, so now we'll move it. It's been moved by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. This is an ordinance. It's a roll call. A roll call. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado. Yes. Commissioner Steinberg. Yes. Commissioner Bastien. Commissioner Bermudez. Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. More. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Chairman Rodriguez. I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right. Congratulations to that. Commissioner from District 8, you recognize on 5F. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am supportive of 5F. I do ask that either the representative of the applicant, I believe Mr. Adler, is present, and or to the attorneys. I have a question regarding, I think one of our speakers spoke to it during public hearing. I need a clear understanding of why this project doesn't require a referendum and a vote of the electorate of Miami-Dade County pursuant to Title 7. Someone may approach or respond to the commissioner's question swiftly. And I understand generally that Title 7 has an express exemption for C-quarium, but I also understand there's other issues here, and I just want to be clear that you all feel very confident. Obviously, it wouldn't be before us if you did not, but I would like for you to explain, or, again, I believe there's an attorney on behalf of the applicant to explain why this doesn't require a vote of our residents. We believe that this does not require a vote or to go to referendum, C-quarium. No, I understand that. I said that. I'm asking why. Commissioner, we have been advised that there's an intention to sue on this very issue, and we'd be happy to brief each commissioner on the specifics as to why we have reached that conclusion, but we don't believe at this point in time it would be wise to have that conversation here. All right. So with that, we're through all of the – we're done with public hearing, right? Mr. Chair, I was just going to say on this C-quarium, I'm actually hosting a virtual meeting tomorrow. We're going to be going through all of it. This has a lot of moving parts, so we're going to walk through this piece of it. So we're going to do, like, the comp plan, and then we're also going to talk about the lease because I just want the public and everyone to hear all the different parts of it and then know all the different ways that it's going to come to the Board of County Commissioners. So there will be a discussion on that, and then the other county properties that have similar exemptions and why. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chair, who's that? Bermudez. Brief comment, and I appreciate Commissioner Regalado having that meeting, which I think is a good idea, but I want to put my – on the record, I consider this the C-quarium of county-wide importance. Absolutely. Be clear. Of course. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a brief follow-up to what Commissioner Regalado said, and I'm grateful for the community input that is going to happen because I think it's absolutely necessary. But to the attorneys, if we're going to have an open community meeting and discuss exemptions with the community, why can't we discuss it here? And that's either to the attorneys. I want to be clear because I've received questions on this, and I understand the position of our attorneys, but maybe I misunderstood you when you said have community meetings about exemptions. So tomorrow, through the Chair, tomorrow we're going to have an informational meeting where we're going to present everything that we have. It's not going to be open to the public because of the litigation, but we are planning public meetings, and we're working with the attorneys on how that would be handled in terms of the litigation and not speaking on the litigation. But tomorrow is just an informative one so that we can provide everyone with the documentation and everything and what the process would look like and all the different opportunities that people are going to have to speak. Okay. And so I'm hearing the litigation. Has litigation already commenced on this? No. There is no litigation. There is the threat of? Correct. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. I have a motion by Commissioner Regalado. I'll second it by. Yes, I'm moved. Seconded by. I need a second by Lopez. This is a voice vote. Yep. All in favor. Wait. It's a roll call. Roll call? Where are we? Oh, yeah. All right. Call the roll. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis. Commissioner Regalado. Yes. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bastien. Commissioner Bermudez. Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Four. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Yes. Commissioner Hardiman. Chairman Rodriguez. Oh, yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right. And I believe that's all we had for public hearing items. So before I get into our, we have a couple of discussion items, but before we get that, let's go into the pool list. And no, no, actually, yeah, yeah, yeah, there's quite a few, but not much. All right. I'm going to start with the Portberth, 8J1. I've got Orbis, Steinberg, and Cohen-Higgins. So let's go in that order. Orbis, you're recognized? 8J1. Thank you. Yeah. I had some questions about why we're waiving competitive bidding. If we can ask the department to come up or the administration. I'm glad you're taking the questions out of my mouth. That may be a lot of people's questions. Through the Chair, Port Director Jonathan Daniels is available. Board Director, is this your first full BCC roll call? Mr. Chairman, yes, it is. Certainly the first one was, I think, much easier. Now being here nine weeks and having this issue in front of me, I just appreciate the opportunity to be here and answer any questions that certainly you may have and members may have this morning. Thank you, Director. Go ahead. Thank you. I think the question was, why does this justify waiving competitive bidding in this particular case? Again, what we're looking at is a continuation of the existing system that is in place as part of the birth AA and AAA construction project that was built as a shared terminal for MSC and RCL. It provides for continuation of the same passenger concourse, all the work that was done during the design and implementation of the construction allows us the opportunity to be able to continue and have the same firm involved in the design going forward. I think some of the things that are very important associated with is there is a concourse and a building system that is in place that we are going to have to be able to continue to operate during the time of design and construction. So having the same firm in place allows us the opportunity to maintain that continuity. It allows us the opportunity down the line to be able to develop both the marine as well as the shoreside guaranteed maximum price. We still will need to come back to the commission for full approval of any of the construction programs going forward. So this is just the design process. Contractually, we are obligated to be able to provide birth 10 by October 31st of 2028. And that is under the contractual obligations that we have for the Terminal G and birth 10 agreement with RCL as well as the agreement with MSC. This allows us the opportunity by allowing for the bid waiver to cut somewhere between 12 and 18 months off of the process for procurement, which gives us a chance to be able to meet that contractual obligation that we have to both those entities. Is this firm locally based in Miami? There are two of the firms associated with the design team that are from the Miami area and the headquartered here. But is the main firm from Florida, from Miami, Florida? No, no, ma'am. So they're not a local firm? They're not a local firm. No, ma'am. And so where did we get the assumption that this firm can do this cheaper and better than anybody who's local? It is. So the design component of the overall project is about $13 million, which is projected at about 7% of the overall projected construction cost for the project, which is about $185 million. And I think that's reminiscent over the fact that they have done a significant amount of the work prior to. And then that translates into an overall cost savings. You can typically expect any firms to charge about 10% of the overall construction cost as part of that design cost. But if you didn't bid it out, how do you know? How will you know that somebody couldn't do it for less? Again, just utilizing past practice, prior practice. It is typical that a firm that has been involved prior, that has been involved in the process of doing the permit work, doing the design work, is able to translate that into an overall cost savings. Shouldn't it be the county's priority to give preference to local firms? As much as is possible. You certainly want to be able to work with that. And once they get into the guaranteed maximum price, and if they move into a construction process, they still have to follow the county guidelines. And that would provide for additional opportunities for local firms to be able to gain access to the construction part of the project. And, ma'am, as I had mentioned, two of the firms associated with the project are locally sourced. I mean, I will never agree with doing this. I'm not giving an opportunity to our local firms to bid at the beginning. That gives me heartburn. I think we should be opening this up to local firms. So that's where I stand on that. Thank you. I understand. All right. Commissioner from District 4, you're recognized. Thank you. Yeah, no, I pulled the item because any time there's a waiver of this amount, I've been consistent in pulling these items to better understand because the memo I didn't think gave us enough information to actually make the determination that it is in the best interest of the county to waive a bid, provided, you know, if we're foregoing a competitive process. And so for me, I was just pulling it to vote no because I would like to see a competitive process because I do think we could get a better deal. So it didn't tell me that we were in such an emergency-urgency situation that compelled me to support it. Thank you. So I will not be. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner from District 8, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So a couple of questions, and welcome. You know, you're asking us to waive competitive procurement on, I get that it's only the design portion, but presumably should this pass, if they handle the design, it's just going to carry over, presumably, into continuing with the same company. It could. They could move into that position of then be involved in construction. Yes, ma'am. I mean, so it's a step in the direction of continuing with the current contract holder. And listen, I appreciate if the current contract holder is doing a great job, and I understand that there are assumed efficiencies created. But on a project this size, and considering the conversations that we as a body have been having, particularly in our committee hearings, on this precise issue, it should not be a secret that this item, or it should not come as a surprise, I should say, that this item has been pulled by so many commissioners. So my next question is, why didn't this item travel through the committee process? Ma'am, from what I understand, under the previous resolutions, it was not required to go through that process, and ultimately is the reason why it is before you today. Okay, to the attorneys, why didn't, what is the process under which this item is allowed to, what is the rule that allows this to skip committee? Commissioner, it was placed on the agenda pursuant to the Seaport expedite ordinance, which includes a committee waiver in it. Okay, and the urgency, what is the expedited element to the item? What is an urgency? On the urgency, I would, the ordinance is called the expedite ordinance. I would defer to the administration on the reason why they would want it expedited. I think because of our contractual obligations to be able to have this project in place, by October 31st of 2028, we need to move as quickly as possible. It is also important to our bulkhead replacement project. As we start to remove portions of our berth from operations during construction between now and 2031, we need to be able to have that swing space in order to allow us the opportunity to shut certain portions of the bulkhead down, move those vessels and those berths to an available berth 10 starting in 2028, which then allows us the opportunity to not lose capacity. And the time frame that you anticipate, should this go out to a competitive procurement process? Would add probably another 12 to 18 months. Okay, so knowing that there was an October 2028 deadline, why wasn't the procurement on this started a year ago, understanding that it would take 12 to 18 months? Sure. Ma'am, I can't mention as to, or I don't understand exactly during that time. I know with everything else that the port has been going through, with a lot of the issues that it continued to be pushed off. This is not an issue that we bring to the commission lightly. And from understanding the history of the port, we have not brought bid waivers to this commission for consideration in the past. It is not something ultimately that we do wish to do and would rather go through the full procurement process. But unfortunately, we are under a time crunch right now, and that puts us in a very difficult position to be able to request this waiver. Do you all handle your own procurement or do your procurements, excuse me, travel through our strategic procurement department? We do. From what I understand, we do our own procurements. Okay. Can't you expedite the procurement on this? Can't you create? You brought this to us, skipping committee review under an expedited port rule. There's urgency. Can't you similarly expedite a procurement process so that we can open this up to competition? And if the recommended contract holder prevails, amazing, but it would appease the concerns of this body that are not necessarily being articulated on the microphone today, but have recently been articulated repeatedly by a number of my colleagues regarding our desire to see more of a competitive process. So is it possible for you to institute a competitive procurement process that is expedited? I think while we could move it through as expeditiously as possible based on procurement guidelines, I am not entirely sure how much of that 12 to 18 months we would pick up because we're still at some point are going to need to move from the design into the construction process. And again, it's unfortunate that we are under the gun a bit because of the October of 2028 timeframe. So we're trying to pick up as much time as is possible. And the process by which I'm standing before you now allows us the opportunity to be able to do that as expeditiously as is possible. So listen, I'm in a difficult spot because I hear what you're saying and I don't want to create, and I understand that you're new and I think that's something that we should consider in fairness to the argument that's being made. I'm just not sure in a contract this size, and I get that it's design only, but it will grow to a construction contract that will be substantially more money, whether or not the position that has been articulated justifies a bid waiver. And so, you know, I'm going to hear from my colleagues. I feel like I need more convincing, especially if there is an opportunity to create an expedited procurement on this item and not lose anything, i.e. miss our October 2028 deadline. So I'm going to listen intently. