I'd like to invite each and every one to the housing committee meeting on this March 10th, 2026. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Good afternoon. Commissioner Bermudez, Commissioner McGee, Commissioner Regalado, Vice Chairwoman Lopez, Chairwoman Bastian. Here. Board members present. We have a quorum. Thank you. So today we're going to have a treat. We're going to have a member of our legislative team, Oliver, to lead us in prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. Father God, in the book of Isaiah, you declare to plead the case of the oppressed and defend the case of the widow. As you've entrusted each of them to our care, Father, I ask that you guide these commissioners and their staff to do the work that you have commanded us to do. Forgive us of our sins and our shortcomings, seen, unseen, heard, and heard, known, and unknown. From my mouth to ears, I pray. Amen. Right. Thank you, Oliver. Nice, eh? Commissioner Regalado. Uh-huh. All right. So welcome again, everyone. I take my turn. It's time to open. Reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard. It is now open. If you wish to speak, you have two minutes. Please state your name, address, for the record. On none, which item are you speaking on? Hi, 3B. 3B, okay. Go ahead. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Katie Gore, and I'm the president of Quadel Consulting, and it is an honor to be with you. Our address is 10 West Market Street in Indianapolis, and the agenda item is specifically related to contract management of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. And just a real quick bio about who I am and how I lead. Personally, I come from a family of single mother, four kids, and we were homeless when I was young. We lived in a tent for several, and I did not realize at the time that later I would be leading a national company that believes in affordable housing and providing housing to people who need it, actually going out and impacting people's lives. So, even though I was 12 years old, I had no idea what affordable housing would mean to me as we moved out of homelessness and we moved into safe and stable housing. So, I take my responsibility of leading Quadel very seriously because I've been there, and I know how housing could be a launch pad for others. So, our company, Quadel, is in the business of helping programs do exactly what they're supposed to do and provide that launch pad for people and provide safe and decent housing and to be able to be efficiently run. So, thank you very much for this opportunity. Thank you. Did you fill out a card, ma'am? Did you fill out a card? So, please, please do so. We will fill out the card. You can do it now. All right? Thank you so much. Yes, ma'am. I'm back again. Did you fill out a card, ma'am? Yes, ma'am. Earlier, and then I left, and they canceled my surgery. So, I come back to do it initially. Okay. I was here. My name is Madam Renita Holmes. Please check with the clerk in regards to the Vauer standards. Just quickly, I spoke to you about resilience. Happy Women Herstory Month again. Women in public housing. Economic opportunity. But when it comes to women in public housing, people hardly think that we want to be resilient or that we think about quality air, quality water, and the right to know. There are those of us in industry, particularly those of us with resilience who've graduated, been certified. But when I look at Section 3 and I think about the economic opportunity, and I love this lady. I would love to meet you. Talk about economic opportunity in the industry or economic opportunity in public housing. And I think African-American inner-city women and inner-city women of all divides have been a little bit screwed. I heard you mention the promise. Here's the specifics. I think we deserve the work. Section 3 is a regulation regarding funding and who we fund. The equal opportunity to be vendors, to talk about proper procurement. I've got another one for you here. And so I haven't seen that. Lastly, I'm going to leave this here because if you're interested, you contact me. You know I'm still trying to get in there and meet you. We don't want to come on another project, particularly Liberty Square, and have a male come in our face simply because we're being professionals. I'm going to be honest and straight up. I'm so sick of it. We had an incident down here. So why are women who are trying to work, who are providing economic opportunity, and who are protected by federal regulation being assaulted? I just say this. I'm woman enough and lady enough not to show it, but I'm professional enough to know the power of vision. We need to protect women in public housing. We need to protect women who are in the industry of building, and we need to protect the promise that was made to us. I'd like to know who's doing the monitoring and the performance on Section 3. Thank you. Madam, I don't believe I know your address is affected. Can you please state your name for the record? I did. I'll mention it again. I'm Madam Renita Holmes, Executive Founder of Wave of Women in Public Housing Finance and Development, Wild Spells Mom Upside Down, our homes, business and property services, as well as the creator of Toxic Tour, promoting green works for women. Thank you very much, Madam. Thank you so much. So I see a line, are there cards, are these cards? Okay. So if you are, excuse me, hello, are you speaking on a public hearing item? No, you have to, can you please wait? I will call you. I will call you. Okay. Did you fill out a card? All right. Okay. All right. So I will call you. If you're speaking on a public hearing item, this is not the time, okay? Yes. But please have a seat. Don't leave. You will be called. Your name will be called. All right. Anyone wishing to speak on any non-public hearing item, seeing no one approaching, affordable opportunity for the public to be heard is now closed. Now, Madam Attorney. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. The, uh, yes, sorry. We're switching it up again. Uh, other than the matters that are listed in your official agenda and on this, uh, the changes sheet, there are no, well, maybe there is. What is this? Uh, sorry about that, Madam Chair. Other than the matters that are on the changes sheet, there are no other additional changes to your agenda. So a motion to set the agenda is in order. So moved. Second. Thank you. All in favor of moving, um, uh, setting the agenda, say hi. Aye. All right. Now, does anyone wish to bifurcate any of the items? Yes, Madam Chair. I'd like to bifurcate 1G1 and 3B. 1G1 and 3B. Anyone else? Okay. I'm happy to move all the, um, well, I guess we got a vote on that, but then I'm happy to move the ones that weren't pulled. Except for the public hearing. Yes, ma'am. You would just second it? Yes. