I'd like to welcome you to the Housing Committee meeting. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Good afternoon. Commissioner Bermudez, Commissioner McGee, Commissioner Regalado, Vice Chairwoman Lopez, Chairwoman Bastian, four members present, we have a quorum. So much. I'd like you all to stand up. We are very blessed to have our dear Commissioner Regalado to lead us in prayer, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. If we could all please bow our heads. Thank you, Lord, for the opportunity to be here today doing the work of the residents of Miami-Dade County. We want to thank you for the opportunity to serve and the great responsibility that comes with it. We hope that you will guide our thoughts and our decisions today and every day as we work together to make Miami-Dade a wonderful place to live for everyone and a beacon of light. Amen. Thank you, Commissioner Regalado. All right, Mr. Attorney, Madam Attorney, Madam Attorney this day, okay? Madam Attorney, is it time for a reasonable opportunity? Yes. Yes, Madam Chair. All right. So I do have some cards. When I call your names, will you please come up? We have two minutes. I'm going to start with Geneva, class. Geneva? Geneva. Okay. Noelle? C'est long? C'est long? No? Okay. What happened? Que passe-o? Okay. I also have a list of people who did not want to speak but who wanted to wave in support of 2A. I'm going to call your name. Maybe you can stand up and wave. So these people are not in the room. Noelle and Geneva. Okay. All right. Adam Saper. Is this Milky Bloom? Tio Linda Christian. Right? Madam Attorney, no one seems to be here. I called everyone's name. Should we close Reasonable Opportunity now? Unless there is anyone in the room wishing to make a statement. All right. So staff is checking to see if they are in the lobby. Madam Attorney, how do we proceed? We wait a couple of minutes? Madam Attorney? It's your prerogative, Madam Attorney. Okay. Let's wait for him to come back quickly before we close Reasonable Opportunity. I see people coming in. It seems like they are here. If they are, let's give them a chance. Reasonable Opportunity is still open. I'm going to call your names again. I think that I might have Noelle Clelun. Did you want to speak or did you just want to wave in support? Wave in support. Okay. I see you. Geneva Claus. She's on her way. Okay. Tio Linda Christian. Wave in support of 2A. That is, right? Okay. Adam Saper. Wave in support of 2A. Milky Bloom. Wave in support of 2A. We like that, right? Constitution of Regalado? Yes. All right. All right. Okay. Anyone else wishing to speak? All right. Reasonable Opportunity is now closed, seeing no one. Madam Attorney? Madam Chair, other than the changes listed in your changes memo, there's no other changes. There's a motion to set the agenda in order. Second. Okay. Thank you. All in favor? All right. Okay. Does anyone wish to bifurcate any of the items? Madam Chair? Yes. I have like four that I want to bifurcate. Four. Four. 2A would be one. 2A. And then 1G1, 2B, and 2C. 1G1 is a public hearing. And 2C? Yeah. Okay. All right. Okay. I can start with 2A. Let us move the rest of. Okay. Second? I'll second. Okay. All in favor? All right. Now, Madam Attorney, is it time for the public hearing item? Yes, Madam Chair. All right. So I'd like to open up public hearing. Would you like to read it? Please read it in there. Item 1G1, resolution declaring certain county-owned properties a surplus, revising the inventory list of real properties after public hearing to include such property in accordance with section 125.379 Florida statutes. All right. So public hearing on 1G1 is now open. I do not have any public hearing cards. And I don't see anyone walking toward us here. So I think it is safe to close public hearing at this point. Madam Attorney, any of my colleagues? Oh. Yeah. It is pulled. It was pulled. So let's, Madam Attorney, do we do the? Discussion on 1G1. Okay. All right. You ready? Yes. Commissioner. Madam Chair, I'm going to support the item, but I wanted to go on the record that this is something that I've mentioned ad nauseum, and I would like the administration to understand some of these properties have been around probably since 20 for a long, long time. And, you know, one of my concerns, my concern in large part is going to be and has been that, and I'm all for, and again, I'm going to support the item. And I'm going to put the table. I'm all for giving people an opportunity to move forward because affordable housing is important. But sometimes when we're looking at these things, we've got to make sure that we monitor at least that it's done timely is what I'm saying. And I just want to go on the record as that the distinguished Mr. Morales know that I would like a way to make sure that we track these things a little bit more consistently time wise. Once we start from this decision here to the timeline of it getting done, and you're going to hear me say it a little bit further with a little bit older situations, because it's your item and I believe that you wouldn't do it if these developers didn't have knowledge or experience. I want to make sure that the administration also makes sure because you could be doing it and I could be doing it with good intentions. But if it doesn't move forward, it doesn't meet our goals of getting affordability and getting affordable housing done timely. And in the next couple of items, I'll talk about that a little bit more. But other than that, I'm going to be supportive of the item, and I just want to make sure to distinguish Mr. Morales. What do you say? I could say, I said distinguish. You look good. I appreciate it. It's good. Chief. Chief, you are recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Chair. Commissioner, we obviously, we do track them through, I believe, both the department and PIOD. We have a regular report we're now providing, I think it's called a PCAD report, I think, where we are monitoring all these kind of properties that have been awarded and given and tracking the work that's being done or not done, as the case may be. So we will, and these properties will certainly be part of that. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, you know, if I may. You may. It was great because the ordinance was one that I'm very, was supportive of and proposed. But the most important thing to me is also information. I think for us as an elected body, one of the things that's always very important, because all of us know that affordable housing is one of the, if not the most, one of the most important issues. We have to be able to have that information to be able to respond. So I, now that we're a committee, I want to make it clear that so there's, communication is also very important. Yes, Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want, I just had one question. I saw one of the rendering shows that it's a duplex, and I'm happy to see that. One of the concerns that I've had with these infill properties is I don't think we should be using them for single family. And I've mentioned on several occasions that if we must, because of the limitations of size to single family, they should, at a minimum, have an ADU. One of the ones mentioned here, the drawings have it as a duplex. So I think that's great. I think the more duplexes and triplexes we could do in these infills, the better. However, to the Commissioner's point, the idea here is to get as much housing as possible. And we have several items that have come before us where they're just doing a single family. And the idea of the county investing land and then on top of that another $350 and build a single family so that somebody can buy it for half a million dollars is absurd to me. It's just a waste of money. And I know that some of these lots are limited. And what I've asked in the past is at least let it have an ADU, right, so that you can at least fit another human in there. Um, so I don't know if they're all, um, if they're all multifamily or if there's any single family and if there's an appetite to change that is my first question. And then it always concerns me that these sites do not have access to water and sewer. So on top of the cost of building here, we're going to add a septic tank. Those septic tanks are very expensive. Um, I'm sure that the reason that we're doing that is because there is no connectivity near the site. Um, but that's why once upon a time we put a moratorium on these infills so that we could try to figure out the connectivity. And we've never really gotten to that conversation because to Commissioner Bermudez's point, when we've talked about infill, we focused on how long it takes people to build these properties, which is very important. But we've never talked about the infrastructure that these areas lack and how much cheaper it would be to build if we had that infrastructure. So in this case, when you look at these smaller lots, the fact that you have to put in a septic tank takes up a third of the property because of the size of the septic tank and the berm. So, and you're, and you're making a human responsible for a septic tank, which is also an expensive endeavor. I say this all to say that we keep going around and around on this infill issue. And I really think we need to be talking about the infrastructure because the infrastructure could give you a bigger property, which could house more people. So, um, happy to support the item, but I did want to know if there was any just single family in this bunch, because we've talked a lot about, um, duplexes. There is one rendering of a duplex, but I didn't see specs on all of them. It looks, I know Nathan was talking about trying to make them all, um, duplexes if possible. Through the, uh, through the chair. Go ahead, chief. I know we've got the director and assistant directors here from the department who can maybe address the question. Nathan is, uh, are any of these, uh, you know, more than just one single family unit or any duplex? What are we trying to do in that regard? So we looked at the properties. Um, one property is in the Northside urban center, which would be for multifamily. Um, more than a duplex. Okay. Um, the other lot is a remnant lot. It's only 2,200 square feet. So the most they can really put there is a single family, but that would be taking advantage of the workforce housing ordinance. What can you do a single family with an ADU? I mean, we do, we, we change zoning up here. So whenever we get into this zoning conversation, I'm always fascinated by it because we are, whenever people say it's like, you can't do that because of the zoning. I, look, we are the people that change the zoning. So could we just change the zoning? We, it's, it's fascinating to me because we are the owners of the land and we are the people that change the zoning. So would you like the people that own the land to change the zoning? Because we're happy to do that, Nathan. Yeah. I, I mean, I'm, I'm not representing the zoning department, but from the last, um, resolution or ordinance that passed for ADUs, you had to have a minimum of 7,500 square feet to do an ADU. So in this case here, you have, you have an old difficult lot, um, that's, you know, really substandard. It's platted, so it's, it's developable. So in this case, a single family would make sense, but on the other lot, you do have multifamily. Okay. Um, I would just, to the, to the maker of the item, I would just say consider because we passed the ADU ordinance to legalize ADUs and to incentivize people to legalize ADUs. We could easily tweak it or create something else that would allow us to do a smaller ADU on our own properties. And again, I, I just keep, if, if the issue is to house people, that's a very easy way to do it. And when we did that ADU ordinance, it was for a family of two adults and one child under five. That was the marker that we used, but we could do a smaller ADU and some of these infill lots that could then be an elderly person, right? Or a teenager. It's just giving people flexibility within these structures. So that's, that's all, but I'm, I'm happy to support it. I just think that we should be looking at all of the different options, um, to provide as much housing in these infill properties as possible. Thank you, um, Commissioner Regalado. Um, uh, as you know, um, each, each lot is different in, in, in, as he mentioned, uh, the, one of the lot in question is very small. And I don't know if you recall, I also passed legislation for the middle, middle housing that will give people more opportunities to build additional, uh, to, to, to, to respond to some of the, the, the questions that you had about the, the number of units. You understand what I'm saying? So that's, that's exactly why this legislation was passed, uh, in regards to connect, connection to sewer. So you're correct. It's not available, but I want to let you know that in the deed, it's going to be recommended that once it becomes available, that, you know, that it is connected. There is connection. But right now, and you are correct on this, right on the money, there is no, no, no connection available. So thank you. G1. For you, Madam Chair. Happy to move it or second it. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Madam Attorney. Um, I believe item 2A was pulled. Yep, I did it too. Uh, this item, I support the item. I pulled it to have Senator Garcia. He has a proposal. I think all of you should have gotten it from the clerk's office. But if not, Senator Garcia, uh, if, if, if we may, uh, Madam Chair, it's Senator Garcia's item. I'm supportive of it, but he has some changes to it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. This, this item has to do with public hearings for, uh, public housing communities. And, um, based on the, um, advocates, uh, conversation at the last meeting, I did hear them. And I had some, a couple, a couple amendments, um, an amendment to the item. One is that there will be a minimum of two meetings be, be held with residents and interested community stakeholders from the neighborhoods. Or as otherwise required by federal law, uh, and HUD regulations. Two, that the meetings will be held by Zoom, be applicable by Zoom, available by Zoom. Uh, three, the developer pays for, for the meetings. And it also clarifies that this is all about perspective and not, um, not for those item projects that are already in the pipeline. That's the amendment, Madam Chair. All right. That's it. You have a question? Yeah, I'm still reading it. Um, but when we talked about it last, Nathan had said that his recommendation was that it depends on the commissioner of the district, which obviously I think defeats the purpose a little bit. Um, but also that it would not apply to unsoliciteds. So this is just applying because the, the unsolicited opens an RFP period, but it's a very small RFP period. So what's, what's the plan for that? Because I don't, I agree with your item. And like I told you, when we first talked about it, I do this in my RFPs. I just don't want the unintended consequence to push people towards unsoliciteds. So my question is in terms of the unsolicited, how do we bake this in there? Can we bake this in there? I'm assuming, Nathan, do you have any suggestions? So I'm assuming after the unsolicited is already, it's out, that there will be one hearing, one public hearing on it. And I think that really meets with some of the guidelines and, um, for HUD and so forth. But I would assume that's how it's going to work. Um, through the chair. The way that I would implement this ordinance is that, um, we would read it together with 8-4. Since 8-4, the unsolicited, already have, just as the senator has alluded to, the, the item's already submitted. There is no meeting before an RFP or an RFP. It's not happening. Um, it's impossible. So we would just skip to the one meeting, uh, prior to the item going to the board. So in that case, it would be one meeting. In, in the case where the county is going out for an RFP, we would have a meeting prior to the RFP and then a meeting prior to the item going to the board. Yes and no, because the, the, the unsolicited triggers an RFP window. It is a very small RFP window, but there exists the possibility that other developers could submit different ideas for that parcel. So I understand what you're saying in that you could do it, you could do it as the last meeting. But one of the interesting things that, that we're seeing is the, who's interested in that window. And if there's the possibility of having a window there, it is, is how, let's, let's explain this to people. How long is the RFP window once you put it out? That'll defer that question. Good afternoon, commissioners through the chair. So commissioner, the IO8-4 process does not contemplate an RFP period. The unsolicited proposal, which is separate and apart from the IO8-4 does have an RFP provision within it. That's why I said unsolicited. Madam, Madam, Madam Commissioner, hold on, did you, can you state your name, sir? I'm sorry, yes, Alejandro Martinez Esteve, Director of the Office of Real Estate and Development. All right, but that's why I said unsolicited. Nathan, Nathan changed the conversation to the statute. I said unsolicited. So it's two, it's two different tracks, right? So under, under the state, like under the unsolicited, there is an RFP window. How long is that RFP window? We don't. Yeah, we don't utilize that as far as the IO8-4 process, which is a process that I'm responsible for. So the applications that come in through the IO8-4, again, do not contemplate an RFP. We don't receive unsolicited proposals for the development of county-owned property. Okay, interesting. Very interesting. Anything else, commissioner? Thank you. I just think that, I think that's something that you've got to think about, because the, what I, I, what might happen, the unintended consequence of it is that in order to circumvent the public meetings, you just do an unsolicited. I'm just putting that out there, because I know that what you're, what you're trying to get is more participation, and I'm just running through the trap. Is it in it, Madam Chair? We recognize, Commissioner. And we'll, we'll sit down with the county attorney's office, and I, it makes absolute sense what you're saying, and I'll look at it, but my understanding was that it wouldn't hinder it, but I will see what your unintended consequences could be, and I'll look into it, and I'll bring it before it comes before the full board, I will have that answer for you. Madam Chair, I have a question of the attorneys, because from my perspective, as an attorney, what I'm hearing is the unsolicited process, which is a state statute process, is, does have some sort of window for an RFP, apparently. Our county staff