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. I got you, but I've got a question from District 1. And one thing, hold on. I disagree with one thing that you said. I don't, and this is more to the administration, my suggestion is that you let all the department directors know that that one liner of, I wasn't here, that I'm new, like, I don't, I don't, it's, I feel like I could make a collage of, like, all the department heads that stand there and say, I wasn't here, I wasn't here. Like, that's not a cop-out because government is contiguous. Like, government continues. So, yes, you personally, but someone on your team could, you could look back to, and we'll, should have an answer, like, we need to continue operating this government accordingly. So, but. Absolutely. And that is why I'm before you right now. Yes. Thank you. And you're doing a great job, by the way, but, but that's not a cop-out, though. So I disagree with that part, but Commissioner from District 1, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to support the item. I'm sufficiently convinced that time is of an essence. That, that's not the challenge I'm having with this right now. And this will have very little to do with you or even the seaport. So I remember it was maybe like three years ago, and we had the two proposers who came before us about an airport hotel. And one of their arguments were that because of the stuff that's underneath the ground that we have all of the information for, we own it, you all don't have it, the other bidders don't have it. We can do it faster. We can do it cheaper. The administration and the procurement process dismissed that concern. And that's challenging right now because you're actually relying on the essentially the same argument. And so I'm just, so because, and I'm in a different, difficult position also because my consistency is I believed it when they said it, I believed it when I made the argument. So I believe it now. So I am consistent. So I'll support it based on that. But I'm just going to need that same level of consistency from the administration that if we're going to say we need to expedite things because we have people who have special technical knowledge of the situation that will allow them to do it faster and will allow us to move and do it cheaper. Then it ought to be something, an argument that you make, not just when it's something you want to do. It ought to be something that's factored into the process, something that people get extra points for, something that requires, like you all did in this, a little section in your memorandum. But you can't discount the argument when it's not supportive of your outcome, your preferred outcome. And so I take you at your word. I agree with the chairman. The fact that you aren't, that you're new doesn't move me at all. But I've just been here, I guess, gone six years now and five years and a half. I realize that when we say put something out for procurement, y'all stop playing. Y'all know when we say put something out for procurement and we say expedite it. When have an expedited procurement ever actually been expedited in this county? No, it's going to take a long time. And then we're going to want to procure the construction of it. And I just, I don't, I don't trust that when we have a looming deadline, I do think that it should have been brought sooner. I do think it should have been brought sooner, but that just kind of is what it is. Commissioner from District 13. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it's great that we're right next to each other and commission districts is exactly what I was thinking. I wish this would have been something that would have been brought sooner to us. And I think, let's see, I'm echoing a lot of the same comments and sentiments here. Just because you're new doesn't mean that the administration did not know this was coming. This is something that should have been before us much sooner. And I agree with Commissioner Orbis on making sure that we give abilities to our local vendors, especially as we have a great pool of individuals doing work here in Miami-Dade County, and we need to take care of our own. Looking at the item, I do recognize this is a multinational organization. Company has been doing work at the port, not only here, but across the world. And I, too, am going to support it. But I think, Mr. Director, as you move forward, I think you heard from our county commissioners and Commissioner Cohen Higgins here as well. It's not her sentiment. It's a sentiment of most of us on here that want to see this, these items come to us at a timely fashion. But not when we're back against the corner. So I hope that as you move forward in your tenure here in Miami-Dade County, you keep that in mind as well. And with that, I do have a question for you. Since we're talking about births and we're talking about the seaport, has there been any more conversations about negotiating any contracts with the folks from Vice City with the Port of Miami? We have not had direct conversations with the group specifically regarding that agreement. So there would be any negotiations with the port? You would be brought into those conversations considering that this will be, it would be using our birth, our port and our births as advertisements on public lands, correct? We would follow the directive, the mayor's directive regarding that and be involved at that level. One last question, Mr. Chairman, because I wanted an item to be brought back before the last county commission meeting. But Madam Mayor, is there any ongoing negotiations as in reference to the Port of Miami for any Vice City promotion using our public assets? Yes, the port is included as part of the package, Senator. Mr. Chairman, this in itself is disturbing considering the fact that we had a conversation at the last county commission meeting saying that we didn't want, most of us I think said that we didn't want any of our public assets, any more of our public assets used and they continue with this negotiation. This in itself doesn't make sense, Mr. Chairman. They're slapping, I think they're making a mockery of the legislative branch and I hope we'll proffer an amendment if I can right now, Mr. Chairman. I mean, not right this second, but you could ask. At the end, we can have that conversation. Madam Mayor, to the administration, I think you all know how we feel about this and I think that we need to stop this right now. So, Senator, at the appropriate time, I'll recognize you if you still wish to do so. I do. But in the meantime, get with the team and the administration because I know that we did pass some stuff in the last meeting that gave them some liberties and they still have to come back to us. So, just get all that together and gives you some time to prep the right motion. I'm going to, I still have others to speak, but if you want to address him, I mean, do you really need to? Yeah, I'll wait, Mr. Chairman. All right, thank you, Chris. Commissioner Bermudez and then Regalado. I'm going to, I feel the same way Senator Garcia does and Commissioner Gilbert and you, Chairman, and Commissioner Cohn-Higgins in the sense that normally that's not the way it should be. First of all, let me just say, you did a great job. Thank you. Because a lot of times directors get up there, they get a little befuddled. If that's the word that I should use, befuddled, to give them a lot of leeway. Good word. So, you did a great job. But I want to be clear about one thing. While I support local businesses, I do think this county should always seek the best price, the best job. I don't want to pigeonhole ourselves into a situation where a national firm, like in this case, can do the job. And we just say, well, somebody local may be able to do it better. I'm also, at the same time, do agree with Commissioner Orbis that when it, the way it should happen, and hopefully this doesn't happen again with the port, is that, you know, you don't have to be in front of us asking for a waiver. But I want to be clear that we should be seeking, because if we pigeonhole ourselves, there's a lot of local businesses that are wonderful. But they're also there to make money. And if they know they're going to get all the business, then there's going to be very little competition also. So, you know, I'm going to support you on this one. But I hope that you don't have to be up here again. I was very impressed by you, because others have been befuddled, any of the airport people here? I'm sure they are. But anyways, you've done a great job. I actually am impressed. I do share the, by the way, I do share the sentiments of Senator Garcia on that particular issue. And I've said it vociferously. So I await his motion. And I'm going to be supportive because you've made your case, so to speak. Thank you, sir. And it's a tough case to make. Thank you, sir. Commissioner from District 7. Thank you. And I really appreciate that my colleagues are asking some of these questions. When we first started talking about the port and the fuel farm issue, I mentioned at length the concerns that I had over the lack of infrastructure and the failure to adhere to the master plan. I mentioned the birth then. I mentioned the bulkhead replacement. And listen, the body count for directors is high. So it's not personal. It's just we get new people all the time. And I appreciate the accountability question. But I'm glad that you're moving forward with the infrastructure investments because that was my issue. I mean, the lack of investment in infrastructure at the port should be shocking to everyone. I've never served on the port committee. But it's something that came up while we were dealing with the fuel farm and when we were trying to find solutions. And I'm glad to see it. I think that there's been moments in which the administration has kind of signaled that there are issues. And I've pointed them out. But I think the problem here is that they've never come out and said, hey, listen, over the last few years, we should have been doing X and we were not. So I'm in here in defense of your position for actually bringing the item. I will say I'm glad that you mentioned that this is tied to the bulkhead. Another thing that I wish the administration would have mentioned is we were waiting for the state of Florida to give us money on the bulkhead and they did not. And then they brought the bond item to draw down the bond money and they mentioned the bulkhead and they mentioned the need for birth 10. And this board didn't want to talk about that item. So if you compare this item to that bond item, you start seeing the infrastructure issues and why we need to move forward. So while I appreciate the fact that we're focusing on the no bid, because who likes a no bid, right? I think that it's about time that we get to dealing with the infrastructure problems, because the port, from an economic perspective, is essential to our county. Our partners have been complaining about the lack of infrastructure investment for a very long time. And it's okay to say, hey, listen, we thought that everything was right at the port. But when we took a look, we realized that, yes, we were going to fall behind on our deadlines. And that's why we're bringing this item. And I think that's the piece that we're missing in this conversation, because the reason this board doesn't believe the administration when they tell us there's an emergency is because there's a lack of candor as to how we got to this point. And negligence got us to this point. And now we're fast tracking to fix the problem. I think we need to do it. I don't think we blow you up or staff about it. I don't think that's the right position. But I do agree with Commissioner Gilbert. I think opening this up will only delay it further and put us in a difficult and an even worse position. We're put in a difficult position because we should have been doing this three years ago, two years ago, and we did not. And when I say we, I mean the administration, not this board, because it wasn't brought to this board. And I think that one of the things we should be considering moving forward is that the committees that are in charge of these assets should really be taking a deep dive and asking questions. There's a reason why our master plan has not been redone in the port for over a decade. And I've mentioned that, just like I've mentioned the solid waste master plan. And why won't they bring it to us? And why won't they talk about the infrastructure? Why, why, why? The answer is they don't want us to know in what bad shape these departments are. That's the issue. That is the underlying issue. But when everything breaks, you know, and all hell breaks loose, then all of a sudden it's on us to approve a bid waiver and they hide behind us, right? So I'm going to support you. I'm glad that you did the right thing by bringing an item that finally fixes infrastructure that is long overdue. But I challenge the folks who are on the port committee to really do a deep dive on what's going on there. Because when we brought the item about the refrigeration that they were doing. Point of order, point of order, if we could just have just a little quiet. When we brought, thank you. When we brought the, when the item came to us on the refrigeration building that the port was doing at the airport, I asked questions. And I said, why are we prioritizing this with all the issues that we have? We have the crane, we have the berth. And they said, oh, because we're getting some federal money. Just because we're getting some federal money doesn't mean that we turn everything on its head and do something that we don't need to the detriment of the things that we do need. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. All right. So with that, Commissioner from District 8, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a proposition. And I don't know the answer to this. I'm looking for you to give me instruction. Is it possible that we pass the design portion as a bid waiver but require that the construction portion be procured? Or are they inextricably intertwined, as we say? You know, we'd certainly have to take a look at that. With this, it allows us the opportunity to negotiate, again, the best option that is out there. They still have to follow any type of number that they give us or procurement. They still have to follow the county guidelines for procurement. So they just can't start ultimately and self-perform everything in that regard. So there is still a process that needs to come back, of which we have to still come back to you and get that guaranteed maximum price approved. Yeah, but what I'm anticipating, and this is what I was alluding to earlier in my questioning, is that once we approve this bid waiver for the design, that you're going to bring us back a bid waiver for the construction, making the same arguments. And I'm trying to prevent that from happening. So I'm asking, is there a path forward where we approve the design portion, because it's time-sensitive and we want you to be successful, but put a caveat in it that the massive portion of the contract, which is the construction, must be put out to the market to allow us the opportunity to have competitive bids be submitted. Is there a way to do that? If I could please ask legal counsel. Sure. To the attorneys. Commissioner, it is possible to proceed that way legally. I think the question that I have, really, for the administration on this is whether this item is, I don't think it would cover all of the design. So I think it gets you a portion of the way there, and then there would be some remainder left. The question is how much would be left and whether that would be sufficient to put out a bid package. So I'm not sure that I understand the answer. I understand that you said, yes, it is possible, and you said this is not the entirety of the design, which means we're going to have subsequent items for different design bid waivers on this. Is that what you're saying? I think, yeah, there would, to the extent this doesn't complete the design to the level that is sufficient to put out a bid package for the construction, you would either need to increase the capacity of this contract or amend it so that it's for the completion of all of the design. And that's what I'm not sure if this contract would get you to a completed design so that you can put it out. Okay, so I think you understand what I'm trying to accomplish because everyone that has spoken has said something similar. But, again, the way that I