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. All right. Now, um, Mr. Attorney, is it time to open a public hearing? All right. Uh, yes, Madam Chair. Uh, your first item is 1G1, which is an, and its supplement, which is an ordinance related to the rules of procedure of the Board of County Commissioners, amending section 2-1 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, requiring public hearing for housing projects, including but not limited to the development or redevelopment of public housing and other affordable housing, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date, uh, as your first public hearing item. All right. Okay. Let's see if we have, what do we have here? 1G1, Erica Scott. Public hearing is now open. And if you wish to speak, first person I have is Erica Scott. Thank you. All right. Jumped the gun earlier, but good to be here. Um, hi, everyone. Uh, my name's Erica Scott. I'm from Miami Homes for All. Um, I'm speaking today as a member of the Greater Miami Housing Alliance, a coalition of local organizations working together to promote more affordable housing. Um, our address is 3250 Southwest 3rd Avenue. Uh, I'm speaking today on item 1G1, uh, which amends the county's community, community benefits ordinance. Firstly, I want to applaud the item sponsor, uh, for prioritizing public engagement in this amendment. We believe that this amendment would be strengthened even further if it specified a minimum number of community meetings. We suggest three, um, and ensure that these meetings are, uh, firstly, adequately advertised to neighborhood residents. Second, scheduled at times accessible to working people, including hybrid options. And third, facilitated with a trusted community partner. We also suggest that the statement of community benefits, uh, include a, um, excuse me, include information about the number of housing units that would be affordable to the neighborhood residents earning the area median income. This will help the public evaluate whether and how a proposed development addresses the housing needs of the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you once again for your leadership on this issue. Thank you. I'm going to call now Reverend Shirlane Stephens. I'm going to call modern one. Please approach the well. Venena Claus. Kalila Abdullah. You can line up on both sides. Bianca Montenegro. Welcome, madam. Thank you, and good afternoon, and thank you. Uh, I'm Reverend Shirlane Stephens. I am the pastor, senior pastor of Ebenezer United Methodist Church. Can you please state your address, give your address? And I'm a resident of Miami-Dade County at 789 Northwest 153rd Street. All right. Uh, I'm here in support of item 1G. Um, as a pastor in the community, I have members of my congregation who lived in Liberty Square and who, unfortunately, have not been the recipients of the benefits that were promised to them. And so it's important for our public meetings to allow members of the community to participate in what's happening, to be able to give voice to what would be, uh, issues and decisions that are made about their own, uh, life and where they would live. And that it happened in a moment in time that they're able to get access and participate, uh, in, uh, times in the afternoons and or virtual and hybrid options as well, so that they can, uh, actually engage in their life and in the work that's happening to them. Uh, it's, uh, also important for us, uh, as community members to allow those who are creating these, uh, developments to be able to support the people, really give them the benefits that they deserve, and to hold them accountable so that our constituents and our residents and parishioners are able, uh, to be, uh, to benefit from what really is for them. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Good afternoon. My name is Geneva Claus and I live at three, five, five, eight Southwest 26th street. Um, I'm here again also to speak on item one G one. I'm a senior organizer with packed, which stands for people acting for community together. We have been working to try to get a meeting requirement for over a year now, um, based on the original amendment to the county ordinance, um, to require a statement of community. Community benefits, uh, we think as the reference just stated that it's really important that our community members are able to give their say into the benefits that are supposed to benefit them. Um, in addition to supporting the item, we think it could be made stronger with the requirement of a minimum requirement of meetings. Ideally, the number of meetings that's required to reach an agreement between the community and the developer. Also, if there's any costs associated with advertising, the meetings, we think that that should be on the developer to pay for those costs associated, um, because we've been to multiple meetings where, um, residents that are right next to where the plan development is, don't even know that a meeting is happening and that they can participate in it. And we think that we can do better. Um, we also want to make sure that the meetings are scheduled at times that are accessible to our community. So we know that working people at our nine to fives can't, a lot of us can't be here today for this meeting, for example. So having meetings scheduled in the evening time after a lot of people get off work and also a hybrid option would be really wonderful to make sure that it's as accessible as possible to our community. Um, so I want to thank you all again for your anticipated support of this item and hopefully some amendments to make it even stronger to benefit our community. Thanks so much. My name is Kalila Abdullah and I am a member of PAC and I'm here to support. I asked your support for G1 to speak on that item. Um, again, I am interested in this item so that we can require at least minimum of three meetings with one, at least being hybrid. They should be held at times that are accessible to working people, especially so that they can attend. And the meeting should be clearly posted and assimilated so that they are available to as wide of possible, uh, members as possible and that developers should be responsible for any costs associating with the CBA and our CBA meetings. So we would appreciate your support. Please state your address for the record, your address, ma'am. Thank you. Can you please give your address for the record? I'm sorry? Your address. Oh, my address is 1411 Northeast, 159th Street, and that's in North Miami Beach, your district. Thank you so much. I got the message. Good afternoon. Go ahead, ma'am. Welcome. My name is Bianca Montenegro. I am, uh, I live at 13710 Southwest 272nd Street. That's in Naranja, 33032. Um, thank you for your time today. Um, I'm here also in support of, uh, 1G. I think, um, you've already heard from a lot of folks here today. It's very apparent that the community must, must be involved in these CBAs. When, um, developers use our land, the community needs to be included. Um, so I want to second, third, fourth, fifth, however many at this point, um, that we should have a minimum of three meetings. Um, but really, realistically, it should be as many meetings as possible to come to a conclusion where the community gets benefits. Um, these meetings should be hybrid at the very least, perhaps virtual. Um, there really should be clear accountability that the community has access to, um, that the developers are actually meeting those goals. Um, and developers should have the financial ownership, uh, for these financial costs associated with the meetings or any other, um, benefits to the community. And, of course, um, the developers are making tons of money, okay? Uh, their financial benefits far outweigh anything that we're asking for. And so we do believe that these few things that we're asking for are not so big, and they are working towards the justice that we just did in our Pledge of Allegiance. So we ask that you all support, um, increasing the benefit agreements and what's necessary for the community to receive back from all these people making all this money. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'm going to call Philip Cardella, Theolinda Christian, Paola Saltzman, and Arlette Adams. Yes, please approach, state your name and address for the records, and you have two minutes. My name is Philip Cardella. I live at 3230 Southwest 94th Court, and I am here to speak, uh, in support of 1G1. And the first thing I want to say, though, it's a great day for democracy, isn't it? I am so glad to be here and to be able to speak with you folks. I'm so glad to be listened to, and for my colleagues from PACT to be listened to. I'm not going to say anything new besides thank you for listening, but we at PACT really have thought about this a lot. For whatever that's worth, we do a lot of work in the community, and we really believe that the CBA here amendment is incredibly important. We believe that, uh, adding to it, that there's three or more meetings, uh, that are accessible to the communities impacted are important. We want this clearly communicated to that community, um, preferably on the county website. And we want the developer to end up having to pay for the meetings, not because, you know, we're anti-developer. We want these things built, right? We want them to be fully engaged as partners with the community impacted, um, and we want clear accountability. So that's what I've got to say. Thank you for, uh, listening to us and have a great day. Thank you so much, sir. Ma'am. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and the Housing Committee. My name is Arlette Adams. I'm here on behalf of the Annie Coleman 14 Resident Council, address 2455, Northwest 46th Street, Miami, Florida. I am here in support of item 1G1. And I also would love to see that this item have a minimum number of meetings, as well as when a community benefit agreement is drafted and agreed upon, that there is appropriate oversight and accountability to ensure that the community and the residents do get the benefits promised. Thank you. Thank you so much. I was going to say, even if, uh, if, if you have, um, you sign for 1G1 and you have the same exact message, you can wave in support. You don't need to take the two minutes and you did it. Thank you so much. All right. Okay. So, yes, that was nice. Yeah, she got it. Um, uh, Paula Saltzman, did I, you, you spoke already? Oh, she, oh, you took my message. Okay. All right. All right. How about Madeline Menard? All of you in support. Why don't you just stand up and be recognized? All of you in support of 1G1. All right. Thank you so much. You know that I passed legislations on this dais to, to encourage civic participation. So when I see you coming, you know that my heart is really singing, right? So thank you so much, uh, for coming and for speaking. And, um, anyone else wishes to speak in, what is public hearing? Okay. Seeing no one approaching do well, public hearing is now closed. Before, um, we move to, um, bifurcated items, I'd like to, uh, welcome Councilwoman Maggie Stimur, and from the city of North Miami, please stand up and be recognized. Thank you. All right. Okay. Um, now, Mr. Attorney, we are. Yeah. Madam Schur, you're still on 1G, uh, 1. 1G1. Oh, yes. We do have 1G. Yes. Go ahead. I think she pulled it, but I want to say something on 1G1 whenever. If you want me to start now, I'm happy. Yeah, but she pulled it. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. She said she pulled it, right? Yes, yes. Let's, let's, let's, we'll, we'll, you'll have a chance when we get to. All right. Mr. Attorney. Yes, of course. Yes. Mr. Attorney, will you read the item, please? I, I read it into the title, I think. Oh, okay. You already read it? Yes. I read, uh, 1G1 into the, uh, the record earlier. No, no, 1G2 now. Well, are you going to book? I think. Oh, okay. So, okay, so, okay, she pulled it. Let me start with you first. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, the reason I had pulled it for, is for the very reasons that we heard, um, people here speak. A lot of my constituents have spent a great deal of time trying to, uh, find agreement with developers, um, when they come. Um, and oftentimes, the one meeting will certainly not be enough. Two wouldn't be enough. Certainly, a minimum of three is a reasonable request. Um, so, I, I had hoped to make an amendment here at the committee that would, in fact, say that we would, uh, entertain a minimum of three or, uh, such number as required by federal law because some of our federal, uh, housing laws require five or even more. And so, I would, I would like to amend it if it's the, if it's the will of the board to at least make that very clear. Uh, I, I, I read, you know, the item and I realized it, it's vague. It's very vague. And I understand now why so much of the community is worried, um, that sometimes we must be prescriptive in legislation and really spell it out. And so, that would be an amendment that I would entertain. I also understand that oftentimes people don't know that these, uh, meetings are taking place. So, uh, some sort of, uh, a clear, um, notice. I know that when I'm going to host a town hall meeting, I go door to door and leave, uh, um, a flyer, uh, because I think that people need to know that, um, we're going to have a discussion around things that are important. And this is obviously much more important, um, of an item that would require people knowing that it's taking place. And lastly, that it be held when a reasonable amount of people can participate. Sometimes, you know, that's a big complaint, uh, especially in my district where people work and get home at five or six and the meeting may have started at three or four and they were unable to participate. So those are just concerns that I had on the item. I, I obviously, um, am in support of the item, but understand clearly some of the, um, complaints that we're hearing from citizens and why they would want to see a little more, a detail in this item. Definitely. Um, thank you. Commissioner Regalado. Thank you. You recognized. Um, uh, first and foremost, I don't know about an amendment because the maker is not here. I don't know if his staff is here. So, um, we, we usually try not to amend without the maker here, but that being