does not use that process. We use our ordinance. So, I don't want to use the nefarious word, preemption. So, I wanted to ask the attorneys, they should know, I hope, maybe, maybe not, I don't know, what that window would be, because in the end, what this, this item would do, if that was the case, it would still apply to anything we're doing here. It's just, so, is there, is there an RFP window for the state, through state statute? Mr. Attorney? Sure. Well, first of all, the statute that typically, someone that comes to the county wanting to build affordable housing, and they want to avoid the solicited proposal process. They would go under 125.379 Florida statute. So, all that requires, it's not a competitive process. All it requires is, first, the board to identify property that's going to be listed on the list of lands, and hold a public hearing. And then, after that, the statute says that you have multiple options, one of which is to convey the property for affordable housing. It does not say that it requires a competitive process. I think the, what Commissioner Regalado is talking about is, when someone comes to us like a quail roose, we had a quail roose project, where they came to us with an unsolicited, unsolicited proposal. They paid the appropriate fee to the clerk for the county to consider it, it came to the board, and the board directed the mayor to hold an RFP, through that process. But this isn't what typically happens under 8-4, which is what the director is saying. And if it comes through the unsolicited proposal, I think that you could read the ordinance that requires community engagement, to require that they hold a community engagement, at least two, before the proposal goes out, and the second, before it comes to the board. Thank you, Terrence. That's what I was thinking. All right. Commissioner Regalado? Yes. Yeah. I just wanted that clarification. Thank you. Because it's important. Terrence, just one more question on that, on the two different things, because this comes up. There are some folks that choose the one that opens up an RFP because it's a condensed period, correct? So it has like a time period that makes everything faster. Yes. But it's still, in that case, they have to go through the RFP process, and then others can compete, but we've already got their proposal. All right. I'll move the item. So, with the changes as proposed by Senator Garcia? Yes. Can I read Commissioner Bermudez's motion just for the record, please? Yes, please do. So, it will be Commissioner Bermudez moves to amend agenda item 2A to require the county mayor or the county mayor's designee to hold a minimum of two meetings with residents and interested community stakeholders from the neighborhood, or as otherwise required by federal laws, regulations, or the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's directives, and to further require that such meetings be held at a time, place, and manner, including through virtual meetings. To allow for greater participation by residents and community stakeholders. community stakeholders. Such meetings shall be phased over to the life of the development of the project, including but not limited to prior to the development of the request for proposals, or other solicitations, and the cost of such meetings shall be borne by the selected developer. Commissioner Bermudez further moves to amend the ordinance to ensure that the new meeting requirements shall not apply to any public or affordable housing project and related lease and development agreements still to be negotiated that has been previously approved by the board and shall only apply prospectively. Accordingly, the clerk has handed out the amendments with the strike-throughs and the double underlines where the new language is being inserted. So, I won't read that. Thank you. Commissioner, Senator Garcia, since it's your item, is there anything you'd like to add? No, that's all. I just want to thank the advocates and the community partners who came to us and had conversations. Just this is how democracy works like, you know, as an idea, come together, hash it out, and then we have a product before us. Thank you very much. Thank you all of you. All right. So, Commissioner Bermudez, you're moving it with the amendments. Do we have a second? Okay. Seconded by Commissioner Lopez. All in favor, say hi. Hi. Any opposed? Motion passed. All right. Now, we have 2C, Madam Attorney. 2C, Commissioner Bermudez. Yes. 2B also pulled. 2B is also pulled? Yeah. 2B and 2C. Okay. Well, let's do 2B first. Again, I'm going to be supportive of the item, Madam Chair. I know you're trying to do the right thing, but again, I have to talk about accountability and process. One of these properties was conveyed in the year 2014. We are in the year 2026. Another one of these properties was conveyed in 2017, and then the others were in 2022. I am fine with the intentions, but these continuous extensions goes to the point that I made previously, which is why aren't we moving along quicker? And number two, why are we not being communicated to about where we're at in some of these projects? I think there has to be accountability. So my comment is maybe made to the administration in part, but I think it doesn't reflect positively on us, whatever district it's in, when you're looking at a project that 12 years later is being extended again. The other thing I'm going to say, and this is maybe to ask the attorneys, these approvals usually have a reverter clause. At what point do we actually apply these reverter clauses? 12 years is more than a decade. So I believe that in some way, shape or form, there has to be accountability related to the county commission. And truthfully, and I don't know these developers or madam, and I'm going to trust the commissioner of the district, and I'm going to support it. But I think that if there is a problem, we should know it. Somebody should tell us, right? But maybe there is a legitimate problem. And number two, we need to track these things, and it has to be communicated to us. And then number three, you know, at what point do we ever actually use these reverter clauses? Because there's been a bunch of different things, and it's not just one district, by the way. It's been in different districts that have been around for, you know, 12, 14, 16 years. And I think that's, I don't think that's the best solution for this county. All of us complain about, let's try to move these things a little bit quicker. So that's my say. I'm going to support it. I'm going to support you anyways. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that I put on the record what I felt about it. Yes. And usually I support you, Commissioner Bermudez. I agree with you that some of these projects need to move at a most faster pace. But in this case, the extension is warranted because sometimes there are delays that are explainable, like it is in this case because of legal reviews, permitting issues. But in this case, this land has been in litigation for the past seven years. So only at the end of 2024, and I believe that someone from HACTC is here, only at the end of 2024 that this issue was resolved. So there is, they have a legitimate reason because this piece of land was in litigation for the past seven years. So there is a good explanation for that. But I can tell you, I can tell you that since this has been resolved because the judge opined in their favor, in the HACTC's favor, they've been moving to my evaluation at a very fast pace. It's like starting over. So in this case, usually I agree with you, but this extension is warranted because this has been in litigation for the past seven years. I'm sure if I may, and I'm going to vote for it like I said. But then that, the only other thing I would add to that is it would be good if we were at least told by the administration or by the attorneys the history of, in this case, because in the next one we won't have some of the same histories advising us that there was extensive litigation on this. because that is pertinent and it is a perfect response to this. Exactly. It's not a typical situation. But again, it goes back to accountability and communication. So I'm supportive of it. I agree with you. I do agree with you. The item if you ask me to. All right. Thank you. Yes. You were recognized. Jimmy Morales, Chief Operating Officer. Commissioner, the truth is over the last couple of years we've heard this message loudly. Part of why a couple of these items are here before today is because in recent weeks we've sent out 30 to 30 different property owners notices that we're going to be taking the property back. And some of them are now coming forward to explain what's going on. Even if you look at the whereas clauses in these, some of these properties in fact have resolutions by the Board of County Commissioners in the last five or six years providing extensions. So what happens is when we start to get a little religion and get tough, property owners come in and seek assistance. But we are very attuned to this. We've heard that message very loud and clear. And then I would ask my colleagues to get a little religion when this happens and stick to your position of trying to get housing done efficiently and effectively. Yeah. And then in this case, I was just reminded that it's still, yes, it is over. The decision has been made in their favor, but it's still in litigation. So in this case, staff may not have, you know, the leisure to really share or include this information because it's still basically not over, quite over. In Regalado, you recognized. Thank you. Just as a historical point, as Jimmy said, we've talked about this a lot. Um, when Pepe Diaz was the chairman, we had a long protracted conversation about, um, these items in particular, the ones that were in Commissioner Hardiman's district and what had occurred, um, right before his election in 2020. And one of the things that was considered at that moment was to provide the administration with the authority to revoke and move forward on the, um, you know, the reverter. And we discussed it several times and there was a, there was the will, the board was not willing to do that because to Jimmy's point, they can send out letters until they're blue in the face. There's a very big difference from sending out a letter saying like asking information as to why you've been sitting on this property to having the ability to move legal on just starting the process of taking the property. Very different conversation, right? But there was a hesitation to do that and a desire from the board because this is not in everyone's district. So there's only a handful of commissioners that have these info properties. So there was a decision by those commissioners and the board to respect those commissioners, to give them time to go item by item, determining what was the best use of those properties. So, um, that's kind of where we left it and, and that's happened, but there was never a circle back to changing the process, but there was a very good argument made that the current process doesn't work. So I'm putting that out there to say that, you know, um, to your point, the current process is, is a little difficult. And I think that it's further complicated by term limits because what happens is you have commissioners cycling in and out and someone could be holding a property, right? Somebody could get it at the end of somebody's term and then hold it for another eight years with a million excuses. And to your point, when does it get built? Um, so the question was like, how quickly is our expectation and should you have a trigger? The trigger that was discussed in those meetings was to commissioner best hands point. If the property was given with free title and there was no encumbrance. So if there was no encumbrance, there was no remediation issue. There was nothing. And by the way, almost all of these properties have remediation issues, but that's another story. That's why we own them. Um, but if there wasn't an encumbrance and you didn't build it in two or three years, you would just move on the reverter. So that's where we left it, but there was a lot of back and forth as to that. Even though these are issues of county wide importance, they were specific to four districts, right? So I don't, I don't have them. Mickey doesn't have them. You know, Orbis doesn't have them. Gonzalez doesn't have them. I don't think you have them, right? It really is just like commissioner Bastian, uh, commissioner McGee Hardeman. And I think there may be some in Cohen Higgins district, but it's very limited in, in their location. Um, but I think at some point there should be a circle back to some overarching issue that has to do with promises made to the county and not kept. So to your point of timeliness, I think there should be a general conversation about reverters. And, you know, when, when you say you're going to do something and you don't do it within a reasonable amount of time, then to allow the administration to take action. Because, I mean, Jimmy could paper the Rickenbacker with letters if he doesn't have the ability to move forward, you know, on, on, on the retaking of a property. All they're going to do is reach out to a commissioner to get an extension of time. Uh, thank you, commission. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner. I'll be brief. I'll be brief. Madam Chair. Realize that in this, this case is different. Yeah, I know. I'm supporting it. I'm going to move the item. Thank you. So don't worry about it. You, it certainly, it may impact four districts. And I certainly, Commissioner Regalado, agree with you that this discussion should take place again. And I'm going to tell you why. And I'm not going to get into, everybody brings out their district when they need to, forget it when they don't want to, yada, yada, yada. But the bottom line is, nobody, the people out there in Miami-Dade County, when they see these things that may take this long and there is no policy or movement on these reverter clauses, distinguishes between Commissioner Regalado and my district or your district, Madam Chair, or Commissioner McGee's or Commissioner Lopez's district. And I hate to tell you guys, but you may think that everybody knows what district we represent, but they don't differentiate amongst us. They believe that we make policy for the whole county and we actually do technically as we're supposed to do, but we want to bring out the district when we have to. So I caution everybody to remember that when we talk about things like affordable housing, that we remember that what I do impacts Commissioner Lopez, Commissioner Bastien, Commissioner McGee, and Commissioner Regalado. So if we have that discussion, which I think is merited, and I agree with Commissioner Regalado on it, and I don't know the history of it, maybe that was different then. I know there are term limits, but certainly that doesn't mean that we don't have to do the right thing. I think the right thing is to move forward in a timely fashion. So with that, I move with your great explanation, Madam Chair, this item. I second it. Thank you. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Madam Attorney. Madam 2C. He's not here, so I'm going to commend Commissioner Hardeman for working on this. I think Commissioner Regalado actually mentioned that before. I'm going to commend him for working on these projects and trying to get him to completion. But it's just the same thing. I mean, I look at this, and this one at least I can tell you some are 50 percent, some are 20, some are 30, but they go back to 2016, 16, a lot of them, that's 10 years, man. That's a long time. I just think that, you know, and I know, I can't believe all of these are in litigation. So, or I don't know if any are, maybe you guys can enlighten me, but at this point, some are in the bill, you know, permitting process, others are, and it goes back to the same thing I said before. I just think we need a process that when the general public asks us about these questions, we can have legitimate answers. There's no excuse, in my opinion, when properties are conveyed 2016 for every two years to come and keep on giving an extension when we're talking about, and by the way, I appreciate that it was a very detailed item that had all the information. I don't know who's responsible for that, but I appreciate that. And I certainly am going to support it, and I know, Commissioner Hardiman, this is something near and dear to his heart, but I'm telling you guys again, guys, they don't distinguish, and it's an issue across the county that we need to take into consideration that moving forward, there has to be, and I think there is. Thank you so much, Mr. Morales and the county attorney's office. There's been improvements, but I think we need to continue to get better every day to make sure that these units get online as these commitments were made in 2016. We're in the year 2026. You know, I was a much better basketball player in 2016 than I am in 2026. Thank you, Commissioner. Anyone else? Madam Chair. You recognize, Chair. Thank you. Commissioner, just through the Chair, again, if you read these whereas clauses, every two years almost they've been granted extension. So, you know, we understand it. And by the way, there can be very valid reasons for that, but at least there is a process, right? It came before the Board of Commissioners, but, you know, in those situations, you know, even if there's nothing's happening if they get an extension, but I do believe it's a public process. In a public forum, there's a discussion about the extension, and these particular properties received three or four of them over the last six or seven years or so. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I am glad there is a process that maybe in the long run we have to tweak that process a little bit to maybe that's where it all starts. But, again, the reflection to the outside looking in, and I know it's not – you're right. There are extensions, and it's up to this August body. Like, it's an August body, so it still reflects upon all of us. Okay, guys? So all I ask is let's – if we can, maybe through the attorney's office, at some point, maybe the process needs a little tweaking. So – and I know it's tough. It's tough to tell some people, hey, another extension, another extension. And there are all legitimate reasons. You just gave me a clear one on the last item. But I think we need to look at it. Anyways, with that, that's it. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. All in favor? It's been moved by Commissioner Bermudez, signited by Commissioner Lopez. All in favor? Say hi. Any opposed? Madam Attorney? That concludes your agenda. I do understand that our Commissioner Lopez has – for a point of privilege. Yes, thank you. You are recognized, Madam Commissioner. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I wanted to follow up on a discussion item we had last week and commend the Housing Department's ongoing efforts to bring the Section 8 RAD project-based voucher recertifications directly to the – at the properties, removing the transportation challenge that some of our elderly folks have and making the process far more accessible for our most vulnerable families. And so I don't know if there was a quick update on that item because we had sort of said, please, we want to make sure people can just do their recertifications. What I learned is that in the public housing, you can renew on property. It's the Section 8 project-based vouchers that didn't allow it. So if you would, Madam Chair, allow Nathan to just give us a quick update on that. Will you? We recognize Nathan. Sure. Madam, to the Chair. So what we did, we looked at our River Park campus, which is in the Commissioner's District, and we have approximately 800 units that are project-based vouchers. A lot of those are seniors. They would have to go every year into the office in order to renew. So what we're going to start in July, we need a couple months lead up because we've already started the last couple months in renewals, but July will be the first month we can go in. The ones that are up due in July, we are going to mobilize on-site and have the renewals there. This is something we believe we can establish throughout the entire program, again, for project-based vouchers. So this will be our first attempt, and we think it's a good idea. Thank you for following up on that. And you indicated that it's going to be throughout, right? In all the, yeah? So we're first going to try it out here. We're looking at all the other places where we have project-based for seniors, and then we will either institute the same practice, or we may have to make some adjustments to our public housing action plan, which changes some of the rules, but we will advise accordingly on how to get to where we need to go with regards to on-site renewals. Thank you. And I just have one more item. I was dealing with a building in my district that has a lot of elderly people living in it, and I discovered that we actually allow seniors to go into these buildings with a fixed income, right? So many of them are just living on Social Security. Some of them are $763 a month. Some are $826 a month. And yet we allow the owner of the building to increase the rent over time, right? We, that's obviously how we have structured these agreements. What I have discovered now is that when an elderly person goes into, who's on a fixed income, goes into the building, they're okay until they start raising the rent. And what was really interesting is one woman said to me, my Social Security went up $60, 30 of it went to pay for my Medicare, 30 of it was what I was left, and they raised the rent by $300. And she said, I don't know where I'm going to go because the way that we've structured these agreements, you know, the answer always is more vouchers, more project-based vouchers. But we don't have control over that. The federal government obviously does the allocations. But it occurred to me that we had sort of set up a recipe for failure because now I have, you know, elderly people, and I have about 35 elderly buildings in my district on the mainland and another 25 in the beach. And all of them are complaining about this, that their rents are going up, but their incomes are not commensurate with that. So I'm hopeful that somehow we can work on that in this committee because obviously we have to incentivize developers. I get why we allow them to raise the rent, and that certainly is part of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation tables that we have. But it seems unfair because I now have elderly people who have nowhere to go and can't stay in their homes. And so I'm sure you all have experienced the same thing in your districts if you have them. And so I just wanted to point out that it's been a real struggle in the last month that I've been in every senior building and seeing the sort of pain and suffering that 80-year-olds are having now, not knowing what to do next because they can't stay in the building they're in, they can't afford it, and there's nowhere for them to go. Yes. Hold on, Commissioner. Unfortunately, Commissioner Lopez, this is a widespread issue. I know. And it is a lingering issue. It's been growing, and now it's even worse because of the cost of living increase and then the reduction in salaries and the reduction in the amount of money folks receive under SSI and SSA. I have residents who are receiving letters for no reason. There is a reduction of 200. They don't know why. 300. They don't know why. So it is a widespread issue, and I agree. This is a discussion we can have. And we have the mandate in this committee to work on it. I can work on the Sunshine Meeting, work with the administration to discuss this and see how we can really assist because it's going to get worse. It's not going to get better. But this is an issue that has been going around for a long time. I figured, Madam Chair, that you probably were experiencing the same thing, but I assumed everyone else was, and I look forward to working closely with you to move something that might incentivize people to help keep our seniors, at least our seniors, in homes that are safe and sustainable for them. So thank you for that, your leadership. Thank you. Anything you'd like to add, Chief? You okay? I'm fine. Thank you. I have to say that. Commissioner Regalado. Thank you. How was it looking on the right side? It's okay. It's okay. Thank you. We actually mentioned this at a meeting yesterday. So Nathan and I were at a meeting yesterday, and part of this issue came up. So historically, the city of Miami decided in certain areas for a few years, for over eight years, to focus on buildings that only had lower AMI. The issue there is that the federal government, not our contracts, the federal government, allows you to raise the rent up to 7%. If you structure a building with 65 and below AMI, you still have to maintain that building, and there's costs associated with