understand it is that this is going to be one of several, at least one additional bid waivers, and I don't want to have this conversation all over again. So how do we prevent that? How do we allow a competitive process to attach to this item, even if it's advancing the specific item that's before us, 8J1? So this is just associated with birth 10 and not the North Balkan portion of it. So there's separate contracts associated with that. I think what legal counsel was talking about at that point is that it does not take into consideration the development of a bid package. That's correct. So the design is done, but the bid package and preparation would not be done. So we would have to just modify the contract to allow for the development of a fully functional bid package ready for procurement. Deputy Mayor. Yes, Commissioner. To your question, you can certainly require the construction portion to be bid out and procured that way. The point that I would like to clarify is several times it's been talked about you want the lowest bid. In the state of Florida, when we're procuring architect and engineering services, we're governed by state statute, CCNA, and they are selected by qualifications only. So price is never a component in selecting an architect or engineer. They're selected and then negotiated. So what the director is asking you to do in this item is to allow him to take someone that they have history with and they know is qualified to do it, and they'll go negotiate the fee. It's your prerogative if you want to say today, we understand, but make sure you go through procurement on construction because construction can be based on price. And thank you for clarifying that. So how do we accomplish that today should it be the will of the board to do so? I think that's a compromise position that would at least give me comfort. I would defer to the attorney, but I think you can direct it. To the attorney, is that? Motion. I just need a minute, Commissioner. I mean, I think like everything else, a motion, right? All right. All right. You need a minute. So in that minute, I think, unless the attorneys told me otherwise, I think it'll have to be a separate motion either way, right? Because it's a separate. I'll give you a minute. So here's what I'm going to do while they get their minute. I'm going to come back to it. I'm going to come back to AJ1 in just a second. So you all could have a couple minutes. So 8N2, Commissioner from District 13, you are recognized on 8N2. I got D13, D8, and then myself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if I can have the director come up and explain some of the issues to me. These are not issues. I want to find out what actually happened with the smart city. You know, with the smart city contract, the smart city folks at that contract was dissolved. And then I think this was part of that contract where under these folks, Horsepower came in under emergency procurement to change out some of the lights. And I just want to know what the experience is and give me an explanation on the smart city. Through the chair, would it be possible for Bruce Libhaber to answer as to some of the legal issues? And then Stacey can speak to the actual production. Perfectly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The underlying contract or the predecessor contract with Miami-Dade smart lighting was terminated for cause. That is also the subject of ongoing litigation. And I try to keep it, like, condensed, though. So that's the subject of ongoing litigation. Subsequently, the mayor, through deemed an emergency, and awarded a contract of two horsepower, which is a portion of what was the scope of that prior contract, primarily just to operate and maintain the lights. That emergency contract is what's in front of you now for ratification. That's very condensed. Yeah, that's very condensed. Madam Director, and I appreciate the legal department for letting me know this, out of my understanding, the previous provider was in default because of low numbers that they were making. They had so forth percentages. What percentage has this emergency contract provided for us as in the lightings that have been completed? Through the chair. The Stacey Miller, Director and CEO of Department of Transportation and Public Works. Senator, we are currently at around the 96% operational percentage of the entire system. Previously, we were anywhere between 79% and 83% operational. Wow. So they've done a decent job, I would think. Are you happy with them? The question is, are you happy with them? The emergency contract that you're ratifying today, the contractor has done a very good job of bringing our system up to a 96% operational percentage. They have also worked with us to do replacement of wires that have been – we have wire theft issues, so they have assisted us with that, as well as knocked down poles that previously we were not doing a very good job of replacing. So while we still have a ways to go, they have performed well in that area. Okay, and when it comes to pricing, on the pricing, how competitive has that pricing been or not been? So this was an emergency contract, and obviously when you're negotiating an emergency contract and you're in the situation that we were in, we knew that the prices would be a bit higher than our normal pricing. So this is a more expensive contract, but it was an emergency contract, and there was a great deal of work that the contractor needed to do in order to bring us up to par. One last question, Mr. Chairman. Are we going out to bid in the future for this contract? Because the things that I look at, and full disclosure, these individuals, this corporation is in my backyard, so I'm very familiar with it, and this is why I'm trying to ask these kind of questioning. I'm never going to try to hide behind anything. But the reality is, if they have been doing a good job and we've seen that the percentage numbers have increased, is there a possibility to extend this contract out? So this is an emergency contract. It is a two-year contract with the expectation that we would go out to acquire new contractors during that time frame. We initially attempted to go through the MCC program. We had subdivided the county into a number of different zones. Ultimately, we sort of stepped back from that, realizing that the likelihood of getting a contracting team or group of contractors that would be able to meet our expectations probably wasn't under the MCC program. We were going to pivot and go out for an RFP with some criteria to assure ourselves that we were getting contractors that could meet our needs, and we could get potentially a better price for the proposal. But it is at the pleasure of the administration and the board as to how we procure our next lighting maintenance contractor. Mr. Chairman, I think it's just a statement right now. Based on Commissioner Orbis is trying to push for local vendors. This is a local vendor that we have that has done a great job that came to us in an emergency situation, and I think these are some of these contracts that we look at, and we'll have no problem trying to extend the contract like this out to make sure they continue doing the good work that they do. So maybe I'll hear some of the other folks and see what their thoughts are. All right, and I'll come back to you if needed, but it's different than the last item we discussed. This would be the appropriate time for you to make any motions on that, but I'll come back to you so that you can hear from. So I have Commissioner from District 8 and then 1. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator Garcia, for pulling the item and for the discussion that you just had with the director. I pulled the item simply because I remember when we canceled the previous contractor, and I remember speaking specifically to concerns in my district regarding out streetlights and the amount of complaints that we were getting in our district office and how I considered that to be a true public safety issue. And so it is not often that we have stats like the one before us in this item, right, where we were at a place at 79% operation for our streetlights, and within give or take a year, we're at 96%. And so when I see numbers like that addressing a need in our community, I simply wanted to pull it to say thank you. Thank you to the department. Thank you to the vendor. However, you know, we need to take a moment to highlight good outcomes for our community, and I think that this is one example of that. So I'm grateful to see the item. I'm grateful to see the significant improvement. I just want to see a continuity of the 96%, obviously, and making sure that we never fall down to the 79. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let's get to 100%. Let's get to 100. But I agree. I agree. Commissioner from District 1, you recognize? Mr. Chairman, what was the word befuddling? Who used that word? I am perplexed and befuddled. I know perplexed. Yeah. Perplexed and befuddled. Okay. It's never good enough. So in the last item, we have somebody who say they have specialized information, and we want to go with them because they have that, even though we didn't do that before. In this item, we have someone who's actually doing the job and doing the job well, but, and they're local, but we want to go back out. Yeah. So I want to, I don't know, tell me how I get here. I want to not extend this contract. I want to direct the department to negotiate and bring us back a final contract with this vendor. So if you, you can negotiate a lower price with them, negotiate, this is no longer an emergency. You know, we've been dating them. Now we're going to marry them. Okay. That's what I'm going to do. Second. Yeah. All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Gilbert, seconded by Commissioner, by Senator Garcia. Commissioner Bermudez. Yeah, I just, you know, I agree with Commissioner Gilbert. It is a little, I mean, he's perplexing since befuddled has shocked everybody. But, you know, this company came at a point, and Commissioner Cohen-Hagan said it correctly, it came at a time where they really kind of helped bail us out on a couple of issues that were sitting there for a long time. And I, it's not this particular part of it, but I know Commissioner Steinberg was very bothered, like I was, on some of the other parts that were approved and had never gotten done. And this company actually came and did what they had to do. I do believe that a company, whether they're local or not, and they're local, that does the good job, you know, that should count for something, especially in government where there's so many things that can happen. And change orders and this and that. When I see somebody that, Madam Director, you and the administration say they're doing their darn job, they're doing a good job, most people here seem to agree also, and the statistics are very good, then I don't see the issue with, you know, continuing to move forward with them. And, yeah, I mean, I appreciate the motion that was made, but sticking with them is an important thing, and they've done a good job, and that was one of the, I know that for me and Commissioner Steinberg, that was one of the big thorns in the side on the, with the entity that won the award, that at the last moment said they could do it, but had done very little. But, anyways, I'm supportive of them. Whichever way you do it, I think if you have a good company and you know them, and I trust you all as directors will do it for the right reasons, which I think you are here, then I'm always going to be supportive. All right, and I'm recognizing Commissioner from District 7, but just to be clear for the attorneys to think about how, so we're, the motion is to ratify the existing emergency contract that the mayor executed and amending it to directing the administration to come back with an executed long-term agreement. It would be precisely to direct the mayor or mayor's designee to negotiate a longer-term contract, determine if it's in the best interest to waive competitive bidding to effectuate that, and come back with that recommendation to the board. Okay, fair enough. Commissioner from District 7. Thank you. We'll come back to you, though. Like, so you can clarify, but go talk to them. Yeah. So a few things. Thank you, Madam Director. You know, my district, similar to Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, and I think the chairman's district has issues with folks stealing wires. So we have a lot of issues. So I hope we get to 100%, but I think we need to find a solution to that problem. And I know I've complained about it to you, and they've complained about it. So I just wanted to put that on the radar. I don't know what the solution is, but I think we need to find a solution. I know when we first had the change in this contract, one of the issues was the lack of grounding. So there was an issue with the grounding. There was, like, infrastructure, like, what was in the agreement and what wasn't in the agreement? What was the responsibility of the vendor, and what was the responsibility of the county? So there was, like, some back and forth about that. And now that we're at a place where we're moving steadily towards, like, better compliance, I just want to know from your perspective, what are, looking back at the two agreements, right, what should we capture in a new agreement that would prevent us from making the same mistake, right? Because I feel like, at a minimum, we should make different mistakes. So on this lighting issue, there's a lot of questions as to who is responsible for what, who maintains what, and that's what we get. That's the conversation that we get caught in when we talk to you about particular areas. So if we could clarify, like, that point on the record. Thank you. Through the chair. Yes. I believe the reference to the grounding was associated with our traffic signalization contract that was not our lighting contract. And I'm not going to talk about what was or wasn't in the prior lighting contract. We have a very defined scope of work associated with signal, excuse me, lighting maintenance. We will double check that all of the requirements are in there. And that goes to the operation and maintenance of our existing lighting system. It does deal with wire theft. It deals with knockdowns. It deals with foundational issues for not, sometimes a pole gets knocked down, but you can put it right back up. In other instances, we need to work on the foundation. Those are not only things we are conferring and ensuring are in our scope of work with our contractor, but we are actually working with the Florida Department of Transportation, who also provides us with funding assistance to maintain their lighting system. So we're working both positions at the same time with the expectation that this will all be resolved as we negotiate this new contract with our contractor and then move into our next contract with the Florida Department of Transportation, which is about a year from now. Okay. That's great. I appreciate that. In terms of the thefts, can we consider and can we add to this, like, cameras or something that will help us? I know we've talked about it, but I just feel like they keep stealing the wires, and what are we going to do about it other than go out there and put more wires? So we have had a number of different opportunities where we've changed what the wire is made of. We have changed how it is connected to our boxes. We have changed how we lock the boxes. There's a number of different things that we have tried in association with wire theft. For us to put sufficient cameras out for our entire system and the Florida Department of Transportation system is probably not the cost benefit that we'll see from that particular scenario. Can we do it on areas where we have seen repeated wire theft? That is something that we can look into and make sure that we have eyes in areas. But I will say it's pervasive throughout the county. There are some areas where we have repeat offenders in wire theft, but we just recently ended up with a massive amount of wire theft out on Chrome. We wouldn't have had cameras out there. That's sort of the first time we've seen that incident. I appreciate that. I just think where we have repeated instances, we should have some sort of protocol. I don't know what that protocol is, but I feel like in some of our districts it's happened three, four, or five times. We'll look into it on segment. And then the last thing to Commissioner Gilbert's motion, last time we had our budget and the time before that, several members of this board voted against the lighting districts. And so I want everyone to be cognizant of the fact that what we are discussing now is in fact the foundation of the items on the lighting district. So this is your moment, and I think that that should be part of the memo that comes back to us, is an analysis of this and the lighting districts, because whenever we get to the budget, everybody wants to vote against the lighting districts. And we know that the lighting district is just passing on the cost. No one is making money from a lighting district. And for those of us who represent areas of unincorporated, those lighting districts are important to our residents. So I just would ask you as part of this analysis to probably break down a little bit, you know, a comparison so that folks can see it in terms of the impact of the lighting districts, because that comes up every budget. But this is the contract that establishes the rate of the maintenance of the lighting district that we approve right before the budget. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. All right. So with that, Commissioner Gilbert, did you want to rectify or clarify your motion, or the attorneys want to do that? Yeah. I move that we direct the administration to negotiate with the current vendor and bring us back a contract to ratify. Without the extension, just bring us back a contract. Second. All right. So we have a motion to, we do have to ratify the existing emergency contract, so we have a motion for that with that amendment. All in favor, seconded by Commissioner Lopez. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. All right. Show that passed. All right. Mr. Attorney, are we good to go back to AJ1? What do you mean? No, we haven't voted on it yet. They were waiting to give Commissioner Cohn-Higgins an answer. Can you continue then? AJI or AJI? Okay, sorry. Are we, AJ1? AJ1. AJ1. AJ1? I don't know. AJ1. So I was right. Sorry. My colleagues corrected me incorrectly, but this is the life I live here. The last day, though. Last day. Last full day. Ain't no fun here. Last full day. All right. Floor's yours. You've had more than a minute. Mr. Chairman, yes, we do have an answer, and we had an opportunity to speak to staff. The agreement that is before you, this interim agreement, includes a provision in it that grants a right to Fincantieri to negotiate a full project agreement with the county. So we couldn't just by motion make the change for one reason, because it would require an amendment to the agreement that's before you, so they would have to agree to it. But then the second component of it is that if you just peeled out the design work with the intention of going out for a bid, you would trigger the requirements of the Competitive Consultants Negotiation Act, which require the bidding of design work when it's paid for using county dollars, and there isn't an exception that would apply to that. So you could not just put out a design contract. The other thing that was asked was whether the design work that is being done here is actually for 100% of the design, so this would do all of the design work. But nonetheless, you couldn't separate it out the way that was proposed. Floor's yours, Commissioner. Thank you to the attorney for clarifying that. And just to be clear, you're walking back than the previous answer that you gave to the question that I had, which was can we separate the two out, and now you're clarifying that we cannot. Yes. Okay, and I appreciate that. The reason that I proposed the idea as I did, because in the item it says on page 2, approval of this item does not authorize the construction scope of this project. Instead, it only allows the county to advance essential design permitting and early construction activities, while negotiations on the comprehensive agreement continue. But based on the explanation that you just provided, the answer is absolutely yes, that if and when we approve this, we are not only doing a bid waiver for design, we are doing a bid waiver as well for the construction, correct? Because we cannot separate the two of them out, even though the item says that the approval of this item does not authorize the construction. I understand that an item will be negotiated and brought back to us, but the item that will be negotiated and brought back to us will be a complete bid waiver of the construction pursuant to the contract that you just read. That's correct. So the statute that's referenced in the item, 25520, is for design and design build projects or construction projects. So it begs the question of why wasn't the item prepared for us for a bid waiver of design and construction? Why instead does the item specifically say it does not authorize the construction scope? Why not just give us the entire thing if it is necessary for us, according to what was just communicated, that we approve the entirety of it? Because, again, it would still have to come back to you to this body for ultimate approval of any type of construction. Any ability for us to be able to move forward would require a satisfactory vote by this board. Okay. And so, again, I appreciate the clarification, but I want to make clear that the position that is now being taken makes it more difficult for me because the precedent that's being set by the argument is because you are already in our port, because you have already built there, we are going to continue utilizing you, and that argument can be made by a lot of vendors in Miami-Dade County, right? And so I appreciate the explanation, and thank you for answering my questions. All right. With that, I'll entertain a motion on AJ1. I'll entertain a motion on AJ1. Mr. Chairman, I have a question, but I'll move the item. You'll recognize for a motion? So Commissioner Gilbert moves the item, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, and a question by Commissioner Gilbert. So you couldn't bring this item just design, and you have to bring a design bill? Correct. That's correct. Pursuant to the contract that you all signed? Well, the contract stipulates that they have the right to negotiate a full agreement for full design bill, but also just pursuant to the statutory framework. So there's a statute that governs contracting for just design that would apply, and if county dollars are being used, unless there's a life safety reason, then the statute requires a competitive bidding. So then you could, you just couldn't do it in this time period, and you can't do it because you contracted away your right to do it? The contract isn't effective yet. It's not been executed by the county. So then you can do it, yeah, you can do it then. Correct. You could always do a design bid bill that could be a directive from the administration, but it would not be under this contract. So you all negotiated a contract that says you have to design bill, and because you negotiated a contract, you have to design bill, you bring us a bid waiver for the design portion, but in the item you say that this doesn't give us the building part, but in fact because it's design-build and you can't separate them because of the contract that you're bringing and the statute, it's going to go to travel together no matter what. So, yeah, they would travel together under this. The process here as set forth in the contract would mean they would be doing the design and simultaneously we would be negotiating the comprehensive agreement, which would, which could overlap with the completion of the design, actually, and then lead to the construction of the project. So your answer to the question I just asked was yes. Huh, that's a little... It's a different answer. That's a little icky. It's a little icky, Mr. That's a little icky. I mean, I can still go with you because of the time and because where we are on it, but I disfavor constructs that fundamentally limit the ability of the board to act. And when you add in the statute, the contract you're building, and the time, I think fundamentally you've kind of limited our ability to act. And so, yeah, I don't... I mean, I only got one more meeting, but I wouldn't recommend another pass on something like this. Like, you shouldn't do this. This is not acceptable. Commissioner from District 7, you're right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think I understand what the game is. So the idea is that what we're being told is we can't decouple this agreement because the party that agreed to this agreement is not present, and we are being brought a negotiated agreement. But embedded in the agreement is a future agreement, and it needs to come back to us, not because we can reject that future agreement because we will be contractually bound, but because we are the party that okays the payment of that agreement. So the second piece is, in fact, an after-the-fact ratification in order to access the funding. That's the game. Now, how do you undo that? Granted, we can't change it right. It hasn't been... The agreement hasn't been executed, but the party that negotiated is not here. So we can't amend the agreement and move it forward because this is the product of a negotiation. But we can defer it and direct them to uncouple the agreement and bring it back to us as two separate agreements, which may or may not impact the price and may or may not impact the time. But my concern, similar to Commissioner Gilbert's, I want to support. I want to support because I believe in the infrastructure and I believe we need to do this work. It's just the way that it is being presented to us is a little disingenuous, right? Because this idea that it comes back to us, it comes back to us and we have to pay because, you know, and again, it seems to be a theme today. There's just a lot of, you know, a lot of things that are not clearly clarified. And it brings us to ask these questions and we don't want to be negative. But at the same time, the administration is not being completely truthful with us about our role in this and how they've coupled this in order to make it easier to move it along. Commissioner from District 8 for a follow-up question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so I need further clarification, please. When we spoke and you gave me the clarification before we went on the microphone, you said the answer that I need to walk back is now, no, and the reasons you already stated. But if the agreement is not signed, if it's not fully executed, help me understand why what Commissioner Regalado just proposed is not an option. Commissioner, there are two independent reasons why it can't be decoupled. One is what the agreement that they have agreed to says. But it hasn't been executed. And they understand when they negotiate with the administration, it is subject to approval by this board, which is why the item is before us. We, as the board, can certainly direct different terms in this agreement or any other agreement. So considering that it's an unsigned agreement, why are we bound by those terms? The second reason, Commissioner, is the CCNA, the Competitive Consultants and Negotiation Act, which requires if you're going to put out a contract for, if you're going to enter into a contract as a county for just design work, then it has to be competitively bid if it is being funded with county dollars. So notwithstanding what they said in their contract, if you were to decouple it and just have a design contract put out, you would have to, you could not do a bid waiver for that. Florida, Florida statutes does not provide a mechanism for design bid waivers. It does provide one for design build bid waivers under limited circumstances, including the one that was presented to you, which is that somebody is performing work on an adjacent project. And who decided to travel under the statute that you just cited? CCNA. Who decided to travel under that statute that ties our hands in the way that is being discussed currently? The CCNA is just a general Florida statute that applies to all design work. It is a call, a policy call, as to how a contract is going to be entered into. It could be done as a design, where the design bid build, where the design work is all done and then the package is put out and then the contract is bid out for construction. Or it could be done as a design build, where the contracting party is doing the design work and then constructing the project once the design work is completed. So thank you for the explanation. I, you know, again, the item skipped committee review in a current climate where colleagues are saying time and time again the same thing regarding the desire to have a competitive process. And then after further inspection, we find out what we're just discussing, which is essentially we have to approve this item as it is before us today. I just would like to see far fewer of these to our port director. I'm going to support it today. I'm not sure that I will in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. So we have, I don't know if that changes now, but we have a motion and a second. What are we doing on this? Because there's a lot of back and forth here. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Chairman, I just, so really the issue is time. The December 2028 deadline, where is that deadline? Where does that deadline come from? That is contractually bound in our lease agreements with both MSC as well as Royal Caribbean. Okay, so the only thing that really, I'm going to vote for this because of that deadline. Because if we didn't have that deadline, then I wouldn't have a problem telling you to separate them, go back out, bid the design, and bring us back, you know, let us make that decision. And then we subsequently also bid the construction of it and let us make that decision. It's really just the time. And so that which goes back to another DCA, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins point, bring us stuff sooner. Like we shouldn't necessarily get it with that little time. So, but I'll support the item, but I don't know that, not that I don't know. I know this was not well done. Commissioner from District 5. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, this seems to be a recurring theme. Last week, we saw it in two committees where we hear things in October for things that have December deadlines. And I guess I would just say it's an ongoing theme and one that leaves us actually very little choice. So, had I known a year ago that I'm going to be faced with this, this board could have made a decision. We want to go out to bid on the design and we want to go out to bid on the build. So, just, I will also support it today with a little bit of heartburn because of all that my colleagues have said. But I, again, want to just recommend to the administration that being more forthright on a timely basis would help us do our job. Because I would not agree necessarily to this, knowing very well what the statute says for design build contracts. And so, just, you know, I know you're just new on the job. I would really gratefully request that you start looking at all your contracts and start telling us with at least a year advance notice so we can have some time to really actually do what we need to do on these. So, thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. So, with that, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. Show, oh, then the item needs, all right. It fails. It will. Yes, it does. But all in favor, well, I just got another commissioner, right? Or is this the ninth one? I just got another commissioner walked in. All right. All in favor, I have a motion by Commissioner Gilbert, second by Commissioner Regalado. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. I have two nays, right? What's my vote count here? I need nine. I need nine yays, guys. All right. So, I have two. Guys, can somebody help me here with the vote count? What's the number? My staff? I have a full staff behind you. Clerk. Clerk, can you tell me what the vote count here is? I have a no for Milian Orbis and Steinberg. The rest are yays. So, we're good. All right. Item passes. Thank you. Congrats. All right. Don't go far, Commissioner, from District 5. I'm calling you up next on our, my item, I guess, my legislative package, 11A6. You're recognized as the pulling, Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And so, I pulled the item simply to make some recommendations. So, I saw 63 pages of legislative priorities. And as a former member of the House, and I know I've had this conversation with Jess when I was in the House, and I've had it with him this week. You should have seen where it started. No, no, I don't even want to think where it started. And I'm just going to caution both the commission, and I'm going to caution the administration. If you think for a moment the Florida House is going to look at 63 pages of priorities, you are painfully wrong. I would suggest you go back to your ordinance that says that you should have your top 10 priorities. As a budget chair and as a policy chair, I would tell everyone who came to me from Miami-Dade County, this is too many things. And if you can't decide on the top 10, probably none of them are going to happen. And that puts the onus back on Jess to try to do what I call mission impossible. So, to the mayor, I looked, mayor, at all of the department priorities. I would suggest you go back to your department directors and say, what is your top one? I also would say the same for the commission. I also think we ought to start having conversations around what we think the legislature actually has an appetite for. We want a lot of things. I will tell you that in my three and a half years in the legislature and two of them being in leadership, we would ask ourselves and we would look at some of the requests from this county. Why do these people think this is our responsibility? In other words, we have to start really understanding what the legislature wants to help us with. It likes to help us with water projects, infrastructure. It takes us seriously when we say we have a problem that we believe impacts the state in a very big way. If you look at some of this, they will dismiss it in many ways. And for the colleagues here who have been in the legislature, we all know. So, I was shocked by 63 pages and want to participate in the discussions that Jess will have with our lobbying teams. And I also suggest that we break them out once the committee structures have been defined by both new presiding officers, that we break them out into these committees because this is the most ineffective tool I've ever seen. And if I were still in the legislature, I would dismiss it. So, that's my recommendation, but I'll move the item. Thank you, Commissioner. I have a motion to move 11A6, seconded by Commissioner Bermudez. I'll second it, but I want to say ditto. Yeah, I'm with you on that, too. And I agree. But to your very, very, very first remark, Commissioner Lopez, I would say you're right. While everything you said is pretty spot on, Jess does do the mission impossible. And he somehow untangles this and figures it out. But, yes, you're right. He just knows how to finesse it and go up there and do his thing. So, Jess, you don't get recognized enough for that. Mr. Chairman, he knows how much I respect him, how hard he works. If there's anyone who has seen him, he was in my office practically every single day. So, to Jess' kudos, he is an incredible advocate. But giving him mission impossible, knowing that we can do better, I think would be very helpful for him. I agree. I agree. This started well over 100 pages, by the way, Commissioner. All right. So, with that, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. Show the legislative package approved so Jess can get to do his mission impossible. Commissioner Steinberg, yes. Thank you. You know, heeding what you said, I do want to, though, have a couple items since we just passed the legislative priorities that we have discussed as a group. And we haven't necessarily taken formal action. But I think this would be a really great opportunity to do a few things, kind of clean-up items, to urge the legislature to reconsider the broader implications of Chapter 2026-43, the laws of Florida as it relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and enact legislation amending that the law, maybe modify the penalties, revisit that, and reexamine that as one. Another is we all passed as a directive here a motion to not use general fund dollars to do the wetland study and to urge the legislature, since it is something that is in their wheelhouse, wheelhouse, to urge them to make sure they provide the funding as well to help with that. And finally, I know we get a lot of complaints about short-term rentals, and it's, again, our guiding principle not to have, you know, preemption. We fight preemption no matter what it is. That's a guiding principle. But to remind them as it relates to short-term rentals that we need some more regulatory framework to give us more power back in our hands and repeal some of that preemption. So those are my recommendations, and I would make that motion. I'll second that. But I'd also like to add that nowhere in this legislative priority was the issue of sargasm, which is becoming probably one of the most detrimental issues. So if the maker would agree that we should work very closely to make sargasm. I thought we had it in there. No, no, nowhere in the 63 pages. So that one of the most important both for tourism, economic development, and for the residents that both Commissioner Steinberg and I share, it's been a huge problem. So I would absolutely add that one as well. Now that's something, and I'll say this, Commissioner Steinberg, that is something that actually matters in Tallahassee. They'll start to see, oh wow, this is impacting our tourism, it's impacting our water quality, it's impacting a lot of things. And I would have a caveat, I would add to the federal legislative priorities. The thing that has been keeping us, yes, Congressman, listen up. The thing that has been keeping us from actually addressing sargasm with very unique and innovative approaches has been the federal government's inability to allow us to pull sargasm out of the water, even when it's that close to the shoreline. So we have to do a lot more that will allow us then to look at different types of techniques that are being used around the world. So I would add that one as well. All right. So, I mean, okay. Wait, we have a motion? Quickly. Okay, on sargasm. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Mickey. I just want to say something on the sargasm. I agree that at the federal level there needs to be some changes to the laws. The issue is what we pull up when we pull it up. So I represent an area that also has sargasm but has turtle nests and a lot of other things, right? Mickey has part of it, but Miami Beach doesn't have as much as Crandon, right? So Crandon, as you know, Crandon has a lot more sensitivity when it comes to the ecosystems that live inside the sargasm. We ask for sargasm funding every year. I think that the bigger issue that we have is really around the composting of the sargasm. Sargasm is it collects as it moves and it collects a lot of heavy metals and a lot of arsenic, which is why mincing it gets a little complex. So I think that we would be best served to focus on composting. Other places compost it. You can limit where you put that composting. But the composting of the second – because currently we're putting it in a landfill, so we're composting it in a bad way. So the composting of it is something that we've been trying to get folks to understand that there are ways to actually eliminate the heavy metals, specifically by composting it with earthworms because earthworms eliminate the metals. So if we're going to make a request about sargasm, it would be useful to have the state provide us with funding so that we can prove that you can compost sargasm and eliminate the metals. That way everybody can compost sargasm. We have been unable to get the funding to do that. And the mincing, as you know, Commissioner Steinberg, the issue with too much mincing is that then it erodes the sand and it creates dunes because as time passes, the sargasm decays and shrinks. And then you have a lowering of the sand, which then leads to more beach erosion and more money spent on beach re-nourishment, which is why we don't over-mince. So if you could put something in there about composting specifically to eliminate heavy metals, that would be fantastic in terms of finding a solution. Thank you. All right. Show it all amended. I guess I'll take a vote. Just all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show that motion passed as well. All right. Commissioner from District 7 on 11-A8 and a supplement. Thank you. So if you can read the amendment to the attorneys. Commissioner Regalata moves to amend item 11-A8 consistent with the supplement that was provided with the final agenda. So all the amendment does is the authority is going to be with the mayor. I'm going to work with her. There isn't an agreement. The original item had said that there was going to be an agreement. It's really a logistical thing. The agreement is between Vizcaya and the owner. So this just allows us to move it forward as we deal with the logistics. So I'm happy to move it. All right. And Madam Mayor, you're not jumping up and down. You're good with that? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, fine. Thank you. So it's a second by Commissioner. Is Ken Griffin fine with that? Because, you know, apparently everybody wants to meet him. I just want to make sure. But, yeah. Is Ken Griffin fine with that? I don't know. I've never met him. So Commissioner Regalato and Commissioner Gilbert motioned and seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. Show that passed. And on 15 before the BCC calendar, I'll entertain a motion on the 2027 BCC calendar. Did you add any? Oh, D4. You pulled it. Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Steinberg. Hi. Thank you. Yeah, briefly. Hi. How are you? How are you? Doing great. February. I was wondering if we could please move the 17th meeting, scheduled for the 17th, to the week prior to the 10th. The week of the 15th, I know I may not be here and there may be some others. I know it's a holiday weekend proceeding. And so I was hoping that we could move the meeting. I'm good. I'm personally good with it on my end. If there's no issue with administration. Yeah. It may change anyway, but let's go ahead and change what we can now. I know Oliver really cares about this. So, all right. Let's show it to reflect the 10th then. Yeah. All right. So, February 9th. February 9th. All right. So, February 9th in lieu of the 17th. Okay. Perfect. Anything else? All right. So, because in his good deed, Gilbert will move this item as amended by Commissioner Steinberg. Seconded by Commissioner Lopez. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Show the next year's calendar approved. All right. I've got two discussion items before we go into. Yes. Point of order. I just have a, at some point, 1185 passed when you weren't here, but I wanted to make a recommendation about it. So, whenever you have a chance. Okay. All right. Yes. Well, yes. Okay. I know we probably have motions. I know Senator Garcia was waiting for the right appropriate time for one. And I don't know this, but we do have two discussion items still on the agenda. Okay. All right. So, let's do the motions. Let's do the motions, and then we'll do discussion items at the end. All right. I'll start. Let's start with, hopefully, what the easier side might be. I don't know if that might be the case, but Commissioner Bermudez, any motions or? Yes, yes. At this time, I would like to move to appoint Ms. Ana Rosa Guerrero as my District 12 representative on the Miami-Dade County Military Affairs Board, subject to the approval of this board. It's been moved by Commissioner Bermudez, seconded by the Vice Chair. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show that person appointed. Commissioner Bastien? Orbis? Regalado? Motions? Yes. We're passing it out right now. Okay. Appoint George. Is this yours? Sibila? This is me. So, let me mention the 1185 one as they pass out this one. Go ahead. So, 1185, one of the issues that the administration has been discussing with us in briefings is the fact that they're limited because of the way they purchased the property and leasing it out to other people. And a lot of departments don't want to go there. A lot of the constitutionals don't want to go there. And obviously, we don't have the ability to refinance the entire building. And there's a lot of concerns as to how we're going to make it work, right? So, what I wanted to mention was that we want RER there. And I think that RER and DERM is well-placed there. I don't think we want them there. I think they're going there. They want to be there. They're going there and they want to be there. I haven't heard anything about a department not wanting to be there. Well, there are. There are. But we're doing a phase one and the phase two would be the other floors. Before we do the phase two, I think we should look at splitting the building as a condominium. If we split the building as a condominium and we refinance the top floors, we will be able to rent out. This has nothing to do with 11A5, though. Well, I mean, it's the same, like. Land. Land. It's the same land. It's the same land. It's the affordable housing. Right. But it's the same land. So, I'm talking about the building. An item hasn't come on a building. What I don't want them is to work on an item for the building without considering all their options. Because currently what they're saying is, well, we refinance it this way. There's nothing we can do. Now, in the market, there are plenty of people that would pay a lot of money to be in the same building with RER and Durham. There's permit runners. There's permit expediters. It would be a very hot ticket. And we could actually rent to those people as a triple net lease where they would fix the other two floors. Why would we need to fix the two floors and then have departments that are coming out of the general fund or out of the ratepayer pay to be there? Now, the issue is the refinancing. So, the administration would have to look at bringing an item to this board to make that a condominium, split the condominium, refi the top of it so that we can rent it out to whomever, and then put it out to the market. And I think that's how we fix the overspending on this building that we're all getting called out for. So, I'm just putting it out there because I think by the time we get items, they're so far gone that there's no way to undo it. And I know that this would involve several departments having to talk to each other. So, you know, I'm just putting it out there as something that you might want to consider directing them at a minimum to see what it would entail before they come to us with another, just pass it on to the departments and make them pay for it. Yeah, I think exploring it, there's no hurt in exploring that option, right? And I think we've actually discussed it and didn't catch, because what I understood, Commissioner, is that we're almost going to be at full capacity, is what I was told from just our governmental departments and like the constitutionals as well, of course. Absolutely, if we have space and there's a vehicle to do that, of course, let's monetize and capitalize on it, because you're right. I mean, like permit runners, I'm sure those might be like smaller offices, but there's plenty of businesses out there that may want to be in a facility like that and a secured facility like that. So, I don't know that you need a real directive, but I think we could explore