said, the purpose of committee is to amend items. So I, I leave it to the chair. Um, a few things I wanted to, to clarify. Um, I've actually in the, in the RFPs that I've done, I've included these meetings and it took me, um, over a year and a half with staff to figure out how to include meetings because, uh, madam chair, when we first, when I first talked to staff about it, they said that having public meetings during an open RFP would be a violation of the cone of silence. So we went through some time to figure out that if the meetings were publicly noticed, um, that we could in fact have meetings during the cone of silence when the RFP was out. So, um, I have done two RFPs where it's the first time that housing had to be a public meetings, um, during every single phase of the RFP. So I actually bake them in during all the different phases of the RFP. And we did virtual meetings because for their, for like PAC has mentioned for access purposes, virtual meetings were the best. We do virtual meetings starting at six o'clock and we usually have them end before eight o'clock. Right. And, and we push them out to everyone. So I'm, I'm glad to see the item because I will tell you it worked in my RFPs. Um, we got feedback before, you know, the RFP was done. We did one before the RFP went out. We did one when the RFP was out on the street so that the people that were responding to it could hear what the community wanted. And then we did one when staff got the item and we were in the selection process. And then we did one after the selection process where the winners presented virtually the, you know, the, the item before it came to the board. I, so I'm a, I'm a, I'm a proponent and, and we did it. I will also give you a cautionary tale. It takes a lot of effort to get that done. So just FYI, in terms of logistics, um, in order to get everybody, um, you know, you got to get staff, you got to get a staff, you got to get a date where staff is available. Uh, then you have to, you know, make sure that everybody's available in order to present. We moved it really quickly because we said, listen, whatever day that people are available on, we're going to do it on that day. We're not going to get prescriptive as to it because we just wanted to move the items along, um, but there is a world in which if you do it in person, or if you want to have it a particular location, you can actually slow down housing. So I just say that as I think virtual and where people can participate as part of that virtual meeting is what I found was the best thing. Now to clarify some points separate and apart from that, whenever you have a housing project that impacts residents, if there are human beings that live there. So if it's a rat or it's something HUD already requires a series of meetings and those meetings actually have to be in person and hybrid, that's already a requirement. So for those of you who spoke about the residents that are being impacted, that already happens. Nathan and I have done way too many of those meetings, right, Nathan? Um, and our staff is amazing about doing it in person and then doing it virtually. And we do provide notice at their door. The department does that. So we as county commissioners cannot because obviously they have private, there's privacy issues, right? So, but, but they provide notice by email and on the doors. Um, so for folks that are impacted, uh, we did, I have done those meetings and the interesting thing about those meetings is, um, the public gets upset that they can't participate in those meetings, but there's a reason that the public can't participate in those meetings because those meetings are about those residents voicing their concerns about how their units or their situation is going to be impacted by the development. So it's a very different meeting from a general public meeting for people that might be applying to live in that development. They're two very different situations because those people want to know, is my three bedroom going to be made available? One situation that we had, you know, I live in it. I had an accommodation because I have dialysis in the new building. Am I going to get the two rooms that I need because I need a room for dialysis, right? So it's very hyper-specific. And as part of the HUD rules, you also get a caseworker that works with you and the department facilitates that, um, so that the transition, uh, works well. The other thing I wanted to mention is someone said, well, we want to amend this item so that the community that is impacted. Okay. This, obviously I represent Coconut Grove. This is an ongoing issue, you know? And one of the things that I think it's important to note is HUD does not allow us to, um, to limit who can apply and who the meeting goes out to. So we can do outreach in the community, right? But we cannot be hyper-prescriptive about it because we violate HUD rules. However, I have found the workaround on that and what I have done in my district through my district office is we hire local organizations that do the outreach for us and help as a facilitator so that when folks in that neighborhood are applying, they have a facilitator. So you can do that. That is not in violation of the HUD rules, but our department, our department can, you have to be very careful in that every one of these projects is supposed to be offered to everyone in Miami-Dade County. So, um, I have been working, um, at the national level to change the HUD rule specifically for areas where people have been displaced. So in the case of Coconut Grove in South Miami, um, people were displaced there because of Miami-Dade County. So my amendment to that HUD rule is if you have human beings that have been displaced from a community because of the actions of government, they should be allowed a separate opportunity to come back to those communities. But there has been a lot of litigation on that. There's like a Supreme Court case on it and we are currently working with HUD and they did open a section and we, we had people input and now they're rethinking that rule to see if an exception could be created for communities that were displaced. So, um, I, I, I think that we should, we should definitely add virtual to this item. I think that the key is not the number of, I, of meetings. I think it's when in the process you have those meetings because you could have three meetings at the end and it doesn't impact anything. You, you need to have the meetings at the different phases, the way that we do them. So we do a meeting before the RFP, we do a meeting during the RFP and we do a meeting at the end. So I would just say if we are going to be more prescriptive about when the meetings happen, it should be at those phases and not simply just having the meetings. And in terms of notice, I would just say we have to, it's just a matter of amending it to say that the notice for these meetings are going to follow the already existing HUD rules so that there's consistency. The already existing HUD rules say you have to provide access. You have to