that building. And what started happening in the city of Miami was that every year, they raised it to the 7 on everyone, which is why when we would discuss it with the city of Miami, we kept telling them that they needed to do mixed use with different AMI, specifically with market rate. Because if you structure the model with market rate, the market rate can go up without increasing to the 7%, the folks that are at the 40 and the 30 and the 60 and the 80. You can't increase just the top and not the bottom. If you increase, you must increase all of them. So that's why you have to structure it so that you have some sort of market rate. The situation was amplified after Surfside. Because when we did the audit for Surfside, we found that some of the biggest issues with maintenance of buildings were in our public buildings. So now with the shift from the county ownership to RAD, in the Performa, there is very detailed information on the cost of maintaining these buildings at the level that the state requires, because they still have all of those requirements. So for the buildings that have this low AMI, they're always, and the cycle is three years, by the way. Like we can show you the data. At the three-year point, the resident that came in is now exiting, because they can no longer afford it. Over time, the county has tried to find different solutions. One that was done for many years is helping people with their FPL. So there was a program, and there was money that the county used to put in to help people pay their electricity. And that way, you would kind of eat into that 7%. The city of Miami then stepped in, because they were the ones that had the biggest issue, because they had these senior voting centers that they had created with under 65 AMI, which is why the city of Miami is one of the few municipalities that provides a rental credit, because they recognize that they created the issue by asking the county to not do market rate and not do higher workforce by only doing 65 and under. So you'll notice there are certain districts of the city of Miami, four in particular, that have those rental credits, and they exist to keep those residents there, because the policy of the city of Miami for over eight years was to only build within those parameters. Another thing that the city of Miami did was also to ask the county to do all ADA units, which made all those units a lot more expensive. Normally, you only do ADA units on the bottom floor. The city of Miami wanted ADA units everywhere. That creates another cost associated with the maintenance of those buildings and the maintenance of those ADA units. So I think you have to look at the areas. In terms of unincorporated, I know that Nathan usually asks us to do different price points, which is why, Madam Chair, your addition to the South Dade Cultural Center, when it came before us, was important, because that was a structure that was at 100 and 120 AMI, and you said that you wanted something under 40, even though you should have gotten more, but that's another story. But that was important because that provides the scalability, right? So I think if you want to, it's very difficult to resolve the issue with the existing contracts in a lot of these buildings. You would have to find alternatives, and the question is, where do you find that alternative funding? If you look at the data that we used to provide in the eviction reports and the ERAP that we did during the pandemic, you will find that data there. We could tell you exactly who were the people who were on the cusp, and the question is, how do you offset that 7%? Moving forward, what you do is you don't create housing units that don't have market rate and don't have a higher AMI, because someone needs to bear the cost of the maintenance of the building, and you don't want it borne by someone that makes less than 65% AMI. Madam Chair? Yes, Commissioner. I just wanted to add, I found it very interesting that we always talk about 30% AMI, and when I looked at the chart, the elderly people in my buildings are at 20% AMI, like when I look at what their income is. And so, clearly, we've talked a little bit about this, about what is affordable. It's really 0 to 120, not 60 to 120 or 80 to 120. And I am struggling with the fact that one of the women who spoke to me is in a wheelchair. She's 80 years old. She worked all her life, and now she's sitting here with a $800, you know, SSDI, because she's disabled, and she cannot afford the $400 rent increase in her building. And so I don't disagree with Commissioner Regalado that there has to be a way. I'm just anxious to work with you to find that way. Yes. Madam Commissioner, you're exactly right. I heard you, Commissioner Regalado, I heard your points, but unfortunately, elderlies and residents on fixed incomes are living a new reality. And I think that we, policymakers, we need to work closely with the administration to find a solution. Because I agree with you that what we consider affordable is no longer affordable for most of our elderlies on fixed income. So the question is, then what? Then what? So we have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people who are suddenly not able to afford even the cheapest housing in our county. So this is something that we need to really work on. I'm not saying that there are easy solutions, because I've been talking about that since I came to this dais, that I've been asking the question, affordable for who? Affordable for who? So this is a discussion, Nathan, that in the coming days that we need to have. So I think we can start with the discussion item. And I know you were thinking about that, Commissioner Lopez. And then move it from there. Because we need to find answers for PN. We need to be good stewards for people who elected us to serve them. And housing is the most basic needs. Most basic needs. Anything else, fellow colleagues? Madam Chair, may I ask Mr. Kogan what he feels after Canada lost the United States in the both hockey championship games since he's an ardent Canadian fan of the hockey teams. All right. I know what he does. All right. Good to see that you have a good sense of humor still. Anything else, colleagues? Do I have a motion? Madam Attorney? Motion to adjourn. Okay. Okay. Okay.