it. I think it's in the entire county's interest to explore anything that we could. So, let's do that, all right? I'm happy to do a directive right now if you need me to, but let's do it. I agree. I can tell you there are some departments that aren't excited about going, especially since the issues with the budget. So, I mean, I think we should at least give them a directive to look at other options, because every time I've asked, they've told me, well, this is how we paid it, and we can't put anybody else in it. Obviously, this would take a few more steps, because you would have to declare it a condominium, but I'm sure we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Okay, can we move on? I'll move to direct the administration to explore all possibilities to further monetize the 9250 building in the best interest of the county and its taxpayers. Seconded by Commissioner Regalado. On favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Show it passed. All right, and do you have a motion? That was my item. All right, so Commissioner Regalado moves to direct the county mayor. County Mayor Desney to evaluate options for approving a portion of portions of Ron Eamon Park for management under environmental endangered lands. EO program, including the submittal of the property acquisition nomination pursuant to section 245010 of the code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The code and the acquisition of the lease of the property in accordance with section 245.7 of the code. Such evaluation shall be set forth in a written report. We shall also include recommendations relating to estimate time frames and each option's anticipated fiscal impact, including any and all possibilities for minimizing potential costs, such as potential grant funding sources. The report shall also identify which portion of the portions of the property may be appropriate for management under the EO program and addressing impacts related to the park's existing recreational facilities within 120 days of the effective date of this motion. The county mayor and county mayor Desney shall place a completed report on the agenda for the full board without committee review pursuant to 5.06 of the board of county rules. So, as many of you know, we have a lot of EO properties that are directly adjacent to parks. This is one next to Ron Eamon, and there is an opportunity to raise money for it and really protect it and restore it, but I would need to have it transferred, and that's what this is attempting to do. I've spoken to the parks department and to Durham, and everyone has said that they're okay with it. I move it. All right. It's been moved by Commissioner Regalados, seconded by the vice chair. I've got a question. Commissioner Bermudez, you're recognized for a question. Yeah, Ron Eamon Park, I just want to make sure, because I like playing basketball there periodically, I want to make sure that this does not impact the athletic facilities at the residence of Miami-Dade County. Not at all. It specifically says that in the item. It's just the EO portion. I want to make sure, because the EO people get very excited about many things. It would be nice if they got excited about our park, that's 600 acres outside the UDB, but we'll talk about that later. All right. All in favor. Wait, did I call the vote? All in favor, signify by saying... Aye. Oh, wait, do you have a question? I just have a question. This is just dealing with Ron Eamon Park right now. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. You're good with it, Mayor? Thank you for asking. Yes, sir. I was looking your way, but you gave me the nods of it. I'm saying it on the record. All right. Mayor's good with it. All right. Orbs didn't have motions. That was your only motion, right, Commissioner Regalado? I'm missing folks here. Can you read my... I have an appointment. I appoint George Civila to the Military Affairs Advisory Board. I need a second. Second by Commissioner Steinberg. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed, nay. Show the item... Show the board appointment done to George. Mr. Chair, I do have another one. Of course. I got away. Sorry. Go ahead. Commissioner Regalado moves to one, suspend the board rules or procedure requiring committee review of item 14A6. Set the public hearing and second reading for this item on November 17, 2026. Meeting the Board of County Commissioners. Direct the Clerk of the Court to publish unnecessary notices. And fourth, amend item 15B1 accordingly. What is it? What does it do? 14. It just has our second reading on November 17th. Yeah. Mr. Chair, we've already done that item. Okay. All right. They told it. They gave it to me and they told me that it hadn't been done. So, all right. Fantastic. Even better. Commissioner Steinberg, you recognize. Since we're taking things out of order and we're doing appointments, I'd like to appoint George M. Gonzalez to the Aircraft Noise Abatement Advisory. Thank you. All right. It's been moved by Commissioner Steinberg, seconded by Lopez. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. Show the appointment done. Commissioner Gilbert. The attorneys have a motion. Commissioner Gilbert moves to urge the state and federal government to provide funding to reimburse local public safety costs associated with the G20 Leaders Summit in Doral this December. The Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office estimates incurring approximately $11.6 million in personnel costs to support this event. Second. Co-sponsor. It's been moved. Second. And a co-sponsor as well. All right. It's been moved, seconded, and co-sponsored. All the good stuff. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show the motion passed. Commissioner Lopez. I have one appointment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to appoint Anthony Antonelli to the Miami-Dade County Military Affairs Board. All right. That makes two of us. All right. We got a motion. We got a second by Commissioner Cohen Higgins. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show that person appointed. Any other motions, Vicky? Commissioner Lopez? Senator Garcia, you're recognized for motions or appointments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I would like to appoint Lauren Mazuzzo to the Unsafe Structures Board, Andrew Villanchik to the Small Business Enterprise Goods and Services, and Bruce Orzos to the Film and Entertainment Advisory Board, Mr. Chairman. I also have on item 4C, the first readings that I had pulled, the reason I pulled it was just to co-sponsor it. I think it's a good piece of legislation, so I would like to co-sponsor 4C. And also, I do have, I want to have a bit of a conversation with the Mayor's office real quick. Madam Mayor, I do have a question for you, if I can, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, of course. Yes, thank you. Madam Mayor, have you directed anyone in your staff to negotiate any more use of our public assets for Vice City or Rockstar Games or Grand Theft Auto? So, I'm asking you, Madam Chair. So, Madam Mayor. So, do you want to take a vote on your appointments really quick, like just to get, like, housekeeping? Yes, please. All right, so there's a motion by Senator Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, on the, there was three appointments, right? Yes, sir. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show those members appointed to those three different boards. All right, and then you're recognized now for motions or questions to the Mayor. I ask the Mayor the question. Yes, thank you, through the Chair. Any negotiations with Rockstar are being handled by my Chief of Staff? Chris Heidwalker, who's here. So, the question, Madam Chair, is have you directed your Chief of Staff to negotiate with Rockstar or any of these entities? Any negotiations are being handled by him, and he is the one who can report on any updates. Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I can, Chris, have you been directed by the Administration to negotiate with Rockstar or any of its affiliates? Senator, I believe the Mayor answered the question. So, the answer is yes. I think the answer is yes. Okay. So, you guys cannot say yes that you are, Madam Mayor, that you've directed Chris Hardwalker to negotiate? I directed him to negotiate to find the best possible opportunity for the county and for the taxpayers. Okay. So, Mr. Chairman, so, the best opportunity and best, we understand that there's a lot of monies being pushed out, and I'm not going to get on that bandwagon that I did last time. I think we all know where we are, and all of us, I think none of us, a lot of us don't like the idea of negotiating away our public assets for an entity of this magnitude. But we are doing it, and the mayor directed her chief of staff to negotiate this contract. And obviously, under the current powers that we have, the mayor has up to under a million dollars to negotiate whatever contracts they want. Now, last time I made a motion for any future negotiations around these entities to come back to the board. I have one motion, I'll throw out the motion again, any negotiated contracts with the four most mentioned entities to come back to this board, whether Rockstar, Vice City, or Grand Theft Auto. I'll second it. Wait, what is the motion? I'm sorry. But any of these contracts are negotiated under mayor's powers to come back to the board for ratification. Those three, the Vice City? Yeah, because I don't know what they're negotiating, who they're negotiating with. Got it. I thought we, I mean, I'm okay with that. I thought that's what we asked you last time, right? I don't know. No, it's not necessarily what we passed. No. No. Oh, it's not? Okay. All right, so there's a motion to just come back to the board, any negotiations with either of these three entities for it to come back to this board? I'll second it, but I have a question of the attorneys. Okay, so seconded by Bermudez, and you're recognized for a question. So there are no shenanigans. Can we waive that million dollar, can I have a friendly amendment to waive the million dollar exemption that the mayor has on this particular item? Yes, I believe the motion from Senator Garcia is that any- Any, any, because I don't want anybody to tell me later- Ratification over the mayor's authority or under the mayor's authority. Okay, over and under the mayor's authority. Okay, so it'll include, even if it's one penny. Yes, so the motion, as I understand it from Senator Garcia, is that any agreement with Rockstar Game comes back to the board for ratification, irrespective of the mayor's authority. So under or over? Regardless of dollar amount. Okay. Mr. Chair. Commissioner Regalado, yes. Just as a point of order, what you're essentially saying is that there will be no agreement because of the timing, because by the time we meet, and this is the conversation that we had last time, by the time we meet, the opportunity will have passed. So I'm just, like, we literally had this conversation last time. Point of order, Commissioner Gilbert. And I want to hear from the administration, too, of course, if they want to chime in, if they don't have to, but- La regla de los cuatro días. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, if I may? Of course you may, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the powers that we're, under the emergency powers that we're currently operating under, you have the right to not accept that four-day rule. So my motion still stands, and I ask for your, for a ruling on the four-day rule, Mr. Chairman. I don't, I mean, listen, I don't think I've ever exercised those emergency powers in my two years. This is my last full meeting, guys. This is my last full meetings, and I've never exercised that emergency power. In fact, have I ever exercised my emergency powers? I don't think I have, ever, in two years. Because everybody was nice enough not to four-day rule anybody else. Right. Maybe. I mean, you've got to know that we've been nice for two years. But the prior chair, our congressman, used the emergency powers. You have the power. I have not, though. I have not used it. No, you haven't, but you have the power to do it. I don't know that I want to go out like that. But you can make another motion, slightly change it, even though he might, he might, he might not four-day rule it. Look, I. Mr. Chairman, listen. Why am four-day, I mean, what's going on here? Why don't we just vote it up or down? Well, so this is the thing, point of view. The thing is this. What I said last time still abides. I'm not willing to, by motion, change something that we put in place by ordinance, which is her authority. So the proper thing would have actually maybe just tried to bring an item. But I'm not, which is what I said the last time. So it hasn't fundamentally changed. I don't necessarily disagree with the principle behind it. But we have an ordinance that we put in place that allows for something. And you want to waive it in this instance. And I don't think it's appropriate to waive ordinances by motion. So I just, that's the issue. It's not an issue on the substantively where I think you're right. I can get on board with whether we should be actually, you know, selling our assets to whatever the game is, wherever it is. And, you know, we can have that conversation. I'm open to that. I'm not open to changing her authority in this manner. All right, Mr. Chairman. And to, sorry, Senator, you still have the floor, of course. But to the administration, like, what's, have you guys been able to connect with Senator Garcia since the last meeting? Like, what's, clearly he's uncomfortable with the, you know, with some part of this, right? I think from where I'm sitting, like, past just the negotiation, just even past what we're discussing here, there's some level of discomfort with maybe even communication perhaps. And I'm making this up. Maybe I'm speaking too much. But have you guys been able to meet with him and ease any of his concerns? It doesn't seem that way as far as easing them. But where are we, you know, because I do want to, I do want to be respectful of Senator Garcia. He doesn't often, you know, do that. I certainly don't want to exercise my emergency powers on my last full meeting. His next meeting, I think, is when I hand it over already. So, but I do want to also grant Senator Garcia his right to do what he does as a part of this legislative body. So, Mr. Chairman, we have not met with Senator Garcia on this. What we did was, per the board's motion at the last meeting, we took that feedback. We continued discussions with Rockstar. We reduced the assets. We negotiated for more money. And we were operating under the track that you had set under your motion at the last meeting to bring this back for ratification to the board. Which the difference here is that it will still get negotiated, just comes back to us for ratification. His current motion for the rule by Gilbert was that anything has to come back even before, which takes you out of time, takes us out of the timeline or whatever, I guess. I thought it still had ratification in the motion today. But I think it was, the nuance was under a million dollars would also come back for ratification. Which is fine, because it's still coming, like, I don't know, it still gets everything done. But it, Commissioner, Senator Garcia, I'm sorry, go ahead. Mr. Chairman, then I will change the motion a bit. If they are negotiating these contracts and they're saying they're coming back for more money. You know how I feel about this, and it's really a shame. Robert, pay attention here, because he's modifying it for purposes. No, no, but Chris, I really do think it's a shame that, based on the conversation that we had here, that you, being the lead negotiating for the mayor, never reached out to our office. You know, that is unacceptable, and it's not right. Based on your administrative role and our legislative role, it is what it is. There's nothing that can fix it. We had two weeks. Could I have reached out to you? But you heard what I said up here. You should have been reaching out to our office. That's one. The second one, Mr. Chairman, then what I will do is, what I'll do is I'll make a motion to make sure that any contract, if you could help, if I can, if I can have the county attorney's office help me. What I'm trying to do is make sure that we have termination clauses for convenience in the contract in the case that this county commission doesn't want to ratify any contracts. And I know where the votes are. I think, I think where the votes may be, but the reality is that I still feel strongly that we should not be selling some of our, using some of our assets, except, especially those at the port and at the airport for some of, for this video, this rock star game, GTF. He could have waived the forward, but that's okay. Senator Garcia moves to include in any agreement with Rockstar Games, Inc., sufficient termination for convenience protections or other protections to limit the county's liability and costs in the event that the board does not ratify the agreements with Rockstar Games, Inc. Okay, I guess tricky, but yes, I see what you're, I see what you're doing. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, that's standard language in all of our agreements, and that is obviously included in the agreement that we've been discussing with Rockstar. Okay, but now we will make sure that it's more than standard. Commissioner Regalado, did you want to? Yes. Please don't tell me you're four-day ruling this. No, no, no, no. No, but I do want to mention that, because we were, we were discussing, you know, I can't forget an item, and I remember when Senator Garcia four-day ruled the day of happiness. Remember that? I remember that. So I just, I'm just putting it out there. I'm just putting it out there, because that happened. And, and, you know, that, that was a thing, right? Like, I can't forget it. It was, like, it was actually a very funny thing, when you four-day ruled the day of happiness. We were all very confused and confounded. We were sad. So we were sad. So, um, I just, I just, you know. Is that here? What is this? I feel. I wasn't here, right? I, I feel like there's a lot of feelings here. Okay? I feel like there's a lot of feelings here regarding this issue. But Oliver's right, in that if something is an ordinance, if you're going to undo it, you should have brought an ordinance. We, we told you that at the last meeting. So you could have drafted something and asked the chair. I mean, you would only be at first reading. Right. Okay. You know, you know what, Commissioner Regalado? I appreciate you, but I, I did try. This is the avenue that I have right now. Okay. Fair. Fair. Fair. And you know very well, sometimes we ask for things, and you ask for a lot of things in this board that don't come to here. So, you know that. So don't say, don't put that on the record without having the background. So I really have. Did I not agenda something? Did I have, did you, I have the motion on the table. I think it's a clear motion. Yeah, no, no. I'll take up the motion, but I just want to make sure, because I, it was, it died at the attorney level, right? They're working on something. Okay. I have some questions on the motion. I have some questions. I just want to make sure that it wasn't me. Yeah. I have, again, I have some question on the motion, but, but, but look, one of the. But to clarify, the item didn't make, I did not, we're working on something, Mr. Chairman, that's what it is. Right. No, but I want to clarify to everyone that, that it wasn't that I didn't place something on the agenda, that it was. But, but even, even Commissioner Garcia, you could have written something out and passed it out to us. I mean, that's what we do. Like, we can't, you know, we also have the motions at the end. We could have, you could have done that, right? So that, that's, right. So, again, now on this, on this motion, I just want some clarity on it because my understanding is that this would be an agreement that would put certain things on certain assets. So what you're saying is that you want to be able to terminate that if the board doesn't ratify it, but then that would be unwinding all of that. And there's costs associated with unwinding all of that. And, and you're, you're putting them, I mean, it's already coming back for ratification. So whatever they agree to is coming back for ratification, and you're going to have the ability to vote against it. To unwind it is a very different ask. And you're aware of that, right? Yeah. Mr. Chairman, yes, I'm very much aware of that. And that's why I'm asking for the county attorney's office to make sure that there's any, that there's language to limit the liability and exposure for the county. If there is an unwinding that needs to happen. So, yes, I'm very clear on that. Yes. But, again, we get back to the undermining the ordinance with the termination and the unwinding. I mean, again, this is, this is. Commissioner Regalato, see, sometimes we complicate things more than they really need to be. I brought back a motion. I had a motion before you, and I scaled back that motion. And now I'm asking if any, any item that comes back for ratification of this board, that it limits the exposure to the county if there's a no vote on that ratification. That's all it is. Okay, so, thank you, and I appreciate the back and forth. We have, we have your motion. The motion's been seconded by Commissioner Bermudez, and the administration's saying that's already included, so there seems to be no harm there? Let's keep it. From the administration's perspective? That's right. It is standard language. Okay, so, all those in favor, sign up by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, show the motion adopted. Where are we, Madam Attorney or Mr. Attorney? Discussion items. All right, which discussion items? We have discussion items. Okay, Commissioner 6B1, discussion item on the county stormwater. Let's not do that one. Let's do 6B2, discussion item regarding safety review of playground slides at, ooh, is there another one? Okay, let's go back to 6B1. 6B1, discussion item on the county stormwater plan. Let's do that. Who wants to talk about that? Commissioner Steinberg, you're represented? I mean, you're representing. Or do you rule the discussion item? I'm kidding. We don't want to talk about them? Okay. We're moved. You're good on it? Okay, so we're past that. Now we're on the 6B2. Hold on. No, he was joking. Who didn't for that rule? Well, it doesn't matter. The item's not for that. The discussion item that was properly noticed is not for they rule-able. But, okay. Before you leave, I do have something which will involve you as a congressman, so I'd like to say it before I leave. I'll be sure to make sure the chair is back for that. Discussion? Okay, you want to talk about stormwater? Okay, what do you got? All right. Thank you. All right. Stormwater management. Obviously, it's about protecting our residents, their homes, our roads, overall quality of life in Miami-Dade County. I know we've all been experiencing flooding, right? It's something that everybody experiences no matter where we are in this county, whether it's during heavy rainfall. But what we're seeing also is a phenomenon with king tides where the water is actually higher and you have what's called sunny day flooding. So how many of you have actually seen flooding when there's not a rain cloud in the sky? And it has become a real issue that we need to make sure that we are doing everything we can to mitigate the impacts, right? Our master plan, I believe, needs to be more than just a study. It needs to give us clear priorities, a reliable cost estimates, a realistic timeline for getting these projects completed. We have a plan for sea level rise. Higher tides are rising. Groundwater levels are getting higher. It makes it more difficult for water to drain down, especially with heavy rainfalls, with high tides, and all of that together, right? It's a perfect storm, no pun intended. This is particularly important for our coastal and low-lying communities. But it's not just germane to those areas. Every one of us is affected by these types of flood issues. And I think we just have to hear a little bit from the department as to what we're doing. The models are showing that improved drainage system, canal upgrades, additional stormwater storage, roadway elevation are all things that we need to explore and better understand. What the harmonization looks like, how we can make sure that we're not having unintended consequences to the surrounding neighborhoods. But we also need to make sure when there's an event that, you know, we see our fire department back there. They need to get to residents. And if the road is flooded, they can't even get to you in order to help in life safety issues. Stormwater management also directly affects Biscayne Bay, and we talk about Biscayne Bay all the time. The rainwater is carrying all the fertilizers, the trash, the runoffs, the sediments, all of the pollutants right straight into the bay, right? We know that our 2026 Biscayne Bay report card was not very good. So last year, I sponsored legislation directing the county to increase stormwater maintenance ahead of hurricane season and continue those efforts throughout the year. I would like an update on what work has been completed, which flooding locations have been improved, and where additional attention is needed. We know in fiscal year 26-27, we proposed in the budget there was proposed $600,000 to update the stormwater master plan and establish priorities. But I would like a clear timeline for that work, along with a list of priority projects. I also understand we're collecting a stormwater fee. What are we doing with those dollars? What is the forecast? Ultimately, we need to have a coordinated plan that tells the board what needs to be done, how much it will cost, where the funding will come from, and when residents can expect results. Making responsible use of our existing stormwater revenues, pursuing state and federal funding opportunities, and working closely with municipalities and regional partners. Our goal should be fewer flooded streets, better maintained infrastructure, stronger long-term resilience, and a healthier Biscayne Bay. And I think we can accomplish that and put all the pieces in. I know the administration has been working, and I have been working with the administration on some of these things. Last year, we know that, for instance, a stormwater got moved to the Department of Transportation and Public Works. They're now charged with helping in that realm. What recently, the discussion I had actually is interesting, because when it comes to extreme flooding, that's under the emergency management umbrella, DEM. And so it's a little convoluted, because we have a definition of what's okay, what's ponding, what is flooding, and what is our expectation as a board? Right now, the plan for the board and for the master plan at the county is that 10-year storms or 20-year storms, not necessarily that 100-year storms, which we're seeing more and more of. And so in the county, the way the water would dissipate, they look and plan for 24 to 48 hours dissipation. To me, I think we need to do better. I think it needs to be a much quicker timeline than having water recede 24 to 48 hours. And, yes, we're going to have to learn to live with water and ponding. But what the definition of ponding is and what you might think it is, what I might think it is, and what the residents think it is, may be three different things. So I wanted to put that all out there, because I don't want to let this go. We know high tide is coming again. We're going to get calls. We're going to see the impact. We have to do everything we can to make sure that we look with the lens to mitigate what can be an absolute disaster in the future. So I want to be as proactive as possible. I brought this item forward because we are literally in the middle of king tides as we speak. And in about a week and next month, we're going to see the highest tide. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to also invite the Department of Transportation and Public Works to give us a quick update of where we are. Thank you. The chair has to cheer. Through the chair, Stacey Miller will address the board, and we also have others with knowledge available. Thank you, Commissioner. All right. All right. Sounds good. So where are we? 6B2. All right. Commissioner. Wait. Wait. He's telling me. You guys got to be on it, man. What's going on? No, I wasn't finished. I asked the Department of Transportation through the chair to come up and give us kind of a list of where we're at and what the plan is and how we're prioritizing the projects and where the funding is coming from. All right. So let me know when the discussion here is done. So let me know when the discussion here is done. But you have the floor. Thank you. I appreciate that. I'm just going to give a quick update. Obviously, Commissioner Steinberg gave quite an overview, and I'm just going to break it down a little bit. So as was mentioned, the Department of Transportation and Public Works took over the entire stormwater program as of last October. So with that, previously, we didn't have much involvement in the model and in the determination of what projects would be developed. We ultimately just designed, constructed, and maintained those projects. The new approach means that we are taking a deeper dive on the model itself, assisting with going from a macro level to a micro level, developing projects, ultimately determining their priority, and moving them forward through the process. Design criteria, and Commissioner Steinberg already mentioned, there are design criteria associated with different types of roadways. So a critical route, a limited access facility, or an emergency, that is designed for a 100-year storm, down to a local roadway that is designed for a 5- to 10-year storm. All of them have the expectation of dissipating ponding water within 24 hours. This is a standard for the Florida Department of Transportation, South Florida Water Management District, and many municipalities. So we want to just highlight the difference between ponding and flooding. Flooding, as was mentioned, the lead is the Department of Emergency Management, and that is when you have widespread, large swaths of areas that are inundated with water. This is usually due to overtopping from a canal or the bay. That's very different than ponding, which is localized and really associated with a rain event. It's very isolated. It's at a driveway. It's at an intersection. By our analysis, we allow the one half of the outside lane to pond while it's raining, and then that ultimately dissipates. We also receive a number of complaints, obviously. All complaints are evaluated. We then evaluate whether we have an existing swale system that either needs to be reworked, if there's other maintenance needs that need to occur, or additional drainage capacity needs to be improved. We look at this ponding based on severity. All of that information is added to our model. It's added to our priorities. And ultimately, we determine a best path forward. We also keep in mind there are multiple ordinances associated. As noted here, new developments are required to recover within 24 hours, and existing roadways can't impact private properties. Our new process started, as I said, we looked at the hydrology and hydraulics of our model. We did a very macro-to-micro analysis. We added the flood risk planning to it. We then looked at and identified problem areas on a more segmented basis. We looked to prioritize those. We did a feasibility. And we are now moving into what would be the first full year of project programming, design, and ultimate implementation. Here's what we have in our current adopted five-year work program as it relates to projects. You will note that there are projects in every area except District 5, and the reason for that is the majority of the drainage system in District 5 is handled by municipalities, not by the counties. So it's either FDOT or municipalities. We are coordinating with the Florida Department of Transportation and with the municipalities. As we move forward with this new model, we will be adding our projects to the Transportation Improvement Plan, et cetera. What we show here is there's about $108 million in the current work program, the majority of which is actually funded by grants. So we are using the stormwater funding that we have and using it as a match for grants in addition to fully funded projects. We have additional eight grants that are in application that we hope to hear about in the coming months. We also work very closely with DERM on making sure that we are dealing with pollution control structures and water quality. We have a number of pilot projects where we are working to reduce the amount of solids that go out through our system, as well as that first layer of oils and other pollutants that we ultimately will take out of the system before they go to any water body, whether it's canal or the bay. We are also looking at using bioswales, retention basins or retention ponds where appropriate, as well as looking at permeable materials, whether that's pavement, sidewalk, et cetera, into the future so that we can increase the amount of permeable as opposed to impervious space. Stormwater fee history, we just wanted to give you an update on where we were. The last stormwater fee increase occurred while the stormwater program was with RER. That occurred before we acquired the program. We did not request a stormwater fee increase this year, but there is the opportunity that we may be looking into the future for stormwater fee increases. With that, just a very quick overview of where we came from, where we are. We are in the process of developing our new tentative work program. That will incorporate many of the priorities that didn't get incorporated into this first year. So you will see a large uptick in projects as we develop our new work program. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I would like to see maybe a report or something sent to us, number one, regarding the legislation I sponsored on the stormwater maintenance ahead of hurricane season and throughout the year and how those efforts are going. I think we need an update on what work has been completed and which flooding locations have been improved from that result, or do we need to look at that engineering again and revisit because the predictions for, and I know they measure with NABD, but the predictions have changed. And we're seeing, you know, actually for the public who's watching, October 24th through the 30th is the next set of king tides with the 30th being the highest of them. So I hope it doesn't rain on top of that because that would be just terrible. But it's something that's not going away, and we need to make sure that we're constantly looking to find improvements and find solutions for these issues. And in terms of the, in that report, could you please also include the budgeted funding projects that have, you know, from that stormwater utility fee, where they're at, what the capital plan looks like, and what metric you're using for that criteria to prioritize. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd also like to add, what are we asking the state to help us with in terms of this? And I say that in terms of infrastructure slash any water projects, because obviously this is an issue, and so we would like to have the state step in and help us. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Commissioner? Commissioner Regola? Yeah, and I want to thank Commissioner Steinberg, and also I want to thank Stacey for the presentation. I think, Commissioner Steinberg, the, you know, you mentioned some of the issues in that some of this lives in different places, right? And that's, like, problem number one. But there's also a lot of maintenance components that live in other places. So the cleaning of the storm drains, right? You know, some of it lies with water and sewer. Like, there's just different pieces of the thing. So I think it would, and then obviously there's the septic tanks, which only complicate the situation even worse for us, because then it backs up into people's homes. But, you know, when we passed the impervious item, you know, obviously there was action in Tallahassee that delayed that implementation. And when that item was drafted before Carlos Hernandez passed away, one of the issues was the applicability of it, because the item has goals, but it has very little ways to effectuate those goals. And in order to get a waiver, you have to go to the department. The issue with that item, even when we get to do it, because right now we're in, like, in a holding pattern, we don't really get to implement it, is that we don't have the products that allow us to get to that goal. So we don't have a list of products where we could tell people, you know, during the permitting process, this is the concrete, you know, this is what you're going to use, right, in order to meet those standards. So I think the problem is a lot more complex than its general complexity. You know, I know the city of Miami has strived in terms of permeability to provide people with lists as to what they can and cannot do. But I will tell you, in large parts of my district, people use artificial turf, and it is not permeable, right? So that only makes the situation worse. Thankfully, those are areas that have a lot of land. So the impact is not as detrimental as it is in other parts of the district that are a lot more urban. But I think as we all deal with the, you know, there's three districts that have this issue with the King Tide. As we deal with it and we work with our municipalities, I think you're right in that we need to move forward with the stormwater plan. And we know that the state wants us to do that. As Stacey mentioned, we didn't increase that. But, you know, I don't think the solution to everything is a pump. I don't think the solution to everything is great infrastructure. And for a very long time, that has been our push has been great infrastructure. So my humble request is that, you know, we and I know Durham agrees with me, but we talked to Durham and we talked to our tree planting folks that are also broken up into like 10 different areas about green infrastructure and planting on swales. And really commandeering those swales because part of the problem that we have is that people believe that the swales belong to them. The swales are a stormwater mitigation opportunity, but a lot of folks don't want to plant green infrastructure there because they want to park there or they want to do something else with the swales. So I think as you move forward with this, a serious look at green infrastructure and the county's ability to use its property to effectuate that green infrastructure, because I think people would be shocked at how much property we have in these areas where we have large flooding that the county technically owns or the municipality technically owns, where we could put green infrastructure to do some of this work. It's not all like Stacy, you know, buying stuff and pumping it out, you know, and sifting through it. So that would be my recommendation, because I think part of the problem is and I'm working in my district to educate residents as to green infrastructure and why it's important. But I think part of the problem is saying that it's all on us and that it's all gray infrastructure. There are better choices that can be made by a lot of our residents and a lot of our cities in terms of planting that would help us to deal with some of the flood mitigation, because there are plants that do this better than the gray infrastructure. Thanks. Okay. So I'll just wrap it up and just say that, yes, incorporating, obviously, not everything can be either green infrastructure or gray infrastructure. As a matter of fact, they're all part of the solution, and we need to make sure that we're complementing everything we do with even blue infrastructure, right, in some areas of the district. And so, yeah, obviously looking at all of that. But I think as a policy, we also need to give direction as to are we okay with the 24 to 48-hour ponding, or do we want to see faster, better results, right? And so I'd like to see an analysis of what that looks like, you know, in that report that comes back, because I'm sure it's a cost issue in terms of better quality work would have less ponding sooner. So we understand what we're doing from a policy standpoint so we can help give better direction as to is that the policy we want to keep with, or do we want to actually challenge ourselves to do further, more aggressive work to mitigate? Thank you. Thank you, Director. Thank you, Commissioner, for bringing this discussion item. Mr. Chair, one thing I forgot, just really quick. I'm doing a rain barrel project, Mickey, in my district, and, again, rain barrels are underwater and sewer. But, you know, it's a simple thing. It's a simple thing. It's an old thing. It's a simple thing. It's low cost, and it does help. Guys, by the way, I think we may have lost quorum at some point. I need more commissioners here, and the sergeants help me get. We have quorum? Okay. All right. As long as we have quorum. All right. All right. Are we good to the next discussion? I just want to make sure I'm not, because I've been being briefed on other things. Are we good? Yeah. All right. Commissioner Orbis on 6B2, and it's very unfortunate but very important subject matter. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for adding this to the agenda, because it is a very serious matter. And, of course, safety, especially when it comes to our children, is a number one priority for us and for the Parks Department and for our administration as well. So on October 8th, I sent a memo to the mayor's office following the tragic death of a 13-year-old Olden Cabrera in a city of Miami Park, Shenandoah Park. And my request, and I urged them, I requested and urged them to check all of the parks that we have with playgrounds that have slides, whether they were tubular slides or open slides, because it is, you know, this is, you know, this is, I know that our parks department goes above and beyond to prioritize safety, and they are constantly checking our equipment and, you know, the parks. But these terrible moments are a reminder that we can never be too careful. So I, as part of our discussion, I invite our parks department director up through the chair to provide an update on the status of the request. Through the chair. I'm very happy that our parks director will give you the details, but I just want to commend her, because before we even heard, she was already out there inspecting our slides. So thank you so much for bringing out the importance of this issue, our director. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. Christina White, Prose Director. And, yes, we are all very saddened by the tragic loss of that poor 13-year-old boy in a city of Miami Park. And I can understand how that could raise some concerns about the condition of the slides in our park system. I want you to know that safety is our number one priority always. I think you do. We've had the conversation. As the mayor already had stated, as soon as we heard the reports of this, the operations team mobilized teams to go out and immediately start inspecting all of the slides and playgrounds within our park system. And so we took the inventory. We have 290 slides at 128 parks, six of which are enclosed. And I'm happy to tell you that the teams did not find any deficiencies at our Tier 1 level review, which is through a checklist with our park managers and facilities team. And then we went back again with our construction and maintenance team, led by general contractors and people who have certifications in playground safety inspections, to look at those enclosed slides specifically. And once again, have confirmed that, thankfully, there are no slides within our system that have any deficiencies. But I also want everybody here to know that this isn't something that we did just because this incident occurred. We actually do have a three-tiered system in place for safety review that we do in regular intervals, the two I just described, and then a third one, which is with an independent third-party contractor that does our installation and review of our playgrounds. And so that is something that we do regularly, and at any point, if we find there is an issue with an element, we'll either address it right there on the spot, put in an emergency work order, or close it down if it came to that and wait for the manufacturer to come in and make the adjustments that are necessary. So we do feel very good about our safety protocols. Thank you. And our report is forthcoming. Yes, that's what I was going to address. I know that you're preparing a report. I did want to ask, is there an expiration time for the slides? Is there a lifetime for slides, whether they're enclosed or open? Yes, everything has a lifespan associated with it. I don't know if that's dependent upon the manufacturer. That is something that I would have to get back to you on. But certainly, we have all of that in a rotation where we know when any element is coming up to end of life so that we can have a replacement plan in place in addition to our regular reviews of it. Okay, and are you considering changing the tubular slides to open slides, or is that a component of that playground specifically that can't be changed? I think it would be difficult to change something that already has the infrastructure for that type of slide to a regular slide, but it's something that we can certainly look into and put into that report. And then, of course, if we are replacing the playground, that's also something that we can look at going forward. I know that I can tell you that none of our more recent playgrounds that we've put in have those. That's what I figured. If you can include in the report that you're preparing the lifespan of the slides, how old they can be before they need to be replaced. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you. I look forward to the report, and I appreciate your swift work on this and being diligent on the safety for our children. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. First of all, Commissioner Milian Orbis, thank you for your leadership on this, given the fact that my constituent was obviously the victim of this. But my question is, of the six that we do have that are enclosed, could we not put some sort of warning for parents to know? Because I don't think that parents understand that maybe the enclosed sort of covered slides may be a risk for maybe older children, just because, you know, sometimes they're not watching their children. But certainly if we were to put something like that, it might help. But that's just a question I had for safety reasons. We can certainly consider that. I can tell you, I was just reminded that the way that the slides that we have are designed are different from that which was in the reports of the City of Miami. Just the configuration of them, where the screws are all on the outside of the slide. So have some comfort in that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to thank Commissioner Orbis for bringing the discussion item. I think it's pertinent to all of us. And obviously, when we heard this story, I think all of our hearts were broken, especially having a 13-year-old boy. So I appreciate the update and the communication to the entire county that we're on top of this. And obviously, thank you to the director for so swiftly jumping in and making sure that all of our slides are fully functional in Miami-Dade County. So I just wanted to extend gratitude to Commissioner Orbis and to our director. I think it was appropriate. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. And thank you again for bringing this, Commissioner Orbis. Director, thank you for your job. And not just yours, but your entire team obviously does a great job over at Park. So thank you for keeping our children safe. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Any other business? No? Show us adjourned.