provide notice. It has to be at a time where people, you know, um, can attend and usually that there has to be a virtual component. So thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, uh, commissioner, uh, Regalado, um, anyone else? I just want to follow up. I want to thank commissioner Regalado, um, for, um, her work and, and for her explanation. I agree with her about virtual and I absolutely agree that, you know, sometimes people skirt around these meetings and do it at the end when it's too late. So I really like the phasing in of those at minimum three meetings. So I would, I would absolutely. And again, I apologize. I know the sponsor is not here, um, but I don't think that this changes things too dramatically to make an amendment to include both virtual meetings and a minimum of three phased out over the project as described by commissioner Regalado. Thank you, um, commissioner Lopez. Um, I, um, support, uh, these two, these amendments, um, I think a minimum of three, um, is, is important. But to me, as you know, in my former life, I was a community organizer. That was my life work, my life work, um, and I believe that residents have, uh, the right to be at the table at every, uh, level of any development coming to their neighborhoods. So, um, three, a minimum of three is, uh, is okay. But more, as you clearly indicated, commissioner Lopez is also okay. If more is required for the residents to understand every change that will occur in their neighborhood, so be it, so be it. But I think, um, um, I'm, I'm, I'm okay with a minimum of three. I'm also okay with the virtual, even though personally my preference is in-person meetings, but I, I understand that, uh, having this, uh, uh, um, uh, opportunity for people who cannot be there in person so that every voice, uh, is heard, I, I, I, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm amenable to that. So virtual meetings is, is okay. And then the maker of the, of the, of the item is are here, but I think as a committee, Mr. Attorney, um, we, since we all agree, we can, we, we, we, we can accept these amendments, right? Mr. Attorney, would give me a minute. That's correct. The committee has the authority to amend an item before it. Yes. I was, I was just going to say, um, I don't know if his staff is here. Normally what we do is, you know, we see if somebody can chase down a staff member and see if they're okay with it. Um, again, I'm happy to amend it. Um, uh, but yeah, I'm, I'm happy to support the amendment, but someone could just run and see if he died as around. Um, sure. He's fine with it. Um, as we go through the rest of the agenda, his chief of staff, uh, see if he died as here. No, I know as a committee, we can do it. I just, it's, it's, it's, it's, I don't want him. I don't want him to think that's an unfriendly amendment. So normally we just chase down a staffer to see if they're okay with it. I don't think, I agree. It doesn't change. Um, I don't think it changes his item. I think it enhances his item personally. Um, and the only other question I have is for Nathan, um, in terms of the logistics of doing all of this, um, just, is he going to need more staff? What's the plan? Some people mentioned how the developer pay for it. That's not really how that works. We don't want developers hosting meetings. We want our department to host the meetings. But obviously, Nathan, you only have so many humans that do this outreach. Are you going to be okay with like three meetings for all of these things? Or are you going to need more humans in the budget? Uh, Nathan, you, you all recognized, sir. Thank you, madam. Um, Nathan Cogan, housing and community development. We do have a resident outreach team, um, resident services, um, for HUD required or RAD redevelopment. We're required to have five meetings already. Um, I think we would want to take a look at if we're going to mandate a minimum of three prior to, um, I think we would want to take a look at our staffing. Now, with regards to, uh, the developer subsidizing, I think there are some costs. There are notice costs. There are room costs. Um, and I believe that, uh, it would be appropriate if they absorbed those, those costs. Not that they would put on the event, but they would at least subsidize the event that HCD would be running, not the developer. Right. So I mentioned that because if we're going to amend it, we might as well amend it and also deal with the fiscal impact. So I think that there will be a fiscal impact. I don't want developers running meetings, um, but I want our staff to do it and also our staff coordinating and making sure that the notice gets out so that we have some accountability on that side as to what actually went out. Thank you, Commissioner Regalado. Uh, Nathan, you, you wanted to say something else? Yes, if I may through the chair. You are recognized. Thank you. Um, similar. Similar to like comparing it to zoning and just the appropriateness of it. Zoning applications, uh, those meetings are done by the county, but again, those application fees include the cost of that. So this is, I would say it's a good comparable. Uh, thank you. So we can do two things. We can, uh, defer since the maker of the, um, uh, item is not here, but as a committee, we have the right to move it, to move forward. So, Mr. Attorney. Yes, Madam Chair. Uh, you can defer it or you can, um, make the amendments here and at the appropriate time. Okay. So Commissioner Lopez, would you? Yes. I would, I would like to amend it. And I think the county attorneys have an amendment that they can read into the record. All right. Okay. Uh, so we're going to, on MDC 006 and MDC 008, the new paragraphs are going to add the following sentence. Uh, the county mayor or the county mayor's designee shall hold a minimum of three public meetings of, um, or such other number of meetings as required by federal laws, regulations, or HUD directives. Uh, and, and, and such meetings shall be held at a time, place, or manner, including, um, virtual meetings to allow for a greater number of participation by the residents and community. Such meetings should be, uh, phased over the life of the development of the project. All right. Um, I don't love it. Uh, Commissioner, can you wait, please wait to be recognized? Yeah. Yes. All right. Did you? I'm good with it, but I'm obviously anxious to hear what Commissioner Regalado wants to say. Okay. You'll be recognized. Yeah. So let's take it, let's take a step by step. So, um, I think it encompasses a lot, but, um, I think it would be easier for Nathan if it just mirrored his requirements. I don't, I don't want to create a requirement for meetings in the item. I would rather that it mirror what he already has to do because five, 10 years from now, five years from now. Right. You know, I think that, and when you say like through the phasing, like I would rather it say specifically because as he mentioned, rad already requires it after the fact. So now we're saying before the fact. So I think it's better if it's like before the RFP goes out, when the RFP is out on the street. Right. And when the selection committee has, you know, just saying phases, what are those, those, those phases? I mean, we understand what those phases are. You understand what those phases are, but, um, I think that we need to be a little bit more specific as to when those are happening. And then Nathan also mentioned the issue of the cost. So, uh, obviously he's, he was very specific, right? That the, that the developer, so we're going to do meetings at the beginning. So whoever wins the award at the end is going to have to pay a certain amount for those meetings at the end. So that has to be part of the RFP and part of the, the end contract in that they're going to reimburse, uh, the department of housing for the notice for those meetings and for whatever hosting, um, they, whatever hosting, you know, they incurred, whatever costs they incurred in the delivery of those meetings. So it's, it's, it's a great start, but it's missing a few pieces there about, in terms of what we discussed. Try again, Terrence. We should, we should, we should attorney. Sorry. All right. So let's see. The, as I understand, the, the maker of the motion wants the minimum of three meetings and then such other that are required by federal law. So for example, um, you're already increasing, um, increasing the number of meetings that may be required by other regulations of HUD. So I'll give you an example. The, um, the disposition regulations only requires the county as a public housing agency when it's disposing of the property, not through RAD to have a meeting with, um, a meeting, um, prior to the board's adoption of a resolution with the community. You've already increased that number to three. RAD is already encompassed in the original motion. So I think the only thing that is, um, that you're asking about, Commissioner Regulato, is the, the last part of what I read into the record, which is that such meetings should be held over a phase, um, phasing of the project. Did you say including, but not limited to when the department is developing the RFP? Right. So what I, what I'm saying is that when the, when the department is developing the RFP, I think that's, that's when you really need to hear from the community because if the RFP hits the street, like the cake is baked. So, so that's why we did it before the RFP went out. So we can hear, and for example, I'll give you an example. When we did one in the Grove, people wanted homeownership. That was something that was not viable for that particular project, but we were able to bake that into a component of the RFP and that, that flush itself out. So, so those are the things I just, I just don't know how complicated that'll be for Nathan. Here comes Nathan. And before Nathan speaks, let me just confirm also that, uh, that the cost of those earlier meetings, you, um. Reimbursed. You want the developer to reimburse and that would be built into any RFP that goes out that even though the department's holding these meetings and we don't have a developer on hand, that you want them to bear the cost. Right, because if not, it'll come out of the general. Commissioner Regalado, um, um, I don't like this back and forth, um, can you please wait to be recognized for my part? I don't have any problem with the, with the, um, the amendment. I don't know if you do have any issue with it. No, I do not, Madam Chair. So I understand, uh, the, the, the, the issues that you raised, but I don't want to be too specific because, uh, this item will be, will be coming in front of the full board. Um, and I, I, I know what you, you, you, you, you, you might, you might be thinking, I mean, we have to fix it. But when, when I read, when I, when I heard the amendment, I think everything that we, we, we agreed on is, is included in it. And then, uh, I see Nathan, uh, standing up. Do you, do you, do you have any issue with the amendment as proposed by, uh, uh, Commissioner? Um, Madam, through the Chair, I don't have any issue on the, you know, the concept of it. However, there are some nuances that I want to be careful on. For example, um, we received the 8-4 unsolicited applications or bids. Um, obviously there can't be a, uh, meeting prior to an 8-4 because we don't know that's coming in. We wouldn't want that to conflict with this language. So I think, um, my recommendation would be as you go from this reading to, uh, adoption, we can take a look at some of those nuances. Um, another really nice part about this, um, resolution, this ordinance as well is that it does require, um, um, consultation with the district commissioner. Um, in the event that a district commissioner may not want to have the three meetings, I think that should be up to the discretion of the commissioner. Because since they'll be viewing those meetings, there could be instances where, uh, a meeting for the sake of a meeting just doesn't make sense. Um, and the last thing I want to put out there too is, um, we're all, we're, we're doing this with the assumption that we're going to get positive comments and constructive criticism from the community to make a project better. Um, in many cases, and I've seen this again from the zoning side, um, you could have communities that hijack this process and use it because once they hear affordable or workforce housing, they will do everything they can in their power to prohibit that or to push that away. Like not in my backyard and we don't want that as well. So, you know, from my perspective, um, again, we like this idea of the additional meetings. It makes it easier for us, um, but I think that the district commissioners, as they observe these meetings, may want to adjust how they do those meetings on the fly. That would be my suggestion. Thank you. Um, uh, for my part, um, I, I heard what you say and then I, I disagree. Um, I agree, um, I believe that time spent with residents for them to really give their input in developments that will be coming to their neighborhoods and never, is never lost time. I, I, I disagree on, on that, on that, on that aspect. I think it's, it is extremely important. Um, I don't have any issue with the amendment, uh, the way it is, it is, uh, stated. It is written, um, uh, the, the, the, the, you, do you have any issue with it? No, other than I, I don't disagree with Commissioner Regalado on the, before the RFP is written has to be the first one because she's right. Once that hits the street, we're done. Yeah. And there's no, really, in essence, nothing to talk about. Um, I don't know how there's any way that we could fix that, um, without withdrawing the RFP, which is timely, costly. I mean, I, I don't disagree that if we could do that, um, because I think what, what, what Commissioner Regalado is telling us is that these meetings are after the fact. And I think when I want the people to speak is before the fact. Um, and so I wouldn't, I would not disagree with amending the, uh, uh, the, the amended, uh, language to include that specific language. Okay. Mr. Attorney. And, and just to, just to confirm, Commissioner Lopez, is your, um, proposed amendment excluding the cost to the developer? No, I would, I would want the developer. I don't want the county or the, or the, uh, or the public to have to pay for it. I, I like the idea that at the end, when a developer is selected, it's already written into the RFP that they will reimburse the county for those costs. So can, um, do you want me to read? Yes. Would you please? I'm sorry. Okay. Yes. So we're clear, um, starting again, the county mayor or the county mayor's designee shall hold a minimum of three meetings of such, um, or such other number of meetings as required by federal laws, regulations, or other HUD directives. Um, and such meetings shall be held at a time, place, or manner, um, including, um, through virtual meetings to allow for a greater number of participation by the residents and community. Such meetings should be phased, um, over the life of the development of the project, including, but not limited to the development of the solicitation or RFP at, uh, and such costs for such meetings shall be borne by the selected, uh, developer. Could we should have regard to that? Yes. That, that, that covers it. Cause I don't want it to come out of the general fund. Good work. All right. All right. So all mine is clear now. All right. And then this is accepted. All right. Mr. Attorney, do we need to vote on it or? Yes. It's an ordinance. Okay. All right. Madam clerk, please call the roll. Madam chairwoman, can we have a mover? Yes. I'll move the item. Commissioner Bermudez. All right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. So I have a new information. The maker of the item does not accept the amendment. So, um, in that case, I'm going to defer, uh, the item for the next, uh, committee meeting. Yes. Go ahead. You recognize. Thank you. I'm happy to support the deferral. Um, I think we had a good conversation with, with Nathan and he brought up the unsolicited and some other stuff. Um, so, um, I hope the maker has an opportunity to talk with him a little bit about what we, what we discussed because, um, there needs to be some, some amendment, right? That kind of voices, um, what everyone, um, mentioned here. So happy to move, um, for the deferral. Okay. Do we have a second? I'll second it. And then I agree with you this time. We'll make sure that you, Nathan, and then the commissioner will sit down to hash out some of the issues that we, that were discussed today. I think these are very important and then a sunshine meeting might even, might even need to be, you know, held. So we will, we'll, we'll, we'll look into that moving forward. So all in favor of the deferral. All right. Thank you so much. Madam chair is the deferral to the next meeting. Yes. To the next meeting. Madam chair, may I, may I ask a question? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez, you recognized. If, if Nathan could, uh, give us a, I'd like to get an understanding of the cost of all these meetings, uh, no matter who pays for it. Uh, I'd like to get an idea. Uh, so I would just request that if, uh, he could provide us with the information before we eventually vote on this thing. Thank you. All right. You heard that, Nathan? All right. Mr. Antony. Madam chair, your next public hearing item is 1g2, which is a resolution authorizing after a public hearing the county mayor of the county mayor is designated to award finding, sorry, funding for the fiscal year 2025 requests for applications in an amount not to exceed $81,396,700 in documentary stamp surtax and or state housing initiative partnership program funds, $715,000 in home investment partnership, community housing development organization program funds and $50,000 in home chodo, uh, operating program funds, uh, item 1g2 is your next public hearing item. Okay. Thank you. I don't have any cards. Is there anyone wishing to speak? I'd like to open public hearings if it, in case anyone wishes, wishes to speak on the item. Seeing no one approaching public hearing is now closed. Now any, any of the commissioners wants to. Thank you. Okay. All right. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. All right. Madam clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Bermudez. Commissioner Regalado. Yes. Vice Chairwoman Lopez. Yes. Chairwoman Bastien. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right. Mr. Antony. Yes. Madam chair, your last public hearing item is 1g3, which is a resolution approving of and authorizing after a public hearing, the county mayor or county mayor's designee to submit the fiscal year 2025-26 public housing capital fund program plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for final approval. A public hearing on this item is now open. No one is approaching. Public hearing is now closed. Any, any comment on 1g3? Seeing none. Do I have a motion to move the item? Move it. All right. Madam clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Bermudez. Vice Chairwoman Lopez. Yes. Chairwoman Bastien. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right. So now, Mr. Attorney, we go to the pull-up item. Yes. Your last item is item 3B, which has been pulled by Commissioner Lopez. Resolution approving award of two contracts, number EVN0014230, Section 8 Housing Voucher Services for Category A and Category B to Quadel Consulting and Training, LLC. All right. Commissioner Lopez, you're recognized. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I just wanted to point out that I recently visited some of my senior buildings where everyone has a Section 8 voucher and discovered that in some of the buildings, and this is all in one area, some of the buildings, the residents have the capacity to renew their Section 8 voucher at the management office. Yet others, right next door, the elderly are forced to come to the county to renew them. And I just don't understand why, and is there any way in which we can make this easier, in particular because many of my residents do not have transportation or they're immobile. We should at least try to make this easy for Section 8 recipients to be able to renew them right on property. So I didn't know whether there was something we could do about that in this item or we have to do something different. All right. Nathan, would you like to answer that? I think it's a good idea. It's a great idea. Yes. Through the Chair, Nathan Cogan, Housing and Community Development. So in this instance, we looked at that. We were able to speak with your staff, and we think that's more of a local issue on site with management as opposed to the Section 8 program. However, we do have, I wouldn't say it's a final fix, but the tenant, sorry, the project-based voucher, which runs with the unit, which is this case here, we're bringing that portion in-house, which means we're going to have more oversight over the project-based voucher. So when it comes to all these buildings that are under our auspice, we will have better control of that, meaning when these issues arise or we could prevent a lot of these issues that come up. So before that, yeah, it was separate under the previous contract. Now we are, again, bringing that component in-house to manage. Madam Chair, if I may, as a follow-up. You will. Nice. Thank you so much. But couldn't we mandate, now that you're taking it in, I mean, so what if the management company, I would say part of the contract is that the management company should be able to have the capacity to renew the vouchers on site? I mean, it seems reasonable. I think we can do that, but it wouldn't be with this contract because they're not on site. They're the overall contractor to administer the Section 8. When I'm saying management would be like TRG in this example to work with them to ensure that they're assisting their residents appropriately. But I would see that as separate from this type of contract. You said it. Are you okay? Excuse me. I'm just not okay with that. I mean, it's very simple. We either mandate that whoever is managing the property or all of them told me there's an office where I can go, and in some cases I can do my renewal at that office, and in other cases they tell me that I have to go downtown. So it just seems like a kind of an easy fix. If you want to be a project-based Section 8 building, this is how it has to happen. Yes, Nathan, I think this is something that you may need to discuss because, like Commissioner Lopez indicated, it is an easy fix. I don't think it's too late. Yes. No. And through the Chair, we fully agree, Commissioner. We fully agree. We just believe that it's through the management company, not through the Section 8 contract, which will be actually better suited because it's boots on the ground and that we can manage those. So we think it's management. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized. Thank you. Just a suggestion. As a committee, we could draft an item, and you could draft it with Nathan. So we could now vote, and you could have an item, you know, and you could do it, or you can request it, whatever you like. But the nuance that I think is important there, to Nathan's point, is these are individual contracts, and there is a world in which someone has a duplex, and they have a Section 8 voucher. So, like, technically, can they renew it on site? Like, is someone going to go out to a duplex, you know, for that? So I think you have to decide what is the number that triggers the ability to do this on site. So it can't be one. It's not two. It might be 10. You know, it depends. What is a Section 8 housing? We have RAD buildings that have 10 Section 8s or 20 Section 8s. Is that a Section 8 building? No. And those are individual development agreements. So maybe the fix is, from a policy perspective for the department, every time that a location is given more than 10 vouchers, they have to do X, Y, and Z. And then that will allow him to deploy that, like, through that. But then we're going to get into the same thing. Like, how does the department get reimbursed for that, right, right? So there is some work that needs to be done as to the logistics of that. I think we all agree that it's the best thing. But what you don't want is to de-incentivize smaller people from taking the vouchers, because we already know that there's people that are holding vouchers, and nobody wants to take them. So you don't want to create a situation where you burden the landlord, because it might be a small landlord. It might be someone that doesn't have access. So all things to consider. Thank you. But you did indicate that some residents are able to do it on site, and others do not. So why the discrepancy? And through the chair, that's what we're looking at, because this is the same complex. It's the Robert King Heights, a rather large complex. So that's why we need to work with management to see why that's happening. Frankly, we agree. It should be equal across the board. Okay. I really would like to have you reporting back to me about that, okay? Would you like to bring that back for the next meeting? Yes. I will. Thank you so much. Madam Chair, I just might add, it's not just that community. I wonder how it's happening across the county, right? And I do believe it is happening across the county. And to Commissioner Regalado's point, clearly I was referring to large buildings where we have lots of Section 8 vouchers. So I don't disagree with her that it's good to look to see whether it should be 10 or more, whatever the magic number is, I guess I would say. So this is certainly something that if Nathan could kind of come up with, something that's reasonable, and again, how it would be implemented, I think is important in the cost as well. I believe that any time we can make things easy for residents, especially elderly residents, we ought to do our utmost best. And I trust you, you will do your utmost best. And I think through the Chair, what we'll do is we will do an inventory of our project base and the location, and we'll have some data that looks at what the Commissioner's asking for. So we'll do a survey. Okay. I'll be looking for the information. Thank you so much. I'm happy to move this item. Do you have a second? Okay. All in favor, say hi. Hi. All right. Madam Chair? Yes. The item that we passed in Consent 2E that I am the sponsor of, it has a Scribner's error on page 5. The second sentence says 25% when it should be 20. Can we reconsider that item so that we could change that Scribner's error and vote on it again? So I move to reconsider 2E for a small amendment. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you. All right. And then do we say yes as amended? Well, we have to vote on it. We have to vote on the reconsideration. Yes, that is correct. All right. Go ahead. You need to vote on the reconsideration so it's properly before you. All right. So all those in favor? Aye. All right. Now that it's back on the table, page 5, the second sentence, we need to change it from 25% to 20%. That's the only error that I found. I don't know if you guys saw anything else. No? Good. All right. And then I'll move it. Second. Second. As amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. Mr. Attorney? Yes. Madam Chair, the administration has also requested the advancement of the following items to the next BCC, 1G2, 1G3, 3A, and 3B. Can I add 2E? Actually, I'd like to move all of them next meeting. Okay. With the exception of the third item. All right. Madam Chair, where is it? Excuse me. I just wanted to put on the record that I would like to put a legislative request in for the report to do some amendments to what Nathan is going to bring back. Okay. I think it was a good idea on Commissioner Regalato's. So, I'll put in a legislative request for that. All right. Thank you. So, duly noted. Uh-huh. Mr. Attorney? We'll prepare the item for Commissioner Lopez. All right. Thank you. All right. Anything else? All right. No, ma'am. Just a motion to adjourn the meeting. Okay. No moved. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Being adjourned. Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair.